These New "Delicate" models

[BigHat]

Originally Posted by Quicksilver

Of course a Sub is a Sub whether or not it has polished centre links or a ceramic bezel. These things do not detract from the substance of the watch, its rugedness or its ability to perform in adverse conditions.

But when I talk of Rolex being a "tool watch" I am thinking in terms of design and appearance. To my mind some design elements, such as polished centre links, do not fit that look or image of a classic and functionaly rugged watch, which for me is where Rolex derives its mystique from. And I find that look attractive in a watch. So I don't like any feature that I perceive as not being in accord with that idea - even though it does not impair the functionality of the watch and even though I don't weaer my Rolex on top of Everest or under the sea.

Now thats my own view of Rolex - it's quite subjective and others may have different ideas - that's what makes the world go around.

Well said. Another viewpoint. A "tool" watch is all about appearance, image and mystique.

[mretzloff]

Originally Posted by chicagowatchman

Did you get your watch back yet?

Yes. I got it yesterday.

[mretzloff]

Originally Posted by mfer

People are saying they are not a tool watch b/c they have all these frivolous bells and whistles like a ceramic bezel. Well, I'm saying the ceramic bezel makes it MORE of a tool watch as it seems tougher and harder to damage (short of taking a hammer to it).

Drop a $5 digital Wal-Mart watch and a Rolex with a ceramic bezel from the top story of your house. I bet the Wal-Mart watch will suffer less, if any, damage.

[mike]

In the year or so I've had my GMT IIc the insert looks like the day I got it.

[DJF881]

Originally Posted by Rolexitis

For me the word CERAMIC in itself reminds me of a piece of pottery that can easily be broken. I think that's the connection that most may make here, but it's obviously much much stronger than that.

Industrial ceramics are used in engine parts and to make guns. Very tough stuff.

I have not heard of one of these breaking yet. I don't know who is saying they're fragile.

[Rolexitis]

Originally Posted by mretzloff

Drop a $5 digital Wal-Mart watch and a Rolex with a ceramic bezel from the top story of your house. I bet the Wal-Mart watch will suffer less, if any, damage.

I agree with Matthew. I have never thought of my Sub as a damn Tool. If I want a tool I go to the garage and open a drawer in my roll out TOOLBOX. It is a fine luxury watch that is meant to be cared for (not babied) but cared for. I don't intend on paying 5 Grand for a TOOL on my wrist that I can call a "beater". That's my 2 cents and I'm off my soapbox....

[Rolexitis]

Originally Posted by DJF881

Industrial ceramics are used in engine parts and to make guns. Very tough stuff.

I have not heard of one of these breaking yet. I don't know who is saying they're fragile.

You are correct. I have seen some indestructible ceramic blades and slides on handguns.

[scottjal]

I have whacked a couple door frames hard enough to ding the metal bezel surround and can't see a scratch or chip on the ceramic bezel.

If you check closely you will see the ceramic is actually recessed slightly under the level the metal grip bezel surround. Between that and the sapphire crystal the ceramic portion is recessed beneath them both so to hit it you would have to hit the point of something. Hitting anything flat, and to a lesser extent an edge, will be hitting other things on the watch.

Personally I think the ceramic bezel is likely to stand up the same as or better than the sapphire crystal material in raw impact resistance. This plus the small recess and I think you will see much more damage to the watch than just the bezel if it does get broken.

[mailman]

Originally Posted by mretzloff

Why are people so obsessed with labeling Rolexes as "tool watches"? I hate to break it to you, but they aren't. Who would pay thousands of dollars for a watch they want to beat the crap out of? Rolexes are luxury watch, not tool watch. If you need a tool watch, there's a nice stand of $5 watches at your local Wal-Mart.

Because back when the Sub, SD, GMT and Exp were introduced, they all were done with a certain profession in mind. They were labeled tools of the trade. They stood up to the abuse that these men put them thru, using them for what they were designed for.

As far as Rolex being a luxury brand, it's far from it. Just because they constantly raise their prices, doesn't make them luxury.

Luxury watches are AP, VC and Patek, just to name a few.

[mretzloff]

Originally Posted by mailman

Because back when the Sub, SD, GMT and Exp were introduced, they all were done with a certain profession in mind. They were labeled tools of the trade. They stood up to the abuse that these men put them thru, using them for what they were designed for.

As far as Rolex being a luxury brand, it's far from it. Just because they constantly raise their prices, doesn't make them luxury.

Luxury watches are AP, VC and Patek, just to name a few.

True, but when they were introduced they cost nothing compared to today's prices. Also, that was way back when. These days there is no need to use a Rolex as a beater. Anyone, even the guy on the street corner, can afford a basic Timex or Casio to use when doing work, diving, etc.

How is Rolex not a luxury watch? I know that Patek, VC, etc. are in a different league, but how does quality determine luxury status? Mercedes in America has long put out sub par cars (in terms of quality), yet they're still considered luxury.

[mailman]

Originally Posted by mretzloff

True, but when they were introduced they cost nothing compared to today's prices. Also, that was way back when. These days there is no need to use a Rolex as a beater. Anyone, even the guy on the street corner, can afford a basic Timex or Casio to use when doing work, diving, etc.

How is Rolex not a luxury watch? I know that Patek, VC, etc. are in a different league, but how does quality determine luxury status? Mercedes in America has long put out sub par cars (in terms of quality), yet they're still considered luxury.

Compared to today's prices, they were peanuts. Back then they were alot of money to those who wanted or did buy them.

Rolex is not a luxury watch IMO because

1) Every Tom, Dick and Harry that really really wants one can get one. Maybe not in precious metals, but in SS.

2) They're rugged. Most Patek's couldn't take the abuse that a Rolex can.

3) They make in upwards of 1,000,000 watches a year as compared to the luxury houses only making under 50k pieces.

[mretzloff]

Originally Posted by mailman

2) They're rugged. Most Patek's couldn't take the abuse that a Rolex can.

Fair enough, but I don't get this one. Aren't luxury items supposed to be good quality?

[mailman]

Originally Posted by mretzloff

Fair enough, but I don't get this one. Aren't luxury items supposed to be good quality?

No doubt about their good quality Matthew It's there in spades. I think it always has been. Considering how many watches they produce each year, it's amazing that they have the quality that they do.

Some pieces slip thru the cracks as we've seen here, but most are good.

[Chozn1]

My AD's only had one ceramic bezel come back with a scratch on it and that was because a dude accidentally had a run in with his diamond ring. He said they replaced it for free though.