Rolex is no longer a tool watch??

[Johny]

well said larry and yes you can borrow my snap ons

[AndersB]

Originally Posted by Speed Metal Army

Balls to that.I wear mine everyday and thump on it.I am a weld tech,and a nondestructive test tech.It is an M series milguass,and it gets no special treatment at all.Its covered in beat marks,and I barely wind the poor thing.So between welding Shedule pipe,and exposing the watch to radium constantly,Id say its one hell of of "tool" watch.Ive had numerous other brands on my wrist,and many of them couldnt take it.My Millie keeps great time and doesnt care when we work in a mine for 6 weeks.I bought this thing because it is built to last.

So happy to hear this. There should be a Rolex ad based on you and your watch.

[Speed Metal Army]

To clarify a bit...I dont purposely beat on my watch,but I do wear it everyday.It does get scratched.I bought it to wear,not hide and polish.If the poor judgement comment was directed at me,I see no poor judgement in using this watch on a daily basis.I bought the watch to wear,not sit at home.;)

[Goodwatch]

Somewhere in time Rolex became a well-known and somewhat prestigious brand. Apart from the Cellini line, Rolex has always produced watches that are both ‘dressy’ and ‘sporty’. Sturdy is a better description. I believe the ‘tool watch’ description stems from the late sixties and early seventies, in a time there were no dive computers and little or no alternatives. When I was stationed in Lebanon, in 1979, a non-date Sub cost less then $400! (tax-free). For that time still quite an amount but a far cry from what Rolex S.A. charges nowadays.

Rolex are able to charge whatever they want for their products and they do. The price vs. quality relationship is long gone, as with any luxury product.

Holland & Holland are makers of some of the finest hunting rifles money can buy. Shotguns. They are works of art and have little to do with the common $300 shotgun that does an equally well job. And I’m sure there are very little, if any, huntsmen that use an H&H shotgun to kill game to sell to their local poultry monger. An utter waste of money and they probably couldn’t afford such a gun anyway.

The same goes for Rolex dive watches. Any Citizen Aqualand Pro as back-up will do, why waste a ton of cash on a Sub or Seadweller?

As much as I love the brand and especially watches like the Explorer and Sub, Rolex has turned their ‘tool watches’ into the objects of desire of armchair adventurers. Snobs almost. It’s all marketing and brand recognition and little else.

[Johny]

hi frans round actions..dixon etc. good scottish tools. david makay brown still makes them .couple of miles from me. he did some blueing for me in the past.

[chriseskew24]

They still can do what they are intended to do but i would bet that maybe %1 of total sales or less are bought for that reason.
That said Rolex is a luxury item and I am sure profesional divers do not rely on a mechinacal watch as there one an only way to tell elapsed time. There are far better options out there today.
Do I think that a pilot needs a GMT to see diffrent time zones while flying umm probably not anymore I am sure that the planes have a computer for that now.

Is it the price range that makes it a tool or not??? Like lets take Marathon sar or Doxa for example. These are tool watches alot of the time being used for there intended purpose something about beating a 500 to 1000 dollar watch seems far more realistic then beating a new ss ceramic sub at 7000 plus or whatever there price will be.

Today we have options for watches of what one could call equal on all levels includeing fit, finish and yes even acuracy in the $500 to $1500.00 dollar price range but they do not say ROLEX on them..
Rolex is a marketing genius but I have backed away from the brand personaly they have gotten to far from there roots for my likeing when I can afford a vintage I will hop into that for now I am a all Omega collector.

[chriseskew24]

double double post.

[chriseskew24]

double post....

[Jolu]

It really depends how you define a tool. A real tool watch, IMO, has to have a capability besides just telling time. Some kind of extra feature that might come in handy and help you achieve your goal. Every Rolex have that.

[TurboWatch]

Originally Posted by Tools

I disagree....

Rolex is available for their intended purpose for anybody who wants to spend the money. Sure, there are cheaper alternatives.... just like there are for everything in life. But that doesn't mean that one should get themselves the cheapest alternative to achieve their purpose.. In my shop, I use the best tools I can afford, then take care of them to last a lifetime. I don't intend to use cheap tools with the idea to toss them when the first task is over.

Why buy a Timex to toss when you want a Rolex to keep..

Ford or Mercedes

Maytag or GE

Macy's or WalMart

Snap-on or Craftsman

I will agree that most who buy a Rolex likely do so because of the name and prestige. But that can be said of any high end brand name.. Not everybody goes for the top when "cheap" will do the same job, but some do.

As mentioned though.. Rolex doesn't sell "tool" watches, they sell high end luxury products to Professionals or discriminating consumers..

To say that they are not a tool though, when they still are, albiet an expensive one; ignores the history and implies that they are no longer functional - or that somebody is foolhardy to use an expensive tool. However, the price you choose to pay for your tool is (or should be)irrelevant.

Perhaps though, we do agree, but simply perceive it differently..............

[Watchdog]

Originally Posted by Goodwatch

Somewhere in time Rolex became a well-known and somewhat prestigious brand. Apart from the Cellini line, Rolex has always produced watches that are both ‘dressy’ and ‘sporty’. Sturdy is a better description. I believe the ‘tool watch’ description stems from the late sixties and early seventies, in a time there were no dive computers and little or no alternatives. When I was stationed in Lebanon, in 1979, a non-date Sub cost less then $400! (tax-free). For that time still quite an amount but a far cry from what Rolex S.A. charges nowadays.

Rolex are able to charge whatever they want for their products and they do. The price vs. quality relationship is long gone, as with any luxury product.

Holland & Holland are makers of some of the finest hunting rifles money can buy. Shotguns. They are works of art and have little to do with the common $300 shotgun that does an equally well job. And I’m sure there are very little, if any, huntsmen that use an H&H shotgun to kill game to sell to their local poultry monger. An utter waste of money and they probably couldn’t afford such a gun anyway.

The same goes for Rolex dive watches. Any Citizen Aqualand Pro as back-up will do, why waste a ton of cash on a Sub or Seadweller?

As much as I love the brand and especially watches like the Explorer and Sub, Rolex has turned their ‘tool watches’ into the objects of desire of armchair adventurers. Snobs almost. It’s all marketing and brand recognition and little else.

And I would LOVE a Holland & Holland!

[Mockingbird]

Originally Posted by Howie

All sports watches are marketed to make you feel as if you can do something - even though you probably won't. That's part of the allure.

Submariner = divers' watch
GMT = pilots' watch
Explorer = spelunking watch
Milgauss = scientist's watch
Daytona = race car drivers' watch

Personally, I don't pilot planes, work near strong magnetic fields, or race in the Indy 500. I did go snorkeling with my sub once though, just for the hell of it (and to take some pics)!

The scientist milgauss part just makes no sense to me. Any MRI on earth would magnetize that movement. (and rip it off your arm) In reality the difference between between the anti-magnetic properties in the Millie, and in any other model don't make too much of a difference.

[ral]

Rolex, or a any mechanical watch, as the mainstream (military/organizational) choice as a tool watch ended in the 70's-80's with quartz and digital watches. But Rolex watches have not really lost their functionality so they can still be used as a tool watch if someone wanted to.

It's like a car, you could zip to work in a Yaris, or a Mini or Cayman... they all get the job done of taking you from point A to point B. The fact that one cost more does not make it less of a tool. Class is something worthwhile paying for.

Even the new adverts for the Sub have a guy pictured in a suit.

Hhhmmm.... they have been doing that since the 60's when the Sub, was being used as a "tool".

[gelshocker]

Honestly, in terms of the wristwatch world, there are many, many watches that are more suited to dress. As my wife said, the Rolex Oyster design is 'big, dumb and clumsy'. Which fits my lifestyle perfectly as I constantly bang the crap out of it, without a care in the world.

Pateks are what dress watches are supposed to look like. Cheers,

[JBat]

Originally Posted by Tools

I disagree....

Rolex is available for their intended purpose for anybody who wants to spend the money. Sure, there are cheaper alternatives.... just like there are for everything in life. But that doesn't mean that one should get themselves the cheapest alternative to achieve their purpose.. In my shop, I use the best tools I can afford, then take care of them to last a lifetime. I don't intend to use cheap tools with the idea to toss them when the first task is over.

Why buy a Timex to toss when you want a Rolex to keep..

Ford or Mercedes

Maytag or GE

Macy's or WalMart

Snap-on or Craftsman

I will agree that most who buy a Rolex likely do so because of the name and prestige. But that can be said of any high end brand name.. Not everybody goes for the top when "cheap" will do the same job, but some do.

As mentioned though.. Rolex doesn't sell "tool" watches, they sell high end luxury products to Professionals or discriminating consumers..

To say that they are not a tool though, when they still are, albiet an expensive one; ignores the history and implies that they are no longer functional - or that somebody is foolhardy to use an expensive tool. However, the price you choose to pay for your tool is (or should be)irrelevant.

Perhaps though, we do agree, but simply perceive it differently..............

My thoughts exactly.

[Subfiend]

I am on the fence about this one. I own every model in the sports line, and I use each as intended. I also know many, many professional divers that wear Subs and SDs. But for me, the jury is still out on the new models, none of which I own or particularly desire. I think the reputation for quality is still there, but the cross-over to luxury is more prevalent.

You can see this in just the change in membership and posts on this forum in just the past few years. How often do you see threads about luxury items as opposed to the features and history of the watches?

[biggums]

I don't understand the "tool watch designation very much". I don't pilot airplanes anymore but used to, 2200 hours plus.

I don't dive anymore than 10 feet in a swimming pool but used to go 100 ft or so in the Gulf.

But I do love quality made classy items. I take pride in knowing my watch is among the best made. My C6 Corvette has it all over a Mustang or Camero. My Harley is cool and my BMW r1200 RT is totally different but fun too.

My point is Rolex is a high quality product that the masses cannot own. They look good and make me feel good wearing them. I'm retired now but my old co-workers used to get jealous with my $6000 watches and used to tell me about their Casios constantly. I can pass them on to my kids and I know I'm wearing the best.

As far as tools go my Snap On set works well for me.

My Rolex couldn't fix or repair anything except my attitude!

[Singslinger]

Originally Posted by cwwhk

I am a little too obtuse to get the subtlety here. A watch is used to tell time foremost. A Rolex does that well in a well made package. That's good enough in my book. Everything else is just a bonus.

Functions such as GMT hand, Daytona chronograph sub dials, Sub or SD waterproof rating are nice add ons, but are available from much cheaper means. No body buys a GMT IIC because it can tell time in 3 time zones. My iPhone can do a lot more time zones and cost much less than GMT IIC. And I don't even know any professional divers in my circle of acquaintances, let alone one who will spring $8,000 for a SDDS for work.

Cut away all the hype, you still have a very well made watch in a Rolex. That's why I like them. I consider all my Rolex pieces the perfect tool to tell time.

Agree 100%. And I don't think the "do you buy a watch for its functions?'' issue is confined to only Rolex. For instance, how many people who buy a Patek Phillipe minute repeater actually use it to chime the time in the middle of the night? Or for that matter, how many owners of a Lange & Sohne double-split chronograph actually activate that function? What about moon phases - do people buy such watches because they need to know what phase the moon is on any given day? Breguet make a very nice Type XX Flyback chrono. Do people actually buy the watch because they need this function?

IMO, the answers to all of the above are "no''.

Also, I don't think Rolex's move towards more fashion/bling/luxury is new. I believe the gold Subs, GMTs and Daytonas were first introduced in the 1960s and 70s, so it's been an ever-present for at least 40 years already.

[chriseskew24]

Originally Posted by biggums

My point is Rolex is a high quality product that the massesOWN.

Edited

[RolexCat]

Well last year, at my AD. They had a gold Sub from the last 80s. It was so beat, and dented, you would have thought it was a fake. Im sure the guy paid 6-8k to get it fixed.

[rizakaniza]

For a tool watch I'd go suunto...

[pz93c]

So they've gone from tool watches to watches for tools?

[CKLinLA]

I think the 1965 ad you found really shows what Rolex thinks, or what
they will say anyway .....

Please note the ad confirms the tool-iness of the Submariner ,
but not the Submariner Date - which is non-tool of course

Originally Posted by ral

Hhhmmm.... they have been doing that since the 60's when the Sub, was being used as a "tool".