Ceramic insert vs Metal insert

[bigbear]

hello,

I am just trying to figure out what is the point of ROLEX making a ceramic insert. Someone recently cracked their
insert here on TRF and posted some pics and it turns out it is not much thicker than the metal insert. For some
reason, I thought it wasas thick as the bezel.

So why would Rolex go with the ceramic? Are they following some trend?
Does it make the watch look bigger? It definitely has a shine to it for sure but it shatters easily and is atleast 3 times as costly as a metal one.

In other words, how does a ceramic insert improve anything over a metal insert?
thanks,

[Bangel]

I believe the ceramic is much more scratch resistant and resistant to fade.

This is countered by its greater propensity to shatter if hit hard enough and it's greater difficulty to replace both in technicality and cost.

[bigbear]

Originally Posted by Bangel

I believe the ceramic is much more scratch resistant and resistant to fade.

This is countered by its greater propensity to shatter if hit hard enough and it's greater difficulty to replace both in technicality and cost.

Very true --- For every advantage offered by ceramic, it seems there is a counter in the metal world and vice versa.

[padi56]

Originally Posted by bigbear

hello,

I am just trying to figure out what is the point of ROLEX making a ceramic insert. Someone recently cracked their
insert here on TRF and posted some pics and it turns out it is not much thicker than the metal insert. For some
reason, I thought it wasas thick as the bezel.

So why would Rolex go with the ceramic? Are they following some trend?
Does it make the watch look bigger? It definitely has a shine to it for sure but it shatters easily and is atleast 3 times as costly as a metal one.

In other words, how does a ceramic insert improve anything over a metal insert?
thanks,

Well the Ceramic thing is the latest fashion trend with many calling this thin slither of ceramic by different made up fancy words.But ask your self this, if ceramic was so wonderful why has it taken brands like Rolex to get on the latest ceramic band wagon.Now ceramic is not new to the watch industry brands like Rado have been using it since the mid 1960s.Myself cannot see any real advantage in the ceramic insert only the fact that it might look better to some.Some of my watches with the aluminium insert are 20 plus years old, with some having almost 10 years as a underwater tool watches.And yet show no sign of fade and only a few light scratches and aluminium inserts are very easy DIY change and cost now around £35.

[swissautopro]

FWIW, I much prefer the aluminum insert over the ceramic. I would say, as has already bee said, Rolex is just following the latest trends. If they really wanted to make the ultimate bezel insert, they would make it out of carbon fiber.

[bigbear]

Originally Posted by swissautopro

...... If they really wanted to make the ultimate bezel insert, they would make it out of carbon fiber.

Carbon Fiber???

[swissautopro]

Originally Posted by bigbear

Carbon Fiber???

Carbon fiber. Graham and a few others are already doing it.

[RRGHOST1]

I do have a SubC,and i have had the Aluminium but to be honest there isnt really an advantage over the cheaper aluminium,just marketing at the end of the day.

[bigbear]

Originally Posted by bigbear

Carbon Fiber???

Wow - I have to check that out. Thanks.

[Megalobyte]

Sapphire crystals are more prone to shatter than acrylic, but that doesn't mean they're likely to, just MORE likely to than acrylic. Same for ceramic. Most people believe the sapphire/acrylic trade off was a good one. It's the same trade off as ceramic/aluminum.

I've seen very few credible instances of a shattered ceramic insert. Sure it happens, but given how few you actually see and knowing that there are millions of ceramic bezels out there, I think the odds of it shattering are similar to a crystal shattering, it happens, but not often.

And the one clear advantage of ceramic to aluminum is that the ceramic bezel is 99.9% scratch proof. I've had aluminum insert bezels look horrible inside of a few months, if you wear a watch with an aluminum insert daily and don't baby it, scratches are unavoidable.

I can say with 100% accuracy, I've worn my Sub C daily for a year now, other watches with aluminum inserts would be significantly scratched by now, but my ceramic bezel is literally indistinguishable from new.

I realize that many people on this forum actually like visible damage (character) :) on their tool watches, but most Rolex buyers, I'll go out on a limb as suggesting, do not appreciate their new watch looking old and worn inside of a year, and don't want their bezel looking worn so quickly. Also, let's face it, the typical Rolex owner today isn't going to generally abuse their watch, so even less chance of the ceramic breaking. All the more reason for Rolex to go ceramic.

[gwalker]

The ceramic inserts will always look new. My SubC and DSSD bezels look like the day they were produced. Yes there are trade offs but I prefer the ceramic inserts. I can say with confidence that if I had the old aluminum inserts I would've had to replace them a few times by now. Some like them some don't. They are better in some ways but much more expensive. I had to replace my bezel and insert on my DSSD and it was well over $1k. Yes people say the ceramic inserts are much more but much of the cost is the actual bezel. I have my receipt and need to check it out but I think the bezel was around $700ish and the ceramic insert was $400-500ish. I'll just have to look at the RSC paper. If you were to hit an old metal bezel that hard the repair would probably still be $700+ because of the actual bezel regardless of the insert material.

[Cru Jones]

Originally Posted by Megalobyte

Sapphire crystals are more prone to shatter than acrylic, but that doesn't mean they're likely to, just MORE likely to than acrylic. Same for ceramic. Most people believe the sapphire/acrylic trade off was a good one. It's the same trade off as ceramic/aluminum.

I've seen very few credible instances of a shattered ceramic insert. Sure it happens, but given how few you actually see and knowing that there are millions of ceramic bezels out there, I think the odds of it shattering are similar to a crystal shattering, it happens, but not often.

And the one clear advantage of ceramic to aluminum is that the ceramic bezel is 99.9% scratch proof. I've had aluminum insert bezels look horrible inside of a few months, if you wear a watch with an aluminum insert daily and don't baby it, scratches are unavoidable.

I can say with 100% accuracy, I've worn my Sub C daily for a year now, other watches with aluminum inserts would be significantly scratched by now, but my ceramic bezel is literally indistinguishable from new.

I realize that many people on this forum actually like visible damage (character) :) on their tool watches, but most Rolex buyers, I'll go out on a limb as suggesting, do not appreciate their new watch looking old and worn inside of a year, and don't want their bezel looking worn so quickly. Also, let's face it, the typical Rolex owner today isn't going to generally abuse their watch, so even less chance of the ceramic breaking. All the more reason for Rolex to go ceramic.

This. Well said.

[ecsub44]

There is one universally simple reason for Rolex moving to ceramic bezels.

To make more money.

End of discussion.

[kilyung]

Originally Posted by ecsub44

There is one universally simple reason for Rolex moving to ceramic bezels.

To make more money.

End of discussion.

How did you reach that conclusion between ceramic bezels and more money?

[Hairdude1]

Originally Posted by Megalobyte

Sapphire crystals are more prone to shatter than acrylic, but that doesn't mean they're likely to, just MORE likely to than acrylic. Same for ceramic. Most people believe the sapphire/acrylic trade off was a good one. It's the same trade off as ceramic/aluminum.

I've seen very few credible instances of a shattered ceramic insert. Sure it happens, but given how few you actually see and knowing that there are millions of ceramic bezels out there, I think the odds of it shattering are similar to a crystal shattering, it happens, but not often.

And the one clear advantage of ceramic to aluminum is that the ceramic bezel is 99.9% scratch proof. I've had aluminum insert bezels look horrible inside of a few months, if you wear a watch with an aluminum insert daily and don't baby it, scratches are unavoidable.

I can say with 100% accuracy, I've worn my Sub C daily for a year now, other watches with aluminum inserts would be significantly scratched by now, but my ceramic bezel is literally indistinguishable from new.

I realize that many people on this forum actually like visible damage (character) :) on their tool watches, but most Rolex buyers, I'll go out on a limb as suggesting, do not appreciate their new watch looking old and worn inside of a year, and don't want their bezel looking worn so quickly. Also, let's face it, the typical Rolex owner today isn't going to generally abuse their watch, so even less chance of the ceramic breaking. All the more reason for Rolex to go ceramic.

Agreed

[ecsub44]

Originally Posted by kilyung

How did you reach that conclusion between ceramic bezels and more money?

Because Rolex is in the business of selling watches...to make money. It's a pretty easy connection to make.

Do you think they would move to ceramic if they were making LESS money?

Every single thing Rolex puts out in the market is for the simple goal of being more profitable. When this doesn't happen...they stop making the watch or make another change.

Rolex doesn't exist to provide us with wonderful watches. They exist to make money.

[capote]

I wouldn't mind the ceramics if it didn't have a glossy finished. The ceramics on Planet Ocean 8500 is very matte and nice. Still aluminum is the way to go, get some nice faded color over the years.

[padi56]

Originally Posted by capote

I wouldn't mind the ceramics if it didn't have a glossy finished. The ceramics on Planet Ocean 8500 is very matte and nice. Still aluminum is the way to go, get some nice faded color over the years.

Well IMHO the only aluminium inserts that do fade are the older pepsi and coke inserts.Some of my black are still looking good after 20 odd years and 10 of those years used as a tool watches,in hot climates and in mostly salt water.And in over 25 years of wearing Rolex subs and SD and using and sometimes abusing I have only replaced two inserts.And one was replaced simply because I sold one watch, but insert was still quite good. But had a spare if I remember I bought a few because they were so cheap at the time.Just cannot see today with some saying they would have to replaced several aluminium inserts in a year or so because they would have got scratched so badly.Today no matter the insert Rolex watches get quite a pampered life,so to badly scratch the aluminium insert and for the need to change insert frequently,the watch and insert would have a very very hard life.

[kilyung]

Originally Posted by ecsub44

Because Rolex is in the business of selling watches...to make money. It's a pretty easy connection to make.

Do you think they would move to ceramic if they were making LESS money?

Every single thing Rolex puts out in the market is for the simple goal of being more profitable. When this doesn't happen...they stop making the watch or make another change.

Rolex doesn't exist to provide us with wonderful watches. They exist to make money.

Not that I disagree but I don't see how Rolex is any different than any other company? You can make a profit and provide a wonderful product - it's not necessarily exclusive. Is your assertion that Rolex does not make a good product since everything they do is geared to making money?

[ecsub44]

Originally Posted by kilyung

Not that I disagree but I don't see how Rolex is any different than any other company? You can make a profit and provide a wonderful product - it's not necessarily exclusive.

For sure. Rolex is doing what every other company does...make more money.

I was just trying to answer the "why ceramic" question. Fad, scratches, aesthetics, etc. are all part of it. Ultimately it comes down to money. it's what the buyer "wants"...so Rolex is going to cash in.

In my opinion, the ceramic looks great. I just think it's too expensive and too shiney. If it were matte...and reasonably affordable, I'd probably PREFER it. But, bah humbug, give me the metal!

[ecsub44]

Originally Posted by kilyung

Is your assertion that Rolex does not make a good product since everything they do is geared to making money?

Absolutely not!!!

My assertion is that they make wonderful product...but for the sole purpose of makin money. I just font think the ceramic bezel has anything to do with being a "better" bezel (there are pros and cons) but instead is done to make more money.

I think the Rolex ceramic bezels are of the highest quality (and nicest looking) out there today.

[Passionata]

it gives a more value feel to average customers.
i m not belong to them

[Johnn]

I'm side stepping this as I'm really concerned about he entire new Rolex line up...it's only my humble opinion and I know others love the new line up with THIER larger cases etc but I still cannot get my head around the balance issue caused by redesigning the case and not the bracelets....will be very interesting how history will judge this Rolex era...meanwhile I've had great fun buying new old stock of the Explorer 2 and GMT...just my concern team I know others love em!..

[ecsub44]

Originally Posted by Johnn

I'm side stepping this as I'm really concerned about he entire new Rolex line up...it's only my humble opinion and I know others love the new line up with THIER larger cases etc but I still cannot get my head around the balance issue caused by redesigning the case and not the bracelets....will be very interesting how history will judge this Rolex era...meanwhile I've had great fun buying new old stock of the Explorer 2 and GMT...just my concern team I know others love em!..

The bracelets have been redesigned.

[Longhorn]

Originally Posted by Johnn

I'm side stepping this as I'm really concerned about he entire new Rolex line up...it's only my humble opinion and I know others love the new line up with THIER larger cases etc but I still cannot get my head around the balance issue caused by redesigning the case and not the bracelets....will be very interesting how history will judge this Rolex era...meanwhile I've had great fun buying new old stock of the Explorer 2 and GMT...just my concern team I know others love em!..

Are you talking about the tapering effect with the bracelets?

[wokafu]

i like the look of the ceremic bezel and the fact that its more scratch resistant..however it does comes with a price...guess that's what you have to do for 'advance technology'

[Richj]

I've been quite disappointed with the way the bezel on my 216570 has attracted scratches; and I haven't even done that much exploring in it really. Not had to worry with the 116610LN, which continues to look great. Is ceramic therefore more appropriate for a 'tool watch'?

[jolimont]

Am i right in thinking that it is not possible to change bezels on a ceramic model unless you have the right tools- say on a GMT?

[Wristmaster]

Imo, ceramic bezel improve the overal looks. Its like a facelifted car, there's no point in launching a new line of product without any changes here and there.

[Linzjnr]

Originally Posted by gwalker

The ceramic inserts will always look new. My SubC and DSSD bezels look like the day they were produced. Yes there are trade offs but I prefer the ceramic inserts. I can say with confidence that if I had the old aluminum inserts I would've had to replace them a few times by now. Some like them some don't. They are better in some ways but much more expensive. I had to replace my bezel and insert on my DSSD and it was well over $1k. Yes people say the ceramic inserts are much more but much of the cost is the actual bezel. I have my receipt and need to check it out but I think the bezel was around $700ish and the ceramic insert was $400-500ish. I'll just have to look at the RSC paper. If you were to hit an old metal bezel that hard the repair would probably still be $700+ because of the actual bezel regardless of the insert material.

I had this conversation with the Rolex Tech at our local AD and he reckons around $450 for just the ceramic bezel insert change, while the stainless steel bezel on my Pepsi is $220 to change with a new insert $60 so a lot cheaper than the latest models. He said a lot of the cost is in the time taken to do the job as its not as quick as just changing the old aluminium inserts and if it is not pressed in with the correct tools then they can be easily broken.