So have Rolex taken us for a ride with this new Ceramic Bezel?

[bandityo]

They should just make it plastic..No scratches and not brittle...

[Fiery]

Originally Posted by bandityo

They should just make it plastic..No scratches and not brittle...

Plastic doesn't scratch?

[looking to buy]

The last one was cracked by a little girl swinging her keys and they hit the watch. Now stop and think. Little kids are wild creatures with lots of energy and emotion. I would imagine that there was a lot of force and that force was concentrated on one small section of the bezel. Maybe a tip of the key hit the bezel and it did chip near the inner ring. So, my guess is that it was just a fluke accident.

However JJ, I will buy your TT for 50% of retail to save you the pain of wondering what will happen.

[DWdrummer]

Originally Posted by JJ Irani

The Ceramic full gold version was introduced in 2005, the TT in 2006 and the SS in 2007.

How many more poor customers have to undergo losses before we wake up to the reality of the situation?

The new Subs and the DSSD are supposed to be rough & tumble dive watches with BRITTLE bezels. Imagine a professional diver down to some great depth and then accidentally smacking his bezel against a coral outcrop or some such similar hard object!!

I leave the rest to your imagination.

JJ

I have to agree here. While I think the GMT IIc is stunning. I dont care for ceramics on a watch bezel. Ceramic by its nature IS brittle and as such prone to cracking and shattering. They can harden it up to a point but it never going to take the abuse of a good old fashioned aluminum or steel bezel insert. There are trade offs to everything in life, and while ceramic looks awesome, it might not be up to the task at hand on a Rolex watch. Time will tell, no pun intended.

[TattooedGQ]

Great Question JJ, I was hell bent on either a GMTIIc or a DSSD, but after hearing who's chipped, who's popped out, who's cracked, I'm seriously reconsidering. Beautiful watches, but I like my sports models to be just that, sports models. Hell my Sub is so beat to hell I'm embarrassed to take pics of it before I get her serviced again....but at least my bezel is intact!

[Akira]

Originally Posted by Fiery

I got a Rado Sintra for my wife for xmas. At purchase they resized it, but the guy (watch mechanic) was super careful not to break anything. It went fine, but took ages to remove the unnecessary links from the bracelet. 2 days later my wife had second thoughts about the bracelet config (she felt it's too loose), so we went back to the shop to have one more link removed. This time it was another watch mechanic at shift, and he said he needs half an hour to remove the link, since he gotta be careful. We left the watch there, went back 30 mins later. The mechanic greeted us with a strange face: "I'm sorry guys, but one of the links has broken while removing it". He tried to put it to the previous mechanic ("Maybe he wasn't careful enough and not broke but made one link weak"), but we've insisted that he fix it. He said he didn't have any spare links, but that he can order one after xmas. I was quite upset, since the watch was supposed to be a xmas present. So I insisted to have it fixed somehow, and then the mechanic took another Rado from the shop window, removed the good link from it and put it into my wife's watch bracelet.

So to sum up: yes, ceramic is brittle. And it can probably outlast you, but only if you baby it. I have to agree, it's not a good idea to put a ceramic bezel on a tool watch (DSSD, Sub), but I must say, I think it's a very good idea to put it on a dressy sports watch (GMT IIC, Daytona -- one day maybe).

Rolex soon may become not the company you all guys know, but for a newcomer like me (who will probably get his first Rolex in a couple of months) ceramic bezel is a true appeal that would drive me to this brand. Ceramic bezel looks stunning (so as Rado watches), and I personally am very careful with my watches, so it would be a very-very unfortunate occasion when I can break the bezel.

And quite frankly, if you can afford to get e.g. a $30K car, then you should be able to have it serviced for $5K if an unfortunate accident happens. Same goes for Rolex: if you can afford to get a $7K..$10K model with a ceramic bezel, you should be able to afford getting a new bezel for $1K if the worst thing happens...

Thanks for your post, mate, very interesting as case with RADO.
And agree with you, at this point, will buy the new SUB when it will come on the market.

[Dan Pierce]

In an effort of full disclosure I prefer the more versatile classic GMT II. Having said that, I think we WIS's tend to over amplify these perceived improvements and/ or problems.
An overwhelming majority will never have a bezel problem with their GMT IIc, EVER!! My GMT II doesn't have the new fancy, schmancy parchrome [spelling??] hairspring, yet runs -1 sec after being worn for 5 days!
I have to laugh when I read how much better the 3186, wiggle test and all, is compared to that cheap, inferior 3185 crap. Don't get hung up on the hype.
Don't sweat it! Everythin' gonna be alright.
dP

[kilyung]

JJ: do you treat your YM like a tool watch? It costs a staggering sum to replace that bezel/insert as well. I hate to say it but IMHO the GMTIIc's nature was changed when Rolex made it with PCL and ceramic bezel. However I've come to accept my 116710 for what it now is and simply take the same precautions as I do with my scratch prone (yet much loved) YM.

[TattooedGQ]

Originally Posted by JJ Irani

And while we are on the topic of Ceramics, how do RADOs (heaven forbid) some of which are entirely made of Ceramics, stand up to knocks and bumps?

Well JJ, my bottom of the line 1996/97ish (whenever it first came out) Rado Xeramo was my daily watch for years...and still to this day not a scratch, chip, or mark on it.

[WatchForLife]

I certainly share the concerns about durability of the ceramic bezel on any new rolex. Ceramic materials are known to be brittle. For this reason they are typically used in applications with thick cross sections and low stress/impact. Everybody wants to use them for look and feel properties and scratch resistance but only few can due to the limitations. Formability, colorability and processing is also very limited.
The PVD plating on the bezel might also become a problem over time... adhesion, wear, discoloration, etc... many mobile phones use PVD chrome plating on plastic. If Rolex have done proper long term end use testing on the bezel it should be at least as good as the previous one....(not sure what they were thinking when decided on PCL).

[mike]

Originally Posted by Dan Pierce

In an effort of full disclosure I prefer the more versatile classic GMT II. Having said that, I think we WIS's tend to over amplify these perceived improvements and/ or problems.
An overwhelming majority will never have a bezel problem with their GMT IIc, EVER!! My GMT II doesn't have the new fancy, schmancy parchrome [spelling??] hairspring, yet runs -1 sec after being worn for 5 days!
I have to laugh when I read how much better the 3186, wiggle test and all, is compared to that cheap, inferior 3185 crap. Don't get hung up on the hype.
Don't sweat it! Everythin' gonna be alright.
dP

Nicely said Dan.

[ingoodtime]

I'll say this, with a 7 3/4 - 8 inch wrist, why do I have to spend 7 thousand on a SS watch and have to BUY an extra link so it fits? Of course, to maximize profit for Rolex. Now, is the ceramic bezel a calculated idea to help them raise their profits repair parts?

Personally, I don't believe that was their intention. Products become stale without new innovation. Especially in todays world where people are bombarded with information from TV/radio and computers. In the past, Rolex has managed to attract buyers worldwide without really altering the look of their product while the rest of the world changed their designs frequently. Rolex has had subtle changes which has probably helped keep the value up on the older pieces. Not everyone watch shopping is a WIS so some flash and pizaaz may be needed here and there to attract them to the Rolex brand. (PCL anyone?). Plus, Rolex has had the chance to see how some of their product ages over time and decided to use a process that would help certain parts "age" more gracefully since they know many of us hand our watches down to family and the watches survive for generations.

Smacking the bezel in 10 degree weather may have more of an affect than in 80 degree weather. Plus, for the amount of ceramic bezel watches sold, what percentage of problems do we have. Are we making mountains out of molehills?

I think RADO is one watchmaker that uses ceramic in many of their watches and has been for years. Has anyone cheked a RADO board to see if their owners are having problems with chips and cracks? I'd be interested in this and may nose around a few RADO sites ASAP after new years. Invicta has used ceramics in the not so distant past as have a few other less well known brands. Some complaints have been with the ceramic wearing where bracelet links rub together and also that the outer color was not the same as the inner color which showed after some wear marks occurred.

To sum up;

No, I don't think it was calculated to raise profits but, that might be the end result.

[Bullyterrier]

Originally Posted by kilyung

JJ: do you treat your YM like a tool watch? It costs a staggering sum to replace that bezel/insert as well. I hate to say it but IMHO the GMTIIc's nature was changed when Rolex made it with PCL and ceramic bezel. However I've come to accept my 116710 for what it now is and simply take the same precautions as I do with my scratch prone (yet much loved) YM.

Thats it Rolex have now just a line of dress watches.

[The GMT Master]

I think we're perhaps blowing things out of proportion here, guys. This is the danger of a worldwide internet forum, a few cases suddenly becomes a huge problem. Firstly, consider just how many ceramic bezelled Rolexes there are out there - by now, they'll be numbering in their tens of thousands. The number of cases on this forum (by my count) are around 5 or 6 damaged bezels, of which Rolex have been extremely accomodating, and replaced them without a fuss. We seem to be forgetting that the aluminium bezels weren't faultless either - they faded, picked up dents, and were certainly not as perfect as some seem to be insinuating. As with any manufactured product, there's bound to be rare cases where a component fails - it happens.

If you ask me, I for one am not going to get worried about this at all. It's clear that it's an issue in the extreme minority, and they only break in what can only be described as freak circumstances. Just relax for a moment, TRF, and look at the bigger picture, and then you'll realise it's nowhere near as bad as it seems. Just as an addendum, I've been working at an AD for the past two years, and since ceramic bezels were introduced, we must have sold somewhere between 30 or 40 ceramic bezelled Rolexes. Not one single issue with the bezel, and that, for me, is vindication that there isn't an issue here.

Ceramic is here, and I'm certain it'll stand the test of time. Don't let the scaremongers put you off

All the best

Chris

[padi56]

Originally Posted by Dan Pierce

In an effort of full disclosure I prefer the more versatile classic GMT II. Having said that, I think we WIS's tend to over amplify these perceived improvements and/ or problems.
An overwhelming majority will never have a bezel problem with their GMT IIc, EVER!! My GMT II doesn't have the new fancy, schmancy parchrome [spelling??] hairspring, yet runs -1 sec after being worn for 5 days!
I have to laugh when I read how much better the 3186, wiggle test and all, is compared to that cheap, inferior 3185 crap. Don't get hung up on the hype.
Don't sweat it! Everythin' gonna be alright.
dP

Well Dan 100% agree with you and yes agree that sometimes the Rolex hype and bullsh#t often baffles brains over pure logic.People forget that Rolex watches over the past 4 decades have shown tremendous accuracy and longevity of life.And all without parachrome hairspings and IMHO perhaps the only advantage it has over the Nivorax ones.Is if you wear your watch dial down with the case back off,with a magnet dangling over it then perhaps a advantage.If not would doubt in the real world to show any real advantage except now Rolex can say 100% in-house built.

[Fiery]

Originally Posted by ingoodtime

To sum up;

No, I don't think it was calculated to raise profits but, that might be the end result.

I don't think profit motivated Rolex either. I reckon they simply just wanna conquer new territories. Just as Mercedes did when they introduced the new C-Class (W204) in 2007 -- they wanted to reach the younger generation of drivers. So as Rolex is doing this by introducing new models (DSSD), moving some models to dressy levels while keeping others on the tool watch level. I'm sure they will have more customers due to the recent and upcoming changes.

IMHO the GMT was never meant to be a tool watch. If you fly overseas (either by a pilot or a passenger) you don't need a tool watch or a watch that can withstand heavy abusement. If you can understand and appreciate the PCL and the polished bezel on the Daytona SS, then the GMT IIC should also be easy to understand with its shiny looks. Current owners and long & faithful Rolex customers may nag about the new innovations and the changes going around their favorite brand, but I'm sure the same happened back in the '60s, '70s and '80s when Rolex introduced sapphire crystal, date (on the Sub) and other innovations. I'm sure 20 years from now noone will remember the ceramic bezel and the PCL as a stepback.

(The SS Sub-C is of course a different subject -- even I don't think PCL would look good on it)

[daveathall]

If we take a look at some of the Rolex watches £4K for a GMTIIc, £3.5K for a Sub, owners (unless very rich) are gonna be looking after their watches, very few people here would like to scratch their investment of £4K, fact is, at that price can it truly be considered a tool watch? who buys them? probably office workers more than divers and the military, if you want a tool watch, look at the excellent G shock and Seiko watches.

This next comment will probably bring all hell, fire and brimstone around me, but, here goes, big breath. Because of the price and materials of their watches, I am not convinced that Rolex actually do make a tool watch anymore, robust yes, tool no.

Time to batten down the hatches methinks.

[JBat]

Originally Posted by STEELINOX

What ROLEX shuld do is come up with an alternate Bezel system, and offer it as an option. But that wont happen, cause then they cant get the prices they get for ceramic insert replacement; its all designed to "attract" and "maximize return" (justifying price increases) AND "maximize future return" for 'chipped' or slightly damaged; imagine ROLEX saying that they cant just replace the insert b/c the reason the thing is chipped is the bezel seat has been dinged and wont seat the thing properly !

That's a good idea, Randy. The thing is, they could still charge exorbitant prices for ceramic bezel replacements for those who chose to buy watches with them.

[1000ftSub]

The ceramic bezel sure does look nice thou.

[Speed]

Well, the only think Ceramic I can afford right now is a flower vase...I will have to read on with interest what you all experience with your new skool Rolexes for some time. Wah wah wah...

[STEELINOX]

Originally Posted by JJ Irani

And while we are on the topic of Ceramics, how do RADOs (heaven forbid) some of which are entirely made of Ceramics, stand up to knocks and bumps?
JJ

I once owned a RADO DiaStar, and though the only part made of ceramic was the casing and quite heavy due to thick walls, the thing was a tank.

Originally Posted by Playdrv4me

Seriously? Is this topic going to come up every day?...
Yes, it will, cause ROLEX has by creating these "glass" bezels caused an uncertainty in this 'very small' community putting doubt about them.


Rolex KNOWS that their customer-base is one of the most loyal in the world... They obviously chose the "don't mess with a good thing" approach for ALONG time.ROLEX customer base has changed with the advent of cell phones and other devices that hava clock
The first Rolex I fell in love with was a 16610 and it will always be "my first", but I've moved on and find the new GMT and Sub series absolutely gorgeous and awesome in their own ways. Its effeminate to me when guys "gush", but hey, thats ok !Rolex has given me exactly what I've asked for in a clasp style that not only competes, but EXCEEDS BREITLING has a milled clasp section so simple a monkey can assemble it ! Alls ROLEX needed to do was mill a clasp section outta block, insert a couple of bearing blocks and a machined fliplock and blingo ! that of other watchmaker's milled steel deployants, solid links that will stretch MUCH MUCH less easily than the hollow ones and result in a firmer, more solid feeling bracelet, and a fatter case that gives just a LITTLE of that Panerai taste without being huge. Please, ROLEX has lines like a PAM??The bezel? Meh, it's not my first choice but ya know what, I love the very unique, almost chrome-like reflective properties of it, and ESPECIALLY the scratch-proofing. It grew on me fairly quckly.The Bling Team President and CEO !

Gotta say though, PCLs on the Sub is gonna be a move they'll regret if they don't watch what they're messing with. I have a good feeling though that it will not be.I have said that all along; its just not gonna happen

Like someone said before... Forums are a microcosm of reality, The thing of it is that in fact it only represents a small sampling of customers, BUT divi that by world population of ROLEX wearers and the numbers then are more representative

Originally Posted by kilyung

JJ: do you treat your YM like a tool watch? It costs a staggering sum to replace that bezel/insert as well. Its made of PLAT, so of course it costs more - DOH !

Originally Posted by WatchForLife

I certainly share the concerns about durability of the ceramic bezel on any new rolex. Ceramic materials are known to be brittle. For this reason they are typically used in applications with thick cross sections and low stress/impact. Everybody wants to use them for look and feel properties and scratch resistance but only few can due to the limitations. Formability, colorability and processing is also very limited.
The PVD plating on the bezel might also become a problem over time... adhesion, wear, discoloration, etc... many mobile phones use PVD chrome plating on plastic. If Rolex have done proper long term end use testing on the bezel it should be at least as good as the previous one....(not sure what they were thinking when decided on PCL).Agree.

Originally Posted by ingoodtime

I'll say this, with a 7 3/4 - 8 inch wrist, why do I have to spend 7 thousand on a SS watch and have to BUY an extra link so it fits? Of course, to maximize profit for Rolex. Now, is the ceramic bezel a calculated idea to help them raise their profits repair parts?
I think it is ! Because of more people using c-phones for time, the BLING TEAMs of the world just dont wear watches as much anymore, so ROLEX needs a "Catch" or a "Bling Component" to attract some of these peeps to their product, its not rocket science !
Personally, I don't believe that was their intention. Products become stale without new innovation. ROLEX and stale in the same sentence =Especially in todays world where people are bombarded with information from TV/radio and computers. In the past, Rolex has managed to attract buyers worldwide without really altering the look of their product while the rest of the world changed their designs frequently. Rolex has had subtle changes which has probably helped keep the value up on the older pieces. Not everyone watch shopping is a WIS so some flash and pizaaz may be needed here Yes, you are one of the few that understands this concept !and there to attract them to the Rolex brand.

Originally Posted by Bullyterrier

Thats it Rolex have now just a line of dress watches.

Unfortunately, YES !

Originally Posted by Fiery

I don't think profit motivated Rolex either. I reckon they simply just wanna conquer new territories. All whilst losing "old" and creating a very vibrant vintage market !

IMHO the GMT was never meant to be a tool watch.Uh, I am a pilot and I used a GMT, I open engine cowlings and stick my hand inside and check the oil and bounce all around the inside, so yeah, IT IS A TOOL. Even airline pilots inspect tiny places with their very own appendages and that means THEIR ROLEXs get bounced around sharp areas too ! If you fly overseas (either by a pilot or a passenger) you don't need a tool watch or a watch that can withstand heavy abusement.

Thanks,
Randy !

[spuds]

I work in construction & although I'm "management" I'm pretty tough on my watches.

I had an Explorer II as my daily wearer for YEARS with never a problem (although I did go through TWO o'those damn tin-foil clasps) & I've gotta admit the whole brittle ceramic/weak clasp issue worries me somewhat.

& when I asked my AD if they'd heard any issues about the cerachrom (sp?) bezel inserts they told me "No" but then even if they had......
would they really admit it????

[Playdrv4me]

Originally Posted by STEELINOX

I once owned a RADO DiaStar, and though the only part made of ceramic was the casing and quite heavy due to thick walls, the thing was a tank.










Unfortunately, YES !




Thanks,
Randy !

Effeminate because I said I loved a Rolex? Whatever validity there may have been in that entire spiel was lost as soon as you resorted to what bordered on a personal attack...

[STEELINOX]

Originally Posted by Playdrv4me

Effeminate because I said I loved a Rolex? Whatever validity there may have been in that entire spiel was lost as soon as you resorted to what bordered on a personal attack...

alrighty then, !

[spuds]

Originally Posted by ingoodtime

I'll say this, with a 7 3/4 - 8 inch wrist, why do I have to spend 7 thousand on a SS watch and have to BUY an extra link so it fits? .....

You had to PAY for the extra links?!

I have the same size wrist & my AD's already told me that they supply & fit them for nothing with any new Rolex here in the UK.....

[STEELINOX]

PS, its okay to "gush" over things fellas, I do, its just a little effeminate is all - no attack !

[Playdrv4me]

Originally Posted by STEELINOX

PS, its okay to "gush" over things fellas, I do, its just a little effeminate is all - no attack !

[JJ Irani]

Originally Posted by daveathall

..........if you want a tool watch, look at the excellent G shock and Seiko watches.

..............I am not convinced that Rolex actually do make a tool watch anymore, robust yes, tool no.

Time to batten down the hatches methinks.

You took the words right out of my mouth, Dave - very well said!!

Why would a Rolex worth thousands of dollars be in any way associated with the word "TOOL"? Need a tool watch, buy a Casio G-shock.

Rolex is now tending to go more "bling" and less functional. You wear a Rolex for its prestige, hardly for any of its functions - that's the way I see it and that's the way Rolex wants us to see it.

JJ

[pyxis]

Hi, I've a few questions: Anybody know exactly how thick is the ceramic bezel insert? Is it the same thickness all over? And when attached is it supported completely by metal underneath?

By definition, any material that is very hard must necessarily also be very rigid and brittle, especially if thin. There is no such a thing as a material that is both very hard and flexible! Take a look at high end ceramic knives, they maintain a sharp edge for a long time, but will chip or knick if you strike a hard object with enough force, or break if you twist it too hard. So not recemmended for carving the Christmas turkey!

Anybody know the exact price Rolex charge to replace one? Actually I do not think it cost Rolex very much to produce given their quantity. What they charge to replace it is a different matter.

And finally while I understand the sentiments of those who moans about the death of the "tool" Rolex, give a moment thought to where you are supposed to buy your Rolex, which is from your Official Rolex Jeweler! Not your neighbourhood DIY, not your favorite Dives shop! So, a new Rolex is a piece of jewelry, right?

Happy New Year!

[SDDS]

Originally Posted by spuds

I work in construction & although I'm "management" I'm pretty tough on my watches.

I had an Explorer II as my daily wearer for YEARS with never a problem (although I did go through TWO o'those damn tin-foil clasps) & I've gotta admit the whole brittle ceramic/weak clasp issue worries me somewhat.

& when I asked my AD if they'd heard any issues about the cerachrom (sp?) bezel inserts they told me "No" but then even if they had......
would they really admit it????

well said