ROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEX

Fiery · 3 January 2014, 11:57 PM

The new 2014 IWC Aquatimer lineup made me think about the possibility of Rolex starting to use new case materials anytime soon. IMHO a ceramic watch would be against the "Rolex watches are rugged time pieces" principle, so it wouldn't happen anytime soon. But the bronze case may be interesting, although may be a bit confusing that (from a distance) it looks somewhat similar to Everose.

What do you think Rolex should do about case materials?

malarky_hk · 4 January 2014, 12:04 AM

Ceramic would be interesting - they've already got the bezel down. Omega's Darkside of the Moon looks great.

I think bronze does not fit the Rolex image - too "low end", IMHO.

Fiery · 4 January 2014, 12:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by malarky_hk

Omega's Darkside of the Moon looks great.

I agree

Maybe Rolex is just waiting to see if the all-black craze sticks or just a fad. Afterall, they waited quite a while to see how the watch size craze turns out before pumping up their watches (a bit). If those great black watches stay with us, maybe Rolex will also move into that field. If they do, IMHO it would be a big hit, whether they do it with the Daytona, Sub, GMT or Explorer. A ceramic Rolex would also be interesting because it would make it necessary for Rolex to come up with a black strap made of rubber or some other non-metallic material...

More examples of (IMHO) great looking black ceramic watches:

padi56 · 4 January 2014, 12:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by malarky_hk

Ceramic would be interesting - they've already got the bezel down. Omega's Darkside of the Moon looks great.

I think bronze does not fit the Rolex image - too "low end", IMHO.

Well can assure you that ceramic would be far cheaper production wise than bronze.Ceramic cased watches are not something new Rado have been making them in there watches since the 1960s.There in nothing wrong with the materials that Rolex now make there cases from. They have been doing it for around 80 years plus and doing it rather well see no need to change.

malarky_hk · 4 January 2014, 12:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by padi56

Well can assure you that ceramic would be far cheaper production wise than bronze.

I'm coming at it from a perception perspective as opposed to cost of production. The ceramic will always look nice and shiny whereas the bronze will inevitably tarnish and will require care to bring it back to its original state.

Quote:

Originally Posted by padi56

There in nothing wrong with the materials that Rolex now make there cases from. They have been doing it for around 80 years plus and doing it rather well see no need to change.

Perhaps they've said the same thing about the bezel 10 years ago, but look at the the Sub, GMT and Daytona now with their ceramic bezel.

Nidal · 4 January 2014, 01:10 AM

Agree with Peter.

padi56 · 4 January 2014, 01:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by malarky_hk

I'm coming at it from a perception perspective as opposed to cost of production. The ceramic will always look nice and shiny whereas the bronze will inevitably tarnish and will require care to bring it back to its original state.

Perhaps they've said the same thing about the bezel 10 years ago, but look at the the Sub, GMT and Daytona now with their ceramic bezel.

Look the ceramic insert might look better to some but there so called advantages far out-way there disadvantages.If this ceramic is so wonderful why has it taken so long for Rolex and the others brands to use it.Ceramic in watches is not something new been around since the 1960s,but there seems to be a fashion trend now where one manufacture follows the others.Ceramic you can keep it overpriced for what it is and functions the same as the older aluminum bezel inserts. Bring back the simple DIY replacement aluminum perfectly functional cheap to replace inserts.Rolex watches today are no longer wrist watches to some, but mostly a bling jewelry watch and some even think they are some sort of a status symbol.

captkevin · 4 January 2014, 01:29 AM

They did....under Tudor

Roller07 · 4 January 2014, 01:31 AM

neither.

rmfnla · 4 January 2014, 02:09 AM

Bronze is too reactive; turns green over time and leaves dark stains on some people's skin.

Stainless, gold, and platinum always look good; there's a reason Rolex uses them exclusively...

T.S.Eliot · 4 January 2014, 02:17 AM

Titanium would be a better option

especially on a Sub or DSSD

jvo300 · 4 January 2014, 02:25 AM

Rolex doesn't need to follow trends.

Cc1966 · 4 January 2014, 02:26 AM

Neither....hope they stick with the status quo for now.

capote · 4 January 2014, 02:42 AM

I don't think they should. Ceramic watches, come on.

Jason71 · 4 January 2014, 02:49 AM

I don't want ceramic, bronze, or titanium from Rolex.

I got my titanium fix from Tudor, and other than that.......Only SS and precious metals for me. A YG model may be the next thing on my radar.

vitalsignsrn · 4 January 2014, 02:53 AM

Neither for me also. I wanted a ceramic watch for fashion and bought a GC watch. Bought it at the duty free for a great price and was cheaper than a MK. Its fun for summer…but to spend more than that for a fun watch, no, I wasn't interested.

AK797 · 4 January 2014, 02:57 AM

And we all disliked the YM2 and Platona when they first came out...

Laszlo · 4 January 2014, 03:05 AM

No way.

SixPak · 4 January 2014, 03:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jason71

I don't want ceramic, bronze, or titanium from Rolex.

Exactly my sentiment. Ceramic on the bezel is as much as Rolex will go. Leave these exotic materials to other companies.

FeelingTheBlues · 4 January 2014, 03:19 AM

I'm not quite sure it would look as nice on a Rolex as it looks on a Panerai, IWC or other watch brand. I voted neither as I don't feel the need to have one but if they come out with something I'd be curious to see it.

AAP8 · 4 January 2014, 03:26 AM

Titanium would be cool ... Ceramic may be nice on the right watch? EXPII?

Chewbacca · 4 January 2014, 03:27 AM

i voted neither but if they do, it'll be a sportier tudor model before a rolex one imo.

dysondiver · 4 January 2014, 03:27 AM

at a thousand pounds for ceramic inserts , id have to sell my house for a full ceramic sub ,
stainless just works.

capote · 4 January 2014, 05:10 AM

Here is something you won't see happen to SS case.

dysondiver · 4 January 2014, 05:28 AM

ouch ,,, that looks bad ,,,

Vincent65 · 4 January 2014, 05:49 AM

no thanks!

Frosty · 4 January 2014, 06:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by T.S.Eliot

Titanium would be a better option

especially on a Sub or DSSD

+1

dsturner83 · 4 January 2014, 06:43 AM

I'd go for both as long as they made it in a 52mm ;-)

Jack T · 4 January 2014, 10:09 AM

Just because it something has worked so well for 80 years is no reason not to change; that said Rolex seems not to change for change sake. Someone said they don't follow trends - true, Rolex will incorporate changes in the line (materials, complications, size) when trends have yielded to long term customer preferences. At least that is how they've done it, and I hope that patient approach continues.

HL65 · 4 January 2014, 10:36 AM

No.

View Poll Results: Which case material should Rolex introduce?
Bronze	6	4.48%
Ceramic	19	14.18%
Both	7	5.22%
Neither	102	76.12%
Voters: 134. You may not vote on this poll

3 January 2014, 11:57 PM	#1
Fiery "TRF" Member Join Date: Jul 2009 Location: Europe Watch: Sub-C 116610LN Posts: 2,649	Do you think Rolex should make a bronze or ceramic case watch? The new 2014 IWC Aquatimer lineup made me think about the possibility of Rolex starting to use new case materials anytime soon. IMHO a ceramic watch would be against the "Rolex watches are rugged time pieces" principle, so it wouldn't happen anytime soon. But the bronze case may be interesting, although may be a bit confusing that (from a distance) it looks somewhat similar to Everose. What do you think Rolex should do about case materials? __________________ "In an age of obsolescence and gimmickry, this simple classic virtue of a Rolex is indeed a rarity." (Rolex ad from 1974)

4 January 2014, 02:09 AM	#10
rmfnla "TRF" Member Join Date: Dec 2006 Real Name: Richard Location: Los Angeles, CA Watch: TT DJ Posts: 4,456	Bronze is too reactive; turns green over time and leaves dark stains on some people's skin. Stainless, gold, and platinum always look good; there's a reason Rolex uses them exclusively... __________________ Today, I believe my jurisdiction ends here... Lug Hole Lover®

4 January 2014, 02:17 AM	#11
T.S.Eliot "TRF" Member Join Date: Jan 2011 Real Name: K Location: KSA Watch: aholic Posts: 1,499	Titanium would be a better option especially on a Sub or DSSD __________________ "Phlebas the Phoenician, a fortnight dead, / Forgot the cry of gulls, and the deep seas swell / And the profit and loss. / A current under sea / Picked his bones in whispers. / As he rose and fell / He passed the stages of his age and youth / Entering the whirlpool. / Gentile or Jew / O you who turn the wheel and look to windward, / Consider Phlebas, who was once handsome and tall as you." Cheers, K

4 January 2014, 02:26 AM	#13
Cc1966 "TRF" Member Join Date: Aug 2013 Real Name: Christopher Location: Georgia, USA Watch: ing the Sea... Posts: 6,713	Neither....hope they stick with the status quo for now. __________________ "I wish to have no Connection with any Ship that does not Sail fast for I intend to go in harm's way." Captain John Paul Jones, 16 November 1778 "*Curmudgeons* " Favorites: 1665 SD, Sub Date, DSSD, Exp II, Sub LV, GMTIIc

4 January 2014, 12:04 AM	#2
malarky_hk "TRF" Member Join Date: Jun 2012 Location: ... Watch: Rolex Posts: 4,466	Ceramic would be interesting - they've already got the bezel down. Omega's Darkside of the Moon looks great. I think bronze does not fit the Rolex image - too "low end", IMHO.

4 January 2014, 01:10 AM	#6
Nidal "TRF" Member Join Date: Jul 2012 Location: USA Watch: SubC LV Posts: 1,820	Agree with Peter.

4 January 2014, 01:29 AM	#8
captkevin "TRF" Member Join Date: Jan 2012 Location: Florida Watch: Subs Posts: 687	They did....under Tudor

4 January 2014, 01:31 AM	#9
Roller07 "TRF" Member Join Date: Sep 2012 Location: GMT -5 Watch: HulkPepsiCoke Posts: 2,364	neither.

4 January 2014, 02:25 AM	#12
jvo300 "TRF" Member Join Date: Sep 2009 Location: TX Posts: 1,897	Rolex doesn't need to follow trends.

4 January 2014, 02:42 AM	#14
capote "TRF" Member Join Date: Oct 2010 Real Name: Daniel Location: Sweden Watch: 16570 Posts: 7,315	I don't think they should. Ceramic watches, come on.

4 January 2014, 02:49 AM	#15
Jason71 "TRF" Member Join Date: Mar 2009 Real Name: Jason Location: USA Watch: Rolex/Tudor Divers Posts: 7,973	I don't want ceramic, bronze, or titanium from Rolex. I got my titanium fix from Tudor, and other than that.......Only SS and precious metals for me. A YG model may be the next thing on my radar. __________________ Best Regards, Jason Just Say "NO" to Polishing Card-Carrying Member of the Global Association of Retro-Grouch Curmudgeons LIfe is too short to wear inexpensive watches PLEXI IS SEXY

4 January 2014, 02:53 AM	#16
vitalsignsrn "TRF" Member Join Date: Jul 2013 Real Name: Judy Location: Ontario Watch: 116234 - 14060M Posts: 4,607	Neither for me also. I wanted a ceramic watch for fashion and bought a GC watch. Bought it at the duty free for a great price and was cheaper than a MK. Its fun for summer…but to spend more than that for a fun watch, no, I wasn't interested.

4 January 2014, 02:57 AM	#17
AK797 2024 Pledge Member Join Date: Feb 2010 Real Name: Neil Location: UK Watch: ing ships roll in Posts: 59,220	And we all disliked the YM2 and Platona when they first came out...

4 January 2014, 03:05 AM	#18
Laszlo 2024 ROLEX DATEJUST41 Pledge Member Join Date: Nov 2007 Location: San Francisco, CA Watch: Date & No Date Posts: 10,851	No way. __________________ "You might as well question why we breathe. If we stop breathing, we'll die. If we stop fighting our enemies, the world will die." Paul Henreid as Victor Laszlo in Casablanca

4 January 2014, 03:19 AM	#20
FeelingTheBlues "TRF" Member Join Date: Sep 2011 Real Name: Carl Location: Always moving Watch: If you wish... Posts: 22,039	I'm not quite sure it would look as nice on a Rolex as it looks on a Panerai, IWC or other watch brand. I voted neither as I don't feel the need to have one but if they come out with something I'd be curious to see it. __________________ Mon corps c'est un pays en guerre sur l'point d'finir, Le général de l'armée de terre s'attend au pire, J'ai faim, j'ai frette, je suis trop faible pour me lever debout, On va hisser le drapeau blanc un point c'est tout. - André Fortin

4 January 2014, 03:26 AM	#21
AAP8 "TRF" Member Join Date: Dec 2010 Real Name: AP Location: Cleveland, OH Watch: SubC LN Posts: 428	Titanium would be cool ... Ceramic may be nice on the right watch? EXPII?

4 January 2014, 03:27 AM	#22
Chewbacca Banned Join Date: May 2012 Real Name: CJ Location: Kashyyyk Watch: Kessel Run Chrono Posts: 21,113	i voted neither but if they do, it'll be a sportier tudor model before a rolex one imo.

4 January 2014, 03:27 AM	#23
dysondiver "TRF" Member Join Date: Jul 2010 Real Name: tom Location: northern ireland Watch: my fins Posts: 10,063	at a thousand pounds for ceramic inserts , id have to sell my house for a full ceramic sub , stainless just works.

4 January 2014, 05:10 AM	#24
capote "TRF" Member Join Date: Oct 2010 Real Name: Daniel Location: Sweden Watch: 16570 Posts: 7,315	Here is something you won't see happen to SS case.

4 January 2014, 05:28 AM	#25
dysondiver "TRF" Member Join Date: Jul 2010 Real Name: tom Location: northern ireland Watch: my fins Posts: 10,063	ouch ,,, that looks bad ,,,

4 January 2014, 05:49 AM	#26
Vincent65 "TRF" Member Join Date: Aug 2012 Location: Switzerland Posts: 14,293	no thanks!

4 January 2014, 06:43 AM	#28
dsturner83 "TRF" Member Join Date: Apr 2013 Location: philadelphia Posts: 55	I'd go for both as long as they made it in a 52mm ;-)

4 January 2014, 10:09 AM	#29
Jack T "TRF" Member Join Date: May 2013 Real Name: Jack Location: The Triangle Watch: Several Posts: 6,623	Just because it something has worked so well for 80 years is no reason not to change; that said Rolex seems not to change for change sake. Someone said they don't follow trends - true, Rolex will incorporate changes in the line (materials, complications, size) when trends have yielded to long term customer preferences. At least that is how they've done it, and I hope that patient approach continues. __________________ Sub 116613 LN; GMT 116710 LN; Sinn 104R; Exp 214270; GS SBGM221; Omega AT

4 January 2014, 10:36 AM	#30
HL65 TRF Moderator & 2024 DATE-JUST41 Patron Join Date: Dec 2007 Real Name: Ken Location: SW Florida Watch: One on my wrist. Posts: 63,389	No. __________________ *SPEM SUCCESSUS ALIT*

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)