ROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEX

The Laird · 28 July 2013, 07:29 PM

Hi Everyone,

Just thinking; if Rolex were to make a quartz stainless steel Submariner, do you think it would sell?
What if it was even priced just the same as the automatic stainless steel Submariner, do you think that people would still possibly buy one?

I would imagine that it would sell, but it’s not something that I would be interested in personally.
Just wondering what other people’s thoughts are?

Till next time…

The Laird

MonBK · 28 July 2013, 08:00 PM

There's an

for every seat.

padi56 · 28 July 2013, 08:06 PM

I would doubt it but many think a quartz movement is a cheap electronic item like many are.But in the top name anologue quartz movements like the Rolex and say Seiko grand there are many mechanical parts Rolex used the cal 3035 drive train.And when the Rolex Oysterquartz was introduced the movement was more expensive to replace than its mechanical brothers.

Chumpey · 28 July 2013, 08:06 PM

Hypothetically, if they did... I suppose it would sell. Why do it though? They would have to stump up extra manufacturing costs to produce something to compete with and dilute one of, if not THE most recognised product lines in their range.

Daytona-Dan · 28 July 2013, 08:13 PM

I most definitely wouldn't buy it and it may even work towards lowering the brand as a whole in my eyes. I'm ok with it being available on the Cellini line but not on the rest...

PunkJr · 28 July 2013, 08:18 PM

They already do, I bought one on Patong Beach last year. The guy in the alley told me it was a new model.

Rashid.bk · 28 July 2013, 08:22 PM

Please God no.

Sent from my GT-I9500 using Tapatalk 2

Bangel · 28 July 2013, 08:28 PM

It would probably sell, but I would not be one of the buyers.

submariner66 · 28 July 2013, 08:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by padi56

I would doubt it but many think a quartz movement is a cheap electronic item like many are.But in the top name anologue quartz movements like the Rolex and say Seiko grand there are many mechanical parts Rolex used the cal 3035 drive train.And when the Rolex Oysterquartz was introduced the movement was more expensive to replace than its mechanical brothers.

Does the same hold true of the Cellini dress watches I noticed they are quartz and priced high?

cop414 · 28 July 2013, 08:44 PM

I think it would sell depending on the pricepoint. Omega has or at least had both mechanical and quartz in the Seamaster for years with the quartz being a little less cash.

kieselguhr · 28 July 2013, 09:32 PM

I personally wouldn't.
Nothing against quartz.
I just like to have some interaction with my time piece.
As far as would it catch on? I'm sure the multitude of people outside of TRF who buy Rolex for the name could care less about the movement.

padi56 · 28 July 2013, 09:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by submariner66

Does the same hold true of the Cellini dress watches I noticed they are quartz and priced high?

Yes its analogue there are many mechanical parts and should be serviced very much like mechanical.

landroverking · 28 July 2013, 10:01 PM

I would guess it would sell at the same % that the Omega Seamasters do.

kilyung · 28 July 2013, 11:34 PM

It's got a crown right? It'd sell.

mikkolopez · 29 July 2013, 12:02 AM

It would totally destroy the heritage and the journey that the Submariner took to get this far.

Nope I wouldn't get one.

Thebiglagu · 29 July 2013, 12:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PunkJr

They already do, I bought one on Patong Beach last year. The guy in the alley told me it was a new model.

Hahahaha!!!

LightOnAHill · 29 July 2013, 12:33 AM

I would not buy one...

rolex75216 · 29 July 2013, 12:34 AM

Nope. Not for me.

bridgs · 29 July 2013, 12:43 AM

I think it would sell to a particular bunch of folks. I would not own one. I do have great quartz watches with tritium and sapphire crystals but the mechanicals I own always get more wrist time.

joe100 · 29 July 2013, 04:03 AM

The problem is the segment it would compete in. A quartz Rolex would have to cost around $3000 or $4000 to be viable. No way Rolex would make one of their icons into a quartz watch and sell it cheaper than an AirKing. Patek has the same issue. A quartz Aquanaut is beautiful but costs more than the GDP of a small country. If I'm in for a $10,000 watch, it'd better be mechanical. Quartz is fine, I love them in some watches but there comes a point where it's not going to work. I don't see Rolex going back to quartz even if their never-released quartz movement was the envy of nations.

jay1988 · 29 July 2013, 04:14 AM

I saw a post on a watch forum (might of been this one) and someone mentioned that they had a client bring an automatic back in and change it for a quartz because they found the idea of winding the watch ridiculous.

So I'm sure it would sell.

Would it sell enough to make up for the effect it would have on their image and prestige? I highly doubt it.

SearChart · 29 July 2013, 04:15 AM

I think it would sell, but I wouldn't buy one.

powerband · 29 July 2013, 04:33 AM

I think the only concern a quartz has on Rolex's image and prestige exists among only this group, and not the population at large.

If it offers HAQ and has design distinction from the mechanical Subs, then I'd personally buy one.

mr.president1 · 29 July 2013, 04:46 AM

I know this sounds stupid and silly.... But everyone who thinks of a Rolex, doesn't think of a Rolex with a Quartz movement... Many would think it was a fake... Partly the reason why I think the oyster quartz is one you usually don't see strapped to a wrist.. I love the sweeping hand a lot!!! I will never go back to quartz watches ever again.... But needless to say, I think no to answer your question... An automatic movement is really cool and if they were the same price it would definitely be a no brainer!

SWISSAHOLICS · 29 July 2013, 04:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PunkJr

They already do, I bought one on Patong Beach last year. The guy in the alley told me it was a new model.

I know that trusted seller too

GradyPhilpott · 29 July 2013, 05:00 AM

I wouldn't be interested in one.

I'd really hate to see Rolex take that route, especially at this juncture.

As far as the Oyster line goes, Rolex has already been there and done that.

powerband · 29 July 2013, 05:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mr.president1

I know this sounds stupid and silly.... But everyone who thinks of a Rolex, doesn't think of a Rolex with a Quartz movement... Many would think it was a fake... Partly the reason why I think the oyster quartz is one you usually don't see strapped to a wrist.. I love the sweeping hand a lot!!! I will never go back to quartz watches ever again.... But needless to say, I think no to answer your question... An automatic movement is really cool and if they were the same price it would definitely be a no brainer!

I think this would be the case for those of us who care about what others think about the watch on the wrist. Wrong or right isn't the point. There are a few of us, however, who appreciate the technology involved in a HEQ/HAQ, and for those who wear a watch for personal enjoyment and for quiet knowledge of the technology, the conventional attitude toward a Quartz probably wouldn't be an obstacle.

0.02

T. Ferguson · 29 July 2013, 05:01 AM

I wouldn't be a buyer, but I don't see Rolex offering that choice anyway. Plus, people here already complain that the Sub has lost much of its tool watch heritage. Can you imagine the comments if they came out with a dive watch that was battery operated?

Frenchie · 29 July 2013, 05:08 AM

Jeez, The Laird, what kind of answer did you expect in this forum? Of course the large majority of TRFers will reject the notion of a quartz Sub. They're watch purists and, as such, value "interaction" or "intricacy" or "tradition" above accuracy and shock resistance.

My SubC only loses .6 sec/day, so I can't complain. But if Rolex offered a quartz Sub I'd be interested because of the greater shock resistance. It would depend on esthetics and price.

It would not devalue the brand. Many high-end companies are casting wider nets to reach new markets. That's why Porsche created the Boxster. Mercedes is now selling 30K sedans, but this did not deter me from getting my SLK55 AMG. In all these cases, a better bottom line, and the brand image remains intact.

"Yeah, but changing the battery!" Let's say that Rolex could come up with a 5-year battery. (They could.) That's just about what they recommend as a service interval, and the battery change would be cheaper.

KBM · 29 July 2013, 06:47 AM

Selling the quartz version of a watch at the same price of it's auto version makes absolutely no sense to me.

28 July 2013, 07:29 PM	#1
The Laird "TRF" Member Join Date: Apr 2011 Location: On a boat!!! Posts: 387	A quartz Submariner??? Hi Everyone, Just thinking; if Rolex were to make a quartz stainless steel Submariner, do you think it would sell? What if it was even priced just the same as the automatic stainless steel Submariner, do you think that people would still possibly buy one? I would imagine that it would sell, but it’s not something that I would be interested in personally. Just wondering what other people’s thoughts are? Till next time… The Laird __________________ Nylon Nation Member Tudor Supporter & Vintage Submariner/Explorer & Drilled Lug Hole Fan Vintage Rolex Group Member James Bond Watches Member

28 July 2013, 08:06 PM	#3
padi56 "TRF" Life Patron Join Date: Jun 2005 Real Name: Peter Location: Llanfairpwllgwyng Watch: ing you. Posts: 53,041	I would doubt it but many think a quartz movement is a cheap electronic item like many are.But in the top name anologue quartz movements like the Rolex and say Seiko grand there are many mechanical parts Rolex used the cal 3035 drive train.And when the Rolex Oysterquartz was introduced the movement was more expensive to replace than its mechanical brothers. __________________ ICom Pro3 All posts are my own opinion and my opinion only. "The clock of life is wound but once, and no man has the power to tell just when the hands will stop. Now is the only time you actually own the time, Place no faith in time, for the clock may soon be still for ever." Good Judgement comes from experience,experience comes from Bad Judgement,.Buy quality, cry once; buy cheap, cry again and again. www.mc0yad.club Second in command CEO and left handed watch winder

28 July 2013, 08:44 PM	#10
cop414 TRF Moderator & 2024 SubLV41 Patron Join Date: Apr 2012 Real Name: Tim Location: Pennsylvania Watch: 14060M Posts: 72,158	I think it would sell depending on the pricepoint. Omega has or at least had both mechanical and quartz in the Seamaster for years with the quartz being a little less cash. __________________ Rolex Submariner 14060M Omega Seamaster 2254.50 DOXA Professional 1200T Card carrying member of TRF's Global Association of Retro-Grouch-Curmudgeons TRF's "After Dark" Bar & NightClub Patron P Club Member #17 2 FA ENABLED

29 July 2013, 04:03 AM	#20
joe100 2024 SubLV41 Pledge Member Join Date: Nov 2007 Real Name: Joe Location: New Mexico Watch: Explorer Posts: 12,838	The problem is the segment it would compete in. A quartz Rolex would have to cost around $3000 or $4000 to be viable. No way Rolex would make one of their icons into a quartz watch and sell it cheaper than an AirKing. Patek has the same issue. A quartz Aquanaut is beautiful but costs more than the GDP of a small country. If I'm in for a $10,000 watch, it'd better be mechanical. Quartz is fine, I love them in some watches but there comes a point where it's not going to work. I don't see Rolex going back to quartz even if their never-released quartz movement was the envy of nations. __________________ It's Espresso, not Expresso. Coffee is not a train in Italy. -TRF Member 6982-

29 July 2013, 04:46 AM	#24
mr.president1 "TRF" Member Join Date: Jul 2012 Location: Ohio,UnitedStates Watch: ROLEX OMEGA Posts: 1,458	I know this sounds stupid and silly.... But everyone who thinks of a Rolex, doesn't think of a Rolex with a Quartz movement... Many would think it was a fake... Partly the reason why I think the oyster quartz is one you usually don't see strapped to a wrist.. I love the sweeping hand a lot!!! I will never go back to quartz watches ever again.... But needless to say, I think no to answer your question... An automatic movement is really cool and if they were the same price it would definitely be a no brainer! __________________ ROLEX & OMEGA

28 July 2013, 08:00 PM	#2
MonBK Banned Join Date: Nov 2010 Location: Kingstown Posts: 58,279	There's an for every seat.

28 July 2013, 08:06 PM	#4
Chumpey "TRF" Member Join Date: Sep 2012 Location: Cambridge UK Posts: 118	Hypothetically, if they did... I suppose it would sell. Why do it though? They would have to stump up extra manufacturing costs to produce something to compete with and dilute one of, if not THE most recognised product lines in their range.

28 July 2013, 08:13 PM	#5
Daytona-Dan Banned Join Date: May 2013 Real Name: Dan Location: UK Watch: 116528 Posts: 1,049	I most definitely wouldn't buy it and it may even work towards lowering the brand as a whole in my eyes. I'm ok with it being available on the Cellini line but not on the rest...

28 July 2013, 08:18 PM	#6
PunkJr "TRF" Member Join Date: Oct 2012 Location: Adelaide Watch: 14060 Sub Posts: 332	They already do, I bought one on Patong Beach last year. The guy in the alley told me it was a new model.

28 July 2013, 08:22 PM	#7
Rashid.bk "TRF" Member Join Date: Jan 2009 Location: Dallas Watch: 12800ft = 3900m Posts: 11,173	Please God no. Sent from my GT-I9500 using Tapatalk 2

28 July 2013, 08:28 PM	#8
Bangel "TRF" Member Join Date: Oct 2011 Location: Australia Watch: 116610LN Posts: 15,802	It would probably sell, but I would not be one of the buyers.

28 July 2013, 09:32 PM	#11
kieselguhr "TRF" Member Join Date: May 2013 Real Name: Nick Location: Las Vegas Watch: 1601 Posts: 10,616	I personally wouldn't. Nothing against quartz. I just like to have some interaction with my time piece. As far as would it catch on? I'm sure the multitude of people outside of TRF who buy Rolex for the name could care less about the movement.

28 July 2013, 10:01 PM	#13
landroverking "TRF" Member Join Date: Dec 2008 Real Name: Jay Location: TEXAS Watch: Daytona Posts: 7,648	I would guess it would sell at the same % that the Omega Seamasters do.

28 July 2013, 11:34 PM	#14
kilyung 2024 SubLV41 Pledge Member Join Date: Jul 2009 Location: Cave Watch: Sundial Posts: 33,940	It's got a crown right? It'd sell.

29 July 2013, 12:02 AM	#15
mikkolopez "TRF" Member Join Date: Sep 2010 Location: Philippines Posts: 2,301	It would totally destroy the heritage and the journey that the Submariner took to get this far. Nope I wouldn't get one.

29 July 2013, 12:33 AM	#17
LightOnAHill "TRF" Member Join Date: Mar 2011 Real Name: Bryan Location: Pacific Northwest Watch: YG DD lchdp Posts: 2,963	I would not buy one...

29 July 2013, 12:34 AM	#18
rolex75216 "TRF" Member Join Date: Jan 2013 Location: United States Posts: 2,008	Nope. Not for me.

29 July 2013, 12:43 AM	#19
bridgs "TRF" Member Join Date: Oct 2012 Real Name: Shane Location: Minnesota Watch: Rolex Submariner Posts: 1,125	I think it would sell to a particular bunch of folks. I would not own one. I do have great quartz watches with tritium and sapphire crystals but the mechanicals I own always get more wrist time.

29 July 2013, 04:14 AM	#21
jay1988 "TRF" Member Join Date: Feb 2012 Location: Midlands Posts: 1,515	I saw a post on a watch forum (might of been this one) and someone mentioned that they had a client bring an automatic back in and change it for a quartz because they found the idea of winding the watch ridiculous. So I'm sure it would sell. Would it sell enough to make up for the effect it would have on their image and prestige? I highly doubt it.

29 July 2013, 04:33 AM	#23
powerband "TRF" Member Join Date: Mar 2009 Location: California Posts: 289	I think the only concern a quartz has on Rolex's image and prestige exists among only this group, and not the population at large. If it offers HAQ and has design distinction from the mechanical Subs, then I'd personally buy one.

29 July 2013, 05:00 AM	#26
GradyPhilpott 2024 SubLV41 Pledge Member Join Date: Sep 2008 Location: New Mexico Watch: Seiko #SRK050 Posts: 34,449	I wouldn't be interested in one. I'd really hate to see Rolex take that route, especially at this juncture. As far as the Oyster line goes, Rolex has already been there and done that. __________________ JJ Inaugural TRF $50 Watch Challenge Winner

29 July 2013, 05:01 AM	#28
T. Ferguson "TRF" Member Join Date: Oct 2012 Location: Left Coast Posts: 7,025	I wouldn't be a buyer, but I don't see Rolex offering that choice anyway. Plus, people here already complain that the Sub has lost much of its tool watch heritage. Can you imagine the comments if they came out with a dive watch that was battery operated? __________________ *Some days it's just not worth chewing through the restraints.*

29 July 2013, 05:08 AM	#29
Frenchie Member Join Date: May 2013 Location: Bowling Green, OH Watch: SubC Posts: 8	situational awareness Jeez, The Laird, what kind of answer did you expect in this forum? Of course the large majority of TRFers will reject the notion of a quartz Sub. They're watch purists and, as such, value "interaction" or "intricacy" or "tradition" above accuracy and shock resistance. My SubC only loses .6 sec/day, so I can't complain. But if Rolex offered a quartz Sub I'd be interested because of the greater shock resistance. It would depend on esthetics and price. It would not devalue the brand. Many high-end companies are casting wider nets to reach new markets. That's why Porsche created the Boxster. Mercedes is now selling 30K sedans, but this did not deter me from getting my SLK55 AMG. In all these cases, a better bottom line, and the brand image remains intact. "Yeah, but changing the battery!" Let's say that Rolex could come up with a 5-year battery. (They could.) That's just about what they recommend as a service interval, and the battery change would be cheaper.

29 July 2013, 06:47 AM	#30
KBM 2024 SubLV41 Pledge Member Join Date: Jan 2010 Real Name: K. Location: 780 Posts: 10,451	Selling the quartz version of a watch at the same price of it's auto version makes absolutely no sense to me.

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)