Am I the only one who thinks Rolex has moved away from its roots?

[brandrea]

Originally Posted by Mystro

I think it’s you. I wore vintage when it wasn’t considered vintage and the new models are so much better put together.

Same here and agree, I’m a six digit fan as well

[Seddyspaghetti]

Originally Posted by geoffreyis

lame post.

+1

[zengineer]

Originally Posted by Cobar65

I bought a 124060 a couple of months ago and just got rid of it a couple of days ago. I thought I could wear it as I used to wear my 5513; this couldn’t have been further from the truth. I wound up wearing a blingy mugger magnet on my wrist that was not only blindingly shiny, but it’s in no way a tool watch. I think I now know how big-busted women must feel when being talked to while having their cleavage stared upon during the conversation.

I’ve worn watches four times as expensive on my wrist and never a glance, but this 41mm hunk of 904L steel was like wearing a stainless steel dinner plate on my wrist.

Never again will I buy some ceramic “tool watch” I’ll stick with vintage which not only flys under the radar, but…well, it’s vintage, need I say more?





Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Maybe your wrists or you in general just don't carry it well. I don't have any of those issues wearing a modern Submariner.

Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk

[Bladeshot]

I have and enjoy both vintage and modern. I like the variety. They are luxury items that function equally well from across the decades.

Personal taste and preference is the subject of this post, and it certainly varies. There’s something for everyone in this hobby, whether that’s G shocks or Rolex, etc.

[Kyle3130]

Originally Posted by Cobar65

6.5in

No offense OP but this is probably a big reason why you feel this way.

Originally Posted by HarryFlashman

I have to agree with this… I thought I’d never love a ceramic over my 5-digits, but time has a way of changing opinions. Now I can’t imagine going back.

This is exactly how I feel. I just sold my 14060M and have been wearing my 124060 daily since June.

[mg18]

Originally Posted by Cobar65

6.5in





36 and 40mm respectively


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

This might be why it felt a bit big. It’s an unpopular opinion but I feel like 6.75ish flat wrist is the cut off for being size appropriate on modern subs/gmts. I’ve seen them look good on smaller wrists, but a bit larger as you said.

[HideMyWalletPlease]

Don’t give the OP a hard time. It reminds me of something I experienced before. One time I had a plain blue suit made at Kiton. I wore it to a board meeting and many of my colleagues said, “nice suit”. I was furious! I immediately threw it away and found a old, used blue suit at the thrift store. Problem solved!

[garyk]

Originally Posted by geoffreyis

Lame post.

Except for the cleavage bit, a fav topic for many….

[watchmavan]

Originally Posted by geoffreyis

Lame post.

Not happy today?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

[Randy9999]

A few pertinent questions weren't yet addressed. If the watch made him feel like a woman with a large chest, did he act on the feeling somehow, or did he repress it? Was he gratified or disgusted? Did he remove the watch immediately, or did he linger with it awhile? Thanks.

[HideMyWalletPlease]

Originally Posted by Randy9999

A few pertinent questions weren't yet addressed. If the watch made him feel like a woman with a large chest, did he act on the feeling somehow, or did he repress it? Was he gratified or disgusted? Did he remove the watch immediately, or did he linger with it awhile? Thanks.

Also, how does he know what a large breasted woman feels like? Is he comparing to the occasions when he cross dresses and wears a bra?

Bro or Mansier?

https://youtu.be/quzRzYQ5Xwo

[kieselguhr]

Ehhh... the older generation Rolex that I own include a 4 digit, and a 5 digit. I treasure them dearly because of sentimental reasons. But I definitely recognize my 6 digit Rolex to be superior to their predecessors in more ways than one. Improved movement (shock resistance, power reserve, functions, prior weaknesses reinforced or redesigned), improved bracelet design, improved materials, improved aesthetics.

If anything, rather than stating that Rolex is straying from its roots, it would be more accurate to say that Rolex simply continues to slowly improve their product while keeping it relevant to current trends.

It may look fancier, but a 6 digit Rolex will survive the same conditions it’s predecessors could, and more.

At the end of the day, the reality is that mechanical watch time keeping has been rendered obsolete by cost effective, and easily replaceable digital technology that has far more on demand utility than just keeping time.

So really what you love is the aesthetic of what you perceive as a tool watch, but the same watch could be perceived by others as simply antiquated

[cras]

I think from an aesthetic standpoint is where the Tudor Blackbay is going. The differences I am noticing the blackbay sticks with the older looks with the anodized bezel and riveted bracelet but with modern and reliable movements (COSC). But Rolex will continue to evolve it’s materials, movement, and accuracy.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[importstunna]

Originally Posted by kieselguhr

Ehhh... the older generation Rolex that I own include a 4 digit, and a 5 digit. I treasure them dearly because of sentimental reasons. But I definitely recognize my 6 digit Rolex to be superior to their predecessors in more ways than one. Improved movement (shock resistance, power reserve, functions, prior weaknesses reinforced or redesigned), improved bracelet design, improved materials, improved aesthetics.

If anything, rather than stating that Rolex is straying from its roots, it would be more accurate to say that Rolex simply continues to slowly improve their product while keeping it relevant to current trends.

It may look fancier, but a 6 digit Rolex will survive the same conditions it’s predecessors could, and more.

At the end of the day, the reality is that mechanical watch time keeping has been rendered obsolete by cost effective, and easily replaceable digital technology that has far more on demand utility than just keeping time.

So really what you love is the aesthetic of what you perceive as a tool watch, but the same watch could be perceived by others as simply antiquated

Well said.

[IamJacky]

Originally Posted by kieselguhr

Ehhh... the older generation Rolex that I own include a 4 digit, and a 5 digit. I treasure them dearly because of sentimental reasons. But I definitely recognize my 6 digit Rolex to be superior to their predecessors in more ways than one. Improved movement (shock resistance, power reserve, functions, prior weaknesses reinforced or redesigned), improved bracelet design, improved materials, improved aesthetics.

If anything, rather than stating that Rolex is straying from its roots, it would be more accurate to say that Rolex simply continues to slowly improve their product while keeping it relevant to current trends.

It may look fancier, but a 6 digit Rolex will survive the same conditions it’s predecessors could, and more.

At the end of the day, the reality is that mechanical watch time keeping has been rendered obsolete by cost effective, and easily replaceable digital technology that has far more on demand utility than just keeping time.

So really what you love is the aesthetic of what you perceive as a tool watch, but the same watch could be perceived by others as simply antiquated

Well said!

[joli160]

Long before any Submariner was introduced Rolex made already a full gold DJ in 1945.
Rolex has always been jewelry.

Most buyers from Subs and GMT’s are just regular Johns, no divers or pilots.
They buy these watches to serve as jewelry.
As much true in the past as it is today.

[RampageWatch]

A quick attempt to possibly convey the OP’s messge….
Pre-ceramic = understated
Ceramic = overstated


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Krash]

The big flaw with the original post is that Rolex was never ever an affordable tool watch brand to begin with. It was always considered a luxury product, and the watches were always considered flamboyant.

I remember growing up in Delaware County, PA back in the 70s and 80s. All the Dads wore a Timex or equivalent where I lived. On the mainline (i.e., Villanova, Bryan Mawr, Gladwyne), that’s where the dads wore a Rolex.

If you look at the history of the Submariner, I think it’s analogous to the Porsche 911. It was always a luxury car that few could afford, but todays version is far superior in every way and certainly more aesthetically flamboyant too.

Also, just imagine if the Submariner never evolved from its pre-ceramic days…it literally couldn’t compete with an Oris Aquis. An Omega Seamaster—which many feel is a superior product anyway as it is—would literally blow it out of the water.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[zengineer]

Originally Posted by RampageWatch

A quick attempt to possibly convey the OP’s messge….
Pre-ceramic = understated
Ceramic = overstated


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I don't think they wear that dramatically different. One of them = just normally stated. Take your pick as to which one.

Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk

[Cobar65]

Originally Posted by inadeje

The cleavage analogy certainly grabbed my attention.

With regard to your comment on the new versus old conundrum, are you sure it isn’t that you’re self conscious that you have a new watch on? I mean that the whole sensation makes you uneasy, an unease that you don’t and have never felt with a watch you wore for decades (5513) and frankly you’ve probably forgotten about the unease you felt way back then when you first wore the 5513?

As we get older our patience levels reduce significantly, we seek simpler things, less hassle and more peace. Maybe it’s that phenomenon blended with the “hassles” of a new watch, that you feel you have to baby or treat differently than the old one you just “wore” and as such you’ve created an adversity to that hassle.

Let me ask you this, have you bought a new car over the past say 3 years? If so, was that a hassle too at first?

My comments are going somewhere, but first answer that question pls.

Thank you for the analogy as well. I have no doubt it’s partly me, the 5513s and 1680s I’ve owned in the past never bothered me when I wore them, nor did the DRSD that cost more than my car. However, they were able to “blend in” so to speak. I bought a new X5 a few years back and for the first week I was a bit self conscious about driving it, didn’t want to flash anything, but I love BMWs, have always owned them including when I was unable to afford them; however, after about a week or so it wore off. These new 6 digit sports watches are too “in your face for me”. If you like them, then by all means wear them, I think the new movement in the 41mm Sub is awesome. I don’t know, maybe I’m just old and dwell in the past. Thanks for all your comments. I meant no disrespect in the post nor did I mean to offend anyone when I wrote it, I only meant it as how I saw the direction of the company.

[George58]

Originally Posted by Cobar65

I bought a 124060 a couple of months ago and just got rid of it a couple of days ago. I thought I could wear it as I used to wear my 5513; this couldn’t have been further from the truth. I wound up wearing a blingy mugger magnet on my wrist that was not only blindingly shiny, but it’s in no way a tool watch. I think I now know how big-busted women must feel when being talked to while having their cleavage stared upon during the conversation.

I’ve worn watches four times as expensive on my wrist and never a glance, but this 41mm hunk of 904L steel was like wearing a stainless steel dinner plate on my wrist.

Never again will I buy some ceramic “tool watch” I’ll stick with vintage which not only flys under the radar, but…well, it’s vintage, need I say more?





Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I agree

[SS Oyster]

Here’s big … and nothing is more sturdy and tool-ready for any task!




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Cobar65]

I owned this for a short period of time and sold it. I definitely couldn't deal with the Batman.

[kwingy]

Originally Posted by Krash

I never understand why people have any expectations of an $8,100 (USD) Rolex Submariner serving as an actual "tool watch."

If you want a tool watch, buy a G-Shock. If you want a mechanical tool watch, then consider Doxa, Marathon, Squale, Sinn, Damasko, or Laco.

I have a Submariner 114060 and have always considered it a luxury watch, not a tool watch. With that said, I live in FL, have a pool out back that's open all year round, and I'm always swimming with it on. I also go to the beach a lot and wear my Submariner for that too. I love it.

+1 - got to agree with this. It's not like you don't know what you getting in a modern day ceramic Rolex if you had the Batman before.

Plenty of proper tool watches out there. Vintage/modern Rolex watches are rarely used as such in todays world.

[Harry-57]

I couldn't believe how flimsy and cheap the 16610LV seemed when I tried one on, back in the days when you could just walk into an AD and point at one. It might have encompassed the last vestige of the Rolex tool watch ethos, but to me it wasn't worth the asking price when it was at MSRP. Rolex needed to do something and the 11 series addressed it. It was overdue but they came through. If I preferred the vintage size, aesthetic and feel, I'd be spoilt for choice. Something for everyone.

[Cobar65]

Originally Posted by inadeje

The cleavage analogy certainly grabbed my attention.

With regard to your comment on the new versus old conundrum, are you sure it isn’t that you’re self conscious that you have a new watch on? I mean that the whole sensation makes you uneasy, an unease that you don’t and have never felt with a watch you wore for decades (5513) and frankly you’ve probably forgotten about the unease you felt way back then when you first wore the 5513?

As we get older our patience levels reduce significantly, we seek simpler things, less hassle and more peace. Maybe it’s that phenomenon blended with the “hassles” of a new watch, that you feel you have to baby or treat differently than the old one you just “wore” and as such you’ve created an adversity to that hassle.

Let me ask you this, have you bought a new car over the past say 3 years? If so, was that a hassle too at first?

My comments are going somewhere, but first answer that question pls.

Originally Posted by kwingy

+1 - got to agree with this. It's not like you don't know what you getting in a modern day ceramic Rolex if you had the Batman before.

Plenty of proper tool watches out there. Vintage/modern Rolex watches are rarely used as such in todays world.

You are absolutely correct. I am a bit of a glutton for punishment.

[HL65]

I love the current Sub lineup and think they have made some big improvements with the slimmer lugs, bracelet, new hands and new movement. So to each his own but I don’t think Rolex wil ever abandon it’s roots in terms of looks and function.

[illiguy]

It’s not an either / or. I own a 5513, 14060M, 116610, and just picked up a 124060. I just love subs and appreciate each for what they represent and how they’ve evolved. Rolex will always move forward, so you will be disappointed for all of time with any new release.

[Cobar65]

Originally Posted by SS Oyster

Here’s big … and nothing is more sturdy and tool-ready for any task!




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

That looks great on you. Unfortunately I’ve been cursed with little girl wrists and simply cannot pull something like that off.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[brandrea]

Originally Posted by kieselguhr

Ehhh... the older generation Rolex that I own include a 4 digit, and a 5 digit. I treasure them dearly because of sentimental reasons. But I definitely recognize my 6 digit Rolex to be superior to their predecessors in more ways than one. Improved movement (shock resistance, power reserve, functions, prior weaknesses reinforced or redesigned), improved bracelet design, improved materials, improved aesthetics.

If anything, rather than stating that Rolex is straying from its roots, it would be more accurate to say that Rolex simply continues to slowly improve their product while keeping it relevant to current trends.

It may look fancier, but a 6 digit Rolex will survive the same conditions it’s predecessors could, and more.

At the end of the day, the reality is that mechanical watch time keeping has been rendered obsolete by cost effective, and easily replaceable digital technology that has far more on demand utility than just keeping time.

So really what you love is the aesthetic of what you perceive as a tool watch, but the same watch could be perceived by others as simply antiquated

I was waiting for you to chime in brother. Your post is gold as usual