Does Anyone Wish That Rolex Was Less Conservative

[sturgeon123456]

I was just thinking that one of the greatest things about Rolex is that they are quite conservative in their designs and stay true to their heritage.

However they very rarely stray from their roots and when they do, in my opinion, it has resulted in poor attempts.

The DSSD and YM2 are both a little outside the box and aren't their strongest offerings.

What are your thoughts on this?

Has anyone else gotten bored with their current offerings and find that their lineup is stagnating a little?

I currently think Tudor is picking up the void of unique designs, different materials etc

[Mr Daytona]

This is exactly why I love Tudor. Creative designs and just plain fun and cool. I have a red dial Tudor Fastrider incoming solely because it's different and has some soul.

[dysondiver]

they dont fit spinners to rolls royce ...

rolex are all the better for there conservative design , in my eyes.

although ym11 and the likes arent exactly dull

[sturgeon123456]

Originally Posted by Mr Daytona

This is exactly why I love Tudor. Creative designs and just plain fun and cool. I have a red dial Tudor Fastrider incoming solely because it's different and has some soul.

I am in the same boat as you!

[Mr Daytona]

The only Rolex I plan to buy soon is either a WG or YG Daytona with panda dial. After that I am done with Rolex unless they come out with a new model. I have owned pretty much all the other models and I end up bored with them. Except the Daytona. How can I not like a model named after me??? LOL.

[AK797]

Nope, the new exquisite sunburst dials have really lifted the brand to the summit, esp when on PM, and has Rolex rising above AP and PP for me now.

[Fiery]

I wish they were a little bit less conservative, but not too much. I still want to see a factory rubber strap option, and a ceramic case. Rubber is used by virtually all luxury watch brands, so I see no reason Rolex neglecting that market.

Also, I want to see Rolex thinking outside of the box and going in such directions where no other watch manufacturers dare or can afford to go. I want to see Rolex come up with the next step above platinum, and come up with a new material that is noblest than what many of us consider the noblest precious metal. My best guess would be iridium, since they already use it in jewellery, but I'm not sure how difficult to source iridium in high quantities, and how difficult it is to work with it when constructing watches. But, just as with 904L vs. 316L, it would be a huge differentiator factor for Rolex, a great way to separate themselves from, and elevate themselves over even the most prestigious watch brands, including the likes of Patek and AP. Rolex has the toughest steel watches using 904L all across the board, they can "easily" have the noblest PM watches by using a material that no other watch makers use. Mr. Dufour, I hope you're reading this ;) Give me a call, I'd love to be your product marketing advisor with absolutely zero marketing studies

All kidding aside, just give me a Pt Sub-C, and I'll stop whining about the lack of rubber strap and ceramic case options A Pt Sub-C would fit the conservative, slowly evolving strategy of Rolex, so I see no reason to not get it at one of the next few BaselWorlds. Especially after the great success of the Platona.

[SubGunner]

Originally Posted by sturgeon123456

The DSSD and YM2 are both a little outside the box and aren't their strongest offerings.

What are your thoughts on this?

I don't know about that, the DSSD is arguably the greatest mechanical dive watch ever made. The D-Blue has essentially been a change of pace; it wasn't even announced at Basel. Doesn't seem too shabby to me!

[Jason71]

Yea.....This is SO CONSERVATIVE


(borrowed pic)

[sturgeon123456]

Originally Posted by SubGunner

I don't know about that, the DSSD is arguably the greatest mechanical dive watch ever made. The D-Blue has essentially been a change of pace; it wasn't even announced at Basel. Doesn't seem too shabby to me!

Both:

1. big and bulky and unbalanced

2. bracelets that taper too much

3. DSSD too thick and uses the same design that they have always used but bloated

4. Inner bezel ring makes the dial way too small

5. Useless complication on YM2

6. Useless depth rating on the DSSD and there are other mechanical watches that are much cheaper that are tougher and achieve greater depth ratings

Look at the Omega Seamster Ploprof, Their Dark Side Of The Moon....they are and have been really pushing the limit.

[sturgeon123456]

Originally Posted by Jason71

Yea.....This is SO CONSERVATIVE


(borrowed pic)

That is a really nice timepiece. Although it is still a Daytona, with a different dial and some gems.

I mean more along the lines of some different lines in their cases, different shapes. Not sharing the same indices across every model. Using different materials.

[sturgeon123456]

Originally Posted by Fiery

I wish they were a little bit less conservative, but not too much. I still want to see a factory rubber strap option, and a ceramic case. Rubber is used by virtually all luxury watch brands, so I see no reason Rolex neglecting that market.

Also, I want to see Rolex thinking outside of the box and going in such directions where no other watch manufacturers dare or can afford to go. I want to see Rolex come up with the next step above platinum, and come up with a new material that is noblest than what many of us consider the noblest precious metal. My best guess would be iridium, since they already use it in jewellery, but I'm not sure how difficult to source iridium in high quantities, and how difficult it is to work with it when constructing watches. But, just as with 904L vs. 316L, it would be a huge differentiator factor for Rolex, a great way to separate themselves from, and elevate themselves over even the most prestigious watch brands, including the likes of Patek and AP. Rolex has the toughest steel watches using 904L all across the board, they can "easily" have the noblest PM watches by using a material that no other watch makers use. Mr. Dufour, I hope you're reading this ;) Give me a call, I'd love to be your product marketing advisor with absolutely zero marketing studies

All kidding aside, just give me a Pt Sub-C, and I'll stop whining about the lack of rubber strap and ceramic case options A Pt Sub-C would fit the conservative, slowly evolving strategy of Rolex, so I see no reason to not get it at one of the next few BaselWorlds. Especially after the great success of the Platona.

Excellent points IMO

[FTX I]

I wish they were much more conservative, to be more associated with quality and class than with ostentation.

[sturgeon123456]

Originally Posted by SubGunner

I don't know about that, the DSSD is arguably the greatest mechanical dive watch ever made. The D-Blue has essentially been a change of pace; it wasn't even announced at Basel. Doesn't seem too shabby to me!

One more point....Rolex typical move.

Lets add a dial option to a model without changing anything and people will eat it up. Or add a two color bezel.

YM, MG, DSSD, GMT

Its almost insulting to the intelligence of consumers at this point.

Too little from them, thats what irks me.

[sturgeon123456]

Originally Posted by FTX I

I wish they were much more conservative, to be more associated with quality and class than with ostentation.

Its their bling models that have caused this crossover.....but their bling models are the exact same as their other models....just add bling,

[Jason71]

Originally Posted by sturgeon123456

That is a really nice timepiece. Although it is still a Daytona, with a different dial and some gems.

I mean more along the lines of some different lines in their cases, different shapes. Not sharing the same indices across every model. Using different materials.

I know....I'm just messing with you

I do get what you are saying.....but that is one of the things that makes a good company GREAT IMHO. Slow to change, true to their heritage. Over time this fact helps to keep older stuff current. I honestly think it is kinda cool that a 114060 basically looks the same as a 5513 that is nearly 50 years old.

[Fiery]

Originally Posted by sturgeon123456

One more point....Rolex typical move.

Lets add a dial option to a model without changing anything and people will eat it up. Or add a two color bezel.

YM, MG, DSSD, GMT

Its almost insulting to the intelligence of consumers at this point.

Too little from them, thats what irks me.

Adding a new dial option IMHO is not insulting at all, they just make more diversity in their portfolio. That's good, isn't it? I see no reason to hate Rolex because they now offer 2 different dial options for the YM :)

As for the WG GMT, I never understood the scandal about it. If you want a steel Pepsi GMT, what's wrong with the 16710? Or better yet, the 1675? They have a huge heritage, they use absolutely rock solid construction and a proven movement, and for many watch enthusiasts they are a lot more desirable than any of the modern GMTs. On the other hand, before last Basel, if you wanted a GMT in white precious metal, you were pretty much out of luck. Even if you said yourself "Okay, the Sub will do, heck it looks almost like the GMT", you may have been put off by the vivid blue shades of the WG Sub. At last Basel we got a WG Rolex that looks killer, that looks classic, and has no vibrant tone to put customers off. It made the GMT family bigger too, so there's more stuff to select from. Another win-win for everyone.

As for the "new" DSSD, I'm kinda with you on that, but not 100%. I find the new dial kinda "yawn", but the DSSD is not for me, it's too large, too heavy for my wrist anyway, so it doesn't really matter what I think of it. And if Rolex made that watch with a navy blue bezel and from all WG, many guys here would be even more upset than about the WG GMT... Even though that would have been a different model, a new stuff, not just a new dial. And you know what? I'm pretty sure eventually we'll see that watch come to life. In the next 2 decades I predict we'll get a whole fleet of new precious metal Rolexes, including a RG Sub, Pt Sub, RG GMT, Pt GMT, WG DSSD, and maybe even a WG Exp II. In the mass produced sports watch market absolutely noone does precious metal better than Rolex, and there's no reason they'd stop their push. 2012 brought the Sky-Dweller, last year Platona, this year WG GMT, next year something else made in precious metal. And I'd say that's just cool, variety is always nice

One more thing: if Rolex makes more success, more buzz, more sales by just tweaking their existing, proven, highly prestigious models by adding more metal options, more dial options, more bezel options, than what they can achieve with brand new, innovative models and movements (YM II, SKD), then can you blame them by staying conservative? We, the buyers, the market, the watch enthusiasts at a whole steer Rolex back to their conservative route by not buying too much of the new stuff (YM II, SKD). We are to blame.

[iWally]

Originally Posted by AK797

Nope, the new exquisite sunburst dials have really lifted the brand to the summit, esp when on PM, and has Rolex rising above AP and PP for me now.

The sunburst dials also do it for me, and that is why i prefer them over the other brands too.

But i do agree that their YMII and DSSD are not the best offerings of Rolex

[Thatguy]

That is one of the things that has made them successful. Their models are slow to evolve. Their watches are built to last a long time and will be in style the entire time. They don't date their watches with trends. A sub from the 80's to most non-wis people looks like the current model.
How many things can you buy today that are designed to last your lifetime and won't look ever look dated?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Wesley Crusher]

Absolutely not. Brands often lose their identity when they stray from their classic designs. I am glad that Rolex has remained relatively conservative (though I honestly believe that a few models could be dropped from the lineup).

[GradyPhilpott]

Rolex stands apart by being conservative.

That's why they stand the test of time.

There are plenty of trendy brands to choose from, so I don't see why Rolex should mess with a philosophy that has served them and the public so well.

[JimSnyder]

No! They have changed to much already. Bigger is not better. The Sub should still be a 5513 and the GMT still red and blue and not gold, unless it's two tone, and that would make it a Rootbeer. Oh, and all sport models should have Matt dials

[RollieVerde]

Obviously their approach to product development is deeply flawed, for how else do you explain how incredibly unsuccessful they are? I for one am glad there's one company that seems to carefully change things without screwing up what they do right. Tudor is a great place for them to experiment with new concepts, materials, etc., and they have been priced accordingly. My only complaint against Rolex is they are really expensive. But when I see how much they've put into new facilities and production techniques all related to quality control, and how they seem to be serious about making their products last longer, I'm willing to forgive them for now. I also feel they won't do anything to a new production watch until they've tested the bejeezus out of the new component. This is why I think they're taking their time w/silicon spring deployment, as they want to be sure it will last at least as long as their latest parachrom springs. This approach has not only been good for the quality of the products; it's been very good for the Rolex bottom line as well (and they could never charge what they do if they didn't deliver).

[mike]

Originally Posted by Thatguy

That is one of the things that has made them successful. Their models are slow to evolve. Their watches are built to last a long time and will be in style the entire time. They don't date their watches with trends. A sub from the 80's to most non-wis people looks like the current model.
How many things can you buy today that are designed to last your lifetime and won't look ever look dated?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Wayne,....you are spot on.

While other brands have chased the latest trend or go overboard on this or that "special reference" Rolex, by and large, has stayed the course with an evolutionary process. It's one of the reasons their designs are so timeless and so imitated.

Would I like to see new features? Absolutely provided they enhance the core function of a given reference. I'd love to see a luminous insert on the divers models ala the pelegos.

Time will tell.....


P.S. Thanks to the OP for a creative and interesting thread.

[locutus49]

This:

Originally Posted by GradyPhilpott

Rolex stands apart by being conservative.

That's why they stand the test of time.

There are plenty of trendy brands to choose from, so I don't see why Rolex should mess with a philosophy that has served them and the public so well.

[sturgeon123456]

Originally Posted by Jason71

I know....I'm just messing with you

I do get what you are saying.....but that is one of the things that makes a good company GREAT IMHO. Slow to change, true to their heritage. Over time this fact helps to keep older stuff current. I honestly think it is kinda cool that a 114060 basically looks the same as a 5513 that is nearly 50 years old.

True to their heritage you bet and I love that. But part of their heritage was being innovative and creating functional pieces that no one else offered. Now how long can you rest on your laurels for? I would love to see some innovation with the movements, and the sky dweller is not it. It's a day date 2 with a different dial that tells you a little more than the day and date.

Originally Posted by iWally

The sunburst dials also do it for me, and that is why i prefer them over the other brands too.

But i do agree that their YMII and DSSD are not the best offerings of Rolex

Sunburst is nice but I prefer matte....that's why it's great to have the Options but they should release it all at once so that they don't de value the older watches. Look at price differences between 116710 BLNR or regular. Look at price differences of Milgauss GV vs GV blue and same with DSSD black vs blue. The people that bought the same watch take a hit on resale and interest in their timepiece.

Originally Posted by GradyPhilpott

Rolex stands apart by being conservative.

That's why they stand the test of time.

There are plenty of trendy brands to choose from, so I don't see why Rolex should mess with a philosophy that has served them and the public so well.

Once again, they are resting on their history. Eventually this will catch up with them when other brands are being way more innovative. You don't need to be trendy to be innovative. But there should be a level of expectation from the consumers as far as innovation and offering beyond evolution.

See Apple. How long could they stick with the same screen size until they needed to change to a bigger one. Well I guess 5 iterations!

Originally Posted by mike

Wayne,....you are spot on.

While other brands have chased the latest trend or go overboard on this or that "special reference" Rolex, by and large, has stayed the course with an evolutionary process. It's one of the reasons their designs are so timeless and so imitated.

Would I like to see new features? Absolutely provided they enhance the core function of a given reference. I'd love to see a luminous insert on the divers models ala the pelegos.

Time will tell.....


P.S. Thanks to the OP for a creative and interesting thread.

And thank you sir! Excellent points. I love Rolex and in no way started a thread to upset anyone. Just wanted to see how people felt and I'm glad no one took my intent the wrong way. I was a little concerned about getting flamed

[sturgeon123456]

Originally Posted by JimSnyder

No! They have changed to much already. Bigger is not better. The Sub should still be a 5513 and the GMT still red and blue and not gold, unless it's two tone, and that would make it a Rootbeer. Oh, and all sport models should have Matt dials

Watches don't have to be bigger....but different materials, strap options and more interesting movement complications would be great.

Adding a date to the Daytona and increasing the size to make it more legible wouldn't be a bad thing would it? I mean in this day and age a 38.5mm chronograph is outdated and there's information there on the dial that's difficult to see. I love daytonas and use the chronograph every day, to me a larger watch would make it more of a tool.

I'm not talking AP large, I'm just saying if they can do a 42mm explorer they can change up the Daytona.

[brandrea]

In three words ... LESS IS MORE

[AK797]

Originally Posted by sturgeon123456

Watches don't have to be bigger....but different materials, strap options and more interesting movement complications would be great.

Adding a date to the Daytona and increasing the size to make it more legible wouldn't be a bad thing would it? I mean in this day and age a 38.5mm chronograph is outdated and there's information there on the dial that's difficult to see. I love daytonas and use the chronograph every day, to me a larger watch would make it more of a tool.

I'm not talking AP large, I'm just saying if they can do a 42mm explorer they can change up the Daytona.

This better not have been a roundabout way of saying you just wanted a larger Daytona...

[gyrfalcon01]

If reverting back to some of their original designs is being less conservative, then yes, I do. At least get rid of the crown guards on the subs/daytonas already. The first subs, and daytonas like the PN, are masterpieces. Still love my subc, but I'm beginning to prefer the Tudor aesthetic, as they're much smarter in appearance than their big brother imho. To me there's a difference between classic and outdated, but everyone's opinion will differ, and I respect that.