Horological Meandering

Hi

This is hopefully going to trigger some serious debate....

Rolex DOES NOT produce ;

1. Perpetual Calendars or EOTs

2. Annual Calendars

3. Watches with Retrograde displays

4.Regulators

5. Moon Phase displays

6. Alarm watches

7.  Power reserves

8. World Timers

9. Pointer Dates

10. Jumping Hour Displays

11. Skeleton Watches

12. Oh  did I forget the Minute Repeater and the Tourbillions and the Grand Sonneries..

The only complications ( if one might indulge in the word) that Rolex produces are ;

1. a Chronograph ( Daytona); 

2. a GMT ( simply a marked bezel that can be clicked into place at will).

3. day-date ( president) watch

4. The yatchmaster ( not sure if this deserves a mention)

5. Watches with greater water resistance ( I am resisting from calling a Divers watch a complication)

Unfailingly, year after year, they churn out simple three handed watches all under 42 mm ( except perhaps the Yachtmaster and the Sea Dweller) with/ without the date and to top it all "NO CRYSTAL BACKS" . Yet Rolex manages to sell several hundred thousand watches a year.

WHY and HOW is that possible when every other "MANUFATURE" speaks of the best movement, the newest complication, the latest metallurgical novelty, dials, and (UN)Limited Editions.

regards

Narsi

...and after all, they have been pretty successful throughout some pretty bad time in the watch industry.

While I have some criticisms of Rolex, none of them are the same as yours, many of which seem more about horological trendiness than basic watchmaking. And, by the way, the Rolex GMT is more than a 24-hour movable bezel - look it up, they invented the genre.

I agree, it is admirable to produce fantastic complications; there are many talented individuals producing such movements in the tens and some larger firms producing them in the thousands. In my view it is also admirable to be consistently able to produce well designed and reliable watches with good horological values in the hundreds of thousands. That's one thing Rolex and a few others can do really well.

One think I like about the continuing education of the public and the emergence of other brands which epitomise expensive haute horologie is that Rolex can be once more viewed as an honest watchmaker, rather than just a purveyor of status symbols. I like it when people say they bought brand X or Y instead of Rolex because Rolex is too commonplace. Now they can be better evaluated purely on the quality of their product.

MENTALITY. Mentality of the people at the helm who are correctly undeterred by trends. By staying the course set forth by their founders, they stay within the culture emanating from figuratively, every inch of their manufacturing location. They feel safe doing so and are rewarded accordingly by peace of mind in adhering to their "code" as well as by the sheer number of people who continue to buy their watches, however "common", "old", "conservative" they are. Just my own two cents.

on what they do and they do it good so maybe you could say they are not as daring as the other brands  i have often asked the same question too it will be interesting to read everyones response.

If it ain't broke, don't fix it. What they are doing is working. It has worked for many years. They have smart people there. I'm sure if they thought they needed to change their business model, they would do so. Right now they have the largest, most loyal, customer base in the watch world. I'm not sure why they would want to do anything different than what is clearly working wonderfully.

Glenn

and they have succeed without any doubt, if they would make them more complicated they would not be that strong anymore

 

thave true purpose in daily like , a true good looking and robust 'tool watch'.
Less is more.
It's like how Patek will keep to their traditional approach in their watchmaking.
I find the approach of Rolex very respectable. I love the brand more and more each day
*CL

To JLC, VC, Patek and a few others a vast family of complications...

To Rolex the fundamentals: Tool Watches which tell in any cirucmstances the Time.

Rolex do what they know to do, and they excell in that.

Besides, it's a sign of strength to follow your own way, without trying to do like the others, IMO.

So, Kudos to " Horlogerie Exquise " ( Rolex being a contraction of that appellation, in French ).

Best,

Nicolas

rolex is not one of my top brands......

Mainly because they do not manufacture complications and they produce a lot of watches....

But.....

They make extremely reliable watches, with probably the best waterproof resistance....

They do have a classic design and their vintages are very desirable....

So.....

although no complications one has to admit that Rolex is one of the leading brands in the industry....
and one that retains its value more than most others....

Cheers

..To suggest Rolex do not make complications....making automatic waterproof chronometres in the mid '30's was complicated....so complicated it took many brands a quarter of the length of the history of the wristwatch to catch up. Which they eventually did (by semi outsourcing). A fat clockwatch with a skeleton back does'nt have the same reverence with the watch buying world....at least thats what the numbers suggest.

that most people would regard an automatic waterproof watch as a complication.....

Complications cost more, so numbers of sales are relative.....

As far as a "simplistic" is concerned, readers can judge by themselves.....

......

.....Audemars and Patek teamed up with Jaeger and dragged Gerald into the plot cause the job of pulling off a slim auto waterproof  watch was uncomplicated. Granted there was no moon phase in the plot but they can all do that individually.   This message has been edited by C.vallely5 on 2010-01-09 14:45:46

comparing complications of today or of the 30s?

As far as your facts, I would not describe them as simplistic as you did with my opinion but I would let this community judge them....

........

...were not scratching thier heads in the '30's, they were doing that a full forty years later...perhaps because the complications of arriving at your own waterproof automatic design (that actually works/especially a thin one) had not got any easier.Were thier efforts more troublesome than pointer dates, regulator dials and skeleton backs? If the answer to that is yes then what does that say about Rolex 40 years earlier, half the brands had'nt even dreamt of an automatic never mind a waterproof case that works. Am i compairing stuff executed in the '30's...yes i'm compairing everything everyones ever done not merely the latest gorgeous red pointer limited edition. Rolex's designed worked, digital indication for example never, re-ashing it and pretending it's high horology will admittedly go down a treat in some quarters but not down this St. i'm afraid.

What the heck does the development of the 920/2120 (and PP version) and the Royal Oak/Nautilus have to do with this discussion?

"Highly water intrusion resistent" cases were no easy feat in the early mid 20th C.

Comparing that to the development of reliable perpetuals or whatever "complication" of interest in this discussion, makes about as much sense as comparing the technology of sending someone to the moon and asking why it took till the 2000's for more than a few cars to get gas mileage that Honda achieved in production engines fitted to production cars in the 1970s - 1980s.

"It's complicated" but mostly for non-technical reasons.

I know of a few aerospace engineers (design and production) that would probably solve 98% of the "problems" the watch industry, even the high mech segment of it, very easily and quickly, relatively speaking.

Again, not to make like of any of the achievements of Rolex, Patek, or Seiko, but most of the issues are not technological but rather ...

TM

No message body

Comparing that to the development of reliable perpetuals or whatever "complication" of interest in this discussion, makes about as much sense as comparing the technology of sending someone to the moon and asking why it took till the 2000's for more than a few cars to get gas mileage that Honda achieved in production engines fitted to production cars in the 1970s - 1980s.

"It's complicated" but mostly for non-technical reasons.

 

Afternoon Thomas,

                                   For my post not to make sense then it would have to be determined that complications within case construction does'nt exist, or if it might do.. then it does not come under that banner in this thread, even if it does by the brand manafacturers themselfs. That said if we ever discover that complications do actually exsist within case construction/design then evaluating the mountain climbed may well give a viewer a better understanding of what they are actually buying opposed to leaning on the nearest limited edition denominator.

Hi, Ms. Catherine,

I suspect we are in closer agreement on the basic points than we might appear.

Context is everything in communication.

I agree highly water resistent (even this terminology is anachronistic - back "then" there no qualms about "water proof") watch cases produced in large series were no small feat back when Rolex (didn't they also use another commercial name back then as well?) Took the leadership position before it became fairly easy to achieve with advances in machining and seals design and production.

But honestly, comparing screw backs with appropriate seals; screw down crown LOCKS (the screw down crown itself was not intended to provide water reistence, just the correct compression and locking for the stem tube seals) with the engineering difficulties of making reliable, repeatable movement complications, are like comparing apples to oranges - similar but oh so different.

Don't get me wrong, I am not belittling the achievements of either, I just have trouble when either camp wants to compare and draw conclusions of superiority of one philosophy over another.

History is littered with stories od companies that diworsified outside their core competencies (or just as bad, their core markets, which is a different problem)

And history also is aglow with companies that expanded, even evolved, beyond their narrow niches.

Conclusion for me?

It ain't so simple as to say...

But honestly, comparing screw backs with appropriate seals; screw down crown LOCKS (the screw down crown itself was not intended to provide water reistence, just the correct compression and locking for the stem tube seals) with the engineering difficulties of making reliable, repeatable movement complications, are like comparing apples to oranges - similar but oh so different.

Don't get me wrong, I am not belittling the achievements of either, I just have trouble when either camp wants to compare and draw conclusions of superiority of one philosophy over another.

 

......I would actually agree with you Thomas....if watch companies sold thier wares uncased....but they don't, so i and everyone i know normaly consider the three sections of a wristwatch to be one and the same ' a lot '. Word on the street is thats exactly how watch companies also see it. If anyone on the tinternet feels a concentric date indication somehow trumps the snapback waterproof Nautilus case then thats fine and dandy, fortunately i cannot possibly allow my mind to be had on such matters. The original poster skated over the waterproof issue very speedily like it was worth half a sentence, of course the truth is that when Rolex pulled up the waterproof automatic they actuall- factually-historically left everyone for dead and the tills have not stopped t-chinging for 80 years because they chose the correct route(complication), to say they rang the bell would be the understatement of the year. The trouble with case complications is they can look a bit matter of fact after they have been invented/shown but skeleton work and suchlike is very much 'the seen' and so will much more easilly ensnare.

 A question for you Thomas, am i correct in thinking you do not feel that a Ocean 2000 (or was it 3000M....from a12MM case) to be a complication but a modular Breitling Transocean would qualify? 

"Am I correct in thinking..."

Catherine - No you are not correct in thinking that.

Nowhere in any of my posts in this thread have I used "complication" to refer to case making because that is not colloquial and generally accepted usage of the term in the field of watchmaking and to do so would add needless complication to the discussion.

That water resistant case making is a significant TECHNICAL breakthrough and achievement in its time, and no less important to "watches" as a whole, as any MOVEMENT complication (in the jargon sense of the world in the field of horology) is not anything that I diagreed with, and in fact I repeatedly made mention of.

But I suspect you knew that already.

Context is everything, Catherine, in communication - the context of the presenter, and the context of the presentee.

It usually helps if one side tries to understand the other.

Afterall, without a little attempt to understand the other person's context, most communication ends up with one side trying to "force" the other into a box instead of reaching mutual understanding.

The former is fine, if that's what one wants, but count me out, I have zero interest to waste time and energy in that.

Cheers,

TM

....Nowhere in any of my posts in this thread have I used "complication" to refer to case making because that is not colloquial and generally accepted usage of the term in the field of watchmaking and to do so would add needless complication to the discussion.

...Thats probably it right in this sentence Thomas because folk i have chatted with do use the word 'complicated' to describe a technical watchcase without any force from me...in fact i seem to recall at least two watch brands using the word for the same end not too long back. 

 

Because, try as I might to "read through" the typos and turns of phrase (I'm typing on a BB so I can easily accept typos; so long as I can confidently "read through" them) I am having great difficulty following the point(s) you are trying to make.

As a parting note on this sub-thread, a few thoughts (not meant to be gospel "truth" or "correct" but qualified as I will as follows)

1. In over 3 decades of actively collecting and following the industry, and talking to and interacting with various people in the industry from designers to case makers to dial makers, hands, movement components; directors and CEOs and PR spokespersons, et al, only recently (within the last few years) have I heard reference to "complicated cases."

I dismissed this as yet another example of "marketing speak" akin to the over abundance of movement complications that were answers to questions no one asked.

I fully accept I could have been too quick to dismiss and reach my conclusion. But again, until very recently, I had never heard reference to "complication" in reference to a case (don't confuse with "a complicated case" which is quite common usage) whereas "complication" is universally understood shorthand for movement complications.

The semantic digression, though, just distracts from what I thought was the substance of the discussion -

2. Water / moisture resistance integrity of cases was and is a major concern of watchmaking, just as tribology was and is, just as interchangeability of parts; just as rough cut precision and final mechanical functional finishing; just as stability of dial finishes and longevity of luminous, etc etc etc.

Believe me, owning a Rolex Jubilee dial with unsightly "blooming" of the luminous "dots" on my high school graduation present makes this a VERY important and personal matter for me.

3. Any and all of the above are important in the world of watchmaking.

Is waterproof case integrity MORE signicant than temp variance stable balances and springs?

Is a properly designed and executed tourbillon (interesting to note that tourbillons took 1st, 2nd, and 3rd place in the recent Chronometry Trials) more significant than a beautifully glowing Dufour or Voutilainen or Corson movement?

Is a properly tuned and reliable striking watch movement more "art" than a perfectly executed painted enamel dial?

I leave that for others, FOR THEMSELVES, to decide.

I know what I feel, FOR MYSELF. I wouldn't dare try to imply that I am "right" and that others have to agree with me.

4. Rolex' "waterproof" case breakthroughs were and are important.

Their overall very reliable, robust, and "accurate" movements are impressive.

Do I think those are the "real" reasons they can produce and "sell" (to their dealers) 800,000 to 1,000,000 watches a year?

I don't think so.

But what do I know?

5. I'm all for going off topic and pushing the boundaries of a discussion, but if the OP has any relevance to how a discussion develops, the context the OP had in mind is important and subsequent posts in that thread should be mindful of that.

Otherwise, start a new thread.

Again, that's just my opinion.

Cheers,

TM

1. In over 3 decades of actively collecting and following the industry, and talking to and interacting with various people in the industry from designers to case makers to dial makers, hands, movement components; directors and CEOs and PR spokespersons, et al, only recently (within the last few years) have I heard reference to "complicated cases."

....It's a term you've also heard, with you type about forceful speak i was begining to think i'd imagined it. That said i think if you don't give up and look a little deeper into it ...you might just find that folk in horological circles before the time you were chatting to industry insiders were terming clock cases complicated and noteing why exactly they were complicated and why the makers all that way back would not be keen to team complicated movements with complicated cases (8171 non oyster/somethings never change). When i was younger i also thought the movement complication ruled ok until someone spelt out in idiot proof terminology why a london free standing plum pudding regulator without mercury pendulum costs/realises more monies than a honduras mahoghany with mercury pendulum. The pendulum could be made by many people but the case could'nt successfully for love nor money....it was complicated (ion).....rarer and costlier.

Their main focus is just watches whereas many other manufacturers are primarily offering micromechanical works of art ;-).

Heinrich 

a lot of the responses focus on the reliability of Rolex watch, which I do not doubt although I have never owned any Rolex.  (Please no funny comment on that!)   Having said that, I wonder if the marginal reliability over some other brands, would be enough to make up for the COMPLETE lack of interesting complications.  

Note that I'm not trying to draw a comparison as to which brands would be most reliable, AFTER Rolex.   I'm more so asking in a sense that say Brand X is the most reliable watch, in your mind, after Rolex.    Wouldn't you prefer Brand X for the marginal sacrifice in reliability in exchange for a world of wonderful and interesting complication?   I know I would and I have done exactly that!

But I do understand I might be of minority as otherwise Rolex would have gone bust or changed their approach long time ago? 

This message has been edited by Jester on 2010-01-10 02:04:56

..actually, "No" in my case. I am old enough to remember when mechanical watches were mere tools and for which there were no alternatives. To me, the goal of producing a reliable and accurate and timepieces consistently is the highest goal of watchmaking. Complications are a matter of individual taste which shouldn't trump the basics of watchmaking. In my opinion, of course.

I guess that's where it differs in terms of purpose of buying watches, at least between me & you.    To me the different complications/finishing is a form of art, which I can almost related to, given my engineering background.   And I consider that  a priviledge to be able to afford and enjoy that.    Somehow in my biased mind, if I really want a reliable watch to serve the function of telling time, I'd probably just get a quartz!    I think I'd better stop here!  

It's just that to me quartz seems 'too easy' and not very enterprising. I guess I'm from a mechanical age and appreciate things that are achieved mechanically. Funny though, my whole career has been in attending to the wants of digital electronic devices.

You cannot expect us to let this go by......lol

Besides Panerai used rolex in their watches.......

Seriously though, why would you say that Rolex is marginally more reliable than other watch makers?

Cheers

I'm not exactly trying to 'quantify' that difference but I'm sure in your mind, there's a brand that's closely behind Rolex in terms of reliability right?   And I'm willing to bet that particular brand probably produce a wee bit more interesting complication than Rolex right?   If so, my question is would you forgo that marginal improvement in reliability and go for something more horologically entertaining?  

Please refer to my lawyer regarding my position of not owning any Rolex!