Rolex changes...a different perspective

[CPTL]

Rolex has been changing up their models a bit, and--love it or hate it--everyone has an opinion. I, for one, have been consistently opposed to the changes, as I just can't find anything wrong (except for lume) with Rolex watches as designed. Others think the changes are too little, too late with Rolex lagging behind more progressive brands.

But then I started thinking about it differently....

Basel happens every year. Every year, everyone in the watch world, and all of us watch fans, wait with baited breath for the changes to roll out. We talk about it for weeks, and stand vigil at our laptops on the morning of the release.

Rolex has to be at Basel: if they weren't, well then--they just wouldn't be important in the watch world. They have to make some changes--at least to a few references each year. Otherwise, what's the point of being at Basel? The changes have to be significant enough to warrant notice and discussion, and they should be actually better than what they changed from.

Seems to me that when you make what is arguably already the world's best watch, this set of facts puts you in a tough spot.

Rolex wants to make good, meaningful, and noticeable IMPROVEMENTS to the chosen few references each year. However, they don't want to make any drastic changes, for two reasons: for one, they already make a damn fine product with a loyal following; secondly, they're the watch that you buy every fifty years, not every five.

Seems like Rolex is in a very tough spot. They have to change every few years, but not really change just for the sake of being different than they were last year.

In light of this, seems like they've done pretty well. Starting with the Daytona, over a ten year period Rolex revamped its entire line. They designed and produced a new clasp and bracelet for their staple lines. They introduced SELs and expanded use of the Triplock. They beefed up the case a bit without following the trend of ever-increasing diameter; in fact, they increased the diameter on only a few pieces. They designed a proprietary ceramic bezel insert, and modified it for all the rotating bezel lines. And, the keystone change, they completed the all in-house revamping of their movements with the Parachrom and Paraflex.

And, one thing is apparent ten years later. If you step back and look at the entire Rolex line, you'll recognize everything you see. The Sub, GMT-II, Daytona, and DJ are a little different, but still very much the same. Only two outliers: the YMII, which might be the most amazing mechanical watch ever made, and the DSSD, which is finally "different" from the Sub (not to mention a "heritage" piece in some respects).

Seems like Rolex did pretty good.

[marie]

Originally Posted by CPTL

Rolex has been changing up their models a bit, and--love it or hate it--everyone has an opinion. I, for one, have been consistently opposed to the changes, as I just can't find anything wrong (except for lume) with Rolex watches as designed. Others think the changes are too little, too late with Rolex lagging behind more progressive brands.

But then I started thinking about it differently....

And, one thing is apparent ten years later. If you step back and look at the entire Rolex line, you'll recognize everything you see. The Sub, GMT-II, Daytona, and DJ are a little different, but still very much the same. Only two outliers: the YMII, which might be the most amazing mechanical watch ever made, and the DSSD, which is finally "different" from the Sub (not to mention a "heritage" piece in some respects).

Seems like Rolex did pretty good.

Great post and very very well put.

[WatchnRoll]

I agree 100%.

In general, huma nature is to resist change at first. Change is bad to many people but why is that so?

I think it takes time to accept change and see it in hindsight for what it is...time gives that perspective and in most cases that change is seen in a positive light down the road. Not always...I remember the leopard Daytona...

I wasn't a member back when the DSSD was released or when they revised the GMT IIC and other gold subs...but I can only guess there was a strong contingent of people who opposed such changes. Not a bad thing at all....as I said it's human nature.

I see these changes are true innovation for the brand and they are the leaders in the watch industry. As you said, as a leader you must unveil new models at Basel.

We all appreciate these watches by being on this forum and of course some prefer the older models...that's cool too.

I think what bugs me at least on this site is some of the bashing of certain models. Models that some of us own. I can't tell you how many posts I've read about the Deep Sea. I mean JJ even called it a White Elephant and some claim it isn't doing well in sales and is over-engineered or you need to be a giant to wear it... :)

In any case, what I do see is a LOT of sales coming for the new SS Sub. I love it's styling and think it's a homerun.

The green is a bit of a niche watch and I can see the less than positive reaction. But I wouldn't be surprised if they release a black dial in the near future.

[The GMT Master]

An excellent post Kevin. I have to say, Rolex is doing a great job of modernising the brand whilst staying true to its heritage. Rolex had to evolve or die - it is certainly making itself more of a young man's watch, and beginning to shake off the perception that it's old fashioned. For me, when you put a revised model against an old one, the new one is so much better. From a sales point of view, the older style models are getting increasingly harder to shift, and looking at the models from a layman's point of view (as in no real familiarity with the models), the older models can feel dated, and feel like they're not up to the quality that you expect from a brand like Rolex.

Take, for example, a customer I had in this weekend. New to the brand, and looking at a lot of different models in the range. He wanted a clean looking, understated watch, preferably without a date, so I brought out the 36mm O.P., Sub, Sub Date and Explorer. He tried on the Sub Date first, and he didn't take to it. Next on was the Explorer - loved the dial, but felt a little on the small side.

Next the Sub - the bracelet was the deal killer here. He said that it wasn't right on a watch of such a price, and wouldn't want to have such a "tinny" feeling bracelet even on a £100 watch. He then tried on the O.P., and loved the more substantial bracelet, but couldn't find a dial that was quite right. In the end, he fell in love with the 116200 on Oyster with a white Roman dial. Long story short, history and a backstory isn't necessarily what a new customer wants from a watch - it might be nice to know, but the most important thing is how it looks, how it feels, and the perception of value for money.

In my experience, the older style bracelets (even ones revised with solid end links) are often a deal breaker. From the salesman's point of view, as well as Rolex's point of view (let's remember here that they're out to make money, rather than keep the fans happy by prolonging the existence of frankly outdated watches), the new models can't come soon enough.

Here's to the new generation, and long may they reign (until they feel outdated, anyway )

Chris

[CPTL]

Originally Posted by The GMT Master

In the end, he fell in love with the 116200 on Oyster with a white Roman dial.

Hard to argue with that choice.

[CPTL]

Originally Posted by WatchnRoll

I think what bugs me at least on this site is some of the bashing of certain models. Models that some of us own. I can't tell you how many posts I've read about the Deep Sea. I mean JJ even called it a White Elephant and some claim it isn't doing well in sales and is over-engineered or you need to be a giant to wear it... :)

I'll admit, I have been one to question the practicality of the DeepSea. I've tried it on twice, and I just couldn't wear it. It's also hard to deny that they sold for well over $11K in Oct 08, but can be had easily for under $7500 now. That's what JJ meant when he called it the White Elephant: highly anticipated and hyped, but not universally loved.

Still, I appreciate the engineering and manufacture of the watch. Holding it in your hand, it's difficult to deny that it's a magnificent watch.

[gelshocker]

It's only in recent years Rolex has made any improvement worth noticing. Actually it's quite shocking (YMII as you mentioned, Milly, DSSD).

In the past it was just new dials for the DJ! Rejoice! Cheers,

[mike]

Great post.

One of the great things about Rolex is that in the main their watches change very little over time. There's no mistaking the DNA of a modern Sub from a vintage. I think this is one of the reasons valuations hold so strong over the years.

Having siad that I'm a fan of the direction has gone with their mainstay references. ( SS versions of the sports models). By in large these improvements have been beneficial to the usability of the watch.

I know some will rail about PCLs and ceramic inserts, but it's easy to brush out shiney if you want and to Rolex's cerdit the new Sub (and DSSD) are right where they need to be.

Rolex sports pieces have "evolved" larger over the years. That Rolex took much longer to get there than some others brands in some way speaks to their commitment to stay true to their roots. (Now if only they would stand with the great vintage pieces that got them there.)

[HL65]

Well said Kevin!!

[cornerstore]

Evolution not Revolution. Rolex has a strategy based on nurturing its collectible market.Look no further than here with the multiple watch owners.

[Boopie]

I agree with the OP's insightful post. Some changes and updating are warranted, but I like the way that modern and vintage Rolexes look similar.

I think of the way Chevy's Corvette and Ford's Thunderbird evolved over time. When the first generation of those cars were introduced in the 1950s they were essentially the same thing, i.e. sporty coupes. Over time, the Corvette evolved, but stayed true to the same originating principle. The Thunderbird, on the other hand, almost became a parody of itself in the 1980s.

[bewithabob]

Kevin- I agree with your insight. On this vein, I long for Rolex to deepen the respect for their heritage with occasional re-issues. The beauty and elegance of their brand is very deep and can withstand looking back as well as forward.

[mask1196]

Really well said Kevin!!! 100% agree!

[Singslinger]

Very nicely said, and I agree 100%. Since it's impossible to keep all people happy all the time, Rolex has settled for the much more practical approach of trying to keep (hopefully) a lot of people happy all of the time.

As in the case of any business, an incremental approach to change is probably the most sensible.

Great post!

[volkersports]

I have been fortunate enough to own several Corvettes and a few Rolex watches in my life. I make no quality comparison between the the two, but they do have something in common. Both brands from their inception has made change by evolution. In the early C1 Corvettes you could begin to see the body style changes emerge from year to year. By the time the C2 (1963) appeared, we had seen most of the car except the swept back in the 61 - 62 models. The C3 models (1968) has been previewed in small ways for years. Rolex has done the same thing. My Submariner 14060 no date, is a greatly improved version in every respect over the ones introduced in the 50's. Yet, placed side by side, they look almost the same. The changes have come in slight improvements for the last 60 years. My 1988 Datejust 16013 is a much better watch than my 1957 6605 ever was. And yet, they are still so much the same. I don't like new for the sake of being different. I like new because it is better. Every month I open WatchTime so see a new concept wath from Bell & Ross, Urwerk or Audemars Piguet. They are next year's old news. I for one, will stay with the solid, slow to change, always quality, Rolex.

[CPTL]

Originally Posted by mike

Great post.

One of the great things about Rolex is that in the main their watches change very little over time. There's no mistaking the DNA of a modern Sub from a vintage. I think this is one of the reasons valuations hold so strong over the years.

Having siad that I'm a fan of the direction has gone with their mainstay references. ( SS versions of the sports models). By in large these improvements have been beneficial to the usability of the watch.

I can't help but think that my collection is now behind the times, and I've been thinking lately about whether or not to upgrade my Sub. Still, every time I look at it, and try to compare it to the available alternatives, I just don't see anything as an "upgrade." Bottom line is that my 16610 does very well for exactly what I want to use it for. Every time I objectively compare my Sub to any potential replacements, well, going through the expense and effort to flip and replace just doesn't seem worth it.

[karmatp]

Solid post Kevin. I completly agree with you statements, change is tough but eventually we all learn to except them. My main concern with change is that they stay true to their history and keep the tool watches tool watches. Rolex did good with the ss sub, and thank goodness for no pcl's.

No only concern is the price point they are getting into. Once I commit to spending that much on a watch, I am going to seriously look at other brands like Blancpain or Ulysse Nardin.

[wgs]

Another...very well said!

[ParisDakarBmw]

Great thread, and I agree!

[t e x]

Originally Posted by ParisDakarBmw

Great thread, and I agree!

ditto

[frank gama]

Great post. One hundred percent spot on.

[ocwatching]

well thought out post..thanks!

[JBat]

Originally Posted by CPTL

I can't help but think that my collection is now behind the times, and I've been thinking lately about whether or not to upgrade my Sub. Still, every time I look at it, and try to compare it to the available alternatives, I just don't see anything as an "upgrade." Bottom line is that my 16610 does very well for exactly what I want to use it for. Every time I objectively compare my Sub to any potential replacements, well, going through the expense and effort to flip and replace just doesn't seem worth it.

Kevin, your original post is excellent and I like your take on things. As for your 16610, I'm right there with you. People will continually bring up the bracelet and case size as being negatives, but for me, it's already a fantastic piece and doesn't need "upgrading." Just my opinion, but I love mine.

[CoopJr]

Originally Posted by CPTL

I'll admit, I have been one to question the practicality of the DeepSea. I've tried it on twice, and I just couldn't wear it. It's also hard to deny that they sold for well over $11K in Oct 08, but can be had easily for under $7500 now. That's what JJ meant when he called it the White Elephant: highly anticipated and hyped, but not universally loved.

Still, I appreciate the engineering and manufacture of the watch. Holding it in your hand, it's difficult to deny that it's a magnificent watch.

X2 well said Kev

[stusrt]

I see that rolex has made big changes in the last few years.

look how little the SUB and GMT changed since the 60's. Just little tweaks here and there.

Now in a couple years, they both get major overhauls. I personally think for the best also. I have 16710 and 116710 - and it seems to be a 20 year jump in technology.

same overhaul for the sea dweller -> deepsea and
the Datejust -> datejust II

so - I have to say these last couple years have seen the biggest change for Rolex in their history -

of course someone is going to disagree?

[rfknauss]

Kevin, I agree with you 100% ....... and a very well written post!