To Rolex or not to Rolex

[ilan]

That is the question. I've been looking for a new sports watch which will last me for a long while and have been considering the no date Submariner. I generally like the more discreet older models but I don't quite trust restored watches to be as reliable for constant use and in general, the nicer older models are much more expensive than a brand new one! For comparison, a vintage watch store showed me the Bell & Ross Marine as an example of an all around sports watch.



So I have been using this to compare the utilitarian aspects of the Submariner. I apologize in advance if this, or my ignorance of watchmaking in general, offends anyone on this forum.


To Rolex:
---------

1. Nice looking current Submariner no date.

2. Not too big like many watches these days (I don't like huge watches and have a small wrist).

3. Seems like the only watch I can really be sure will last no matter how much I abuse it (crown is much more substantial than most comparable watches). First time an authorized watch deaker ever guaranteed his product could stand up to anything.

4. Impeccable service from Rolex. Parts available for all time. By comparison, the Bell & Ross forum at their website http://www.bellross.com/ shows that their customer care leaves a lot to be desired.

5. Watch will never go out of style. Compare with the Bell & Ross Hydromax, which appears to be a failure since it is almost impossible to get a battery changed, so just ends up being a "gimmick" watch.

6. Worn with a nylon strap puts it in stealth mode and also makes it more utilitarian.

7. Prefer current flat sapphire crystal to previous domed plexiglass.

8. Expensive. Sometimes you just want something just because you like it, not because of its inherent utility.

9. All other quartz movement sports watches are more or less equivalent to the current $150 Swiss Army watch I currently own, so paying > $1000 for a quartz watch is problematic.

10. I like a no date watch. I find the date function on a watch to be inelegant unless it has at least the 365 day calendar functionality, not to mention the Julian Calendar (leap year every 4 years), etc.

11. I kind of like the "Rolex" symbols around the edge of the dial on the current model no date Submariner since they are discreet (can't be seen in normal conditions) yet classy.

12. New watch style is flashy for those occasions when you might want to show off.



Not to Rolex:
------------

1. Expensive. From what I gather, manufacturing costs would put this watch at least 40% less, e.g., compare with similar Omega models. I don't mind paying more for value, but not just for the name and for demand.

2. The 2 extra lines in the new ND Submariner make for a cluttered dial.

3. Is a little heavy and thick.

4. Watch is flashy and reflects a lot of light which makes it harder to read in bright light. This was extremely clear when making a side by side comparison of a recent (about 2006) ND Submariner with a Bell & Ross Marine. This is not the case with older 5513 Submariners, so there seems to have been a shift in design towards more flashy "jewelery" type Submariners, which seems contrary to their utilitarian nature as a diving/sports watch.

5. I don't like metal bands. Diving extension doesn't work well for me, it's not big enough to fit the watch over my Winter gloves. Rolex watch only comes with a metal band, so am paying a lot (close to $1000) for something I will probably never use.

6. I like having a very accurate watch. I am not a fan of automatic movements for their own sake.

7. "Superlative Chronometer" on the dial just doesn't seem right to me when many much cheaper quartz watches are more accurate (COSC certification for quartz requires something like 10 times more accuracy). In any case, a more discreet notice of certification would have been preferable to my taste, e.g., a simple "COSC certified" and I'm also not such a great fan of the adjective "superlative".

8. I looked at a fully restored 1986 Submariner and was told it was not advisable to use for diving or sports. If a 23 year old fully restored Rolex is not suitable for sports, then can a Rolex truly be considered a long term utility watch? However, I should say that this was contradicted by the Rolex representative, Place Vendome, Paris, who told me that a well maintained Rolex could theoretically be used indefinitely for its intended purpose.

9. I don't like the English/metric conversion on the watch face, if anyone is interested in buying this watch, he or she can look up the equivalent in his or her units or ask the dealer (I believe most other dive watch brands just give a metric rating). Because of this, the 2 new certification lines, and the medium size dial, the current watch face seems cluttered.

10. The quartz Rolex model of 20 years ago was bigger than the automatic model, even though a quartz movement should in principle be smaller (to my knowledge) and other top of the line Swiss companies such as Patek Philippe have been making identical quartz and automatic models for years. To me, this seems like a failure of Rolex R&D.

11. A countdown bezel (numbers increase in the counter-clockwise direction) seems more logical to me for diving, that is, you first decide how much air you have for your dive, set the bezel to that amount, and then dive until the minute hand starts approaching "zero" (the origin mark). In particular, if you are close to out of time and in oxygen starvation, then it would be easier to note how much time you have left with respect to an absolute mark "zero" as opposed to a relative mark such as "30" when you might ask yourself in this confused state: "Did I prepare 30 minutes or 40 minutes of air?". Seems like someone at Rolex should have figured this out in the last 50 or 60 years. Of course this applies to all dive watches and anyway since I don't dive and only use the bezel as a timer, I do prefer the current technology.

-ilan