To quote Don (Michael) Corleone in Godfather Part III, “Just when I thought I was out… they pull me back in!”. Just when I thought that this Audemars Piguet Royal Oak Jumbo would keep me quiet for some time, my watch friend Michael (not Corleone) mailed me a few days ago, that he pulled the trigger on this fabulous blue dial Audemars Piguet Royal Oak Chronograph ref.25860. This predecessor of the current AP ref.26300 chronograph, is mighty interesting. Priced a bit more friendly than its successor, it doesn’t differ that much watch wise.  Although I can’t get it confirmed, the bezel of the newer 26300 is a bit wider than the 25860’s bezel. Not in terms of diameter, but the bezel itself, making the dial of the 25860 chronograph looking a bit larger then the one on it’s successor.

Here is some eye candy of the ref.25860 (pictures taken by Michael):

The movement in this baby isn’t a module as with the Off-Shore models, but a true chronograph movement based on F.Piguet’s caliber 1185. Another example of a time piece using this movement is the Vacheron Constantin Overseas chronograph I recently covered here (click here for the article). Although I wouldn’t mind owning an Off-Shore Chronograph, this movement makes this watch more interesting technically speaking. There is nothing wrong with an add-on chronograph module, but the fact that the date needs a cyclops on the Off-Shore models because the chronograph module has been fitted between the base movement and the dial would annoy me too much I guess.

If you haven’t tried a Royal Oak yet, please do. The bracelets are so comfortable and the polished and brushed parts of the case and bracelet are truly delightful to look at, especially when you let the (sun)light play with them.

Did you notice what’s wrong with Michael’s chronograph though? If you want to get an Audemars Piguet catalogue from 2000 (the Audemars Piguet #1 book) for free  – including shipping – leave a comment with what you think is not correct on this watch. I will randomly select a winner at the end of this week.

  • Erik Haugsby

    I’ve always found these non-ROO chronographs to be some of the best lookers around.

    This one, though, seems to have a bracelet in white gold while the case is in stainless steel.

  • Ryan Gallagher

    It has silver hour and minute hands, not the white that came with the ’02’. It’s also worth noting that the big change between the 25860 and the 26300 was that the case was changed, with the 26300 now having a monocoque case. Appearance wise, they are all but identical, amazing to think AP brought out a new model with such a big change, but made it appear as if nothing had changed!


    Dear Robert-Jan, just a very quick question if you could help me. I am about to buy my first Royal Oak Offshore in all stainless steel and I noticed that there are two existing calibers: the old 2326 vs the new 3126 with longer power reserve. Any performance or quality diferences? Which one is the best?

    Many thanks,
    Lee from Brazil

    • Hello Lee,

      Thanks for your comment on Fratellowatches. The main difference between the 3126/3840 movement and the 2385 movement is what I wrote in the article, the 3126 is a base caliber with the added caliber 3840 chronograph module. So this explains why the crown and pushers are not aligned. The pushers are belonging to the 3840 module and the crown on the base caliber 3126. This also explains why the Off-shores need a cyclops (magnifier) for the date. The date is a feature of the base caliber, and because the chronograph module is added on top of the base module, you need to look deep down into the movement 🙂

      The base caliber 3126 is an in-house movement by AP, which is based on AP’s caliber 3120. The additional chronograph module is created for AP by Dubois Depraz (DD), a 3rd party company that creates complications to be placed on top of other movements.

      Caliber 2385 is a F.Piguet movement (has nothing to do with Audemars Piguet) and modified by AP (mainly rotor engravings). It is a very fine chronograph movement, and it is a dedicated chronograph movement. So there is no module added or whatever. You can easily determine this by the position and alignment of the crown and pushers.

      To answer your questions: Both are great type of movements and finished with the highest possible quality standards by Audemars Piguet. If I had to pick one, I went with the 2385 though because it is a dedicated chronograph movement and I don’t like the mis-alignment on the crown and pushers when you look at the watch from the side.


  • DC


    Great reviews !

    Looks like the chrono hand isn’t aligned (zeroed) on the 3 o’clock sub-dial.

  • I don’t really know what’s wrong with the watch but I think it looks a bit like it has the old “waffle” pattern like the old RO’s had, not like the newer 25860/26300. I could be wrong though. Great post, I love the ROC’s. Just sold my first AP today, which also was my very first watch. I am still deciding whether to upgrade to a AP ROC or a AP ROO Rubberclad, maybe you guys can help med decide?

  • This appears to be a beautiful 02 dial, which was last produced when the older style deployant buckle was in use. The “AP” deployant was introduced later, indicating that something was changed in this specimen since it first left Le Brassus: dial, bracelet, and/or deployant. Beautiful ROC in any event.


  • Wongkyandrew

    The markers at 3 and 9 o’clock on this example are square. I thought that is only the case with the 26300 models, and that the 25860’s have round markers at 3 and 9 o’clock. 

  • Pundit Punter

    I’m sorry, but I strongly disagree with your statement that there’s nothing wrong with a module. One would have to be pretty silly or ignorant to spend 5 figures on a module based chronograph like on most Off Shore models. Patek and Vacheron would never pull this stunt in the modern era, when almost every decent watch house already manufactures an in-house, column-wheel movement.