Why does Rolex not make dress watches?

[Ruud Van Driver]

Originally Posted by Bronte

If you don't want to discuss it, that's fine. But defining a dress watch as one that's appropriate to wear with a suit doesn't really seem to work.

A Submariner is appropriate to wear with a suit. I know that because I regularly see many successful people doing so in very formal settings--like at the podium in federal court in the US--without comment or issue. If they were wearing a bright yellow G-Shock people would probably chatter about it. But the Submariner is appropriate because it doesn't draw comment, scorn, or even a second glance. But that doesn't make the Submariner a dress watch.

People regularly get behind the wheel of a car when tanked out of their heads on alcohol or drugs. Doesn’t make it appropriate.

[regnant]

A so called dress watch must be a leather strap? Can a bracelet become out of place when one wears a tuxedo?
As neatly covered by forum members Rolex Cellini fits the top of needs for purist dress watch crowd. However, Oyster models are so greatly made and populated by when one asks Rolex, Cellini would not bec first to say.

[razmy3]

Originally Posted by mangoseed

You didn't read my last sentence did sentence you?

....very nice DD...i craving to find one some day but with roman number...

[hambone1983]

this whole thread is ridiculous. There is no traditional definition of a dress watch, or a set of criteria that is generally accepted as defining one. these definitions are manufactured.

Many elements of dress have evolved, and so have watches. Top hats are out of fashion, as are morning coats, ball gowns don't exist except in vintage clothing stores and if you see a woman wearing gloves she is just as likely to be recovering from a burn as on her way to the opera.

[tyler1980]

Originally Posted by hambone1983

this whole thread is ridiculous. There is no traditional definition of a dress watch, or a set of criteria that is generally accepted as defining one. these definitions are manufactured.

Many elements of dress have evolved, and so have watches. Top hats are out of fashion, as are morning coats, ball gowns don't exist except in vintage clothing stores and if you see a woman wearing gloves she is just as likely to be recovering from a burn as on her way to the opera.

i agree its ridiculous but i do think there is a traditional definition of a dress watch. Tastes have evolved but there is still a traditional definition. I don't own one and don't care to as i wear a smart sports watch with a suit.

Small, three hand, simple dial, and on a strap is what would be traditional.

[Dustytrail]

Originally Posted by Syed117

Don't worry OP.

It's a Rolex forum so obviously the people here have convinced themselves that a dive watch is a dress watch. There will even be a few guys wearing a deep-sea crammed under a cuff with a suit and somehow maintaining a straight face.

Times have gotten much more relaxed as far as these conventions go. I know what you're talking about and pretty everyone in here also does. They have to say that all these sports watches can also be dressy because admitting that they aren't takes away from Rolex and thus takes away from the individual wearing one.

I think it's fine to wear just about anything with a suit. I would never think badly of someone wearing a day date or almost any Rolex with a suit. No one really cares. I personally prefer not to. I'm never going to wear a sub with a tuxedo.

Rolex has never tried to be the dress watch company. They don't make fancy decorated movements. They don't need to and they shouldn't. They are known for making watches that can withstand adventures around the world.

Want a dress watch? Go JLC, GO, Patek. I'd wear a dozen watches from any of those companies before I wore a Cellini.

beautiful and friendly answer

[REFZ]

What's the point of having a decorated movement because you can't see anything of it while wearing a (dress) watch.

[Tony-GB]

Rolex make a perfect dress watch and it's called the Deep Sea thats been dressed up with some blue paint on the dial.

[Art 1]

Originally Posted by Syed117

Don't worry OP.

It's a Rolex forum so obviously the people here have convinced themselves that a dive watch is a dress watch. There will even be a few guys wearing a deep-sea crammed under a cuff with a suit and somehow maintaining a straight face.

Times have gotten much more relaxed as far as these conventions go. I know what you're talking about and pretty everyone in here also does. They have to say that all these sports watches can also be dressy because admitting that they aren't takes away from Rolex and thus takes away from the individual wearing one.

I think it's fine to wear just about anything with a suit. I would never think badly of someone wearing a day date or almost any Rolex with a suit. No one really cares. I personally prefer not to. I'm never going to wear a sub with a tuxedo.

Rolex has never tried to be the dress watch company. They don't make fancy decorated movements. They don't need to and they shouldn't. They are known for making watches that can withstand adventures around the world.

Want a dress watch? Go JLC, GO, Patek. I'd wear a dozen watches from any of those companies before I wore a Cellini.

Spot on. Well said. Thanks.

[tommy91]

Originally Posted by Bryant Park

Regrettably I don't apparently have a single dress watch. Next time I attend a gala or ball I will have to address this shortcoming.

Well that is a collection to be proud of

[Bronte]

Originally Posted by Ruud Van Driver

People regularly get behind the wheel of a car when tanked out of their heads on alcohol or drugs. Doesn’t make it appropriate.

Right, but I didn't say it was ok because people regularly do it. I said it was ok because people regularly do it and other people do not perceive it as inappropriate. That's not true of drunk driving, which is illegal and widely condemned.

[AK797]

There are a lot of crossover sporty/dressy watches nowadays, which I prefer as they serve many occasions, but a pure dress watch for me is a round and fairly simple dial on a leather strap with traditional hook lugs. Lange would be my first brand.

[Rebel]

[brandrea]

Originally Posted by tyler1980

i agree its ridiculous but i do think there is a traditional definition of a dress watch. Tastes have evolved but there is still a traditional definition. I don't own one and don't care to as i wear a smart sports watch with a suit.

Small, three hand, simple dial, and on a strap is what would be traditional.

Exactly

[lhawli]

Originally Posted by mangoseed

For the people mentioning the Cellini, its movement is still based on the caliber 3130, the same movement used in the Submariner no-date and the Oyster Perpetual. So another thick durable movement put into into a dressier looking case. Plus it features a screw-down crown.

On that notion, PP doesn’t make a dress watch either...



A dress watch is typically simple (may include date or moon-phase), light dial, with a leather strap. Who cares if it uses a 3130 movement or not! If it’s not a manual wind, a screw down crown is preferred!

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

[zengineer]

How does Rolex ever expect to become successful if they ignore things like the OP has raised?

[Jambo86]

Originally Posted by AK797

They are predominantly a sports watch brand and are doing incredibly well here with 19 of the top 20 selling watches in UK over £5k so they won't be changing any time soon.

Off topic, but where is this statistic from mate?

[tyler1980]

Originally Posted by lhawli

On that notion, PP doesn’t make a dress watch either...

[jeffgo888]

Originally Posted by Bryant Park

Regrettably I don't apparently have a single dress watch. Next time I attend a gala or ball I will have to address this shortcoming.

Ok, KOBE " Bryant"
That 116618 ( did I miss it) on the last row sure aint gonna qualify for a formal setting...
However, in the event you feel the need to dispose of your overstocked inventory, do PM me...LOL..

very impressive inventory....:)

my 2 cents: You wear the watch, the watch doesnt wear you.
ANY Rolex time piece can stand the scrutiny of any formal event.
You are wearing a legendary icon, history.
I'll take a SUbC or DSSDor Milgauss on any formal event, any day, everyday.

[Torque Time]

I have a model 1601 circa 1971 w a white face, gold stick markers, gold fluted bezel and a black gator strap that is my daily wear. I get complements almost daily about my dress watch.

[AK797]

Originally Posted by Jambo86

Off topic, but where is this statistic from mate?

Haywood, the Master.

[explodingtaco]

Watches are a fashion/jewelry conversation. The OP seems to be confusing that with math and engineering.

Like so much of the internet this is a "use the definitions I use" and "cant we just all define all terms the same" conversation not a watch conversation.

-Currently I am wearing my Milgauss with a t-shirt and shorts. Today it is a casual watch.
-Tuesday I will be wearing the watch to my work as an engineer around heavy machines and it will be a tool watch.
-Thursday it will be with a suit in front of government officials as a dress watch.

I honestly dont see the problem.

[Bronte]

Originally Posted by explodingtaco

Watches are a fashion/jewelry conversation. The OP seems to be confusing that with math and engineering.

Like so much of the internet this is a "use the definitions I use" and "cant we just all define all terms the same" conversation not a watch conversation.

-Currently I am wearing my Milgauss with a t-shirt and shorts. Today it is a casual watch.
-Tuesday I will be wearing the watch to my work as an engineer around heavy machines and it will be a tool watch.
-Thursday it will be with a suit in front of government officials as a dress watch.

I honestly dont see the problem.

The problem is it makes those terms almost completely useless. It's not a big problem, since this hobby really isn't a big deal, but it is mildly frustrating.

It would be much easier if, rather than trying to redefine the terms so they have no meaning, and discarding categories that are helpful when talking about watches, people could just feel comfortable saying, "I wear a tool watch with a suit because it looks good, no one notices or cares, and it's totally consistent with contemporary fashion norms."

[ras47]

Originally Posted by mangoseed

...
I know many will say that a lot of Rolex models like the Daydate are dress watches, but I am using the term in the traditional sense.

Rolex DEFINES the “traditional sense.”

[Bronte]

Originally Posted by ras47

Rolex DEFINES the “traditional sense.”

Rolex defines tool and sports watches in the traditional sense. There are other companies--like Patek--that define dress watches in the traditional sense.

[explodingtaco]

Originally Posted by Bronte

. . . but it is mildly frustrating. . . .

Welcome to talking with real people

[tyler1980]

Originally Posted by Bronte

It would be much easier if, rather than trying to redefine the terms so they have no meaning, and discarding categories that are helpful when talking about watches, people could just feel comfortable saying, "I wear a tool watch with a suit because it looks good, no one notices or cares, and it's totally consistent with contemporary fashion norms."

I agree and thats my rationale when i wear socks with my flip flops. Its totally normal.

[Bronte]

Originally Posted by explodingtaco

Welcome to talking with real people

Maybe, but doesn't mean we should be purposely unclear for no good reason.

[skkali168]

Cellini

[s14roller]

That's just what they prefer to make and are good at it.

Why doesn't Ferrari make a minivan?