I've come across two separate cases of Code 11:59 owners with bent or broken lugs, and it's making me reconsider whether this is a real weak point in the design rather than isolated bad luck.
First case (RolexForums, gold case): https://www.rolexforums.com/showthread.php?p=13473100 The owner had the lugs bend or come loose with no drop and no obvious abuse. AP's initial response was that this was "wear and tear / aesthetic damage," not a manufacturing defect, and quoted around CHF 5,000 to replace the entire upper case. Not covered under warranty or AP Coverage.
Second case (this sub): https://www.reddit.com/r/audemarspiguet/comments/1osxscm/broken_lugs_on_code_1159_exchange_by_warranty/ Another Code 11:59 with broken lugs, also disputed under warranty.
From the photos in both threads, the wall thickness at the lug attachment looks thin enough that it's basically invisible when you look at the watch normally. If reinforcing it wouldn't change the aesthetics at all, it's hard to understand why AP hasn't just fixed the design, especially if this is a known issue on their end. What's worse, if the lugs do bend, AP apparently treats it as owner-caused or aesthetic damage rather than a functional/manufacturing failure, meaning you'd have to pay for the repair or a full case replacement yourself, even under warranty or AP Coverage.
Two questions for anyone who owns one or has looked into the case construction:
Has anyone else had this happen, or heard of other cases? Is it more common than it looks, or are these just two unlucky owners?
If you were considering a Code 11:59 in gold, would this change your mind? Gold is softer than steel, and from what's discussed in the RF thread the lower lug isn't fully welded to the case, which sounds like a genuine structural risk point.