Anyone else moving away from Ceramic Bezel?

[LuminousMaximus]

Or are you moving closer...?

I just realized that aside from my wife's 116655 Yachtmaster, My three Rolex Watches all have PM Bezels...

16622 Yachtmaster = Platinum Bezel

116622 Yachtmaster= Platinum Bezel

116505 Daytona= RoseGold Bezel

I feel like If I bang the unprotected ceramic bezel on a Daytona, It's all over. At least on a Sub or GMT, there is a little protection

So, moving away from Ceramic Bezel for me, at least was not a conscious thought, I was just drawn that way...

[037]

I like stainless bezels with aluminum inserts. Aluminum was once a precious metal after all.

[Onikage]

I wasn't moved to ceramic in the first place. The Daytona C I like the look of however. It certainly wouldn't be getting banged if I ever owned one. ..Which I probably won't in the forseeable - kinda a non-issue.

[DLRIDES]

Never moved to them due to their “plastic” look.

[subprimero]

I started with the aluminum and PM bezel models and I've never been interested in owning the newer ceramic bezel models.

[AK797]

No, considering PP, AP and Lange don't cater for them as much I prize them more on my Devil May Care Rolexes.

[travisb]

I prefer the ceramic bezels and have had zero issues with durability.

[ashokleyland]

to put it on a context,

you are worried that precious metal bezel will bang the ceramic bezel and then damaged the latter?

[JacksonStone]

One of my favorite aspects of the ceramic bezel has nothing to do with it being ceramic. I love the engraved, platinum-coated PVD scale. The engraving gives it a more utilitarian look, like you might find on really solid machinery dials, and the platinum coating makes the numbers pop from any angle. I do also like the looks of the ceramic itself, but those numbers make the sale, IMO.

Good-condition aluminum inserts also look good, just in a different way. The trick is to keep them looking good. So far, my SubC bezel looks as good now as the day I bought it.

On a somewhat tangential note, I used to lament that Rolex didn't go with sapphire inserts, like Blancpain, to emulate the old bakelite bezels. That was, until I saw a few "delaminated" Blancpain bezels, where the sapphire starts to separate in places from the layer underneath. Even if the bezel is still structurally sound, the flaws are highly visible. I realized that's a potential pitfall of that type of insert. It made me appreciate the ceramic even more.

Notice the gray area of the bezel, where it borders the crystal, starting around 7:00, and going all the way to the diamond at 12:00.

[nello]

Originally Posted by JacksonStone

One of my favorite aspects of the ceramic bezel has nothing to do with it being ceramic. I love the engraved, platinum-coated PVD scale. The engraving gives it a more utilitarian look, like you might find on really solid machinery dials, and the platinum coating makes the numbers pop from any angle. I do also like the looks of the ceramic itself, but those numbers make the sale, IMO.

Good-condition aluminum inserts also look good, just in a different way. The trick is to keep them looking good. So far, my SubC bezel looks as good now as the day I bought it.

On a somewhat tangential note, I used to lament that Rolex didn't go with sapphire inserts, like Blancpain, to emulate the old bakelite bezels. That was, until I saw a few "delaminated" Blancpain bezels, where the sapphire starts to separate in places from the layer underneath. Even if the bezel is still structurally sound, the flaws are highly visible. I realized that's a potential pitfall of that type of insert. It made me appreciate the ceramic even more.

Notice the gray area of the bezel, where it borders the crystal, starting around 7:00, and going all the way to the diamond at 12:00.

Is the sapphire clear and there is a laminate under it on the Blancpain? Is that what you are saying?
Interesting

[brandrea]

Originally Posted by travisb

I prefer the ceramic bezels and have had zero issues with durability.

I’m with you brother

[JacksonStone]

Originally Posted by nello

Is the sapphire clear and there is a laminate under it on the Blancpain? Is that what you are saying?
Interesting

The sapphire is transparent, and there is a layer underneath it that has the lumed scale and black background. It's a great look, until it isn't. I'm not sure what the layer is made of, but the sapphire is adhered to it. In some instances (I'm not sure how common, but I've seen more than one example online), the sapphire can start to separate, and the areas where it's coming apart are quite visible.

Here are some larger pics that show it in better detail.

[kauffee]

It’s easy to say that if you bang an unprotected ceramic bezel “it’s over,” but it’s just not true. You’d have to hit it very hard and just right to shatter it. There are millions of these things out there and I’ve only seen a handful of shattered ones on the forum. They are very durable.

[JacksonStone]

Originally Posted by nello

Is the sapphire clear and there is a laminate under it on the Blancpain? Is that what you are saying?
Interesting

This thread details the same problem on another person's FF.

[Bigblu10]

Originally Posted by 037

I like stainless bezels with aluminum inserts. Aluminum was once a precious metal after all.

Still is, don't you get a diet Coke in a can when you buy a new watch?

[nello]

^thanks for the clarification.
I am with you on the bezel numbers on the ceramic bezeled rolexes. It just looks better than an aluminum insert.

[Abdullah71601]

Prefer metal bezels, particularly 904L and aluminium.

The black ceramic looks like shiny plastic. And the colors on the ceramics are washed out pastels rather than crisp metallic hues. Would you buy a car painted in those pastels?

[Brew]

I don't care for shiny clay on my watches.

[JacksonStone]

Originally Posted by nello

^thanks for the clarification.
I am with you on the bezel numbers on the ceramic bezeled rolexes. It just looks better than an aluminum insert.

[Old Geezer]

I like ceramic bezels...because they come with all the other features of the 6 digit series.
As my collection stands now, one aluminum and 5 ceramic bezels. Hmmm, have to add PM in there LOL. I don't have anything against the aluminum but the 6 digit references appeal slightly more to me. I wouldn't mind adding a 5 digit GMT (black & red) to my collection but the prices are crazy, even for ones that are not special.

[m j b]

For me, it depends on the watch. I like the ceramic on the Subs, I like the colors on the BLNR but not on the Pepsi, and I prefer the metal (SS or PM) bezel on the Daytona.

I also like the understated size of the ceramic bezel on the Omega Seamaster. Not enough to keep it for more than a few months - I always seem to go back to Rolex.

[soundserious]

Depends on the watch and the price doesn’t it? Sell me a cheap 14060 and sure yeah. Sell me a cheap 114060 and yeah sure cool.

[subtona]

Ceramic Daytona bezel improves wearability and enjoyment for me.

I do not have a Daytona at this time but have owned both types, there is no joy in hammering and dinging a stainless bezel. I have not noticed an abundance of issues with the ceramic bezels.

[1William]

It is about the watch so I neither move toward or away. I like my SD43 and Hulk with the ceramic bezels and my SS and YG Sky-Dweller with the fluted bezels.

[alphasports]

Been wearing bezel Rolexes since the mid-80's but never really bonded with them much but I'll be damned if I could ever figure out why. Despite really liking the ceramics (even if they do seem too "fat") I just traded my black-bezeled GMT LN to my brother because...because...I dunno, didn't like the PCL's and despite the huge upgrade in quality over those earlier 5-digits just didn't feel at ease with the bling. Am now quite content with my Explorer Mk2 and (everybody's least favorite Rolex) the new Air King. If I could reverse a regret I'd probably take my 85 Coke GMT back...

We'll see if there's any truth to the rumor the Exp II might get a ceramic fixed bezel, that's about the only other Rolex that appeals to me.

[asiparks]

Originally Posted by JacksonStone

The sapphire is transparent, and there is a layer underneath it that has the lumed scale and black background. It's a great look, until it isn't. I'm not sure what the layer is made of, but the sapphire is adhered to it. In some instances (I'm not sure how common, but I've seen more than one example online), the sapphire can start to separate, and the areas where it's coming apart are quite visible.

Here are some larger pics that show it in better detail.

I will be pissed if that happens to any of mine....But, given how lovely the watch is, I'm more than willing to roll the dice. Relacement cost seems silmilar to the Rolex ceramic bezel.

Still IWC did flat sapphire bezels on their 4th gen Aquatimers, seems robust, but not at all a fan of the watch as a whole.

I'm a big fan of ceramic as a whole. the brushed and polished finishes that are acheivable now are quite stunning

[withthesword]

I was pretty luke warm to the idea of a ceramic bezel to begin with. I did eventually get my hands on a ceramic GMT, but it didn't last on my wrist.

I can legitimately say that I dipped my toes in those waters and it just wasn't for me.

Steel bezels 4 Lyfe!



Sent from my Pixel 2 XL using Tapatalk

[T01]

Nope, I adore the ceramic bezels.

[droptopman]

Went the other way. Hardcore 4 and 5 digit lover, but once I got into the modern watches, my collection has steadily moved that way. I like the ceramic bezel as it never seems to age.

[watchwatcher]

I'm not really moving away, or toward anything, really. Except more watches . But...one day I looked up and I had a few metal and aluminum bezels and thought it was pretty cool.

Really, though, I notice more of a difference with bracelets. Both materials and brushed vs. PCL. Having a leather, titanium, president, jubilee, steel PCL, PM PCL, TT, brushed, etc., etc. really keeps things fresh for me.