Is Rolex more durable than other watch brands?

[rhairman]

In terms of robustness, I (from experience) highly regard Rolex, Omega and Seiko

[landroverking]

I believe so

[timmytimng]

With Rolex they is actually one of the best as they are tested for Extreme measures. They test the clasp, they test shock resistance, for depths, and even water resistance.

Not many other companies test to these extremes so yes they are very durable.

[prozac51]

Originally Posted by Verdi

Rolex came up with a product that it wasn't a problem if you were caught by a torrential rain or spent 2 hours in the sea playing with the children.

And unlike another luxury watch brand, you DIDN'T have to really look after it for the next generation. It took care of itself, mostly.

Sent from my HTC_2Q4D100 using Tapatalk

[douglasf13]

Originally Posted by breitlings

you can knock them out of regulation, any lever adjusted movement for that matter. I have several times on an old chronomat.

I’d guess that’s why Tudor’s ETA modifications include a Triovis regulator and a KIF shock system.

Still, these days, there probably isn’t quite the difference in durability between good brands compared to 50 years ago when Rolex/Tudor was making its name for durability.

[jets]

Wearing my SDDS for five years a can't count how many times I knocked it and never had an issue. Part of the reason Rolex is so popular after all this time. They can take a beating. I wear mine like rented mules.

[mmmmp]

Rolex *not* a luxury watch? ,C'mon guys - the platinum Day / Date with glacier dial is certainly a luxury watch by any standard.

The fact it's built like an "armoured car" is simply a bonus.

FWIW, and I love telling this anecdote - my first Rolex was a two toned AirKing Date. I wore this watch every day for 13 years trouble-free without servicing. In fact, don't laugh, I didn't even manually wind it! This was pre-internet / pre-forums, / etc. I didn't even know it *could* be wound. Other than resetting for DST and date adjustments I simply wore it.

It ran about +5 per day - which is remarkable performance. So durable? You better believe it!

Just my humble experience.
Mark

Sent from my SGH-I547C using Tapatalk

[breitlings]

interesting re tudor modifications. i like what they did with the bo1 too.

[Muzz]

Cant say I have had too many issues with Rolex apart from an HEV issue and a bezel insert which I broke.

I could not say the same thing about many other brands out there that I have had, so to me they have been the most reliably a long shot.

[Onikage]

Lurking on other watch forums according to apparent 'watchmakers' Rolex's 3135 is no more durable than the equivalent three hand ETA offering. Basically anything with an ETA 2824 in it so many Breitling Colt, SuperOcean, Omega Seamaster (pre coax), Many Tudors Sub, Black Bay, Tag Heuer Aqua racers Hamilton etc etc etc. All as durable as a Rolex apparently. The ETA is definitely a workhorse but I have a feeling those guys just couldn't afford the Rolex.

[SevenWays]

In the old times watches would not last a lifetime, unless you really took care of it and made sure it is not exposed to elements.

That is both true and a bit off the mark at the same time.

I own several pocket watches and the newest one is just coming up onto 100 years old. It keeps time to within 2 seconds per day. The oldest one is from the 1880's. It gains about 5 seconds per day. I have a New Haven parlor clock from the mid 1800's. It is weight/pendulum driven and I haven't regulated it in the past 25 years but it keeps time to within a minute per day. Granted, it is a bit bulky on the wrist, though.

The pocket watches were used by railroad personnel on a daily basis, through all sorts of weather. They were not sealed in any way and were subject to dust and water intrusion. It is true that people back in the day were very cognizant of trying to keep the units dry and not to drop them but there were watchmakers everywhere to deal with things if something happened so it wasn't as if people felt they had to keep their watches in cotton wool all the time.

As long as you didn't drop them or dunk them, they were usually fine. What is cool is that all my pocket watches represented American-made examples of the finest (most accurate) timepieces in the world at the time and can run with Rolex or, on a good day, basic quartz watches today. Hamilton, Ball, Waltham, Illinois and Elgin were meeting COSC 70 years before there was a COSC.

[mahefa]

Today, again, one Audemars Piquet stopped. My friend hit it quite hard to elevator wall and next day it had stopped running. This is about tenth AP or Patek Philippe i have witnessed to act like this.

Rolex is durable and robust watch, but not art of haute horlogerie like AP and PP are.

[Patton250]

Originally Posted by Onikage

Lurking on other watch forums according to apparent 'watchmakers' Rolex's 3135 is no more durable than the equivalent three hand ETA offering. Basically anything with an ETA 2824 in it so many Breitling Colt, SuperOcean, Omega Seamaster (pre coax), Many Tudors Sub, Black Bay, Tag Heuer Aqua racers Hamilton etc etc etc. All as durable as a Rolex apparently. The ETA is definitely a workhorse but I have a feeling those guys just couldn't afford the Rolex.

That’s because the ETA 2824 is just a good as the 3135. However as you know its not as exclusive or cool.

Originally Posted by mahefa

Today, again, one Audemars Piquet stopped. My friend hit it quite hard to elevator wall and next day it had stopped running. This is about tenth AP or Patek Philippe i have witnessed to act like this.

Rolex is durable and robust watch, but not art of haute horlogerie like AP and PP are.

I absolutely love AP and PP and own both however they are not durable in anyway. I also think they are remarkably overpriced for what you get. I swear if Breitling or Omega want to be world famous and become overpriced all they need is to have the rap stars wear them like AP and PP. Get JZ to sport an iced out Planet Ocean and overnight they will be impossible to get and the Omega forum here will become the most popular.

[Devildog]

Originally Posted by meganfox17

I waited for a long time for some0ne on the forum to actually pose this question so this is my cue call!

Yes Mr Lee.I'm not referring to G Shocks but such a watch does exist.Not only it is capable of a 30 Gs force tolerance but just imagine you're witnessing a test dummy strapped with one that undergoes continuous violent shakings and vibrations all day that you break into cold sweats, makes you nauseous and wanna puke !
Here are the clues:Testing Beyond Endurance ; Martin Baker Ejection seats

Originally Posted by tyler1980

I'm waiting for the RM follow up with the watch designed to resist a G-Force of 10,000

I believe Megan is referring to Bremont. But yes, RM produce a watch with a more resiliant movement.

neither Baemint or RM howver can possibly surpass the resiliance of my wife's 26mm Oyster Perpetual. Given the level of abuse that poor watch takes without missing a beat it must surely be the most durable timepiece on the planet

[watchwatcher]

The Rolex watches I have worn have been very durable...and I have no idea how they stack up against other brands.

I just enjoy wearing the Rolexes more.

[harryrichthomas]

I would put AP in with PP and JLC as being less durable than Rolex also!

[Juantxo]

Yes. Yes, they are more durable.

[adg31]

Certainly not when NASA were testing watches for durability in space flight they weren't!
Joking aside I understand that the eta 2892-2 calibre (or 2824) is the equal of the base Rolex calibre and are easier to get serviced so I'd have to say no.
JMHO


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Onikage]

Originally Posted by Patton250

That’s because the ETA 2824 is just a good as the 3135. However as you know its not as exclusive or cool.

Bold statement and you may be correct. I own/have owned both and have been trouble free though I tend to subconsciously treat my Rolexes better since they cost more. Does this mean the more robust looking full balance bridge employed by Rolex was a pointless invention? Hey! You can quick change the date between 9pm-3am on a Rolex without it breaking.

[douglasf13]

Originally Posted by Onikage

Bold statement and you may be correct. I own/have owned both and have been trouble free though I tend to subconsciously treat my Rolexes better since they cost more. Does this mean the more robust looking full balance bridge employed by Rolex was a pointless invention? Hey! You can quick change the date between 9pm-3am on a Rolex without it breaking.

Now owning a Tudor, I’ve been reading about this lately, and it appears to be more of a 7750 issue, rather than a 2824 and 2892 issue.

http://forums.watchuseek.com/f20/dat.../129712?page=4

[Onikage]

Originally Posted by douglasf13

Now owning a Tudor, I’ve been reading about this lately, and it appears to be more of a 7750 issue, rather than a 2824 and 2892 issue.

http://forums.watchuseek.com/f20/dat.../129712?page=4

Interesting. I've changed the date around 8:45 before going out numerous times without a problem. And apparently it shouldn't be done between 8-2... not 9-3 like I thought. Still best to be cautious I've seen a couple of trashed date mechanism ETA/SW200/Sellita type watches where the owner wasn't aware of the wrong time to do it.

[adg31]

Originally Posted by Onikage

Lurking on other watch forums according to apparent 'watchmakers' Rolex's 3135 is no more durable than the equivalent three hand ETA offering. Basically anything with an ETA 2824 in it so many Breitling Colt, SuperOcean, Omega Seamaster (pre coax), Many Tudors Sub, Black Bay, Tag Heuer Aqua racers Hamilton etc etc etc. All as durable as a Rolex apparently. The ETA is definitely a workhorse but I have a feeling those guys just couldn't afford the Rolex.

Wasn't the old Omega 1120 calibre based on the 2892-2 with a couple of extra jewels?
I seem to recall a number of watchmakers saying this was a better calibre with the ball raced rotor offering a better solution than the Rolex.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Onikage]

Originally Posted by adg31

Wasn't the old Omega 1120 calibre based on the 2892-2 with a couple of extra jewels?
I seem to recall a number of watchmakers saying this was a better calibre with the ball raced rotor offering a better solution than the Rolex.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I'm not that clued up. I can only take the word of watchmakers, amateur tinkerer or otherwise.

[douglasf13]

Originally Posted by adg31

Wasn't the old Omega 1120 calibre based on the 2892-2 with a couple of extra jewels?
I seem to recall a number of watchmakers saying this was a better calibre with the ball raced rotor offering a better solution than the Rolex.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Yeah, the Omega 1120 is a modified 2892-2, and the Omega 2500 is an even more modified 2892-2, with the co-axial escapement and free-sprung balance.

FWIW, I wear a Tudor with an ETA, not because of the money, but simply because Rolex doesn't make a steel DayDate, and I have no interest in precious metal watches. My watch weighs all of 82g, which I love.

[locutus49]

Megan, you have surpassed yourself.

Originally Posted by meganfox17

I waited for a long time for some0ne on the forum to actually pose this question so this is my cue call!

Yes Mr Lee.I'm not referring to G Shocks but such a watch does exist.Not only it is capable of a 30 Gs force tolerance but just imagine you're witnessing a test dummy strapped with one that undergoes continuous violent shakings and vibrations all day that you break into cold sweats, makes you nauseous and wanna puke !
Here are the clues:Testing Beyond Endurance ; Martin Baker Ejection seats

[douglasf13]

I you were to tell my the Apocalypse was tomorrow, and my survival was dependent on a functioning wrist watch, I'd probably pick a G-Shock, but a Rolex/Tudor is good enough for my relatively easy life.

[prozac51]

Originally Posted by douglasf13

I you were to tell my the Apocalypse was tomorrow, and my survival was dependent on a functioning wrist watch, I'd probably pick a G-Shock, but a Rolex/Tudor is good enough for my relatively easy life.

Them zombie watch repairers are gonna charge an arm and a leg to change your Casio's battery.

Sent from my HTC_2Q4D100 using Tapatalk

[douglasf13]

Originally Posted by prozac51

Them zombie watch repairers are gonna charge an arm and a leg to change your Casio's battery.

Sent from my HTC_2Q4D100 using Tapatalk

I’d go solar, unless it was nuclear winter.

[skkali168]

Originally Posted by eddie m

Yep and seiko too.

Agree with seiko :)


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

[betterwatchit]

My wife has owned her datejust for about 20 years, subjected it to daily gym, swimming pool, sauna, regular beach trips, tennis, squash, etc ... still going strong and accurate.

As for me, I’m a little more careful!

I would rely on Rolex, Casio and seiko. My Patek Is mollycoddled somewhat more ..