Ceramics making ROLEX a fragile watch?

[Longhorn]

on several occasions while leaving the bar, I have dragged my sub across the brickwall. And the bezel still looks spanking new. I am pleased with this "upgrade".

[Armyguy03]

Originally Posted by Longhorn

on several occasions while leaving the bar, I have dragged my sub across the brickwall. And the bezel still looks spanking new. I am pleased with this "upgrade".

Dragged your sub against a brick wall, LOL!!!!!!

[psv]

They went with ceramic because it is no longer a professional instrument/tool watch but much more of a luxury item. Luxury items needs bling and exotic materials.

If you want tool, buy a Sea-Dweller 16600.

[Bangel]

Originally Posted by ec51

What is this observation based on?

Cracked Ceramic

Scratched Ceramic

I know that on my own sub c the ceramic insert remains in pristine condition despite all the considerable bumps and knocks from daily wear that has left the rest of the watch case and bracelet covered in scratches and nicks.

I also know that on my previous non ceramic watches, similar usage has led to the bezel showing a multitude of scratches.

Of course ceramic inserts are not totally impervious to scratches, but I do believe they are much less likely to be scratched than their aluminium counterparts.

With regard to shattering, ceramic inserts can certainly do this. I think though, that you would have to be quite unlucky for this to happen and that it would take an impact occurring with both considerable force and at the right (or wrong!) angle. I note that in the link "Cracked Ceramic" that while the watch was stated to have been dropped from waist height, there was no mention as to the type of surface it landed on. I suspect such an impact would also cause some damage to an aluminium bezel insert. To rectify such damage is significantly more expensive for the watch with the ceramic bezel.

So which is more fragile? I still don't think the call is straightforward.

Both kinds will sustain some sort of damage if subjected to enough trauma. The ceramic will not show scratches as easily, which for me is more relevant for day to day wear. In the event of the unlucky whammy, both types of inserts can require replacing (though the aluminium may deform but not shatter), in which case the ceramic is going to cost a lot more.

[AJMarcus]

I really don't think it's the same ceramic process that people think of when they think Ceramic. Read the Rolex website....there is a lot that goes into their "ceramic.".

[cop414]

Originally Posted by ec51

What is wrong with the "quality" of the older style bracelets...?

Agree, the older style bracelets and clasps have been proven over and over for decades. No welds to break, light and comfortable. Nothing wrong or of poor "quality" at all. Heavier, thicker and more expensive doesn't always mean better.

[JasoninDenver]

My ceramic bezel has held up much better after two years of hard use than my old aluminum insert. No scratches, dents, dings or cracks.

I do not baby my watches at all and can tell you that an aluminum insert after two years of my typical use is looking pretty ragged.

I personally would much rather risk a higher replacement cost for the small possibility I would need it on the ceramic bezel versus the certain need to replace the aluminum insert.

As far as complaints about the new bracelet or clasps, those early issues have been addressed and I am not aware that there have been many (any??) recent complaints.

[WyoWatch]

My comment is that it is just as easy to scratch, break, shatter, chip a sapphire crystal as it is a ceramic bezel. So why the concern over the ceramic and not sapphire crystals that have been widely accepted for many years now? If you want to beat on your watch or aren't prepared for the possibility of expensive repair because of mistreatment or freak accident, maybe you should get an older Rolex with plexi crystal and aluminum insert. I've had my SubC for 3-4 years now and it looks as good as the day I bought it (crystal and bezel wise). I am careful but not overly concerned about damages since it's fully insured with no deductible. Just my .02.

[Billywiz]

Originally Posted by WyoWatch

My comment is that it is just as easy to scratch, break, shatter, chip a sapphire crystal as it is a ceramic bezel. So why the concern over the ceramic and not sapphire crystals that have been widely accepted for many years now? If you want to beat on your watch or aren't prepared for the possibility of expensive repair because of mistreatment or freak accident, maybe you should get an older Rolex with plexi crystal and aluminum insert. I've had my SubC for 3-4 years now and it looks as good as the day I bought it (crystal and bezel wise). I am careful but not overly concerned about damages since it's fully insured with no deductible. Just my .02.

Agree and would add that being bigger and clumpy compared to the others they get bumped more possibly?

[Billywiz]

Originally Posted by cop414

Agree, the older style bracelets and clasps have been proven over and over for decades. No welds to break, light and comfortable. Nothing wrong or of poor "quality" at all. Heavier, thicker and more expensive doesn't always mean better.

Dead right!

[ec51]

Originally Posted by Bangel

I know that on my own sub c the ceramic insert remains in pristine condition despite all the considerable bumps and knocks from daily wear that has left the rest of the watch case and bracelet covered in scratches and nicks.

I also know that on my previous non ceramic watches, similar usage has led to the bezel showing a multitude of scratches.

Of course ceramic inserts are not totally impervious to scratches, but I do believe they are much less likely to be scratched than their aluminium counterparts.

With regard to shattering, ceramic inserts can certainly do this. I think though, that you would have to be quite unlucky for this to happen and that it would take an impact occurring with both considerable force and at the right (or wrong!) angle. I note that in the link "Cracked Ceramic" that while the watch was stated to have been dropped from waist height, there was no mention as to the type of surface it landed on. I suspect such an impact would also cause some damage to an aluminium bezel insert. To rectify such damage is significantly more expensive for the watch with the ceramic bezel.

So which is more fragile? I still don't think the call is straightforward.

Both kinds will sustain some sort of damage if subjected to enough trauma. The ceramic will not show scratches as easily, which for me is more relevant for day to day wear. In the event of the unlucky whammy, both types of inserts can require replacing (though the aluminium may deform but not shatter), in which case the ceramic is going to cost a lot more.

This is a fair observation.

[ec51]

Originally Posted by WyoWatch

My comment is that it is just as easy to scratch, break, shatter, chip a sapphire crystal as it is a ceramic bezel. So why the concern over the ceramic and not sapphire crystals that have been widely accepted for many years now? If you want to beat on your watch or aren't prepared for the possibility of expensive repair because of mistreatment or freak accident, maybe you should get an older Rolex with plexi crystal and aluminum insert. I've had my SubC for 3-4 years now and it looks as good as the day I bought it (crystal and bezel wise). I am careful but not overly concerned about damages since it's fully insured with no deductible. Just my .02.

With respect to scratching, sapphire (to my knowledge) can only be scratched by other sapphire or diamond.

[TimeOnMyHands]

Thanks to everyone for the many great replies in this thread.

My 4 year old EXPII has enjoyed an active life. It has never seen a desk or neck tie... Indeed the bezel has some hairline scratches and I even managed to nick the sapphire crystal as well. But I view it as a pure tool watch, one which may require a movement service at some point - but its exterior/bracelet will remain intact long past my years. Thanks all. Enjoy your watches!

[singe89]

cracked the pearl on my DSSD. That being said I still like the new ceramic vs. the old aluminum insert in overall looks, durability and feel. Just wish you could replace the pearl w/o having to spend the $$$$ to replace the whole bezel.

[PunkJr]

Titanium is a stronger metal than steel. Does a watch need to be made from titanium?..no. But based on some of the theories I've read here, Rolex should be making their watches in titanium. The real fact is, whilst the new ceramic bezels may be stronge/harder (maybe not), was there a big issue with the aluminium bezels? I never heard once, prior to the ceramic bezels coming out, anyone complaining that they weren't happy with their ally bezels, and that they demanded improvements. Great ideas and progress is born out of neccessity

And whilst I will never throw my bezel into acid to give a faux faded effect, or run my bezel against a wall intentionally to scratch my bezel, I do look at the day to day battle scars on my Sub with affection. They show the history that we've shared. A rugged sports watch that still looks brand new after ten years of daily wear........no thanks, not for me.

.

[Rolexitis]

Originally Posted by srf52

...I have a GMTIIC that I recently smacked into a door knob with enough force that it actually turned the bezel one click. It hit fairly hard. I examined the bezel with a loop and found no hint of damage (no chip, crack, scratch or breakage). That's good enough for me.

This is good to know. I've gotten into the habit of putting my arm in front of me at waist or chest level walking thru doorways. I may look goofy but gotta protect my baby!

[TSts]

No problems with my Ceramics, all good.

[Armyguy03]

Originally Posted by Rolexitis

This is good to know. I've gotten into the habit of putting my arm in front of me at waist or chest level walking thru doorways. I may look goofy but gotta protect my baby!

I do that too

[boogiebot]

The only downside IMO is the price to replace the ceramic bezels.

[shofzr]

Originally Posted by ffighter556

The ceramic insert may last forever but I just cant get past the fact that it is glued to the ring instead of friction fit.

Not to be rude but this is simply not true. The ceramic insert is in fact held into the bezel by friction not glue.

[GlideLockHeadLock]

Originally Posted by ec51

What is wrong with the "quality" of the older style bracelets...?

They have hollow links which over time stretch and the older clasp is not bad but could of been alot better given the price.

Rolex nailed it with the new Glidelock and Solid links. Looks much better and the bracelet isnt going to stretch much, if at all. And to be able to adjust the size without any tools is great for the summer.

[GradyPhilpott]

Originally Posted by TimeOnMyHands

The Explorer II (&42mm) line have no issues with bezel defacing or replacement. I know that I have smacked my EXPII bezel well and it shows the scratches yet it blends with the subtle strokes of everyday use showing character.

A watch ostensibly made for spelunkers with a ceramic bezel would be a kiss of death, were there actually spelunkers who use the Explorer II for spelunking.

I'm even surprised that a watch made for spelunkers would have a case diameter of 42mm.

Obviously, the role of wristwatches in society has been changing for decades, as all manner of technological advances have made their appearance and it would seem that just making a robust, durable, mechanical timepiece for specific tasks is not enough to satisfy the market.

None of the changes to the Submariner in the last four decades have been made to make the watch a better diver, except for increasing the depth rating, but adding a date, making incremental improvements to the bracelet, the dial, the case and bezel have certainly impressed generations of those with sufficient discretionary income.

I have to chuckle every time I think that Omega sells or did sell watch to adults dedicated to a fictional character.

At least when Rolex sinks to such depths, it is to the bottom of the Marianas Trench.

[Andad]

Originally Posted by AJMarcus

I really don't think it's the same ceramic process that people think of when they think Ceramic. Read the Rolex website....there is a lot that goes into their "ceramic.".

Rolex just throw a few ceramic bezels in the oven when Royal Dalton are making plates don't you know.

[cop414]

Originally Posted by GradyPhilpott

A watch ostensibly made for spelunkers with a ceramic bezel would be a kiss of death, were there actually spelunkers who use the Explorer II for spelunking.

I'm even surprised that a watch made for spelunkers would have a case diameter of 42mm.

Obviously, the role of wristwatches in society has been changing for decades, as all manner of technological advances have made their appearance and it would seem that just making a robust, durable, mechanical timepiece for specific tasks is not enough to satisfy the market.

None of the changes to the Submariner in the last four decades have been made to make the watch a better diver, except for increasing the depth rating, but adding a date, making incremental improvements to the bracelet, the dial, the case and bezel have certainly impressed generations of those with sufficient discretionary income.

I have to chuckle every time I think that Omega sells or did sell watch to adults dedicated to a fictional character.

At least when Rolex sinks to such depths, it is to the bottom of the Marianas Trench.

Very well said Grady!

[A.Sharp]

Originally Posted by srf52

...I have a GMTIIC that I recently smacked into a door knob with enough force that it actually turned the bezel one click. It hit fairly hard. I examined the bezel with a loop and found no hint of damage (no chip, crack, scratch or breakage). That's good enough for me.

Yeah I heard the bezels are strong as nails. OP, instead of fading denting and bending they can crack. They are more expensive to replace because they are way more high tech.

Think it's silly to say its poor quality

[mrhy]

I have a ceramic IWC top gun and its definitely a lot more delicate then any of my steel watches

[MrNanni]

My DSSD is $12,050 retail, like anyone here shatters one and it costs 1k so what. I'll take my chances. The ceramics look better and hold up better. Chances are slim to crack or chip one. At least for me.

[Eric88]

I have owned two ceramic Subs that I have beat the heck out of with so much daily wear and tear 24/7 and no issues whatsoever. Fragile ceramic bezels is an urban myth. .001% in my opinion.

[srf52]

Originally Posted by boogiebot

The only downside IMO is the price to replace the ceramic bezels.

Perhaps, if it came down to having to replace a ceramic insert, one could opt at that time to replace it with an aluminum one instead.....

[boogiebot]

Originally Posted by srf52

Perhaps, if it came down to having to replace a ceramic insert, one could opt at that time to replace it with an aluminum one instead.....

If Rolex gave the consumer that kind of choice that would be pretty cool.