Why does Rolex never use Exhibition clear case Backs?

[warpath]

Have to ask this, I can't think of any real reason...Why does Rolex never use Exhibition clear case Backs? Are they just hide bound in tradition, leery of unintended consequences, concerned about the seal itself, or...?

Most watch companies have made them for years and it is obviously wildly popular with watch collectors, so what's with Rolex?

I would like to hear from experienced collectors and/or dealers on this...Seems like an absolute no brainer and something that could only benefit Rolex. Ed

[Jake B]

Originally Posted by warpath

Have to ask this, I can't think of any real reason...Why does Rolex never use Exhibition clear case Backs? Are they just hide bound in tradition, leery of unintended consequences, concerned about the seal itself, or...?

Most watch companies have made them for years and it is obviously wildly popular with watch collectors, so what's with Rolex?

I would like to hear from experienced collectors and/or dealers on this...Seems like an absolute no brainer and something that could only benefit Rolex. Ed

For one thing, on a dive watch it makes the watch much thicker when the correct thickness of glass is used to withstand pressure compared to steel. Look at a current Omega Planet Ocean & you'll see what I mean. They took a watch with an already thick movement and rendered it ridiculous & unwearable by adding a glass back.

For another, Rolex traditionally haven't gone with current trends and have followed their own path, changing at a snail's pace.

[beshannon]

I have no idea what Rolex does.

My guess would be that their movements are nothing special to look at so there is no need for a display back.

[warpath]

Originally Posted by beshannon

I have no idea what Rolex does.

My guess would be that their movements are nothing special to look at so there is no need for a display back.

You have a good point, I failed to consider that...Also, where would they engrave the reference details without a solid case back?

[joe100]

A Rolex movement is the horological equivalent to a dump truck. Built like a battleship, well-made, but not visually interesting. Besides, they've never done it on the oysters so why start now? I'm not disparaging Rolex movements in the least. They're absolutely fantastic, just not nice to look at.

Also, if they decorated the movements and added sapphire case backs, the price would go up.

I think it would go against the part of Rolex that likes to maintain they're still tool watches even though that train sailed years ago.

[Racerdj]

Originally Posted by beshannon

I have no idea what Rolex does.

My guess would be that their movements are nothing special to look at so there is no need for a display back.

Good comment.

[RollieVerde]

Originally Posted by Jake B

For one thing, on a dive watch it makes the watch much thicker when the correct thickness of glass is used to withstand pressure compared to steel. Look at a current Omega Planet Ocean & you'll see what I mean. They took a watch with an already thick movement and rendered it ridiculous & unwearable by adding a glass back.

For another, Rolex traditionally haven't gone with current trends and have followed their own path, changing at a snail's pace.

I've aways assumed that like the Omega He valve, a display back is also another place for the watch to leak. Crystals have a different kind of seal compared with a solid metal back, so with a display back you lose some watertight integrity especially over time as a conventional back can be sealed much more robustly using a stout 0-ring. That, and Rolex has always had this crazy notion that a watch is meant to be worn all the time. That's why the bottom of the watch is free from ornamentation. I think. Just my opinion.

[Jake B]

Originally Posted by RollieVerde

I've aways assumed that like the Omega He valve, a display back is also another place for the watch to leak. Crystals have a different kind of seal compared with a solid metal back, so with a display back you lose some watertight integrity especially over time as a conventional back can be sealed much more robustly using a stout 0-ring. That, and Rolex has always had this crazy notion that a watch is meant to be worn all the time. That's why the bottom of the watch is free from ornamentation. I think. Just my opinion.

Yes, it's also one more point of possible water ingress seeing as with the display back there's not only the gasket between the caseback & the watch, but also the gasket between the glass & the rim of the caseback.

[Baselman]

They do - the prince has it

[thomaspp]

Because rolex are tool watches for the most part. Their movements are anything special. Built like tanks but that's about it.

[landroverking]

Originally Posted by thomaspp

Because rolex are tool watches for the most part. Their movements are anything special. Built like tanks but that's about it.

Right on.

[1995akcoop]

people have mentioned that it wouldnt make sense on a tool watch but it would be cool i guess to have a clear back on a Datejust........ maybe


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Jocke]

The Oyster case will never come with a glassback but it's possible to get anyway.

[locutus49]

Search the forum for Preik case backs. He makes high quality transparent backs for Rolexes. Relatively inexpensive, too. I think the Daytona has a nice looking movement, and would warrant an exhibition back, if one were so inclined.

[AndyK]

I think since all of the sports watches come in the "oyster" case they'll never switch to a display back.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[ExplorerChris]

I feel a lot more confident with a sold case back as far as the seal and it's water proof protection goes

[superdog]

The water arguement really can't stand. Unless referring specifically to the dive watches.

All others could have it. After all PP does it with the nautilus at a slightly deeper rating.

[Muzz]

Originally Posted by Baselman

They do - the prince has it

That is worthy of the glass back:) exceptional!!!

[Im Lauf der Zeit]

Do you really want to compromise water resistance to look at a plain movement dominated by a great big rotor?

[Furbo]

Clear case backs would only add to accidents like 'I dropped my Rolex on bathroom floor' , 'my Rolex was stolen by a masseuse' and so on..
we would get a new category 'I dropped my Rolex when showing a clear case back to my drinking buddies' or something similar. :)

[Tools]

Originally Posted by warpath

Have to ask this, I can't think of any real reason...Why does Rolex never use Exhibition clear case Backs? Are they just hide bound in tradition, leery of unintended consequences, concerned about the seal itself, or...?

. . .

Because you don't tell the time by looking at the back of the watch, and Rolex doesn't need any gimmick to be able to market and sell their watches..

But it does look pretty cool.........

[JohnBaker3]

Originally Posted by Tools

But it does look pretty cool.........

+1

[Onikage]

Rolex movements are not decorative, nor ever designed to be. Rolex don't engrave their rotors and bridges, chamfer edges and polish odd bits of utilitarian movements. Er.. that Cellini up there is an exception ..At least they havent done it with a 3135...yet. lol

[The Libertine]

Originally Posted by ExplorerChris

I feel a lot more confident with a sold case back as far as the seal and it's water proof protection goes

Agreed - IMHO, clear case backs do not belong on dive watches anyway. More form over function if you ask me.

mike.

[omx5o]

Does anyone actually take their clear back watch off and look at the cogs going round? I owned an Omega AT 8500, and whilst the clear back was a novelty for a few moments when purchasing the watch I didn't really use it for anything useful.

I recently sold the AT and purchased a 36mm explorer instead.

[Dr. Robert]

I don't usually concern myself with casebacks......but when I do I prefer them solid.
Stay solid my compadres.

[Tseg]

Because Rolex owners don't like to show off?

[Gary.]

If you take the ditchwater-dull rotor off, Rolex movements are pretty nice to look at. Anyone who has seen one half-stripped for service will probably have been struck by this.
There are a lot of sapphire case-backs out there covering very ordinary movements topped off by rotors that look like they fell off the gate to a Parisian museum. Stick a bit of gold on there and many punters will love it but it isn't going to fool an expert with a loupe.


Rolex movements are well-made and (generally) well-finished but most of the popular models eschew the flourishes that many other brands go in for. I imagine the idea behind it is that the name on the dial should speak for itself.


BTW, Sea Dwellers have He valves and it doesn't seem to harm their WR.

[Landshark33]

I have owned several iterations of the Planet Ocean and found that I very rarely looked at the back anyway.

[AK797]

Originally Posted by locutus49

Search the forum for Preik case backs. He makes high quality transparent backs for Rolexes. Relatively inexpensive, too. I think the Daytona has a nice looking movement, and would warrant an exhibition back, if one were so inclined.

Agree I think a well decorated Daytona's chronograph movement will look pretty nice, worth a displayback.