Ceramic Bezel Replacement

[Chester01]

First I am sorry that happened. However having had many debates with folks here over the years about the merits or lack there of with ceramics….allow that to sink in…Slid off the…..golf cart and fell. Are the ceramic folks going to continue to try to convince me that the ceramic is better than the aluminum?

Many crashes on the mountain bike….aluminum inset after 21 years is going strong. Let’s close this case folks.

[Brny11]

Originally Posted by Chester01

First I am sorry that happened. However having had many debates with folks here over the years about the merits or lack there of with ceramics….allow that to sink in…Slid off the…..golf cart and fell. Are the ceramic folks going to continue to try to convince me that the ceramic is better than the aluminum?

Many crashes on the mountain bike….aluminum inset after 21 years is going strong. Let’s close this case folks.

Like debating if acrylic is better then sapphire. Pros and cons to each. I like both.

Remember these watches are jewelry as much as utilitarian, and ceramic looks a lot better IMO. It’s scratch proof and it will never fade, two very functional advantages. Of course it can shatter if dropped, which is an expensive negative. However, aluminum bezel or not, you drop your watch to the wrong surface, it will have damage.

Case certainly not closed. Some agree with you, other do not. You are not right or wrong, and neither are they.

[Chester01]

Originally Posted by Brny11

Like debating if acrylic is better then sapphire. Pros and cons to each. I like both.

Remember these watches are jewelry as much as utilitarian, and ceramic looks a lot better IMO. It’s scratch proof and it will never fade, two very functional advantages. Of course it can shatter if dropped, which is an expensive negative. However, aluminum bezel or not, you drop your watch to the wrong surface, it will have damage.

Case certainly not closed. Some agree with you, other do not. You are not right or wrong, and neither are they.

Sorry I disagree. The jewelry aspect depends on how one wears it. I have been wearing watches from an era when we did not have cell phones to tell the time. I don’t feel the need to be tethered to my people tracking device and often leave it, and use my watch functions, date, time, (chrono on some) and elapsed time many times each day as part of my job. They are necessary functions for my job and the cell does not get the job done. That’s a tool. Tools with more fragile parts are not desirable when used as tools. For folks that want shiny things and want that associated recognition then sure ceramics is the better material, but it’s more likely to fail period.

And no, the acrylic is only better on the moon watch due to fragments floating around and in just about all other aspects the sapphire better. Rolex reached diminishing returns with developments at the 5 digit line. Beyond that, most other so called improvements are cosmetic in nature by adding bling to increase wrist presence.

Believe me, my sub has fallen at the massive height of a golf cart and suffice to say is just fine, lol. Ceramics are more likely to fail period.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[RJRJRJ]

Originally Posted by Chester01

Sorry I disagree. The jewelry aspect depends on how one wears it. I have been wearing watches from an era when we did not have cell phones to tell the time. I don’t feel the need to be tethered to my people tracking device and often leave it, and use my watch functions, date, time, (chrono on some) and elapsed time many times each day as part of my job. They are necessary functions for my job and the cell does not get the job done. That’s a tool. Tools with more fragile parts are not desirable when used as tools. For folks that want shiny things and want that associated recognition then sure ceramics is the better material, but it’s more likely to fail period.

And no, the acrylic is only better on the moon watch due to fragments floating around and in just about all other aspects the sapphire better. Rolex reached diminishing returns with developments at the 5 digit line. Beyond that, most other so called improvements are cosmetic in nature by adding bling to increase wrist presence.

Believe me, my sub has fallen at the massive height of a golf cart and suffice to say is just fine, lol. Ceramics are more likely to fail period.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

That would include your ceramic sapphire crystal.

[Brny11]

Originally Posted by Chester01

Sorry I disagree. The jewelry aspect depends on how one wears it. I have been wearing watches from an era when we did not have cell phones to tell the time. I don’t feel the need to be tethered to my people tracking device and often leave it, and use my watch functions, date, time, (chrono on some) and elapsed time many times each day as part of my job. They are necessary functions for my job and the cell does not get the job done. That’s a tool. Tools with more fragile parts are not desirable when used as tools. For folks that want shiny things and want that associated recognition then sure ceramics is the better material, but it’s more likely to fail period.

And no, the acrylic is only better on the moon watch due to fragments floating around and in just about all other aspects the sapphire better. Rolex reached diminishing returns with developments at the 5 digit line. Beyond that, most other so called improvements are cosmetic in nature by adding bling to increase wrist presence.

Believe me, my sub has fallen at the massive height of a golf cart and suffice to say is just fine, lol. Ceramics are more likely to fail period.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I have no horse in this race.

However, ceramic has benefits as well. It doesn’t age or tarnish with underwater use and does not scratch easily. The main exception (and a big exception) is that it can shatter. If this is unacceptable, as it sounds like it is for you, good news… There are older subs and newer divers available for you to enjoy.

Everything Rolex does is incremental. You call it “cosmetic in nature by adding bling to increase wrist presence”, but that is your opinion.

Not here to convince you your wrong. Just don’t assume your opinions are facts. They are not. This matter has been a debate for some time and will continue to be one I am sure long into the future.

I love my SubC as much as my Tudor 58 with all their similarities and differences. Neither need to be subjected to situations that can cause damage but I also embrace my apple watch and gshocks as suitable tools.

[dukie748]

Older = tools
Newer = jewelry

[Chester01]

Originally Posted by Brny11

I have no horse in this race.

However, ceramic has benefits as well. It doesn’t age or tarnish with underwater use and does not scratch easily. The main exception (and a big exception) is that it can shatter. If this is unacceptable, as it sounds like it is for you, good news… There are older subs and newer divers available for you to enjoy.

Everything Rolex does is incremental. You call it “cosmetic in nature by adding bling to increase wrist presence”, but that is your opinion.

Not here to convince you your wrong. Just don’t assume your opinions are facts. They are not. This matter has been a debate for some time and will continue to be one I am sure long into the future.

I love my SubC as much as my Tudor 58 with all their similarities and differences. Neither need to be subjected to situations that can cause damage but I also embrace my apple watch and gshocks as suitable tools.

Listen I get the argument, but a tool is for function not to look pretty. I have had my sub for 22 years and never replaced the bezel and it’s fine, no issues with legibility and less likely to fail. Scratches are cosmetic and if it got sooo bad could be replaced for 60 bucks. The facts are clear, crockery and dinner plate material is more likely to fail and cannot take a drop off a golf cart. That’s an objective fact. Sorry, facts are still facts. Aluminum is harder and less likely to fail. Fact.

And while opinion, does anyone here really think the aluminum inserts and more shiny and and reflective than the ceramic? Have you looked at them? That’s closer to fact than opinion. Now someone’s preference for either one is a subjective preference.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Chester01]

Originally Posted by RJRJRJ

That would include your ceramic sapphire crystal.

Yes. I’m not arguing any of these are indestructible by the way. But the acrylic can fail as well and is less water resistant. I have no data on this, but the domed acrylic can be crushed (while not shattered) renders it as useless as shattered sapphire, so closer horse race there.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Token74]

Lots of folk on this forum, very few ceramic bezel fails. I’ve battered my Sea Dweller and no issues.

On balance, I’d rather a non-ceramic bezel, but equally, don’t think its a big deal either way.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[joli160]

Originally Posted by dukie748

Older = tools
Newer = jewelry

Like the first Rolex Datejust from 1945 in 18K gold

[Car32]

Originally Posted by Chester01

Listen I get the argument, but a tool is for function not to look pretty. I have had my sub for 22 years and never replaced the bezel and it’s fine, no issues with legibility and less likely to fail. Scratches are cosmetic and if it got sooo bad could be replaced for 60 bucks. The facts are clear, crockery and dinner plate material is more likely to fail and cannot take a drop off a golf cart. That’s an objective fact. Sorry, facts are still facts. Aluminum is harder and less likely to fail. Fact.

And while opinion, does anyone here really think the aluminum inserts and more shiny and and reflective than the ceramic? Have you looked at them? That’s closer to fact than opinion. Now someone’s preference for either one is a subjective preference.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Cosmetic damage is still damage. That’s a fact. Obviously not as bad as shattering but a lot of people care about that. I have both 5 digit and 5 digit so also have no horse in the race either but I do love that my ceramics bezels will basically be scratch free forever and am ok with the risk fo shattering. It’s just doesn’t happen very often relative to the number of ceramic bezel Rolex’s out there. That’s also quantifiable by looking at reports (or lack thereof) on this forum alone.


What I do think is more of an opinion is the cost argument which in my opinion is totally ridiculous. Either way, if someone doesn’t like their scratched up aluminum bezel or their ceramic shatters, they will pay to replace it. The cost difference is what, maybe $3-400 at most. I’m sorry if you’re buying a luxury watch that’s ~$10k plus but the relative cost of a bezel replacement in the HIGHLY UNLIKELY chance that your ceramic bezel shatters is a big factor in you decision making process, than you shouldn’t be buying the watch.

[Koeppenjm]

Dropped it off at the AD where I purchased the watch to send off to the RSC. They told me they will want to do a full service on it in addition to replacing the bezel. Since I purchased the watch in 2019 and it’s still under warranty he believes there is a good chance they will give me a break on the cost of the service. I was told they have been much more accommodating of late on stuff. They requested the warranty to cover the movement or provide a discount. I guess it doesn’t hurt to ask. I’ll let you all know when I get the estimate if anyone is curious.

[Chester01]

Originally Posted by Car32

Cosmetic damage is still damage. That’s a fact. Obviously not as bad as shattering but a lot of people care about that. I have both 5 digit and 5 digit so also have no horse in the race either but I do love that my ceramics bezels will basically be scratch free forever and am ok with the risk fo shattering. It’s just doesn’t happen very often relative to the number of ceramic bezel Rolex’s out there. That’s also quantifiable by looking at reports (or lack thereof) on this forum alone.


What I do think is more of an opinion is the cost argument which in my opinion is totally ridiculous. Either way, if someone doesn’t like their scratched up aluminum bezel or their ceramic shatters, they will pay to replace it. The cost difference is what, maybe $3-400 at most. I’m sorry if you’re buying a luxury watch that’s ~$10k plus but the relative cost of a bezel replacement in the HIGHLY UNLIKELY chance that your ceramic bezel shatters is a big factor in you decision making process, than you shouldn’t be buying the watch.

Wait, what? A lot of people don’t care? I use my watch as part of my Job every day and if the bezel shatters it’s a problem. A light scratch, scuff, even gash, I can still do my job and read The elapsed time if the entire thing shattered I cannot do my task.

I am not sure on the cost, but I’ve heard the ceramic bezel replacements can go much higher than 300-400 hundred. My A.D. wanted to replace my bezel, and I declined the cost was $60 so no that’s a real dollar difference. I agree however that one needs to take that into account with buying the watch and likely leads to the pampering of these watches that goes on these days. For me, a bedazzled shiny bezel that is more likely to fail is not an advantage of one that may get scratched. It’s a watch and tool, why wouldn’t it get scratched; and why should I care if it gets scratched it will outlive me by far.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[des2471]

Originally Posted by Koeppenjm

Wondering if anyone has a ceramic bezel replaced at an RSC. While taking off my watch yesterday before a round of golf I carelessly placed it on the seat of the golf cart and it slid off and fell. The end result is a crack in the bezel.....on the bright side escaped any dings to the case. Curious as to the cost and if it’s worth just waiting until a full service to due to have it replaced. The watch is only 2 years old and keeps good time so probably not in need of a service at this point.

Pissed at myself and probably won’t be able to look at it everyday so most likely will just send it in to be replaced.....just wondering what to expect.

Very sorry to see this. I’m sure RSC will make it as good as new when you decide to do that.

In London RSC 2 years ago (May 2019) it cost £350 (currently = about US $480) in total to replace the blue ceramic bezel on a 116613LB.

All the best

[Teksurv]

Thanks for the update, looking forward to the outcome.

Originally Posted by Koeppenjm

Dropped it off at the AD where I purchased the watch to send off to the RSC. They told me they will want to do a full service on it in addition to replacing the bezel. Since I purchased the watch in 2019 and it’s still under warranty he believes there is a good chance they will give me a break on the cost of the service. I was told they have been much more accommodating of late on stuff. They requested the warranty to cover the movement or provide a discount. I guess it doesn’t hurt to ask. I’ll let you all know when I get the estimate if anyone is curious.

[Gab27]

Originally Posted by Chester01

Aluminum is harder and less likely to fail. Fact.

I think you mean aluminum is softer...?

[DJ2020]

Much, much softer

[sheldonsmith]

Originally Posted by SCrolex1977

My father owns a jewelry store, he does not carry watches but owns several Rolex watches. He sends his and his customers to zimbals in Florida (I cannot post website since I am new for forum) for repair. I don’t know if you can send as an individual or if you must have a jeweler send.
They use Rolex parts and warranty their work. They have repaired my wife’s several times as she is rough on watches.

I found them in a simple Google search.

https://www.zimbals.net/about-zimbals

Good to know that they are a certified Rolex watch repair facility.

[SearChart]

Originally Posted by zewill

Sorry to hear, that’s an expensive round of golf.

Rolex will charge for the bezel change (I heard they are expensive, 240 euros sound too little who can confirm?) and will want to do service on the watch…

Not sure what I would do… maybe keep it as is for a few year as a daily reminder to be careful (and stop slicing into the woods) :)

Sigh...

Here's the confirmation, it was even less than I could remember.

[padi56]

Originally Posted by Chester01

Listen I get the argument, but a tool is for function not to look pretty. I have had my sub for 22 years and never replaced the bezel and it’s fine, no issues with legibility and less likely to fail. Scratches are cosmetic and if it got sooo bad could be replaced for 60 bucks. The facts are clear, crockery and dinner plate material is more likely to fail and cannot take a drop off a golf cart. That’s abjective fact. n oSorry, facts are still facts. Aluminum is harder and less likely to fail. Fact.

And while opinion, does anyone here really think the aluminum inserts and more shiny and and reflective than the ceramic? Have you looked at them? That’s closer to fact than opinion. Now someone’s preference for either one is a subjective preference.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Have to agree my working tool 16600 SD had a hard life with well over 600 hours underwater with no problems whatsoever. I am 100% certain if it had a ceramic insert with the amount of abuse my 16600 had I would have quite a few shattered ceramic ones. And over those hard years of use, which todays mainly pampered ceramic watches will never see, picked up one scratch on insert .And although not really needed to change insert I was back in the UK so had it changed cost then just £25.

[Boaters]

Good luck post some pics when you get it back

[Chester01]

Originally Posted by Gab27

I think you mean aluminum is softer...?

Yes, technically from the “hardness” algorithms, but less brittle and less prone to crack and failure.

If someone wants to debate me on this, I propose a contest. I’m happy to take a chisel and make increasing bangs against my aluminum inset and the individual that thinks their ceramic is “harder” can take a chisel and bang the chisel against theirs and we will see what’s what and which fails first.

Any takers? Anyone, let’s be done with the silliness here.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Car32]

Originally Posted by Chester01

Wait, what? A lot of people don’t care? I use my watch as part of my Job every day and if the bezel shatters it’s a problem. A light scratch, scuff, even gash, I can still do my job and read The elapsed time if the entire thing shattered I cannot do my task.

I am not sure on the cost, but I’ve heard the ceramic bezel replacements can go much higher than 300-400 hundred. My A.D. wanted to replace my bezel, and I declined the cost was $60 so no that’s a real dollar difference. I agree however that one needs to take that into account with buying the watch and likely leads to the pampering of these watches that goes on these days. For me, a bedazzled shiny bezel that is more likely to fail is not an advantage of one that may get scratched. It’s a watch and tool, why wouldn’t it get scratched; and why should I care if it gets scratched it will outlive me by far.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Where in my post did I say people don’t care? I was simply weighing on fact vs opinion. Scratch damage is still damage: FACT. you clearly don’t care about scratches and that’s your OPINION. if ceramics don’t work for your use case that’s great go aluminum, but don’t imply it fits everyones use case. Aluminum won’t shatter but can scratch. Ceramics won’t scratch but can shatter: fact. now it’s up to everyone to decide what works for their use case.

My ceramic bezel will also outlive me. I’m in the highly unlikely case it gets shattered, I’ll replace it. If I can’t afford to replace it I probably shouldn’t own the watch in the first place: FACT.

[SN13]

Originally Posted by Chester01

Yes, technically from the “hardness” algorithms, but less brittle and less prone to crack and failure.

If someone wants to debate me on this, I propose a contest. I’m happy to take a chisel and make increasing bangs against my aluminum inset and the individual that thinks their ceramic is “harder” can take a chisel and bang the chisel against theirs and we will see what’s what and which fails first.

Any takers? Anyone, let’s be done with the silliness here.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

LOL dude.

Give.

It.

Up.

Ceramic > Aluminum

[Chester01]

Originally Posted by Car32

Where in my post did I say people don’t care? I was simply weighing on fact vs opinion. Scratch damage is still damage: FACT. you clearly don’t care about scratches and that’s your OPINION. if ceramics don’t work for your use case that’s great go aluminum, but don’t imply it fits everyones use case. Aluminum won’t shatter but can scratch. Ceramics won’t scratch but can shatter: fact. now it’s up to everyone to decide what works for their use case.

My ceramic bezel will also outlive me. I’m in the highly unlikely case it gets shattered, I’ll replace it. If I can’t afford to replace it I probably shouldn’t own the watch in the first place: FACT.

It’s not that I don’t care about a scratch. The aluminum is simply less likely to fail, and can still be read. An impact that would scratch the aluminum basil leaves it functional that same impact can shatter the crockery.

And listen if all it takes is a fall from a golf cart to crack these things you’re probably a little more likely than you think to break yours.

My only point was aluminum is less likely to fail when the watch is being used. One can debate about the likelihood or the statistics of a break with ceramics but that is the only point I was making and it’s simply a fact.

I guarantee in most instances I would go through a ceramic bezel given my lifestyle and wearing habits every six months, and as padi mentioned above, (Who actually uses these watches for their intended purposes), the ceramics would not hold up in that environment as well as the aluminum. Read that last line again, and let that sink in…what padi is saying is that the change to ceramics are not more functional in the actual environment they were intended to function in….full stop. Again allow that to sink in. The change to ceramics when used in the environment they were intended has not been an improvement.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Chester01]

Originally Posted by SN13

LOL dude.

Give.

It.

Up.

Ceramic > Aluminum

Ceramics=shiny and pretty
Aluminum=functional for things other than desk divers.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Chester01]

Originally Posted by SN13

LOL dude.

Give.

It.

Up.

Ceramic > Aluminum

Let me put it this way, ceramics for cereal bowels and aluminum for bezel inserts lol.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Koeppenjm]

UPDATE.......For anyone who is interested just heard back......Rolex will perform the movement service under warranty and the only charge will be for the bezel replacement. Quoted $235 plus tax. Looks like I dodged a bullet. 6 weeks to complete so the Daytona will be getting some more wrist time!

Lesson learned to be more careful!

[Kliminator]

Originally Posted by Koeppenjm

UPDATE.......For anyone who is interested just heard back......Rolex will perform the movement service under warranty and the only charge will be for the bezel replacement. Quoted $235 plus tax. Looks like I dodged a bullet. 6 weeks to complete so the Daytona will be getting some more wrist time!

Lesson learned to be more careful!

Awesome - not too bad from a cost perspectived. Thanks for coming back and giving everyone an update!

[doboy007]

Who gives a rat's ass about the ceramic vs aluminum. Buy what YOU like and don't try to convince people you made the "right" decision. Since newer models are all ceramic, which I personally prefer, you either live with it or don't.