! Chamfers - Rolex vs Tudor

[Eastie]

I recently went into the Tudor boutique and tried on some Black Bay models. I was struck by the beautiful chamfers on the top edges of the case. Elegant, well-machined, subtle and exquisitely finished.

Now compare that against the Rolex maxi-cases on my 2016 Submariner and 2022 GMT Rootbeer. No chamfers. Just chunky blocks of steel.

Why would Rolex include high-end finishing on modern Tudors but not modern Rolexes? Curiously, vintage Rolexes have chamfering, so there was a conscious decision at some point for Rolex to drop this detail.

Anyone know why? Makes no sense to me.

[tifosi]

Nobody knows for certain besides Rolex.

If I had to guess they want the newer watches to look modern. Chamfers give a very vintage feel and probably not what Rolex wants for their modern watches. I really don't think chamfers would look good on a ceramic bezeled diver/gmt.

Could also be function over form. Could be easier/more cost efficient to chuck a chamfer on an edge vs machining the 90 degree edge to perfection. Total guess.

[Eastie]

To your first point, I guess that’s an aesthetic statement. But I kinda find that hard to believe when other modern sport watches like the AP Royal Oak, Nautilus, Aquanat, Overseas, etc. all feature some level of beveling / chamfering.

On the cost side of things, chamfering (cutting) the edges comes after the raw block of steel is CNC machined into a case. So definitely more expensive to chamfer vs not chamfer.

Would be sad if this was a Rolex cost cutting measure.

[Brenngun]

I've noticed the same difference between my Tudor's and Rolex's. I like the chamfer. I don't think they're out of place on a modern watch at all. They add another dimension to the aesthetics. Also you'll notice that Tudor not only adds them to the case but then they polish them. Why Rolex stopped? Who knows. My guess is dumb ass design decisions. Just another reason to love Tudor.

[JRell]

The chamfers are harder to see from further away. The finish fills cooler, I assume harder to produce, but the Rolex bezels offer a bit more bling which I like.

[tifosi]

Originally Posted by Eastie

To your first point, I guess that’s an aesthetic statement. But I kinda find that hard to believe when other modern sport watches like the AP Royal Oak, Nautilus, Aquanat, Overseas, etc. all feature some level of beveling / chamfering.

On the cost side of things, chamfering (cutting) the edges comes after the raw block of steel is CNC machined into a case. So definitely more expensive to chamfer vs not chamfer.

Would be sad if this was a Rolex cost cutting measure.

I see what you're saying about the RO.....but don't forget the RO looks exactly the same as it did in 1972. The Sub has progressed a bit since it was released.

I am fairly certain the omission of the chamfers is an aesthetic choice by Rolex.

[onyourbikes]

Tudor are surpassing Rolex in many ways.
Because..
...

...

Rolex can sell any old crap with their name on it, and it sells. So no need to innovate.

Tudor however, are selling by offering phenomenal quality at a better price.

My black bay pro I recently got is as good/better than numerous Rolex watches I've owned since the late 90s.

I really question the need/desire to buy another Rolex when Tudor are so good.
If I didn't just want a new explorer II just because I like the look so much I doubt I'd buy any. Especially with the 32xx movement being a piece of junk.

[samson66]

I like the chamfers on Tudor as well. It's just a design element they decided to include on Tudor but not Rolex. Who knows what their logic is.

[karleone]

Rolex had chamfers / bevels on Explo 2 Sub SD and GMT on 4 and 5 digits it’s a beautiful and subtle detail and V brushing on lugs as well. They removed them on the 6 digits and switch to vertical brushing on lugs. Much easier to produce and no more hassle when repolishing the watch at RSC.

The chamfers on the Tudors are not real chamfers are the case is directly cut like this.

Interesting to see that Rolex reintroduced chamfers on the Deepsea Challenge. They might come back on the other models in the future.

[DLRIDES]

IMO, bevels/chamfers should be on all Rolex sports models !

They add a completely different look to my eyes.

[Old Expat Beast]

Simpler cases for ease of (mass) production, maybe?

[Masteryacht]

Chamfers make it look better.

[Eastie]

Originally Posted by Old Expat Beast

Simpler cases for ease of (mass) production, maybe?

Sad if that’s the case (no pun intended hah). If Rolex is making design decisions to save on cost or ease of manufacturing, then what’s the point of horology? Everything in mechanical watchmaking is about adding complications (literally) and aesthetic flourishes. Are chamfers needed? No. But neither are movement anglage, guilloche, blued steel, etc etc.

All these design finishings are a demonstration of finesse. Rolex deciding to give up on chamfers when they clearly have the ability to do so (current Tudor and vintage Rolex) is disappointing.

[tifosi]

Originally Posted by Eastie

Sad if that’s the case (no pun intended hah). If Rolex is making design decisions to save on cost or ease of manufacturing, then what’s the point of horology? Everything in mechanical watchmaking is about adding complications (literally) and aesthetic flourishes. Are chamfers needed? No. But neither are movement anglage, guilloche, blued steel, etc etc.

All these design finishings are a demonstration of finesse. Rolex deciding to give up on chamfers when they clearly have the ability to do so (current Tudor and vintage Rolex) is disappointing.

Yet you own two modern Rolexes. The best way to voice your displeasure with Rolex is to not buy them. So your argument is pointless.

[brandrea]

Originally Posted by DLRIDES

IMO, bevels/chamfers should be on all Rolex sports models !

They add a completely different look to my eyes.

Originally Posted by Old Expat Beast

Simpler cases for ease of (mass) production, maybe?

[CarlOver]

To OP, sounds like Tudor works better for you. Stick with what works. They have a great line up of watches and likely some interesting additions coming soon.

[brandrea]

Originally Posted by tifosi

Nobody knows for certain besides Rolex.

If I had to guess they want the newer watches to look modern. Chamfers give a very vintage feel and probably not what Rolex wants for their modern watches. I really don't think chamfers would look good on a ceramic bezeled diver/gmt.

Could also be function over form. Could be easier/more cost efficient to chuck a chamfer on an edge vs machining the 90 degree edge to perfection. Total guess.

Notwithstanding other design aesthetics of this polarizing reference, the chamfers look spot on to me.





Sent from my SM-G960W using Tapatalk

[Giovannibravo]

Originally Posted by Eastie

I recently went into the Tudor boutique and tried on some Black Bay models. I was struck by the beautiful chamfers on the top edges of the case. Elegant, well-machined, subtle and exquisitely finished.

Now compare that against the Rolex maxi-cases on my 2016 Submariner and 2022 GMT Rootbeer. No chamfers. Just chunky blocks of steel.

Why would Rolex include high-end finishing on modern Tudors but not modern Rolexes? Curiously, vintage Rolexes have chamfering, so there was a conscious decision at some point for Rolex to drop this detail.

Anyone know why? Makes no sense to me.

Chamfers were probably used back in the day as manufacturing methods could not cut the edges of the case with a clean edge. With the emergence of lasers cutters Rolex is now able to produce clean edges without many defective cases. I think Rolex believes that chamfers are not superior, while Tudor uses them as they are somewhat of a homage brand.

[Dan Pierce]

Originally Posted by Giovannibravo

Chamfers were probably used back in the day as manufacturing methods could not cut the edges of the case with a clean edge. With the emergence of lasers cutters Rolex is now able to produce clean edges without many defective cases. I think Rolex believes that chamfers are not superior, while Tudor uses them as they are somewhat of a homage brand.

Now that's making chicken salad out of chicken $#it.
dP

[Watchsprings]

I got my first Rolex Sub date in 2018. It was not until I bought my BBPro and Chrono recently that I realized what I was missing. I really enjoy the chamfered cases and sculpted lugs of Tudor. Waiting on my P39 and am very excited to see this all come together in a 39 mil titanium case.

[Eastie]

Originally Posted by tifosi

Yet you own two modern Rolexes. The best way to voice your displeasure with Rolex is to not buy them. So your argument is pointless.

No argument, my friend. Just some idle speculation. I still love my modern rolexes - but even rolex isn't immune from some design feedback, no? Chamfers would only accentuate an already-great design.

Also, as some eye-candy, check out the chamfering on the Patek Nautilus (not my photo). Love how it extends seamlessly from the case to the bracelet.

[MinMay]

Loved the chamfer!!

[OG1982]

I like the chamfers too, had them on all three Tudors I've owned but can honestly say I don’t miss them.

Purely guess work on my part, but do you think Rolex have left the edges square for longevity? I mean, the more metal on the case from factory, the better chance the watch has of leaving RSC looking like new again after a service?

[Eastie]

Originally Posted by Ollie1982

I like the chamfers too, had them on all three Tudors I've owned but can honestly say I don’t miss them.

Purely guess work on my part, but do you think Rolex have left the edges square for longevity? I mean, the more metal on the case from factory, the better chance the watch has of leaving RSC looking like new again after a service?

Could be. But on the other hand, the hard 90-degree edges make the case more susceptible to dents, dings, chips.

Chamfers perform a utilitarian function too; it's not just purely a visual flourish.

[jb335]

After the DEEPSEA Challenge release, I believe we will see more chamfers on new releases. Maybe at the end of this month even….


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Ichiran]

Originally Posted by Eastie

No argument, my friend. Just some idle speculation. I still love my modern rolexes - but even rolex isn't immune from some design feedback, no? Chamfers would only accentuate an already-great design.

Also, as some eye-candy, check out the chamfering on the Patek Nautilus (not my photo). Love how it extends seamlessly from the case to the bracelet.

The chamfered edges on the Nautilus case and bracelet are beautiful and seamless. Thanks for showing!

[douglasf13]

Originally Posted by jb335

After the DEEPSEA Challenge release, I believe we will see more chamfers on new releases. Maybe at the end of this month even….


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Maybe. They may have just given the DS Challenge chamfers in order to shrink it a bit, visually.

[amh]

Easier to refinish with square edges

[westbeach]

I think its partly due to the thicker case size. The bevel/chamfer slims it down optically.

[Ron P]

If younger so in chamfers ask a good “caseman” to cut you chamfers on a these rolex middagsessie. I assume Rolliworks f.e. would be able to do a great job to your wishes of the chamfer.