I dont get rolex...

[sub2004]

I mean that i am one of those guys that is aching and burning with desire to buy another rolex.

All that Rolex needs to do is come out with at least a half decent watch. Im not asking for a tourbillion, see thru back, blued screws, 100 anniversary logo dial etc cos lets face it, thats just asking too much...

But i would like something a little same i.e. bezel, lovely balck dial, oyster case and something new i.e. design, style, etc

For the past many years Rolex has stood by and not changed their designs much becuase they felt no threat from other brands. Now they are doing 43 mm watches, 41 mm day dates becuase its pure market forces, more people are looking at buying swiss watches and they are looking away from Rolex... i mean how many submariner variants can one own...

Then i turn my head around my ADs display case and see JLC and Glashutte.

Glashutte comes out with the Senator 60s, just stunning, please new versions of the ultra cool pano models.

JLC is bringing out the Polaris, mechanical depth gauge dive watches, alarms, tourbillions, calendars, moon phases. Reverso with stunning dials...

I see some of the Glashuttes in Jocks pics and just so lovely, you can see the effort in every detail including presentation, Rolex just sticks a finger marked deep sea into the display case (cos we will buy it, yup i will)

What my point is that i want another watch, but everytime i put my hand on my wallet at my AD i just think, man i love the brand, just wish it was a little exciting and refreshing, not just:

"Hey guys we need to come up with a hit watch, hmmm thats real hard so lets just increase the size of the sea-dweller and day date and charge double the price"

Where is the innovation? You cant objectively tell me that extra water-proofing is innovative (Bell and Ross did that years ago) or Blue Lume or coming up with names like "cerachrom or ring lock" cos the are just fancy words...

Sorry for the rant...

Off on a overseas trip in a few days, was looking forward to watch shopping but i'm tired of constantly buying pretty much the same watch from rolex over and over again (sub, tt sub, lv sub, gmt, daytona, expl... just dont feel the buzz lately) Isnt that what we do, we just keep flipping to buy the same rolex again becuase we get tired, not satisifed, think we will get the next variant but its all the same.

[mdx77]

I hear you my friend I myself was hoping for the Ceramic Pepsi GMT and that would round out my "Rolex" obsesion along w/ my LV. One day when I find that rich uncle, a nice DD and Meteorite Daytona will do nice too!

[JJ Irani]

Hey Don,

I know exactly what you need - a 36 mm Day-Date with a white dial and gold Romans - end of story!!

[sub2004]

Originally Posted by JJ Irani

Hey Don,

I know exactly what you need - a 36 mm Day-Date with a white dial and gold Romans - end of story!!

Hi JJ

Im coming to auckland this weekend only for a client meeting, was tempted to buy another rolex at Mansors but i just dont "feel" it you know?

Maybe we can catch up, i will ring you for a chat anyway in case we cant.

Love to Zem!

[Incurable]

I feel your pain... I've been thinking the same thing lately. As much as I love Rolex, they've been trying my patience. The new price increases didn't help much. I know... blasphemy

[JJ Irani]

Originally Posted by sub2004

Hi JJ

Im coming to auckland this weekend only for a client meeting, was tempted to buy another rolex at Mansors but i just dont "feel" it you know?

Maybe we can catch up, i will ring you for a chat anyway in case we cant.

Love to Zem!

Okay, call me......we'll catch up!!

[karmatp]

I hear ya... Their is nothing in the Rolex line that I must have right now. I guess that's a good thing because the money is staying in my wallet. Personally, if I am going to pay the price of the new SDDS, I'm going to buy another brand like Blancpain. Maybe my next purchase will be a plane old perfect SD, it's a shame they messed up such a good thing.

[Gerry]

Well said, Don!!!

[sbakar]

Crappy new designs just make the classic ones, like the SD, an easier purchase decision!

I don't like the new ones, either.

SNB

[sub2004]

Originally Posted by Gerry

Well said, Don!!!

Gerry, my mate! Dont forget my birthday on June 20th, we will be having a meal and chatting watches! Plus i will be picking up the JLC!

[DJF881]

The Rolexes are much more advanced watches technologically, and, even post price increase, they're still cheaper than Glashuttes.

Smaller manufacturers can't integrate features like the Ring Lock, or ceramic bezel or the niobium hairspring, because they can't distribute R&D and infrastructure costs over such a large number of watches.

Instead, these companies rely on being painstakingly handmade. Features like a skeletonized movement or a tourbillon are extravagantly expensive. They never list prices on these watches, but these features are very expensive. A tourbillon costs $75,000 from most of the watchmakers who make them.

The Rolex movement is designed to be durable and accurate. Rolex doesn't stake its brand identity on thin watches or decorated movements. While many here think the tool aesthetic and particularly the tool watch pricing have been abandoned, the luxury branding of Rolex entails taking the traditional brand identity of durability and fetishizing it, improving the movement in expensive ways. But the Rolex decoration is the ruggedness and durability; it's made to suggest 1) that you have money, but 2) also that you might spend that money on climbing Everest or something.

It produces watches in much greater quantity than other watchmakers and it is priced decidedly below the most luxurious brands, even if the $7000 pricetags that will mark the floor of the sports line once all the ceramics are phased in shocks some.

Luxury products that have to be made by skilled craftsmen in industrialized countries and incorporate a high degree of labor become very exclusive because the capacity doesn't exist to churn out high volumes. The highly labor-intensive manufacturing process, the low number of watches generated by the development of a movement (distributing the cost of development more heavily on each watch), and the rarity of the finished product all drive up prices.

Glashutte is cheaper, I believe, than a comparable Patek, Audemars or Vacheron. I don't if that's a function of being German instead of Swiss, or if they make worse watches, or if they're just less prestigious, or what. I know the related Lange brand commands very high prices.

[sub2004]

Point taken my friend, but sometimes i just get the feeling that we are being sold on "selling points" by rolex that dont make much sense.

1. The "ring lock" is nothing super advanced. I dont see any technical brilliance in such a piece, we live in a nuclear/space age...

2. The new hairspring, once again, if one looks at pictures of them, yes interesting but its just a very fine slim piece of wire

3. Ceramic/cerachrom: ceramics have been around for yonks, now they put it in a bezel.

Now what really gets me:

Is that add for the ceramics and the hairspring where Rolex makes a big deal out of how the numbers on the ceramic bezel are done my "atomized" bombardment and similarly how the fine hairspring is made by combining the ions etc etc

But isnt that with everything in life? My fingernail clippings are "bonded" in a super advanced chemical structure where the ions and electrons and protons and neutrons all bind on some molecular level to form my fingernail...

Then we get the message that the people who make our watches are super skilled geniuses who are the only ones capable of seeing the micro-movements and of putting the pieces of the movement together? Basicaly arent they just trained apprentices wearing magnified lens so they can put the pieces togther... but the way they make it is as if they got a PhD in Physics and Optics from Stanford. (not that im saying that anyone can do it, but its a stretch to glorify them also)

So "smaller" manufacturers cant integrate features like the ring lock or ceramic bezel or hairspring:

1. JLC has a dive watch with mechanical depth gauge

2. JLC has a Reverso with a shutter that opens up to reveal a miniture enamel work

3. Glashutte has engraved casebacks, hand finished movements,

4. Panerai and IWC have ceramic cases

5. IWC has an advanced hairspring in the 7 day movements which go till 8 days but have a built in reducer..

6. JLC has a "extremelab" watch where the movement does not require lubrication

Im not taking issues per se, what my observation is as follows:

1. I want to give Rolex my money, im like a baby with candy in its hand...

2. But i dont want to continually buy the same watch over and over in a boring variation, we live in an age where consumers are educated...

3. I spent almost 2 hours happily browsing at my AD, i saw maybe 2-3 walk by and check out the Rolex display. Most people were oogling at and working out purchase prices on JLC, Bregeut, IWC, Omega...

4. Im not complaining about the price, im happy to pay for $10 grand for a nice new rolex that is interesting, takes my fancy, makes me feel great, is innovative. I dont want to pay 10 grand for yet another sub...

5. I dont think the Milgauss is innovative, magnetic/field shielding has been around for ages. It just means adding an extra layer to protect the inner area i.e. when you go for an x-ray you sometimes have to wear a lead vest (wow, thats so innovative we would say, only becuase Rolex makes it out to be a mind blowing innovation)

I mean, im not trying to be difficult. But i think we as watch collectors, WIS and Rolex fans have the right to know what are these innovations that are so mindblowing. The adds, to use the punn, just dont add up to anything innovative. I want to actually know what a "ring-lock" is, is it just a ring that locks into place? Is the magnetic shielding just another layer of metal that costs a few dollars, ...

Oh well, i guess i'll buy another Rolex... maybe a GMT or something, oh what's the point, i might as well tie a blindfold around my eyes and just reach into the ADs case and pick one...

[Octopus]

If you want something 'different' there is always the YM II...

[Incurable]

Better hurry, this guy's got first dibs on it...

[Trurolexer]

Originally Posted by Incurable

Better hurry, this guy's got first dibs on it...

lol!!! Hurry up!!!

[TDH]

I totally agree with you. Omega has showcased far better watches at BASEL.

[JJ Irani]

I think the real problem, Don, lies in the fact that you've been away too long from a certain bald Kiwi's influence.

A couple of hours with me will see you back on the Rolex track!!

[sub2004]

Originally Posted by JJ Irani

I think the real problem, Don, lies in the fact that you've been away too long from a certain bald Kiwi's influence.

A couple of hours with me will see you back on the Rolex track!!

Lol, you probably are right. One weekend with you i probably will come back home with another rolex haha

[JJ Irani]

Originally Posted by sub2004

Lol, you probably are right. One weekend with you i probably will come back home with another rolex haha

A nice DD with President bracelet, white dial and gold Romans - now, that's you, my friend, that would be you!!!

[DJF881]

Originally Posted by sub2004

Point taken my friend, but sometimes i just get the feeling that we are being sold on "selling points" by rolex that dont make much sense.

1. The "ring lock" is nothing super advanced. I dont see any technical brilliance in such a piece, we live in a nuclear/space age...

My understanding is that all other watches to achieve comparable depth ratings have been filled with oil. The ring lock is a really neat development that keeps the watch from being crushed under incredible pressure.

2. The new hairspring, once again, if one looks at pictures of them, yes interesting but its just a very fine slim piece of wire

Well, a watch is just a bunch of gears and cogs.

I have a GMTIIc, and it's extremely accurate. 2-3 seconds a day is considered very good, and the hairspring brings that accuracy to within a second a day, which is virtually unprecedented.

3. Ceramic/cerachrom: ceramics have been around for yonks, now they put it in a bezel.

Then we get the message that the people who make our watches are super skilled geniuses who are the only ones capable of seeing the micro-movements and of putting the pieces of the movement together? Basicaly arent they just trained apprentices wearing magnified lens so they can put the pieces togther... but the way they make it is as if they got a PhD in Physics and Optics from Stanford. (not that im saying that anyone can do it, but its a stretch to glorify them also)

I'd guess there are some PhDs doing R&D for Rolex. The niobium hairspring really is cutting edge. Nobody had designed a spring with those properties or tools to machine such a thing before. Out of the range of expertise of watchmakers.

Rolex ain't NASA, but the ring lock system is a pretty impressive feat of engineering.

So "smaller" manufacturers cant integrate features like the ring lock or ceramic bezel or hairspring:

1. JLC has a dive watch with mechanical depth gauge

I can't find this. Link?

2. JLC has a Reverso with a shutter that opens up to reveal a miniture enamel work

Enamel work is really expensive. And kind of tacky on most watches.

3. Glashutte has engraved casebacks, hand finished movements,

Rolex is definitely produced on an assembly line and regulated by computers. But it makes for a very accurate watch. There's a high premium on watchmaker time, which is why much of the "hand finishing" is of ETA movements.

4. Panerai and IWC have ceramic cases

I don't know why it's better than steel for the case. I don't like Panerais at all, personally.

IWC makes nice watches.

5. IWC has an advanced hairspring in the 7 day movements which go till 8 days but have a built in reducer..

I like the longer power reserve watches, though my automatic rolex doesn't stop as long as I wear it daily.

6. JLC has a "extremelab" watch where the movement does not require lubrication

Cool. Where are you seeing this? Sounds like the Omega coaxial escapement.

Im not taking issues per se, what my observation is as follows:

1. I want to give Rolex my money, im like a baby with candy in its hand...

2. But i dont want to continually buy the same watch over and over in a boring variation, we live in an age where consumers are educated...

I don't really see that I need a second watch at all, let alone a second Rolex. I kind of want an SDDS, and if I had not already bought a Rolex, I'd probably get it. But I think the marginal benefit of a second sport watch is pretty small.

If I were going to get another watch, it would be a dressier one on a leather strap, maybe a JLC, actually. I think Rolex sport models are best-in-class, but I don't like the DJ as a dressy watch.

I like that there's a similarity among the Rolex models because that makes them recognizable. Of course, if you have a Sub and an SD and a black bezel GMT, most people you see every day will never realize you have more than one watch.

4. Im not complaining about the price, im happy to pay for $10 grand for a nice new rolex that is interesting, takes my fancy, makes me feel great, is innovative. I dont want to pay 10 grand for yet another sub...

This is the opposite of most people's complaint. I like that the SD and the YMII are moving farther from the Sub, because, to the extent that people don't like the changes, they can still get a Sub Date. But you can't have a whole lot of variation and still have an iconic watch. With Rolex, you're going to see refinements and variations on a theme, which is a big part of the brand.

I don't like "limited edition" watches; it's a pressure sales tactic. I don't like radical changes, because the cosmetic similarities through the decades make Rolexes recognizable from a distance and helps them hold value. It means if you buy a watch today, it won't look out of date in ten or twenty years.

I think a lot of the hate on the new models is that the jump to ceramic and parachrom springs is very significant relative to most iterative changes, and will likely devalue older models.

I don't think moves like replacing the SM pro with the Planet Ocean are beneficial at all.

I mean, im not trying to be difficult. But i think we as watch collectors,WIS and Rolex fans have the right to know what are these innovations that are so mindblowing. The adds, to use the punn, just dont add up to anything innovative. I want to actually know what a "ring-lock" is, is it just a ring that locks into place? Is the magnetic shielding just another layer of metal that costs a few dollars, ...

From the technical info:

A watch developed for extreme depths, guaranteed waterproof to 3,900 metres (12,800 feet), the Sea-Dweller DEEPSEA required the design of a case with a unique architecture, the RINGLOCK SYSTEM. This innovation patented by Rolex consists of a combination of three distinctive features:

• The high-performance ring
Set inside the middle case of the watch between the crystal and the case back, the high-performance nitrogen-alloyed stainless steel ring withstands the pressure exerted by water on the crystal and the case back.
The middle case is made from 904L steel.

• The sapphire crystal
To resist pressure, the synthetic sapphire crystal is slightly domed and substantially thicker than the crystals of other Oyster models.

• The case back
The case back is made of a titanium alloy, an extremely resistant stainless material. It is held in place against the high-performance ring by means of a 904L-steel ring.
The helium valve is made of high-performance stainless steel. Its size is adapted to the dimensions of the case to achieve optimal waterproofness. The helium valve is a safety feature, which, during the decompression phase, releases the gases that infiltrate into the watch during caisson dives.
Indeed, between dives at great depths, professional divers use pressurised caissons in which they breathe high-pressure gas mixtures, notably containing helium, a very volatile gas that penetrates into the watch. As the diver resurfaces, the helium valve prevents damage to the watch.
The Triplock winding crown, equipped with three seals and screwed onto the case, completes this ingenious waterproof system.

It's essentially a heavily reinforced case built to withstand very high pressure. The rings brace the case and the caseback against the pressure, and absorb some of the pressure exerted on the crystal to prevent it from deforming.

Part of the increased cost is also the individual pressure testing on each watch.

I don't think they're selling BS features as tech advances. The GMTIIc has been widely lauded as being exceptionally accurate, and this is consistent with my experience with it. That unusual accuracy is commonly attributed to the parachrom hairspring. The ring system in the SDDS allows a much greater depth rating than other diving watches.

[Lol-x]

The JLC Lab Extreme is a $250,000 watch.

I'm not going to get into detail, but Rolex are known for their almost 'perpetual' resistance to change. The changes are by small increments. I think this can lead to frustration at times.

[unclesallie]

Originally Posted by DJF881

The Rolexes are much more advanced watches technologically, and, even post price increase, they're still cheaper than Glashuttes.

Smaller manufacturers can't integrate features like the Ring Lock, or ceramic bezel or the niobium hairspring, because they can't distribute R&D and infrastructure costs over such a large number of watches.

Instead, these companies rely on being painstakingly handmade. Features like a skeletonized movement or a tourbillon are extravagantly expensive. They never list prices on these watches, but these features are very expensive. A tourbillon costs $75,000 from most of the watchmakers who make them.

The Rolex movement is designed to be durable and accurate. Rolex doesn't stake its brand identity on thin watches or decorated movements. While many here think the tool aesthetic and particularly the tool watch pricing have been abandoned, the luxury branding of Rolex entails taking the traditional brand identity of durability and fetishizing it, improving the movement in expensive ways. But the Rolex decoration is the ruggedness and durability; it's made to suggest 1) that you have money, but 2) also that you might spend that money on climbing Everest or something.

It produces watches in much greater quantity than other watchmakers and it is priced decidedly below the most luxurious brands, even if the $7000 pricetags that will mark the floor of the sports line once all the ceramics are phased in shocks some.

Luxury products that have to be made by skilled craftsmen in industrialized countries and incorporate a high degree of labor become very exclusive because the capacity doesn't exist to churn out high volumes. The highly labor-intensive manufacturing process, the low number of watches generated by the development of a movement (distributing the cost of development more heavily on each watch), and the rarity of the finished product all drive up prices.

Glashutte is cheaper, I believe, than a comparable Patek, Audemars or Vacheron. I don't if that's a function of being German instead of Swiss, or if they make worse watches, or if they're just less prestigious, or what. I know the related Lange brand commands very high prices.

I can't dispute your technical knowledge of this field. From this post, and your subsequent one, I doubt, however, that resistance to new styles stems from fear of loss of value to the older Rolex models, but rather to the perception that 'rolex has lost its way', i.e. a value judgment. That having been said, my belief is that many vintage rolex watches such as the 1680 are INCREASING in value as they are out of production. I have no studies to support that conclusion, but if you have one(and are willing to part with it, which i doubt)just put it up for sale on TRF and see what happens! I really enjoyed reading your two posts, very well thought-out, knowledgeable. In fact this entire thread is high-energy.
best, dan

[Trurolexer]

Originally Posted by TDH

I totally agree with you. Omega has showcased far better watches at BASEL.

Yeah, Omega more and more innovative. They built their design more better right now.

[LRRP]

It's because of exchanges like this that I'm so happy to have found this forum!
Thanks for all the info and opinions......I'm slowly learning.

[BigHat]

Originally Posted by sub2004

I mean that i am one of those guys that is aching and burning with desire to buy another rolex.
Sorry for the rant...

.

Congrats!!

You haven't been ranting, just conveying what should be more obvious around here. Rolex is FAR from the center of the watch universe. I used to dismiss them entirely and that was equally wrong. They make GREAT watches in certain niches, but there are so many other desireable and very well-made pieces out there that we should all remove our blinders from time to time.
Classic case in point in the new Blancpain Fify Fantoms as a contender for the niche that the SD and Sub fill. If you hate the SDDS, the FF is a really nice piece and you get something not seen on every corner and copied in $20 fakes across the globe.

[Jimbits76]

Point taken my friend, but sometimes i just get the feeling that we are being sold on "selling points" by rolex that dont make much sense.

1. The "ring lock" is nothing super advanced. I dont see any technical brilliance in such a piece, we live in a nuclear/space age...

2. The new hairspring, once again, if one looks at pictures of them, yes interesting but its just a very fine slim piece of wire

3. Ceramic/cerachrom: ceramics have been around for yonks, now they put it in a bezel.

Now what really gets me:

Is that add for the ceramics and the hairspring where Rolex makes a big deal out of how the numbers on the ceramic bezel are done my "atomized" bombardment and similarly how the fine hairspring is made by combining the ions etc etc

But isnt that with everything in life? My fingernail clippings are "bonded" in a super advanced chemical structure where the ions and electrons and protons and neutrons all bind on some molecular level to form my fingernail...

Then we get the message that the people who make our watches are super skilled geniuses who are the only ones capable of seeing the micro-movements and of putting the pieces of the movement together? Basicaly arent they just trained apprentices wearing magnified lens so they can put the pieces togther... but the way they make it is as if they got a PhD in Physics and Optics from Stanford. (not that im saying that anyone can do it, but its a stretch to glorify them also)

So "smaller" manufacturers cant integrate features like the ring lock or ceramic bezel or hairspring:

1. JLC has a dive watch with mechanical depth gauge

2. JLC has a Reverso with a shutter that opens up to reveal a miniture enamel work

3. Glashutte has engraved casebacks, hand finished movements,

4. Panerai and IWC have ceramic cases

5. IWC has an advanced hairspring in the 7 day movements which go till 8 days but have a built in reducer..

6. JLC has a "extremelab" watch where the movement does not require lubrication

Im not taking issues per se, what my observation is as follows:

1. I want to give Rolex my money, im like a baby with candy in its hand...

2. But i dont want to continually buy the same watch over and over in a boring variation, we live in an age where consumers are educated...

3. I spent almost 2 hours happily browsing at my AD, i saw maybe 2-3 walk by and check out the Rolex display. Most people were oogling at and working out purchase prices on JLC, Bregeut, IWC, Omega...

4. Im not complaining about the price, im happy to pay for $10 grand for a nice new rolex that is interesting, takes my fancy, makes me feel great, is innovative. I dont want to pay 10 grand for yet another sub...

5. I dont think the Milgauss is innovative, magnetic/field shielding has been around for ages. It just means adding an extra layer to protect the inner area i.e. when you go for an x-ray you sometimes have to wear a lead vest (wow, thats so innovative we would say, only becuase Rolex makes it out to be a mind blowing innovation)

I mean, im not trying to be difficult. But i think we as watch collectors, WIS and Rolex fans have the right to know what are these innovations that are so mindblowing. The adds, to use the punn, just dont add up to anything innovative. I want to actually know what a "ring-lock" is, is it just a ring that locks into place? Is the magnetic shielding just another layer of metal that costs a few dollars, ...

Oh well, i guess i'll buy another Rolex... maybe a GMT or something, oh what's the point, i might as well tie a blindfold around my eyes and just reach into the ADs case and pick one...

This is one of the best posts I've read in a long time. Kudos Don.

DJF881...we get it, you love the Deep Sea and will probably get one!!!! Maybe take those Rolex blinkers off huh?

J

[Goodwatch]

Nice thread, with a good subject. Although Rolex have had their share of extraordinary watches like the Kew chronometer and several models with complications like a moon phase, to me Rolex is the result of very good PR combined with a conservative view on development. I’m a bit shocked by the hausse of new models that are presented the past two years. It is almost if they have a new head of R&D.

With the advent of highly accurate quartz movements and watches that are controlled by time pulse transmitters, the accuracy of mechanical watches has turned into something of a gimmick. It is a moot point. To the non-WIS that is. To me it is a wonder of fine mechanics and an anachronism in this fast changing world we live in.

Accomplishments like the Patek Caliber 89 and the IWC Il Destriero Scafusia are a tour de force, and show what can be made if time and money are no object. And to be honest, out of reach for all of us. And useless for every day life. They are like the Ferrari Enzo, never driven, just for display.

This brings me back to Rolex. Rolex isn’t about ‘haute horlogerie’. Rolex isn’t about just being a reliable and sturdy watch either. That’s what you buy a Citizen Aqualand Pro for. For 300 bucks that is. Rolex is one of the few brands that can give the owner a true reward in ownership. It is one of the most recognized brand names in the world. It provides for a global dealership and excellent after sales service (at a price).

A short while after the purchase of my Sub Date in 2000 I wrote Rolex SA a letter about the upcoming anniversary of that model. I suggested a re-edition of the first Sub. I never received an answer. We all know what Rolex eventually had in mind. Green bezel and maxi dial. To be honest, I was very disappointed with this move. Many of the other brands started to market re-editions of early models. Riding the wave of watch nostalgia. Panerai being the prime example.

But that isn’t Rolex either. Yes, there is a new Milgauss but it is a completely different watch. Rolex don’t do re-editions. Period. (Damn shame, I want that first Sub!).

To make a long story short, Rolex are special in their approach. They don’t seem to care what the other big 7 think. They don’t care about their bling image. They are able to increase their prices with at least 8% every year and still sell all what they produce. They flog mass produced watches and still most of their patrons think they’ve just bought a handmade piece. Utterly brilliant if you ask me!

[Travis]

Originally Posted by Goodwatch

They are like the Ferrari Enzo, never driven, just for display.

Nothing wrong with driving an Enzo. Here is one from Calgary running around So Cal right now...