Cerachrom passion fading out

[kmleffler]

I am a fan of the ceramic bezels on the new models, but just changing a bezel does not justify the huge price increases for the newer models. Basically, Rolex has changed the bezels and made minor changes to the cases and movements, but has done nothing to increase the power reserve.

[bparone]

I love the new upgrades. That being said, I don't want to take anything away from vintage either as it's certainly very nice.

[springbar]

Originally Posted by Blackdog

It's really funny. 10 years ago, when some Omega fans were toting their superior Seamaster machined clasps and solid links non-rattling bracelets, Sub fans were fiercely defending the hollow centrelinks (they rinsed better after diving and kept the bracelet light) and the old stamped flip lock clasp (it's a proven, simple design that has never failed real world divers in decades).

But let's face it. At this price point for a stainless steel watch, stamped sheet metal clasps, and anodised aluminium inserts ? Seriously ? That was unsustainable.

That said, I personally like the pre-ceramics and pre-maxicase designs better.

"Seriously?" is about as much of an argument as one can make against the stamped clasps. They were stronger, slimmer, lighter, harder-wearing and simpler then their costlier replacements.

The new stuff is different and that's okay, but it's not functionally superior.

And isn't enthusiasm for the traditions of a bygone era the whole point of mechanical wristwatches in the first place? There's something dissonant about disparaging the old clasps and inserts as anachronistic while still advocating watches run by old-fashioned balance wheels instead of quartz oscillators.

[GermanyMatt]

I like the new upgrades as well. Especially the glide lock.

[mannyv11]

Originally Posted by GermanyMatt

I like the new upgrades as well. Especially the glide lock.

the glide lock is AMAZING

[Blackdog]

Originally Posted by springbar

"Seriously?" is about as much of an argument as one can make against the stamped clasps. They were stronger, slimmer, lighter, harder-wearing and simpler then their costlier replacements.

The new stuff is different and that's okay, but it's not functionally superior.

And isn't enthusiasm for the traditions of a bygone era the whole point of mechanical wristwatches in the first place? There's something dissonant about disparaging the old clasps and inserts as anachronistic while still advocating watches run by old-fashioned balance wheels instead of quartz oscillators.

I am not advocating the "superiority" of the new clasps, just quoting historical arguments I've read. Personally I prefer the older ones.

I agree with you, if you're looking for dependability, then the simplest solution to a problem is always the preferred one. The old clasp was perfectly functional and very simple: dependable. The new clasp is made of I don't know how many different parts, that depend on close tolerances and fit to work properly. Who knows how well these will work after years of intensive use.

But pretty much the same argument could be used in the evolution from the folded link (9315) to the solid link (93150) bracelet. The former one was perfectly functional, lighter and after sized properly (removing links) there were no screws to come loose: Dependable. Now, would you want a folded link bracelet in a new watch, today ?

We have to admit that this is not just a matter of functionality and dependability anymore. A wristwatch for diving use it is not an indispensable tool anymore.
It is a luxury item. And among current Sub owners (of any kind), the desk-divers outnumber the more tool-oriented users by far.

Today, and at these prices, people will expect the kind of "upgrades" we're talking about here. Frankly, I'm surprised Rolex got away with the old Fliplock for so long.

[Singslinger]

I prefer the models with the upgrades.

Better bracelets, better clasps, better bezels.

In the case of the GMT 2, a better crown (Triplock versus Twinlock previously).

[capote]

Rolex is like Star Wars, old is better.

[tom2517]

I am actually tired of the major popular brands like Rolex and Patek. Now I like AHCI watches better.

Don't get me wrong, I think classics like Daytona deserves a place in any collection, but every year Rolex and Patek just does the same thing with a twist here and there, it's pretty boring after a while.

[tomchicago]

Ceramic's fragility and extreme replacement cost has prevented me from buying one. Plus, it just doesn't seem right to introduce such fragility to a "tool" or "sport" watch.

[novan3]

Originally Posted by tomchicago

Ceramic's fragility and extreme replacement cost has prevented me from buying one. Plus, it just doesn't seem right to introduce such fragility to a "tool" or "sport" watch.

Maybe not as extreme as you might think.

Originally Posted by Keith1

I just called RSC in New York. The replacement cost for the insert is $375.

Again, how many people on here has said they cracked one? I don't remember reading of anyone. There is such a big deal made of "whatever if!" Plus, if you have insurance, it will cover it if needed!

I personally like my watches to look new, and sharp. The ceramic will keep this brand new look for years to come.

[kultschar]

Bizarre how people perceive the ceramic insert as fragile. Maybe getting mixed up with ceramic case which is another story in my opinion

[DK3]

If I raised my hand I would not be able to type

[novan3]

Originally Posted by kultschar

Bizarre how people perceive the ceramic insert as fragile. Maybe getting mixed up with ceramic case which is another story in my opinion

Right? There's a reason ceramics are used in performance automotive brakes and ballistic vest inserts (ie. trauma plates). Certainly not for its fragility.

Last week I banged the Cerachrom between the 50 & 55 minute area on the bottom of a metal door handle so hard it would've cut my skin and probably broken my arm if a Rolex weren't protecting my wrist. A careful inspection later revealed not a mark.

[rmfnla]

Some of the upgrades do make sense.

For instance, the rehaut of sapphire crystal models is much higher than the older acrylic versions to provide better purchase for the delrin gasket. That extra bit of steel really stands out but it is a perfect spot for the engraving (including serial #) that now comes on all models.

I currently don't wear a tool watch but if I do get one I think I would prefer the ceramic bezel; I'll just have to remember never to wear it into the bathroom...

[Nidal]

Originally Posted by fmc000

Well, I think it's a bit difficult not to like the Cerachrom bezels of the Pt Daytona and of the BLRO...

Can't disagree with that