These New "Delicate" models

[mfer]

Has anyone heard of a new Ceramic bezel breaking as of yet? I'm just wondering b/c people have complained about how fragile they look and they are not a tool watch anymore.

[toph]

no idea but it feels tougher and sturdier than the aluminium to me- thats for sure

[Rolexitis]

For me the word CERAMIC in itself reminds me of a piece of pottery that can easily be broken. I think that's the connection that most may make here, but it's obviously much much stronger than that.

[BigHat]

The scoop I've heard it that they are much harder to scratch or break (shatter) but much more expensive to replace.

Know I'd have to do a search to be sure, but as I read nearly every thread posted, I have yet to see or hear of a ceramic bezel needing replacement in the last 13 or so months of participation here. A couple of whines about the gold not being uniformly "sputtered," but no breaking, etc.

[Quicksilver]

Ceramic is pretty tough from what I have heard, with a very nice sheen to it as well. I like it better than the aluminium bezel.

[mfer]

Ok, so it is still a TOOL watch material then....

[Ivy League]

I have also noticed that many professional chefs have passed on their traditional hardened steel knives, opting for the new high tech "ceramic" blades that do not require sharpening.

[Quicksilver]

Originally Posted by mfer

Ok, so it is still a TOOL watch material then....

I never said anything against the ceramic bezel. It is one of the changes I like and it still looks very Rolex.

[mfer]

Originally Posted by Quicksilver

I never said anything against the ceramic bezel. It is one of the changes I like and it still looks very Rolex.

Not directed at you or anyone in particular. Just saying, these things still can be used as tools.

[Quicksilver]

Originally Posted by mfer

Not directed at you or anyone in particular. Just saying, these things still can be used as tools.

Yep, and very nice tools as well

[padi56]

Originally Posted by mfer

Not directed at you or anyone in particular. Just saying, these things still can be used as tools.

I would seriously doubt if 15% of all Rolex watches bought, are used as tool watches. Judging by some of the questions asked on this and other forums.Although the ceramic bezel is very new,and has not been tested in the market like the older type insert.I would doubt if Rolex would put a product out that would not wear the same, or as good as the metal insert.But if you did mark break the
ceramic bezel, its sure is going to cost a lot more to replace now thats fact.

[JPS]

I'm all for a new s/s submariner date with ceramic bezel. Surely making the ultimate tool watch even more stronger?

[clenz]

Originally Posted by JPS

I'm all for a new s/s submariner date with ceramic bezel. Surely making the ultimate tool watch even more stronger?

Agree - if it is like the new bezel on the DSSD, it will be very popular. I think it is a HUGE improvement over the current aluminum version! Being able to take the knocks without dings and rough exposure without fading makes it more of a tool - right?

[JPS]

Originally Posted by clenz

Being able to take the knocks without dings and rough exposure without fading makes it more of a tool - right?

Agreed!

[Chris B]

I've given a the ceramic bezel a few whacks & thought "good God no!!", needn't have worried its still perfect

[Gasoil4ever]

I can't wait for the new Sub... it should be very sexy... and very "tool" watch :-)

[C. Davidson]

Originally Posted by mfer

Has anyone heard of a new Ceramic bezel breaking as of yet? I'm just wondering b/c people have complained about how fragile they look and they are not a tool watch anymore.

I have heard from time to time, that the Ceramic bezel has the potential to break/shatter since it doesn't "give" as much as aluminum. In my personal experience, and based on the experiences of others that I know to have the watch; the bezel breaking/shattering/cracking has not happened....yet. Time will tell.

I believe Rolex did a soft launch with the Ceramic bezel in the GMT model first to see how it reacted in daily use. They must have been satisfied with the results since the Submariner and DeepSea now have the Ceramic bezel.

[Atlanta]

I beat the hell out of mine (construction sites). Not the first ding after 2 months.

[Art161]

I agree that a lot of people think of ceramic as being fragile. But ceramic is used for brake parts in some high performance cars in place of steel. Time will tell on the ceramic bezel. (Is there a pun here?)

[BigHat]

Originally Posted by Art161

I agree that a lot of people think of ceramic as being fragile. But ceramic is used for brake parts in some high performance cars in place of steel. Time will tell on the ceramic bezel. (Is there a pun here?)

I think of the alu vs ceramic bezel issue much like I think of the 316 vs 904 issue. Since I've yet to read of a smashed ceramic bezel, I'm not to eager to use my arm as the test vehicle. When assessed to the nth degree, aluminum may have a quality or two that outshine ceramic, but in practice, the benefits of ceramic make it best for a watch bezel that is worn by humans on, or only slightly below, the surface of planet Earth.

[chicagowatchman]

It's Strong and wont ding, dent or scratch like the old bezel.

If it breaks you can get a new one! At least it does nor have a "S" on it yet like a crystal
that will show its been replaced!

[mretzloff]

Why are people so obsessed with labeling Rolexes as "tool watches"? I hate to break it to you, but they aren't. Who would pay thousands of dollars for a watch they want to beat the crap out of? Rolexes are luxury watch, not tool watch. If you need a tool watch, there's a nice stand of $5 watches at your local Wal-Mart.

[BigHat]

Originally Posted by mretzloff

Why are people so obsessed with labeling Rolexes as "tool watches"? I hate to break it to you, but they aren't. Who would pay thousands of dollars for a watch they want to beat the crap out of? Rolexes are luxury watch, not tool watch. If you need a tool watch, there's a nice stand of $5 watches at your local Wal-Mart.

Careful "Hot Tub Lloyd Bridges" will take offense.

You're right on the money, I think it a false manhood issue or something.

Reminds me of a friend in my old squadron that bought this giant survival knife with an o-ring sealed handle with waterproof matches and fish hooks etc. We asked him if he wanted us to drop him off in the woods or desert so he could check it out. I think you can guess his answer.

Sorry. If I care if I broke it, I don't wear it where there's a known high probability of just that happening. Not talking about a unplanned fall or anything, but any physical labor etc where skinned knuckles and scraps, etc often occur.
I understand that some people have lots of bucks and don't care, but most people that buy an SS Sub don't visit this place, and probably wrap it in a soft cloth every night. Sorry, just the facts.

[mfer]

Originally Posted by mretzloff

Why are people so obsessed with labeling Rolexes as "tool watches"? I hate to break it to you, but they aren't. Who would pay thousands of dollars for a watch they want to beat the crap out of? Rolexes are luxury watch, not tool watch. If you need a tool watch, there's a nice stand of $5 watches at your local Wal-Mart.

I say, why are people obsessed with saying they are NOT a tool watch! I know you can get a quartz digital for $5. Where else can you get a rugged, tough, mechanical watch that can take the abuse.

People are saying they are not a tool watch b/c they have all these frivolous bells and whistles like a ceramic bezel. Well, I'm saying the ceramic bezel makes it MORE of a tool watch as it seems tougher and harder to damage (short of taking a hammer to it).

[BigHat]

Originally Posted by mfer

People are saying they are not a tool watch b/c they have all these frivolous bells and whistles like a ceramic bezel. Well, I'm saying the ceramic bezel makes it MORE of a tool watch as it seems tougher and harder to damage (short of taking a hammer to it).

Fair question, and maybe those of us that say they are or aren't simply are using different terms of reference. No question, the tougher they make it the more resistant to damage it will be. A good thing for sure.

But the old "tool" watch comes up in many other ways.

1) The silly ruggedness of water resistance levels that crush submarines and are triple or more a human's ability to actually wear it (while alive) to that depth. People make purchase decisons for a SD over a Sub and Sub over a GMT-II based on this. They do!! Read the threads.

2) The "devil may care" factor. You know, hard physical labor where it could actually be hit by a hammer. I have a "tool" watch so I treat it like a shovel.

3) Or the "it has polished links so it belongs on a hairdresser", but buff them out and it's ideal for a Navy SEAL. (quoted text actually posted today)

So I guess I'll revise by comments to say, something that costs a lot of bucks, even a SS Sub probably is more sheltered than the ads showing it atop Mt Everest etc. For all intents and purposes, 99% of these watchs are worn exactly like a VC turbillion. If the fact that a Sub would take a whack better than a VC dress watch makes it a "tool watch" to you, then I agree.

Not trying to p*ss you off, just sharing some of the contradictions we see here in this regard.

[chicagowatchman]

Originally Posted by mretzloff

Why are people so obsessed with labeling Rolexes as "tool watches"? I hate to break it to you, but they aren't. Who would pay thousands of dollars for a watch they want to beat the crap out of? Rolexes are luxury watch, not tool watch. If you need a tool watch, there's a nice stand of $5 watches at your local Wal-Mart.

Did you get your watch back yet?

[mfer]

Not ticking me off by any means. EVERYONE is entitled to their positions.

I guess what I'm tired of lately is everyone ragging on Rolex for changing things. They did many firsts in the industry and made many breakthroughs.

[BigHat]

[QUOTE=mfer;771188]Not ticking me off by any means. EVERYONE is entitled to their positions.

double post

[BigHat]

Originally Posted by mfer

Not ticking me off by any means. EVERYONE is entitled to their positions.

I guess what I'm tired of lately is everyone ragging on Rolex for changing things. They did many firsts in the industry and made many breakthroughs.

As I agree with the above, I think you're just misjudging the phrase. All the advancements are great in my view, but don't significantly alter the way the VAST VAST majority of watches are worn. Most SDDS will never see the bottom of a swimming pool. They are purchased and worn for the same reason dress watches are worn -- what they look like. That they feel they must rationalize it differently? Well it each his own.

I think we have exactly one guy around here that could say he might have tested the limits of a DD, nevermind a Sub in his line of work --deep commercial diving.

[Quicksilver]

Originally Posted by BigHat

Fair question, and maybe those of us that say they are or aren't simply are using different terms of reference. No question, the tougher they make it the more resistant to damage it will be. A good thing for sure.

But the old "tool" watch comes up in many other ways.

1) The silly ruggedness of water resistance levels that crush submarines and are triple or more a human's ability to actually wear it (while alive) to that depth. People make purchase decisons for a SD over a Sub and Sub over a GMT-II based on this. They do!! Read the threads.

2) The "devil may care" factor. You know, hard physical labor where it could actually be hit by a hammer. I have a "tool" watch so I treat it like a shovel.

3) Or the "it has polished links so it belongs on a hairdresser", but buff them out and it's ideal for a Navy SEAL. (quoted text actually posted today)

So I guess I'll revise by comments to say, something that costs a lot of bucks, even a SS Sub probably is more sheltered than the ads showing it atop Mt Everest etc. For all intents and purposes, 99% of these watchs are worn exactly like a VC turbillion. If the fact that a Sub would take a whack better than a VC dress watch makes it a "tool watch" to you, then I agree.

Not trying to p*ss you off, just sharing some of the contradictions we see here in this regard.

Of course a Sub is a Sub whether or not it has polished centre links or a ceramic bezel. These things do not detract from the substance of the watch, its rugedness or its ability to perform in adverse conditions.

But when I talk of Rolex being a "tool watch" I am thinking in terms of design and appearance. To my mind some design elements, such as polished centre links, do not fit that look or image of a classic and functionaly rugged watch, which for me is where Rolex derives its mystique from. And I find that look attractive in a watch. So I don't like any feature that I perceive as not being in accord with that idea - even though it does not impair the functionality of the watch and even though I don't weaer my Rolex on top of Everest or under the sea.

Now thats my own view of Rolex - it's quite subjective and others may have different ideas - that's what makes the world go around.