Broken bezel has me thinking.....

[buke45]

I have not even heard of a destroyed aluminum Bezel, let alone seen a picture of one.

[mpkRolex]

Originally Posted by Neil.tf001

Hi all, I was planning to make my only big watch purchase to be the new TT black sub. However I See again issues with broken bezels on the new models which is making me nervous. The main reason for the new sub is the new clasp but weighing that against a broken bezel and weeks of repair, warrantee or not has me second guessing.
I know I can insure the watch but still weeks or repair?
Thoughts please.
Neil

I think it would take the same force to shatter the sapphire crystal as to break the ceramic bezel..

I wouldnt worry too much.

[mpkRolex]

Originally Posted by ingoodtime

My GMTIIC bezel has taken some pretty tough hits and no problem whatsoever.
I am not saying none break but that the percentage of damaged bezels VS quanity being worn daily worldwide must be pretyy darn small. Lets talk about everday life and set up an example. Would you not buy a car you love because somebody might door ding it, or back into it? There are always things in life that are beyond our control. Heck, you could buy the watch, walk out of the AD and be killed in a tragic accident. Maybe your bezel will survive, maybe it won't.

If a large number of people were posting that they had bezel damage and it was frequent, well, that would add credence to a thread such as this. But until that happens, I am not wasting energy worrying. If my bezel cracks, I'll pay my repair costs and go on enjoying my watch.

Very well said buddy!!!

[mpkRolex]

Originally Posted by Zirotti

There is a price to pay when you look this good ;)

Excellent picture buddy!! Gotta love that ceramic..

This is my blackberry shot..

[Tek]

RE: IOM nothing wrong with the old clasps and nothing wrong with ceramic bezels. What ever you decide, wear the watch and enjoy, if you worry then stay clear

[Flyjet601]

Only time will tell about ceramics.

Years ago the Rolex engineers didnt think Tritium would turn yellow.......hands would corrode.....dials would crack......bezels would fade.....

the test of time has shown us the results of Rolex R&D.......

so who knows what will happen to a ceramic bezel in 25 years

[Vlad@GKScott]

Ceramic feels definitely better, just what you would expect from a luxury watch. The old ones were nice, but where getting scratched way too easily.
Just one question though.... why do you think old bezels are made out of aluminum... ?

[jdc]

Originally Posted by Vlad@GKScott

Ceramic feels definitely better, just what you would expect from a luxury watch. The old ones were nice, but where getting scratched way too easily.
Just one question though.... why do you think old bezels are made out of aluminum... ?

because they are cheap and easy to replace, the new ceramic model is the new Rolex - flashy, non tool watch, babied by 99% of owners and expensive, its a watch made to conquer a new market

[padi56]

Originally Posted by Vlad@GKScott

Ceramic feels definitely better, just what you would expect from a luxury watch. The old ones were nice, but where getting scratched way too easily.
Just one question though.... why do you think old bezels are made out of aluminum... ?

The bezels are made from s.steel its the inserts that was made from aluminium.Well don't know about getting scratched easily mine are now 15/20 years old sure there are a few minor marks.But my watches have done quite a bit of work and had quite a hard life compared to the many pampered Rolex watches today.And yes both have been replaced at very little cost,yes some aliminum inserts do fade. But its mainly the reds and blue on GMT watches,just like the colour red on some cars that fades over the years.While the ceramic looks good its taken Rolex quite a time to jump on the ceramic bandwagon,with brands like Rado having ceramic watches since the 1960s.If ceramic was so wonderful why has the many high brands never used it until the last few years or so.While I agree Rolex must move with the times but at quite a price increase and very expensive to replace the insert if broken up to $900 plus, IMHO this ceramic insert functions the same as the aluminium one and perhaps looks good.Now on some diving forums a few comments that the bezel on the ceramic was far too easy to move while underwater not a good thing in a diving watch if you are just using the time lapse bezel.While I applaud Rolex for the very fine marketing hype I got to ask myself is this a real improvement, if it is its at a very high price.

[Bullyterrier]

Originally Posted by The GMT Master

I disagree. Enough force to break a ceramic bezel will be more than enough to destroy or heavily damage an aluminium one

Chris

Jade is also very hard and scratch resistant, but one day, after years of wearing it, my wife's jade bangle cracked after catching it just right.

[Vlad@GKScott]

They are aluminum!!! Oh my God, for years I was convinced that they are plastic!!! It is never too late to admit your mistakes :)

As of ceramic bezels. They are too hard to put back on. Maybe I just got used to put old conventional bezels on, but when I got a chance to work on a new GMT it took me awhile to put ceramic bezel back on...
I always favored Yacht-Masters because I never liked the way aluminum bezel inserts looked on Submariners and GMTs, but now Rolex corrected it for me. And came up with something new in decades.

[Neil.tf001]

If the new broken bezels have been replaced under warentee?

[Brushpup]

Originally Posted by Neil.tf001

Hi all, I was planning to make my only big watch purchase to be the new TT black sub. However I See again issues with broken bezels on the new models which is making me nervous. The main reason for the new sub is the new clasp but weighing that against a broken bezel and weeks of repair, warrantee or not has me second guessing.
I know I can insure the watch but still weeks or repair?
Thoughts please.
Neil

If you want my thoughts, aluminum bezels don't crack or shatter.

[Porsche]

Originally Posted by sleddog1000

Millions of ceramic bezels now out in the wild...
A handfull of broken ones.....Percentage,less than 1% I'm sure...
Try not to worry and just enjoy it!!

+1

I have to agree with Rob... I would say LESS than 0.1%

Originally Posted by tgoose1

Those reporting to this forum on ceramic bezel issues represent an infinitesimally small sampling of all new watches sold.

This forum has over 50,000 members worldwide, so maybe not such a small sample

[Dr.Brian]

Originally Posted by Porsche

+1

I have to agree with Rob... I would say LESS than 0.1%



This forum has over 50,000 members worldwide, so maybe not such a small sample

Rolex makes less than 1m watches a year by all accounts, only a fraction have ceramic bezels over the last few years. There are probably less than a million out there. And of the 50k members, what % even have a Rolex let alone a newer ceramic one? We don't have a large sample size at all here.

To the warranty question above. Reports here and elsewhere indicate that they are NOT being replaced as a warranty repair.

[Porsche]

Good point Brian, but I suspect that if there are any statisticians amongst us, they would say it was a statistically relevant sample size.

I would also guess that the percentage of ceramics sold worlwide would be approximately equal to the percentage of ceramic owners on this forum...

http://www.raosoft.com/samplesize.html this tells me we have a 0.43% chance of error with that sample size.

Then again, as the old saying goes, there are lies, damn lies and statistics!!!

[Johny]

Originally Posted by Zirotti

Thanks Chris. Ceramic should be a much more robust material than aluminum and it's a trend a lot of manufacturers have been following the last few years.

I think the real issue that people have and that they don't want to say is that instead of being able to pay $150 for a aluminum bezel insert today, people are concerned that the ceramic will cost multiples more (which is probably true as it's a premium material).

price last week was £26. for aluminium insert for 16610 black.

[Esexx]

A ceramic bezel would not stop me from buying on too. Go for it!

[chris russell]

I heard those things get bent if they are in a collision. Forget it, I'll just walk everywhere.

I've also heard that houses sometimes burn down. Forget it, I'll just live in a tent.

I've heard that shoes wear out if you walk around in them. Forget it, I'll just go barefoot.

I've heard that clothes need to be laundered all the time. Forget it, I'll just go naked.

[sakuraba]

Originally Posted by chris russell

I heard those things get bent if they are in a collision. Forget it, I'll just walk everywhere.

I've also heard that houses sometimes burn down. Forget it, I'll just live in a tent.

I've heard that shoes wear out if you walk around in them. Forget it, I'll just go barefoot.

I've heard that clothes need to be laundered all the time. Forget it, I'll just go naked.

I've heard alcohol can get you drunk. Forget it, I'll...

[Porsche]

Hey, the GMT is for pilots, so why don't they make the bezel out of the same indestructible material as the "black box" flight recorders...? Better still, why don't they make the WHOLE PLANE out of that stuff

[NMS75]

Both ceramic and aluminium bezels will have theirown strengths and weaknesses. Both will have their own potential problems and faults as no material is perfect or indestructible. Personally I plan to buy a GMT-Master II for my next watch which has a ceramic bezel. Does it put me off? Simple answer no! My Sub 16610 has an aluminium bezel. Does that worry me? Again the simple answer is no!

M

[austinnh]

Originally Posted by Neil.tf001

If the new broken bezels have been replaced under warentee?

They have not been. They are replaced at the owners expense for about $500 to $1000.

[austinnh]

accidental double post

[steubi1]

I bought a SubC recently and I am very happy with it.

When I look at the pictures of damaged bezels, I always think: What the hell are these people doing with their watches?

I mean, in the end, you can destroy everything if you only try hard enough. And finally, a fine watch like a Rolex is robust, yes, it may also be considered a "tool watch", yes, but it is a PRECISION INSTRUMENT which deserves a certain care of the owner.

Regards
Tom

[austinnh]

Originally Posted by Porsche

+1

I have to agree with Rob... I would say LESS than 0.1%

As I said in my first reply to this thread, less than 1% are breaking because less than 1% of new Rolexes see any kind of significant abuse or impact. For more than 1% to break, they would literally have to fall apart for no reason at all! But no, these bezels are so strong that you actually have to hit them to get them to break. (sarcasm)

This is why I said to the OP (well I didn't say it explicitly, I implied it) that if he is in the 99% of Rolex owners who handle their watches with great care, then ceramic would be fine. But if he is in the 1% who lead a rough (or clumsy) lifestyle and want a Rolex that can endure that lifestyle, that may be that same 1% that wind up with broken ceramic bezels, and I would want aluminum, which is clearly much more robust.

Also, less than 1% have broken? But that's just in 5 years or so. If you keep your watch for 50 years, your lifetime probability goes up by a factor of 10...

I'm not suggesting that one should not get ceramic at all because it might break (this in response to chris russell's post). That would be silly because, yes, anything can break.

I'm just saying that the aluminum bezel is much stronger so if robustness is a concern in your watch selection, aluminum is preferable.

[all numbers in this post approximate ]

[rad87gn]

None of my aluminum inserts are scratched or faded yet.

[tgoose1]

I don't know of any mainstream US military, Comex, or other heavy duty industrial strength design specification for a ruggedtized mechanical watch, that would deem a "ceramic" bezel insert as superior to a metal application, especially when human life/safety, mission-critical is on the line. Most of us know the proud heritage of the Submariner/Sea-Dweller, and the tasks it was designed for, that made it a true icon. While the new ceramic versions are beautiful watches, it amazes me Rolex used an inferior, but blingy substitute for the insert. I'm personally disappointed because I really like the new subs, but will put off purchase for now. I personally would not buy a ceramic w/o an AD offering me at least one "free" ceramic replacement, no questions asked. Since AD sales market the ceramic as functionally superior to the aluminum insert, a free one-time replacement should be a given, and no risk for the AD, shouldn't it? I think so, especially for a $7K+ watch!

[FLB03TT]

Originally Posted by tgoose1

I don't know of any mainstream US military, Comex, or other heavy duty industrial strength design specification for a ruggedtized mechanical watch, that would deem a "ceramic" bezel insert as superior to a metal application, especially when human life/safety, mission-critical is on the line. Most of us know the proud heritage of the Submariner/Sea-Dweller, and the tasks it was designed for, that made it a true icon. While the new ceramic versions are beautiful watches, it amazes me Rolex used an inferior, but blingy substitute for the insert. I'm personally disappointed because I really like the new subs, but will put off purchase for now. I personally would not buy a ceramic w/o an AD offering me at least one "free" ceramic replacement, no questions asked. Since AD sales market the ceramic as functionally superior to the aluminum insert, a free one-time replacement should be a given, and no risk for the AD, shouldn't it? I think so, especially for a $7K+ watch!

Absolutely spot on analysis.

Rolex built their storied brand on several virtues:

- Form Following Function (Sport/Tool Watches)
- Ruggedness
- Dependability
- Longevity
- Reasonable Repair Costs

If we do a checklist, using these five criteria, let's see how the 16610 compares to the 116610.

The 16610 has a design where Form Follows Function.
The 116610 has a design where Function Follows Form. I.E. Larger case lugs and Ceramic bezel add no utilitarian value.

The 16610 has proven to be a rugged watch.
the 116610 has proven less rugged based solely on the Ceramic bezel failures. Regardless of what percentage have failed, SO FAR, if your life depended on the proper functioning of the bezel on your watch how could you choose the 116610 over the 16610?

The 16610 & 116610 are dependable.
The 16610 has longevity. The 116610 will probably have longevity.

The 16610 has reasonable repair costs.
The 116610 has unreasonable repair costs based soley on the cost to replace the Ceramic bezel. The complexity of the new bracelet will also lead to higher repair costs for that item. Does the new bracelet Function better or is it's Form more pleasing??

The 16610 possesses all 5 core Rolex virtues.
The 116610 possesses only 2 core Rolex virtues.

Rolex clearly has changed direction in the last several years. Some like the new direction, some don't. However when discussing the virtues of a TOOL WATCH I believe that the original five Core Values should be followed closely.

[chris russell]

worrying about whether the bezel might end up broken, I just smashed the damn thing with a hammer. Now I can sleep.



A lotta whining namby-pambies out there.