Why no stainless steel on Oysterflex yet?

[mcnealstash]

In 2015, Rolex entered the rubber strap fray with the introduction of their oysterflex straps- a sportier alternative to the classic rolex metal bracelets. Rubber straps are inherently utilitarian- you can get them wet and not worry about the material quickly degrading over time as with leather, bang them around and not worry about scratches or dings to any metal as with SS or PM bracelets. These qualities make them better suited to a more active lifestyle and perhaps they are a part of the "athleisure" movement that has taken the fashion industry by storm in the last two decades. One could make the argument that a rubber strap makes a watch more of a "tool" watch than any alternative strap or bracelet material.

But to date (and to my knowledge), Rolex has only made the oysterflex bracelet an option to models made of precious metals. To me, this is completely counterintuitive. Stainless steel resists wear, dings, and scratches better than any of the precious metals- therefore making it a natural choice of material for anyone's "daily driver." Given the utility of the oysterflex, shouldn't it have first been introduced on stainless steel models considering that people choose SS most frequently for the wear and tear of everyday life or outdoor activities? Given their history and ties to adventuring and diving, I couldn't imagine more perfect candidates for the oysterflex treament than the explorer and submariner lines. Am I crazy for thinking this? Is Rolex coming at the rubber strap/bracelet angle with a completely different mindset than I am? Does anyone think we will be seeing SS on oysterflex soon?

[TswaneNguni]

Because the oysterflex is too short ,just like a bracelet on a DD40 .Keep the standard length the same Rolex !!

[DJTOSUB]

Originally Posted by mcnealstash

Is Rolex coming at the rubber strap/bracelet angle with a completely different mindset than I am?

Yes - Rolex mindset is to offer desirable new options on previous metal watches before eventually realign them on SS. You will see Oysterflex bands on SS models when, and if Rolex needs to increase waiting lists.

[Chewbacca]

Because Rolex.

But Rubber-B has your back.

[Nikrnic]

It seems to me the OF adds more profit for Rolex. It would be nice if the OF was offered as an add on instead of an alternative. Just like a Tudor or any other brand I would only buy new on bracelet then add a strap.

Sent from my SM-G970U using Tapatalk

[othertbone]

Yep go rubber b if you want

[Bryano1028]

Can you put clasp on rubber b?

[JadeRaven]

I wanna know why no ceramic on the all gold and white gold models.

[-Ally-]

Originally Posted by Bryano1028

Can you put clasp on rubber b?

Yes.

[daOnlyBG]

Originally Posted by mcnealstash

But to date (and to my knowledge), Rolex has only made the oysterflex bracelet an option to models made of precious metals. To me, this is completely counterintuitive....Given the utility of the oysterflex, shouldn't it have first been introduced on stainless steel models considering that people choose SS most frequently for the wear and tear of everyday life or outdoor activities? ...Am I crazy for thinking this? Is Rolex coming at the rubber strap/bracelet angle with a completely different mindset than I am?... Does anyone think we will be seeing SS on oysterflex soon?

Good question. I'll answer your post backwards: no, I don't see Rolex releasing an oysterflex band on an SS model. I could be wrong, but I'd bet against it.

I do think Rolex's mindset differs from yours. The company's chief corporate vision seems to further establish precious metals into Rolex's identity, consistent with what Patek does. If they were operating in literally any other manner or mindset, they'd be meeting demand for stainless steel models halfway rather than just 10-20% or whatever small proportion they currently do.

Putting an oysterflex on a precious metals model is just one way to sell a rose gold yachtmaster to someone who otherwise wouldn't think of themselves as a "gold watch person." I won't lie, the strategy is slowly working on me.

The days of "stainless steel models... most frequently for the wear and tear of everyday life..." are long, long gone. The general Rolex owner base in 25-40 year old bracket aims to keeps their stainless steel models because they're aware a mint-condition Rolex is worth more than a really beat up one, regardless of whether they intend to sell the Rolex or not. You could thank the overhyped market for this, and of course, the virtual elimination of arbitrage thanks to unlimited internet information- but of course, that's a conversation for another time.

So no, Rolex won't put an oysterflex bracelet on a SS model because, simply put, it doesn't need to. Those with SS models aren't likely to wear their watches for those situations- but to get the SS model-consumer to dip into PMs, Rolex understands that it needs to make PM models feasible for casual wear.

[MattyL147]

I don't see Rolex offering SS with OF. I don't want to say they won't ever, but I don't foresee it in the near future. Seems like they like to keep certain configurations specific to different metals - I think it's going to be the same with OF.

[DtownRRS]

Originally Posted by JadeRaven

I wanna know why no ceramic on the all gold and white gold models.

I have a nice blue ceramic on this WG Sub.








Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[amh]

Better question - will they ever get rid of the oysterflex and offer metal bracelets on those models?

[subdateII]

Originally Posted by JadeRaven

I wanna know why no ceramic on the all gold and white gold models.

Yes! The all gold Daytona 116508 & 116509 were released in 2016 same year as the ceramic stainless steel. What does it mean? Can’t truly understand since ceramic is per Rolex the better material for bezels.

[Masteryacht]

For the money, they should include a metal bracelet AND an oysterflex.

[ArtNouveau]

Originally Posted by Chewbacca

Because Rolex.

This is the best answer so far. OP’s post offers very logical reasons for rubber straps on the “tool” watches but I don’t think Rolex thinks this way at all. When I first saw the spyphotos of the WG Yachtmaster on Oysterflex I knew I wanted one if it was SS. No way I would pay $27K for that watch but had it been say $11-12K in steel there’d be a wait list for those too.
I wouldn’t say never but if they do ever offer them for SS it won’t be a cheaper option, just an option.

PS: the mux maligned brand here Hublot is generally credited with being the first company to put rubber straps on expensive watches, quite radical at the time.

[Nikrnic]

Originally Posted by Masteryacht

For the money, they should include a metal bracelet AND an oysterflex.

I agree, in a perfect world.. VC does.

Sent from my SM-G970U using Tapatalk

[mcnealstash]

Originally Posted by daOnlyBG

I do think Rolex's mindset differs from yours. The company's chief corporate vision seems to further establish precious metals into Rolex's identity, consistent with what Patek does. If they were operating in literally any other manner or mindset, they'd be meeting demand for stainless steel models halfway rather than just 10-20% or whatever small proportion they currently do.

I find this to be kind of a bummer. For decades rolex has been the premiere SS sports model company in the world- they have solidified this identity and they execute at a level no other company does. Just like Patek- they have taken beautiful, functional, original designs and constantly iterated them- always striving to make them better than the previous generation. There are a lot of ways they evolve their product to something (usually) better than it was before- whether that's adding a new movement, new and original technologies like increased magnetic/shock resistance or quality of life improvements like glidelock or easylink, incorporating stronger and more durable materials, etc.

These are the reasons I love their brand- it's not the multi-bazillion dollar marketing campaigns, or flashy celebrities wearing iced out or coveted vintage models, or whether or not its a "status symbol," its the fact that these are some of the best and most durable timepieces made and are designed to last a lifetime (or more!), all the while they're striving to do better "next time." I hope that the leadership gets a reality check and sticks to their guns, a pivot in the corporate vision to what you describe- a move towards catering to the hyper wealthy only and moving away from what they built the brand on would be a huge shame.

[Brew]

If they put it on the dime-a-dozen watches, it wouldn't be desirable.

[Chadridv]

I've been saying it for a while...

Steel VS Gold Oyster Flex

But Rolex is in the exclusivity game, not the practicality game. All about creating demand.

[mcnealstash]

Originally Posted by Chadridv

I've been saying it for a while...

Steel VS Gold Oyster Flex

But Rolex is in the exclusivity game, not the practicality game. All about creating demand.

DANGGGGGGGGGGG- That black dial SS on OF looks great. Thanks for posting this. I'd love to slap an explorer 2 on an OF...

[904VT]

Rolex has a rule that they don't allow SS on anything but a SS bracelet. Only PM gets straps. That being said the OF is technically a bracelet, so you never know but I do doubt it will ever make the SS models.

[904VT]

Originally Posted by subdateII

Yes! The all gold Daytona 116508 & 116509 were released in 2016 same year as the ceramic stainless steel. What does it mean? Can’t truly understand since ceramic is per Rolex the better material for bezels.

Maybe compared to Aluminum, but not SS or PM imo

[Seibei]

Everest has you covered!

[locutus49]

This. People seem not to grasp that exclusive luxury goods - the goal of Rolex for the last decade or two - are both expensive and hard to get. Whether that is good or bad depends upon your perspective.

Originally Posted by Chadridv

I've been saying it for a while...

Steel VS Gold Oyster Flex

But Rolex is in the exclusivity game, not the practicality game. All about creating demand.

[ap1]

Originally Posted by amh

Better question - will they ever get rid of the oysterflex and offer metal bracelets on those models?

Yes please

[othertbone]

I would't think Rolex would do this.

[Danny83]

They may they usually do stuff to pm models first