Rolex aluminum bezel

[madmax21]

I've wondered for the last little while whether or not we ever see another aluminum type insert on any of either GMT models or submariners. I just recently bought a Pepsi dial GMT Master ll from 2001 and really love it. I'd buy a brand new one again in a minute if I could get one with the aluminum type bezel insert just like older once. I do own a ceramic GMT Master as well and love it too but I believe it has a different look and truly is a more formal watch in my opinion especially with the black bezel the ceramic look gives it that formal type of feel.

I think the older Pepsi and Coke type dials give it that good times sitting at the beach feel.. informal, casual look and feel and would really like to see a choice given by Rolex. I really wonder if that will ever come true where we have a choice between ceramic or aluminum

[Old Expat Beast]

If you want aluminium you have to go Tudor these days. I very much doubt Rolex will ever bring it back, since the cerachrom represents "progress".

[madmax21]

I appreciate your reply you're a wise man... some days I just wish we had just a little less progress

[joe100]

Thankfully there are many fine GMTs out there from the 2000s, so you can get one that's only a few years old. Sadly, the aluminum and stamped bracelet days are over.

Now we have $1000 inserts and bracelets with more moving parts than the space shuttle

[JohnBaker3]

Originally Posted by joe100

Now we have $1000 inserts and bracelets with more moving parts than the space shuttle

+1

Sad but true....

[padi56]

Originally Posted by madmax21

I appreciate your reply you're a wise man... some days I just wish we had just a little less progress

IMHO sometime progress is just for progress sake IMHO the ceramic is not real progress but simply mainly down to fashion trend.Its not like ceramic is something ground breaking and new in watches,Rado have been making ceramic watches since the 1960s. But without calling there watches the fancy ceramic made up names of today's slithers of ceramic

[Rashid.bk]

Originally Posted by joe100

Thankfully there are many fine GMTs out there from the 2000s, so you can get one that's only a few years old. Sadly, the aluminum and stamped bracelet days are over.

Now we have $1000 inserts and bracelets with more moving parts than the space shuttle

This is not true. The ceramic inserts have already had replacements and the price was from $350-385...and I suspect as time moves forward and Rolex recoups development cost the price will drop a bit more, industry wide also.

I did like aspects of the aluminum inserts, but the stamped bracelets although they did work were a joke for the price you paid and in my four years of wearing ceramic Rolexes, the bezels look brand spanking new, after I don't how many "oh sh#$" moments. In the first few months of owning my aluminum insert SD, it had already reflected a few scars and most I didn't know where the heck from.

So what many of you still pine for is what I completely agree with Rolex, it is the past and inferior in many ways and welcome the ceramic and modern clasps wholeheartedly. However I do have a place for vintage watches and their classic and warm appeal, love me some plexi superdome on a Sea Dweller.
There's room for both, but this past vs present present will continue for another generation, and I notice that the folks who really dislike ceramics, pcls, solid end links, or the "heavy" clasps are old schoolers who've been riding this Rolex train for quite a minute.

It's a new age of smart phones, computers on wrist, cars that park themselves, one inch thick giant TVs....and yes ceramic watches. Rolex has to move forward and modernise and offer advancements/improvements...and considering all the fusion metals, carbon fibre, and full on ceramic watches; I actually feel Rolex has been the best at maintaining it's classic true heritage and timeless design with minimal to absolutely no compromise in it's history and heritage. Place two Submariners who are forty years apart side by side(assuming both are "BNIB") and the connection is unmistakeable, do same with two 36mm Day/Dates forty years apart, a normal person would be hard pressed to find the difference.

[bardm]

Originally Posted by Rashid.bk

This is not true. The ceramic inserts have already had replacements and the price was from $350-385...and I suspect as time moves forward and Rolex recoups development cost the price will drop a bit more, industry wide also.

I did like aspects of the aluminum inserts, but the stamped bracelets although they did work were a joke for the price you paid and in my four years of wearing ceramic Rolexes, the bezels look brand spanking new, after I don't how many "oh sh#$" moments. In the first few months of owning my aluminum insert SD, it had already reflected a few scars and most I didn't know where the heck from.

So what many of you still pine for is what I completely agree with Rolex, it is the past and inferior in many ways and welcome the ceramic and modern clasps wholeheartedly. However I do have a place for vintage watches and their classic and warm appeal, love me some plexi superdome on a Sea Dweller.
There's room for both, but this past vs present present will continue for another generation, and I notice that the folks who really dislike ceramics, pcls, solid end links, or the "heavy" clasps are old schoolers who've been riding this Rolex train for quite a minute.

It's a new age of smart phones, computers on wrist, cars that park themselves, one inch thick giant TVs....and yes ceramic watches. Rolex has to move forward and modernise and offer advancements/improvements...and considering all the fusion metals, carbon fibre, and full on ceramic watches; I actually feel Rolex has been the best at maintaining it's classic true heritage and timeless design with minimal to absolutely no compromise in it's history and heritage. Place two Submariners who are forty years apart side by side(assuming both are "BNIB") and the connection is unmistakeable, do same with two 36mm Day/Dates forty years apart, a normal person would be hard pressed to find the difference.

Very well written. Couldn't agree more

[sco]

Originally Posted by Rashid.bk

This is not true. The ceramic inserts have already had replacements and the price was from $350-385...and I suspect as time moves forward and Rolex recoups development cost the price will drop a bit more, industry wide also.

I did like aspects of the aluminum inserts, but the stamped bracelets although they did work were a joke for the price you paid and in my four years of wearing ceramic Rolexes, the bezels look brand spanking new, after I don't how many "oh sh#$" moments. In the first few months of owning my aluminum insert SD, it had already reflected a few scars and most I didn't know where the heck from.

So what many of you still pine for is what I completely agree with Rolex, it is the past and inferior in many ways and welcome the ceramic and modern clasps wholeheartedly. However I do have a place for vintage watches and their classic and warm appeal, love me some plexi superdome on a Sea Dweller.
There's room for both, but this past vs present present will continue for another generation, and I notice that the folks who really dislike ceramics, pcls, solid end links, or the "heavy" clasps are old schoolers who've been riding this Rolex train for quite a minute.

It's a new age of smart phones, computers on wrist, cars that park themselves, one inch thick giant TVs....and yes ceramic watches. Rolex has to move forward and modernise and offer advancements/improvements...and considering all the fusion metals, carbon fibre, and full on ceramic watches; I actually feel Rolex has been the best at maintaining it's classic true heritage and timeless design with minimal to absolutely no compromise in it's history and heritage. Place two Submariners who are forty years apart side by side(assuming both are "BNIB") and the connection is unmistakeable, do same with two 36mm Day/Dates forty years apart, a normal person would be hard pressed to find the difference.

Perfectly put, thanks for reading my thoughts and writing them down better than I could.