Should Rolex step up to the plate?

[Goodwatch]

Rolex have great technological prowess, deep pockets, one of the most recognised brands in the world and are a marketing marvel. All ingredients to launch the be all and end all ‘Haute Horlogerie’ 10-day tourbillon retrograde single button chronometer chronograph. And yet they don’t and they never will.

Rolex have produced some extraordinary pieces in the past, Kew chronometers and moon phase watches. But those were exceptions. Now all their movements are reliable but a bit uninspiring workhorses.
Although myself I’m convinced that Rolex will never be a ‘second Patek’ I’m curious about your opinion.

a. Are Rolex up to the task of producing a watch of the Haute Horlogerie class, and;
b. Should they do so?

[mfer]

I find it funny that in the same day we are talking about a multi hundred thousand dollar movement and a quartz rebirth!
Will Rolex bring back Quartz

Quick hijack. Please return to your seats and everything will be ok!!!!

I don't know. It would be cool and all, but I could never get it ($$$$$). It would definitely be out of the norm. I do like the tool watch, and that would have to be cared for a little more than a tool would be.

hmmmmmm...

[Numismatist]

I think Rolex is SCARED to change anything; operating under the old 'if it ain't broke, don't fix it' rule...

[pwrslider]

Originally Posted by Numismatist

I think Rolex is SCARED to change anything; operating under the old 'if it ain't broke, don't fix it' rule...

With the exception of the minor cosmetic changes every 5-10 yrs!

[f16570]

Why bother, they produce robust, accurate and movements with proven longevity.
JMO.

[Tools]

I've read in more than one place that Rolex engineers are up to their necks in the technology, and in fact, much of the R & D money for these technologies is from the Foundation.

Now, will they ever actually produce these pieces with a Rolex on the dial....I just don't know.

Maybe we should be watching the breakthroughs with their Tudor line..??

[Piaggiocenter]

The reality is, Rolex would struggle to keep up in the world of Quartz technology, in the same way that Rolls Royce would get lost in the lower echelons of the Car world.
Mercedes Benz discovered this years ago, with their humble models selling on the badge image and alleged longevity, while top end models are genuinely lovely.

They need to charge a lot of money in order to create excellence though...

I have a £50 Victorinox which will beat a £100,000 Rolex in terms of time keeping, until it fails, at which point it can be renewed for less than the price of a basic Rolex service.

However, this is a churlish comparison...

IMHO, the raison d'etre of a Rolex is to provide the ultimate in craftmanship for a given price, and a reasonable long term investment which is a lot more tactile than money invested in any account, and in the form of a timepiece.

While ticking away, providing a useful and attractive function, it acts as an emergency chequebook, something to convert back into cash if needed, possibly collateral, definitely a good share of feelgood factor, even a status symbol.

Rolex do it better than any other brand, and this may well be down to the clever marketing, or the sheer strength of the marque.

We all know, for example, Rolls Royce are not the ultimate cars, but without question the ultimate brand.

[Goodwatch]

Originally Posted by Piaggiocenter

The reality is, Rolex would struggle to keep up in the world of Quartz technology, in the same way that Rolls Royce would get lost in the lower echelons of the Car world.
Mercedes Benz discovered this years ago, with their humble models selling on the badge image and alleged longevity, while top end models are genuinely lovely.

They need to charge a lot of money in order to create excellence though...

I have a £50 Victorinox which will beat a £100,000 Rolex in terms of time keeping, until it fails, at which point it can be renewed for less than the price of a basic Rolex service.

However, this is a churlish comparison...

IMHO, the raison d'etre of a Rolex is to provide the ultimate in craftsmanship for a given price, and a reasonable long term investment which is a lot more tactile than money invested in any account, and in the form of a timepiece.

While ticking away, providing a useful and attractive function, it acts as an emergency chequebook, something to convert back into cash if needed, possibly collateral, definitely a good share of feel good factor, even a status symbol.

Rolex do it better than any other brand, and this may well be down to the clever marketing, or the sheer strength of the marque.

We all know, for example, Rolls Royce are not the ultimate cars, but without question the ultimate brand.

Very well put! I will be watching (pun intended) you

[cr1ckett]

Originally Posted by Piaggiocenter

The reality is, Rolex would struggle to keep up in the world of Quartz technology, in the same way that Rolls Royce would get lost in the lower echelons of the Car world.
Mercedes Benz discovered this years ago, with their humble models selling on the badge image and alleged longevity, while top end models are genuinely lovely.

They need to charge a lot of money in order to create excellence though...

I have a £50 Victorinox which will beat a £100,000 Rolex in terms of time keeping, until it fails, at which point it can be renewed for less than the price of a basic Rolex service.

However, this is a churlish comparison...

IMHO, the raison d'etre of a Rolex is to provide the ultimate in craftmanship for a given price, and a reasonable long term investment which is a lot more tactile than money invested in any account, and in the form of a timepiece.

While ticking away, providing a useful and attractive function, it acts as an emergency chequebook, something to convert back into cash if needed, possibly collateral, definitely a good share of feelgood factor, even a status symbol.

Rolex do it better than any other brand, and this may well be down to the clever marketing, or the sheer strength of the marque.

We all know, for example, Rolls Royce are not the ultimate cars, but without question the ultimate brand.

Superb response PiaggioCenter. You obviously know your stuff. This is one of the best reasons/explainations i've read on the forum on why Rolex shouldn't make grand complications.

I also wondered why Rolex stick to making tool n dress watches but kept away from making grand complications, in order to challenge brands like Patek, IWC, Lange, VC. Given that they have the clout, Rolex could bring out a limited edition tourbillon to let the world know their capabilities.

PiaggioCenter, you rock mate.

[topcat30093]

I think that Rolex would be up to the challenge. And would with out doubt be able to design and produce such a watch.
But after all this time I don't expect that to make a complication watch, is really what they are looking at doing in the near future.
They make excellent and robust watches. And to a degree they have found their niche in the market. Let them stick out what they are good at.

And watch brands such as PP, JLC,VC and of course Lange & Sohne have found their niche in making without doubt some of the best complication watches in the world.

[Jimbits76]

Originally Posted by Tools

I've read in more than one place that Rolex engineers are up to their necks in the technology, and in fact, much of the R & D money for these technologies is from the Foundation.

Now, will they ever actually produce these pieces with a Rolex on the dial....I just don't know.

Maybe we should be watching the breakthroughs with their Tudor line..??

Interesting point Larry.

I can't understand why Rolex doesn't become a parent company like the Swatch group etc and continue to release Rolex and Tudor pieces yet start to create a new line of Tourbs, Minute Repeaters etc.

I think they should call them Wilsdorf Watches!!!!!

J

[BigHat]

They have the deepest pockets. They could steal away the super stars of watchmaking and do whatever the hell they wanted to.

Will they? No. They are a mass market watch maker. They dress themselves up with a boat load of marketing materials and ads to the point where the modestly informed (most people) think they are the best watch maker in the world. That said, those same deep pockets support some of the finest R&D and automation that yields solid margins on what must be nearly a million units this year. They going to make money confusing their market with a Lange / Patek or better by selling say 500 units of some monster complication? Suicidal behavior if they do. They have a very LARGE and sweet slice of watch market pie now. It's all about finding and maintaining core-competency.

[Prof9000]

I'd like to see Rolex pioneer some new complications. Hell a see thru case back would be nice to! (I know there are after market ones - but how about showing off your stuff Rolex?)

[BigHat]

Originally Posted by Prof9000

I'd like to see Rolex pioneer some new complications. Hell a see thru case back would be nice to! (I know there are after market ones - but how about showing off your stuff Rolex?)

If you do clear case backs you really do have to expend more energy dressing up the movement. More expense, less profit and no improvement in the watch. They are well engineered but not particularly interesting to look at either.

The clear case back drops the water resistance a lot and all the "hot tub Lloyd Bridges" types would sh*T too.

[Wildwing]

Compared to the ultra-high end complicated watch makers, Rolex is somewhat in the mass-market but high quality niche. I can only think of one mass marketer of anything that actually made anything limited, high end, and worthwhile. Chrysler corporation's Dodge Viper. For the hell of it, I'd like to see Rolex give it a try. Won't happen though.

[lorsban]

I don't see it happening. I believe most of Rolexes R&D is going into market research, not product development - which makes terrific sense. Why develop something that could cost you an arm and a leg developing without the assurance that the market will accept it? Better to spend on figuring out what the market wants and simply build on that.

[SLS]

Given the lack of popularity of the new Prince, I doubt we will see any such animal. Rolex knows what they do best, and complications just is not it....unless you are talking about a modified cal. 4130 to make a cal 4160 YM II!

~Scott

[TempoKing]

Frans (Goodwatch) ...wrote:
Rolex have great technological prowess, deep pockets, one of the most recognised brands in the world and are a marketing marvel. All ingredients to launch the be all and end all "Haute Horlogerie" 10-day tourbillon retrograde single button chronometer chronograph. And yet they don’t and they never will.

Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ....The lawyers and accountants will launch a 10 day Tourbillion, retrograde etc etc....????

My dear Frans other than high tech, they need vision and cohones...somehow I doubt that they have either.

[Mort]

I have always thought Rolex is missing the boat when it comes to the Cellini line. That would be the perfect line to make some of the most complicated watches. Since Rolex is so good at what they do along with their promotion of the brand, they could blow some of the competition out of the water. Plus you know anything they would make would be top notch.

I also think that Rolex stays with the idea, if it aint broke, dont fix it. With the close to a million Rolex's made and sold, a higher grade watch would not really increase thier sales numbers. Look at Patek, they only produce about 30 thousand watches a year. At their price points Patek makes a pretty good profit. But nothing compaired to what Rolex makes with all they sell with price points from $4000 to $70,000 and up. Plus from a service end, can you imagine how much they would have to do to revamp their service centers and service people to do service on more complicated movements?

Still I would jump at the chance to own a triple date moon phase and other gizmo watch with the Rolex crown attached.