Titanium rolex

[SWISSAHOLICS]

Happy Monday my friends

Hope you all had a wonderful weekend!! Just had a question that came to mind and if there is a thread on this earlier, please accept my apology.

Why has Rolex never come out with Titanium models? For a company with such rich history, I am sure they must have done research about this topic. Is it something to do with durability? Or perhaps certain watch parts don't function well with titanium metal? I am just throwing out ideas but would be curious to know what could be the reason.

Thanks guys!!

[SLS]

Who needs titanium when you use 904L
Not sure really, but you never know what the future holds.
Scott

[MAWhite]

Originally Posted by SLS

Who needs titanium when you use 904L
Not sure really, but you never know what the future holds.
Scott

My wife has a severe nickel allergy and even the 904L causes a rash.
The only watches she can wear are Ti, Plat, 18k rose or yellow.
Her daily driver is an Omega SeMP Bond 300m Chrono in Ti or her 16618 Blue Sub.
She would be the first on the list for a Ti Rolex.
Best,
Mike

[padi56]

Well they have a Titanium case back on the DSSD plus Tudor Pelagos myself not a huge fan of all Titanium watches,but the movement would run fine whether the whole case was made from Titanium SS or precious metal.

[OrangeSport]

Not sure if there would be much to gain from using it, but it is a very tactile metal isn't it? Nice and "warm".

[Rashid.bk]

Pelagos

[SWISSAHOLICS]

I know a lot of guys don't like the weight of certain models especially the DSSD....perhaps if DSSD would be made in titanium instead of just the caseback as Peter pointed out, you may see more people wearing them. I am not a titanium fan myself but just wondered why Rolex never even came out with even one model in their assortment.

[ecsub44]

Tudor Pelagos

[belligero]

As mentioned above, the 116660's case back is titanium.

In my experience, one practical downside of titanium is that threaded fasteners made from it can gall together, but galling can sometimes happen with stainless as well. You can prevent this by applying anti-seize compound to the threads. The probable main reason it isn't used is simply that it just doesn't look as good as stainless steel for a watch.

[Rashid.bk]

Originally Posted by belligero

As mentioned above, the 116660's case back is titanium.

In my experience, one practical downside of titanium is that threaded fasteners made from it can gall together, but galling can sometimes happen with stainless as well. You can prevent this by applying anti-seize compound to the threads. The probable main reason it isn't used is simply that it just doesn't look as good as stainless steel for a watch.

One look at an Omega LM Ti in person and I completely disagree.

[White_Au]

Originally Posted by Rashid.bk

One look at an Omega LM Ti in person and I completely disagree.

I sure like the way my PAM176 looks.

[JasoninDenver]

The only watch that I would give up my SubC for would be a titanium SubC.

I had a Ti Seamaster and would vastly prefer the look and comfort of a Ti watch if only it were available.

[Frosty]

Originally Posted by JasoninDenver

The only watch that I would give up my SubC for would be a titanium SubC.

I had a Ti Seamaster and would vastly prefer the look and comfort of a Ti watch if only it were available.

+2 The Ti Seamaster is a very comfortable watch to wear.

[Rashid.bk]

Originally Posted by White_Au

I sure like the way my PAM176 looks.

[JP Chestnut]

Originally Posted by Rashid.bk

One look at an Omega LM Ti in person and I completely disagree.

I agree. Some Ti Grand Seikos are absolutely beautifully finished. I think the real reason is that Rolex traditionally has been a slow to evolve company. Their dive watches have always been SS, and they didn't really jump on the Ti bandwagon when it was new (pioneered by IWC in their amazing Ocean 2000).

[joe100]

I have a Panerai 176 and for a watch with that heft, a titanium case makes sense. For Rolex, it would just be a novelty. Not really needed.

[kilyung]

Several companies have a long history of producing great Ti watches without performance or aesthetic issues. IWC comes to mind and even Tudor's Pelagos speaks volumes about Rolex's ability to do so. Seems like a product decision more than anything.

[SWISSAHOLICS]

As others have pointed here, Tudor Pelagos does come to mind. I know guys who only prefer to wear titanium instead of steel due to weight reasons. Perhaps Rolex has a year now till Basel 2014 to introduce a titanium Sub-C.

[ecsub44]

Originally Posted by SWISSAHOLICS

As others have pointed here, Tudor Pelagos does come to mind. I know guys who only prefer to wear titanium instead of steel due to weight reasons. Perhaps Rolex has a year now till Basel 2014 to introduce a titanium Sub-C.

Highly doubt it.

That's what Tudor is for. Rolex can "stay the course" and innovate through Tudor.

Maybe someday Rolex will institute some of these concept...maybe.

[Lion]

If it ain't broke...why fix it!!!

Take it easy.....Leo

[Cru Jones]

Seems like steel, gold and platinum for Rolex, and steel, titanium and ceramic for Tudor.

That's fine, though a titanium Rolex in the right form would be cool.

[Solo118]

Maybe they got too much flack for having a "cheap" feeling watch with 16610,16600 etc and they want new watches to have some heft??

[Eulogy]

Originally Posted by Solo118

Maybe they got too much flack for having a "cheap" feeling watch with 16610,16600 etc and they want new watches to have some heft??

I've read more than once on these pages that 'heft' is what some prefer about the newer Rolex models over the more classic ones.

[ec51]

What about Tungsten Carbide...?

I have a TC wedding band and it is indestructible. It has yet to even scratch.

[77T]

Give Rolex some time and I think you'll see a titanium case and eventually a ceramic one, too.

[JP Chestnut]

Originally Posted by 77T

Give Rolex some time and I think you'll see a titanium case and eventually a ceramic one, too.

How long do they need? The IWC Ocean 2000 was released in 1984. I'd expect that 30 years of Ti watch production should be enough for Rolex to get on board if they were going to.

[ecsub44]

Originally Posted by JP Chestnut

How long do they need? The IWC Ocean 2000 was released in 1984. I'd expect that 30 years of Ti watch production should be enough for Rolex to get on board if they were going to.

Rolex will jump on board when the market forces them to. Just like larger watches, new fangled complex bracelets, and ceramic bezels...Rolex had to play to the market demands.

It's not a technology thing...it's a money thing.

[RolexDivers]

Compared to steel watches, titanium watches look and feel cheap ... their lusteris terrible as well ,, they look dull and don't shine like steel...I am glad Rolex does not make any watches in Ti...

[Rashid.bk]

Originally Posted by RolexDivers

Compared to steel watches, titanium watches look and feel cheap ... their lusteris terrible as well ,, they look dull and don't shine like steel...I am glad Rolex does not make any watches in Ti...

Another one....
For sh_ts and giggles, walk into an Omega showroom on your free time and look at an Omega LM Ti. I think you will change opinions on aesthetics.
I felt the same until I saw that thing in the flesh, If Omega can make such a beautiful watch, I'm sure Rolex can also.

Rolex has left Ti for Tudor's use. Rolex is about hi grade metals, A grade 5 titanium Rolex Sub would likely be north of $15k. Rolex loyalist will cringe at the Ti and the rest will cringe at the price. Failure on launch - when you're speaking about the masses.
In a few years Rolex will dive further into ceramics, a full ceramic Rolex isn't too far away, but I think it's more realistic than Ti.

[RolexDivers]

Originally Posted by Rashid.bk

Another one....
For sh_ts and giggles, walk into an Omega showroom on your free time and look at an Omega LM Ti. I think you will change opinions on aesthetics.
I felt the same until I saw that thing in the flesh, If Omega can make such a beautiful watch, I'm sure Rolex can also.

Rolex has left Ti for Tudor's use. Rolex is about hi grade metals, A grade 5 titanium Rolex Sub would likely be north of $15k. Rolex loyalist will cringe at the Ti and the rest will cringe at the price. Failure on launch - when you're speaking about the masses.
In a few years Rolex will dive further into ceramics, a full ceramic Rolex isn't too far away, but I think it's more realistic than Ti.

Not seen Omega in Ti but others I have seen, do not have the substantial weight of the 904L and just don't have that SS shine that Rolex is known for.I agree Ti is a more expensive material than SS but it always has that dull gray luster to it that I don't care for ...