*****Do you think ROLEX QC's Gold pieces more routinely than SS ???

[STEELINOX]

I think so, howbout you?

[ecsub44]

I don't understand what you're asking...

[STEELINOX]

Originally Posted by ecsub44

I don't understand what you're asking...

Do you think ROLEX does more quality checks on all gold timepieces than the garden variety stainless steel models [in general]?

[tkerrmd]

Originally Posted by STEELINOX

I think so, howbout you?

gold is easier to scratch or damage but that said I would "hope" that they treat each and every Rolex the same regardless of metal or price

[handsfull]

I'm thinking yes, they do have higher standards for gold. I have yet to see a silly error (bezel marker off the 12 mark, smudge/fingerprint on crystal, etc) on an all gold model. I would think it makes a difference that there are fewer gold models produced versus stainless steel....thus easier to spend more time on them.

[Daniel Tan]

Sometimes is due to the demand of gold market is lesser than SS... So u r more easier to find out more ppl complain about the defact of SS....

[ecsub44]

From a process standpoint it probably makes sense to QC all watches identically. But who knows.

[kilyung]

Given how many Rolexes are produced, I just don't see a separate QC queue as reasonable.

[STEELINOX]

Originally Posted by Daniel Tan

Sometimes is due to the demand of gold market is lesser than SS... So u r more easier to find out more ppl complain about the defact of SS....

But that isn't the question, who said anything about "demand?"

[Dan2010]

I will go out on a limb and say yes, gold is QCed more than the others. It's not that big a deal to take a bigger sample of gold watches than a sample of SS watches to QC. I have worked in manufactucting and its just not that big a deal especially for a company like Rolex.

[STEELINOX]

Originally Posted by Dan2010

I will go out on a limb and say yes, gold is QCed more than the others. It's not that big a deal to take a bigger sample of gold watches than a sample of SS watches to QC. I have worked in manufactucting and its just not that big a deal especially for a company like Rolex.

I am wondering as to why ROLEX wuld sample the gold pieces more often than the stainless.

I realize its not a big deal to put them in that QC circuit but the reasoning as to why is what I am wondering about.

Is it because the gold pieces co$t more and customers are paying "jewelry values" more so than the ss pieces - which at $8 large - certainly constitutes a "jewelry valued" timepiece...

[JohnBoy]

I doubt if the watches are even assembled on the same line(s) in the factory. Aside from movements, I'd bet that the specific sorting, handling, polishing, and assembly procedures, and the related QC, at Rolex are based partly on the materials being employed in the manufacture, rather than just being a 'canned' plantwide program. Imagine a 'bucket' of near-finished clasp parts or bezels - perhaps OK for SS to be handled this way, probably but not so for the softer gold. The goal of QC (internal and ongoing for each individual process) is to do just whatever is necessary to produce an acceptable finished product in the end. Now, the final acceptance standards (which I think most members are thinking of in their answers) may be the exactly the same for both stainless and gold; that is, in terms of scratches, lint (oh, oh! may need some help here), COSC, alignment, pressure check, etc., etc. How to get there - thats QC in action on the line. As for QA - thats the overall management program to oversee/develop/modify processes/procedures and to sample - to ensure ongoing QC, by the line workers and inspectors, is actually working. Make sense?

[STEELINOX]

Originally Posted by JohnBoy

I doubt if the watches are even assembled on the same line(s) in the factory. Aside from movements, I'd bet that the specific sorting, handling, polishing, and assembly procedures, and the related QC, at Rolex are based partly on the materials being employed in the manufacture, rather than just being a 'canned' plantwide program. Imagine a 'bucket' of near-finished clasp parts or bezels - perhaps OK for SS to be handled this way, probably but not so for the softer gold. The goal of QC (internal and ongoing for each individual process) is to do just whatever is necessary to produce an acceptable finished product in the end. Now, the final acceptance standards (which I think most members are thinking of in their answers) may be the exactly the same for both stainless and gold; that is, in terms of scratches, lint (oh, oh! may need some help here), COSC, alignment, pressure check, etc., etc. How to get there - thats QC in action on the line. As for QA - thats the overall management program to oversee/develop/modify processes/procedures and to sample - to ensure ongoing QC, by the line workers and inspectors, is actually working. Make sense?

Sorta, but not really, I was asking in a generallity...

I shulda said something to the effect that these pieces were "finished" ready to go into market, or "final QC"...

This includes looking at the piece, its dial, the fn of the hands [complication] the finish and fit, cycling of the clasp, etc...

[bardm]

I thinks it's equal for both ss an gold. Rolex couldn't live with a lower quality on their ss watches. It would ruin their reputation.

[FeelingTheBlues]

Originally Posted by tkerrmd

gold is easier to scratch or damage but that said I would "hope" that they treat each and every Rolex the same regardless of metal or price

Originally Posted by kilyung

Given how many Rolexes are produced, I just don't see a separate QC queue as reasonable.

There you go!

[STEELINOX]

Originally Posted by bardm

I thinks it's equal for both ss an gold. Rolex couldn't live with a lower quality on their ss watches. It would ruin their reputation.

But given that ROLEX produces far more ss than Au, whats the impression there; do they final QC every ss and every Au piece??

[The Archer]

I think they are about equal, but I do believe since Rolex produces less gold models than SS, that there is much less of a probability of a flaw on say, a TT or full gold piece. My two cents.. Just due to the rules of production and such. 450,000 SS pieces have more of a chance of failing QC than 250,000 TT pieces, for example.

Hope this makes sense.

[Psmith]

I've wondered whether 'high end' models e.g. D-D get more careful treatment than, say, a Sub or DJ

I would like to think not, but I suspect this may actually be the case

Then again, perhaps we hear of more factory flaws with the bigger sellers simply because there are more of them out there...

[dddrees]

Sure, I think it's possible. A manufacturer can easily chose to QC different percentages of various products they make. Since it cost more for all gold it wouldn't surprise me.

[Chipmunk]

I'd like to think that it's about the same.

[z32turbo]

I agree. I think that chances are the good get a higher level of inspection.

[JohnBoy]

Originally Posted by STEELINOX

But given that ROLEX produces far more ss than Au, whats the impression there; do they final QC every ss and every Au piece??

I'm sure that a most of the Rolex parts are made by exotic numeric-controlled machines, and that some inspections and subassembly buildups may even be performed by robots. But I believe that there is also a lot of individual hand assembly work also goes into the manufacture of these babies. In modern operations, line workers (perhaps all are watchmakers at Rolex?) are empowered to do QC on their own work and to reject anything that looks suspicious. The gold is no doubt 'touchier' that the SS, so perhaps it gets a lot more informal checking, perhaps more' hold points for formal QC, etc. while in in the production line. It would depend on the processes.

To the above specific question, I'd only have to guess - yes. These watches are each selling for so much money, customer dissatisfaction can result in a lot of time spent fiddling around, handling, shipping, etc., and most high-end buyers of Rolex tend to be very particular to start with (look at us) - so I'll bet that each watch gets a pretty good inspection before leaving the plant(s). Perhaps this is done just after each one has been individually pressure tested, or something like that. The cost of that final check (even a good five minutes of a pro with a loupe) would be absolute peanuts when compared to the cost of the watch, and more importantly, to the cost of the 'fix' after its been shipped out. Again, just an educated guess, based on other manufacturing work, as I know absolutely nothing specific about Rolex operations.

[MortgageGuy]

Without a doubt, the gold pieces that I own and have owned are meticulous and perfect... Never have I seen any issues on a solid 18k model I know this will make me sound crazy but I swear the watch even winds better

[dddrees]

Originally Posted by JohnBoy

I'm sure that a most of the Rolex parts are made by exotic numeric-controlled machines, and that some inspections and subassembly buildups may even be performed by robots. But I believe that there is also a lot of individual hand assembly work also goes into the manufacture of these babies. In modern operations, line workers (perhaps all are watchmakers at Rolex?) are empowered to do QC on their own work and to reject anything that looks suspicious. The gold is no doubt 'touchier' that the SS, so perhaps it gets a lot more informal checking, perhaps more' hold points for formal QC, etc. while in in the production line. It would depend on the processes.

To the above specific question, I'd only have to guess - yes. These watches are each selling for so much money, customer dissatisfaction can result in a lot of time spent fiddling around, handling, shipping, etc., and most high-end buyers of Rolex tend to be very particular to start with (look at us) - so I'll bet that each watch gets a pretty good inspection before leaving the plant(s). Perhaps this is done just after each one has been individually pressure tested, or something like that. The cost of that final check (even a good five minutes of a pro with a loupe) would be absolute peanuts when compared to the cost of the watch, and more importantly, to the cost of the 'fix' after its been shipped out. Again, just an educated guess, based on other manufacturing work, as I know absolutely nothing specific about Rolex operations.

No question quality is stressed at each and every stage. However mistakes occur in any production process. This is why typically most manufacturers will select a percentage of their product and conduct a Quality Assurance or Quality Check. Most manufacturers cannot afford to QA or QC every single item they produce especially when they produce things in such a large quantity as Rolex does. If there is a to high of a failure rate within that sample is bad then they may even take further corrective actions. Such as sampling or rejecting even more watches or an entire batch.