Disturbed by a detail about the new Rolex 1908's movement

[vliberman]

Originally Posted by MILGAUSS88

To clarify I do not expect gold chatons in a Rolex.

I do expect them in a VC, AP or PP. If Rolex wants to raise their Cellini line to the haute horology level, then I think they should use gold chatons as well. I don't know if that is what they are really trying to do.

I have a pocket watch background, and it drives me nuts that the current watch companies act like it is so incredibly time consuming to add geneva stripes, pearlage, enamel dials and gold chatons, when there were millions of pocket watch movements made that way 100 years ago, all without CAD. And for around $350-500 when adjusted for inflation.

But why? What added benefit do all these techniques confer? Instead, Rolex concentrates on the state of the art movement that offers advancements far beyond what is available elsewhere. For example: Syloxi hairspring, Chronergy escapement and Paraflex shock absorbers. So u can choose a watch finished to the Nth degree with questionable timekeeping or 1908 with less than snob approved finishing but best in the class precision and robustness.

[brandrea]

Originally Posted by Tools

An article by another watch snob whose tastes are so much more superior than the common-mans Rolex could possibly achieve.

Nothing new here.

[GradyPhilpott]

The old Cellini line had at least a couple of exhibitions backs in the line, when I started the hobby in 2008.

The Prince was one.

https://www.hodinkee.com/articles/ce...ows-and-should

[Dirt]

Originally Posted by vliberman

But why? What added benefit do all these techniques confer? Instead, Rolex concentrates on the state of the art movement that offers advancements far beyond what is available elsewhere. For example: Syloxi hairspring, Chronergy escapement and Paraflex shock absorbers. So u can choose a watch finished to the Nth degree with questionable timekeeping or 1908 with less than snob approved finishing but best in the class precision and robustness.

Maybe the hairspring is something of note but it's not like Rolex developed it all on their own. They were a part of a collaborative that worked together in it's development. It's only real tangible benefit is its anti-magnetic properties.

The jury is still out on the escapement thing as to whether it really brings anything to the table or whether it's a liability.

The Paraflex shock absorption design is only a proprietary name for yet another variation of the same thing which is Rolex exclusive. It's of questionable value as to whether it adds any benefit in terms of shock absorbtion to the consumer.
Though i would add that watchmakers report finding it easier to work with than other shock absorbers.

[Mario3252]

Welcome to the forum!

[Scholar]

Originally Posted by vliberman

But why? What added benefit do all these techniques confer? Instead, Rolex concentrates on the state of the art movement that offers advancements far beyond what is available elsewhere. For example: Syloxi hairspring, Chronergy escapement and Paraflex shock absorbers. So u can choose a watch finished to the Nth degree with questionable timekeeping or 1908 with less than snob approved finishing but best in the class precision and robustness.

Rolex is about robust and accurate movements, not necessarily "state of the art". The 32 series is a pretty half-assed movement anyway.

As mass produced movements go, Omega's co-axial calibres have Rolex beat for being 'state of the art'.

[MILGAUSS88]

Originally Posted by vliberman

But why? What added benefit do all these techniques confer? .

It is about the beauty of the watch and the skill it took to put together.

Originally Posted by vliberman

Instead, Rolex concentrates on the state of the art movement that offers advancements far beyond what is available elsewhere. For example: Syloxi hairspring, Chronergy escapement and Paraflex shock absorbers.

Rolex does not have a co-axial escapement, (Omega), or a Spring Drive (Grand Seiko) Many other companies use a silicon hairspring which Ulysse Nardin developed. The detached escapement style that Rolex uses was invented in 1756. There are 100's of designs for shock absorbers, is there someplace I could look up to see which one is the best? I don't know, and I don't know who would.

I would say Omega and Grand Seiko matches or beats Rolex in precision and robustness at a lower price point.

I am not saying Rolex makes a bad watch. Obviously I like Rolex, I am on a Rolex forum. Yes, a Rolex is robust. Rolex is not haute horology, however.
I didn't say they should be, either. "To clarify I do not expect gold chatons in a Rolex."

[enjoythemusic]

Originally Posted by Scholar

As mass produced movements go, Omega's co-axial calibres have Rolex beat for being 'state of the art'.

Pretty please if I may add... The coaxial escapement is a type of modern watch escapement mechanism invented by English watchmaker George Daniels in 1976... that other manufacturers passed up, and Omega smartly employed.

Just want George Daniels to get the credit he earned

[Scholar]

Originally Posted by enjoythemusic

Pretty please if I may add... The coaxial escapement is a type of modern watch escapement mechanism invented by English watchmaker George Daniels in 1976... that other manufacturers passed up, and Omega smartly employed.

Just want George Daniels to get the credit he earned

Of course! Wouldn't want to deny George Daniels his achievement (and for that matter we should shout out his protégé Roger Smith.)

I just figured mentioning a watchmaker would confuse that kind of poster.

[KazieRs]

The fact that the gold is plated is already a bad sign, in the long run theres gonna be a bunch of scratch marks making that watch look bad

[HogwldFLTR]

Originally Posted by bcontinental

Disturbed by something I read here:

Time and Tide
VERSUS: Is the Rolex Perpetual 1908 a Calatrava-killing value proposition?
timeandtidewatches(DOT)com/versus-is-the-rolex-perpetual-1908-a-calatrava-killing-value-proposition/


"It’s a Rolex with a display caseback! And what a lovely sight it is – polished screw heads and a nicely solarised ratched wheel contrast against the côtes de Rolex, the brand’s own take on the classic striping method. However, as nice as the finishing is, there are some shortcuts and evidence of a machine being involved. For one, the chamfers are razor-thin and applied only on the balance bridge and balance-side of the barrel bridge. Those gold chatons? Well, they’re actually machined grooves that have been gold-plated."


I think the machine finishing and 'gold chatons' actually look very nice. My main concern is whether Rolex may have cut corners in other aspects of movements, given there have been documented reliability issues regarding their new movements.

Thoughts?

Welcome to the forum!!! From my understanding there aren't going to be many of these delivered!!! This is unfortunate as I was hoping to get one.

[Watchguynyc8300]

Anyone have a 1908 delivered? Also for all the folks proclaiming the grand Seikos and omegas are impeccable I haven’t heard they are doing +-2 from factory with actual reliability. Sounds like pretty much every brand except for Rolex is a total crapshoot in term of accuracy, which no matter what anyone says reflects the attention put into assembling and delivering the watch.

[learningtofly]

Originally Posted by omar-rye

‘Faux Chaton’

It’s got a nice ring to it, if I may say so

LOL.

It has to be said that the movement looks pretty staid when it comes to decoration, which is what one would expect from a brand that doesn’t claim to represent haute horlogerie. Indeed, I’d place Rolex at upper mid-tier when it comes to a ranking based solely on product sophistication (or quality, I guess - they’re incredibly robust and are very well finished, but over and above that...)

[omar-rye]

Originally Posted by Watchguynyc8300

Anyone have a 1908 delivered? Also for all the folks proclaiming the grand Seikos and omegas are impeccable I haven’t heard they are doing +-2 from factory with actual reliability. Sounds like pretty much every brand except for Rolex is a total crapshoot in term of accuracy, which no matter what anyone says reflects the attention put into assembling and delivering the watch.

Patek is impeccable. It’s not doing +-2 either. What’s your point exactly?

GS caliber 9RA2 is +-10 seconds per month or +-0.5 second per day.

[nosignalbmwdriver]

ill never understand why people care about display casebacks

[amphr1]

Originally Posted by nosignalbmwdriver

ill never understand why people care about display casebacks

I like display caseback but really only if there is something to admire. Any automatic that isn't a micro rotor is going to be a challenge. The back of a standard moon watch is something I'm glad has an open caseback. It is mechanically interesting, not necessarily well finished.

Sent from my SM-S918U1 using Tapatalk

[padi56]

Originally Posted by Tools

An article by another watch snob whose tastes are so much more superior than the common-mans Rolex could possibly achieve.

Nothing new here.

Have to agree Larry speaking for myself not a bit interested how the movement looks even with a see through case back. As who is ever going to see it when wearing except perhaps some with OCD that must look at the movement every hour of the day. Its how the movement performs in daily wearing thats the most important and not how movement looks.

[learningtofly]

Originally Posted by padi56

Have to agree Larry speaking for myself not a bit interested how the movement looks even with a see through case back. As who is ever going to see it when wearing except perhaps some with OCD that must look at the movement every hour of the day. Its how the movement performs in daily wearing thats the most important and not how movement looks.

Perfectly valid perspective, as is that of people who like to see the movement through the caseback. Neither is right or wrong.

[Edgeworth]

I have only seen pics of the new 7140 movement. The solarization on what appears to be a gold ratchet wheel is well done. Although I have a Nomos Orion with the manual alpha movement that has a solarized ratchet wheel that I think is better done. It's the one part of the alpha movement that is done by hand, with a grinding pen and paste. And I think it would have been cool if Rolex made the click for the mainspring barrel in gold as well.

It's a little hard for me to see the structure of the 7140 in the pics I found. It looks like a traditional layout with the second wheel at center and the 4th wheel serving as the small seconds. But it almost looks to me like the jewels for the escape wheel and the small seconds are underneath the wheel train bridge because I don't see them.

The faux chatons that the OP hates appear to be mostly on the barrel bridge and associated with gears that are used for the automatic winding mechanism. Although I see one faux chaton on the wheel train bridge that looks like it might be used for the 3rd wheel?

I'm no watchmaker but I'd love to have a tech sheet for this movement to understand it a little better. Also would love it if someone could post a decent zoomable pic and point out the structure.

My first impression of the 7140 is that it's a bit cheesy. But admittedly I don't understand what I'm looking at. And I'm biased because I LOVE the omega 8500 movement, which entirely done by machine but in a very intelligent manner which allow a lot of very cool details to be seen. And it's very easy to get a tech sheet for the 8500.

[brandrea]

Originally Posted by Tools

An article by another watch snob whose tastes are so much more superior than the common-mans Rolex could possibly achieve.

Nothing new here.

[fsprow]

Form follows function. Chatons have no useful purpose and in my view are to be avoided. To have fake chatons is even worse. Shame on Rolex.

[Kevin of Larchmont]

When I’m disturbed by a detail on a watch I don’t buy it.

[Edgeworth]

Originally Posted by CFR

I often look to SJX for balance and context on these sorts of things:

"Another interesting detail is what appear to be gold chatons around some of the jewels. Chatons have been obsolete for decades, but some haute horlogerie brands, especially German brands, use them as an anachronistic showcase of craftsmanship since they are fitted by hand. In the cal. 7140, the chatons are in fact borders machined into the bridges that are then gold plated.

Because they are not actual rings fitted into the bridges, the faux chatons might be seen as a concession to economy. But the machining of the gold rings into the bridges is so impressively fine that I imagine most brands would find it cheaper use actual chatons since fitting chatons is an easy, albeit manual task. But because Rolex boasts peerless manufacturing prowess, machining faux chatons is a better option, both in terms of long-term serviceability and cost."

I just read that article. Great article, thanks for posting. Interesting that the 4th wheel is still at center in this watch’s movement, and small seconds is driven by an auxiliary train. This will make it easier for future models in this collection to go back to center seconds and perhaps free up the extra space for something like a moonphase.

I do think the faux chatons are kind of corny. And really only used for the gearing in the automatic mechanism and part of the gearing in the auxiliary small seconds train. The main power train doesn’t appear to use them. I really think they are an unnecessary, maybe a tacky or phony, detail.

But it is a beautiful watch, in pics.

[Watchguynyc8300]

Originally Posted by omar-rye

Patek is impeccable. It’s not doing +-2 either. What’s your point exactly?

GS caliber 9RA2 is +-10 seconds per month or +-0.5 second per day.

Patek movements tend to be thinner. They haven’t historically tried the accuracy angle since the balance wheels haven’t been as long. In terms of “impeccable” I guess that is a value judgement. We can give them a pass - but most of their volume collection is machine finished looking using a 20x loupe.

The seiko 9RA2 uses a QUARTZ mechanism to regulate the TIME. It’s not a mechanical only watch in the sense that the integrated circuit would not be considered a mechanical watch by most people.

My point is despite a bunch of half educated watch reviewers that don’t even take apart modern watches, the ability of Rolex to produce at scale very accurate watches, is something other manufacturers haven’t been able to figure out …

[Watchguynyc8300]

Originally Posted by nosignalbmwdriver

ill never understand why people care about display casebacks

After 20+ years collecting watches is still get excited! It’s the thrill of seeing the escapement function. I recommend every collector buy an inexpensive HMT (used to be $10) watch and take it apart !

[Onikage]

Pics would be helpful. These are the washers surrounding the jewels correct? Do they look like crap? Comparison? What did Rolex used to use? Forgive me I'm only up on basic watch anatomy. This 'atelier de griff' stuff is beyond me. Thanks Google.

[MILGAUSS88]

Example of a low quality movement with pressed jewels:

[GGGMT]

Originally Posted by omar-rye

‘Faux Chaton’

It’s got a nice ring to it, if I may say so

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[MILGAUSS88]

Example of pressed jewels on a Patek:

[GGGMT]

Originally Posted by MILGAUSS88

To clarify I do not expect gold chatons in a Rolex.

I do expect them in a VC, AP or PP. If Rolex wants to raise their Cellini line to the haute horology level, then I think they should use gold chatons as well. I don't know if that is what they are really trying to do.

I have a pocket watch background, and it drives me nuts that the current watch companies act like it is so incredibly time consuming to add geneva stripes, pearlage, enamel dials and gold chatons, when there were millions of pocket watch movements made that way 100 years ago, all without CAD. And for around $350-500 when adjusted for inflation.

Good insights. Had not considered that.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk