So have Rolex taken us for a ride with this new Ceramic Bezel?

[JJ Irani]

Hi guys,

After reading some of the HORROR stories on TRF about the new CERAMIC bezel and how easily it can either break or be dislodged, I'm now starting to wonder (especially since I do own a TT GMT-IIC) whether this was a good idea on Rolex's part or not?

Question is.......how much would it cost to replace a Ceramic bezel.....as opposed to the much cheaper anodized aluminium insert of the older sports models?

All this talk about pre-heating it to 1500ºC and then bombarding it with pure gold particles is all very nice...............but, at the end of the day, we have something that is HARD, SCRATCH-PROOF, but very, very BRITTLE!! Now what good is that in a sports watch??

Have we been taken for a ride?

[DanP]

Yes but that is true for all marketing.
Mines fine and not pampered.

[JJ Irani]

Originally Posted by DanP

Yes but that is true for all marketing.
Mines fine and not pampered.

Until you accidentally smack it real hard against some solid object or it gets dislodged in a crowded mall!!

[DanP]

Originally Posted by JJ Irani

Until you accidentally smack it real hard against some solid object or it gets dislodged in a crowded mall!!

Oh its been smacked JJ thats for sure. Im not worried in the least about it.

[bardm]

Originally Posted by JJ Irani

Until you accidentally smack it real hard against some solid object or it gets dislodged in a crowded mall!!

You shouldn't smack your Rolex real hard against some solid object JJ

I think it's been reported very few incidents with the ceramic bessel taking into account how popular the GMT IIc is. You can break abything if you try hard enough or has enough bad luck.

[Safetrends]

After reading this I am confused, the new ceramic bezel cannot be switched for a standard bezel ? This would make it easy for the owner of the watch to use the standard bezel and keep the ceramic one if they want to sell it in the future.

[looking to buy]

Good point. But I think we need more time to see. Maybe there are just a few with the problem. Let's give it a year and then see.

[JJ Irani]

Originally Posted by looking to buy

Good point. But I think we need more time to see. Maybe there are just a few with the problem. Let's give it a year and then see.

The Ceramic full gold version was introduced in 2005, the TT in 2006 and the SS in 2007.

How many more poor customers have to undergo losses before we wake up to the reality of the situation?

The new Subs and the DSSD are supposed to be rough & tumble dive watches with BRITTLE bezels. Imagine a professional diver down to some great depth and then accidentally smacking his bezel against a coral outcrop or some such similar hard object!!

I leave the rest to your imagination.

JJ

[DWdrummer]

Originally Posted by JJ Irani

The Ceramic full gold version was introduced in 2005, the TT in 2006 and the SS in 2007.

How many more poor customers have to undergo losses before we wake up to the reality of the situation?

The new Subs and the DSSD are supposed to be rough & tumble dive watches with BRITTLE bezels. Imagine a professional diver down to some great depth and then accidentally smacking his bezel against a coral outcrop or some such similar hard object!!

I leave the rest to your imagination.

JJ

I have to agree here. While I think the GMT IIc is stunning. I dont care for ceramics on a watch bezel. Ceramic by its nature IS brittle and as such prone to cracking and shattering. They can harden it up to a point but it never going to take the abuse of a good old fashioned aluminum or steel bezel insert. There are trade offs to everything in life, and while ceramic looks awesome, it might not be up to the task at hand on a Rolex watch. Time will tell, no pun intended.

[Dan Pierce]

In an effort of full disclosure I prefer the more versatile classic GMT II. Having said that, I think we WIS's tend to over amplify these perceived improvements and/ or problems.
An overwhelming majority will never have a bezel problem with their GMT IIc, EVER!! My GMT II doesn't have the new fancy, schmancy parchrome [spelling??] hairspring, yet runs -1 sec after being worn for 5 days!
I have to laugh when I read how much better the 3186, wiggle test and all, is compared to that cheap, inferior 3185 crap. Don't get hung up on the hype.
Don't sweat it! Everythin' gonna be alright.
dP

[DadsWatch72]

Originally Posted by DWdrummer

I have to agree here. While I think the GMT IIc is stunning. I dont care for ceramics on a watch bezel. Ceramic by its nature IS brittle and as such prone to cracking and shattering. They can harden it up to a point but it never going to take the abuse of a good old fashioned aluminum or steel bezel insert. There are trade offs to everything in life, and while ceramic looks awesome, it might not be up to the task at hand on a Rolex watch. Time will tell, no pun intended.

This is exactly what has happened. A trade off from impact resistant to scratch resistant. Now both the crystal and the bezel are scratch resistant. BUT I don't think that there needs/should to be a "trade off". Both types of watches with both types of crystals/inserts should be offered. Then it would be a choice and not a "trade off". Yes its true most people baby their Rolex but you shouldn't "have to" baby it in regard to impacts if this is how your going to use and wear it in a work setting. Omega has the right idea. They offer the classic Speedmaster in both the Hesalite (a name brand of fine acrylic) crystal and the Sapphire crystal. Rolex should do the same by offering the classic "work models" (Sub, SD, GMT, and Explorer) with both types of materials (acrylic crystal/aluminum insert) IMO. Here is a Question/Answer from a website regarding Omega materials which says it all. Like I said, they offer the classic Speedmaster in both materials which is what Rolex should do.

Why has the 'true' Speedmaster Moonwatch not been upgraded to a sapphire crystal?Back in the 1960's, many watches used either mineral glass or acrylic (plastic) crystals. These are not difficult to scratch, but very inexpensive to replace. Now though, most all luxury watches use the highly scratch resistant synthetic sapphire crystals. Yet while OMEGA offers the sapphire crystal on all their other models, the classic Speedmaster Professional "Moonwatch" still uses the same Hesalite (a name brand of fine acrylic) crystal as is did decades ago.
The reason for this is directly related to its certification for use in space. While sapphire crystals are less prone to scratching, they can be shattered. When shattered, they break into tiny fragments that would be hazardous in a zero gravity environment.

So the Hesalite crystal is maintained on that specific model as a safety feature for its use in space flight missions.

OMEGA has since added a similar model SpeedMaster Professional that does have the sapphire crystal, but the original version with the Hesalite is still the 'true' Moonwatch.
Many people ask about upgrading the Hesalite crystal on their Speedmaster Professional "Moonwatch" to the sapphire crystal found on the similar Speedmaster Automatic. But this is not possible. While the watches appear very similar externally, the shape and fittings of their crystals are quite different and are not interchangable.

http://www.chronocentric.com/omega/t...shtml#hesalite


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[DanP]

Remember the immortal words of one Pt Barnum.
"A sucker is born every minute"

[Andad]

You will be just fine JJ. Your ceramic bezel will last for a long time.
Choose an item that you currently own - a watch, a mobile phone, a pair of glasses even a diamond ring - and drop it onto tiles, concrete or even a wooden floor and eventually it will break. I have seen diamonds break across their 'cut' line.
Treat your GMT TTc fairly and it will be just fine.

[JJ Irani]

Originally Posted by directioneng

You will be just fine JJ. Your ceramic bezel will last for a long time.
Choose an item that you currently own - a watch, a mobile phone, a pair of glasses even a diamond ring - and drop it onto tiles, concrete or even a wooden floor and eventually it will break. I have seen diamonds break across their 'cut' line.
Treat your GMT TTc fairly and it will be just fine.

Yes, I know, Eddie......I was referring in general. Why would ROLEX come up with a BRITTLE bezel?

[jdc]

Originally Posted by JJ Irani

Yes, I know, Eddie......I was referring in general. Why would ROLEX come up with a BRITTLE bezel?

one word JJ "fashion". It's new shiny and the keeps the guys in the marketing department in work

[STEELINOX]

Originally Posted by jdc

one word JJ "fashion". It's new shiny and the keeps the guys in the marketing department in work

Yes, tis all about the 'bling factor' for them 'yungins' at ROLEX; in a way its 'our fault' that this is happened, we as a community did not present ourselves as a voice for what we thought to be the perfect ROLEX.

A ceramic cased, tritium powered dial without gold surrounds and matte finish with a machined clasp housing with a optional acrylic cxl with a optional rubber or nato strap with a metal insert bezel on metal bezel seat with a moonphase with a power indicator with a usb connect for softwate updates !

[jdc]

Originally Posted by STEELINOX

Yes, tis all about the 'bling factor' for them 'yungins' at ROLEX; in a way its 'our fault' that this is happened, we as a community did not present ourselves as a voice for what we thought to be the perfect ROLEX.

A ceramic cased, tritium powered dial without gold surrounds and matte finish with a machined clasp housing with a optional acrylic cxl with a optional rubber or nato strap with a metal insert bezel on metal bezel seat with a moonphase with a power indicator with a usb connect for softwate updates !

[Watch Professor]

Hasn't the ceramic bezel been out for several years? This should be enough time to give an unbiased account of its qualities, good or bad

[JJ Irani]

Originally Posted by Watch Professor

Hasn't the ceramic bezel been out for several years? This should be enough time to give an unbiased account of its qualities, good or bad

Irrespective of how long it's been out, why did Rolex come up with something so BRITTLE? That's my argument!!

[DanP]

Originally Posted by JJ Irani

Irrespective of how long it's been out, why did Rolex come up with something so BRITTLE? That's my argument!!

Jeez your the CEO! Why dont you tell us

Oh just a quick question JJ
I know you have had many a rolex and have known their qualities throughout the years. My question is:
In the past few yeast (my rolex knowledge) have you noticed that there has been certain modifications that have changed a rolex from what it was into what it is today? have these mods made it for better or for worse? Is it just a gimmick to get us to buy buy buy? I must admit I was sold on the new GMTIIC the second I first set eyes on her. where does fashion meet function here? should fashion and function exist /co exist for it? Your thoughts JJ

Thank you Happy New years You ol Kiwi you

Much Love
Dan

[JJ Irani]

Originally Posted by DanP

Jeez your the CEO! Why dont you tell us

Oh just a quick question JJ
I know you have had many a rolex and have known their qualities throughout the years. My question is:
In the past few yeast (my rolex knowledge) have you noticed that there has been certain modifications that have changed a rolex from what it was into what it is today? have these mods made it for better or for worse? Is it just a gimmick to get us to buy buy buy? I must admit I was sold on the new GMTIIC the second I first set eyes on her. where does fashion meet function here? should fashion and function exist /co exist for it? Your thoughts JJ

Thank you Happy New years You ol Kiwi you

Much Love
Dan

Fashion or Function you ask, Dan?

Well, I say let's leave the fashion in those blinged-up models for the likes of Paris Hilton, Tara Reid and the Beckhams......

And give us poor souls something more functional, dependable and SOLID!! The Ceramic bezel looks beautiful, but not sure how functional it is after readig about its BRITTLE property.

JJ

[DanP]

Originally Posted by JJ Irani

Fashion or Function you ask, Dan?

Well, I say let's leave the fashion in those blinged-up models for the likes of Paris Hilton, Tara Reid and the Beckhams......

And give us poor souls something more functional, dependable and SOLID!! The Ceramic bezel looks beautiful, but not sure how functional it is after readig about its BRITTLE property.

JJ

I think my question runs a little deeper than your reply JJ. Cmon dig deep

[Speed]

Do I smell a recall? Has this EVER happened with Rolex before?

Let's see some 3d / photoshop mockups with an Aluminum bezel the size and shape of the ceramic!

[Sonny Crockett]

Originally Posted by JJ Irani

Irrespective of how long it's been out, why did Rolex come up with something so BRITTLE? That's my argument!!

Webster Dictionary definition of brittle = easily broken, cracked, or snapped
that is not the case with the Ceramic bezel there has been a bunch produced by Rolex and we have a hand full of incidents one of which was smack by a chain or keys I can't remember, anyway lets be realistic a bunch of Rolex customer do not use the Sub, DSSD for diving and even if they did I believe the ceramic bezel will be fine. lets not get excited. You have a beauty of a watch with your TT GMT IIc JJ it will be alright....

[DRAWTOOL]

Originally Posted by JJ Irani

Irrespective of how long it's been out, why did Rolex come up with something so BRITTLE? That's my argument!!

I agree, the same argument applies to the sapphire crystals. The "market" apparently prefers to 'form' over 'function'.

[scl6118]

Originally Posted by JJ Irani

Irrespective of how long it's been out, why did Rolex come up with something so BRITTLE? That's my argument!!

Why do you classify it as "brittle"? How many broken ceramic bezels are you aware of? Im only aware of one since October and that one was hit with a "swinging necklace of keys."

[scl6118]

Originally Posted by JJ Irani

Irrespective of how long it's been out, why did Rolex come up with something so BRITTLE? That's my argument!!

Not exactly sure how you are supporting your "argument" JJ. You haven't given much evidence, if any, to support your claim. Yes, in 3 months on TRF, I have heard of one broken bezel and two or three bezels falling off, but for a WORLDWIDE forum, that's a pretty low number of instances among the ridiculous amount of ceramic bezel Rolexes out there! I know you own a IIC and have been a huge supporter of them in the past and that's why I'm so confused about your complete 180 in your opinion on IIC's. One would think that judging by the conviction in your thread, it was an accumulation of years of mass horror stories of the IIC!

Very confusing!!!!

[dardeca]

Originally Posted by scl6118

Not exactly sure how you are supporting your "argument" JJ. You haven't given much evidence, if any, to support your claim. Yes, in 3 months on TRF, I have heard of one broken bezel and two or three bezels falling off, but for a WORLDWIDE forum, that's a pretty low number of instances among the ridiculous amount of ceramic bezel Rolexes out there! I know you own a IIC and have been a huge supporter of them in the past and that's why I'm so confused about your complete 180 in your opinion on IIC's. One would think that judging by the conviction in your thread, it was an accumulation of years of mass horror stories of the IIC!

Very confusing!!!!

Well said!

[STEELINOX]

Originally Posted by scl6118

Not exactly sure how you are supporting your "argument" JJ. You haven't given much evidence, if any, to support your claim. Yes, in 3 months on TRF, I have heard of one broken bezel and two or three bezels falling off, but for a WORLDWIDE forum, that's a pretty low number of instances among the ridiculous amount of ceramic bezel Rolexes out there! I know you own a IIC and have been a huge supporter of them in the past and that's why I'm so confused about your complete 180 in your opinion on IIC's. One would think that judging by the conviction in your thread, it was an accumulation of years of mass horror stories of the IIC!

Very confusing!!!!

Stay confused, its easy to be when the facts are not clear.

Clearly, there have been instances of bezel fx, that said, this Forum represents maybe a one hundredth of the ownership of the watch, GMT MASTER II.

Does this mean that there are any reliable numbers to ascertain a cumulative occurrence figure? No, it cant be done, even on the web. Too many variables of "No picture, then it didnt happen" !


At this point the polls and the explanation of 'how' are moot and quite academic and are imho non substantive because of the lack of ROLEX numbers AND their disclosures about the ceramic pieces used in ALL oyster perpetuals or any other mfg'r that uses ceramic.

These threads are purely entertainment from what I can gather; and though some elements of the GMT Fx saga have indeed swayed me to not buy, others will still buy, and thats just fine as it is with the world !

Thanks,
Randy

PS: I can bet you this too, and that is those threads DO NOT make it to 10 pages !

here'sa pic of me Sink on a pedestal !

[scl6118]

Originally Posted by STEELINOX

Stay confused, its easy to be when the facts are not clear.

Clearly, there have been instances of bezel fx, that said, this Forum represents maybe a one hundredth of the ownership of the watch, GMT MASTER II.

Does this mean that there are any reliable numbers to ascertain a cumulative occurrence figure? No, it cant be done, even on the web. Too many variables of "No picture, then it didnt happen" !


At this point the polls and the explanation of 'how' are moot and quite academic and are imho non substantive because of the lack of ROLEX numbers AND their disclosures about the ceramic pieces used in ALL oyster perpetuals or any other mfg'r that uses ceramic.

These threads are purely entertainment from what I can gather; and though some elements of the GMT Fx saga have indeed swayed me to not buy, others will still buy, and thats just fine as it is with the world !

Thanks,
Randy

PS: I can bet you this too, and that is those threads DO NOT make it to 10 pages !

here'sa pic of me Sink on a pedestal !

Why the goofy comment of the "10 pages"?