Why Rolex releases compromised models sometimes...

[Maxy]

Originally Posted by JohnFM

Maxy,

Your thoughts on the logic for the fatter Mercedes hand? My sense is that the fatter hands are consistent with what Rolex has done with the Sub and SD and give the Explorer a 'sportier' look, for better or worse.
John

That is possible but my logic is simple. They wanted the same hands to fit both Explorer and Air-King which is actually 40mm. So, they make one hand set for both these models and one of them looks compromised. Rolex rarely does something uniquely for that model alone, always tries to consolidate models for production.

[Dirt]

Originally Posted by JohnFM

Maxy,

While I'm with you on the aesthetics of the fat Mercedes hand, why would Rolex have made the hand fatter for both the Air King and new Explorer if they didn't prefer it to the trimmer version? Put another way, I don't think the fatter Mercedes hand makes any more sense on the Air King than the Explorer, so it seems like an intentional design decision (not to mention the fact that Rolex may have had some trimmer hands lying around). Your thoughts on the logic for the fatter Mercedes hand? My sense is that the fatter hands are consistent with what Rolex has done with the Sub and SD and give the Explorer a 'sportier' look, for better or worse.

John

They may be fatter, but they only look too fat because they are fractionally too short. IMO.
We have to wait and see what they look like in real life.

[GradyPhilpott]

If you're suggesting that the hands on the 114270 and the first 214270 were the same, you're wrong.

I don't think that Rolex releases "compromised" models.

They release what they think will sell and if they are wrong they make corrections.

Sometimes I think they may just stir the pot so to speak.

Originally Posted by JohnFM

My sense is that the fatter hands are consistent with what Rolex has done with the Sub and SD and give the Explorer a 'sportier' look, for better or worse.

John

This is closer to the truth, I do believe.

[Maxy]

Originally Posted by GradyPhilpott

If you're suggesting that the hands on the 114270 and the first 214270 were the same, you're wrong.

I don't think that Rolex releases "compromised" models.

They release what they think will sell and if they are wrong they make corrections.

Sometimes I think they may just stir the pot so to speak.



This is closer to the truth, I do believe.

No, 214270 hands are from the set of 14060 and 16570 and GMTs. At one time, Rolex was producing standard hands for all of their models and touching the minute markers was hit or miss based on the dial.

[GradyPhilpott]

Originally Posted by Maxy

No, 214270 hands are from the set of 14060 and 16570 and GMTs. At one time, Rolex was producing standard hands for all of their models and touching the minute markers was hit or miss based on the dial.

I don't think your right about that.

Sent from my SM-G900V

[Maxy]

Originally Posted by GradyPhilpott

I don't think your right about that.

Sent from my SM-G900V

I know I'm right! I can give you some proofs later on but that's an old topic! There was no reason for Explorer I to have short hands if hands were specially manufactured for that model! Rolex rarely manufactures hands just for 1 model especially no way for base SS models unless its Sky Dweller or something higher range. All the Subs, GMTs will use same hands.. except Exp2 got new hour hands after the increase.

[Dirt]

Originally Posted by Maxy

No, 214270 hands are from the set of 14060 and 16570 and GMTs. At one time, Rolex was producing standard hands for all of their models and touching the minute markers was hit or miss based on the dial.

I tend to lean in that direction as well.
We really need to see part number comparisons for confirmation.

[The Libertine]

First release of the 39mm Explorer is a "compromised" model?

Most ridiculous thread ever.

[Dirt]

Originally Posted by GradyPhilpott

If you're suggesting that the hands on the 114270 and the 214270 were the same, you're wrong.

I don't think that Rolex releases "compromised" models.

They release what they think will sell and if they are wrong they make corrections.

Sometimes I think they may just stir the pot so to speak.



This is closer to the truth, I do believe.

I tend to agree.

I also wonder if the maxi-case was a way to soften up the market with an over the top style and all along the intention was to scale it back to what we are seeing coming through now.
On balance it's not inconceivable that they deemed the popularity of the Submariner being robust enough and able to withstand a backlash to varying degrees.
It's certainly tested the waters(no pun intended).

It's sort of like the fashions one sees on the catwalk at the high end fashion shows.
Seeing as Rolex doesn't, and neither does the watch industry traditionally release concept models like car manufacturers do to excite and gauge public response.

[Maxy]

Originally Posted by Maxy

Most of them relate Rolex for being Perfect or near perfect watches and not compromising on anything. But eventually they end up compromising watches by design, by production, by release timings etc. Watch hands are one of the bigger items and Rolex tried to consolidate all the watch models to the same/similar watch hands to produce them together at once(even moving Exp2 to merc hands).


For example: During 214270's release everyone mentioned the usage of short hands on the Explorer. Why does Rolex do it?

As its known knowledge that Rolex produces everything in batches and not year round production. For example for next 6 months they manufacture watch hands for usage for next 3-5 years plan(as they seem it appropriate). So, when they are upgrading all the Subs, GMTs, Explorer 2 from the previous generation watches and they will have stock of watch hands left over from the previous manufacture set. Lets say they have stock of 100K of hour hands which they can't use it any of the new Submariner models. So even knowing that its little short on the dial on 214270, they will use it as to not to waste it such a big stock of hour hands.


Once that stock is over, they don't mind upgrading the hour hands as they did it in 2016.

Air-King 40mm: Same thing, they might have stock 3,6,9 non-lumed numerals of 214270 remaining which they again can't let it go waste. What do they do? They end up using it in the upcoming Air-King 40mm model even it messes up the design horribly and has no place for it on the dial. They still will use it till the stock is completed and once all the complaints are raised all over, they will make another Air-King model without that 3-6-9 and just replace them with 15,.30,..45 on the dial.



New 214270: Again, they consolidated both Air-King and new 214270 watch hands and it ended up looking beefier on the Explorer dial whereas the old Merc hour hand looked elegant. All it needed was little longer hour hand but Rolex compromised by trying to consolidate with the Air-King model.

Got to know more information which strengthens my point further. The reason Air-King is 40mm is that its using the same cases as Milguass which were of 40mm in size which was incidentally stopped production of the black model last year. Just use the same case and print a new dial and use hands from new 214270 and 369 from older 214270 and create rest of the indices and dial and we have a new model - AirKing 40mm.

[5253Reynolds]

Originally Posted by Maxy

Got to know more information which strengthens my point further. The reason Air-King is 40mm is that its using the same cases as Milguass which were of 40mm in size which was incidentally stopped production of the black model last year. Just use the same case and print a new dial and use hands from new 214270 and 369 from older 214270 and create rest of the indices and dial and we have a new model - AirKing 40mm.

Yes your logic is flawless and unwavering as are your facts. Let Rolex know they no longer produce a black dial Milguass.

[Maxy]

Originally Posted by 5253Reynolds

Yes your logic is flawless and unwavering as are your facts. Let Rolex know they no longer produce a black dial Milguass.

You don't agree to my original post.. just say that and move one, like others are doing. Everyone one of your replies are going down 1 notch and going further incorrect information.

Yes, Black dial has been discontinued - not the pic I posted but the below one. I wanted same angle pic to show the comparision so posted green crystal milguass.



Also, you can deny as you want.. the reviews are out there.. that AirKing is using same case as Milguass and Rolex didn't create a new case for the return of AirKing!

[Andybaird22]

Originally Posted by Maxy

You don't agree to my original post.. just say that and move one, like others are doing. Everyone one of your replies are going down 1 notch and going further incorrect information.



Yes, Black dial has been discontinued - not the pic I posted but the below one. I wanted same angle pic to show the comparision so posted green crystal milguass.







Also, you can deny as you want.. the reviews are out there.. that AirKing is using same case as Milguass and Rolex didn't create a new case for the return of AirKing!

Yes but they didn't just use the same case because they had some left over from over production! They would have used the same case as it makes no sense to have a different case for every model if they have a right fit.

It's a chicken and egg thing but seriously Rolex don't over produce anything and leave it lying around - it flies in the face of all modern/ lean/ JIT production methods.

It's the industry I work in

Think of Nike that make football strips they will have a template they use for different teams strips then customise it towards that team. They won't use a different length of sleeve of collar for each team but will use the template (ie case) then customise. It reduces complexity (less machine presses etc) but still produces a custom product

It means you can run lean but still achieve economies of scale with customer defined specification.

Over production and inventory are 2 of the sins of modern manufacturing!!





Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[5253Reynolds]

Originally Posted by Maxy

You don't agree to my original post.. just say that and move one, like others are doing. Everyone one of your replies are going down 1 notch and going further incorrect information.

Yes, Black dial has been discontinued - not the pic I posted but the below one. I wanted same angle pic to show the comparision so posted green crystal milguass.



Also, you can deny as you want.. the reviews are out there.. that AirKing is using same case as Milguass and Rolex didn't create a new case for the return of AirKing!

I deeply apologize for pointing out the lack of logic/facts in your original and subsequent posts. I will move on. In closing it is also rumored that Rolex uses the same cyclops, crystals, crowns, bracelets, etc... on multiple models. Presumably you believe this is a strategic move on Rolex's part to rid themselves of a backlogged parts inventory and you are free to do so. I am also free to tell you I think you're completely wrong.

[Prism]

Originally Posted by 5253Reynolds

I deeply apologize for pointing out the lack of logic/facts in your original and subsequent posts. I will move on. In closing it is also rumored that Rolex uses the same cyclops, crystals, crowns, bracelets, etc... on multiple models. Presumably you believe this is a strategic move on Rolex's part to rid themselves of a backlogged parts inventory and you are free to do so. I am also free to tell you I think you're completely wrong.

LOL, what about the 904L bracelets lying around? I bet they overproduced those too and now they are being recycled on the new models...

[carnut335]

Rolex hands are manufactured by Fiedler SA, not Rolex...

Originally Posted by Maxy

Most of them relate Rolex for being Perfect or near perfect watches and not compromising on anything. But eventually they end up compromising watches by design, by production, by release timings etc. Watch hands are one of the bigger items and Rolex tried to consolidate all the watch models to the same/similar watch hands to produce them together at once(even moving Exp2 to merc hands).


For example: During 214270's release everyone mentioned the usage of short hands on the Explorer. Why does Rolex do it?

As its known knowledge that Rolex produces everything in batches and not year round production. For example for next 6 months they manufacture watch hands for usage for next 3-5 years plan(as they seem it appropriate). So, when they are upgrading all the Subs, GMTs, Explorer 2 from the previous generation watches and they will have stock of watch hands left over from the previous manufacture set. Lets say they have stock of 100K of hour hands which they can't use it any of the new Submariner models. So even knowing that its little short on the dial on 214270, they will use it as to not to waste it such a big stock of hour hands.


Once that stock is over, they don't mind upgrading the hour hands as they did it in 2016.

Air-King 40mm: Same thing, they might have stock 3,6,9 non-lumed numerals of 214270 remaining which they again can't let it go waste. What do they do? They end up using it in the upcoming Air-King 40mm model even it messes up the design horribly and has no place for it on the dial. They still will use it till the stock is completed and once all the complaints are raised all over, they will make another Air-King model without that 3-6-9 and just replace them with 15,.30,..45 on the dial.



New 214270: Again, they consolidated both Air-King and new 214270 watch hands and it ended up looking beefier on the Explorer dial whereas the old Merc hour hand looked elegant. All it needed was little longer hour hand but Rolex compromised by trying to consolidate with the Air-King model.

[CDNWatchNut]

I have no idea if the OP's theory has truth or not to it, but the new Air king does seem like it has some kind of "parts bin special" aspect to it. It's not a very nice looking watch to my eye.

[gyro]

How long to plan from drawing to ready to sell watch ? 3 years maybe ?
If Rolex cant organize their inventory over 3 years they may have a problem ?

[davidflo]

Another reason the AK is using the same case as the Milgauss is that both have the same calibre 3131, I would like to know if the iron cage in the Milgauss only add hiegh on the back. My theory is not that they make a lot of pieces but it has to do more with re-tooling.

[skydriver]

Originally Posted by Maxy

Most of them relate Rolex for being Perfect or near perfect watches and not compromising on anything. But eventually they end up compromising watches by design, by production, by release timings etc. Watch hands are one of the bigger items and Rolex tried to consolidate all the watch models to the same/similar watch hands to produce them together at once(even moving Exp2 to merc hands).


For example: During 214270's release everyone mentioned the usage of short hands on the Explorer. Why does Rolex do it?

As its known knowledge that Rolex produces everything in batches and not year round production. For example for next 6 months they manufacture watch hands for usage for next 3-5 years plan(as they seem it appropriate). So, when they are upgrading all the Subs, GMTs, Explorer 2 from the previous generation watches and they will have stock of watch hands left over from the previous manufacture set. Lets say they have stock of 100K of hour hands which they can't use it any of the new Submariner models. So even knowing that its little short on the dial on 214270, they will use it as to not to waste it such a big stock of hour hands.


Once that stock is over, they don't mind upgrading the hour hands as they did it in 2016.

Air-King 40mm: Same thing, they might have stock 3,6,9 non-lumed numerals of 214270 remaining which they again can't let it go waste. What do they do? They end up using it in the upcoming Air-King 40mm model even it messes up the design horribly and has no place for it on the dial. They still will use it till the stock is completed and once all the complaints are raised all over, they will make another Air-King model without that 3-6-9 and just replace them with 15,.30,..45 on the dial.



New 214270: Again, they consolidated both Air-King and new 214270 watch hands and it ended up looking beefier on the Explorer dial whereas the old Merc hour hand looked elegant. All it needed was little longer hour hand but Rolex compromised by trying to consolidate with the Air-King model.

The Air-King and Explorer are beautiful watches except for the ugly as hell 3,6,and 9 numbers.

[deerhunter]

Originally Posted by skydriver

The Air-King and Explorer are beautiful watches except for the ugly as hell 3,6,and 9 numbers.

That is what makes that watch so iconic. I think you're in the minority in this regard.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[douglasf13]

I hate to ruffle some feathers, but I honestly think it's that the Rolex designers over the last decade haven't been all that great. Technical improvements aside, I can't think of a current Rolex model than I like more than it's predecessor from a dozen years ago, although we've seen some attempts to try and clean things up a bit lately, with the new Explorer, DayDate 40, DJ 41, etc.

Granted, I think the big problem is that so many Rolex models became iconic over the span of several decades while remaining relatively unchanged. Now we have Rolex trying to "update" things while changing up sizing and proportion, and it comes off as trying to "update" iconic designs like the Rayban Aviator, Levi 501, Eames Lounge Chair, etc. when no update is needed. Things just look off.

[AK797]

Originally Posted by douglasf13

I hate to ruffle some feathers, but I honestly think it's that the Rolex designers over the last decade haven't been all that great. Technical improvements aside, I can't think of a current Rolex model than I like more than it's predecessor from a dozen years ago, although we've seen some attempts to try and clean things up a bit lately, with the new Explorer, DayDate 40, DJ 41, etc.

Granted, I think the big problem is that so many Rolex models became iconic over the span of several decades while remaining relatively unchanged. Now we have Rolex trying to "update" things while changing up sizing and proportion, and it comes off as trying to "update" iconic designs like the Rayban Aviator, Levi 501, Eames Lounge Chair, etc. when no update is needed. Things just look off.

They might to you but not the majority who are happily buying and coveting Rolexes and keeping the brand at the top of the mid-luxury market.

[douglasf13]

Originally Posted by AK797

They might to you but not the majority who are happily buying and coveting Rolexes and keeping the brand at the top of the mid-luxury market.

Taylor Swift's music outsells most, but that doesn't mean it's good.

If the design of something like the DayDate II is so great, then why is there near-universal praise for the new DayDate 40's design? I mean, they had to redesign the thing only 7 years later, after the original DayDate remained relatively unchanged for decades. Now we're seeing it with the Explorer I, DJ 41 and ceramic Explorer. Enthusiasm is pretty split with the maxi-case Subs around here, but, should Rolex slim down the case in a future model, I'd bet we'll see near-universal praise for that, too. There a lot of Rolex fans who will buy no matter what they make.

Rolex from the last decade feels more like Omega, to me. More options, more change, etc. Incidentally, Omega has also been selling during that time frame.

[AK797]

Originally Posted by douglasf13

Taylor Swift's music outsells most, but that doesn't mean it's good.

If the design of something like the DayDate II is so great, then why is there near-universal praise for the new DayDate 40's design? I mean, they had to redesign the thing only 7 years later, after the original DayDate remained relatively unchanged for decades. Now we're seeing it with the Explorer I, DJ 41 and ceramic Explorer. Enthusiasm is pretty split with the maxi-case Subs around here, but, should Rolex slim down the case in a future model, I'd bet we'll see near-universal praise for that, too. There a lot of Rolex fans who will buy no matter what they make.

Rolex from the last decade feels more like Omega, to me. More options, more change, etc. Incidentally, Omega has also been selling during that time frame.

Taylor Swift's success is not a fluke, she is very talented and authentic in her field, and the same goes for Rolex. We are not being forced to buy their products, there are plenty of alternatives out there, and the vast majority of us are happy to do so because they make a great product and not merely because of the Rolex name as you cynically imply. Yes, a few tweaks have been made here and there but on the whole Rolex and most of us are happy with their product range and we don't need wholesale changes just to appease the few who are still living in the past.

[The Libertine]

Originally Posted by AK797

Taylor Swift's success is not a fluke, she is very talented and authentic in her field, and the same goes for Rolex. We are not being forced to buy their products, there are plenty of alternatives out there, and the vast majority of us are happy to do so because they make a great product and not merely because of the Rolex name as you cynically imply. Yes, a few tweaks have been made here and there but on the whole Rolex and most of us are happy with their product range and we don't need wholesale changes just to appease the few who are still living in the past.

[douglasf13]

Originally Posted by AK797

Taylor Swift's success is not a fluke, she is very talented and authentic in her field, and the same goes for Rolex. We are not being forced to buy their products, there are plenty of alternatives out there, and the vast majority of us are happy to do so because they make a great product and not merely because of the Rolex name as you cynically imply. Yes, a few tweaks have been made here and there but on the whole Rolex and most of us are happy with their product range and we don't need wholesale changes just to appease the few who are still living in the past.

Of course people buy Rolex watches because of the name. It's one of the most recognized luxury brand names in the world.

The Porsche 996, while still a good car, is widely derided as the least desirable 911 aesthetic design, and used prices reflect that. However, when the 996 was current, it outsold the outgoing 911 model by nearly 2.5x, and it was widely considered a success. Lots of people traded "up" to the 996 from their 993.

Now that Rolex has started fixing some of the strange proportions and other decisions from the past decade, I think we'll see a similar sentiment about something like the DayDate II later on down the line, and I'd bet the coup de grâce will be the eventual redesign of the Sub-C case. Thankfully, some of the more recent designs from Rolex, like the SD4K and DaytonaC, are a good sign. It seems they've gotten back on track since the new CEO came on board.

[johnnyjazz]

I don,t think Rolex are designing watches based around spare parts that need to be used.
The heavy font for the numerals mentioned has been incorporated into their dials for many years including being inlaid with diamonds and precious stones at said references on the watch face, I think it is a continuity design that they have been slowly incorporating as a modern day approach to brand recognition , same with the maxi hands, hour markers and cases, much like their logo, Cyclops, fluted bezel etc. You cannot rely on your tried and tested 50+ year old designs to profit your future developments, no matter how much we love them. With new designers come new ideas, some good, some not so.
With reference to the Air King theory, it would have been cheaper and made more money for Rolex to print all the dial and sell at the same price but I think they used the numerals for continuity. Just my 2 pence.

[Kevin of Larchmont]

And here we all are talking about it. Consistency across models and self-referencing is product DNA, nothing more. And being somewhat inexplicable has paid dividends for Rolex over decades. We study the minutiae of older models and revel in our knowledge of slight changes and criticize the minutiae and slight changes of newer models. Rolex keeps the market talking and speculating about their motives. Rolex wins.

[Otto]

Hmmm...The use of blackout numerals seemed to be a tool watch statement to me when I first tried an Explorer on in 2010 when the Rolex boutique in Tokyo first showed the Basel models.
Here's my photo from back then.
The hands seemed fine to me. The cool steel look of the numerals seemed to match the plain, overall design and the blackout/fade out seemed to be a "steel" statement even though the numerals were white gold. It just gave the watch a more overall steel look; at least to my eyes. The hand and numerals together gave the watch, in my mind, a retro look, which I loved. Fast forward over five years later and I bought the "old" model. Just a few months later, the new model was announced. I tried one on last month in Tokyo and liked it a lot, but the new look takes some getting used to, at least for me. I would really like to have both versions. For my weak eyes, the new version makes better sense, especially in sunlight, but for style, I think the "old" version looks better. I'll most likely get the new one and decide which one I want to keep. I just see these as different looks; not better or worse looks. As for Rolex using the spare parts bin to guide its design decisions, I'm sorry. I just can't agree with that proposition. I think they recycle parts, hold parts for replacement/repairs in the future, etc.