BLRO--A Rolex Fail ?

[watchwatcher]

Originally Posted by JacksonStone

This argument would hold more water if there were an equally high number of negative comments for all PM models.

I'm not aware there is, so why is the BLRO singled out by the "poor" among us? Is it possible that it's a more polarizing watch due to its bezel colors, and that there are a number of people who genuinely do not like it for aesthetic reasons?

There are haters for every form of PM watch. I've heard them all...the DD doesn't have micro adjustments, the smurf doesn't pop because it's a flat blue, the Daytona bezel is a scratch magnet, etc, etc. I don't think it's an accurate statement to say that the BLRO gets more than its fair share, however.

It's possible that the bezel colors polarize folks. It's also possible that the angst the TRF population felt when their beloved Pepsi was offered in gold has fueled that fire. Would there still be the same polarization if it was offered in steel? Maybe, but I doubt it.

[emersm]

Originally Posted by XZACM1001

From Rolex perspective epic fail indeed. Good thing is they acknowledged it and will make it right.

They did? I must have missed that "letter".

Originally Posted by JacksonStone

This argument would hold more water if there were an equally high number of negative comments for all PM models.

Would it be any more fair or well-founded to claim that those who like it do so simply because they feel a sense of exclusivity due to its cost and would be turned off if it were more financially attainable?

Quite the generalization. For me, I love my BLRO because I think it is a beautiful watch. I could care less about exclusivity.

Also, I've seen PLENTY of negative posts from forum members on other threads with regard to other PM references.

[Roll the Lex]

Originally Posted by ALF61

What I would consider a FAIL, is a product that the manufacturer did not do what it expected. Did it sell as well as forecast ? did it fulfill potential buyer´s expectation ? is it being phased out of production sooner than expected ? is it worth to keep in the production lineup ? Did it explode as a best seller in PM class ? i.e. did it beat the smurf ?

Here's my theory- and it's a far-fetched, left-field theory.

Rolex designed the WG BLRO to be a "limited edition" model from the beginning... they just didn't tell anybody until the last minute for the following reasons:

1) to prop up PM model values compared to SS model values, both when buying new and in the secondary market. Everybody knows PM models BNIB are for suckers or the hopelessly romantic WIS- they depreciate like crazy. The vintage market is littered with SS models highly valued. There is no SS Daytona equivalent of a PM model that I'm aware of. I think Rolex wants to reverse this. PM models are seen as status symbols due to their price and their rarity due to their price. Now make it even more rare as less than XXXX were made in the 4yr period it was produced.

2) to continue to stroke demand for Rolex by limiting output- SS Daytonas have a wait list, a PM model release may or may not be around for too long. If you can afford that WG Coke- better buy one now- my AD told me Rolex is going to discontinue this just like they did with the WG BLRO! It's going to be a collector's item! Imagine if every watch they made had the same craziness like an SS Daytona- Oh, you want an OP grape? Platona? 2year wait and you have to buy 3 SS models first. That would kill Rolex.

3) it keeps Rolex in the news and people talking about them. They don't have to release anything groundbreaking and everybody will talk about the discontinued BLRO.

[AK797]

Originally Posted by watchwatcher

There are haters for every form of PM watch. I've heard them all...the DD doesn't have micro adjustments, the smurf doesn't pop because it's a flat blue, the Daytona bezel is a scratch magnet, etc, etc. I don't think it's an accurate statement to say that the BLRO gets more than its fair share, however.

It's possible that the bezel colors polarize folks. It's also possible that the angst the TRF population felt when their beloved Pepsi was offered in gold has fueled that fire. Would there still be the same polarization if it was offered in steel? Maybe, but I doubt it.

Yup and the only thing worse than being talked about... is not being talked about... as the WG YM2 and WG SkyD guys will tell you, or yell at you from their caves.

[AS1]

Originally Posted by JacksonStone

This argument would hold more water if there were an equally high number of negative comments for all PM models. I'm not aware there is, so why is the BLRO singled out by the "poor" among us? Is it possible that it's a more polarizing watch due to its bezel colors, and that there are a number of people who genuinely do not like it for aesthetic reasons? Would it be any more fair or well-founded to claim that those who like it do so simply because they feel a sense of exclusivity due to its cost and would be turned off if it were more financially attainable?

Honestly, the assertion, "You just don't like it because you can't afford it," sounds about as well-considered as the tired line that Rolex is a brand for status-conscious douchebags with more money than class. Ironically, those who use the former reinforce the latter.

I think with the Pepsi people feel a sense of connection to it from its SS days, and feel that they should be able to have one now in SS.

[JacksonStone]

Originally Posted by emersm

Quite the generalization. For me, I love my BLRO because I think it is a beautiful watch. I could care less about exclusivity.

That was the point. I wasn't making the claim myself. I was showing that the inverse argument is every bit as general, and no more valid.

[emersm]

Originally Posted by JacksonStone

That was the point. I wasn't making the claim myself. I was showing that the inverse argument is every bit as general, and no more valid.

[JacksonStone]

Originally Posted by masterdinh

If this watch was 9k there would be raving reviews all over just like BLNR and LVC. There would be a shortage etc.. Plain and simple.

And you know this how? I don't doubt a stainless BLRO would sell better than the WG one, just as I would guess the Air-King probably sells better than the BLRO, too. That doesn't mean people won't pick apart what they see as a watch's shortcomings just because it's more affordable.

Likewise, an affordable redesign of a revered model doesn't guarantee a success if there is a notable flaw in its design. A 39mm Explorer should have been hailed as a classic and sold like hotcakes. Instead, the T-rex hands on the first version got ripped apart so viciously Rolex finally issued a correction, and that was one of Rolex's most affordable offerings.

The truth is, you don't know why people are voicing their discontent with the BLRO. You're making an assumption that their feelings are financially motivated. I would imagine there are those who take a sour-grapes perspective that a Rolex icon got shifted to elite status, and dislike the watch for that reason. To assume that's the motivation for most criticism, though, invalidates the stated opinions of a lot of people. It also smacks of snobbishness.

Originally Posted by masterdinh

Please don’t put words in my mouth, I never said you don’t like because you can’t afford it.

Not me specifically, no. You just implied it about most people, generally. I don't see how that's any better.

[Feh]

Gorgeous watch. Would I pay $30k for it? Not personally, as it’s difficult to tell white gold from SS. If it was priced like a BLNR or the Hulk, in SS, then I would absolutely go for it.

[JacksonStone]

Originally Posted by emersm

Also, I've seen PLENTY of negative posts from forum members on other threads with regard to other PM references.

As others have said, there are "haters" of every model. Even the black Sub Date gets slammed by dive watch purists who claim the only "real" Submariner is the one without a date. It's anecdotal, but I've seen a lot of posts lusting after the Smurf and the sunburst YG Sub, evidently written by those who either can't afford them, or aren't willing to part with the money. I've also seen posts by people who can afford them, but who don't like them. So far, among the current crop of PM models, only the BLRO has been yanked, despite having been on the market for only half the time as some of the others (or less than one-third the time of the YG anniversary GMT). That would indicate that even among those who can afford the BLRO, a number of them spent their money on other models.

For the record, none of what I say means I think the BLRO is a failure, or an ugly watch. I actually like it, and am sorry to see it go. However, if I were to spend the money on a PM model (I fall into the category of someone who can technically afford one, but who finds the opportunity cost excessive), I can think of a number of others I would get first.

[emersm]

Originally Posted by JacksonStone

So far, among the current crop of PM models, only the BLRO has been yanked, despite having been on the market for only half the time as some of the others (or less than one-third the time of the YG anniversary GMT).

You are assuming that Rolex has "yanked" the BLRO due to poor sales. While it is most certainly a strong possibility and to some, probable, the reality is that it is only speculation at this moment. Rolex may have strategically discontinued the model due to a future PM GMT release at Baselworld, for all we know. We shall see.

[JacksonStone]

Originally Posted by emersm

Rolex may have strategically discontinued the model due to a future PM GMT release at Baselworld, for all we know

I think there is a distinct possibility we will see a newly designed GMT model this year, debuting in WG, with other metal grades to follow in successive years, and the BLRO was pulled to make way for the new release. But even if that's true, the question remains, why would Rolex start with WG? They debuted the current six-digit design in YG, back in '05. If they're making room for a new PM model, why pull one that has only been in circulation for four years, rather than thirteen? One could still argue Rolex went with WG because the current Pepsi isn't selling well, so it was a logical one to replace with the new design.

You're right: it's all speculation. I just see lots of indicators that people's issues with the current BLRO are more multifarious than the oversimplified view that most people cannot afford it.

[emersm]

Originally Posted by JacksonStone

I think there is a distinct possibility we will see a newly designed GMT model this year, debuting in WG, with other metal grades to follow in successive years, and the BLRO was pulled to make way for the new release. But even if that's true, the question remains, why would Rolex start with WG? They debuted the current six-digit design in YG, back in '05. If they're making room for a new PM model, why pull one that has only been in circulation for four years, rather than thirteen? One could still argue Rolex went with WG because the current Pepsi isn't selling well, so it was a logical one to replace with the new design.

You're right: it's all speculation. I just see lots of indicators that people's issues with the current BLRO are more multifarious than the oversimplified view that most people cannot afford it.

You bring up many good points. Always enjoy reading your posts.

[JacksonStone]

Originally Posted by emersm

You bring up many good points. Always enjoy reading your posts.

[mrenvy]

Originally Posted by ALF61

I don´t know if this watch was meant to be produced in small quantities from the start but IMO Rolex slipped when it went to the high end with this watch.



The old pepsi is still a legend, but it was a tool watch and in stainless not WG. The watch is clearly unaffordable to most fans, loses value quickly, the colors are off, and other things that are not common to most attractive Rolex watches.

Rolex still has life into the GMT by way of the popular BLNR, but that is about it. The Root beer is gone, the black bezel and two tone are not doing so hot.



Rolex HAS to come back to the old COKE RONR in SS to inject new life into this line !!

Any Rolex failure will become a precious collectible after 30 years.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[SonnyAK]

I think it's a great PM watch you could daily wear and enjoy without looking too flashy and is one that I will own. I actually prefer the unique color of the bezel and think it's appealing to the eye. The only PM I would want above it would be the platinum Daytona

[Bigblu10]

Originally Posted by mrenvy

Any Rolex failure will become a precious collectible after 30 years.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

The GMT Rootbeer was a Rolex fail. Not quite sure it has become a precious collectible. It is loved by a small niche of watch enthusiasts at best.

[thomaswentworth]

I personally think a white gold modernized version of a stainless steel model is a tough sell since they look so similar. I wonder if they put clear DLC coating on the white gold if that would make it more scratch resistant. For that matter, I wonder if clear DLC coating on stainless steel Rolex models would be a possible future feature that would supposedly make them more scratch resistant.

[Fabrice M]

I think the precious metal was a mistake. It is a tool watch, it started as a steel watch and should have remained so.

[kilyung]

Originally Posted by Fabrice M

I think the precious metal was a mistake. It is a tool watch, it started as a steel watch and should have remained so.

I find the “tool watch” argument perplexing. It’s not a hammer so what does it matter what material it’s made from as long as it still performs its designated function - telling time. So if a watch’s function is to tell time, then any watch that does so can be a tool.

I get that many use ‘robust/durable’ interchangeably with “tool”. So if any Rolex is robust enough while still performing its function, then is it a tool? I challenge anyone to demonstrate that a PM model is any less capable of reasonably surviving anything a steel model can.

I get that Rolex messed with a classic piece in the steel Pepsi but, color aside, I don’t see the same arguments against the YG GMT which is functionally identical. So, it seems to be the WG’s resemblance to the old (non-Bakelite) Pepsi that irks folks.

[fishingbear]

Originally Posted by kilyung

In the event of an EMP, you’d have bigger problems. I have my sundial ring for such an event.

[tyler1980]

Originally Posted by kilyung

I find the “tool watch” argument perplexing. It’s not a hammer so what does it matter what material it’s made from as long as it still performs its designated function - telling time. So if a watch’s function is to tell time, then any watch that does so can be a tool.

I get that many use ‘robust/durable’ interchangeably with “tool”. So if any Rolex is robust enough while still performing its function, then is it a tool? I challenge anyone to demonstrate that a PM model is any less capable of reasonably surviving anything a steel model can.

I get that Rolex messed with a classic piece in the steel Pepsi but, color aside, I don’t see the same arguments against the YG GMT which is functionally identical. So, it seems to be the WG’s resemblance to the old (non-Bakelite) Pepsi that irks folks.

this


Rolex is a luxury watch now, it stopped being a tool watch a long time ago. Sure you can use it as one, but its not in that segment. When the masses obsess about scratches, "is it safe" to wear my watch...., etc. Its not a tool anymore... and im referring to SS watches here.

[amh]

Originally Posted by tyler1980

this


Rolex is a luxury watch now, it stopped being a tool watch a long time ago. Sure you can use it as one, but its not in that segment. When the masses obsess about scratches, "is it safe" to wear my watch...., etc. Its not a tool anymore... and im referring to SS watches here.

Agree. The ceramic bezel in particular disqualifies it from being a true tool watch. It's jewelry.

[RollieRoll]

Originally Posted by GMT Aviator

That’s a fabulous picture. Watch looks great.

Beautiful pic, but heavy PP, of course.

[donq]

Robert Frost, 1874 - 1963

Nature's first green is gold,
Her hardest hue to hold.
Her early leaf's a flower;
But only so an hour.
Then leaf subsides to leaf.
So Eden sank to grief,
So dawn goes down to day.
Nothing gold can stay.

[AK797]

Originally Posted by donq

Robert Frost, 1874 - 1963

Nature's first green is gold,
Her hardest hue to hold.
Her early leaf's a flower;
But only so an hour.
Then leaf subsides to leaf.
So Eden sank to grief,
So dawn goes down to day.
Nothing gold can stay.

Except for everose.

[No SUBctitute]

Originally Posted by AK797

Except for everose.

I'm pretty sure Frost addressed that in the second verse.

[No SUBctitute]

Originally Posted by tyler1980

this


Rolex is a luxury watch now, it stopped being a tool watch a long time ago. Sure you can use it as one, but its not in that segment. When the masses obsess about scratches, "is it safe" to wear my watch...., etc. Its not a tool anymore... and im referring to SS watches here.

I like mechanical watches. I use a watch as an everyday tool because it is important that I know precisely what time it is as I go about my daily schedule, and I don't always have my cell phone or computer in front of me. I thought Rolex was a good choice because it keeps great time for a watch that doesn't need a battery or otherwise rely on a computer, and its known to last for scores of years. The modern case and bracelet are phenomenal and I expect will last a long time. The bezel is great because when I'm going about my day with my tool watch, hits and scrapes that would show up on the former aluminum bezel don't show up on the ceramic bezel. Sure, the ceramic bezel looks great, and, ya, if it breaks then its pricey to replace (although I don't know lots of people running around cracking bezels--seems super rare), but I don't know why either of those things disqualify it from being a tool watch. Great tools can be both expensive and expensive to repair. Whether you are working in an office, a construction site, the ocean, or driving heavy equipment, I think a ceramic-bezeled Rolex is a great tool to have!

[Justindo]

I'm fine with the bezel colors of the watch, but I do think they should have made it in steel, which would have honored the watch's origins, made enthusiasts happy, and created a sales bonanza.

[SteelSubmarinerGuy]

Originally Posted by ALF61

As the OP, I want to apologize to all those BLRO owners that have found joy in their watch. unarguably, there is no ugly Rolex, much less the BLRO in WG. The beauty of the watch is not in question by the FAIL suggestion in my thread title.

What I would consider a FAIL, is a product that the manufacturer did not do what it expected. Did it sell as well as forecast ? did it fulfill potential buyer´s expectation ? is it being phased out of production sooner than expected ? is it worth to keep in the production lineup ? Did it explode as a best seller in PM class ? i.e. did it beat the smurf ?

This is what I intended to bring into question. To all those owners of the BLRO, consider yourselves very fortunate to have the watch and wear it in good health for a long time !!

It’s not a fail, it doesn’t sell as quick as the SS models due to the price. Most wont admit however they won’t pay $38K or $25k pre owned when they can get the BLNR for $9K, IMO the BLRO will never be made in SS however had they made it TRF would say it’s the greatest Rolex ever produced... bottom line all PM watches are slow because it’s a different market and a different buyer.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk