Don't understand 3 things about Rolex sapphire

[RONeb]

It seem they are 3 things I just can't get
1)Why don't Rolex use some kind of AR coating on the inside ??
I mean, it cost almost nothing, very easy to do, and can improve the visibility
2) Why doesn't Rolex use convex like crystal ? it is much harder, better visibility from the sides, and tell you the truth - I prefer the look of convex crystal
3) Why don't Rolex put the crystal under the bezel ? Why does it always like 1 mm or more higher then the the rest of the watch ? I think it could be much better under, so it will as some kind of protection from hitting

All of the said above shouldn't even cost to much to implement (I know watches cost 200$ that have all of this), so if I want to be objective it just seem wrong to me

[leopardprey]

Because then all of us WISers would not have an excuse to go out and buy OMEGAS!!

[JJ Irani]

Originally Posted by RONeb

It seem they are 3 things I just can't get
1)Why don't Rolex use some kind of AR coating on the inside ??
I mean, it cost almost nothing, very easy to do, and can improve the visibility
2) Why doesn't Rolex use convex like crystal ? it is much harder, better visibility from the sides, and tell you the truth - I prefer the look of convex crystal
3) Why don't Rolex put the crystal under the bezel ? Why does it always like 1 mm or more higher then the the rest of the watch ? I think it could be much better under, so it will as some kind of protection from hitting

All of the said above shouldn't even cost to much to implement (I know watches cost 200$ that have all of this), so if I want to be objective it just seem wrong to me

The AR coating would definitely make the Rolex a much easier subject to photograph without all that damned light bouncing off the crystal.

As for the cyclops.....well, that's a Rolex trademark and will NEVER be altered or changed. It's like asking Merc to do away with their famous 3-pointed star.

I personally think the FLAT crystal looks better than the domed one.....but others may beg to differ.

JJ

This picture says it all....FLAT crystal, RAISED Cyclops and no AR coating.

[leopardprey]

Would not mind the AR coating. Definately a plus. Hides all the smudge marks and dust on the crystal.

Like the Cyclops. Panerai uses an inverted one, and don't like as much.

Flat cyrstal or convex, 6 one way - 1/2 dozen the other. Both are nice.

[SPACE-DWELLER]

Originally Posted by RONeb

It seem they are 3 things I just can't get
1)Why don't Rolex use some kind of AR coating on the inside ??
I mean, it cost almost nothing, very easy to do, and can improve the visibility

I guess because Rolex has always gone its OWN ways! Where MANY watch companies copies the design of Rolex, Rolex does NOT want to make a "me too" watch!

Originally Posted by RONeb

2) Why doesn't Rolex use convex like crystal ? it is much harder, better visibility from the sides, and tell you the truth - I prefer the look of convex crystal

In fact, Rolex DOES make a curved sapphire crystal, but ONLY on the DAY-DATES (those introduced at the Basel Fair 2000). I can give you a link to the Basel Report 2000 when I come home tonight after 13 hours office work, but I have not by bookmarks of my home PC here.

Originally Posted by RONeb

3) Why don't Rolex put the crystal under the bezel ? Why does it always like 1 mm or more higher then the the rest of the watch ? I think it could be much better under, so it will as some kind of protection from hitting

As before, Rolex is a very conservative company and goes its own route. Rolex does not (NEEDS not) do what every other watch company does.

[padi56]

Well now Rolex have complete control over ther own crystal manufacter now IMO the AR coating is on the cards in the very near future.

[frostie]

AR coating would be cool but i can't imagine a rolex without a cyclops. Sea dweller for example looks really odd to me without cyclops allthough it's a great watch

[RONeb]

I didn't mean not having a cyclop
I have meant, that when you look at a Rolex like SD the crystal seem to be 1 mm higher than the bezel of the watch
Why is that?
Wouldn't it be better to put it 1 mm or more under the bezel ?

[frostie]

Well actually i like the way it looks. I think that thing is smoething like a trademark. Allthough in the new GMT master the crystal is not so high from the bezel. The SD must have a bigger and thicker crystal so that it can hold big water pressure. The thicker the crystal the bigger the watertightness of the watch

[SSD]

The crystal on my Sub Date is one of my favorite features, as-is. I think it shows off the dial nicely. JMO.

[mike]

Heck 1MM higher is not enough!

[SSD]

Great side shot!! Fantastic watch, too!

[frostie]

I gotta agree with jamie great side shot mike. You have really good camera skills Great watch also

[brownoysterdj]

Dam that is a nice shot...What kind of camera you usin?

It'd be kinda cool if rolex curved the sapphire like breitlings so you can see it from all angles but itd be nice on 1 specific line of watch, it'd destroy the etiquette character that rolex watches have if they changed all of them

[SPACE-DWELLER]

Originally Posted by brownoysterdj

but itd be nice on 1 specific line of watch, it'd destroy the etiquette character that rolex watches have if they changed all of them

As I wrote above:

"In fact, Rolex DOES make a curved sapphire crystal, but ONLY on the DAY-DATES (those introduced at the Basel Fair 2000)."

[SPACE-DWELLER]

Finally home, and here's the link to the Basel Fair Report year 2000where the CURVED sapphire crystal of the Day-Date was introduced:

http://www.ukwatches.com/Notes/basel.htm