I'm sad - My GMTIIc and a broken bezel

[tomchicago]

i think the operative difference is that ceramic, when it breaks, renders the watch virtually unwearable, while aluminum simply dings. granted, they probably don't shatter often at all, but when they do, it stings hard. not sure how they get around this. do rados have this problem still after years of production?

Originally Posted by vince211

Hi gang, I've been thinking about this sentiment for a while and although it may seem awkward coming from me I really don't think you should "shy away" from the GMTIIc just because there are about 15 folks or so on TRF of folks having bezel problems. 15 folks out of the hundreds of thousands of GMTIIC's out there may very well be an acceptable level of defects for Rolex - who knows? Use the search function to find those that are happy with the GMTIIc and you will find tons of posts about how happy folks are with their acquisition. My humble opinion is my experience shouldn't sway ya! Life is far too short, isn't it?

My point is there are thousands of times more folks happy with their GMTIIc's than there are folks like me who had a possible "quality issue." And I want to give rolex the benefit of the doubt; I hope they take care of me. If anything, I will feel even more loyalty to Rolex if they repair the watch - could you imagine that!? I'm trying to stay positive about this episode. That would just be icing on my cake; I was worried about the watch I love and having to switch brands and then Rolex says don't even worry about it, we will take care of this situation! That would be great. Again, who knows - lets give Rolex the benefit!

I think the watch is a brilliant and very attractive watch and truth be told I would absolutely purchase it again - I love the watch that much. So you have a guy who had a GMTIIc with a broken bezel with no answer from rolex yet stating he would purchase it all over again. That's how much I love this watch. I will surely purchase more Rolex's in the near future contrary to an earlier post where I questioned my loyalty to the brand out of principle - I tried to sway away to AP, Breguet, IWC, Patek, etc but it didn't feel the same. Statistically speaking the chances of me having another bezel issue are almost nill. I mean you find excuses to look at your Rolex watch! We all know the feeling. It's our common bond.

My experience with the broken bezel should in no way be the majority opinion of the GMTIIc experience. Even if I get a bill from Rolex in the next few days for bezel repair I will still feel this way.

If you are even remotely thinking about buying this watch - cheers, purchase it and wear it in good health my friends. If you are in the Los Angeles or Cleveland areas and want to try one on - let me know and you can put mine on. If you purchase, I'll be among the first to congratulate you - hopefully with a repaired GMT on my wrist too! Ha!

Sincerely,

Up.

[Otto]

Originally Posted by Dr.Brian

I have to wonder if the regular "where are the pictures" posts are a rather blunt way of saying "I don't believe you.". I also wonder if the same posters will still call him a liar when he posts the repair costs, if any, or demand a copy of his invoice.
Rather lame behavior for a forum of gentlemen considering he already explained that he didn't take a photo and it has been sent to the RSC for eval and repair.
Another relatively new poster here or at the other rolex forum, unlike the OP who is a member of almost 2 years, was branded a liar by the (rude) critics for saying his DSSD cracked at the pip during a dive. They were silenced when he came back a few days later with a perfectly clear photo of the shattered bezel. Of course they went on to say it must have been dropped or hit much harder than reported, etc. It's funny, I don't see him posting anymore, I wonder why?
People should endeavor to speak plainly and, perhaps, realize that what they are saying may be better left unsaid.
Maybe I'm reading too much into it? If so, I apologise. However, IMHO, calling someone a liar is NOT a trivial matter, on the anonymous Internet or anywhere else.

I haven't read this entire thread, but IMHO, you're reading too much into the "pictures please!" posts. Maybe from time to time someone puts innuendo into such a post, but some of us just want to see what happened and hear how it happened to assess the cause-effect in our own mind, to compare the event/result to our normal range of activity and assess the potential threat to our own watches. I no longer own a GMT IIC (sold mine), but am considering another, so why not ask for pictures? Along with the constant stream of non-technical threads;e.g., photos, this or that threads, etc., in which I participate fully, I also look for technically-oriented threads where we dissect the differences, strengths: weaknesses, etc., of various models. I think you're right that sometimes people might cross the line, but just asking for pictures (I understand why there aren't any for this thread) seems OK to me. I also confess I sometimes read the first post and immediately make a comment without reading the entire thread, especially if it's early in the morning and I'm in a hurry. This place is a leisure activity for me; not a painstaking academic publishing pursuit.

And this forum is just like email; innocuous or innocent remarks sometimes seem sinister due to the way they're written; whether intended by the writer or not. Having said that, I agree that calling someone a liar is not a trivial matter. I also have to say your post ironically was a bit accusatory toward anyone here who asked for pictures in this thread or another. I would hope that those who have asked for photos in this thread or others in the past won't be discouraged from posting or asking again.

[vince211]

Ok gang, per your request I am posting to let you know that Rolex has decided, after a couple of professional and polished conversations between myself /the AD/ Rolex - to charge me for ceramic bezel only, no labor, and at a very reduced cost for the bezel - dropping the anticipated price by more than 60% to $520.

I am more than happy with them meeting me halfway and can't wait to get the GMT back. Like I said earlier, I am pretty happy and love the watch - even more so now with Rolex's response and concurrently having tried other brands that I just did not like that much. I am very relieved. The Omega Moonwatch has been a faithful companion the last few weeks, but I can't wait to put the GMT back on.

I did ask Rolex if they could take pics of the broken bezel they had on hand and email them to me and Rolex declined. Would've been nice for future reference.

Thank you to all for your warm wishes, I am glad this worked out for my Rolex buying experience.

Cheers,

Up.

[swatty]

If you are happy then so am I

[Dr. Robert]

Glad Rolex made it right for you!

[JJ Irani]

Glad it worked out for you in the end, Vince.

Cheers - JJ

[1kw]

I have a new GMTIIC and until I read this thread had no idea about bezel issues. I am shocked at the price of a new bezel. I was trying to decide between a new tt sub and a daytona for my next watch and I think after reading this i will go for the daytona. I will try to be extra careful with my GMT. I really think Rolex should cover the full price of the bezel . The fact that a bezel is so brittle is a obvious manufacturing defect. I am sure Rolex must have tested the durability of the new bezel before bringing them to market and let's hope that this is a very rare problem. I wonder what a ss daytona bezel cost if it gets all scratched and you can't read the markings after it's been polished.....?

[jms_w]

Vince, glad you're happy with the result. I guess the "virtually indestructable" claim in their video isn't worth a hill of beans and is just marketing hype.

http://www.rolex.com/en#/rolex-watch...ceramic-bezel/

Of course Rolex NA wouldn't honor your request for a pic of the broken bezel. That would be damning to their claim. You should've taken a pic. Who owns a Rolex and doesn't own a camera phone or digital camera these days? At any rate, I'm going to be more careful with my GMT. Thank You for your post.

[david91686]

congrats!

[buke45]

Wow thank God I decided against the GMTc and got a pepsi last month. What bothers me is the price, Rolex will make a ton of money on their design flaw.

[Dr.Brian]

Great news. The ceramic owners should note the repair cost. Shocking.

[tgoose1]

That's pretty much what I've heard regarding ceramic bezel insert replacement cost, still can't feel good about a $600 tab to replace a piece of "hard" plastic---even at a 50% discount? I bet it costs Rolex less than $20 to manufacture.

[D O C]

Aaaaack! Ok that's it no ceramic for me.

But I sincerely hope that they do you right and replace it for you.

[Sose]

Insurance should cover that, if you had a policy for it. That's the only reason I keep myself sane about having a Ceramic.

[padi56]

Originally Posted by vince211

Ok gang, per your request I am posting to let you know that Rolex has decided, after a couple of professional and polished conversations between myself /the AD/ Rolex - to charge me for ceramic bezel only, no labor, and at a very reduced cost for the bezel - dropping the anticipated price by more than 60% to $520.

I am more than happy with them meeting me halfway and can't wait to get the GMT back. Like I said earlier, I am pretty happy and love the watch - even more so now with Rolex's response and concurrently having tried other brands that I just did not like that much. I am very relieved. The Omega Moonwatch has been a faithful companion the last few weeks, but I can't wait to put the GMT back on.

I did ask Rolex if they could take pics of the broken bezel they had on hand and email them to me and Rolex declined. Would've been nice for future reference.

Thank you to all for your warm wishes, I am glad this worked out for my Rolex buying experience.

Cheers,

Up.

Was that 60% reduced price of $520 just for the insert or the complete bezel plus insert, even at that reduced price its very expensive for what it is.

Originally Posted by jms_w

Vince, glad you're happy with the result. I guess the "virtually indestructable" claim in their video isn't worth a hill of beans and is just marketing hype.

http://www.rolex.com/en#/rolex-watch...ceramic-bezel/

Of course Rolex NA wouldn't honor your request for a pic of the broken bezel. That would be damning to their claim. You should've taken a pic. Who owns a Rolex and doesn't own a camera phone or digital camera these days? At any rate, I'm going to be more careful with my GMT. Thank You for your post.

Yes agree with the hype part something that Rolex has been very good at over the past years.But hype and fancy names etc brainwash quite a few today,remember it take 12 months to make a Rolex Oyster,great watches but sometimes the marketing hype even baffles me into believing.

[ObscureLight]

Whoa I guess I'm not gonna bother with ceramics anytime soon. The repairs are way too expensive for what the watch's value is. The bezel should not be worth over 10% of the watches retail price unless it really is indestructible.

[SSSS]

Originally Posted by Dr.Brian

God, don't tell JJ! He'll have a stroke!
Rado > Rolex?

Clearly true when it comes to ceramic. I love my Rado Sintra as well as my Rolex watches for different reasons.

[SSSS]

Originally Posted by JJ Irani

The nurse is just giving me mouth to mouth!!

What kind of watch is she wearing

[mcubed]

That is interesting. and that is for the INSERT only? I am surprised given threads from other forums including this one from our forum, which quotes in the high 700s for a bezel insert.

http://www.rolexforums.com/showthread.php?t=41181


Even 60% of of 800 is not 520

[rolexdeepsea]

Great result vince I'm very happy for you!!

[Dr. Robert]

Have any other Rolex owners here on Rolexforums, w/ Rolexes w/ ceramic bezels had this problem w/ chipping/breakage????
I would have thought Rolex would have researched the bezel material & made it stronger.
Not that I'm running out to by a Rolex w/ ceramic bezel (I can't, didn't win lotto) but I would think twice.

[cujo]

Vince....good that they are repairing it.... sounds fair to me. I too, like many other readers of this thread....will become a bit more careful with my ceramic GMT. Thanks for sharing your experienced problem.... please let us know the results of the return. It will also be interesting to see if there are similar issues with the new Ceramic Sub making it way around the world. Thanks, Cujo

[urwtdrm]

Originally Posted by cvo

I know exactly how you feel. From my experience, Rolex is very generous when it come down to taking care of their customers. Also, if your AD has a good relationship with the RSC - that will work toward your advantage. Good Luck!

BTW - I noticed myself increasingly holding my left arm up beside my stomach area instead of swinging it at times when I'm walking; especially when I walk around corners or close to something that I may hit my GMTiiC against.

CVO- did you have the polished links made the brushed finish??

[SSSS]

Originally Posted by vince211

Ok gang, per your request I am posting to let you know that Rolex has decided, after a couple of professional and polished conversations between myself /the AD/ Rolex - to charge me for ceramic bezel only, no labor, and at a very reduced cost for the bezel - dropping the anticipated price by more than 60% to $520.

I am more than happy with them meeting me halfway and can't wait to get the GMT back. Like I said earlier, I am pretty happy and love the watch - even more so now with Rolex's response and concurrently having tried other brands that I just did not like that much. I am very relieved. The Omega Moonwatch has been a faithful companion the last few weeks, but I can't wait to put the GMT back on.

I did ask Rolex if they could take pics of the broken bezel they had on hand and email them to me and Rolex declined. Would've been nice for future reference.

Thank you to all for your warm wishes, I am glad this worked out for my Rolex buying experience.

Cheers,

Up.

I fell in love with GMT IIc after visiting an AD this week. It is one of the most beautiful watches IMHO Rolex has ever produced and I would like to purchase one. However after reading through the threads and learning about these failures and Rolex unwilling to replace the bezels under warantee, I just can't get myself go through with it.

I am happy Vince that you are satisfied with Rolex's response. However I just can't accept this kind of failure on such expensive watches without Rolex standing by them 100% and reparing them under full warrantee.

Clearly this is a design failure and I hope Rolex improves the bezel durability soon so that such failures will be rare. When they do, they should be replaced at no cost to the owner. After all, this is Rolex tool watch. Rado has been making ceramic watches for years and while shattering may occur, it is rare.

For those who gave examples of cars to justify Rolex's stance, this problem reminds me of a problem on Mercedes Benz Turbo-diesel engines sold in the 1970s and 1980s when they used to be a premium manufacturer of quality automobiles. The turbo diesel engines were bullet proof with many of them still running 5, 6, 7 hundred thousand and even a millions miles.

Some time in the mid 80s MB added a trap oxidizer to the engine to reduce emissions from the diesel engines to comply with environmental standards. As it turned out, these trap oxidizers had a problem that resulted in internal failure which caused the turbocharger to self destruct. MB recognized the design fault and not only agreed to replace the turbo and trap oxidizers at no cost to the owner, they did it for the life of the car regardless of whether you were the second, third etc owner.

It was the quality of MB cars AND their willing to stand by their products which convinced me to buy them though I am by no means wealthy or a typical MB owner. I wouldn't buy one today because the quality went downhill in the 90s and so has the service, but that's another story.

I hope Rolex decides to do the right thing and stands by these watches and fixes them under warrantee until the bezel quality can be improved. Until they do, I just can't get myself to purchase one.

I realize there are other opinions here, I just wanted to share mine.

[SSSS]

Originally Posted by ObscureLight

Whoa I guess I'm not gonna bother with ceramics anytime soon. The repairs are way too expensive for what the watch's value is. The bezel should not be worth over 10% of the watches retail price unless it really is indestructible.

Well said.

[STEELINOX]

Good to hear ROLEX met you half way on the cost.

$520 bux is waaaay better than $1040. It sounds like the entire assy: insert and bezel ring needed replacement. Lets examine this for a moment...

It seems to me that the achilles heal of the insert is damage not to the insert directly, but damage to the bezel ring itself. I would say that 99% of any of these damaged inserts would have to be casual from damage to the ring which it is seated to; and at very close tolerances at that...

That said, I would gather that any lateral impact to the bezel ring will cause this "shatter/chip/crack" to the insert, negating not only replacement of the insert but of the bezel ring itself which can no longer seat the insert properly due to the damage inflicted to the bezel ring.

This is a double whammy for any "drop accident" where the timepiece impacts the bezel assy in an "edge impact," rather than any other part of the watch be it case or strap.

I doubt that we will ever see damage to the insert from impacts perpindicular to the insert face...

Thanks,
Randy

[vince211]

Thanks for the thoughts gents.

The bezel ring (what looks like a washer) was completely missing and never turned in to Rolex by me. In fact, I didn't know it was missing until conversations with them through the AD. Looking at the assembly now, of course there has to be something to mate the ceramic bezel to the watch!

So I am not being charged at all for the missing piece, and concurrently being given the ceramic bezel at a heavy discount and zero charge for labor. I do feel Rolex did me right in this case and my loyalty to the brand is not only intact but reinforced. In the end I'm glad I was able to be myself and not have to get out of character and yell and kick and scream for this resolution; they responded to professionalism and a calm, polished approach which I can respect.

In my humble opinion, their behavior and treatment of me in this matter is in alignment with who they market their watches to and what their brand represents.

I will also be looking into insurance for this and future rolex purchases. This will give me ultimate piece of mind!

Thanks,

Up.

[Otto]

Originally Posted by vince211

Thanks for the thoughts gents.

The bezel ring (what looks like a washer) was completely missing and never turned in to Rolex by me. In fact, I didn't know it was missing until conversations with them through the AD. Looking at the assembly now, of course there has to be something to mate the ceramic bezel to the watch!

So I am not being charged at all for the missing piece, and concurrently being given the ceramic bezel at a heavy discount and zero charge for labor. I do feel Rolex did me right in this case and my loyalty to the brand is not only intact but reinforced. In the end I'm glad I was able to be myself and not have to get out of character and yell and kick and scream for this resolution; they responded to professionalism and a calm, polished approach which I can respect.

In my humble opinion, their behavior and treatment of me in this matter is in alignment with who they market their watches to and what their brand represents.

I will also be looking into insurance for this and future rolex purchases. This will give me ultimate piece of mind!

Thanks,

Up.

I'm really glad you got this resolved. I had a GMT IIC, sold it after about a year, but have been thinking of getting another one. It's a very nice watch. I never saw any indication of a problem with the ceramic bezel on my watch, but I admit to being a bit extra careful at times when I was outside working in the yard, etc. With this type of bezel also on the DSSD and Subs, I suppose it's only a matter of time before we start hearing more stories like yours; however, since these reports have been relatively infrequent since the introduction of the ceramic bezels, I am hoping these are examples of bezels with latent defects as opposed to a general design flaw and that the vast majority of ceramic bezels will be for all practical purposes "indestructible" in normal use. Anyway, I hope you have that beautiful watch back on your wrist very soon.

[tudorwatches]

Originally Posted by tgoose1

That's pretty much what I've heard regarding ceramic bezel insert replacement cost, still can't feel good about a $600 tab to replace a piece of "hard" plastic---even at a 50% discount? I bet it costs Rolex less than $20 to manufacture.

When i see a person writing this i can only advise him to buy another brand..

[FLB03TT]

These problems w/ the Ceramic besels is very disconcerting. The SUB C is a watch I am interested in down the line when prices moderate, but that interest is being diminished greatly by these issues. My GMT II has a very durable besel which, if scratched, can be replaced with little effort by the AD, if not by me. They cost $80 new and probably half that for a clean used one. They're also available in Black, Coke, Pepsi- which is a fun option GMT II owners have. If I damage my GMT II besel I can easily live with replacement cost financially and rationally.

The GMT IIC is another story. It's another example of the technological horse leading the cart. Under the guise of "NEW & IMPROVED" this concept of a scratch-proof besel insert starts working it's way around Rolex. So they come up with the Ceramic concept which certainly IS scratchproof and away it goes. Oodles of $$ are spent on this project and trying to get the besel numbers to work and look right and the marketing people are all excited and they finally think they've got a finished product that is superior to the previous version. BUT THEY DON"T.

What they have is a product which CRACKS more easily ("I guess we should have smacked it a few times on the side of the besel to see what happens".) AND if cracked (which the old ones DIDN'T) cost 10 to 20 times more to replace than the old one!!!
This is not progress, this is a mistake which never should have found it's way into mass production. I think Rolex screwed up BIG TIME on this one!!

Rolex is an incredible brand which I respect and admire more than any other. Hopefully they will see the error of their ways and find an alternative to the Ceramic Besel.