The Rolex Forums   The Rolex Watch

ROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEX


Go Back   Rolex Forums - Rolex Watch Forum > Rolex & Tudor Watch Topics > Rolex General Discussion

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 3 March 2010, 02:29 PM   #1
watchteacher
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Northern NJ
Watch: Tiffany blue Sub
Posts: 244
Superlative Chronometer, Officially Certified

Isn't the COSC test pass fail? So how does Rolex get away with saying this? As an owner I've always been surprised at that wording.
watchteacher is offline  
Old 3 March 2010, 02:35 PM   #2
sevykor
"TRF" Member
 
sevykor's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Michigan
Posts: 464
The movement is tested out of the case and before it even gets a known case. Rolex uses the ones that pass (or so I was told). So all are certified chronometers.
sevykor is offline  
Old 3 March 2010, 02:40 PM   #3
watchteacher
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Northern NJ
Watch: Tiffany blue Sub
Posts: 244
Quote:
Originally Posted by sevykor View Post
The movement is tested out of the case and before it even gets a known case. Rolex uses the ones that pass (or so I was told). So all are certified chronometers.
COSC tests only movements, not cased watches. So how are Rolex chronometers superlative to other ones? I agree it's a better movement than your ordinary 2892-2 ETA, but in a pure timekeeping test . . .
watchteacher is offline  
Old 3 March 2010, 02:51 PM   #4
sevykor
"TRF" Member
 
sevykor's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Michigan
Posts: 464
Quote:
Originally Posted by watchteacher View Post
COSC tests only movements, not cased watches. So how are Rolex chronometers superlative to other ones? I agree it's a better movement than your ordinary 2892-2 ETA, but in a pure timekeeping test . . .
Maybe I don't understand what you are asking, but to what "other ones" are you referring. All Rolex models currently produced are chronometers no better or worse than other COSC tested chronometers (including ETA) with regard to the COSC testing procedure. I don't buy into "superlative" as suggesting "better than" any other brand. Superlative (for Rolex) is just a little hype to sell a brand maybe? Hey, they are proud of their movement. I'm sure the Patek Philippe people may have something to say about what superlative means to them :).
sevykor is offline  
Old 3 March 2010, 03:02 PM   #5
watchteacher
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Northern NJ
Watch: Tiffany blue Sub
Posts: 244
Quote:
Originally Posted by sevykor View Post
Maybe I don't understand what you are asking, but to what "other ones" are you referring. All Rolex models currently produced are chronometers no better or worse than other COSC tested chronometers (including ETA) with regard to the COSC testing procedure. I don't buy into "superlative" as suggesting "better than" any other brand. Superlative (for Rolex) is just a little hype to sell a brand maybe? Hey, they are proud of their movement. I'm sure the Patek Philippe people may have something to say about what superlative means to them :).
We're almost there. All chronometers are essentially equal-they all pass the test. Why does Rolex say their chronometers are 'superlative' to others, when the results are pass/fail?

For PP, the Geneva Seal used to guarantee chronometer performance. I don't know if their own certification does the same.
watchteacher is offline  
Old 3 March 2010, 11:46 PM   #6
sevykor
"TRF" Member
 
sevykor's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Michigan
Posts: 464
Quote:
Originally Posted by watchteacher View Post
For PP, the Geneva Seal used to guarantee chronometer performance. I don't know if their own certification does the same.
I've heard PP is now going without the Geneva Seal. Not because they can't conform to the standards required of the seal, but rather (and this is not 100% certain) the ease in many brands meeting the same standards (including Cartier) gets under their skin. Or in other words, PP doesn't think Cartier deserves to be in the same league.

Rolex may find themselves superlative but I would like to hear from a Rolex insider why they chose to use "superlative". Perhaps it really is all about marketing and self promotion. To a non-WIS, Rolex may be considered to be the best of the best. We all know there are many brands out their that equally deserve to be called "superlative" too.
sevykor is offline  
Old 4 March 2010, 02:39 AM   #7
everose
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: World Citizen
Posts: 593
Quote:
Originally Posted by watchteacher View Post
We're almost there. All chronometers are essentially equal-they all pass the test. Why does Rolex say their chronometers are 'superlative' to others, when the results are pass/fail?

For PP, the Geneva Seal used to guarantee chronometer performance. I don't know if their own certification does the same.



As far as i know,The Geneva Seal DOES NOT actually test EVERY mvmt for chronometer performance itself,......BUT the watch MUST have passed COSC testing in order to be considered for the Geneva Seal.

Surprisingly precision testing itself is an OPTIONAL part of the GS inspection process!!

everose is offline  
Old 7 March 2010, 07:11 PM   #8
galloman
"TRF" Member
 
galloman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Real Name: Alejandro
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 185
Quote:
Originally Posted by watchteacher View Post
Why does Rolex say their chronometers are 'superlative' to others, when the results are pass/fail?
For the same reason they say 904L is 'the' steel
galloman is offline  
Old 3 March 2010, 03:09 PM   #9
toph
"TRF" Member
 
toph's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Real Name: ChrisTOPHer
Location: Sydney
Watch: Rolex, Brellum,
Posts: 12,601
i never thought about that. It could be referring to the notion that being an officially certified chronometer is intrisically superlative than being a non chronometer watch.
__________________


"Where no counsel is the people fall, but in the multitude of counselors there is safety."

Member No.# 11795
toph is offline  
Old 3 March 2010, 03:12 PM   #10
watchteacher
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Northern NJ
Watch: Tiffany blue Sub
Posts: 244
Quote:
Originally Posted by toph View Post
i never thought about that. It could be referring to the notion that being an officially certified chronometer is intrisically superlative than being a non chronometer watch.
But don't you think this is implying some chronometers are better than others?
watchteacher is offline  
Old 3 March 2010, 03:18 PM   #11
toph
"TRF" Member
 
toph's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Real Name: ChrisTOPHer
Location: Sydney
Watch: Rolex, Brellum,
Posts: 12,601
[QUOTE=watchteacher;1690663]But don't you think this is implying some chronometers are better than others?[/QUOTE

Possibly. But Like to think it is referring to a chronomtere being superlative in itself It is actually hard for me to say because, I , like most of us on here, know that all chronometers are tested to the same fundamental standards, so are 'technically' all equal. So this puts a bias on the way i want to understand the wording. its hard to be objective when you know better
__________________


"Where no counsel is the people fall, but in the multitude of counselors there is safety."

Member No.# 11795
toph is offline  
Old 3 March 2010, 03:20 PM   #12
Tools
TRF Moderator & 2024 Patron
 
Tools's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Real Name: Larry
Location: Mojave Desert
Watch: GMT's
Posts: 42,989


They don't reference any other watches, or even imply that they do...

They simply say that their watch is a self named "Superlative Chronometer"
__________________
(Chill ... It's just a watch Forum.....)
NAWCC Member
Tools is offline  
Old 3 March 2010, 03:25 PM   #13
toph
"TRF" Member
 
toph's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Real Name: ChrisTOPHer
Location: Sydney
Watch: Rolex, Brellum,
Posts: 12,601
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tools View Post


They don't reference any other watches, or even imply that they do...

They simply say that their watch is a self named "Superlative Chronometer"
Granted
BUT superlative is to be better than anything comparable.......... it's just what is the comparable in this case- my view is above
__________________


"Where no counsel is the people fall, but in the multitude of counselors there is safety."

Member No.# 11795
toph is offline  
Old 3 March 2010, 10:31 PM   #14
Nicko
Banned
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Not here anymore
Posts: 4,787
Quote:
Originally Posted by toph View Post
Granted
BUT superlative is to be better than anything comparable.......... it's just what is the comparable in this case- my view is above
I guess they thought it just sounds better than putting "Comparative Chronometer"
Nicko is offline  
Old 3 March 2010, 03:27 PM   #15
Andad
2024 Pledge Member
 
Andad's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Real Name: Eddie
Location: Australia
Watch: A few.
Posts: 36,692
I read that Rolex has an in-house specification standard that is better than the -4/+6 COSC spec. If this is correct then the movements would be superrlative (to the COSC) chronometer standards.
__________________
E

Andad is offline  
Old 3 March 2010, 03:31 PM   #16
toph
"TRF" Member
 
toph's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Real Name: ChrisTOPHer
Location: Sydney
Watch: Rolex, Brellum,
Posts: 12,601
Quote:
Originally Posted by directioneng View Post
I read that Rolex has an in-house specification standard that is better than the -4/+6 COSC spec. If this is correct then the movements would be superrlative (to the COSC) chronometer standards.
So why would they bother with COSC at all, if they have a better method? That is what IWC do.
__________________


"Where no counsel is the people fall, but in the multitude of counselors there is safety."

Member No.# 11795
toph is offline  
Old 3 March 2010, 03:36 PM   #17
watchteacher
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Northern NJ
Watch: Tiffany blue Sub
Posts: 244
I guess my final take on this is-when the COSC, who issues the certs, doesn't distinguish who is 'superlative' and who is not-why does Rolex claims their movements merits this? (and mine has this).
watchteacher is offline  
Old 3 March 2010, 11:17 PM   #18
The GMT Master
"TRF" Member
 
The GMT Master's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Real Name: Chris
Location: England
Posts: 8,147
Quote:
Originally Posted by watchteacher View Post
I guess my final take on this is-when the COSC, who issues the certs, doesn't distinguish who is 'superlative' and who is not-why does Rolex claims their movements merits this? (and mine has this).
You're reading way too much into this. It's just brand marketing. No more, no less.
The GMT Master is offline  
Old 4 March 2010, 02:47 AM   #19
DDG
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Real Name: Dennis Garrett
Location: Land of Oz
Watch: Rolex Explorer II
Posts: 405
All this hype might have meant something back in the 50's, 60's or 70's, but not anymore. You are supposed to think "Superlative Chronometer" means consistant accuracy, but we all know better. Good time keepers they are not. Just look at your cell phone if you want correct time. You don't have to put it on a winder to keep it going, or lay it upside down or on it's side to make it keep time. But, it's satisfying to have one these beautiful, high quality, works of art on your wrist. It makes everybody else wonder what you've been up to.
DDG is offline  
Old 3 March 2010, 10:27 PM   #20
RolexPete
"TRF" Member
 
RolexPete's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Real Name: Peter
Location: Massachusetts
Watch: Dad's 14060
Posts: 1,936
"Superlative" is Rolex marketing fluff. Sounds good though doesn't it?
__________________

1996 Submariner 14060* - 1972 Datejust 1601
1972 Oyster Perpetual 1002 - 1978 Oysterquartz 17000
Omega Seamaster 2265.80 - Omega Seamaster 300 166.0324
*RIP PAL 1942-2015
RolexPete is offline  
Old 3 March 2010, 11:02 PM   #21
mike
"TRF" Member
 
mike's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 22,683
Quote:
Originally Posted by RolexPete View Post
"Superlative" is Rolex marketing fluff. Sounds good though doesn't it?
Exactly.

There was a time when they didn't.

mike is offline  
Old 3 March 2010, 11:04 PM   #22
CPTL
"TRF" Member
 
CPTL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Real Name: Kevin
Location: Texas on my mind
Watch: Sub Date; SS/WG DJ
Posts: 2,445
Quote:
Originally Posted by mike View Post
Exactly.

There was a time when they didn't.

Mike, that watch is just not Superlative. Not at all.

__________________

16610 Submariner Date; D Serial
16234 DateJust SS with WG Fluted Bezel & Jubillee, White Roman Dial; F Serial
16570 Explorer II White Dial; M Serial

And Hers: 78240 Mid-Size DateJust SS with Domed Bezel & Oyster, White Roman; D Serial
CPTL is offline  
Old 7 March 2010, 09:44 PM   #23
RRY
"TRF" Member
 
RRY's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Real Name: DOUBLE RY
Location: NYC
Watch: and learn.
Posts: 289
Quote:
Originally Posted by mike View Post
Exactly.

There was a time when they didn't.

oooh goodness I just fainted.

RRY is offline  
Old 8 March 2010, 01:08 PM   #24
chiscoe
"TRF" Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: virginia
Posts: 72
Quote:
Originally Posted by mike View Post
Exactly.

There was a time when they didn't.

Good post!
chiscoe is offline  
Old 3 March 2010, 10:39 PM   #25
CPTL
"TRF" Member
 
CPTL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Real Name: Kevin
Location: Texas on my mind
Watch: Sub Date; SS/WG DJ
Posts: 2,445
"Run-o-the-mill Chronometer" just doesn't get my juices going. Would be a waste of ink.
__________________

16610 Submariner Date; D Serial
16234 DateJust SS with WG Fluted Bezel & Jubillee, White Roman Dial; F Serial
16570 Explorer II White Dial; M Serial

And Hers: 78240 Mid-Size DateJust SS with Domed Bezel & Oyster, White Roman; D Serial
CPTL is offline  
Old 3 March 2010, 10:59 PM   #26
snow_rocks
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Real Name: Rick
Location: At what TIME?!!!
Watch: the SKY tonite!
Posts: 3,225
I have often dreamt of a non-COSC Explorer, on a NATO band.
Attached Images
File Type: jpg EX nonCOSC.jpg (204.3 KB, 784 views)
snow_rocks is offline  
Old 4 March 2010, 02:36 AM   #27
padi56
"TRF" Life Patron
 
padi56's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Real Name: Peter
Location: Llanfairpwllgwyng
Watch: ing you.
Posts: 52,105
Quote:
Originally Posted by CPTL View Post
"Run-o-the-mill Chronometer" just doesn't get my juices going. Would be a waste of ink.
A Swiss chronometer is a Swiss chronometer and if the movements are a certain size are tested to the same standard no matter what the brand.And a Superlative chronometer is no better than any other swiss tested chronometer.Today the Swiss COSC is little more than a pure marketing ploy.
As nearly every modern day movement with some very careful regulation could pass the now quite antiquated COSC test.Now the European Din standard and the Japanese standard for mechanical chronometers are to a higher standard than the Swiss COSC.
__________________

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
padi56 is offline  
Old 8 March 2010, 01:43 PM   #28
Singslinger
"TRF" Member
 
Singslinger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: singapore
Posts: 6,422
Quote:
Originally Posted by CPTL View Post
"Run-o-the-mill Chronometer" just doesn't get my juices going. Would be a waste of ink.
Or "Ordinary'' or "Normal'' or "Non-standard''.....I guess "Superlative'' has a nicer ring to it, so the marketing boffins at Rolex went with that instead.
Singslinger is offline  
Old 4 March 2010, 01:28 AM   #29
Fiery
"TRF" Member
 
Fiery's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Europe
Watch: Sub-C 116610LN
Posts: 2,649
While we're at it, you could also question why do Rolex put "Officially Certified" (Chronometer should be enough) or "Swiss Made" there. Or why do they write "Chronometer" there at all. If all Rolex watches are officially certified chronometers, and they're all swiss-made, it's not necessary to indicate that on their dial. But for marketing reasons it's useful to put such proud things on the dial. And using such words like "Superlative" (Rolex), "First" (... watch on the moon, Omega Speedmaster) or "Best" (no example, I hope) may just seperate those pieces from other brands. Even if you're certain Rolex makes the best watches, it's nice to get reassurance from the watch itself -- it is really a superlative piece, it says on the dial ;)
Fiery is offline  
Old 4 March 2010, 01:37 AM   #30
Numismatist
"TRF" Member
 
Numismatist's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Real Name: Chris
Location: Camden ME & STT
Watch: 116600
Posts: 6,350
This might be easier for Rolex then...
Attached Images
File Type: jpg images.jpg (3.0 KB, 374 views)
__________________
Rolex 116600 Sea-dweller
Montblanc Solitaire Doué Black & White Legrand FP
Montblanc Solitaire Doué Black & White RB
Montblanc Meisterstück Diamond Mozart BP
Montblanc Meisterstück Mozart BP
Numismatist is offline  
Closed Thread


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

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

Takuya Watches

Bobs Watches

My Watch LLC

OCWatches

DavidSW Watches

Coronet


*Banners Of The Month*
This space is provided to horological resources.





Copyright ©2004-2024, The Rolex Forums. All Rights Reserved.

ROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEX

Rolex is a registered trademark of ROLEX USA. The Rolex Forums is not affiliated with ROLEX USA in any way.