Falling out of love with Rolex….

[BawlaDK]

Admitted, I am not a fan of the new generation ceramic Rolexes. For me they are all show and not much go to be honest. Far to flashy and “new money” ‘esque and they have actually kind of turned me off Rolex all together. I have several of the old pre-ceramic Rolexes and I Love them for what they are/were, but I find myself feeling more and more disconnected with Rolex because of the new gen. ceramic models. I don’t know what it is, but for some reason the new models and what they represent to me, deeply affects my feelings towards my older models and the brand all together. I don’t feel like selling my pieces, but then again I don’t really feel like wearing them either because of what they represent today in terms of the direction Rolex has taken. Additionally I really dislike the new designs, hence for me there are no new pieces that are really desirable other than maybe the new Cellini collection so its really difficult to maintain the same level of interest in the brand

These days I find myself looking more and more in the direction of smaller and relatively unknown brands, because I like the thought of wearing something that is not as flash as a Rolex.

Anyone else ever experience this, or am I just going slowly out of my mind?

[AF_Rob]

Yeah, kinda but not to your extreme. I do agree that most of the new models, ceramic in particular don't really do it for me. Which is why I don't own a modern Rolex. However, I don't despise the brand for their current direction. Nor does it make me like my pieces less. I like them more now actually.

Not sure if I'm following your "show" and no "go". They are one of the most established brands who are known for consistently making simple robust and reliable movements.

Have they lost their way from their tool watch roots? I think they have a bit. (which I think is what you're getting at) But unlike many other brands in their tier, they have remained fairly conservative with their upgrades and kept the line-up's DNA pretty much intact.

[BLACKHORSE 6]

I understand what you mean to an extent with some of the ceramic models as far as design, and if that's how you feel then there are a lot of other brands out there to look to.

While they may be more "flashy" I think that the improvements that have been made actually make modern Rolex watches more robust that the vintage pieces ever were. In some ways the days of the tool watch is a bygone era, but I think that the brand has stayed true to their original spirit.

[ref1655]

pre-ceramic is classic Rolex...ceramic bezels are representative of their new technology.

when/if Rolex starts using ceramics on traditional SS/non-movable bezels (i.e. the Explorer II) then we'll know they've lost their marbles.

[GordonC]

Originally Posted by BawlaDK

Admitted, I am not a fan of the new generation ceramic Rolexes. For me they are all show and not much go to be honest. Far to flashy and “new money” ‘esque and they have actually kind of turned me off Rolex all together.

And yet, as tool watches go, the ceramic bezels are much more go than the old aluminum bezel watches - the ceramic bezel is much tougher than alu, won't dent or scratch, and won't fade - from a functional perspective, the ceramic bezels are much improved in every aspect.

Sure, they're different - but improved isn't a bad thing. In what ways do you figure they're all show and not much go? Rolex is actually about usable go, not just flash, with the ceramics.

[Maxy]

Originally Posted by GordonC

And yet, as tool watches go, the ceramic bezels are much more go than the old aluminum bezel watches - the ceramic bezel is much tougher than alu, won't dent or scratch, and won't fade - from a functional perspective, the ceramic bezels are much improved in every aspect.

Sure, they're different - but improved isn't a bad thing. In what ways do you figure they're all show and not much go? Rolex is actually about usable go, not just flash, with the ceramics.

Agree and I find it ironic that most of the folks keeps blaming Rolex for their ceramic bezels as the only reason Rolex added them was to appear more 'flashy'

Yes, ceramic bezels are flashy but the main objective is fulfilled that its a better material than aluminum, never fades even though it comes with little flashiness!

[BawlaDK]

Originally Posted by GordonC

And yet, as tool watches go, the ceramic bezels are much more go than the old aluminum bezel watches - the ceramic bezel is much tougher than alu, won't dent or scratch, and won't fade - from a functional perspective, the ceramic bezels are much improved in every aspect.

Sure, they're different - but improved isn't a bad thing. In what ways do you figure they're all show and not much go? Rolex is actually about usable go, not just flash, with the ceramics.

While they are not prone to scratching or denting they have one major flaw... They will shatter if hit hard enough. Aluminum bezels wont. Sure they will scratch and dent, but for the most part they stay functional... Thats why in my mind they are not improvements at all..

Additionally I have seen several flaws with the clasps, where both the glidelocks have been jammed and also I have seen several where the springy opening mechanism (dont know the word in english) popped out of the lock entirely... So for me they are over-engineered to the point where it becomes a bad thing. I'l never own one ever, but nothing bad to say about the people that do. Its just not for me...

[Mick P]

Originally Posted by AF_Rob

Yeah, kinda but not to your extreme. I do agree that most of the new models, ceramic in particular don't really do it for me. Which is why I don't own a modern Rolex. However, I don't despise the brand for their current direction. Nor does it make me like my pieces less. I like them more now actually.

Not sure if I'm following your "show" and no "go". They are one of the most established brands who are known for consistently making simple robust and reliable movements.

Have they lost their way from their tool watch roots? I think they have a bit. (which I think is what you're getting at) But unlike many other brands in their tier, they have remained fairly conservative with their upgrades and kept the line-up's DNA pretty much intact.

Hi

I can see where you are coming from and I can never see myself wearing a ceramic watch either because it just looks cheap.

However there are plenty of good Rolex that look the part such as the Explorer and Explorer 2. Both of these are of superb quality but are way below the radar without any hint of vulgarity.

The 39mm Explorer is a case in point, unbeatable craftsmanship with a restrained appearance.

Regards

Mick

[zion_rasta]

Millions of used aluminum insert Rolex out there. Buy what you like.

New Rolex >> Old Rolex in terms of technology

The ceramic bezel and blue parachrome spring does it for me.

I do love my 16233 and 1680...

[Maiden]

Originally Posted by BawlaDK

While they are not prone to scratching or denting they have one major flaw... They will shatter if hit hard enough. Aluminum bezels wont. Sure they will scratch and dent, but for the most part they stay functional... Thats why in my mind they are not improvements at all..

Additionally I have seen several flaws with the clasps, where both the glidelocks have been jammed and also I have seen several where the springy opening mechanism (dont know the word in english) popped out of the lock entirely... So for me they are over-engineered to the point where it becomes a bad thing. I'l never own one ever, but nothing bad to say about the people that do. Its just not for me...

And how many posts do you see on here or elsewhere where a ceramic bezel has "shattered". These watches have been in production since what, 2009, there must be millions of them. Not saying it isn't possible, or hasn't happened, but anything can happen, aluminum bezels have been known to pop off too you know! I would also like to know where you have seen "several" times where a "glide lock bracelet popped out of a lock". Again have never heard of this before? Where have you seen this several times? Just curious as I have never heard of this happening, and it has not been my experience?

[rolex_DateJust]

Originally Posted by zion_rasta

Millions of used aluminum insert Rolex out there. Buy what you like.

New Rolex >> Old Rolex in terms of technology

The ceramic bezel and blue parachrome spring does it for me.

I do love my 16233 and 1680...

+1

I do love the new ceramic bezel because of its "toughness" and I like how everything else was build tougher as far as the bracelet goes

[1William]

I can understand your viewpoint but do not agree. As time goes by companies attempt to improve the quality, design and function of products they produce. This is across the line in watches, cars , phones, computers, etc. Sometimes as consumers we prefer the design of earlier models. Not a problem, but the advancement of product development will continue even if some consumers don't like it. I have owned Rolex watches since the early 90's and I believe that the current generation is the best ever. I love the ceramic bezels and I believe the glidelock bracelet is the best. To each his own.

[presario]

Originally Posted by BawlaDK

While they are not prone to scratching or denting they have one major flaw... They will shatter if hit hard enough. Aluminum bezels wont. Sure they will scratch and dent, but for the most part they stay functional... Thats why in my mind they are not improvements at all..

Additionally I have seen several flaws with the clasps, where both the glidelocks have been jammed and also I have seen several where the springy opening mechanism (dont know the word in english) popped out of the lock entirely... So for me they are over-engineered to the point where it becomes a bad thing. I'l never own one ever, but nothing bad to say about the people that do. Its just not for me...

The same can be said about the move away from acrylic crystals to sapphire.

[mapalfa]

I'm another one who feels something along the same lines but not as extreme and not for exactly the same reasons.

For me, though, it's more a question of the image rather than the materials used. I'm not bothered by ceramic this that and the other, while having meteorite dials is a seriously cool idea. BUT, at the watches have got flashier, so have the people who wear them for the image and not for the watch themselves.

I've got a thread open at the moment asking for opinions on my wife adding colour and loads of diamonds to her 26mm and one of the replies was that we need to hear from a rapper. That's the problem in a nutshell.

I had a GP Tudor Princedate, on a president style-aftermarket bracelet, and after having it refurbished and put together for me it got about a week's wrist time before I sold it because it was too flashy. I sold a pre-Bond Omega Seamaster because the bracelet was too small and borrowed my father's Bond model to try it out, then gave it back to him quickly because of the amount of times I got asked if it was genuine or not. I've not even bothered to wear his LB for the same reason.

I have 2 grail watches from Rolex. A dead plain 36mm Datejust and a Sub, both birth year. I have the DJ and simply can't afford the Sub at the moment. Add to that birth year Grand Seiko and Seamaster and that's it for me, everything else will be either tool or taste and pretty plain unless I need a specific function (such as my dive watch). I even balked at the fluted bezel on my 1603, but actually like it in the flesh.

Burberry make great clothes and accessories, but my wife won't touch them as people immediately wonder if you're wearing real or fake. Both my parents and father-in-law went Merc due to the image issues from a small percentage of BMW drivers. I know a previously devout Muslim who's no longer practicing due to the way his faith has been hijacked by idiots and extremists and the perceived self-image this has given him.

How any thing is seen can effect how you view it. For you it's about materials making the watches seem more show than go. For me it's the people who are attracted to the show and the image they portray (the people that is).

I'm not selling my 1603, and my wife's DJ will soon be bling'd to ridiculous levels if she gets her way, but I really do feel your pain.

[THC]

Flip phones vs smart phones, VCRs vs DVR, etc... simple progress is all I see, not flash

[UncleSwiss]

New models are to flashy because of a ceramic bezel insert...what I am a bit baffled by this mindset. If that's the case in your mind, stick with older/vintage models sir.

[beshannon]

Ok.

Tastes change, move on.

[artschool]

i think the new models feel more robust, especially in the bracelet dept.

lets face it if you want a tool watch you buy a g shock.

[AK797]

It's funny how some don't like the ceramic bezel and yet on other brands such as AP everyone is crying out for more ceramic models for better protection. I think Rolex have made great strides in recent years with the cerachom plus improved movements such as the new +2/-2 sec 3255 cal, the wonderful and should be compulsory glidelock clasp, parachom hairspring, innovative motif dials, an annual calendar and bezel command, a countdown timer and a few others.

They are as functional and "toolish" as ever, they are just more stylish and maybe more glamorous than before, not a bad thing at all on a highly luxurious and expensive item.

[VinnieVegas]

I prefer five digit references over six digit references. But I still like some of the newer models.

Sent from my XT1575 using Tapatalk

[antbkny]

Embrace change and you won't be left behind complaining about it

[pd999]

Originally Posted by BawlaDK

... or am I just going slowly out of my mind?

Maybe

[Jason71]

OP, I get where you are coming from. I will never dive with my DSSD. Rolex has lost their way when it comes to designing an actual watch for real use. It reminds me of the Sat diver that had used a 16600 for years and switched to the 116660 and had problems with it from the start. The bezel insert is glued on and the bezel is held-on with a plastic ring. No thank you.

If I had my way, Rolex would make me a 16600 with a plexiglass crystal, and fixed lug bars.

[Verdi]

I think that new Sub is not flashy at all. Using ceramic is consistent with Rolex tradition of getting the bst materials. I personally prefer a ceramic bezel that looks new and doesn't fade to an old looking bezel, full of scratches in a few months of wearing it. If it shatters Ill replace it but I don't think this happens often.
My Explorer 2 is very under the radar as well.

To me flashy means bling bling, diamonds, gold.....
Each to their own. One thing is for sure: Rolex has models for all tastes and preferences. Some models are flashy, some are quite plain.

[joe100]

It's evolution. Not much else can be said. You either like them or you don't, I wouldn't make it more than it is though.

[watch2want]

Being quite new to owning a rolex (4 now)... I Disagree with your love of the old when compared to the new models .... I find when I try on a Vintage sub for instance, it looks and feels exactly what it was a tool watch.... The bracelet is light and the clasp is for the want of a better description tinny. The watch itself although large in its day is now relatively small. The whole experience is a bit like a 1976 mustang ..Yes it looks good and the engine goes like the wind but when you actually drive the thing you now know why you would rather drive a BMW i8 ..The difference is Rolex took the 1976 sub (Mustang) and made the 2016 Sub (BMW i8) but it still has all design beauty that made the sub (Mustang) great and of course the watch costs shed loads more in relative terms..... If Rolex never changed or upgraded their watches they would cost £1500 because that is what a 1976 rolex if sold in todays market would be worth. From someone that had no interest in Rolex watches until they look as they do today I think the improvement is a good thing The question is are they worth the money ??? ......The true value of something is not what you buy it for but what you can sell it for and as we all know a Rolex is probably the only mainstream (made in their millions) product that actually increases in value over time. Its literally taking the Bill Clinton comment "its the economy stupid" and replacing it with" It's a rolex stupid"
Change is invertible embrace it

[CoachRolexRyan]

I know what you mean. The new models look sooooooo different from the older ones (emoji banging his head with a hammer).

[superstarmar]

I sold my Submariner16613LB 1995 serial model quite a few years ago ,
Wanted to get another one back ... The new Sub C 116613LB appeared on
the scene and I compared them .... Yes the aesthetics of the
16613 LB were proportionate and yes it looked killer on the wrist !!!
On the other hand, as I compared the old with the new and all the
Upgrades the new sunburst 116613LB had over the old model it began
to grow on me and therefore chose to purchase the new model vs
the old version ... The new clasp , no more rattling and wrist adjustment
On the fly .... How can u not love that? The new ceramic bezel
which changes different shades of royal purple blue along with the sunburst
Blue dial !!!! Unbeatable if u ask me ...!!! I've already slightly banged the
bezel against objects a couple of times and no scratches on any part of the bezel ....
So while I still love and appreciate the older version I'm extremely happy
with the new .... My 2 cents ...

[MCO1]

I do see your point as I am an old traditionalist "They don't make them like they use to" and all that. However, evolution is necessary if Rolex wants to stay relevant in the market today. To me the ceramic bezel might be a bit flashier but to the uneducated there is virtually no difference other than improved function. The improved bracelet of the new ones makes a bigger difference to me in a good way. Lets look back on major changes that are part of the framework now. When the dial changed to markers with white gold surrounds and crystals went to sapphire. It takes time to embrace the new ones while equally appreciating the old ones. As a side note the evolution doesn't hurt the value of the oldies either.

[thusalwaystotyrants]

Originally Posted by THC

Flip phones vs smart phones, VCRs vs DVR, etc... simple progress is all I see, not flash

x2