ROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEX
21 November 2010, 01:59 PM | #91 |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Southwest
Watch: R O L E X
Posts: 1,188
|
I've thought the same thing. I do like the new ceramic bezels a lot. In fact, I'd say I'm pleased with most of the improvements Rolex has been turning out lately. I think Rolex is making a strong attempt to keep there watches relevent (e.g. new technologies, improved bracelet and clasp, anti-refective coating on the cyclops, super-case, etc). HOWEVER, and IMHO, there will always be a special place in my heart for the Rolex of previous generations.
|
22 November 2010, 10:09 AM | #92 |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: 88 keys
Posts: 2,241
|
So is this alleged fragile ceramic Rolex bezel a myth?
|
22 November 2010, 10:13 AM | #93 |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Jun 2010
Real Name: Ashley
Location: Brisbane
Watch: Rolex Sub 1680 '79
Posts: 2,301
|
How many pictures of cracked bezels have been posted since the GMT-C came out in total?
I'm sure there are some around, but I've seen only 1.
__________________
-- Omega Seamaster Grand-Lux Stepped Pie-Pan 14K Gold OJ2627 '53 --
-- Omega Cal 320 Chronograph 18K Gold OT2872 '58 -- -- Omega Cal 321 Speedmaster Pro 145.012 '67 -- -- Rolex Submariner 1680 "Ghost" '79 -- -- Rolex SS Daytona 116520 '04 -- |
22 November 2010, 10:15 AM | #94 |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: 88 keys
Posts: 2,241
|
I've seen one or two after deep searches. I'm just trying to evaluate if I should just flip my Sub-C out of concern for those recessed numbers making it fragile? Will we see Sub-C specimens 40 years from now with their original ceramic bezels? Or will they all be shattered and scratched?
|
22 November 2010, 10:32 AM | #95 | |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Jun 2010
Real Name: Ashley
Location: Brisbane
Watch: Rolex Sub 1680 '79
Posts: 2,301
|
Quote:
__________________
-- Omega Seamaster Grand-Lux Stepped Pie-Pan 14K Gold OJ2627 '53 --
-- Omega Cal 320 Chronograph 18K Gold OT2872 '58 -- -- Omega Cal 321 Speedmaster Pro 145.012 '67 -- -- Rolex Submariner 1680 "Ghost" '79 -- -- Rolex SS Daytona 116520 '04 -- |
|
22 November 2010, 10:45 AM | #96 | |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: 88 keys
Posts: 2,241
|
Quote:
I do wonder how the ceramic bezel inserts will age. I live in a 60 year old house and have found a couple of samples of the original ceramic tiles out in the yard where workers were doing their thing back in the day. I wonder if the ceramic Rolex bezels will hold up so well? |
|
22 November 2010, 10:48 AM | #97 |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Jun 2010
Real Name: Ashley
Location: Brisbane
Watch: Rolex Sub 1680 '79
Posts: 2,301
|
I sort of wondered what would happen if you sanded back the surface of a ceramic bezel, whether it'd be black underneath, or whether the original colour of the ceramic material would show through.
__________________
-- Omega Seamaster Grand-Lux Stepped Pie-Pan 14K Gold OJ2627 '53 --
-- Omega Cal 320 Chronograph 18K Gold OT2872 '58 -- -- Omega Cal 321 Speedmaster Pro 145.012 '67 -- -- Rolex Submariner 1680 "Ghost" '79 -- -- Rolex SS Daytona 116520 '04 -- |
22 November 2010, 11:17 AM | #98 |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: The Sea
Posts: 1,894
|
|
22 November 2010, 12:14 PM | #99 | |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Aug 2010
Real Name: Jonathan
Location: Ottawa
Watch: 116610LN
Posts: 1,246
|
Quote:
Ceramics are extremely strong as long as they are well supported. I haven't seen a bezel without the insert but it would be very surprising if it was anything but flat bottomed so as to give 100% support to the insert. I think the only part that is vulnerable to chipping is the inner edge, adjacent to the crystal. So I think it would be very unlikely to have a blow to the insert at just the right spot in order to cause damage without also damaging the crystal. I think there is a lot of paranoia about these inserts being fragile. Nothing is unbreakable but I suspect most of these watches will be fine many years down the road. I've put my hard earned money on the line in is belief! |
|
22 November 2010, 12:40 PM | #100 |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Jul 2008
Real Name: Chris
Location: usa
Watch: Rolex
Posts: 6,962
|
With the amount of people complaining that they bang their dssds on anything and everything, I'd venture to say that the ceramic is plenty tough.
|
22 November 2010, 01:46 PM | #101 |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Jun 2010
Real Name: Ashley
Location: Brisbane
Watch: Rolex Sub 1680 '79
Posts: 2,301
|
That's a pretty valid point, the DSSDs wears with its buttocks hanging out and the owners don't tend to baby them.
In terms of high cost consumable parts, the aluminium bezel inserts may be cheap to replace on the older subs, but the bracelets are certainly not. On the whole I really think this is going to be a more robust and durable piece as a package, even if individual part costs have gone up.
__________________
-- Omega Seamaster Grand-Lux Stepped Pie-Pan 14K Gold OJ2627 '53 --
-- Omega Cal 320 Chronograph 18K Gold OT2872 '58 -- -- Omega Cal 321 Speedmaster Pro 145.012 '67 -- -- Rolex Submariner 1680 "Ghost" '79 -- -- Rolex SS Daytona 116520 '04 -- |
22 November 2010, 05:18 PM | #102 |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: singapore
Posts: 6,424
|
|
24 November 2010, 09:40 AM | #103 |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Australia
Posts: 78
|
|
24 November 2010, 09:50 AM | #104 |
Banned
Join Date: Sep 2010
Real Name: Jinder
Location: Ontario
Watch: 116713
Posts: 601
|
Personally, I love them. Feels smooth and looks so damn clean!
|
Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests) | |
|
|
*Banners
Of The Month*
This space is provided to horological resources.