Why does Rolex not make dress watches?

[VicLeChic]

To your question I will add "that I actually like". I prefer PP. VC, JLC when it comes to luxury dress watches.

[Tangier11]

Originally Posted by tonupbklyn

i don't know, this is pretty dressy to me...

Yeah not sure how it could getting any dressier than that beautiful time piece.

[Tangier11]

Originally Posted by Bryant Park

Why doesnt Rolex make a dress watch?

Feel free to wear a dress with any Rolex you want. We are an open minded enlightened community. Perhaps I didn't understand you query?

[Tangier11]

What is the definition of dress watch?

[SDRider]

Originally Posted by tonupbklyn

i don't know, this is pretty dressy to me...

You really can’t argue with this. A picture is worth a thousand words and this picture pretty much sums it up.

[Bronte]

Originally Posted by Tangier11

Yeah not sure how it could getting any dressier than that beautiful time piece.

The Day-Date is a great watch--especially classic in that yellow gold combo. But it's not a dress watch. "Dressy"--sure--but not a dress watch.

In fact, the Datejust (and its variant the Day-Date) is the quintessential sports watch. A sports watch is kind of a hybrid between a tool watch and a dress watch--a go anywhere do anything watch. It's like a "sport coat"--it's not literally intended to be used while playing most contemporary sports.

What many people call sports watches--especially Rolex-centric enthusiasts--are actual tool watches. This goes for the Submariner, the Daytona, the Explorer, the GMT-Master II, and the Explorer II. They are rarely used as tools any more, and some have become "dressier" over time, but that is the style of watch they are.

A dress watch is a thin, two or three hand watch typically designed for and worn on a leather strap. It typically will have low water resistance because it's not needed for its intended purpose and enhances thinness.

Across various watch forums, posters consistently find these pretty well-established definitions very upsetting. But you can understand these definitions and also be perfectly comfortable with people wearing any of these types of watches with any type of attire. To say the Day-Date is not a dress watch is not at all to say that one shouldn't wear it with a suit. I would gladly wear it with a suit or just about anything else. It's just a way to communicate clearly about basic categories of watches.

In the Rolex world though, people often refer to the Rolex tool watches as sports watches and to the Rolex sports watches as dress watches. And they mostly ignore Cellini. This doesn't bother me at all and I generally go along with it, but it's not quite accurate and just ends up making it harder to speak clearly about different kinds of watches.

[Golf&Watches]

Originally Posted by Tangier11

Yeah not sure how it could getting any dressier than that beautiful time piece.

A truly great watch, though in no way a dress watch in the traditional sense. I am very happy to flout tradition, however when it comes to formal functions, all that is required is a sub 34mil watch, it shall be time only, and not extend to a second hand, ask any valet or butler.

[Tangier11]

In my opinion the Rolex Prez is a Rolex dress watch, if it does not fit with the traditional definition I think Rolex has changed to some degree the very definition. IMHO

[GradyPhilpott]

Originally Posted by Bronte

A dress watch is a thin, two or three hand watch typically designed for and worn on a leather strap. It typically will have low water resistance because it's not needed for its intended purpose and enhances thinness.

What you're describing is a watch to be worn with formal attire.

A dress watch is something that's appropriate for a suit.

Of course, we have those who wear 60mm dive watches with suits and tuxedos and hardly anyone blinks an eye anymore, but that doesn't mean that such is a wise choice.

[Bronte]

Originally Posted by GradyPhilpott

What you're describing is a watch to be worn with formal attire.



A dress watch is something that's appropriate for a suit.



Of course, we have those who wear 60mm dive watches with suits and tuxedos and hardly anyone blinks an eye anymore.

I just disagree. A dress watch is a specific category of watch. What watch is appropriate to be worn with a suit is really up to the wearer--since no one really cares--and is generally accepted to include many watches that are clearly not dress watches, like the Submariner.

[GradyPhilpott]

Originally Posted by Bronte

I just disagree.

Okay.

[Rock]

I would have thought that Rolex had a long tradition of "Dress Watches" via the Cellini line.
Does it get much more "Dress Watch" than this?

[Snow-Dweller]

Originally Posted by mangoseed

For the people mentioning the Cellini, its movement is still based on the caliber 3130, the same movement used in the Submariner no-date and the Oyster Perpetual. So another thick durable movement put into into a dressier looking case. Plus it features a screw-down crown.

That may be, but there's no denying it's a dress watch.

[Bronte]

Originally Posted by GradyPhilpott

Okay.

If you don't want to discuss it, that's fine. But defining a dress watch as one that's appropriate to wear with a suit doesn't really seem to work.

A Submariner is appropriate to wear with a suit. I know that because I regularly see many successful people doing so in very formal settings--like at the podium in federal court in the US--without comment or issue. If they were wearing a bright yellow G-Shock people would probably chatter about it. But the Submariner is appropriate because it doesn't draw comment, scorn, or even a second glance. But that doesn't make the Submariner a dress watch.

[GradyPhilpott]

Originally Posted by Bronte

If you don't want to discuss it, that's fine. But defining a dress watch as one that's appropriate to wear with a suit doesn't really seem to work.

A Submariner is appropriate to wear with a suit. I know that because I regularly see many successful people doing so in very formal settings--like at the podium in federal court in the US--without comment or issue. If they were wearing a bright yellow G-Shock people would probably chatter about it. But the Submariner is appropriate because it doesn't draw comment, scorn, or even a second glance. But that doesn't make the Submariner a dress watch.

What is correct and what is common are not always the same, but in fashion as with language, the rules are ultimately determined by usage and popular opinion, eventually.



Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

[Bronte]

Originally Posted by GradyPhilpott

What is correct and what is common are not always the same, but in fashion as with language, the rules are ultimately determined by usage and popular opinion, eventually.



Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

I agree, but the current usage is still such that what's appropriate to wear with a suit is a broader category than what's generally understood to be a dress watch.

[GradyPhilpott]

Originally Posted by Bronte

I agree, but the current usage is still such that what's appropriate to wear with a suit is a broader category than what's generally understood to be a dress watch.

Okay.

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

[SDRider]

Originally Posted by Bronte

If you don't want to discuss it, that's fine. But defining a dress watch as one that's appropriate to wear with a suit doesn't really seem to work.

A Submariner is appropriate to wear with a suit. I know that because I regularly see many successful people doing so in very formal settings--like at the podium in federal court in the US--without comment or issue. If they were wearing a bright yellow G-Shock people would probably chatter about it. But the Submariner is appropriate because it doesn't draw comment, scorn, or even a second glance. But that doesn't make the Submariner a dress watch.

I fail to see the point in defining a dress watch as just being thin and on a leather strap. I disagree with your opinion on this, I think the Day Date qualifies and even the DateJust. Certainly the Cellini qualifies but I would definitely wear my Submariner in a formal setting and I have.

[tonupbklyn]

Originally Posted by Bronte

If you don't want to discuss it, that's fine. But defining a dress watch as one that's appropriate to wear with a suit doesn't really seem to work.

A Submariner is appropriate to wear with a suit. I know that because I regularly see many successful people doing so in very formal settings--like at the podium in federal court in the US--without comment or issue. If they were wearing a bright yellow G-Shock people would probably chatter about it. But the Submariner is appropriate because it doesn't draw comment, scorn, or even a second glance. But that doesn't make the Submariner a dress watch.

i think this argument can hold true in reference to a sub, gmt, daytona, etc.
however, i don't agree with applying the same comment to the DD...particularly the president.

as the rolex went up in size in this model over the past several years, your argument could certainly creep toward your favor.

however, the classic 36mm president...that one in particular i could never describe toward sporty. i'd use your argument but flipped the other way around...which is that the president is in fact a pure dress watch that, if one so chooses, could be worn with a sport coat, etc and make it more casual.

hell, i oftentimes wear mine with a polo shirt or when lazy even with a tshirt. but that's just my quirky thing, i like to mix things enigmatically.

the fact that it's nicknamed the 'president'...i just can't see how past leaders of the US (and other countries, corporations, institutions, etc.) ever bought or received this watch and crossed their minds as "wow, great sports watch!"
in fact, i'm sure they thought of the watch being (strictly) used in the same way that you're defining as a 'traditional' dress watch.

which, btw...the definition is seemingly too vague: thin, low water resistance, time-only, and on strap.

hmm...really??...

[Bronte]

Originally Posted by SDRider

I fail to see the point in defining a dress watch as just being thin and on a leather strap. I disagree with your opinion on this, I think the Day Date qualifies and even the DateJust. Certainly the Cellini qualifies but I would definitely wear my Submariner in a formal setting and I have.

The point is just to have terms that can be used to talk about watches in a coherent way. Dress watches: Calatrava, Patrimony, Cellini, etc. Sport watches: OP, Datejust, Day-Date, Aqua Terra, Nautilus, Royal Oak, etc. Tool watches: Submariner, SMP, Fifty-Fathoms, Speedmaster, etc.

It's not a value judgment about what's ok to wear with a suit. Current fashion standards are very forgiving on that front, and the Datejust, Submariner, and many others are obviously totally acceptable per contemporary standards. But if we call them all dress watches, the term loses all meaning. Then it really is pointless.

[Bronte]

Originally Posted by tonupbklyn

i think this argument can hold true in reference to a sub, gmt, daytona, etc.

however, i don't agree with applying the same comment to the DD...particularly the president.



as the rolex went up in size in this model over the past several years, your argument could certainly creep toward your favor.



however, the classic 36mm president...that one in particular i could never describe toward sporty. i'd use your argument but flipped the other way around...which is that the president is in fact a pure dress watch that, if one so chooses, could be worn with a sport coat, etc and make it more casual.



hell, i oftentimes wear mine with a polo shirt or when lazy even with a tshirt. but that's just my quirky thing, i like to mix things enigmatically.



the fact that it's nicknamed the 'president'...i just can't see how past leaders of the US (and other countries, corporations, institutions, etc.) ever bought or received this watch and crossed their minds as "wow, great sports watch!"

in fact, i'm sure they thought of the watch being (strictly) used in the same way that you're defining as a 'traditional' dress watch.



which, btw...the definition is seemingly too vague: thin, low water resistance, time-only, and on strap.



hmm...really??...

I hear you.

But one other criteria of a dress watch that you often hear is that it's in precious metal. Probably fair to include stainless steel as well, but clear plastic is perhaps a stretch.

That said, doesn't seem that crazy to call that Swatch a sporty dress watch. Either way, it's obviously also a category-defying watch that is the exception rather than the rule.

It's not hard and fast, but, despite all the protesting whenever this topic comes up, everybody knows what watches are obviously dress watches. The Calatrava is the archetype. All the high-end manufactures offer examples--PP, VC, AP, ALS, and the various independents. The core two and three handers that these companies offer are what everyone in the watch community knows to be a dress watch, whether they admit it or not.

Of course presidents don't know the Day-Date as a "sports watch." But regular folks don't know a tool watch from a sports watch or a dress watch anymore than they know an automatic from a quartz. The views of those who don't know much about watches doesn't seem like the right guide here.

[tonupbklyn]

Originally Posted by Bronte

The core two and three handers that these companies offer are what everyone in the watch community knows to be a dress watch, whether they admit it or not.

Of course presidents don't know the Day-Date as a "sports watch." But regular folks don't know a tool watch from a sports watch or a dress watch anymore than they know an automatic from a quartz. The views of those who don't know much about watches doesn't seem like the right guide here.

don't think anyone is going to disagree that those core 2- or 3-handers are dress watches.
i do believe the disparity in this debate is that by virtue of those core, the 'dress' watch is strictly or mostly defined by the same attributes.

and regardless of being a virtuoso collector, WIS, casual hobbyist, or a random guy walking down the street, i just don't think that the DD (especially the classic 36mm prez in PM) would EVER be characterized as a tool watch.

sub, gmt, daytona... i can go there with u.
the prez... just can't do it.

a good time-wasting, pass-the-time, 1%er debate regardless

[Bronte]

Originally Posted by tonupbklyn

don't think anyone is going to disagree that those core 2- or 3-handers are dress watches.

i do believe the disparity in this debate is that by virtue of those core, the 'dress' watch is strictly or mostly defined by the same attributes.



and regardless of being a virtuoso collector, WIS, casual hobbyist, or a random guy walking down the street, i just don't think that the DD (especially the classic 36mm prez in PM) would EVER be characterized as a tool watch.



sub, gmt, daytona... i can go there with u.

the prez... just can't do it.



a good time-wasting, pass-the-time, 1%er debate regardless

Ha yes I agree the debate is not serious business.

But to be clear I'm not saying the DD is a tool watch. It's a sports watch--like Nautilus, Royal Oak, Datejust, OP, etc. They are three handers plus date with good water resistance and usually designed for a bracelet. They're made to work from beach to board room.

I will concede that DD is at the dressiest end of the spectrum but would still consider it a sports watch. Definitely not a tool watch.

[Bryant Park]

Originally Posted by Bronte

If you don't want to discuss it, that's fine. But defining a dress watch as one that's appropriate to wear with a suit doesn't really seem to work.

A Submariner is appropriate to wear with a suit. I know that because I regularly see many successful people doing so in very formal settings--like at the podium in federal court in the US--without comment or issue. If they were wearing a bright yellow G-Shock people would probably chatter about it. But the Submariner is appropriate because it doesn't draw comment, scorn, or even a second glance. But that doesn't make the Submariner a dress watch.

I hope you were aquited for whatever you were being prosecuted for in Federal Court, or were you just bolstering your credibility by suggesting your a prominent attorney? If so sorry counselor

[Bronte]

Originally Posted by Bryant Park

I hope you were aquited for whatever you were being prosecuted for in Federal Court, or were you just bolstering your credibility by suggesting your a prominent attorney? If so sorry counselor

You don't have to be in any way prominent or even competent to spend a lot of time in federal court. Trust me on that one. It's just a good example of a formal setting.

That said unfortunately no I was not acquitted. I'm actually posting from a federal penitentiary. Don't tell the guards that I've smuggled in an iPhone and a small Rolex collection.

[Bryant Park]

Originally Posted by Bronte

You don't have to be in any way prominent or even competent to spend a lot of time in federal court. Trust me on that one. It's just a good example of a formal setting.

That said unfortunately no I was not acquitted. I'm actually posting from a federal penitentiary. Don't tell the guards that I've smuggled in an iPhone and a small Rolex collection.

I fear that if your method of introducing your Rolex into general population was secretion in a body cavity you may have diminished resale value Thanks for being a good sport.

[Bronte]

Originally Posted by Bryant Park

I fear that if your method of introducing your Rolex into general population was secretion in a body cavity you may have diminished resale value Thanks for being a good sport.

Yes it may be tough for me to use the sales forum after that post.

[Seanken]

Zee moderators off ziss forumb MUST now strictly define zee variuos vatch categoriouses und zen list all vatches ever manufactured und classify them. Vatches that span multiple categories vill be eliminated by complete destruction. No variences vill be allowed.

All hail zee King, Rolex.

I have a very nice Cellini but i dont wear it at all. Its about twenty yezrs old and looks fantastic.

[Bryant Park]

Regrettably I don't apparently have a single dress watch. Next time I attend a gala or ball I will have to address this shortcoming.

[Syed117]

Don't worry OP.

It's a Rolex forum so obviously the people here have convinced themselves that a dive watch is a dress watch. There will even be a few guys wearing a deep-sea crammed under a cuff with a suit and somehow maintaining a straight face.

Times have gotten much more relaxed as far as these conventions go. I know what you're talking about and pretty everyone in here also does. They have to say that all these sports watches can also be dressy because admitting that they aren't takes away from Rolex and thus takes away from the individual wearing one.

I think it's fine to wear just about anything with a suit. I would never think badly of someone wearing a day date or almost any Rolex with a suit. No one really cares. I personally prefer not to. I'm never going to wear a sub with a tuxedo.

Rolex has never tried to be the dress watch company. They don't make fancy decorated movements. They don't need to and they shouldn't. They are known for making watches that can withstand adventures around the world.

Want a dress watch? Go JLC, GO, Patek. I'd wear a dozen watches from any of those companies before I wore a Cellini.