Why do Rolexes have such plain casebacks?

[SS Oyster]

I can list tons of watches of very high quality and even those many may feel are slightly below Rolex ... all of which have very nice casebacks. Meanwhile Rolex keeps things so simple --- too simple in my opinion.

Many watches have terrific saphire crystal casebacks, like the A Lange.

Some have solid SS casebacks with great details like the Breitling and Omega Seamaster.

I'd love to see the beauty of my 3186 ... why not have a saphire caseback on the Rolex? It would certainly help against counterfeits.

[Singslinger]

Great pictures! And yes, other than the Sea-Dweller and Milgauss which have words engraved, the rest of the Rolex range has boring, plain casebacks.

If any, I'd say the Daytona at least should have an open caseback for everyone to admire the movement.

[SLS]

The short answer, their movements are ugly!
~Scott

[scottschoe]

Originally Posted by SLS

The short answer, their movements are ugly!
~Scott

Sad but true

[cody p]

Originally Posted by SLS

The short answer, their movements are ugly!
~Scott

totally disagree! regardless, i too think the case backs are too plain - i'd like to at least see some engravings.

[timetravel125]

It's a simple case (no pun intended) of simplicity in in its simplest case.

Seriously, I agree with the poster, why not make Rolexes back cases more enjoyable? With its price, there should at least a freebie of sort, like the engraving on the case back.

[SLS]

Originally Posted by cody p

totally disagree! regardless, i too think the case backs are too plain - i'd like to at least see some engravings.

Then buy a SD or Milgauss! They both have writing on the caseback!
In most cases, sapphire casebacks and decorated movements just add to the price of the piece and IMHO have no function at all.
~Scott

[cody p]

Originally Posted by SLS

Then buy a SD or Milgauss! They both have writing on the caseback!
In most cases, sapphire casebacks and decorated movements just add to the price of the piece and IMHO have no function at all.
~Scott

unfortunately, i can't afford another luxury watch at the moment, so i'll just grin and bear it.

[golfball123]

rolex does not want their wearer to hv the 'crown' imprint on wrist when they take off the watch....

[bodybump]

Originally Posted by SS Oyster

I can list tons of watches of very high quality and even those many may feel are slightly below Rolex ... all of which have very nice casebacks. Meanwhile Rolex keeps things so simple --- too simple in my opinion.

Many watches have terrific saphire crystal casebacks, like the A Lange.

Some have solid SS casebacks with great details like the Breitling and Omega Seamaster.

I'd love to see the beauty of my 3186 ... why not have a saphire caseback on the Rolex? It would certainly help against counterfeits.

i think to minimize the cost of a already high priced watch..

[argee1977]

As stated above, Rolex movements are fantastic in action, but not really something you'd want to look through a crystal to see.

[SS Oyster]

Originally Posted by argee1977

As stated above, Rolex movements are fantastic in action, but not really something you'd want to look through a crystal to see.

Unless of course you want to verify the watch has a genuine Rolex movement.

[Spark]

As much as I love and am enthralled by the mechanical wristwatch/pocketwatches, Rolex watches have always been about different things to the fancy movements of Patek, Lange, Audermars, Vacheron, Jaeger Le Coultre etc... IMO.
Which is why they don't seem to do the fancy movement finishing and sapphire case back thing.
They have now with the Rolex Prince, but that is a pure and simple dress watch.
The Oyster Perpetual movement wasn't meant to be pretty it is a workhorse that will take a battering, which as fantastic as the aforementioned are they wouldn't put up with some of the things we have seen on forum lately like dropping on to a tiled floor smashing the crystal and still keeping perfect time.
I would think your average high grade would have done at least a balance staff at that force.

I have seen worse movements with sapphire case backs, but I think Rolex are quite rightly shying away from that.
Plus I would say the majority of people who buy a Rolex watch are not interested in what it has inside they are more concerned how much it says look at me I'm a Rolex.
If it had a $1 quartz movement in it most of them wouldn't care or ever know.
JMO.

[walds11]

I love the flat, brushed oyster caseback :)

[ohlins]

a caseback is firstly functional i.e. purpose is to seal the watch case and protect the movement........ i think a solid piece of metal does the job nicely......

moreover, one cant see a thing on the caseback when the watch is worn.... :)

[Atlanta]

Originally Posted by walds11

I love the flat, brushed oyster caseback :)

x2 I bought mine for the view from the top.

[Quicksilver]

Originally Posted by walds11

I love the flat, brushed oyster caseback :)

X2.

It looks classy and un-ostentatious.

I think originally Rolex kept clear of saphire casebacks because thay would have compromised the integrity of the impregnable Oyster case.

[GradyPhilpott]

Originally Posted by walds11

I love the flat, brushed oyster caseback

I agree 100%.

There's nothing wrong with watch companies putting all sorts of engraving on their case backs or having exhibition backs, but the plain Rolex case backs have a strong appeal to me.

If you want a Rolex with an engraved case back, as someone noted, buy a Milgauss or an DSSD, or just have the case back engraved yourself.

At least, it would be unique.

[ArizonaHD]

At least you can choose to have your Rolex engraved. IBM and other large companies engrave the watches for presentation. And many families engrave Rolex's that are given as graduation gifts. A sapphire back would show off an ugly movement thus loweing sales, people would wrongly assume that a rolex is lower quality due to not having a decorated movement.

If you want a glass back, buy an invicta, for $100 bucks you can look at the mitoya 21j all day. It is another ugly movement and is 5K cheaper

[astcell]

For the same reason a truly beautiful woman needs no make-up.

[Cato]

Originally Posted by astcell

For the same reason a truly beautiful woman needs no make-up.

+1 'cause Rollie can do dat!

[dkpw]

All good points - Robert that is a most poetic simile.

My question is - with those great watches with crystal case backs, how often, after the novelty has worn off, do you sit and look at the movements? I'm willing to bet not that often.

I think Rolex has taken the correct approach in terms of robustness. For some of us the design path they're on is too much a nod to the decorative.

[RsqVet]

The short anser is that rolexs are more or less utilitarian and thus the idea of a display back would be at odds with this esp on the sport models.

As to fancy case backs, frankly these have always turned me off as looking at a minimum too busy, at worst kind of cheasy, kind of like generic engraving on items. Just not for me.

[James T]

totally agree with the op! it's so plain that people who look at it tell me it's fake

[sirjohnbrian]

IMHO, I think Rolex is a very conservative company and doesn't tweak it's designs based on public opinion.

[Tools]

I think that they do the right thing with the plain case-back..

There was a time when an engraved Rolex was special...and many were engraved to note that special occasion..

Here's an idea..

Why not have your case-back engraved, kind of like your own personal Rolex Tattoo, showing your individuality and proudly proclaiming your Rolex is one-of-a-kind..

...................

[akhamdani]

May be more comfortable the plain caseback.

[watchnut]

Probably for the same reason you don't see heavy duty, reliable, trucks offered without a hood!

[CVerKuilen]

I think it's mostly to do with strength. From the examples set in the past, Rolex prefers to put function over aesthetics. However, I think that something that is simple and executed flawlessly is nicer than something that is all dressed up and kind of nice.

Another point - I think they're plain because it's YOUR space to engrave upon if you wish - where else would you inscribe something?

I think the movements would look very nice if shown in an exhibition caseback, but i think it defeats the point of buying an Oyster in the first place.

And to those who say rolex movements are ugly - have you seen some of the bare, unfinished movements TAG and Omega put in an exhibition case?

[DJF881]

The issue is not so much that the Rolex movement is ugly, but that it is not designed for presentation.

Also, many watches with sapphire casebacks have very low water resistance rates. Many Pateks or VCs are barely waterproof enough to be worn in the rain.

On a delicate luxury dress watch, a sapphire caseback makes sense. But nobody is going to climb a mountain in a watch like that.

As for the decoration on the back of an Omega or a Breitling, that's stamped by a machine, so it doesn't really add much to the cost of a watch. It's kind of nice looking and iconic.

On the other hand, the Rolex caseback is designed to be removed with a special tool that doesn't leave marks on the watch. It's possible that engraving or decoration would make it impossible to fit such a tool for use on all Rolexes.