Ceramics making ROLEX a fragile watch?

[Armyguy03]

Originally Posted by Marine1981

Being in law enforcement and having been in the military I appreciate their tool watch history but I don't think that's what these watches are anymore. Their movements are still tough as nails and the sapphire crystals and 904l steel but their prices IMHO force them into a different category. For instance my breitling superocean could theoretically be used as do all tool watch but if I destroy a $3000 watch I would be upset. My marathon GSAR is more akin to what rolexs history. The ceramic bezels only add to this overall issue that would make me not want to take one into harms way. For instance I'm considering a gmt master, I would not wear one at work where by I could be wrestling with some crackhead on the concrete. Now my GSAR has seen plenty of action and that's what it's for... Abuse! When I finally am able to purchase my rolex it will be worn with pride in jeans or a suit, and I'll admire it beauty And reflect on its history without scratching it too much.

Just sue the crackhead

[Marine1981]

Originally Posted by Armyguy03

Just sue the crackhead

If only that we're legal... I'd have that platinum Daytona!

[STEELINOX]

A song comes to mind....

[rw170driver]

The space shuttle's tiles are ceramic. Just close your eyes for a moment and try to imagine the stress those are under. I'm of the opinion that the ceramic on the gmt and sub c is more than up to the task of daily watch wear. It truly is beautiful as well. I like the changes. Ceramics, easy-link, and glide-lock aren't change for change's sake - they're improvements.

[Marine1981]

I agree, but to me (just my.02) but rolex departed the tool watch thing a while ago. The original rolex was attainable by those that would use them for their intended purpose. A submariner could be bought by a naval officer or even an enlisted man if he saved a bit. My uncle owned one when he was in the navy and he said it cost him something $200.00 then. $8,000 today is too much money for a watch you'll take to combat. The explorer 1 or 2 might be tough enough for that type of work but I woulda been hard pressed to buy something like that for that money and take it to Iraq with me.

[Rashid.bk]

Originally Posted by Marine1981

I agree, but to me (just my.02) but rolex departed the tool watch thing a while ago. The original rolex was attainable by those that would use them for their intended purpose. A submariner could be bought by a naval officer or even an enlisted man if he saved a bit. My uncle owned one when he was in the navy and he said it cost him something $200.00 then. $8,000 today is too much money for a watch you'll take to combat. The explorer 1 or 2 might be tough enough for that type of work but I woulda been hard pressed to buy something like that for that money and take it to Iraq with me.

On that note, I did take my PO 2500 on two deployments and untold other training, it was ultra reliable and and didn't look bit to crap for all it's service. It did get magnetized twice though.

[Marine1981]

While I agree they would do the job they are intended to do, I personally wouldn't take them on deployment or on the streets. As I said previously they are tough enough for those jobs they just cost too much for to justify using them for that.

[cop414]

Marine, not to sound weird but I have a man crush on the guy in your avatar, love Georgio!! Kinda off topic, sorry.

[Marine1981]

Yea he's the funniest dude that never knew he was funny!

[Hooper]

Yeah..........can't really consider the Sub a tool watch anymore IMHO

[DJF881]

The ceramic upgrades on the watches look much better than the aluminum bezels, and the other improvements that have come with the ceramic-bezel updates of the Sub, GMT and Sea Dweller are substantial.

However, these updates have come with a significant increase in the price of the watch. Prior to 2007, when the GMT-C was released in steel, you could get a steel Sub or GMT for around $4500, new at an authorized dealer. The ceramic upgrade raised the GMT's price to nearly $6000, and since then, Rolex has jacked the prices up to nearly $9,000.

That said, I've been wearing a GMT-C daily for nearly six years, and the bezel is fine. The ceramic inserts are expensive to replace, but they are not fragile. The polished center links look fine, as well.

[Armyguy03]

Originally Posted by Rashid.bk

On that note, I did take my PO 2500 on two deployments and untold other training, it was ultra reliable and and didn't look bit to crap for all it's service. It did get magnetized twice though.

How did it get magnetized?

[Billywiz]

Originally Posted by DJF881

The ceramic upgrades on the watches look much better than the aluminum bezels, and the other improvements that have come with the ceramic-bezel updates of the Sub, GMT and Sea Dweller are substantial.

However, these updates have come with a significant increase in the price of the watch. Prior to 2007, when the GMT-C was released in steel, you could get a steel Sub or GMT for around $4500, new at an authorized dealer. The ceramic upgrade raised the GMT's price to nearly $6000, and since then, Rolex has jacked the prices up to nearly $9,000.

That said, I've been wearing a GMT-C daily for nearly six years, and the bezel is fine. The ceramic inserts are expensive to replace, but they are not fragile. The polished center links look fine, as well.

See...i really disagree...I think look poor in comparison....everyone to their own you cant be emphatic...a lot of people think is Rolex worst design period ever.
What other improvements...welded bracelets ? Lets wait and see how History judges this new crop...

[GlideLockHeadLock]

couldnt disagree more

[GlideLockHeadLock]

@hooper

[DJF881]

Wearing a Rolex and talking about tools is like carrying a Hermes handbag and telling people about how Hermes used to make saddles. Clockwork has been an obsolete technology since the invention of quartz watches. There is nothing a Rolex can do that can't be done at least as effectively by a G-Shock, and even if the Rolex is more durable or better constructed, you can replace the casio 20 or 30 times before the cost comes close to price of a Rolex.

Divers do not rely on mechanical dive-watches anymore. They have dive computers, which cost a fraction of what a Rolex costs, and have numerous functions that clockwork can't duplicate. Most of the functional tasks of watches are completely covered by modern cell-phones.

The purpose of a watch is now entirely ornamental, which is why many venerable watchmakers are now owned by luxury goods conglomerates. A Rolex is man jewelry, and that becomes more true every time they raise the prices.

[Hooper]

Originally Posted by GlideLockHeadLock

couldnt disagree more

Well, I would certainly not want to bang my ceramic bezel around doing any sort of manual labor ! Ive got a friend who has chipped his bezel twice! Both times on the corner of his glass desk top at work!! They are certainly stunning, but worrisome for me! Will it keep me from getting one? probably not, but I don't think they are as sturdy as my 16610!

[GlideLockHeadLock]

your friend is either really unlucky or really dumb not to learn from the first time lol

might not be as sturdy but it DEF looks better. well to me that is. Out of all the ceramics the black just looks so nice.

[Hooper]

Originally Posted by GlideLockHeadLock

your friend is either really unlucky or really dumb not to learn from the first time lol

might not be as sturdy but it DEF looks better. well to me that is. Out of all the ceramics the black just looks so nice.

Agreed, he went as far as taping foam on the corners of hes desk. lol until that is he got use to his watch! Kept banging it as he got up to walk around his desk!!

[DJF881]

Originally Posted by Billywiz

See...i really disagree...I think look poor in comparison....everyone to their own you cant be emphatic...a lot of people think is Rolex worst design period ever.
What other improvements...welded bracelets ? Lets wait and see how History judges this new crop...

A lot of traditionalists are upset by any update to the Rolex sport line, especially after several decades during which changes to the watches were so minor that the elimination of the holes in the lugs and the addition of solid end-links were considered controversial.

The ceramic updates are fairly subtle and tasteful, and the aluminum bezel inserts and pressed clasps look, feel and are cheaper. However, the recent updates are certainly part of a strategy to turn a line of $5,000 watches into a line of $10,000 watches.

[Jason71]

Originally Posted by DJF881

Wearing a Rolex and talking about tools is like carrying a Hermes handbag and telling people about how Hermes used to make saddles. Clockwork has been an obsolete technology since the invention of quartz watches. There is nothing a Rolex can do that can't be done at least as effectively by a G-Shock, and even if the Rolex is more durable or better constructed, you can replace the casio 20 or 30 times before the cost comes close to price of a Rolex.

Divers do not rely on mechanical dive-watches anymore. They have dive computers, which cost a fraction of what a Rolex costs, and have numerous functions that clockwork can't duplicate. Most of the functional tasks of watches are completely covered by modern cell-phones.

The purpose of a watch is now entirely ornamental, which is why many venerable watchmakers are now owned by luxury goods conglomerates. A Rolex is man jewelry, and that becomes more true every time they raise the prices.

This simply is not true. There are many divers that still rely on a dive watch. Dive computers can cost $1,000 - $2,000. Although this isn't the $9,000 of the new Rolex Sub, it hasn't been that long ago that you could buy a used sub for less than $3,000.

Diving, you cannot beat the Reliability of a mechanical dive-watch. Electronics will fail, but a properly maintained Rolex will be my dive partner for MANY YEARS.

[DJF881]

Originally Posted by Jason71

This simply is not true. There are many divers that still rely on a dive watch. Dive computers can cost $1,000 - $2,000. Although this isn't the $9,000 of the new Rolex Sub, it hasn't been that long ago that you could buy a used sub for less than $3,000.

Diving, you cannot beat the Reliability of a mechanical dive-watch. Electronics will fail, but a properly maintained Rolex will be my dive partner for MANY YEARS.

Clockwork is not the best solution anymore for any problem. It's expensive and it's fragile, and it's imprecise. For "tool" purposes, it was superseded in the 70's by quartz, and more recently by digital.

There are a cheap waterproof watches that cost less than $300 that do at least what the Sub does.

A dive computer, the most expensive of which costs about a quarter of what you'd pay for a new Rolex Sub, does things like monitoring your depth, and can tell you when to stop on ascent for decompression. Ten years ago, the higher-end dive computers might have been more expensive, and the sub was certainly cheaper, but the computer was still cheaper than the Sub, and performed safety functions that the Sub simply doesn't.

A Swiss watch is purely an aesthetic choice. If you want to impress people with your tools, you should sell your watch and buy a bunch of chainsaws.

[ChuckFinlay]

Originally Posted by ec51

What is this observation based on?

Cracked Ceramic

I don't believe this poster. I needed a replacement ceramic insert on my LV and was quoted £500 by RSC, so $750, that was a couple of months ago. I don't believe he was quoted $1500 4 years ago.

[bonbonson]

I do hate rolex and their price increase but if you put it in an investment perspective a rolex will last you atleast 50 years with no defects and proper maintenance. Which i think is more than enough. History of rolex proves tey mkae quality watches and know what they are doing

[Rodericky]

Originally Posted by bonbonson

I do hate rolex and their price increase but if you put it in an investment perspective a rolex will last you atleast 50 years with no defects and proper maintenance. Which i think is more than enough. History of rolex proves tey mkae quality watches and know what they are doing

Sorry for my language, but WTF are you doing on a rolex forum if you hate rolex?
I just dont get it

[Daytona-Dan]

Views seem to depend on how new to the Rolex world you are. Old school seem to like the old stuff and stand by it, newcomers seem to favour the ceramics, each is simply a personal choice and both ceramic and aluminium have their advantages and disadvantages but IMO with the bracelet and clasp comments, there should be no argument on that one. The new ones are hands down a better design and feel a lot more solid, rattle less, and clip in place better (I had the old style on my exp1 so I'm talking from experience). That's not to say the old ones don't do the job just as well, are less comfortable, better/worse looking, or that people don't prefer them, but it's almost undeniably better quality in every way and most people agree.

I've seen posts about weld failures (very rare from what I can tell) but there are also posts about pin clamps unbending themselves (Jocke posted one recently) which is not possible on the new designs and pin failure can happen to both.

[Rashid.bk]

Originally Posted by Armyguy03

How did it get magnetized?

Not sure exactly, but spending lots of time in/around helos and ECMs could be the culprit.
It always happened when I was overseas.

[PunkJr]

I just don't understand all the talk about clasps and end links. Other manufacturers are producing gyrotourbillon's and minute repeaters, and we're here talking about whether end links are hollow or solid. Does it really matter? I mean when the watch is on the wrist, what is the difference between a solid end link and a hollow one? I know that the older clasps have the advantage of being lighter, but if a clasp is the biggest talking point (seems to be one of the most common topics), or the material of a bezel insert is the company's biggest innovation in 50 years, maybe we all have our expectations set a little too low.

[bonbonson]

Originally Posted by Rodericky

Sorry for my language, but WTF are you doing on a rolex forum if you hate rolex?
I just dont get it

Let me rephrase that. I do hate rolex with their price increase but they make the best watches that will serve you well and long

[ChuckFinlay]

Someone just posted an LV-C for sale on another forum that they have just (July 2013) had the bezel insert replaced on, insert only, £648/$972. Reason for it needed replacing was a cracked bezel pip, which can't be replaced by itself. That is exchange only, original wont be returned.