ROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEX
23 March 2010, 11:27 AM | #1 |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Jul 2007
Real Name: Kevin
Location: Texas on my mind
Watch: Sub Date; SS/WG DJ
Posts: 2,445
|
Rolex changes...a different perspective
Rolex has been changing up their models a bit, and--love it or hate it--everyone has an opinion. I, for one, have been consistently opposed to the changes, as I just can't find anything wrong (except for lume) with Rolex watches as designed. Others think the changes are too little, too late with Rolex lagging behind more progressive brands.
But then I started thinking about it differently.... Basel happens every year. Every year, everyone in the watch world, and all of us watch fans, wait with baited breath for the changes to roll out. We talk about it for weeks, and stand vigil at our laptops on the morning of the release. Rolex has to be at Basel: if they weren't, well then--they just wouldn't be important in the watch world. They have to make some changes--at least to a few references each year. Otherwise, what's the point of being at Basel? The changes have to be significant enough to warrant notice and discussion, and they should be actually better than what they changed from. Seems to me that when you make what is arguably already the world's best watch, this set of facts puts you in a tough spot. Rolex wants to make good, meaningful, and noticeable IMPROVEMENTS to the chosen few references each year. However, they don't want to make any drastic changes, for two reasons: for one, they already make a damn fine product with a loyal following; secondly, they're the watch that you buy every fifty years, not every five. Seems like Rolex is in a very tough spot. They have to change every few years, but not really change just for the sake of being different than they were last year. In light of this, seems like they've done pretty well. Starting with the Daytona, over a ten year period Rolex revamped its entire line. They designed and produced a new clasp and bracelet for their staple lines. They introduced SELs and expanded use of the Triplock. They beefed up the case a bit without following the trend of ever-increasing diameter; in fact, they increased the diameter on only a few pieces. They designed a proprietary ceramic bezel insert, and modified it for all the rotating bezel lines. And, the keystone change, they completed the all in-house revamping of their movements with the Parachrom and Paraflex. And, one thing is apparent ten years later. If you step back and look at the entire Rolex line, you'll recognize everything you see. The Sub, GMT-II, Daytona, and DJ are a little different, but still very much the same. Only two outliers: the YMII, which might be the most amazing mechanical watch ever made, and the DSSD, which is finally "different" from the Sub (not to mention a "heritage" piece in some respects). Seems like Rolex did pretty good.
__________________
16610 Submariner Date; D Serial 16234 DateJust SS with WG Fluted Bezel & Jubillee, White Roman Dial; F Serial 16570 Explorer II White Dial; M Serial And Hers: 78240 Mid-Size DateJust SS with Domed Bezel & Oyster, White Roman; D Serial |
Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests) | |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
*Banners
Of The Month*
This space is provided to horological resources.