ROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEX

2 December 2005, 04:25 AM

We all know about the shortfalls of our beloved Rolex watches. The clasp, while fully functional and robust still feels kind of, um... crude; the center links are hollow, the lack of a domed crystal, no AR coating...

As Avalon said in another post, things aren't 'over-engineered' just designed properly. Anything that isn't over-engineered is therefore not designed to the maximum.

So, do you think Rolex knows or knew of these shortfalls, and plans to slowly improve these lacking features over time, to give us something to rave over, like throwing us a bone ever four or five (or 10) years? I'm sure it's down to keep costs to a minimum, but I can't help but think that a company with such an innovative history (the first 50 years) would make improvements at such a slow progression.

Okay.... discuss:

JJ Irani · 2 December 2005, 04:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Atomic

We all know about the shortfalls of our beloved Rolex watches. The clasp, while fully functional and robust still feels kind of, um... crude; the center links are hollow, the lack of a domed crystal, no AR coating...

As Avalon said in another post, things aren't 'over-engineered' just designed properly. Anything that isn't over-engineered is therefore not designed to the maximum.

So, do you think Rolex knows or knew of these shortfalls, and plans to slowly improve these lacking features over time, to give us something to rave over, like throwing us a bone ever four or five (or 10) years? I'm sure it's down to keep costs to a minimum, but I can't help but think that a company with such an innovative history (the first 50 years) would make improvements at such a slow progression.

Okay.... discuss:

Good post, Johnny...one that will hopefully not get hijacked along the way by some of the masters here!!

I think as far as Rolex is concerned, it's all about adequacy. That being the key word, they must feel that what they provide on their watches is adequate enough to meet the requirements for what that particular model was designed to perform.

In all fairness, and with 16 Rollies behind and with me, I've never ever had a problem with any of them. I've owned the sports range as well as the DJs....never had to fret or fume over any of them.

They've been designed to look the same after many years and over the years, and they've been designed with ONE most important thing in mind - toughness!! to the letter 't'.

GerardoG · 2 December 2005, 04:30 AM

Well....yes. I feel Rolex has (up to date) 2 stages: Pre and post 2000 (give or take). If we consider pre-2000 models, changes were minimal on the case, bracelets, dials, etc. All of a sudden, everything starts to change....slowly but it does change.

I don't see Rolex as a company that will have new models every year or major design changes; but I think they are upgrading their watches. SEL were a great design change, heavier bracelets (ie Prezzie) are amazing, so new things will be nice.

My 2 cents: I love the new hidden clasps on jubilee's....and the new oyster clasp....BRAVO!!!! Welcome. As far as the case design....I kinda' like the old one better....

Saludos!!!!!

BruceS · 2 December 2005, 04:31 AM

I think you're a Rolex bashing tosser to even bring this up and you should be banned!!!!!

I have no idea. I think it's an act in futility to try to figure out what those guys at Rolex are thinking. Sure would love to see a domed a/r crystal though.

2 December 2005, 04:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BruceS

I think you're a Rolex bashing tosser to even bring this up and you should be banned!!!!!

I have no idea. I think it's an act in futility to try to figure out what those guys at Rolex are thinking. Sure would love to see a domed a/r crystal though.

You caught me ....

I agree it's futile to figure out the logic behind the decisions coming out of HQ. I also agree with JJ that it's what is adequate at the time... and when they figure it's time to improve something, they do it, s l o w l y.

A domed crystal would only be good it it can be retrofitted.

BruceS · 2 December 2005, 04:38 AM

Yeah and fat chance of that! I doubt they ever will without the watch having a new case. I really like the case and bracelet/clasp on the new DJ. The whole watch just seems more substantial and manly.

2 December 2005, 04:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BruceS

Yeah and fat chance of that! I doubt they ever will without the watch having a new case. I really like the case and bracelet/clasp on the new DJ. The whole watch just seems more substantial and manly.

Agreed. I was handling (fondling?) a new design DJ and they feel much beefier and more substantial. Now if they'd only boost the size to even 39mm...

JJ Irani · 2 December 2005, 04:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Atomic

Agreed. I was handling (fondling?) a new design DJ and they feel much beefier and more substantial. Now if they'd only boost the size to even 39mm...

...at least 38 mm...that would have been near perfect!!

BruceS · 2 December 2005, 04:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JJ Irani

...at least 38 mm...that would have been near perfect!!

I think 38 would be perfect. I have to say though, that after some time, 36 feels just right. I was amazed at how big and heavy my GMT felt after a month with the Explorer on my wrist 23.5 hours a day. I really think one can get used to just about anything within reason.

dman · 2 December 2005, 05:12 AM

23.5? That is a long shower Bruce.

I think that they will continue to evolve, just at their own pace. They are not ever gonna be bullied or pushed to change before they are ready. The same things that make me bang my head about Rolex are the same things that make me cherish them, they are classic and confident(cocky). One thing is for sure, they fully belive in their own product.

s7horton · 2 December 2005, 05:27 AM

I personally think that the solid links in the center of the two tone was a smart move.

dman · 2 December 2005, 05:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by s7horton

I personally think that the solid links in the center of the two tone was a smart move.

I agree, made the bracelet super!!

Clifton · 2 December 2005, 05:56 AM

That is a great question Johnny. I think Rolex is operating under if ain’t broke don’t change it mentality. Their product has been thoroughly tested over the years and remains a coveted icon so I think current management knows better than to be the ones to screw that up.

I think changes, when they do come, must serve multiple purposes, i.e., cost saving and design improvement etc. Then I would imagine those changes must go through layers of approval.

The sub clasp has survived more than 30 years virtually unchanged even though it is a detail of common complaint. In my opinion it performs perfectly and I would be happy with it for years to come. However, it is rumored to change, but I’d be willing to bet that is tied to something other than customer gripes. My guess would be creating a clasp that can be used across sport models vs. simply just improving the design.

What I would love to know is how many changes exist in the waist bin at Rolex HQ. I can’t imagine that with all the workers they have had over the years design changes didn’t bubble up and get tossed in the waist bin.

Goodwatch · 2 December 2005, 06:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Atomic

We all know about the shortfalls of our beloved Rolex watches. The clasp, while fully functional and robust still feels kind of, um... crude; the center links are hollow, the lack of a domed crystal, no AR coating...

May I quote from my own thread? "To give my own points of critique, they are mostly technical. Although I find the SEL an improvement, for the asking price I want the bracelets to be much better. Still the stamped sheet metal clasp on all but a few models. I don’t care if it works and is tried and tested, I have a $300 watch that came with a much better bracelet. There they go too far with their conservative attitude towards changes".

What's new with this angle?

Seriously, it’s the quirkiness that’s perhaps appealing, it is to me. The basic design is from the thirties, it’s a dinosaur! I fully agree upon the technicalities, but I’m not sure about a domed crystal.

dman · 2 December 2005, 06:05 AM

Good points Frans! I know the existing clasp works, no doubt about it. And I don't deep sea dive, so I really have no worry of it failing, but the fact that a $50 dollar watch has a better clasp than my Rolex is mind boggling. I know the exisiting clasp on teh YM is fine, but I put the Daytona clasp on it and I can't tell you what a stronger feel it has to it.

mailman · 2 December 2005, 09:52 AM

[QUOTE=Goodwatch, I have a $300 watch

:[/QUOTE]
Hard to believe a Dutchie spent $300 on anything.

2 December 2005, 04:25 AM	#1
Atomic Guest Posts: n/a	Planned Progression We all know about the shortfalls of our beloved Rolex watches. The clasp, while fully functional and robust still feels kind of, um... crude; the center links are hollow, the lack of a domed crystal, no AR coating... As Avalon said in another post, things aren't 'over-engineered' just designed properly. Anything that isn't over-engineered is therefore not designed to the maximum. So, do you think Rolex knows or knew of these shortfalls, and plans to slowly improve these lacking features over time, to give us something to rave over, like throwing us a bone ever four or five (or 10) years? I'm sure it's down to keep costs to a minimum, but I can't help but think that a company with such an innovative history (the first 50 years) would make improvements at such a slow progression. Okay.... discuss:

2 December 2005, 05:12 AM	#10
dman Lifetime TRF Patron Join Date: May 2005 Real Name: Daren Location: Austin Watch: the road Posts: 13,583	23.5? That is a long shower Bruce. I think that they will continue to evolve, just at their own pace. They are not ever gonna be bullied or pushed to change before they are ready. The same things that make me bang my head about Rolex are the same things that make me cherish them, they are classic and confident(cocky). One thing is for sure, they fully belive in their own product. __________________ You either get it or you don't, if you have to ask, YOU DON'T!! I really hope that midget cop doesn't find me in Kokomo.

2 December 2005, 06:05 AM	#15
dman Lifetime TRF Patron Join Date: May 2005 Real Name: Daren Location: Austin Watch: the road Posts: 13,583	Good points Frans! I know the existing clasp works, no doubt about it. And I don't deep sea dive, so I really have no worry of it failing, but the fact that a $50 dollar watch has a better clasp than my Rolex is mind boggling. I know the exisiting clasp on teh YM is fine, but I put the Daytona clasp on it and I can't tell you what a stronger feel it has to it. __________________ You either get it or you don't, if you have to ask, YOU DON'T!! I really hope that midget cop doesn't find me in Kokomo.

2 December 2005, 09:52 AM	#16
mailman TRF Moderator & DATE-JUST41 2024 Patron Join Date: Oct 2005 Location: . Watch: 126610LN Posts: 35,398	[QUOTE=Goodwatch, I have a $300 watch :[/QUOTE] Hard to believe a Dutchie spent $300 on anything. __________________ JJ

2 December 2005, 04:30 AM	#3
GerardoG Banned Join Date: Oct 2005 Real Name: Gerardo Location: Here Watch: ALL of them Posts: 32,098	Well....yes. I feel Rolex has (up to date) 2 stages: Pre and post 2000 (give or take). If we consider pre-2000 models, changes were minimal on the case, bracelets, dials, etc. All of a sudden, everything starts to change....slowly but it does change. I don't see Rolex as a company that will have new models every year or major design changes; but I think they are upgrading their watches. SEL were a great design change, heavier bracelets (ie Prezzie) are amazing, so new things will be nice. My 2 cents: I love the new hidden clasps on jubilee's....and the new oyster clasp....BRAVO!!!! Welcome. As far as the case design....I kinda' like the old one better.... Saludos!!!!!

2 December 2005, 04:31 AM	#4
BruceS "TRF" Member Join Date: Jul 2005 Real Name: Sir Daft Location: Cornwall, UK Watch: Too many Posts: 2,464	I think you're a Rolex bashing tosser to even bring this up and you should be banned!!!!! I have no idea. I think it's an act in futility to try to figure out what those guys at Rolex are thinking. Sure would love to see a domed a/r crystal though.

2 December 2005, 04:38 AM	#6
BruceS "TRF" Member Join Date: Jul 2005 Real Name: Sir Daft Location: Cornwall, UK Watch: Too many Posts: 2,464	Yeah and fat chance of that! I doubt they ever will without the watch having a new case. I really like the case and bracelet/clasp on the new DJ. The whole watch just seems more substantial and manly.

2 December 2005, 05:27 AM	#11
s7horton "TRF" Member Join Date: Oct 2005 Real Name: Seth Location: Grand Rapids, MI Watch: 16613LB, 126610….. Posts: 995	I personally think that the solid links in the center of the two tone was a smart move.

2 December 2005, 05:56 AM	#13
Clifton Member Join Date: Jul 2005 Location: Earth Posts: 148	That is a great question Johnny. I think Rolex is operating under if ain’t broke don’t change it mentality. Their product has been thoroughly tested over the years and remains a coveted icon so I think current management knows better than to be the ones to screw that up. I think changes, when they do come, must serve multiple purposes, i.e., cost saving and design improvement etc. Then I would imagine those changes must go through layers of approval. The sub clasp has survived more than 30 years virtually unchanged even though it is a detail of common complaint. In my opinion it performs perfectly and I would be happy with it for years to come. However, it is rumored to change, but I’d be willing to bet that is tied to something other than customer gripes. My guess would be creating a clasp that can be used across sport models vs. simply just improving the design. What I would love to know is how many changes exist in the waist bin at Rolex HQ. I can’t imagine that with all the workers they have had over the years design changes didn’t bubble up and get tossed in the waist bin.

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