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.

[ec51]

Originally Posted by Bangel

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

What is this observation based on?

Cracked Ceramic

Scratched Ceramic

[Jake B]

Originally Posted by ec51

What is this observation based on?

Cracked Ceramic

Scratched Ceramic

Um, yeah...those are two very detailed and informative, and persuasive accounts.

[Daytona-Dan]

Originally Posted by Jake B

Um, yeah...those are two very detailed and informative, and persuasive accounts.

I fully agree Jake, possibly the worst examples to have used. One would have been solved if the guy had followed the old "safest place for your watch is on your wrist" rule and the other was self inflicted, it's like saying you washed your car with a rock and now it has scratches...

[Bangel]

Originally Posted by ec51

What is this observation based on?

Cracked Ceramic

Scratched Ceramic

I know that on my own sub c the ceramic insert remains in pristine condition despite all the considerable bumps and knocks from daily wear that has left the rest of the watch case and bracelet covered in scratches and nicks.

I also know that on my previous non ceramic watches, similar usage has led to the bezel showing a multitude of scratches.

Of course ceramic inserts are not totally impervious to scratches, but I do believe they are much less likely to be scratched than their aluminium counterparts.

With regard to shattering, ceramic inserts can certainly do this. I think though, that you would have to be quite unlucky for this to happen and that it would take an impact occurring with both considerable force and at the right (or wrong!) angle. I note that in the link "Cracked Ceramic" that while the watch was stated to have been dropped from waist height, there was no mention as to the type of surface it landed on. I suspect such an impact would also cause some damage to an aluminium bezel insert. To rectify such damage is significantly more expensive for the watch with the ceramic bezel.

So which is more fragile? I still don't think the call is straightforward.

Both kinds will sustain some sort of damage if subjected to enough trauma. The ceramic will not show scratches as easily, which for me is more relevant for day to day wear. In the event of the unlucky whammy, both types of inserts can require replacing (though the aluminium may deform but not shatter), in which case the ceramic is going to cost a lot more.

[ec51]

Originally Posted by Bangel

I know that on my own sub c the ceramic insert remains in pristine condition despite all the considerable bumps and knocks from daily wear that has left the rest of the watch case and bracelet covered in scratches and nicks.

I also know that on my previous non ceramic watches, similar usage has led to the bezel showing a multitude of scratches.

Of course ceramic inserts are not totally impervious to scratches, but I do believe they are much less likely to be scratched than their aluminium counterparts.

With regard to shattering, ceramic inserts can certainly do this. I think though, that you would have to be quite unlucky for this to happen and that it would take an impact occurring with both considerable force and at the right (or wrong!) angle. I note that in the link "Cracked Ceramic" that while the watch was stated to have been dropped from waist height, there was no mention as to the type of surface it landed on. I suspect such an impact would also cause some damage to an aluminium bezel insert. To rectify such damage is significantly more expensive for the watch with the ceramic bezel.

So which is more fragile? I still don't think the call is straightforward.

Both kinds will sustain some sort of damage if subjected to enough trauma. The ceramic will not show scratches as easily, which for me is more relevant for day to day wear. In the event of the unlucky whammy, both types of inserts can require replacing (though the aluminium may deform but not shatter), in which case the ceramic is going to cost a lot more.

This is a fair observation.

[ChuckFinlay]

Originally Posted by ec51

What is this observation based on?

Cracked Ceramic

I don't believe this poster. I needed a replacement ceramic insert on my LV and was quoted £500 by RSC, so $750, that was a couple of months ago. I don't believe he was quoted $1500 4 years ago.

[Eric5964]

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

EricE

[Billywiz]

Originally Posted by 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)

[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

[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...

[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.

[Rolexitis]

Originally Posted by 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.

This is good to know. I've gotten into the habit of putting my arm in front of me at waist or chest level walking thru doorways. I may look goofy but gotta protect my baby!

[Armyguy03]

Originally Posted by Rolexitis

This is good to know. I've gotten into the habit of putting my arm in front of me at waist or chest level walking thru doorways. I may look goofy but gotta protect my baby!

I do that too

[A.Sharp]

Originally Posted by 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.

Yeah I heard the bezels are strong as nails. OP, instead of fading denting and bending they can crack. They are more expensive to replace because they are way more high tech.

Think it's silly to say its poor quality

[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

[ec51]

Originally Posted by 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.

What is wrong with the "quality" of the older style bracelets...?

[cop414]

Originally Posted by ec51

What is wrong with the "quality" of the older style bracelets...?

Agree, the older style bracelets and clasps have been proven over and over for decades. No welds to break, light and comfortable. Nothing wrong or of poor "quality" at all. Heavier, thicker and more expensive doesn't always mean better.

[JasoninDenver]

My ceramic bezel has held up much better after two years of hard use than my old aluminum insert. No scratches, dents, dings or cracks.

I do not baby my watches at all and can tell you that an aluminum insert after two years of my typical use is looking pretty ragged.

I personally would much rather risk a higher replacement cost for the small possibility I would need it on the ceramic bezel versus the certain need to replace the aluminum insert.

As far as complaints about the new bracelet or clasps, those early issues have been addressed and I am not aware that there have been many (any??) recent complaints.

[Billywiz]

Originally Posted by cop414

Agree, the older style bracelets and clasps have been proven over and over for decades. No welds to break, light and comfortable. Nothing wrong or of poor "quality" at all. Heavier, thicker and more expensive doesn't always mean better.

Dead right!

[GlideLockHeadLock]

Originally Posted by ec51

What is wrong with the "quality" of the older style bracelets...?

They have hollow links which over time stretch and the older clasp is not bad but could of been alot better given the price.

Rolex nailed it with the new Glidelock and Solid links. Looks much better and the bracelet isnt going to stretch much, if at all. And to be able to adjust the size without any tools is great for the summer.

[ec51]

Originally Posted by GlideLockHeadLock

They have hollow links which over time stretch and the older clasp is not bad but could of been alot better given the price.

Rolex nailed it with the new Glidelock and Solid links. Looks much better and the bracelet isnt going to stretch much, if at all. And to be able to adjust the size without any tools is great for the summer.

Oh it's the hollow links that cause bracelet stretch....?! Riight.

Lol