Tudor Blue Pelagos arrival with a niggling complaint

[037]

What benefit does a three-dimensional pearl offer over a flush one, especially given that the entire triangle area glows on the Pelagos?

Honest question as I'm trying to get a better understanding of the issue here.

Not sure if you've answered this already. If you have then it was lost in the noise.

[SPMN]

This is an odd thread. One thing to note about Tudor - they like to have vintage design details on modern watches. The faux-pearl dot wasn't mean to confuse, rather it's a callback to the time when a pearl was needed for luminescent purposes. It would be very strange to have a lumed pearl on a bezel that's already fully lumed. What would be the point?

I find it odd that anyone would think that the most modern and advanced bezel across the entirety of the Rolex/Tudor lineup is lacking a pearl due to cost-saving measures.

[Brny11]

Poor OP. On the one hand I feel a little bad for you. On other, I am thoroughly enjoying this thread.

Personally, I love the bezel on the Pelagos and Tudors attention to detail to keep the aesthetics with the “faux pearl” as I believe you referred to it as. Without it, the bezel would be have a plain, oversized triangle as one of its main focal points.

[larryccf]

Originally Posted by 037

What benefit does a three-dimensional pearl offer over a flush one, especially given that the entire triangle area glows on the Pelagos?

Honest question as I'm trying to get a better understanding of the issue here.

Not sure if you've answered this already. If you have then it was lost in the noise.

i haven't been concerned with benefits or lack thereof of a 3D pearl. This started out when i thought it was a faux pearl, ie the silk screened or painted on circle emulating a pearl. Someone else had mentioned the bezel had "inserts" but left the stmt generic (iirc) then someone posted a shot of their bezel with the "pip" having fallen out as well as some of the markers having fallen out. Right after that you came along with a clearer or more informative statement about the pip & markers etc being inserts, which helped clear things up for me substantially.

mui.richard then made it a point of distorting or mis-interpreting my stmts to create a false narrative on my position, in a number of regards, including that "I feel i've been had", when i haven't even expressed any concern about that.

[larryccf]

Originally Posted by SPMN

This is an odd thread. One thing to note about Tudor - they like to have vintage design details on modern watches. The faux-pearl dot wasn't mean to confuse, rather it's a callback to the time when a pearl was needed for luminescent purposes. It would be very strange to have a lumed pearl on a bezel that's already fully lumed. What would be the point?

I find it odd that anyone would think that the most modern and advanced bezel across the entirety of the Rolex/Tudor lineup is lacking a pearl due to cost-saving measures.

Sorry but production cost cutting is a genetically encoded trait in any manufacturing operation. When a manufacturer can do that while presenting it as a "new & improved" product it becomes a "win-win". And this ceramic bezel does remove a great of labor and time from the production of the bezel.

What i do wonder about is what the cost will be to replace (from Tudor) if/when a user drops his watch and it's hard enough to show a serious ding in the metal bezel while also shattering the ceramic insert. With a ding for evidence of "user error" i don't know Tudor would warranty the insert's cost.

[037]

Originally Posted by larryccf

i haven't been concerned with benefits or lack thereof of a 3D pearl. This started out when i thought it was a faux pearl, ie the silk screened or painted on circle emulating a pearl. Someone else had mentioned the bezel had "inserts" but left the stmt generic (iirc) then someone posted a shot of their bezel with the "pip" having fallen out as well as some of the markers having fallen out. Right after that you came along with a clearer or more informative statement about the pip & markers etc being inserts, which helped clear things up for me substantially.

mui.richard then made it a point of distorting or mis-interpreting my stmts to create a false narrative on my position, in a number of regards, including that "I feel i've been had", when i haven't even expressed any concern about that.

Ahh, okay. Carry on.

[SPMN]

Originally Posted by larryccf

Sorry but production cost cutting is a genetically encoded trait in any manufacturing operation. When a manufacturer can do that while presenting it as a "new & improved" product it becomes a "win-win". And this ceramic bezel does remove a great of labor and time from the production of the bezel.

What i do wonder about is what the cost will be to replace (from Tudor) if/when a user drops his watch and it's hard enough to show a serious ding in the metal bezel while also shattering the ceramic insert. With a ding for evidence of "user error" i don't know Tudor would warranty the insert's cost.

I'm confused. Were you under the impression this was an aluminum bezel prior to purchase? You're also saying that Tudor built a ceramic bezel with 29 separately inserted lumed pieces, but left out a single old-fashioned pearl as a cost-saving measure? That's absurd.

Ceramic bezels have been around for a long time. If they were truly disasters waiting to happen this forum would be full of threads discussing broken bezels. It happens, but it certainly isn't common, and most of us prefer to the durability of ceramic over aluminum.

[larryccf]

Originally Posted by SPMN

I'm confused. Were you under the impression this was an aluminum bezel prior to purchase? You're also saying that Tudor built a ceramic bezel with 29 separately inserted lumed pieces, but left out a single old-fashioned pearl as a cost-saving measure? That's absurd.

Ceramic bezels have been around for a long time. If they were truly disasters waiting to happen this forum would be full of threads discussing broken bezels. It happens, but it certainly isn't common, and most of us prefer to the durability of ceramic over aluminum.

I might have contributed to the confusion here by using "bezel" up above when i should have said "Bezel insert". The bezel i've known is titanium from Tudor's web - i hadn't thought about the actual material the insert was, but when i saw ceramic, i assumed ceramic coated

You: "You're also saying that Tudor built a ceramic bezel with 29 separately inserted lumed pieces, but left out a single old-fashioned pearl as a cost-saving measure? That's absurd. " No, i'm saying constructing a ceramic bezel costs less to produce than a metal bezel with or even without a pearl

That ceramic bezel insert is created by injection molding, first the major ring (ie the blue portion), then once that's cured, injecting the luminova markers. Simple process. I haven't got a link to metal inserts being manufactured but here's a link to Glashutte dials being fabricated : https://www.watchuseek.com/glashutte...uring-process/ - just forward to the printing of the dial markers process similiar to what they do on an inserts. And apparently it involves partial manual labor, not all automated . Metal bezel would have to be stamped 2, possibly 3X, gauged (ie qc'd) then formed & qc'd again, bored for the pearl, and then mat printing the markers, then add whatever finish they apply to the surface

The ceramic is supplied in a liquid slurry (think of medium thick pancake batter) and already colored to customer's choice. We fabbed a small product in ceramic and it was surprisingly easy to work with. Expensive to buy, somewhere in the order of $440.00 for a 20 liter bucket. I'm sure Tudor sources it in 55 gal drums (or approx) with a much lower cost, but even that 20L bucket we worked with would have given 1,000+ inserts. $440 / 20L, assuming 1,000 inserts is correct, that would mean a material cost for the major part of the insert at $0.44 per. THen the cost of the luminova inserts. The cavity molds (they'd have multiple, all casting the same component) i'd guess at $12-$15,000 per (if not more), as they'd have plugs or bosses for each marker.

The amortized cost of those molds would be a factor of how many "throws" or inserts they were good for before deteriorating to the point of discarding. I'll hazard a guess here, based on investment castings we've done, but as the material is different this is a "guesstimate" - but probably somewhere in the 50,000 to 100,000 throws. Assuming $15,000 is correct and 50.000 throws life per mold, means a $0.30 per insert. So far we've got $0.74 per insert (for the blue main ring).

There were 2 or 3 ways they could have gone with the cavity molds, but the easiest for me would have been having the marker plugs being fixed. Once the insert has cured, it can be moved to a secondary mold, where the markers are injected. And that's where i suspect the issue with the pips falling out of the insert, as well as the markers from the other photo. When we worked with the ceramic project, we had to apply a second spray coating of ceramic to portions of the product. The supplier gave us pretty strong warning that the spray coating had to be applied BEFORE the base ceramic casting had fully cured or we wouldn't get good adhesion. And we found out the hard way they were on the money.

Add to the per insert cost the number of reject castings that are discarded - i'll venture 3-5%, so bump the per casting cost by 5%. I have zero experience with the cost of luminova so that factor, as pertains to cost will have to remain an unknown at this point.

Go look at the Glashutte video, and note how the "mat printing" involved hand labor. Manual labor means slower production rate, and that technician sitting at that work station isn't free.

there are other costs that are fairly irrelevant, cleaning materials (i'm sure they have a spec solvent for running thru the injection system at the end of a production cycle), release agent for the molds etc, and replacement injection nozzles, as the ceramic slurry is abrasive going thru the nozzle, they get worn open or larger.
FWIW

[larryccf]

Another thought came to mind re going to the ceramic bezel disc production. Due to the fact that most western european countries are socialistic, employment laws are fairly generous to employees. If an employee survives 5 years at a company in switzerland, they are considered "tenured" similiar to college professors here in the US. If the company lays them off or fires them, after the 5 year mark, for any reason other than they're having committed a criminal act, that company is responsible for 50% of that employee's health benefits and unemployment wages costs for five years from date of dismissal, or until that employee has found new employment. So employee costs are much higher than just their wages and other benefits.

That was the main reason the current owner of Rolex went to an automated production process when he acquired the company.

A reduction in the manual labor involved in any component means more savings than is obvious on the surface. With a ceramic bezel insert, because it doesn't corrode it doesn't require another step required in the production of metal inserts - ie no finishing, whether anodizing, or clear coating.

FWIW

[sp5702]

Mate, no one gives a shit about you waxing on about “socialistic employment systems”.

[bezler]

Originally Posted by Lt Virgil Hilts

I'm just horrified, that it's not a 'real pearl'!

And now we learn that they're not even using actual oysters in production!

Originally Posted by jvb.nc

sorry, had to.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Please, can we keep the Queen of England out of this? She's got enough on her plate over the past few decades...

Sent from my SM-J327P using Tapatalk

[bezler]

Originally Posted by mui.richard

I didn't realize I had a typo in my first response. Either way, I really couldn't care less. A silly post deserves silly responses.

Ok, that's good that it was a mistake. It appeared that you were just trolling him.

Sent from my SM-J327P using Tapatalk

[ninjin]

Originally Posted by larryccf

You: "You're also saying that Tudor built a ceramic bezel with 29 separately inserted lumed pieces, but left out a single old-fashioned pearl as a cost-saving measure? That's absurd. " No, i'm saying constructing a ceramic bezel costs less to produce than a metal bezel with or even without a pearl

I think we all knew that that when you talked about the bezel, we knew you were referring to the bezel insert and not the coin edged bezel.

What amazes me though, how you can think screen printed bezel insert made from metal (aluminium in most cases) with a pip needs more cost to manufacture than a the ceramic pelagos one is beyond me.

[cda555]

Originally Posted by larryccf

No, i'm saying constructing a ceramic bezel costs less to produce than a metal bezel with or even without a pearl

You are kidding, right? You really think making some aluminum bezel costs more than making a ceramic bezel? They may pour/mold the ceramic insert, but they still have to mill all of the patterns on the bezel. Just watch the video below.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CbH16yT_sLg

It even says on Tudor's website that the bezels are milled. It is so much more expensive and difficult to work with ceramic than it is to work with aluminum or steel.