No rolex is perfect

[albmich]

I recently had an epiphany...

Rolex are still assembled by hand, not machine. The rehaut may not always line up perfectly w the dial, the movement may not gain/lose 0 seconds a week, the ceramic insert may not align perfectly at 12.

Each Rolex has a soul, something unique about it that sets it apart from other watches and gives it a personality of its own.

We are not perfect, so why would you expect your Rolex to be?

Thoughts?

[pensandwatches]

I guess I hate to admit it, but yes it is true....my Rolex is not perfect





and neither am I.

[Old Expat Beast]

Quality control.

[BristolCavendish]

Originally Posted by Old Expat Beast

Quality control.

How many Rolexes does the factory churn-out per annum? I've heard it's around 900,000 or so. An alternative might be to produce fewer watches with improved QA. People would still buy them and chances are, we'd be reading fewer OPs regarding various cosmetic issues/flaws that somehow slipped by.

Letterman once asked a guest why doesn't Hollywood produce fewer movies and instead concentrate on maybe making five truly great ones per year The answer of course is the 'trickle down' economy and the related jobs that would be lost in the streamlining of the process. It always boils down to projected commerce and in the case of motion pictures, the masses will still stand in line and pay to see a lousy one (or rent/buy the DVD).

[CRDMMW]

Originally Posted by Old Expat Beast

Quality control.

I really lol at this!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[wb55]

For the money they need to be.

[Carrera997]

Originally Posted by wb55

For the money they need to be.

What he said.

[The Libertine]

Originally Posted by wb55

For the money they need to be.

No matter what it is, if you look hard enough, you will find an imperfection.

[Hollister]

Originally Posted by The Libertine

No matter what it is, if you look hard enough, you will find an imperfection.

Nothing's shown up in my macro pics as yet.

[Mystro]

Certain issues don't get a free pass with that logic. It's a factory made watch, not a hand built boutique watch. They make millions of them a year so quality control should make them as close to perfect as possible.

[strafer_kid]

Originally Posted by Mystro

Certain issues don't get a free pass with that logic. Quality control should make them as close to perfect as possible.

Quality control yes, but at the rate these are turned out there will always be a human element!

[Blue_Lume]

The rehaut is supposed to line up with the dial, it's one of the ways to tell it's authenticity.

[Old Geezer]

I don't expect perfection but I don't want obvious flaws or imperfections on a brand new watch. I'm not talking about using a loupe either, just obvious defects easily seen when I'm wearing my watch.

[P2725TMB]

Originally Posted by Old Geezer

I don't expect perfection but I don't want obvious flaws or imperfections on a brand new watch. I'm not talking about using a loupe either, just obvious defects easily seen when I'm wearing my watch.

I agree, at the price/reputation I would expect any Rolex watch I buy to be visually perfect to the naked eye - and there really is no excuse why they should not be so...

[datejust24]

I'm almost perfect...wait, no no I'm not

[rudestew]

Each Rolex has a soul, something unique about it that sets it apart from other watches and gives it a personality of its own

Same as Humans, but iv a face only a mother could love and my glasses look like pair of rolex cyclops , so if your rolex is out of sync or mismatched in any way I'm your man

[Chewbacca]

i'm ok with having an imperfect rolex over a perfect timex.

[AK797]

Just has to be perfect for you.

[brandrea]

Originally Posted by AK797

Just has to be perfect for you.

Exactly this

[Sublovin]

Probably disagree with your logic around alignment issues,
I like the sentiment, and I like that Rolex involve some hand craftsmanship, but they should certainly not be misaligned.

[TK-710]

IMG_2283.JPG

When you see misalignment on a $300 Seiko most would agree you get what you pay for. When you get it on a $10,000 Rolex what are you getting for your money?

Nothing against Seiko as I've owned many and enjoyed them all but there was a reason why I wanted and expect more.

[Hollister]

Originally Posted by albmich

I recently had an epiphany...

Rolex are still assembled by hand, not machine. The rehaut may not always line up perfectly w the dial, the movement may not gain/lose 0 seconds a week, the ceramic insert may not align perfectly at 12.

Each Rolex has a soul, something unique about it that sets it apart from other watches and gives it a personality of its own.

We are not perfect, so why would you expect your Rolex to be?

Thoughts?

My new OP 39 is totally flawless and a real credit to the brand given that it's their cheapest offering.

[Etschell]

Speak for yourself, mine is perfect.

[THC]

Perfection is expected, no way around that, when spending what we spend. Right?

[albmich]

Originally Posted by THC

Perfection is expected, no way around that, when spending what we spend. Right?

To some people, $300 is a lot of money. And they would expect perfection from a seiko. So "spending what we spend" is relative right? A solid gold Rolex costs about $20,000 more than your two tone....would u demand more perfection from the solid gold than you would from the two tone? It's all relative

[Etschell]

Originally Posted by albmich

To some people, $300 is a lot of money. And they would expect perfection from a seiko. So "spending what we spend" is relative right? A solid gold Rolex costs about $20,000 more than your two tone....would u demand more perfection from the solid gold than you would from the two tone? It's all relative

A rolex should be made to the highest standards of wrist watches. There should be no exception given by it's buyer or asked from it's manufacturer.

[albmich]

Originally Posted by Etschell

A rolex should be made to the highest standards of wrist watches. There should be no exception given by it's buyer or asked from it's manufacturer.

Why? A stainless AP costs the same as a solid gold Rolex. That would suggest to me a higher level of QC etc than what Rolex is capable of offering.

[Etschell]

Originally Posted by albmich

Why? A stainless AP costs the same as a solid gold Rolex. That would suggest to me a higher level of QC etc than what Rolex is capable of offering.

Because rolex is the number one wristwatch in the world by many standards. Ap movements are not as reliable as rolex.

[Sublovin]

Originally Posted by albmich

Why? A stainless AP costs the same as a solid gold Rolex. That would suggest to me a higher level of QC etc than what Rolex is capable of offering.

Sounds like you're trying to convince yourself that some imperfection your watch has is acceptable. If not, I apologize, but why are trying to convince people to expect poor quality from their Rolex?
I have many watches that appear flawed from wear, but imperfections from the factory in this type of watch is unacceptable

[beer]

Originally Posted by albmich

To some people, $300 is a lot of money. And they would expect perfection from a seiko. So "spending what we spend" is relative right? A solid gold Rolex costs about $20,000 more than your two tone....would u demand more perfection from the solid gold than you would from the two tone? It's all relative

agree with this

if you look close enough a rolls royce wont be perfect .. there will be the odd hand stitch on the seat thats 0.00005mm longer than the others

that said there are some issues here people are told to "deal with" that are reasonable concerns..cyclops magnifications etc