For Those Complaining That Today's Releases Were Boring...

[slfkjasldfj]

I feel like this was the most Rolex release that Rolex could have done. Rolex makes small incremental technical improvements over long periods of time with a view for the long game only. The reason that Rolex is the insane brand it is today is because it has never made a great miss-step with a launch.

Can other watch companies with flashy releases this year say the same?

The entire Rolex catalog is slightly stronger today than it was yesterday which seems like their plan. If they had released a green and black Explorer II with a ceramic bezel would that somehow have been better than just a superior version of what we already had?

Am I totally wrong here?

[Cru Jones]

It’s not that the releases were boring. They were (for the most part) bad.

[macrowatch]

2016 was also incremental for Daytona.

[RTG]

Originally Posted by Cru Jones

It’s not that the releases were boring. They were (for the most part) bad.

So if they are bad, that means Rolex won't be able to sell them?

Not what you wanted, doesn't mean bad.

[RolexSimon]

Originally Posted by Cru Jones

It’s not that the releases were boring. They were (for the most part) bad.

Not sure I get that sentiment.
1. 36 Explorer - the "classic" everyone missed to replace the not-so classical 39.
2. Option of jubilee or oyster on GMT - great.
3. Option of oyster or jubilee on Sky-dweller - masterstroke!
4. Daytona meteorite - what's not to like? I've already put my name down.
5. New dials on DJ - love the palms but shame its not on the smaller DJ.
6. TT Explorer - OK, not for my taste but some may love it.
7. Adjustments to Explorer II - remove the "ghost" hand and improve the movement - nothing bad just not as radical a change as many had predicted.

As everyone has said, Rolex evolves slowly with no big moves every year.
It's disappointing they didn't do more IMHO but definitely all positive moves in the right direction and not bad at all.

[Cru Jones]

Originally Posted by RolexSimon

Not sure I get that sentiment.
1. 36 Explorer - the "classic" everyone missed to replace the not-so classical 39.
2. Option of jubilee or oyster on GMT - great.
3. Option of oyster or jubilee on Sky-dweller - masterstroke!
4. Daytona meteorite - what's not to like? I've already put my name down.
5. New dials on DJ - love the palms but shame its not on the smaller DJ.
6. TT Explorer - OK, not for my taste but some may love it.
7. Adjustments to Explorer II - remove the "ghost" hand and improve the movement - nothing bad just not as radical a change as many had predicted.

As everyone has said, Rolex evolves slowly with no big moves every year.
It's disappointing they didn't do more IMHO but definitely all positive moves in the right direction and not bad at all.

Yes, most of that is “bad” IMO.

* Explorer: Bad. One can’t claim a heritage downsizing then destroy that heritage with a TT version. Imagine Hillary and Norgay on Everest with a TT Rolex? Moreover, with OP being at 41, the Explorer makes even less sense now that the heritage is trashed.

* Explorer II: Bad. The watch itself is fine, but this was a 50th anniversary year that was hyped by Rolex. They totally wasted the opportunity to do something special. What did they do instead? They made the black model more generic by swapping the matte dial for a glossy GMT dial and got rid of the phantom hand. Oh, and they finally swapped in the movement that’s been around for a few years.

* new DJ dial: Bad. Compared to the subtle imagery of GS nature dials, this leaf dial is far too literal.

* bracelet options: Boring. Why boring? Because this doesn’t qualify as a “release” IMO. It’s just a bracelet. Hardly something to get excited about. At least Rolex is righting a wrong with the GMT, even if the SS oyster Pepsi is now a homage of the OG WG Pepsi GMT. But, yeah, the Sky-Dweller on jubilee looks good.

* Daytona meteorite: by far the winner of this year. It’s really nice on Oysterflex and I would take this over the 519. Again, though, this is just a dial... and they’ve been doing meteorite dial for a long time, so it is boring (even if it is well done).

* brighter blue YM (one you didn’t mention): looks good in pictures, but would have to see it in person. I always thought the previous dark blue dial contrasted too much with the light bezel. The brighter blue looks like it could be more harmonious.

[turkeysub93]

Originally Posted by Cru Jones

Yes, most of that is “bad” IMO.

* Explorer: Bad. One can’t claim a heritage downsizing then destroy that heritage with a TT version. Imagine Hillary and Norgay on Everest with a TT Rolex? Moreover, with OP being at 41, the Explorer makes even less sense now that the heritage is trashed.

* Explorer II: Bad. The watch itself is fine, but this was a 50th anniversary year that was hyped by Rolex. They totally wasted the opportunity to do something special. What did they do instead? They made the black model more generic by swapping the matte dial for a glossy GMT dial and got rid of the phantom hand. Oh, and they finally swapped in the movement that’s been around for a few years.

* new DJ dial: Bad. Compared to the subtle imagery of GS nature dials, this leaf dial is far too literal.

* bracelet options: Boring. Why boring? Because this doesn’t qualify as a “release” IMO. It’s just a bracelet. Hardly something to get excited about. At least Rolex is righting a wrong with the GMT, even if the SS oyster Pepsi is now a homage of the OG WG Pepsi GMT. But, yeah, the Sky-Dweller on jubilee looks good.

* Daytona meteorite: by far the winner of this year. It’s really nice on Oysterflex and I would take this over the 519. Again, though, this is just a dial... and they’ve been doing meteorite dial for a long time, so it is boring (even if it is well done).

* brighter blue YM (one you didn’t mention): looks good in pictures, but would have to see it in person. I always thought the previous dark blue dial contrasted too much with the light bezel. The brighter blue looks like it could be more harmonious.

Blue dial YM looks the same on the Rolex website...or am I missing something?

[knighty88]

Originally Posted by turkeysub93

Blue dial YM looks the same on the Rolex website...or am I missing something?

I don’t think you’re missing anything, it looks identical to me too.

[usmc_k9_vet]

Originally Posted by RolexSimon

Not sure I get that sentiment.
1. 36 Explorer - the "classic" everyone missed to replace the not-so classical 39.
2. Option of jubilee or oyster on GMT - great.
3. Option of oyster or jubilee on Sky-dweller - masterstroke!
4. Daytona meteorite - what's not to like? I've already put my name down.
5. New dials on DJ - love the palms but shame its not on the smaller DJ.
6. TT Explorer - OK, not for my taste but some may love it.
7. Adjustments to Explorer II - remove the "ghost" hand and improve the movement - nothing bad just not as radical a change as many had predicted.

As everyone has said, Rolex evolves slowly with no big moves every year.
It's disappointing they didn't do more IMHO but definitely all positive moves in the right direction and not bad at all.

I agree with this. I like the new releases. They also just released more back in September 2020. I don’t know how much people are expecting.

I would have liked to see an updated Explorer II with green GMT hand and some text and the green sapphire of the Milgauss, possibly both a black and white dial. That would have been cool and they could have kept the “standard” Explorer II black and white dial models that they just updated as well. That would have been cool, but oh well.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Etschell]

Originally Posted by Cru Jones

It’s not that the releases were boring. They were (for the most part) bad.

They pulled a Laurent Ferreir and released straps. Seriously straps for 3 models.

[kieselguhr]

Honestly I think people are being too harsh. I think the new dials for the DJs are nice!

[SS Oyster]

Originally Posted by kieselguhr

Honestly I think people are being too harsh. I think the new dials for the DJs are nice!

Sure for the baby sizes


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[msu_1972]

Boring or not, for the most part the average Joe won't be able to get their hands on any of it.

[Nairn1980]

Originally Posted by msu_1972

Boring or not, for the most part the average Joe won't be able to get their hands on any of it.

Maybe the 36mm datejust with the palm leaves on it, or that shocking TT explorer

[msu_1972]

Originally Posted by Nairn1980

Maybe the 36mm datejust with the palm leaves on it, or that shocking TT explorer

Maybe you're right.

[Sub Capt.]

Originally Posted by msu_1972

Boring or not, for the most part the average Joe won't be able to get their hands on any of it.

The “average Joe” doesn’t buy a $6-13K piece of blingy jewelry for their wrist to tell time.

[GradyPhilpott]

It's the same thing every year--weeks of anticipation and speculation, followed by weeks of whining.

More often than not, the watches that are complained about the most, turn out to be some of the more popular in the long term.

I don't know why so many people take it so seriously.

Some people can't seem to handle the fact that Rolex makes watches that they don't like, as if an AD is going to ambush them on the street, wrestle them into the store, and force them to buy the watch they hate the most.

[Dan Pierce]

Originally Posted by GradyPhilpott

It's the same thing every year--weeks of anticipation and speculation, followed by weeks of whining.

More often than not, the watches that are complained about the most, turn out to be some of the more popular in the long term.

I don't know why so many people take it so seriously.

Some people can't seem to handle the fact that Rolex makes watches that they don't like, as if an AD is going to ambush them on the street, wrestle them into the store, and force them to buy the watch they hate the most.

About sums it up right there.
dP

[fskywalker]

Originally Posted by GradyPhilpott

It's the same thing every year--weeks of anticipation and speculation, followed by weeks of whining.

More often than not, the watches that are complained about the most, turn out to be some of the more popular in the long term.

I don't know why so many people take it so seriously.

Some people can't seem to handle the fact that Rolex makes watches that they don't like, as if an AD is going to ambush them on the street, wrestle them into the store, and force them to buy the watch they hate the most.

Well said!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

[tudk]

Conservative compared to what happened in September last year

[sgwatchguy]

Originally Posted by GradyPhilpott

It's the same thing every year--weeks of anticipation and speculation, followed by weeks of whining.

More often than not, the watches that are complained about the most, turn out to be some of the more popular in the long term.

I don't know why so many people take it so seriously.

Some people can't seem to handle the fact that Rolex makes watches that they don't like, as if an AD is going to ambush them on the street, wrestle them into the store, and force them to buy the watch they hate the most.

Best post. Completely agree.

[904VT]

It’s been too long since a new model introduction that included a new complication. Rolex needs to build out the Cellini line. Add a double spilt chronograph with power reserve as a start. Refreshes are always a little boring

[vh2k]

Originally Posted by 904VT

It’s been too long since a new model introduction that included a new complication. Rolex needs to build out the Cellini line. Add a double spilt chronograph with power reserve as a start. Refreshes are always a little boring

Seems that time is up (in both time zones) for the Cellini Dual Time. Gone.

[nervosa1901]

Originally Posted by 904VT

It’s been too long since a new model introduction that included a new complication. Rolex needs to build out the Cellini line. Add a double spilt chronograph with power reserve as a start. Refreshes are always a little boring

They cannot satisfy demand for watches that have been out for YEARS and you make this suggestion? As others have said, "refreshes" are what make Rolex who they are. Anyone at odds with this philosophy ought to seek out another brand, eh?

[-Skyfall-]

A green and black Explorer II would have been perfect.

[Cambo]

They seem to be gravitating back to the 36, not just Datejusts, but also Day Dates. A little back to their roots if you will, but still staying strong with the larger models. IMHO, I like that. I admit I kind of bought into the bigger is better hype, and so my very gorgeous 36 mm Datejust has been collecting dust. Time to bring it out!
To each his/her own. Was fun to watch the speculators....especially the Timepiece Gentlemen

[Lew Archer]

Well, I’m very happy they offer, once again, the Explorer in 36mm. Even though I have an Explorer in 39mm (the reference that replaced the 36, “short hands” and all) I would gladly add the new 36mm to my collection, if ever I can find one at an AD.

As for the complaints about the two tone Explorer...yeah, it’s not for me, either. But then, I wouldn’t buy a Submariner in any of its precious metal iterations. Many love those very references. So, if a dive watch can be accepted with precious metals, so can an explorer’s watch.

Part of what makes Rolex “classic” is that it doesn’t change much, year to year, constantly adding new models, limited editions, and so on. They tweak a design here and there, maybe upgrade the internals with refinements to the movement, add a new dial color, but the individual lines largely remains the same. So, if you’re expecting dazzling new products every year, you are bound to be disappointed.

However, the Submariner, the GMT, the Daytona, the Datejust, to name a few, remain instantly recognizable over decades.

Tudor is more willing to experiment, to explore both novel design and nostalgic design, to push the envelope.

Quite intentionally, Rolex tends to be staid and Tudor tends to be novel. These are consciously chosen traits of the two brands, which reside within the same corporate family, and these differing traits are meant to appeal to a diverse range of buyers.

[slfkjasldfj]

Originally Posted by Lew Archer

Part of what makes Rolex “classic” is that it doesn’t change much, year to year, constantly adding new models, limited editions, and so on. They tweak a design here and there, maybe upgrade the internals with refinements to the movement, add a new dial color, but the individual lines largely remains the same. So, if you’re expecting dazzling new products every year, you are bound to be disappointed.

However, the Submariner, the GMT, the Daytona, the Datejust, to name a few, remain instantly recognizable over decades.

Tudor is more willing to experiment, to explore both novel design and nostalgic design, to push the envelope.

Quite intentionally, Rolex tends to be staid and Tudor tends to be novel. These are consciously chosen traits of the two brands, which reside within the same corporate family, and these differing traits are meant to appeal to a diverse range of buyers.

You did a much better job articulating this than I did.

The strength in Rolex’s brand is the incredible consistency from one decade to the next. Also, because they never follow trends, rarely is there a Rolex that is seen as out of style.

[HogwldFLTR]

Why change what works; most of the Rolex catalog is sought after. Perhaps the Exp 1 was under selling. Strange to see it cut and the 36mm introduced in TT and retained in SS. Maybe that says something about the large watch trend. Not too certain about the new dials and diamond watches. Perhaps it's the Rolex way of getting more bang for the build. Nothing new that I want that's for certain or have I missed something!!!

[Robf52]

Originally Posted by HogwldFLTR

Why change what works; most of the Rolex catalog is sought after. Perhaps the Exp 1 was under selling. Strange to see it cut and the 36mm introduced in TT and retained in SS. Maybe that says something about the large watch trend. Not too certain about the new dials and diamond watches. Perhaps it's the Rolex way of getting more bang for the build. Nothing new that I want that's for certain or have I missed something!!!

Well said; I like the new dials but 36 is too small for me; wish they had included on 41's.