Durability of ceramic bezels

[Sixxgrand1]

Originally Posted by thesmallwave

I don't >>think<< you pay $ 400 only for the ceramic, is platinum there or 18 k gold, and >>must<< be the best ceramic and let's not forget the process of making it.Takes 40 hours to produce a single Rolex ceramic bezel, so that >>should<< say how tough/stronger they are IHMO.

Your points are what Rolex profit professors are banking on....

[dalip]

As has been said: time will tell. I hope the saying "they don't make 'em like they used to' is not applicable in the case of ceramic bezel watches. But they look pretty good!!!

[padi56]

Originally Posted by thesmallwave

I don't think you pay $ 400 only for the ceramic, is platinum there or 18 k gold, and must be the best ceramic and let's not forget the process of making it.Takes 40 hours to produce a single Rolex ceramic bezel, so that should say how tough/stronger they are IHMO.

Now if you think and believe it takes 40 hours to produce a single ceramic insert. I wonder if the believe Rolex when they used to state it take 12 months to make a Rolex oyster watch.So you believe it takes almost two days to make a ceramic insert well in that case some will have quite a long wait to buy any ceramic Rolex insert watch.Don't forget Rolex makes around 900000 watches a year and say around 200000 of those were ceramic.Now if it did take 40 hours to make a single insert, perhaps Rolex have a team of magic robots to produce the amount of watches.And the amount of any precious metals one gram weight would produce hundreds or even a thousand inserts its that small, but Gold or Platinum does make it sound expensive..

[mickyvee]

I've often wondered why Rolex make these ludicrous claims! 40 hours to make a single ceramic insert, is clearly not true. As for the twelve months to make a single oyster, do they think that we, their customers, can't add up? If this were the case, then my AD has 25 years worth of production in his shop window!

[dsio]

Check what Intel charge for an upper speed binned processor. They cost less to make than the a ceramic bezel by far, yet you're buying the R&D behind it rather than the cost of production.

There was more put into it than simply stamping a circle out of a plant pot and putting it in a bezel. Producing them may not cost much but what did the development and tooling cost, and how much are they spending trying to work out how to join the red and blue on a pepsi ceramic without having to make it it in two halves with a metal shim between them?

Yes its overpriced, that comes with Swiss watches in general, but is it overpriced for Rolex given what was put into it and what was it does over the previous model.

[Cannop]

I've heard a couple of stories about cracked or chipped ceramic bezels but I've never seen a picture of one - although I have seen a picture of a ceramic with a minute scratch on it. Not too bad a record I suppose.

[WARVET]

Originally Posted by padi56

Now if you think and believe it takes 40 hours to produce a single ceramic insert. I wonder if the believe Rolex when they used to state it take 12 months to make a Rolex oyster watch.So you believe it takes almost two days to make a ceramic insert well in that case some will have quite a long wait to buy any ceramic Rolex insert watch.Don't forget Rolex makes around 900000 watches a year and say around 200000 of those were ceramic.Now if it did take 40 hours to make a single insert, perhaps Rolex have a team of magic robots to produce the amount of watches.And the amount of any precious metals one gram weight would produce hundreds or even a thousand inserts its that small, but Gold or Platinum does make it sound expensive..

Roger that, It May take 40 hours to produce a batch of 10,000 bezels allowing for them to sit in a oven overnight, If Rolex truly believes this bezel is nearly shatterproof why don't they repair them for no cost.

[SaddleSC]

To the OP, if you are planning to drop your watch onto hard surfaces, you are much more likely to shatter the crystal than to break the ceramic bezel. I have seen countless pictures about shattered crystals from hitting the bathroom floor...funny I have never seen one picture of a broken bezel insert. Bottom line...the fragility of the ceramic is not your biggest concern when dropping to hard surfaces.

If you allow this irrational fear to change your decision on which watch to buy, you are getting swept up in the paranoia of speculation rather than making a well-reasoned decision based on the actual likelihood of failure.

[Dan Pierce]

Ceramic bezel owners need not worry, just wear and enjoy.
I do, however, like nicely aged, faded, aluminum bezels that show natural patina w/ dignity.
dP

[Timepeice]

Originally Posted by htc8p

ceramic looks beautiful and deep black.

have have heard about the cracking. but never saw a picture of it yet.

rolex is a luxury watch. and i dont use it for non luxurious activities.

i wear gshock or victorinix for manual labor, exercise or office work.

2nd the g-shock....mine has gone to hell and back

[Danand]

Originally Posted by SaddleSC

To the OP, if you are planning to drop your watch onto hard surfaces, you are much more likely to shatter the crystal than to break the ceramic bezel. I have seen countless pictures about shattered crystals from hitting the bathroom floor...funny I have never seen one picture of a broken bezel insert. Bottom line...the fragility of the ceramic is not your biggest concern when dropping to hard surfaces.

If you allow this irrational fear to change your decision on which watch to buy, you are getting swept up in the paranoia of speculation rather than making a well-reasoned decision based on the actual likelihood of failure.

Absolutely, totally agree.

[Danand]

Originally Posted by htc8p

ceramic looks beautiful and deep black.

have have heard about the cracking. but never saw a picture of it yet.

rolex is a luxury watch. and i dont use it for non luxurious activities.

i wear gshock or victorinix for manual labor, exercise or office work.

One of the reasons I was sold on rolex is the durability. I wear mine for just about anything, aside from a few small scratches there is no sign of abuse. It is not a Patek and it can take it. Even the ceramic.

[Bullyterrier]

Originally Posted by Danand

You have to know the properties of ceramics to understand just how durable they are. If you consider glass it is fragile if it is unsupported, but support it and it is very strong. The analogy is if you have a glass table with nothing under the glass it is easy to smash with a downward blow. If the table is a wooden table with a glass top directly on the wood you can safely bash that table with very little risk, until the forces get extremely high( usually by concentrating the force in a small area such as a sharp object).
Presumably Rolex has designed the bezel to properly support the ceramic insert, and the edges are well protected also.
I think there is a lot of paranoia on this forum about these ceramic bezels; I suspect they are much more durable than a lot of people give them credit for. I have whacked mine a few times accidentally and there is no scratching, etc. It is not necessary to treat these watches like a Patek.
As another example of durability keep in mind some of the highest performing cars in the world have ceramic brakes, and no one ever questions these.
If you like the ceramic models buy one, wear it and enjoy.

Ceramic knife 'sharpening steels' are very hard, and will re-align the edge of the hardest Japanese blades. But drop one and see what happens.

[Danand]

Originally Posted by Sixxgrand1

Ceramic bezel an improvement over the aluminum bezel? Truly that need be the real question here.

We need to review the issues from millions (yes Millions) of Rolex which were made with aluminum and are still in use today and determine if they were truly an issue from a use/failure perspective. Numbers guys please chime in here...however it appears that from a glance into history (and judging by some recent sales of aluminum bezels Subs...) that the aluminum bezels more then served (and serve) their purpose in spades. Appears to me that ceramic may be more of a direction to: A/ charge more for the timepiece when new AND B/ charge more when a replacement is needed - which as many of us know is where any manufacturer makes its money.....

For the infrequency of service that the average rolex needs or gets I highly doubt that service is where rolex makes most of their money. It is not the same business model as a car company for instance where the dealers rely on service. Watch ADs probably only like service issues because it keeps the customers coming in to look at new product, where the profit lies.
And with the likelihood of most ceramic models probably never needing a replacement bezel I don't think it is a logical assessment to say rolex is using them to increase their after sales service revenue.
I think it comes down to Rolex not wanting to sit on their haunches and doing nothing, while other watch companies make changes. The average watch purchaser is NOT a WIS and so the company has to make some changes over time. It is called progress, even of you don't believe in it.
Don't buy a ceramic model, leave it to others. Apparently there are enough out there that there does not seem to be any significant issues cropping up.

[Danand]

Originally Posted by Bullyterrier

Ceramic knife 'sharpening steels' are very hard, and will re-align the edge of the hardest Japanese blades. But drop one and see what happens.

That is exactly my point- that sharpening stone is a hunk of unsupported ceramic and therefore very unstable when dropped. Put a backing on the stone, and a little support around the edges then don't just drop but throw that same stone and see just how durable it is.
The ceramic insert IS supported by the bezel, and if you look carefully the edges are well protected, so it is highly unlikely that something will happen to it. I agree with those that say the crystal is much more vulnerable, and you don't hear people arguing over whether or not a sapphire crystal should stop them from buying a watch, since the acrylic ones are virtually crack proof( but scratch if you practically breathe on them).

[Danand]

Ok here is another analogy if people don't seem to get the idea of properties of ceramics.
Take a ceramic tile floor- drop stuff on it. The vast majority of the time the tiles don't break, but when they do more often than not when that tile is removed you will find that there was not enough adhesive under it- i.e. The tile was not completely supported and was vulnerable in that area. AND it usually takes something sharp such as the edge of a heavy can to cause the break. For a watch bezel the blow to it would have to hit with enough force in a concentrated point to likely cause any problem, and area wise the crystal is much more likely to be hit. It's highly unlikely to be an issue so get over it.

Btw I think I've had too much coffee!

[Dan Pierce]

Put the coffee down, Jonathan.
We're all on the same page.
dP

[clock]

Originally Posted by Sixxgrand1

Ceramic bezel an improvement over the aluminum bezel? Truly that need be the real question here.

We need to review the issues from millions (yes Millions) of Rolex which were made with aluminum and are still in use today and determine if they were truly an issue from a use/failure perspective. Numbers guys please chime in here...however it appears that from a glance into history (and judging by some recent sales of aluminum bezels Subs...) that the aluminum bezels more then served (and serve) their purpose in spades. Appears to me that ceramic may be more of a direction to: A/ charge more for the timepiece when new AND B/ charge more when a replacement is needed - which as many of us know is where any manufacturer makes its money.....

I think Rolex decision to use ceramic is not to make more money on repairs but an industry wide direction to improved aesthetics.
The Blancpain Fifty Fathom has a huge wide ceramic bezel, Hublot uses ceramic on many of their Big Bang watches (is that when the bezel breaks, it's a big bang? and AP uses ceramic on some of their Offshore models. Panerai has several watches that are entirely made of ceramic. There are probably other companies using ceramic that I am unaware of.

I don't question the beauty of ceramic bezels just its durability. I feel better about this issue based on those (thank you) that have their GMTc/Sub c.

Again, thank you guys for posting your experience.

[padi56]

Well Rado for one has been making ceramic watches since the 1960s so its not something new technology wise.But it sure has taking a long time for some of the major brands to jump on the ceramic latest fashion.

[clock]

Originally Posted by exxondus

heard a few cases of broken/chipped ceramic bezels.

however, seem pretty rare and remote. I had a GMTIIc for 1+ yr before flipping it for a SubC.

Both watches have not given me one bit of issue other than the ooohs and ahhhs...

I sold a GMT c several days ago and waiting for a Sub c to arrive today or Monday. The GMT is a sharp looking watch, I thought the bezel was a bit busy. How do you like your Sub c? Any regrets?

[thesmallwave]

Originally Posted by clock

I sold a GMT c several days ago and waiting for a Sub c to arrive today or Monday. The GMT is a sharp looking watch, I thought the bezel was a bit busy. How do you like your Sub c? Any regrets?

The bezel of Sub C looks better to me IHMO then GMT C, this is what i belive.
No regrets.
Glad you choosed the Sub C, contrats and post pics when arrive.
Sub C bezel ?Judge for yourself.

[sheldonsmith]

Yes, Ceramic bezels fall out, chip, and crack, but for the numbers that are produced, they seem pretty durable. (images from here; background stories on each image posted there as well)

I have owned my GMT-C three years, is my daily wearer, and have had no issues. I do insure my watch as I have heard figures from $400 - $1200 to replace a ceramic bezel.

I do like the predictable durability of aluminum inserts and the ease in replacing them. I do like the look of my 16710 with a faded insert.

-Sheldon

[ersnyder]

Had my ceramic bezel for quite a while now and it looks like new. Aluminum bezels don't last as long.

[le_baroudeur]

I like my aluminium insert... just because it can fade or live with me, the (rare) scratches are part of the watch, i think that i would be disappointed by a watch wich doesn't evolve with time: just look at the "industry" behind faded yellow tritium or faded bezels... Imho after 15 to 20 years on the wrist, they add character to the watch, but that is just my opinion.

[Hooper]

Originally Posted by Dan Pierce

Ceramic bezel owners need not worry, just wear and enjoy.
I do, however, like nicely aged, faded, aluminum bezels that show natural patina w/ dignity.
dP

I totally aree Dan

[Hooper]

Originally Posted by sheldonsmith

Yes, Ceramic bezels fall out, chip, and crack, but for the numbers that are produced, they seem pretty durable. (images from here; background stories on each image posted there as well)

I have owned my GMT-C three years, is my daily wearer, and have had no issues. I do insure my watch as I have heard figures from $400 - $1200 to replace a ceramic bezel.

I do like the predictable durability of aluminum inserts and the ease in replacing them. I do like the look of my 16710 with a faded insert.

-Sheldon

OUCH

[Mancius00]

I recently slid (fell) down a ditch while visiting my property wearing my GMT IIc. The watch took a lot of small rocks and dirt abrrasion. Needless to say I was horified.

Thankfully, when I got home, it looks as good as new after a run under the tap. No doubt there will me future mishaps, but I'm very happy with the outcome this time.

[Danand]

Originally Posted by Dan Pierce

Put the coffee down, Jonathan.
We're all on the same page.
dP

I put it down and I think I might have to switch to decaf!

[ingoodtime]

I'm not worried at all. It is a non issue for me. If I end up cracking it, I'll just have to get it fixed, just like anything else I break. Remember Alfred E. Neuman? What??? Me Worry?

[Danand]

Originally Posted by ingoodtime

I'm not worried at all. It is a non issue for me. If I end up cracking it, I'll just have to get it fixed, just like anything else I break. Remember Alfred E. Neuman? What??? Me Worry?

Very healthy attitude IMHO!