Why Rolex releases compromised models sometimes...

[douglasf13]

Originally Posted by AK797

Taylor Swift's success is not a fluke, she is very talented and authentic in her field, and the same goes for Rolex. We are not being forced to buy their products, there are plenty of alternatives out there, and the vast majority of us are happy to do so because they make a great product and not merely because of the Rolex name as you cynically imply. Yes, a few tweaks have been made here and there but on the whole Rolex and most of us are happy with their product range and we don't need wholesale changes just to appease the few who are still living in the past.

Of course people buy Rolex watches because of the name. It's one of the most recognized luxury brand names in the world.

The Porsche 996, while still a good car, is widely derided as the least desirable 911 aesthetic design, and used prices reflect that. However, when the 996 was current, it outsold the outgoing 911 model by nearly 2.5x, and it was widely considered a success. Lots of people traded "up" to the 996 from their 993.

Now that Rolex has started fixing some of the strange proportions and other decisions from the past decade, I think we'll see a similar sentiment about something like the DayDate II later on down the line, and I'd bet the coup de grâce will be the eventual redesign of the Sub-C case. Thankfully, some of the more recent designs from Rolex, like the SD4K and DaytonaC, are a good sign. It seems they've gotten back on track since the new CEO came on board.

[eonflux]

I love my DSSD, but have to admit it's somewhat compromised:

- The date is too small, but it has a 3135 movement with a date wheel designed for use with a cyclops. For that dial without a cyclops, a window could have been placed further out on the dial, with a larger diameter date wheel with larger numbers. Same issue with the SDC.
- For the DSSD and SDC, a specific movement for those models would work better. The use of the 3135 unchanged would seem to be a cost saving measure for relatively low-volume models



- The DSSD clasp could be wider, but it shares many parts with the SubC, GMTc, and other models
- The removable links on the DSSD are the same width as on other models

Why not have different clasp and link widths to allow a more consistent bracelet-to-case ratio that may be more esthetically pleasing?
From a design/esthetic, perhaps even functional, if a larger case would be better served by a wider bracelet, why use the same width clasp/links for a 44, 42, and 40 mm case(/bezel)?
And do the new 39mm Exp and 40 mm Air King also use the same clasp and removable link width?

The 39 mm T-rex Explorer used the same hands as the 36 mm
So now the longer hands on the new 39 Exp either means Rolex finally decided that T-rex just looked too odd relative to other Professional models, or the 36 mm has been dropped (I don't see it on the Rolex website), and so why continue making shorter hands?

When the T-rex first came out, I held it one hand and a 36 mm in the other, looked very closely, and the hands appeared to be the same, which I couldn't believe. Pics below found online.





The new AK and Exp 39 use the same hands
Likely relatively low-volume models, but perhaps the hands will be used in forthcoming models.

Between the GMT, DSSD, and Subc, the hour, minute, and hour hands are conserved, though the Subc (and SDC) use a narrower hour hand. Personally, I think the wider GMT and DSSD hour hands better balance the wider (relatively to older Subs) minute hand. To me, looked like Rolex continued with the narrower hour hand from older (5 digit models) but use a wider minute hand. Perhaps the YM1 was the first to use this combo, and Rolex continued that with the LVC and later the ceramic Subs.




But then Rolex uses model specific parts for the 42 Exp2, with unique hands and I assume calendar wheel to go with the larger dial. Yet the same clasp and removable link widths for the 42 mm case that are used on smaller cases.

Who knows why Rolex does what it does?
But there seems to be inconsistency in conserving parts vs what would be ideal from a design, esthetic, and functional standpoint

[Onikage]

Originally Posted by douglasf13

Of course people buy Rolex watches because of the name. It's one of the most recognized luxury brand names in the world.

The Porsche 996, while still a good car, is widely derided as the least desirable 911 aesthetic design, and used prices reflect that. However, when the 996 was current, it outsold the outgoing 911 model by nearly 2.5x, and it was widely considered a success. Lots of people traded "up" to the 996 from their 993.

Now that Rolex has started fixing some of the strange proportions and other decisions from the past decade, I think we'll see a similar sentiment about something like the DayDate II later on down the line, and I'd bet the coup de grâce will be the eventual redesign of the Sub-C case. Thankfully, some of the more recent designs from Rolex, like the SD4K and DaytonaC, are a good sign. It seems they've gotten back on track since the new CEO came on board.

I couldn't agree more. Infact the SD4K and DaytonaC are the only two new models I'm at all interested in. If refusing to accept the strange proportions of the past decade means you're living in the past, then I'm living in the past too!

[eonflux]

Originally Posted by Onikage

I couldn't agree more. Infact the SD4K and DaytonaC are the only two new models I'm at all interested in. If refusing to accept the strange proportions of the past decade means you're living in the past, then I'm living in the past too!

On the DaytonaC, I wish Rolex made the lugs symmetric, like they are on the Platona and some other PM models.
Once I noticed the thinner lugs on the crown/button side, hard to unsee...

[phillycheez]

Yup. SD4K and the Daytona C are the only models I want since the WG hour markers started.

The SD4K has characteristics that throw back to vintage... And I love it.

[Justinmg]

I am defiantly living in the past, none of the modern Rolexs do it for me.

[jrs146]

Originally Posted by eonflux

I love my DSSD, but have to admit it's somewhat compromised:



- The date is too small, but it has a 3135 movement with a date wheel designed for use with a cyclops. For that dial without a cyclops, a window could have been placed further out on the dial, with a larger diameter date wheel with larger numbers. Same issue with the SDC.

- For the DSSD and SDC, a specific movement for those models would work better. The use of the 3135 unchanged would seem to be a cost saving measure for relatively low-volume models







- The DSSD clasp could be wider, but it shares many parts with the SubC, GMTc, and other models

- The removable links on the DSSD are the same width as on other models



Why not have different clasp and link widths to allow a more consistent bracelet-to-case ratio that may be more esthetically pleasing?

From a design/esthetic, perhaps even functional, if a larger case would be better served by a wider bracelet, why use the same width clasp/links for a 44, 42, and 40 mm case(/bezel)?

And do the new 39mm Exp and 40 mm Air King also use the same clasp and removable link width?



The 39 mm T-rex Explorer used the same hands as the 36 mm

So now the longer hands on the new 39 Exp either means Rolex finally decided that T-rex just looked too odd relative to other Professional models, or the 36 mm has been dropped (I don't see it on the Rolex website), and so why continue making shorter hands?



When the T-rex first came out, I held it one hand and a 36 mm in the other, looked very closely, and the hands appeared to be the same, which I couldn't believe. Pics below found online.











The new AK and Exp 39 use the same hands

Likely relatively low-volume models, but perhaps the hands will be used in forthcoming models.



Between the GMT, DSSD, and Subc, the hour, minute, and hour hands are conserved, though the Subc (and SDC) use a narrower hour hand. Personally, I think the wider GMT and DSSD hour hands better balance the wider (relatively to older Subs) minute hand. To me, looked like Rolex continued with the narrower hour hand from older (5 digit models) but use a wider minute hand. Perhaps the YM1 was the first to use this combo, and Rolex continued that with the LVC and later the ceramic Subs.









But then Rolex uses model specific parts for the 42 Exp2, with unique hands and I assume calendar wheel to go with the larger dial. Yet the same clasp and removable link widths for the 42 mm case that are used on smaller cases.



Who knows why Rolex does what it does?

But there seems to be inconsistency in conserving parts vs what would be ideal from a design, esthetic, and functional standpoint

Very interesting post. Great pics for comparison.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[watchwatcher]

"Compromised watches"...interesting term.

I worry more about whether I like a watch or not on its own merits.

But, one thing's for sure. Rolex will still sell a boat load of watches, compromised or not.

[amh]

Originally Posted by skydriver

The Air-King and Explorer are beautiful watches except for the ugly as hell 3,6,and 9 numbers.

Fully agree.

Everyone is missing the elephant in the room: These are the Entry Level watches from Rolex. They are indeed perfect, Rolex intended them to look like that!

The strategy sure worked on me, I don't care the for 3/6/9 look and would not buy those models.

[4vCoupe]

Not sure if this has already been mentioned but the main flaw in the "excess" 369 theory is that it would be cheaper to not change the explorer until the stock was used up. After all the stock is used up then implement the updates. It is not more cost effective to create a brand new watch design to use up excess stock.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk