Interesting Rolex article on the cerachrom ceramic bezels

[037]

Originally Posted by adg31

Thanks for sharing the link. I find it interesting that they use an image for PR where the engraved Crown at 1200 on the rehaut appears so poorly aligned with the markers on the dial - from reading some of the other forums I understood this was the preserve of Seiko

As I mentioned in the other thread where this image was brought up, that's not a photo. It's a composite image made in Photoshop using clip art of various dials, hands, cases and bracelets. The original clips come from 3D renderings. They're misaligned only because whomever is in the Rolex graphics department isn't OCD enough to align the various parts before publishing online.

Not all press images on their site are misaligned, either. They seem to be paying more attention now that people are scrutinizing every detail online.

[kauffee]

Originally Posted by 037

As I mentioned in the other thread where this image was brought up, that's not a photo. It's a composite image made in Photoshop using clip art of various dials, hands, cases and bracelets. The original clips come from 3D renderings. They're misaligned only because whomever is in the Rolex graphics department isn't OCD enough to align the various parts before publishing online.

Not all press images on their site are misaligned, either. They seem to be paying more attention now that people are scrutinizing every detail online.

I disagree. It’s heavily photoshopped of course, but I think that’s a real photo. In fact, I’d say the rehaut misalignment supports that it’s a real photo since we see so many aligned just like that.

[77T]

Several of the images (I’ll stop short of saying photo) are cobbled together with powerful graphics manipulated to produce what Rolex wants to display.

One, for example has impossible sidelighting from 4 different directions based on the reflections in the images



However, the true story is not the imagery - it’s how they manipulated the materials to produce some novel color combos.

I also noted that they now have 2 browns: the original chestnut for the Platona and now the different brown for the new GMT. I wonder how many blues exist now? Like the Subs vs. the YMII vs Pepsi.

What that tells us is the single colored ceramics derived by the material in the mix yields one hue while the two tone colors created by altering a single color with an aqueous solution containing different metal salts. This seems to produce different hues of the same named color than the single colored ceramics.

Also this solution is applied by hand so you do still run the chance that there could be accidental QC issues down the road. For example, a service insert made in 2050 for a Ceramic Pepsi originally produced in 2018 may look different. Improved fabrication techniques for the materials might yield some interesting bezel discussions by our grandchildren.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

[jstan9]

Originally Posted by GMT Aviator

Interesting presentation and a few points I’ve noted...

I thought the original ceramic bezel process they advertised had the numerals being engraved into the ceramic bezel with a diamond tip router? In this presentation they are shown as being moulded into the ceramic when it is first formed.

Also, the red colour blanks shown in one picture suggest they have deeper reds and almost burgundy colours to chose from? If so, why not use them?

From what I’ve read, the challenge *is* the bi-color process. Getting a single color is straightforward; but the bi-colored bezels must start as one color and half of it is ‘over written’ by the second color in an extremely complex and expensive process.

[G'ed]

Can someone shed more light on the “myth” that Hublot actually manufacturing all the ceramic bezel for Rolex?

[gttime]

Thanks for posting. I use Flipboard so was able to follow Rolex. Good article on the new DSSD.

[gttime]

Originally Posted by kauffee

I disagree. It’s heavily photoshopped of course, but I think that’s a real photo. In fact, I’d say the rehaut misalignment supports that it’s a real photo since we see so many aligned just like that.

My SD43 and ‘18 DSSD look just like that. I think the DSSD much be a bit better but both off to the right like that.

[jstan9]

Originally Posted by gttime

Thanks for posting. I use Flipboard so was able to follow Rolex. Good article on the new DSSD.

Good point. For any Flipboard users (its an article aggregator that puts articles together into virtual magazines on your iPad or iPhone), the Rolex magazine seems to have gotten a lot more robust. It’s worth subscribing to (and it’s free, as is the flipboard app).


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[037]

Originally Posted by kauffee

I disagree. It’s heavily photoshopped of course, but I think that’s a real photo. In fact, I’d say the rehaut misalignment supports that it’s a real photo since we see so many aligned just like that.

I have 14,124 high-res web product images from rolex.com and it's clearly apparent when flipping through them that they're made from composites, not photos. A misalignment in a web image only supports poor graphics. I don't doubt there are issues but I wouldn't use composite web images as forensics.

Parallax error explains the appearance of misaligned dial/rehaut in web photos, although it's certainly possible that some dials have been misprinted and therefore don't align perfectly with the engraving.

The more common issue seems to be ceramic insert alignment with the bezel. While I've never personally owned one that was misaligned, I've certainly seen a fair number in owners' photos.

[jay_kay]

Thanks for sharing

[donq]

Originally Posted by 037

I have 14,124 high-res web product images from rolex.com and it's clearly apparent when flipping through them that they're made from composites, not photos. A misalignment in a web image only supports poor graphics. I don't doubt there are issues but I wouldn't use composite web images as forensics.

Parallax error explains the appearance of misaligned dial/rehaut in web photos, although it's certainly possible that some dials have been misprinted and therefore don't align perfectly with the engraving.

The more common issue seems to be ceramic insert alignment with the bezel. While I've never personally owned one that was misaligned, I've certainly seen a fair number in owners' photos.

The misalignment has nothing to do with the printing of the dial.
The dial is attached to the movement, which is installed inside the case. The engraved rehaut is simply the inside lip of the case.

If the movement is installed and clamped down ever so slightly to one side or the other, the marks misalign.

Should be a simple fix for a watchmaker.

One of the reasons I like the vintage models with no markings!

[bradyb]

So cool! Thanks for sharing. Seen info on this before but nothing with this amount of detail.

[adg31]

Originally Posted by 037

They're misaligned only because whomever is in the Rolex graphics department isn't OCD enough to align the various parts before publishing online.

'There is only a way' - although in this case you appear to suggest that it's possibly the wrong way :)


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[dhknola]

That misaligned crown in the rehaut would drive me insane.

[77T]

Originally Posted by jstan9

From what I’ve read, the challenge *is* the bi-color process. Getting a single color is straightforward; but the bi-colored bezels must start as one color and half of it is ‘over written’ by the second color in an extremely complex and expensive process.

The process is well documented in the file the OP posted.

“The two-colour Cerachrom insert in blue and black ceramic is a blend of zirconia and a blue pigment. Before sintering, a solution containing different metal salts is applied by hand to the upper half of the insert (running from 18:00 to 06:00 on the 24-hour graduation). When heated, the salts react with the blue pigment to create a new black colour.”


“The Cerachrom insert in red and blue ceramic required a different approach, and new techniques were developed. In order to change the ceramic from red to blue, an aqueous solution containing cobalt must be used. This reacts with the alumina and chrome present in the ceramic, turning it blue during sintering. The pigment impregnation process calls for great delicacy and precision. A method was therefore specially developed to control the amount of solution delivered – which determines the opacity of the colour – and to provide a consistent, uniform result.”


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

[3581512]

Originally Posted by G'ed

Can someone shed more light on the “myth” that Hublot actually manufacturing all the ceramic bezel for Rolex?

I've never heard of that myth and based on what I've read it's not true

A few years ago Rolex invited a few journalists a rare look inside of the facilities.

From what I gathered reading those in depth articles is that Rolex is completely mad about producing everything they can in house, they go so far as to have their own gold foundry and melt and mold all of the gold in-house

Hodinkee did a great write up about their visit, and mentioned

"One thing it does not make, however, are the hands – which come from a supplier called Fiedler SA – and crystals."

Here's a link to the Hodinkee article, a great read

https://www.hodinkee.com/articles/inside-rolex

[Dirt]

Originally Posted by jstan9

From what I’ve read, that is exactly the challenge. The bi-color process. Getting a single color is straightforward; but the bi-colored bezels must start as one color and half of it is ‘over written’ by the second color in an extremely complex and expensive process.

It it's all easier said than done.

Someone on the forum has posted a few pics of their broken Pepsi ceramic bezel insert.
It literally came out in 3 separate pieces and interestingly it clearly showed a sheer line fracture through the insert in plan.
There was a partial delamination at one of the breaks from the red ceramic and blue ceramic. It clearly showed the layers of different colours.
Rather like a delamination of plywood veneers.

I believe it was the first indication that any one had seen as to how they actually got the bi-colour effect.
It was an eye opener as the uninitiated would just naturally assume the bi-colour was formed by a simple butt joint right at the change of colour.
It was very interesting, and gave an insight into just how complex the process actually is

[Dirt]

Originally Posted by 77T

The process is well documented in the file the OP posted.

“The two-colour Cerachrom insert in blue and black ceramic is a blend of zirconia and a blue pigment. Before sintering, a solution containing different metal salts is applied by hand to the upper half of the insert (running from 18:00 to 06:00 on the 24-hour graduation). When heated, the salts react with the blue pigment to create a new black colour.”


“The Cerachrom insert in red and blue ceramic required a different approach, and new techniques were developed. In order to change the ceramic from red to blue, an aqueous solution containing cobalt must be used. This reacts with the alumina and chrome present in the ceramic, turning it blue during sintering. The pigment impregnation process calls for great delicacy and precision. A method was therefore specially developed to control the amount of solution delivered – which determines the opacity of the colour – and to provide a consistent, uniform result.”


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

So it's not all done by robots then?

[77T]

I’m sure those who perform this excruciatingly precise detailed work feel like robots at times.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro