Does Anyone Wish That Rolex Was Less Conservative

[GradyPhilpott]

Originally Posted by sturgeon123456

I'm afraid Rolex may become less synonymous with true watch enthusiasts if they don't change the approach.

If you look at what happened to the Swiss watch industry in the Seventies and the Eighties and what some watch companies did to try and stay relevant, you might not make this claim.

The ones who pushed the boundaries are either dead and buried or living under the Swatch umbrella.

Rolex, who decided to stay the course, has thrived without having to be bailed out by anyone.

The Swiss watch industry now is sweating bullets because of the impending smart watch boom and some are even developing their own smart watches, while Rolex just keeps churning out their traditional lines with a few tweaks here and there, along with some true innovations that are so well disguised that some believe that they do not exist.

Somehow, I just don't believe that the "smart watch apocalypse" will be what the "quartz crisis" was and some of those companies that latch on to this "trend" are going to be left with egg on their faces and a bunch of watches they can't sell.

In the meantime, expect Rolex to keep chugging along.

[sturgeon123456]

Originally Posted by GradyPhilpott

If you look at what happened to the Swiss watch industry in the Seventies and the Eighties and what some watch companies did to try and stay relevant, you might not make this claim.

The ones who pushed the boundaries are either dead and buried or living under the Swatch umbrella.

Rolex, who decided to stay the course, has thrived without having to be bailed out by anyone.

The Swiss watch industry now is sweating bullets because of the impending smart watch boom and some are even developing their own smart watches, while Rolex just keeps churning out their traditional lines with a few tweaks here and there, along with some true innovations that are so well disguised that some believe that they do not exist.

Somehow, I just don't believe that the "smart watch apocalypse" will be what the "quartz crisis" was and some of those companies that latch on to this "trend" are going to be left with egg on their faces and a bunch of watches they can't sell.

In the meantime, expect Rolex to keep chugging along.

I strongly agree that the smart watch industry will have little to no impact on the luxury watch companies. I definitely don't think Rolex should be a part of this trend.

I am sure Rolex will keep churning along but with every company that does that eventually it catches up to them and they have to do something to grab peoples attention. Maybe Rolex is doing enough, maybe they arent. We don't know the sales figures.

Swatch groups direction is interesting, and I am waiting to see how their monopoly unfolds and impacts the swiss watch industry over the next 5-10 years.

[otisc]

Originally Posted by GradyPhilpott

Somehow, I just don't believe that the "smart watch apocalypse" will be what the "quartz crisis" was and some of those companies that latch on to this "trend" are going to be left with egg on their faces and a bunch of watches they can't sell.

So true. I was reading today about how Tag Heuer under Biver is focusing all their resources on their own brand of smart watch. Ugh. Would love to know who is going to buy one.

If anything, I firmly believe the Apple Watch will introduce an entire new generation to the joys of wearing a watch... and then once they start to "get it" they will come to Rolex and other mechanical wonders.

[Fiery]

Originally Posted by HL65

Yes I would and I do wear them daily and they are anything but delicate pieces of art.

If you do wear art, it doesn't mean it's not art

It is one thing to defend Rolex but to drag Patek into it and be wrong another.

I didn't mean to bash Patek, AP or any other brand at all. I just pulled them into the argument for the comparison sake. I wanted to show how different those brands to Rolex, and that I for one do not want to see Rolex become them. Rolex is good at one thing, the others are good at something else, and that's just right.

Myself and plenty of others wear and enjoy their Pateks which have robust movements and are quite wearable and not delicate as so many Rolex loyalists think.

I'm a huge fan of Patek and AP, had a Royal Oak, was forced to sell it, and I'm still sad about it to this day. However, even the Royal Oak, which hasn't got the most complicated or most interesting movement of Patek and AP's portfolio, _felt_ more delicate and less roboust than my Sub. And not just because the Sub has a more bulky case. The AP 3120 movement looks great (not as nice as many manual movements from Patek and ALS, of course), but never turned out to be nearly as accurate, and never felt as sturdy as the Rolex 3135. And when I say Patek and AP makes less roboust, harder to service, less dependable movements, that's not exactly something I pulled out of my bottom, but actual truth. Talk to any watchmakers, and they will all agree on Rolex making the best movements _from their perspective_. Watchmakers love simple, sturdy, easy-to-service movements. As for roboust, do you wear your Pateks and APs while doing yardwork, servicing your car, lifting heavy stuff? I think you wouldn't, and even though it may be just a psychological thing (you just _think_ it's not roboust enough), but you still don't do it. While with a Rolex you will do it, even though the watch itself may or may not survive it :) And don't get me wrong, it's not about "capable" and "incapable", but more a relative thing. Rolex is more roboust in every ways than a complicated Patek, and a G-Shock is more roboust than a Rolex. If you pack hundreds of Patek/AP/etc. movement parts in a similar or smaller space than in a Rolex watch case, with every part being less sturdy, smaller, lighter than in a Rolex movement, the end results will inevitably be less sturdy than a Rolex movement. That's fine, and the resulting watch will still be wearable in the everyday scenarios of driving and desk diving (which I do most of the day), but you will take the watch off when anything more hazardous comes along.

When I used to wear my Royal Oak, I was in a trouble a few cases when I unexpectedly had to do something more active, and I had no chance to take my watch off. I was constantly afraid of the RO being hurt by shocks or bangs, while I never had that feeling while wearing my Sub. Again, it may easily have been a psychological thing, but I still wouldn't want Rolex to steer into that direction. I don't want them to sacrifice movement sturdiness to make more complicated, and potentially less reliable movements.

Just in case you don't check the WRUW Daily thread here are my two most worn watches:

I of course do, I hang out in the AP and Patek subforums a lot, and drool over many beautiful pieces there. I contribute too, and again, I didn't mean to bash AP and Patek at all. They are great on a whole other level than Rolex. I just don't want Rolex to become them.

Also clearly you have never seen nor handled a 5970 or 5070 as they are anything but thin and delicate or you would never have made that statement.

You're right, I never handled those references, but handled a few other Pateks, and loved them all -- except for the 5711, which I found quite underwhelming compared to the Royal Oak. But, again, if you have a certain space in cubic mm's, and you have to put twice or three times more parts in the same space, the end result will inevitably be less sturdy and more delicate. There's absolutely no problem to do that, and I personally found astonishing how many parts Patek can fit into a small case, but I would never call the end result _as_ sturdy as a Rolex.

They are quite thick especially the 5970 to house their chunky movements.

Yes, but can you imagine how thick and chunky would they be if they had to be made of as sturdy parts as Rolex's "standard" movements, and had 100+ meters WR in an Oyster case? Oh, and add a rotor as well, since Rolex would have to make them Oyster Perpetual. They would easily be as thick and chunky as a DSSD, and that would defeat the whole purpose IMHO.

Oh and I never tire of the beauty of these movements sorry they are always remembered please understand that.

If you read my post again, I clearly stated that you wouldn't look at the movement that much _unless_ you've got a truly astonishing manual movement with no silly rotor blocking the view. I clearly didn't mean the 5970, 5070, 5170, 5004, 5204, 5270 (etc) or any such references.

There is no need to drag other watch houses into any argument while speaking of Rolex merits as ones merits should speak for themselves.

I brought the other ones up to make a clear comparison, and to stress the fact that I don't want Rolex to become those brands.

[redsubby]

It's just not what they do. You can't expect them to come out with highly complicated, highly finished movements and still keep up their production numbers, quality, and their after sales service the way they are right now. No watch company can.

[Fiery]

Originally Posted by iWally

The question is, why doesn't rolex produce a newer design, a newer case, a newer movement, and a newer line of models which don't have the WR of 100m+ and instead have some sort of complication; targeted at those individuals like me, who want to stay with rolex.

They kinda do, it's the Cellini line. I'm pretty sure Rolex will slowly start introducing complications in that line as well, first an annual calendar, then a perpetual calendar.

If rolex put a display case back with a highly decorated and beautiful movement, as well as adding in a complication such as moon-phase and/or annual/perpetual calendar i would jump on that watch straight away!

They may do that, since they already have a display back and a manual movement in the Cellini Prince, but it's still not the Oyster Perpetual line. Noone knows the actual numbers, but I'm pretty certain Cellini accounts to a one-figure percentage of Rolex sales, and probably an almost zero profit margin (due to the low sales numbers). Rolex lives on the Oyster Perpetual range, and unless people jump on Cellinis, they will not accelerate the development in that range, but focus their efforts on the Oyster Perpetuals.

I think that is a ridiculous point to make, saying that there is no need for rolex to be creative because they're making the money they want!

I know it sounds odd, but it's actually the old saying of "know your market". If Rolex can live on the same 50+ year old idea, can still be the king of sports luxury watches, can still increase sales and profit margins by doing the same old stuff, then why should they venture into new fields? And they still do that, just not as heavily as other brands. Other brands may introduce a new model every year (or even multiple models), but many of those new models will eventually fail at the stores and gets discontinued after a few years of desperation. Rolex on the other hand still makes the same very popular models, sometimes introduces a new one. It's just a different strategy. Other brands have to come up with new stuff just to stay in business, while Rolex can stay in business and still be the king by pushing the same old boats along.

What are they going to keep on doing? Adding precious metals on their co-existing models and calling it innovative?

What they call innovative is not the casing or the colours, but the new techniques, new materials they use in their movements. And yes, they will keep introducing more precious metal models, like a Pt Sub, RG Sub, Pt GMT, RG GMT, maybe even a gold DSSD and a gold Exp II, and you know what? They will make a killing with those models, just as they did with the WG Sub, WG GMT and the Pt Daytona. Rolex knows its customers, and its customers want more precious metals, and after 50 or so years they still want to own a Sub, a GMT, a Daytona, an Explorer, a Day-Date, a DateJust. After you own all of those (one or two of each, I mean), and you still want something new from Rolex, and Rolex cannot provide it to you, then it's quite easy to find more interesting pieces at other brands. But, Rolex already sold you a dozen of watches, so it did great, financially It may sound cynical, but the sales figures prove that Rolex is still on the right path.

Yes their core values are producing sturdy work-horse movements, the next step would be to produce a highly decorated movement which is also as sturdy and reliable.

It may be possible to match sturdiness with complications, but to make it fit in a relatively small case is ... well... let's call it impossible, since noone could do it yet. There's a limit on how small you can make watch movement parts without sacrificing sturdiness, and IMHO Rolex already reached that point. Unless they start using brand new materials all over the watch movement (not just the hairspring), they won't be able to make a complicated Oyster Perpetual model with a moderate case size. Which may be just fine, it's not my market, but I would see an opportunity for a Rolex with a 45-46 mm diameter thick case having a perpetual calendar movement. But IMHO it would still have to have a solid caseback and a non-decorated movement, since that fits best into the OP lineup and heritage.

Yeah, when you have a solid closed-caseback then the movement can be as 'disgusting' as you want it!

Why would something that is built to last and do its purpose be disgusting? Is Bauhaus disgusting? Why would something have to be beautiful when noone can see it but watchmakers?

but you better make sure it works and is damn reliable so no one ever opens that up to see it.

When it's an everyday wear, I'd want something that is absolutely reliable and sturdy.

But to please a horologist (who loves to see that balance wheel oscillating and the gear train chugging along) and not someone who's just after showing off etc i think a display-caseback WITH a decorated movement is essential!

You can have a sturdy watch with a decorated movement with much less $$, if you look outside of Rolex's world. What's wrong with a beautiful sapphire sandwich Speedmaster for instance? IMHO it's more beautiful with many 3-hand automatic movements from AP, Patek, JLC and VC. A mechanical chronograph movement -- especially if it has no rotor -- is almost always a beautiful thing to look at, even without special decoration. You can find many bang for the bucks if you look for such watches from other brands. Make sure to include vintage models in your search.

And as far as the Cellini is concerned, i believe its trying to be a 'complicated' patek but its not!

I think you meant "less complicated"

And whats worse is that its priced quite generously as well...

I haven't exactly checked Cellini prices (I don't care about that line to be brutally honest), but I doubt they would be much higher priced than precious metal Oyster cased Rolex watches.

When you say modern rolex watch dial, everyone (me) assumes that you will be adding a moon phase on a sub dial, clearly that won't work! To add a complication, its best if rolex produce a new line of models which feature this 'new' technology.

I think Cellini may eventually turn out to be that new line of models. But I seriously doubt Rolex would start a new line. OP, Cellini and Tudor are more than enough to cover everything at this time.

[shay2nak]

less conservative? No.