I Hate Ceramic Bezels

[pdnb]

Tegiment steel is 5x harder than steel based on Vickers scale. It is a coating, as such if you break through the coating it will not be repairable. I like both tegiment steel and ceramic.....but I am not subjecting my watches to heavy machinery.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[pbubsy]

Originally Posted by Pandacat

I personally have never owned a sinn. I watch Tim Mosso on Watchbox all the time and according to him he says he bashed his watch into all sorts of things and so far there are no scratches and dents. I was also looking into Sinn watches for a period of time before i settled on my OP.

Can you really scratch and dent tegimented steel?

While wearing them on Isofrane straps, I dented the upper right lug on my U2s and my U1T. Both were tegimented. Both damaged by my nemesis: door knobs.The bracelet on my U1T looked worn from about 5 years of near daily wear. It held up much better than a Rolex bracelet a far as showing wear but still collected wabi and scratches. My Rolex watches would take about a year to show the wear that my Sinn U1T took 5 to show. Not impervious to wear, but very durable. Like it's been said, can't be cleaned up/refurbished though. It knocked on rocks while diving and came in contact with countless door frames. The bezel still looked new, the entire watch head did actually. Outside of the dented edge of the lug. Big fan of Sinn. Just picked up their LE Bundeswehr watch.

I wouldn't normally call mechanical watches "tool" watches in the sense that I'd strap it on when going to do something high speed (if I were likely to do something like that). For me, the only TRUE tool watch in that sense is a G Shock or a dive computer if you're diving.

I love my mechanical watches and they've all been really durable but if I'm going to knock my watch around, I strap on a G Shock. I've beat the hell out of all my G Shocks and Casio Protreks and they're all still going strong. And laugh in the face of all door knobs.

[sechsgang]

Then the explorer II or yacht master is your choice for Rolex! Both are fantastic as well haha.

[RobotDoctor]

I love that my ceramic bezel looks as good today after 8 years of daily wear as it did when I purchased it.

[boogiebot]

Hate is a bit retry strong word. I can see the argument one could make for a preference. IMO the ceramic and pre ceramic models have their benefits. On the one hand the aluminum bezels are super cheap to replace but dent and fade. Then their ceramic counterparts are super expensive to replace but look new forever


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Milsub114060]

Originally Posted by Pandacat

I really dont understand why so many major watch brands are jumping on the ceramic bezel craze.

The bezels can shatter if there is a direct impact. A heavy duty sports watch should be able to take a beating. Take something like the rolex submariner. Some would argue rolex has lost its tool watch roots and is primarily a luxury item, but regardless any rolex watch is designed to take a beating. The additional risk of direct impact to the bezel scares me off of ever owning one. Not that im a navy seal or anything, but i just dont want the additional baggage of “what if.”

Why not use a tungsten bezel? Or something like tegimented steel like sinn does?

Not anyone smashes bezels
Rolex can take a beating
Submariner is a tool watch
No risk same as any watch if hit hard enough you’ll break something
Baggage of what if - wear a rubber watch
Sinn is not Rolex it’s Sinn

So what is OP saying really seems to be nothing to see here

[Dirt]

Originally Posted by Bigblu10

I have seen plenty of cracked/broken aluminum bezel inserts here on TRF in pics. Even corroded ones. Both have their advantage and disadvantages.

It's clearly a bit of a lottery as to how the different materials respond to an incident where impact occurs.

But I probably wouldn't be happy if I were solely reliant on the watch and a set of dive tables during a dive when the Ceramic bezel breaks and falls out in pieces from what would be an otherwise functional rotating bezel. It would be a bit of a pain.
Of course, it would be a different story if the whole bezel was accidentally knocked of the watch.
That I could stomach

[Dirt]

Originally Posted by Mr. K

Found an older thread stating aluminum sub bezels inserts were $75 from Rolex back in 2014. Has anyone replaced an aluminum one recently? Wondering what the current prices are? And out of curiosity, do they charge more for the Kermit or Pepsi bezel?

I remember the days when they were under $20

[Cru Jones]

Originally Posted by Pandacat

The main purpose of me starting this thread was expressing my opinion and hoping to hear both sides. What i didn’t expect was perhaps i might offend those who have watches with ceramic bezels. To that i mean no offense.

But to question why i would start this thread when this is a forum and the purpose of a forum is to have open discussion with topics we are interested in is kind puzzling to me.

Weird.

This topic has been discussed hundreds of times on TRF, so I think people don’t have much filter on this topic anymore.

Also, you using the word “hate” probably brings out stronger reactions....

[Dirt]

Originally Posted by Pandacat

I’m assuming all the angry comments are people that own watches with ceramic bezels

No.
It's just that the majority are running around the place with a 6 digit Sub.
It's just another reason for them to feel a bit cut because their watch looks a lot like a soap bar

[toolr]

Simple fact is, if you want a Rolex dive watch, ceramic it is. Of course, you can go the preowned route, but if the ceramic bezel bothers you that much I'm sure the sapphire crystal will as well (it can crack and shatter too). This leaves you with buying a 4 digit Sub with plastic crystal and worn tritium lume, which means you're likely in the the price range twice that of a new one.

[sokoloka]

I myself am quite fond of ceramic as a watch material, bezel or the whole damn thing.

[nyc2la]

Variety is the spice of life. Enjoy all the bezel options.

[JohnGingerwood]

Rolex is def not a tool watch anymore.

[toolr]

Originally Posted by JohnGingerwood

Rolex is def not a tool watch anymore.

Nonsense, it's as much a tool watch as it ever was. What can't it do now that previous generations could do?

[locutus49]

Can we bash the Maxi lug while we are at it.

[Strad]

I've read a lot of opinions here on the durability of ceramic vs. aluminum etc. Are there any metrics that show how much of an impact a ceramic bezel can handle? Usually there are tests where the material to be analyzed is subject to measurable impacts. I assume Rolex would run tests where the ceramic material was subject to an impact such as a ball bearing being dropped at a specific height. They wouldn't have migrated to ceramic without studying how tough it was. So what are the metrics?

Rolex wouldn't sell a product just because it was shinier. It would have to have a certain toughness.

I would be interested in knowing the number of ceramic bezel inserts that have been broken out of the hundreds of thousands that have been sold. Probably not many.

Wearing a luxury watch carries certain risks and Rolex is a luxury watch. If you're working is a hostile environment put on a cheaper watch. Wear an electronic sports watch. I wear a Samsung Smart watch if I'm working outside or doing some sort of exercising.

I think the ceramic bezel is an improvement. Time will tell.

[Pandacat]

Originally Posted by Strad

I've read a lot of opinions here on the durability of ceramic vs. aluminum etc. Are there any metrics that show how much of an impact a ceramic bezel can handle? Usually there are tests where the material to be analyzed is subject to measurable impacts. I assume Rolex would run tests where the ceramic material was subject to an impact such as a ball bearing being dropped at a specific height. They wouldn't have migrated to ceramic without studying how tough it was. So what are the metrics?

Rolex wouldn't sell a product just because it was shinier. It would have to have a certain toughness.

I would be interested in knowing the number of ceramic bezel inserts that have been broken out of the hundreds of thousands that have been sold. Probably not many.

Wearing a luxury watch carries certain risks and Rolex is a luxury watch. If you're working is a hostile environment put on a cheaper watch. Wear an electronic sports watch. I wear a Samsung Smart watch if I'm working outside or doing some sort of exercising.

I think the ceramic bezel is an improvement. Time will tell.

I dont think Rolex migrated to ceramics for its toughness. They migrated to ceramics for its scratch resistance and its “ageless” look.

[Bigblu10]

Originally Posted by Strad

I've read a lot of opinions here on the durability of ceramic vs. aluminum etc. Are there any metrics that show how much of an impact a ceramic bezel can handle? Usually there are tests where the material to be analyzed is subject to measurable impacts. I assume Rolex would run tests where the ceramic material was subject to an impact such as a ball bearing being dropped at a specific height. They wouldn't have migrated to ceramic without studying how tough it was. So what are the metrics?

Rolex wouldn't sell a product just because it was shinier. It would have to have a certain toughness.

I would be interested in knowing the number of ceramic bezel inserts that have been broken out of the hundreds of thousands that have been sold. Probably not many.

Wearing a luxury watch carries certain risks and Rolex is a luxury watch. If you're working is a hostile environment put on a cheaper watch. Wear an electronic sports watch. I wear a Samsung Smart watch if I'm working outside or doing some sort of exercising.

I think the ceramic bezel is an improvement. Time will tell.

The ceramic bezel insert was created primarily for two reasons I believe more importantly than strength. Resistance to fading from the sun's UV rays and resistance to fading or discoloration from ocean and pool water. There was no way they could justify an 8-9K price tag with the age old aluminum anodized bezel.

[Strad]

Originally Posted by Bigblu10

The ceramic bezel insert was created primarily for two reasons I believe more importantly than strength. Resistance to fading from the sun's UV rays and resistance to fading or discoloration from ocean and pool water. There was no way they could justify an 8-9K price tag with the age old aluminum anodized bezel.

I'm not saying that ceramic is the solution as the "toughest" material. There are other benefits. I just think that ceramic is a fairly tough material that can handle a certain amount of stress and impacts and is not that fragile.

[R3Dprius]

Originally Posted by ZeGerman11

Yeah, I basically thought the same before I bought my Sinn. I watched videos/read reviews on tegimented steel and how “even after years it looks brand new.” I’m not going to call anyone a liar, but that is simply not true.

The clasp on my Sinn bracelet looks like someone took steel wool to it, and that was from about two years of hard use...in wealth management. Ha. I have it on an Erika’s Originals strap now.

I have a dent in the steel bezel from hard contact with a beer bottle.

I have road rash on another part of the bezel from, you guessed it, scraping it on concrete.

Again, fantastic watch that has been used in all different types of scenarios and has worked perfectly in each, but it absolutely 100% scratches.

The tegimenting process as I understand it is a surface hardening/coating procedure that is very thin. It does well against minor surface scratches (think hairline scratches on Rolex PCL’s), but harder use or repeated wear on the same spot will get through it. And again, it cannot be polished or recoated to fix it.

Care to share pics of your Sinn?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[horseShu]

A couple of guys post cracked ceramic bezels, and everybody goes crazy. OMG, ceramics suck! they break easily!

For every guy who has a damaged ceramic bezel, there are a couple thousand others that are just fine.

[ZeGerman11]

Originally Posted by R3Dprius

Care to share pics of your Sinn?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I’m not home with it at the moment, nor have I cracked the secret to posting hi-res pics on this forum, but here is one pic where you can see some minor dings on the bezel around the 6:00 area as well as some of the road rash up near 12/1:00.

Since we’re discussing hardness, another interesting thing you may want to research, OP, is Damasko’s ice hardening process. It’s technically less hard than Sinn’s tegimenting (I think ~900 vickers vs. ~1,200 vickers, but this is from memory so may be a bit off). However, while Sinn’s is a surface treatment, Damasko’s is somehow done to all the metal. So the end result is allegedly a watch that is less susceptible to scratches and dings than Sinn’s because it’s hardened all the way through.

I have one, so I’ll see if that holds true, but it’s what I’ve read.

Apologies for taking this thread a bit off topic.

[Bruce_Wayne]

I'm playing devil's advocate here...

If we are talking about the durability of a Rolex tool watch, then we should be arguing the blasphemy of gold Subs, GMTs, etc.

One could argue that that a modern a Rolex Sub is NOT a tool watch, but more inspired by past tool watches. The original Subs and Sea Dwellers were state of the art for that time. There are far more superior materials of construction than 904L and ceramic.

Modern Rolex's are tough reliable luxury watches that can handle 95% of what life can throw at it.

The other 5% include things such as dropping on hard surfaces, bashing against walls, and toddlers lol

Sent from my Pixel 2 using Tapatalk

[Singslinger]

Originally Posted by subtona

Just don’t buy a watch w a ceramic bezel.
No reason to hate on them.

Plenty of options.

This.

Personally, I prefer ceramic bezels - huge improvement over the aluminium versions.

[Onikage]

Originally Posted by sokoloka

I myself am quite fond of ceramic as a watch material, bezel or the whole damn thing.

A whole damn Daytona would definitely be cool. One that you can shufty around down the side of your car seats without scuffing the crap out of.

[brandog]

They are switching to ceramic because 99% of the time the ceramic bezel will look better then the aluminum counterpart in 5-10 years.

Yes, maybe with severe direct impact the ceramic will crack and the aluminum will just dent bad, but most daily wear is light impact that can easily scratch/dent an aluminum bezel whereas the ceramic is impervious to scratches making it more durable in that regard.

[Bigblu10]

Originally Posted by Bruce_Wayne

I'm playing devil's advocate here...

If we are talking about the durability of a Rolex tool watch, then we should be arguing the blasphemy of gold Subs, GMTs, etc.

One could argue that that a modern a Rolex Sub is NOT a tool watch, but more inspired by past tool watches. The original Subs and Sea Dwellers were state of the art for that time. There are far more superior materials of construction than 904L and ceramic.

Modern Rolex's are tough reliable luxury watches that can handle 95% of what life can throw at it.

The other 5% include things such as dropping on hard surfaces, bashing against walls, and toddlers lol

Sent from my Pixel 2 using Tapatalk

Blasphemy? It feels wonderful every day when I wear it! Gold Subs and GMT's are blasphemous. I love it!

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

[s46]

ceramic bezel does look nice

but I agree that it somewhat go against the idea of a true tool watch

contrary to what people may think there are load of cracked ceramic bezels out there

[Bruce_Wayne]

Originally Posted by Bigblu10

Blasphemy? It feels wonderful every day when I wear it! Gold Subs and GMT's are blasphemous. I love it!

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

I love it too!

My point was more that given that gold is a soft material, it is inherently less durable as a tool watch.

Now that I think about it a gold tool watch is like the brass hammer in shop. Hear me out, if you did not watch to scratch your scuba gear or submarine, gold may actually be the preferred metal...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk