Why doesn’t Rolex offer transparent casebacks?

[abozz]

I have seen Chinese or Swiss watches with an ETA machine without even decorating showing their ugliness with a sapphire, Rolex is a serious brand, they would never do such thing, they know his movements are not haute horology and they respect that fact, they are luxury sports watches with realiable calibres.

Enviado desde mi SM-G975F mediante Tapatalk

[samson66]

The simple reason is because they don't need to. They sell every watch they make. Why spend the extra money to dress up the movement and put on a crystal back when they can just slap a dull hunk of metal on the back and thousands of people will line up to give them their money.

[fskywalker]

Originally Posted by bp1000

Because they would have to put some effort into the finishing which would just elevate the price.

When you want to be on the same level of prestige as
Patek, ALS and Vacheron they either need to up their finishing game or just put a blanket over it.

Plus everything is automatic

This!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

[OJONES]

Originally Posted by ChugachEagle

You guys are hilarious. Anyone suggests something new for Rolex and folks come out of the woodwork to defend why Rolex won’t or shouldn’t lower themselves by daring to display a nicely finished mechanism as most other luxury Swiss brands are doing. But again, I am personally certain that most of you who say you’re glad they don’t go there would have your names on every list within 250 miles the very second a display case is ever announced. LOL

Display case Cellini and maybe a Milgauss for me please.

Fun to dream.

Well, as I said, you buy a case back Cellini right now. Certainly won’t break the bank either.

[mussi]

it's because there's nothing special inside

[Stan Cooper]

What's inside is a solid, honest, reliable, and highly accurate mechanism devoid of lipstick and makeup. It is worthy of being seen.

[borispolk]

If someone fancy going for transparent caseback I think there are some aftermarket options one can go for. Also I wouldn't say Rolex movements are particularly nice, compared to some other manufacturers who put just as much emphasis on the look as functionality. I would guess Rolex is putting a lot in functionality and minimal how it looks.

[BobbyKeetaNow]

Originally Posted by Stan Cooper

What's inside is a solid, honest, reliable, and highly accurate mechanism devoid of lipstick and makeup. It is worthy of being seen.

Right? At the end of the day, Rolexes are world-class mechanical watches: as tools for timekeeping they are imperfect. As examples of ingenuity and engineering to make something hand-assembled, with no battery, tell the time with greater than 99.998% accuracy? (-2/+2 seconds per day) It's extraordinary. Even if a 3235 isn't as insanely intricate as a Patek repeater, etc., doesn't mean it's not worth appreciating through a sapphire caseback.

(Though in any scenario, if Rolex launched a Submariner with a transparent caseback at 20% premium over the base model, I shudder to think what it would trade for aftermarket. )

[Fred48]

Originally Posted by Sandpit

Sorry to break it to you, but Rolex are no longer “tool watches”. Fantastic yes, but tools no. Certainly not judging by the amount of babying that goes on with most owners judging by many threads I read here.

Agree; and, I personally think the idea of a $10,000 tool watch is pretty crazy. I for one would certainly be thinking twice about actually diving with a new submariner for fear of loss, even if insured, as it would be so hard to acquire a replacement.

Now Tudor, that's a different story.

[jlovda]

Originally Posted by ChugachEagle

Display case Cellini and maybe a Milgauss for me please.

Fun to dream.

Of all the watches to pick, it would never happen on a Milgauss. The entire movement has to be inside a metal Faraday cage.

[ChugachEagle]

Originally Posted by jlovda

Of all the watches to pick, it would never happen on a Milgauss. The entire movement has to be inside a metal Faraday cage.

True

I just like the Milgauss. But very true.

[breitlings]

Originally Posted by BobbyKeetaNow

It’s 2020: yes, SS is of course popular, but a transparent case back _offer_ is industry standard across most if not all other high-end manufacturers. Why doesn’t Rolex at least _offer_ transparent casebacks across _some_ of its models? Wouldn’t it be a great way to stir even further appreciation of Rolex craftsmanship?

Because rolex is form over function. I could see them maybe doing it on the Celini but even then, idk.

[breitlings]

Originally Posted by jlovda

Of all the watches to pick, it would never happen on a Milgauss. The entire movement has to be inside a metal Faraday cage.

[Dabbadon8]

Originally Posted by Fred48

Agree; and, I personally think the idea of a $10,000 tool watch is pretty crazy. I for one would certainly be thinking twice about actually diving with a new submariner for fear of loss, even if insured, as it would be so hard to acquire a replacement.

Now Tudor, that's a different story.

I have my new sub insured for market, not msrp, for that reason. Bought from AD. Not that I’m actively diving with it though.

[TheGuvna]

I have three watches with an open case back and I bought none of them for that feature specifically.

I do like to have a peek at the movement sometimes (with my speedy magnifier), and I also enjoy the YT videos of the watch repair/recovery.

[Onikage]

Originally Posted by abozz

I have seen Chinese or Swiss watches with an ETA machine without even decorating showing their ugliness with a sapphire, Rolex is a serious brand, they would never do such thing, they know his movements are not haute horology and they respect that fact, they are luxury sports watches with realiable calibres.

x2 The amount of lower end watches on the market proudly showing their ETA machine or Seiko NH 35 with custom rotor. How nasty. Even with some decoration is just awful. Obviously Rolex is several cuts above but similarly the movements themselves are just not designed to be decorative. They're strictly for a watchmaker's appreciation of their utility. Thank you Rolex for not doing this.

[ChugachEagle]

Originally Posted by breitlings

Yes. Hilarious. I didn’t think that one thru.

[Krash]

I have an Omega with a clear caseback. It is really cool. Love it.

I still prefer my Rolex over my Omega though.

Ironically, I wouldn't buy an Omega or other brands unless it has a clear caseback.

However, when it comes to Rolex, it just doesn't matter.

[ROLEXROLEXROLEXRO]

Because it's uncomfortable-- there is a difference between having brushed metal on your wrist versus a crystal, the latter doesn't breathe and sticks to the skin!

[Krash]

Originally Posted by ROLEXROLEXROLEXRO

Because it's uncomfortable-- there is a difference between having brushed metal on your wrist versus a crystal, the latter doesn't breathe and sticks to the skin!

I have both clear back cases and steel back cases.

Never noticed any difference.

[alphadweller]

First off, in a sports watch I find the idea ridiculous. Crystal breaks easily, as we all know. Why would I want crystal to sit permanently against my wrist in a sports watch? Also, if I happen to drop the watch, the crystal won't offer much protection to the movement. I know some brands are getting fancy with their sports models, I'm just not a fan of that particular attribute, despite owning one of the latest Speedy models. If I could buy it without the see-through caseback, I would. It would even make the watch thinner. I see only benefits to a solid caseback in a sports model.

When it comes to dress watches I have absolutely no interest in hand finish on a movement and thus still don't care for a display caseback. I just don't value the fine art of finishing that goes into high horology movements. If Rolex were to offer that level of finishing and jump up the price to trinity levels as a result, that would be the end of buying new models for me, I would just focus on the older stuff.

[blue lion]

I would be glad to have one on at least one of my watches

[Pongster]

Display caseback is standard in high end watches indeed. But Rolex is not high end.

[JoseR]

Originally Posted by jlovda

Of all the watches to pick, it would never happen on a Milgauss. The entire movement has to be inside a metal Faraday cage.

and the Air King since it's the same watch except for the dial, hands, and the brushed links.

[DudePerfect]

To save that feature for bougie fashion watch brands.

[Stan Cooper]

Originally Posted by Krash

I have both clear back cases and steel back cases.

Never noticed any difference.

I agree. My Zenith El Primero Chronograph has a clear caseback and it feels no different than the stainless steel caseback on my Rolex.

[G.Montag]

I personally do not like glass case backs. Given the choice, I would always take steel over glass, no matter if it’s Rolex or some other watch.

[CedCraig]

Originally Posted by Overwound

Rolex values lack of transparency so much that an extra sapphire crystal would be too much.

Wonderful turn of a phrase. And they would have to order extra crystals from their third-party crystal supplier ;-).

Their movements have never been attractive and a sapphire caseback would accentuate that fact. People might then ask “Why does the Rolex movement look so plain compared to the movement from [insert your favorite top brand]?”

I like sapphire casebacks. I have a loupe and I do look at the movements now and then on my GS and Stowa. However, I’ve never noticed any difference whatsoever in the feel on-wrist, compared to my SS caseback watches. A SS caseback “breathing” better than a crystal caseback? Hmm, I’m skeptical.

As to crystal casebacks breaking, I’m sure that somewhere in the world at one time in the last, say, 50 years, somebody broke a sapphire caseback. But it’s not something I’m concerned about at all.

[Pete26]

It’s because the classic Rolex oyster case back is part of the DNA of well a Rolex Oyster.

Part of what makes a Rolex waterproof is this fact, they make their watches practical hence the Oyster case and the twin lock and trip lock crowns.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[sgwatchguy]

Unless the backside is a piece of art, I’ve no interest in seeing the movement for the sake of it. Most case backs disappoint, including those from HH names. 99% of the watch buying public has no clue what they’re looking at.