Ceramics making ROLEX a fragile watch?

[Lexxxus]

The black I like, the blue and green on the Sub look waxy / plasticky. Like crayon not a fan of the "colors". I think the blue on the old Sub and the green insert in metal match the corresponding faces much better.

Expected more from them and thought we'd see an entirely new material like when they introduced rolesium.

W

[jasonwest]

I read on here a new ceramic bezel was $ 2100
that is insane

[T. Ferguson]

Originally Posted by jasonwest

I read on here a new ceramic bezel was $ 2100
that is insane

Well the inserts alone aren't and I don't think an entire bezel is that much unless it's in gold.

[Jason71]

Originally Posted by jasonwest

I read on here a new ceramic bezel was $ 2100
that is insane

It is more along the lines of $800-$1,000

[TimeOnMyHands]

I have not been on the forum for a while and I was surprised to see this thread which I started - was still chugging along.

Evidently many members agree that the change to a ceramic bezel was more of a fashion statement and while making the watch possibly look more expensive (translated: Rolex can now charge more for..) it does not make the current tool watch model line more durable (or instill the thought or confidence of being more robust).

Thanks for all of the feedback and good luck and many years of trouble free service to those who own a ceramic equipped tool model Rolex.....well is the Daytona considered a tool watch?

I would also like to point out that the Skydweller has no ceramic on it - and that is the current flagship.....hmmm...

[stainlesssteve]

I have worn my GMTIIC almost every day since buying it on the first day my AD received one. Trying to remember, I think it was August 2007. So basically 6 years of every single day wear. It's been golfing, racing, skiing, diving, shooting, swimming. I've hit it, dropped it, banged it. I may be lucky, but I've never been concerned aout the bezel and it still looks brand new. Seems solid to me.

[T. Ferguson]

Originally Posted by TimeOnMyHands

I have not been on the forum for a while and I was surprised to see this thread which I started - was still chugging along.

Evidently many members agree that the change to a ceramic bezel was more of a fashion statement and while making the watch possibly look more expensive (translated: Rolex can now charge more for..) it does not make the current tool watch model line more durable (or instill the thought or confidence of being more robust).

Thanks for all of the feedback and good luck and many years of trouble free service to those who own a ceramic equipped tool model Rolex.....well is the Daytona considered a tool watch?

I would also like to point out that the Skydweller has no ceramic on it - and that is the current flagship.....hmmm...

I don't quite agree with your conclusions. The ceramic bezel is more resistant to scratching and fading than the aluminum version so in some ways it is more durable, or at least will look nicer longer. I also don't think it had much to do with Rolex being able to charge more. My take is it was the other way around - the watch became too expensive first, they went to ceramic partly because they felt it was a higher quality material and better reflects a watch at this price point.

As far as the Sky Dweller, I'm not sure what you're getting at since it doesn't have an aluminum bezel either. The DD also doesn't have a ceramic bezel. Are you saying gold is more scratch resistant than ceramic? And talk about expensive to replace...

IMHO, the ceramic bezel didn't kill the Sub or GMT as a tool watch. That idea died years before ceramics when it became priced out of the market for people looking for a purposed tool. Well, at least in the case of the Sub. The GMT functions as good as ever as the tool it was designed to be - a white collar tool for pilots, businessmen, and world travelers - PCLs, ceramic bezel, and all. And the ceramic bezel looks more the part of $9K watch.

But I do respect your differing opinion.

[TimeOnMyHands]

Originally Posted by T. Ferguson

As far as the Sky Dweller, I'm not sure what you're getting at since it doesn't have an aluminum bezel either. The DD also doesn't have a ceramic bezel. Are you saying gold is more scratch resistant than ceramic? And talk about expensive to replace..

I was just thinking that if Rolex was (is..) going ceramic across their tool watches (now incl. the Daytona), and I feel that the Skydweller model leans more towards a Daytona/GMTII/YMII type watch with additional useful features - and is less of a dress watch such as a Day/Date - that they would have found a way to incorporate ceramic into the Skydweller as well..that is all I was pondering.

[ec51]

Originally Posted by mr.president1

My DSSD Ceramic bezel shattered about a year ago... So yeah for a tool watch, it is making Rolex fragile... Haven't had any probs with my GMTC or my SubC.. So not too bad!

Originally Posted by mr.president1

It took a nice long fall! And the rest was history...

Sorry to hear!

How much was it to replace?

[Micha]

a friend of mine had the GMT C and a DSSD. He had to replace both bezels within the first 2 years because of carelessness, bumping into things. VERY costly. No ceramic for me...

[SeamasterGMT]

I have both aluminium and ceramic. I much prefer the look of the ceramic. However, given the choice, I'd take sapphire crystal cap bezel as seen on the Blancpain FF.

[Check]

A few years ago I had an Omega Seamaster that I really liked. The bracelet appeared to me to be far heavier duty than the one on my Submariner. However, there were a couple of issues with it. One consistent issue was that I found myself taking the watch off my wrist because the watch was heavier and uncomfortable to wear while working. In fairness, this was probably due to my being unable to adjust the watch to the changing size of my wrist when it got hot, etc.

But the thing that I always remembered and the reason why I got rid of the watch was because one day a friction pin fell out of the watch while I was driving. I was very lucky in that I had just put my hand back in the car so the watch fell into the car instead of outside onto the street. So for me the lesson is that just because something seems heavier duty and weighs more does not in fact make it sturdier or stronger. I like that it is lightweight. That way I can wear it all day without thinking about it.

[Gangnam Style 16610]

I am with you 100%.

I own a pre ceramic 16610 and ceramic GMT master 2.

Ceramic looks shiny however IMHO I still prefer old school steel.

I wouldn't say ceramic is fragile. It is brittle however.

The reason Rolex turned to ceramic is pure marketing...nothing else.

[rw170driver]

Originally Posted by Gangnam Style 16610

I am with you 100%.

I own a pre ceramic 16610 and ceramic GMT master 2.

Ceramic looks shiny however IMHO I still prefer old school steel.

I wouldn't say ceramic is fragile. It is brittle however.

The reason Rolex turned to ceramic is pure marketing...nothing else.

Hello, steel is not the material used to manufacture your old school bezels. It's aluminum. Ceramic certainly is a more brittle material than aluminum but I find it much more beautiful than colored aluminum. I've banged mine plenty and now realize it will take considerable carelessness to actually break or chip it. In which case I'll have deserved what I've done and replace the bezel. I like that it will not fade over time. Although I do hope my GMT dial develops patina through the years. I think older Rolexes with patina are drop jaw gorgeous! I'm going to have to disagree with you that it's marketing hype. It's anti-fade qualities and chameleon like behavior in different lighting are definitely an improvement over aluminum, not a gimmick.