Ceramics making ROLEX a fragile watch?

[padi56]

Originally Posted by DJF881

Divers do not rely on mechanical dive-watches anymore. They have dive computers, which cost a fraction of what a Rolex costs, and have numerous functions that clockwork can't duplicate. Most of the functional tasks of watches are completely covered by modern cell-phones.

Yes most divers today dive with a computer,but many divers also have a watch as a back up.Batteries do fail in computers and without a backup you could get into trouble.Myself always dived with a watch as back up whether mechanical or quartz, plus a set of dive tables to get back to surface safely.

[ec51]

Originally Posted by Rashid.bk

I would never buy a pre-ceramic Rolex sport model, they feel cheap and rattly, not on par with the price paid. Modern Rolexes feel like what you pay for, and I'm NOT talking about "bigger and heavier".

...so then what are you talking about?

[Rashid.bk]

Originally Posted by ec51

...so then what are you talking about?

In my opinion, better quality design and materials.

[cop414]

I'll take all the cheap feeling rattly pre-ceramic Rolexes that anyone wants to send my way.

[STEELINOX]

Originally Posted by ChuckFinlay

I don't believe this poster. I needed a replacement ceramic insert on my LV and was quoted £500 by RSC, so $750, that was a couple of months ago. I don't believe he was quoted $1500 4 years ago.

The cost included a bent bezel as well as the insert; likely bent from the drop...

Bent bezel frames can't be just "straightened" and a new insert placed in it.

As unfortunately, the fit for the insert is so precise that any "out of roundness" or a ding will prevent the insert from seating in the frame...

(Your own accident scenario to a ceramic bezeled, "wanna b tool watch" , may vary)

[cop414]

Originally Posted by STEELINOX

(Your own accident scenario to a ceramic bezeled, "wanna b tool watch" , may vary)

Oh boy...

[padi56]

Originally Posted by Rashid.bk

In my opinion, better quality design and materials.

The only difference in materials are the ceramic insert and ballbearing system and a bit more lume on dial,the steel is the same as the 16610, except now they call it solid links which it not.As it has three holes in each link for the pins,and would doubt if any stronger than the other bracelets plus clasp has its weak points .The W/R is same as 16610 movement is basically the same cal 3135 that was first introduced in 1988 with the 16610.

[jshepard]

My answer is $$$$! Some could say its the trend now, but Rolex isn't one to follow trends so quickly. They still MAINLY produce 36-40mm watches for men while everyone else starts at 42mm and above. They may be scratch and fade resistant but as the OP says they still crack, chip and break. When an aluminum bezel goes bad everyone says its easy and cheap to switch out the old insert and get a new one.

Now Rolex realizes that and now produces these ceramic bezels to where you have to buy a brand new bezel the price of a new tag heuer just to replace the old one. Everyone says the great thing about the old aluminum GMTs is that you can, for a reasonable price, buy the other two bezel insert options and switch them out for yourself and its like you have "three watches in one". This also solves that problem for Rolex. Now if you want your GMTiic to have the new black and blue, you've got to actually buy the new black and blue gmt until someone finds a way to switch bezels, and even if you could just switch it out, you'll still be paying for the expensive ceramic bezel compared to the cheaper aluminum bezel insert.

Now there are those, including me, that the sub lost its tool watch quality with the ceramic and transformed into jewelry. But let's face it guys, the Sub (WARNING: this next statement may be viewed as blasphemy) hasn't been a tool watch since the G-Shock.

[STEELINOX]

Originally Posted by jshepard

My answer is $$$$! Some could say its the trend now, but Rolex isn't one to follow trends so quickly. They still MAINLY produce 36-40mm watches for men while everyone else starts at 42mm and above. They may be scratch and fade resistant but as the OP says they still crack, chip and break. When an aluminum bezel goes bad everyone says its easy and cheap to switch out the old insert and get a new one.

Now Rolex realizes that and now produces these ceramic bezels to where you have to buy a brand new bezel the price of a new tag heuer just to replace the old one. Everyone says the great thing about the old aluminum GMTs is that you can, for a reasonable price, buy the other two bezel insert options and switch them out for yourself and its like you have "three watches in one". This also solves that problem for Rolex. Now if you want your GMTiic to have the new black and blue, you've got to actually buy the new black and blue gmt until someone finds a way to switch bezels, and even if you could just switch it out, you'll still be paying for the expensive ceramic bezel compared to the cheaper aluminum bezel insert.

Now there are those, including me, that the sub lost its tool watch quality with the ceramic and transformed into jewelry. But let's face it guys, the Sub (WARNING: this next statement may be viewed as blasphemy) hasn't been a tool watch since the G-Shock.

Giddy Up, again !

[ec51]

Originally Posted by Rashid.bk

In my opinion, better quality design and materials.

What "better" materials are used on the new SS bracelet versus the old?

[WatchFeen]

i think its great that rolex is able to appeal to all sorts of tastes! thats what makes a rolex a rolex! such diverse models that bring everyone to one BRAND! Ceramic or non-ceramic ;)

[Rashid.bk]

Originally Posted by ec51

What "better" materials are used on the new SS bracelet versus the old?

Lol, I know I wrote in english....when did I say "better" materials specifically regarding the bracelet.

[landroverking]

I don't see how the "c" models can make the claim of better just different.

[T. Ferguson]

It could be said that the Rolex sport line, like say the Sub, lost some of it's tool watch functionality well before the move to ceramics, even with the 16610. I'd say it lost some of this characteristic when the price went north of $3,500 or so, and that was a long time ago. Yes, there are some things about the 16610 that make it better for diving than the 116610 (like being able to pop the bezel to clean underneath it), but the price had long since kept it from being a reasonable tool for the job. It just seems to me that even if you dive regularly, unless you are fairly well off you won't be choosing a Sub for this purpose when there are so many less expensive alternatives that are viable.

You could make an argument that the best Rolex tool watch right now is the DD - the perfect CEO tool.

[ec51]

Originally Posted by padi56

The only difference in materials are the ceramic insert and ballbearing system and a bit more lume on dial,the steel is the same as the 16610, except now they call it solid links which it not.As it has three holes in each link for the pins,and would doubt if any stronger than the other bracelets plus clasp has its weak points .The W/R is same as 16610 movement is basically the same cal 3135 that was first introduced in 1988 with the 16610.

Exactly.

Originally Posted by Rashid.bk

Lol, I know I wrote in english....when did I say "better" materials specifically regarding the bracelet.

You said, "...they feel cheap and rattly..." "Rattly" - I would imagine refers to the bracelet. Nothing regarding the bracelet materials has changed...see above.

[GlideLockHeadLock]

Does anybody really give a shit if its a tool watch or not? What percent of people use them as a tool anymore? IMHO the new Ceramic Sub is better then the older model. Looks and in terms of build quality. Of coarse i still love the older model but i really feel that rolex upgraded the watch in multiple ways.

Im gonna steal a line from Jay Z "If you dont like the new SubC, then buy the old one"

[GlideLockHeadLock]

Originally Posted by ec51

Exactly.



You said, "...they feel cheap and rattly..." "Rattly" - I would imagine refers to the bracelet. Nothing regarding the bracelet materials has changed...see above.

They made the Center links "solid" as in they dont move like the older version. If you really dont think the bracelet is upgraded on the newer version then you just havent held or worn one. The new bracelet wont be as prone to stretch as the old. and yea they have holes in them for pins.....duh LOL isnt that a must?

[jay1988]

I really don't understand why everyone is throwing technicalities like composition and specifications.

If someone feels that way then hearing technicalities is not going to make them suddenly change their mind.

Trying on a watch is everything. It doesn't matter how much I've loved the specs or the pictures. If it feels wrong on my wrist it's a no go. I fully believe everything being said about the reliability and history etc. Doesn't compensate for how I felt when I tried one on.

[ufboy73]

Originally Posted by T. Ferguson

It could be said that the Rolex sport line, like say the Sub, lost some of it's tool watch functionality well before the move to ceramics, even with the 16610. I'd say it lost some of this characteristic when the price went north of $3,500 or so, and that was a long time ago. Yes, there are some things about the 16610 that make it better for diving than the 116610 (like being able to pop the bezel to clean underneath it), but the price had long since kept it from being a reasonable tool for the job. It just seems to me that even if you dive regularly, unless you are fairly well off you won't be choosing a Sub for this purpose when there are so many less expensive alternatives that are viable.

You could make an argument that the best Rolex tool watch right now is the DD - the perfect CEO tool.

purely in terms of intended tool usage, i think the sub went downhill by adding the date...then the white gold surrounds, polished portions, etc.

by now, its more like an evolution brnad of what it once was - based on preference, one might argue its 'better' now but it clearly has changed from its original priority.

[ufboy73]

Originally Posted by GlideLockHeadLock

Does anybody really give a shit if its a tool watch or not? What percent of people use them as a tool anymore? IMHO the new Ceramic Sub is better then the older model. Looks and in terms of build quality. Of coarse i still love the older model but i really feel that rolex upgraded the watch in multiple ways.

Im gonna steal a line from Jay Z "If you dont like the new SubC, then buy the old one"

i sgree with the bracelt and definitely the clasp being 'better', to me. i greatly prefer the look of older models though.

and i have no problem accepting 'the new', as i love my gmt-c and dssd...but the new sub look just doesnt do it for me.

[buke45]

Originally Posted by padi56

Have to agree Ken and if the ceramic insert was around the same price and as easy to replace as the aluminum ones, then perhaps ceramic could prove to be a advantage. Until then its just like many manufactures at the moment jumping on the ceramic bandwagon fashion and no real advantage but quite a few dis-advantages.Now many say the aluminum inserts tent to fade yes some do over many years. But in general its the red/blue type that do then a easy DIY job to fix and for very little money.

x2

[GlideLockHeadLock]

Originally Posted by ec51

Oh it's the hollow links that cause bracelet stretch....?! Riight.

Lol

Do some research my friend! Ive read online (This forum) and have heard from a few Ads that the new solid link bracelet will make it stronger and will not stretch nearly as much. Kinda thought that was a known fact. but ok

[GlideLockHeadLock]

Originally Posted by ufboy73

i sgree with the bracelt and definitely the clasp being 'better', to me. i greatly prefer the look of older models though.

and i have no problem accepting 'the new', as i love my gmt-c and dssd...but the new sub look just doesnt do it for me.

i think the GMT2 Blue and black will be my next purchase. def is a beautiful watch!

[Thatguy]

Originally Posted by GlideLockHeadLock

Do some research my friend! Ive read online (This forum) and have heard from a few Ads that the new solid link bracelet will make it stronger and will not stretch nearly as much. Kinda thought that was a known fact. but ok

I don't believe the links have much to do with stretch. It's the pins that hold them together that wear the most.

[Rashid.bk]

Originally Posted by ec51

Exactly.



You said, "...they feel cheap and rattly..." "Rattly" - I would imagine refers to the bracelet. Nothing regarding the bracelet materials has changed...see above.

There you go imagining....your imagination and what I said are two totally separate things. My description refers to construction not materials.

Dude, just get the old one and be happy, I got mine because my "opinion" is that it's a better product, don't agree...yaay! You're not spending my money, I am, so I purchase based on my information, research, needs, desires, etc. perceived or real.
We're here voicing an opinion for pros and cons, undecided voters can make a decision based on the arguments presented.
Thank God we don't all like the same thing or there would just be one single style Rolex for everyone.

[GlideLockHeadLock]

Originally Posted by Thatguy

I don't believe the links have much to do with stretch. It's the pins that hold them together that wear the most.

For sure the pins stretch but the main reason they went to the solid links was to help over the long run with stretch. Less moving parts puts less stress on the bracelet. Like ive seen on here many times, Only time will tell if the improvements work as they should.

But i can say with out a doubt that the newer bracelet is better and the new clasp is a HUGE improvement. Something that should of been done a long time ago.

[Rashid.bk]

Originally Posted by GlideLockHeadLock

Im gonna steal a line from Jay Z "If you dont like the new SubC, then buy the old one"

YES! Perfect.

[GlideLockHeadLock]

Dude, just get the old one and be happy, I got mine because my "opinion" is that it's a better product, don't agree...yaay! You're not spending my money, I am, so I purchase based on my information, research, needs, desires, etc. perceived or real.
We're here voicing an opinion for pros and cons, undecided voters can make a decision based on the arguments presented.
Thank God we don't all like the same thing or there would just be one single style Rolex for everyone.[/QUOTE]


he might just have Sub C envy for all we know....he could be stuck with the older Non Date version?!?

[QueueCumber]

I've banged mine into things before, including other people's watches who were walking in the opposite direction as me. So far I've had no issues...

[Thatguy]

Originally Posted by GlideLockHeadLock

For sure the pins stretch but the main reason they went to the solid links was to help over the long run with stretch. Less moving parts puts less stress on the bracelet. Like ive seen on here many times, Only time will tell if the improvements work as they should.

But i can say with out a doubt that the newer bracelet is better and the new clasp is a HUGE improvement. Something that should of been done a long time ago.

Have to agree to disagree on why they went to solid links.