Ceramics making ROLEX a fragile watch?

[TimeOnMyHands]

I have been sitting back and watching and reading....

Why did ROLEX go ceramic on the bezels?

Time has illustrated that the ceramic bezels reflect light in a way which impresses some. It looks good after the diamond drill cuts the numerals. Feels good to the touch. Does not show wear after some years/use/

But..

They chip. They crack. They break. The pearl departs. They scratch (although this is still debated). RSC loves the repair as it is expensive....

The decades old Subs show wear on the bezels - but nothing which I would run out and replace/repair so why ceramic again?? They install them on the sport model line which is subject to severe use and abuse and owners are concerned about harming the ceramic, about sand and debris ingress which should not be an issue with a timepiece with the engineering of ROLEX. The Explorer II (&42mm) line have no issues with bezel defacing or replacement. I know that I have smacked my EXPII bezel well and it shows the scratches yet it blends with the subtle strokes of everyday use showing character.

IMHO I feel that the implementation of ceramic on ROLEX has denatured the robust - wear it and forget it - toughness which ROLEX has fought so hard for. Install ceramic on the Cellini line if you must. But the sport and dive models - please bring back a bezel which is not fragile. I recall my Omega Seamaster in in Titanium - that bezel as crisp, clear, easy to read and adjust and was not subject to the weaknesses of a ceramic bezel. (no I am not selling Omega here - just an ownership comment). Owners of a ceramic ROLEX wince every time they smack their watch. That is not a feeling which I would want when wearing any model of ROLEX.

Is the implementation of ceramics taking ROLEX to new levels in durability? Again IMHO I think not.

Comments>?