And there was nothing in the manual about this......

[DiamondJack]

So it turns out marble floors and Rolex watches are not a good combination.....

Incredibly, having had a serious "butter fingers" moment and another of extreme fear......there is absolutely no damage other than the ceramic bezel.....

Clearly not ideal but could have been a lot worse.....

[00Seven]

Ouch! Sorry to see that. I'd have it checked out by your watchmaker, or likely Rolex since it'll need a new bezel, to make sure the movement wasn't' damaged as well.

[DiamondJack]

So looks like it's going to have to be this one for tonight......

[SC11]

Ouch I feel for you fella, but like you said it could of been a lot worse!

[phatotto]

Deff could of turned out worse!!

[SeaDweller50]

The only time I take my watch off standing up is if there's a carpet underneath. Sorry about that.

[Tseg]

Taking it off in the bathroom so it doesn't get wet? Sorry for your loss.

[mjclark32]

Whoa, not good. Hope it gets quickly and cost effectively!

[rootbeer7]

ooh, I feel your pain.

[ernie2]

Now I worry about my ceramic bezel

[Chris B]

Wasn't expecting to see that!!!
As you say Steve it good have been worse, onwards & upwards pal

[Cru Jones]

here's hoping that it's just an issue with the insert.

[AK797]

Let us know the cost of a new bezel insert. The SS is around $375.

[Danny83]

Wow second one ive seen this week like that

[wantonebad]

Originally Posted by Cru Jones

here's hoping that it's just an issue with the insert.

I know what you mean Cru but as we all know a movement servicing would be cheaper than a new insert.

Just spit-balling but if this was a 16713 instead of a 116713 would the OP even feel the need to send it in for service?

[Thegr8one]

I'm probably in the minority here but I think it looks pretty good without the insert. It has an industrial look going for it. And yes, I understand no insert removes the GMT functionality.

[Naz737]

Noooo! Sorry dood! Hope the movement is ok!

[Cru Jones]

Originally Posted by wantonebad

I know what you mean Cru but as we all know a movement servicing would be cheaper than a new insert.

not sure, but, i would have thought a movement service and/or replacing the bezel would be much more expensive. i would be suprised if the insert itself is dramatically more than the 350 for the LN ceramic insert, no?

[jhe888]

Youch.

Query: Is the ceramic insert an improvement?

Ceramic is very resistant to scratching, perhaps making it better for lighter use, but a metal insert will not break, even if it scratches a bit.

[ArcticMoose]

That sucks!

[Director EDTF]

Ouch! Good thing you have a spare!

[SWISSAHOLICS]

Oh no, this is the second one this week.

[Jason71]

So sorry.......Please post pics when you make it whole again.

[wantonebad]

Sorry, Cru, I don't think I was very clear, all I was trying to say was probably nothing wrong with the movement and if it wasn't ceramic there would be no harm no foul.

[padi56]

Originally Posted by jhe888

Youch.

Query: Is the ceramic insert an improvement?

Ceramic is very resistant to scratching, perhaps making it better for lighter use, but a metal insert will not break, even if it scratches a bit.

Well IMHO if you want a bling factor then perhaps ceramic is a yes,but IMHO I cannot see any real advantage in ceramic for today's mainly pampered Rolex watches.Many say the aluminium ones used to scratch and fade,yet I can only speak for the black inserts on my watches well over 20 years old, and compared to today's Rolex wearers had a extremely hard life. Working as real tool watches for many years,yes replaced one insert in all that time cost just then £27 and a DIY fit and my watches still look good today just with normal service.

[lmcgbaj]

Oh man. Sorry to see that but I am sure it will come back like new from RSC. I would do a full service while you are at it and get back a new watch. Kills two birds and you get something to look forward to,.

[breitlings]

Originally Posted by wantonebad

Sorry, Cru, I don't think I was very clear, all I was trying to say was probably nothing wrong with the movement and if it wasn't ceramic there would be no harm no foul.

I was wondering that, did the ceramic breaking provide an outlet for energy to dissipate protecting the rest of the watch or would an aluminum insert have had less damage overall?

I never want to find out.

[Cru Jones]

Originally Posted by wantonebad

Sorry, Cru, I don't think I was very clear, all I was trying to say was probably nothing wrong with the movement and if it wasn't ceramic there would be no harm no foul.

aaah, ok,

personally, i tend to think that any force strong enough to crack the ceramic would dent/damage aluminum, too.

but, then, i am in the "ceramic is better" camp.

[bdex75]

Originally Posted by padi56

Well IMHO if you want a bling factor then perhaps ceramic is a yes,but IMHO I cannot see any real advantage in ceramic for today's mainly pampered Rolex watches.Many say the aluminium ones used to scratch and fade,yet I can only speak for the black inserts on my watches well over 20 years old, and compared to today's Rolex wearers had a extremely hard life. Working as real tool watches for many years,yes replaced one insert in all that time cost just then £27 and a DIY fit and my watches still look good today just with normal service.

I think the scratches, dings and fade give them that vintage character at some point. Not. White fan of ceramic inserts but still have one.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[watchwatcher]

Oh man, Steve...sorry that this happened.

Hoping all is resolved soon to your satisfaction.