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>?

[kilyung]

Originally Posted by TimeOnMyHands

Is the implementation of ceramics taking ROLEX to new levels in durability?

Only time will tell.

[Armyguy03]

Solid view points, but that's what insurance is for (IMHO). When I owned my SubC, bezel toughness was the least of my concerns. Rolex, like any company evolves to make a new demand. There are a zillion aluminum insert time pieces out there to satiate both schools of flavor. SubC or Aluminum, Rolex is still a tough nut to crack time piece.

[Bangel]

I don't necessarily think the ceramic inserts are more fragile, just more expensive to replace.

[Eric5964]

I think the ceramics look way better than the cheap aluminum ones.

EricE

[blackout]

Could be a design phase for this era... I hope... Would be pretty awesome if they went to a titanium bezel insert instead of ceramic... I remember taking ceramics in high school and everything broke or cracked in that class if you dropped or bumped into things.

Don't get me wrong, I love the look of all my C insert models, but the possibility of breaking, cracking, chipping does sit in the back of my mind and I don't think that way when I wear my 14060m with alumi bezel insert.

[TimeOnMyHands]

Originally Posted by blackout

.. I remember taking ceramics in high school and everything broke or cracked in that class if you dropped or bumped into things.

Thanks for this comment.. This is why I spent no cash on a ceramic model. (correction I did >> : I loved my DSSD but did worry about smacking into something...thus sold before expensive repairs)

[mruhland31]

I love my Sub C and am a big fan of the bezel. If it has to be replaced one day so be it. Just my opinion but I absolutely love it

[TimeOnMyHands]

Originally Posted by mruhland31

I love my Sub C and am a big fan of the bezel. If it has to be replaced one day so be it. Just my opinion but I absolutely love it

Agreed. They are lovely to look at in angles of light and to hold and turn. Owners please know that I owned a DSSD and loved the look and feel and intrinsic quality of the non-metallic bezel.

I cite this post asking for comments/opinions of whether the ceramic on any model was merely an aesthetic addition and not a back step in durability - robustness which ROLEX has cuts it's teeth on in the world of horology.

[Daytona-Dan]

A few cases of chips or cracks does not mean it's fragile. Unfortunately, people are more likely to come online to complain on how it broke than how they smashed it on a rock and took it without a mark. Even if you count all the users with broken or scratched bezels on here and compare it with the amount that have no problems on here, you'll see it's only a small percentage. Don't believe the hype...

[Daytona-Dan]

Originally Posted by TimeOnMyHands

Thanks for this comment.. This is why I spent no cash on a ceramic model. (correction I did >> : I loved my DSSD but did worry about smacking into something...thus sold before expensive repairs)

Go scrape a gold Daytona bezel (or perhaps a platinum YM?) on a rock and check the price tag on that repair. I'll take a new ceramic over that any day

[srf52]

...I have a GMTIIC that I recently smacked into a door knob with enough force that it actually turned the bezel one click. It hit fairly hard. I examined the bezel with a loop and found no hint of damage (no chip, crack, scratch or breakage). That's good enough for me.

[jay1988]

My Subc has never given me any problems. Then again, it's never been tested. Even when I've done certain "risky" activities, it's always avoided getting hit.

I prefer the aluminum bezels but I prefer the glidelock more. The quality of bracelets on the aluminum models is not acceptable if you ask me.

Here's the way I'm approaching it. I'm using my subc as it was intended to be used. I use it for everything. If a day comes when I break the ceramic and have to pay a grand to fix it, that's when I'll probably pick up a beater for activities that put my watch in danger.

[bonbonson]

I do prefer the black aluminum ones because it fades which the ceramic does not. But i like the effect of ceramic bezels when struck with light at different angles. I do not think it is more fragile but it is more scratch resistant. More costly but maybe a good investment ? From the whole Subc i love the glidelock. Thats all not a fan of the maxi nor the case

[busytimmy]

Yes.

[patrike]

I don't see my GMTc as fragile. Smashed it pretty hard into several things, as doorpost, door handles, radiators, brick wall etc. There is not a mark on the bezel.

I would rather have the ceramic then a brushed or polished SS bezel a la Daytona or AP. That will scratch just by thinking of it. :)


Sent from my iPhone 6 using Tapatalk

[Furbo]

C-bezel is great. I had sub-c for almost a year, looks like new.

I bought my dad blue YM (116622) few months after mine, in less than a year it already has few scratches and dings.

Now I have new GMT BLNR and the bezel is a thing of beauty.

And my dad could not be happier with his 'new' sub-c. He always admired it on my hand before, his platinum bezel looks much 'cheaper'.

[nickng]

It's a business strategy. More expensive to be replaced as compared with those aluminum bezels on a Sub or GMT.

On the other hand, cheaper alternative if you are wearing a Daytona, as someone mentioned above.

[The Waddler]

I love the looks, the way it catches the light, the fact it always looks like new, just the "specialness" of it.

However I won't lie and say that every time I bash my wrist on something I don't panic.

[LA_LEC]

I am old school and I really love everything about he pre-ceramic subs and I agree with you. They didn't move forward with ceramic bezels IMHO.

[Foiel]

Simply in love with the Ceramic bezel, enjoy my 114060 all the time.. Bezel breaks ? I repair it and...............Start enjoying my watch again.. !!

[Daytona-Dan]

Installed a new network, alarm and CCTV at the office the other day, I was drilling and hammering and knocked it a few times. My sweat mixed in with drywall made a nice paste between the bracelet links and got pretty much everywhere on the bezel. At some point I knocked it pretty hard on the aluminium ladder and was expecting to find a dent in the case but there was nothing, either the bezel took it or the crystal, there is no other option. Got home, gave it a quick wash and it was back to looking like new.

I think all you non-C's are just jealous!

[Pleximannen]

Originally Posted by Foiel

Simply in love with the Ceramic bezel, enjoy my 114060 all the time.. Bezel breaks ? I repair it and...............Start enjoying my watch again.. !!

Exactly!

Ok, so it's potentially a bit more expensive to maintain but I do think some people worry too much about these bezels. I mean, how many broken ones have we really seen? I've gone diving, travelling, hammering and partying with my 114060 and it's fine. And if it breaks, I'll just have it fixed.

[Ramiks]

My initial plan was to get a sub c or gmt iic, I wanted a watch that's iconic, robust enough to be a daily beater, and versatile as I spent most of the day in a suit and tie and in casual at night & WE.
I tried once a used gmt 16710, it was in excellent shape, and it was my first Rolex, I took it to the RSC where I changed the bezel from black to Pepsi, although it was in new shape, and I won't forget how cheap that was (about $90), Also I can't forget the watchman remark "its good that you went for the old model, as the new bezels get broken easily", that's according to his daily experience of course, and at that moment I checked the robust box twice!
However I flipped it for a NIB or NOS 16610.
Each day I fell into this piece more the before, as the smooth shape wears better on my wrist more than the new squared one, and that is just me.

[Puffy]

they want watches to look brand new and shiny

alu will eventually fade and also pick up dings along the way

on occasion rolex has replaced shattered ceramic inserts.

[Lion]

To me it doesn't matter whether you have a newer 'Tool Watch' or the older ones with the aluminum bezel insert.....just enjoy your watch!!!

Take it easy.....Leo

[HL65]

Jealous of Ceramic inserts....Now that is funny!

If you like new ceramic subs or watches---wonderful!! If you don't--wonderful! The great news is there are watches for all tastes and likes!! As far as fragile or not--who knows and as I read above haven't seen lots of reports on cracked inserts.

[Daytona-Dan]

Originally Posted by SteelerFan65

Jealous of Ceramic inserts....Now that is funny!

That was written just for you!

[mailman]

I wore a Sub C pretty much 24/7 for close to two years and never had a problem with the insert or pip I dropped face down from about four feet once on accident. Didn't pick up a scratch.

[padi56]

Originally Posted by SteelerFan65

Jealous of Ceramic inserts....Now that is funny!

If you like new ceramic subs or watches---wonderful!! If you don't--wonderful! The great news is there are watches for all tastes and likes!! As far as fragile or not--who knows and as I read above haven't seen lots of reports on cracked inserts.

Have to agree Ken and if the ceramic insert was around the same price and as easy to replace as the aluminum ones, then perhaps ceramic could prove to be a advantage. Until then its just like many manufactures at the moment jumping on the ceramic bandwagon fashion and no real advantage but quite a few dis-advantages.Now many say the aluminum inserts tent to fade yes some do over many years. But in general its the red/blue type that do then a easy DIY job to fix and for very little money.