Is The Quality Of Rolex Watches Slipping?

[Rolex Freak]

Hello Friends,

Would you say that over time (the last 20-30 years) has the quality of the Rolex brand been slipping? I seem to hear a lot of people complaining or stating that they are having issues with their watches. Just wondered what the general consensus has to say, especially from those WIS that have owned a Rolex for awhile. Or do you feel the opposite, that Rolex has improved over the years. I know Rolex produces a lot of watches every year, but I would think that's to keep up with the demand for the brand. Therefore, if there are more around, it would only makes sense that the number of issues would increase at the same rate. Your thoughts?

[marcinthemiddle]

Sandro, I think that no matter how stringent QC is with a company, or how technically flawless the product, you will find 'complainers'... Just my .02

[Rolex Freak]

Originally Posted by marcinthemiddle

Sandro, I think that no matter how stringent QC is with a company, or how technically flawless the product, you will find 'complainers'... Just my .02

Good point.

[padi56]

Well IMHO its now mainly with the obsession of many to finely expect there watches with a powerful magnifying lupes etc.While Rolex is a massed produced item yes you will have the odd little flaw.Like the bezel triangle not lining up to within a cats whisker of the 12 o'clock marker on watches like the sub.But lining up to the triangle has no barring on the function of the time lapse bezel.Now around 15 years ago you just bought a Rolex watch and would doubt if they were microscopical inspected then.

[Gerardus]

Improved imho.

[L-16610]

It is improved, I don't get it why some people would be in doubt

It is better every time they do an update

Without doubt !!!!!

[esm]

I will say no because I believe that a larger production thesedays probably contributes to this very issue.
I'm sure there is a percentage of faults Rolex is working on against and I hope they keep up the good work.

[expy2]

Also, we didn't have forums to moan and bitch on ten or fifteen years ago! I think problems are screamed from the roof tops (which i can understand, i have had problems myself and it is frustrating) and this makes them seems worse/more frequent than they actually are. Like it or not, with modern machinery/technology – cnc etc. – our watches are far better than they once were. Fact.

Mind you, I'm sure my old sekio never had any... and so it goes on.

[ffighter556]

I honestly think that I have found a flaw in every Rolex I've ever owned. It use to bother me but I just learned to live with it.

Dust under crystal
Bezel wabbles on some and not others
Lettering on the dial, black showing through the white
Sharp areas on clasp were they missed the bevel
Markers on dial little off
Date cyclopse not lining up

[L-16610]

Originally Posted by ffighter556

I honestly think that I have found a flaw in every Rolex I've ever owned. It use to bother me but I just learned to live with it.

Dust under crystal
Bezel wabbles on some and not others
Lettering on the dial, black showing through the white
Sharp areas on clasp were they missed the bevel
Markers on dial little off
Date cyclopse not lining up

too cheap for perfection I guess

Buy a 50 or 100K Patek and you won't have these flaws

But a 5000 euro rolex is a damn good watch

[slevin kelevra]

My 2009 Sub ND has been back to Rolex 3 times in a year for accuracy issues. Now I know to some this is not a big deal but the watch was not performing within COSC specs. Having to return a watch once is bad enough but acceptable but 3 times in a year is very frustrating and not acceptable in my eyes.

Its now at the stage where in a year I think I have had my watch for roughly 8 months and the rest of the time its been at Rolex.

My 2ps worth is that people make allowances for Rolex when they really should not. If you bought any other luxury product would you accept the same imperfections?

[kkwn98]

Originally Posted by L-16610

too cheap for perfection I guess

Buy a 50 or 100K Patek and you won't have these flaws

But a 5000 euro rolex is a damn good watch

You'd be surprised.

[Badfish179]

They are "good enough" for me!

[hhh007]

I don't think any one consumer could come up with an accurate answer. You'd probably need a sampling of at least several hundred thousand watches over a period of years. Perhaps a very high volume AD or someone from the warranty dept. at an RSC could hazard a guess.

[The GMT Master]

Just to give you an idea, the number of Rolexes we get back under warranty compared to other brands is very small indeed. It's rare for there to be a truly major problem, and even then, Rolex are very quick to sort it out

[karmatp]

That is why I never take a 10X loop to any watches. If I don't see it with the naked eye, it's good enough for me.

I can say that I did look over my Sub C pretty close when I got home and I cant find a single issue, and the overall quality seems much better than my older subs.

[Rolesor]

Originally Posted by marcinthemiddle

Sandro, I think that no matter how stringent QC is with a company, or how technically flawless the product, you will find 'complainers'... Just my .02

I agree!

[Fiery]

I'm a newcomer to the brand, so I had to pick "Don't know". Does the bezel pearl misalignment count as a quality issue? I hope not, because I don't care about that to be honest.

[Sixxgrand1]

IMHO the quality is still above average. But just barely - from my experiences...

All please note:

>> When Rolex markets their products with this tag-line:

"Obsession with Perfection"...

...just what level of expectations would you expect Rolex owners to have? Oh Rolex is good enough?

Wrong...! We pay for perfection, expect perfection and why can't Rolex deliver perfection? They advertise it. We buy it and take it home and guess what? They are not perfect.

Their marketing tag line really should be "Obsession with Perfection - close but not quite there yet..."...

Some issues of late:
- Dust under crystal
- Bezel wabbles on some and not others
- Lettering on the dial, black showing through the white
- Sharp areas on clasp were they missed the bevel
- Markers on dial little off
- Date cyclops not lining up

I have experienced 4 of the 6 above issues in the last five Rolex purchased new in the last 24 months.

Some can debate "they are a massed produced item". Well so are the dozen or more Breitlings, Omega's, IWC's, SINN's and Ulysse Nardins I have owned over the years and of those watches - a total of NONE had any of the 'current' Rolex quality control issues and NONE were ever sent in for movement failures or accuracy issues. Was I just lucky?...I don't think so.

So speaking from more then a decade of experience and ownership of 18+ timepieces which were Rolex or compete for Rolex's market share - sadly I place Rolex last in my list above of brands owned.

Oddly all I own is Rolex now. Because I love the design and the comfort and the history. But they need to address their quality control as opposed to focusing on change and or price increases.

[Dweller of the Sea]

I believe it is the same, if not better with modern technology.
Todays compliants become very public and very fast, because of the internet and forums.
Often one compliant will surface on several forums, so suddenly it seems there are more complaints
One little feather can easily grow into five hens.

Sometimes people also thinks something is wrong or could have been made better, but actually nothing is wrong, they just expect Patek Phillipe quality for the money they spend on their Rolex. (and not even PP is perfect)

[snowbird]

Originally Posted by L-16610

Buy a 50 or 100K Patek and you won't have these flaws

Is that really true? I'm not sure price is correlated with quality in the sense of lack of defects/problems.

I've never owned a Patek, but from the limited sample of Patek owners I've talked with, if anything they seem to have more quality problems than Rolex even for the non-complicated models.

I'm curious to hear thoughts/experience on this.

[Tools]

Rolex is far better today than it ever has been..

However, consumers are now combing over their watches with 10x loupes and whine over any scratch, speck of dust, or machine mark........ This goes well beyond reasonable expectations for a consumer product..

[darthmouse]

I believe the Internet and technology have something to do with the seemingly increased number of complaints about QC. Photoshop is commonplace in professional photography; a picture on Rolex's site might look perfect, but it's doubtful that the watch is.

It's comparable to the dilemma with beauty magazine covers and such. No one has that perfect "airbrushed" look, but you wouldn't know it by looking at all the flawless photos.

[crazycarlitos]

20 years ago, we didnt have forums like this where we can learn and discuss instantly on the internet..

i also think there are more Rolex owners out there today than 20 years ago.

i suppose thats due to better world economy (sans recent few years)

same reason i see everyone driving BMW, Mercedes, etc.. 20-30 years ago (before lease was popular) u didnt see the german luxury cars in every garage.

[xtra3cats]

Technically improved I agree. Other parts? I don't think so.Luminosity on my late M serial LV's hour/minute hands diminish to the point they are hardly visible in the dark. For a 2 year old watch specially a Rolex I think it is unacceptable. I know other owners having this problem too.

[rolexertion]

No, but I'm not so sure about the posts on the forum.

[RolexWatcher]

Looking at the old Rolex watches, the new Rolex watches have definitely improved. Better materials, better cutting.

In fact, I have to argue that it is because it is mass produced that quality has improved...it takes out the human error. It's ironic given how the society perceives hand-made to be of better quality.

[Stengah]

Improved? Yes. Improved proportional to price increases? Maybe not.

[spuds]

Originally Posted by marcinthemiddle

Sandro, I think that no matter how stringent QC is with a company, or how technically flawless the product, you will find 'complainers'... Just my .02

Originally Posted by padi56

Well IMHO its now mainly with the obsession of many to finely expect there watches with a powerful magnifying lupes etc.While Rolex is a massed produced item yes you will have the odd little flaw.Like the bezel triangle not lining up to within a cats whisker of the 12 o'clock marker on watches like the sub.But lining up to the triangle has no barring on the function of the time lapse bezel.Now around 15 years ago you just bought a Rolex watch and would doubt if they were microscopical inspected then.

Originally Posted by expy2

Also, we didn't have forums to moan and bitch on ten or fifteen years ago! I think problems are screamed from the roof tops (which i can understand, i have had problems myself and it is frustrating) and this makes them seems worse/more frequent than they actually are. Like it or not, with modern machinery/technology – cnc etc. – our watches are far better than they once were. Fact.

Mind you, I'm sure my old sekio never had any... and so it goes on.

Originally Posted by karmatp

That is why I never take a 10X loop to any watches. If I don't see it with the naked eye, it's good enough for me.

I can say that I did look over my Sub C pretty close when I got home and I cant find a single issue, and the overall quality seems much better than my older subs.

Originally Posted by Tools

Rolex is far better today than it ever has been..

However, consumers are now combing over their watches with 10x loupes and whine over any scratch, speck of dust, or machine mark........ This goes well beyond reasonable expectations for a consumer product..

Soooooo many good points: All of which I agree with.

[marcinthemiddle]

Hey Dan! Where ya been?