Have things been a bit stale until recently ?

[gary3535]

Just sharing my thoughts with you , I may be wrong ?
But until the D blue came out and the Blnr have Rolex sports watches just lacked that extra bit of something ? Hence why we're all going nuts over the D blue and the Blnr ? Not to mention the steel Daytona which to me looks well dated .

I'd love to hear your thoughts guys

[dysondiver]

welcome to the forum , dont mix dated with classic ,,,,

[Naz737]

First post and a member since 2011! Welcome to the fray! :P

[jjnd08]

Originally Posted by dysondiver

welcome to the forum , dont mix dated with classic ,,,,

x2

Interesting first post from a member of 4 years.

[rollee1]

Originally Posted by dysondiver

welcome to the forum , dont mix dated with classic ,,,,

[Mr. K]

Welcome. I'd say no classic is cool not stale.

[gary3535]

1 post ? I've posted around the 200 mark ? Something's up please look into this ?

[joe100]

I don't want a Daytona but it is a classic, no doubt about that. Rolex evolutionary designs set the bar and it's pretty hard to find anything in their line which is dated or unexciting. They do what they've always done and it works

[tkerrmd]

I think you are wrong

[VicLeChic]

If you don't like classic and elegant, there's always pop and brash with other brands. Depending on my mood, I wear one or the other.

The slow design evolution is part of the very essence of Rolex except for a few exceptions. My 2014 116622 YM looks almost identical to the 1998 16622 and to me it's a great thing, because I fell in love with it back then, and I can enjoy it today with a few extras (parachrom, better stap middle links and clasp, chromalight, 50 hrs power reserve, 120 clicks bezel, nicer end links). At first sight they're the same watches, but there's quite a few upgrades under the bonnet, and they're worth it. I find the slow evolution to contribute to building a trusted and strong image, which I find reassuring especially at this price point.

[Abdullah71601]

Originally Posted by tkerrmd

I think you are wrong

x2

Ginormous European wrist clocks and uber flashy styles of some other brands appeal to a different market segment. I'm good with timeless elegance...

[Old Expat Beast]

Not stale, but I think the design of many models peaked during the 1970s and 1980s.

[Eric Chan]

Don't think so. Looking back at the years prior to the release of the D-Blue and BLNR, there was the release of the following sport watches:

Submariner 114060
Yacht-Master II 116622 (blue dial)
Explorer II 216570
Submariner Date 116610 LN

I am sure I missed a couple more, but to me the above-mentioned watches garnered much excitement prior to their release. Also, the Daytona does not look dated, it is a classic and needs little or no updating. Much many other Rolex models, very little change is needed. A timeless classic.

[Dubarzy]

Originally Posted by VicLeChic

I find the slow evolution to contribute to building a trusted and strong image, which I find reassuring especially at this price point.

Well said!

[Seaswirl]

There are plenty of brands that "refresh" their watches every few years making previous models looks like dinosaurs. I like Rolex because they don't mess with their classics.

[ap1]

Milgauss blue?

[zama]

Originally Posted by Old Expat Beast

Not stale, but I think the design of many models peaked during the 1970s and 1980s.

Like many threads I agree with Adam, I think this thread is perhaps more interesting and challenging for Rolex than most of us think.

Many industries have evolution rather than revolution, but as new age materials, and advanced IT come to play they are really starting to challenge what we think is possible. This is starting in earnest in building where modern CAD means buildings can take different forms, floors can be different heights and shapes, etc......

If you apply that to watches, whether you like them or not many of the new age brands like Erwerk, MB&F and even established brands such as GP with their constant Escapement models are pushing cutting edges. Watches certainly are in the middle of the firing line for accelerated evolution. Rolex are trapped for mine in a world of "brand equity/legacy/classic vs change call it what you will, but it also looks a lot like to me Profit maximisation and advertising over design.

The fact they have almost no models with an exposed caseback, show they are high priced tool watches that are very robust and well made.

On a variation to Adam's point Rolex real evolution was in the 50-90's with the Oyster case etc..... now we all get excited about the fact that the new Yachtmaster is going to come out on a rubber strap........

I am not bagging Rolex, and nor I am seeking to ban myself from TRF, but to me it is a brand that is well and truly in profit and marketing generation over technical innovation and is falling behind smaller brands that are capitalising on materials and technologies. lets face it we can all buy a $5 digital that tells the time, I think it would be nice to see them try and innovate to show what they could do. One day they may wake up and discover they are stale, what was classic is now just the past.

Porsche may have much of its brand integrity in the classic air cooled 911, but they sell more 911's today thean ever because they have to keep innovating. It seems Rolex does not see the same need. Their response lets bring out a different DJ with a different dial.....

[HogwldFLTR]

DJII and even the now expired DDII were very different from the traditional Rolexes imho. Although I like the DD40 I think the DDII was so unique that it is a shame that it's gone.

[watchwatcher]

Stale? No...

Retaining a grip on the past while trying to incrementally push forward with the new? Maybe...

[brandrea]

Originally Posted by dysondiver

welcome to the forum , dont mix dated with classic ,,,,

[jernigan78]

I don't agree. There are a few classic models that still have appeal in the current market. There are also other new ceramic models that have great appeal. For me, the SD4000 is outstanding, and I admire it every time I look down at my wrist.

Rolex is slow to make changed to their lineup. To me, this adds to the appeal. If they came out with so many new models every year, it would water down the brand, and would become more so like "other" watch brands.

Classics are classics for a reason...

[Headshrinker]

I have always viewed Rolex as similar to the Porsche brand. They have both changed little in terms of overall look, but they continue to make improvements in performance and durability. Additionally, both brands have fairly limited models; as stated before, they don't create new models every several months to be fashionable. They create timeless icons.

[Old Expat Beast]

Aside from design.....Compared to the late 1920s to late 1950s, when Rolex virtually invented and reinvented the modern wristwatch, then today the company is kind of treading water by comparison. But many would argue that it earned the right to do so, in those 30 years. The absence of Wilsdorf, Emile Borer, and a couple of others probably has something to do with it. A brand is only as good as its people.

[Tseg]

Originally Posted by Old Expat Beast

A brand is only as good as its people.

... Likewise, a brand is only as good as its discipline (which is driven by exceptional leadership).

Clarity
Consistency
Coherence

This is where Rolex excels. Most other brands get sloppy and loosey-goosey from time to time.

[Abdullah71601]

Rolex had "modern" designs in the past, but they didn't survive. They have found their market and evolved within their niche.

When was the last time you saw one of these on someone's wrist.

[Chadridv]

Probably already been said but among other points of significance, I'll add one word "Cerachrom"!!

[AF_Rob]

Originally Posted by Tseg

... Likewise, a brand is only as good as its discipline (which is driven by exceptional leadership).

Clarity
Consistency
Coherence

This is where Rolex excels. Most other brands get sloppy and loosey-goosey from time to time.

"sloppy and loosey-goose "is a good way to describe Breitling IMO. Their SO line and Colt design has done a circle of terrible in the past five years it is finally back to something decent... Don't mean to be harsh, I own a couple myself.

[jagwap]

There are very inventive and forward thinking manufacturers, but those selling the big numbers are not amongst them. Omega, Rolex and recently Tudor, are all "re-imagining" classic older designs, and doing well out of it. A mechanical watch is not a ground breaking item, for all the innovations the marketing departments come up with. It is a clockwork mechanism, admittedly honed to the state of the art.

The difference is, Rolex and to an extent are nailing it. The SD4000 is a near perfect modernising of the original (whichever original), and when the new Daytona turned up, it did the same back then so well that it still looks perfect now.

I do not feel the same way about the Seamaster Master Coaxial 300. Great movement, but they missed. Although I like the Dark Side of The Moon. I have a soft spot for (non-Rado) ceramic.

Tudor didn't when they did the Heritage Chrono. It looks better than the original.

Stale? No. I even like the new Yachtmaster.

[omx5o]

It allows you time to save up for the next one.

[jjnd08]

Originally Posted by Abdullah71601

Rolex had "modern" designs in the past, but they didn't survive. They have found their market and evolved within their niche.

When was the last time you saw one of these on someone's wrist.

The last time Mon posted a picture of his.