Horological Meandering

Sure, Rolex produces one of the most consistent and reliable simple time telling machines in the world. Their focus on that, and not complications, allow them to excel in the accuracy, consistency and reliability departments over and over again. That's their decision, and it has served them very well over the years.

I totally respect that, and that's the reason why I own some Rolexes. I buy them exactly for those reasons.

I also enjoy interesting complications, so I also buy some pieces from other brands.

Every brand has a focus. Nobody can be the master of all trades. We just need to know what particular qualities we are looking for.

The world is not so black and white.

Jon (Z3)

true... but I would say that one certain brand is at least as accurate as a rolex....

Besides mechanical are more accurate than automatic watches.....

Having said that I do prefer complications.... but there is a time for all watches....

Cheers

And don't kid yourself, in most cases that is how manufacturers "design" their complications. To make a watch that is reliably the most accurate and durable mechanical watch in the world is much more difficult, and Rolex is the absolute owner of that distinction. They don't need to do anything else.

how Swatch, Seiko, and Miyota feel about this statement -

"To make a watch that is reliably the most accurate and durable mechanical watch in the world is much more difficult, and Rolex is the absolute owner of that distinction. "

TM

If they did, we'd see a lot more Breguet balance springs in their product offerings. Just my opinion, of course, but (with the possible exception of Omega's co-axial movements) they pretty much seem to have conceded the field to Rolex.

I just really would like some of the other companies to step up to the plate and go all-out to make an accurate movement (maybe a fast-beat Richard Lange?).

the ETA 2892, 2824, and various Seiko and Miyota "high grade" movements.

Not "high grade" as in chi chi nice movement finishing wow that looks beautiful, but rather high grade as in

reliable

stable

well adjusted

I doubt Seiko, ETA/Swatch, or Miyota have conceded anything to Rolex or anyone else in these aspects.

TM

Obviously, I don't own all movements, but I have not run across anything that touches a Rolex under real world conditions. My criteria include not only accuracy over a short period but also rate stability over at least five years between services and the ability to maintain rate stability on the winder as well as on the wrist.

I think that the IWC caliber 854/8541 movements, beating at 19,800 vph, can go head to head with the Rolex 1570 (same beat rate), but I don't know what can compete with Rolex's current high-beat movements. I have hopes for the Omega caliber 8500, but I think lack of a Breguet balance spring is a huge handicap over the long run: while the Breguet balance spring may not seem essential for a watch in perfect condition and lubrication, it really makes a difference a few years out. I think a really well-modified Valjoux/ETA 7750 is another close competitor, as long as you don't run the chronograph too much.

Seikos from the 1960's and later.

Hi, MKVC,

I understand the theoretical points you are making (especially reinforced when you bring up 7750 and the Omega calibres)

We might be talking different paradigms at this point.

Anecdotally and based on personal SMALL sample experience, Seikos - "high grade" or not - have served me as well, as long, as the Rolex' I have personally known (close friends and family)

Over decades
Rate stability
Out of factory adjustment
Out of service adjustment (when done)
"Toughness" of case and dial

But a sanity check tells me that

A. We've left the original literal parameters of the OP
B. We probobably agree on the theoreticals

C. Personal small sample experiences can be misleading if extrapolated too far (but you know me well enough, I hope, that you know my "personal small sample space" is not the typical person's "small sample space")

D. The empirical data to support either conclusion: yours that Rolex pretty much stands along in the performance areas, and mine that I suspect Seikos might give them a run for their money - is, alas, kept tightly locked up in the Swiss and Japanes vaults, the data in which I have only heard about through 2 or 3 degrees of separation, not directly or 1 degree of separation as I have with most other "facts" that support in horology.

So...



Cheers,

TM

The fact is that I don't have experience with Seiko. Frankly, until I read your post, I never thought I had a reason to do so. However, if they get that strong a vote of confidence from you, I'm going to start checking them out.

Hi MKVC,

There was a recent thread about Grand Seiko on HoMe; I won't repeat.

In my experience, I've seen more running, accurate and reliable never serviced for 5/10/20 years Seikos than I have similarly used and neglected Rolex.

New, I'd put any randomly selected Grand Seiko against any Rolex or other Swiss or German watch in terms of reliability, and short and long term rate stability; as well as out of the box ex-factory adjustments.

But as I noted in the previous thread, I RESPECT them, but their finish and aesthetics don't get my pulse racing.

And less important to me, but important to most mechanical watch buyers (as opposed to timekeeper buyers) (Grand)Seiko is not nearly as prestigious, except maybe in Japan.

Regardless of the rationale, for me, watches are an emtional item (with all due respect to the intellectual rationalists among us) so while I hold Rolex and (Grand)Seiko with the highest respect, they don't float my boat and I don't have (m)any of them.

Horses for courses.

Cheers,

TM

Rolex has a certain aura...and for me personally, i have never been a big fan. but every 2 years so so, when i tire of all the complications and "fashion" horological pieces that i have acquired, i go back to collecting what i think is basic goodness...rolex,, omega speedies and pams, and that cycle has just started...again.  and this time its worse then i thought...going back to 70s rolexes n omegas, which i humbly opined that i am prob looking back at time when there is less marketing focused approach to watch retailing/making.

 

 

. . . that they are working on something right now.  I know nothing of course, just thinking out loud here, but it seems to me that in the past five years Rolex has dramatically increased the pace of change at their company, resulting in new movements and entirely new models.  If they embrace change more fully it would seem a good fit to add some conservative and well built complications to the mix.  I'm not referring to minute repeaters and the like of course, but a durable and easy to service annual calendar would make for some very interesting design opportunities for the brand.

Jeff

Hi, Narsi,

I'd love to read your own take on the question(s) you raised.

Do you think they should, or are you asking why everyone else does, or are you asking why watch nuts have so much more money than sense?

;-)

I think that Rolex did make a moonface and a calendar watch in the past....

Cheers

No message body

Like nearly every other Swiss brand, they bought Valjoux 72C movements, and other outsourced movements, and made "complications" before the 1970's.

Since then, they made a deliberate decision to focus very narrowly.

And they did this very successfully.

Business success is neither easy nor easily predictable.

That's why you have successful pioneers and failed pioneers.

Why you have successful lemmings and dead lemmings.

And entire species dying out...

TM

No message body

No, the ref. 8171 is not a Valjoux 72.

Yes, the ref. 8171 is a moonphase triple date.

Yes, the Val. 72, and other calibers from other movement houses, have been used by Rolex.

Cheers,

TM

With you mentioning a calibre devoid of moon phase and never installed in the quoted ref i mistakenly confused your context. Still the least said about this spefic reference the better else it will somewhat void the whole thread by proving that Rolex could in actual fact turn thier hand to any of the seperate sections of a complicated wristwatch (in the house)......with great aplomb. This message has been edited by C.vallely5 on 2010-01-10 12:39:12

I don't see where (s)he ever made reference to a reference number?

Aside - I seem to recall that there was a variant of the Val 72 that did offer moonphase indication.

But that's neither here nor there...

Again, I'm not following the rest of your comments - how does the existence of the ref 8171 show anything other than that Rolex has made a moonphase calendar watch sometime in the past?

And how would discussion of that stray any further from the OP than any of your other sub-threads?

That's alright, don't answer that.



TM

M

that is their competitive advantage and it is well protected by their tactics in branding, service and reliability.

cheers
PAt

I have no insight into Rolex's inner workings, so can only speculate, but I think they quietly put their money into R&D to improve their watches from the inside out.  Watches like the Submariner can arguably be considered design icons.  Say the words "expensive watch" to 100 people on the street and see how many respond "Rolex."  I think many would.  That kind of brand awareness can be both a blessing and a curse.  In my opinion, Rolexes are sturdy, handsome watches, that reliably fulfill every basic need one has for a wristwatch that tells time.  Do I think that Rolex could execute all the complications listed in your post if that is what they desired.  Yes.  The question is:

Why should they?

For the glory of watchmaking?  To impress a relatively small percentage of wristwatch wearers (WIS who have the knowledge and the money to seek and buy a high complication watch.)?  If Rolex made an Equation of Time- Perpetual Calendar-Grand Sonnerie-Retrograde-Power Reserve-Skeleton-Jumping Hour watch would people buy it?  Or would people dismiss this Rolex high complication watch as an example of a company famous for toolwatches trying to dip their toes into the deep end of a pool that they don't have enough cachet or history to play in?

Sometimes I just feel like Rolex is damned if they do, damned if they don't.   

Best,

Daos  

Also, don't forget, the reason many of Rolex's pieces are considered iconic and have such a large following is that they RARELY changed for decades.

Having a good and sensible design, and staying with it (making only minor tune-ups) undeterred by the trends, is a strategy that pays off in the long run.

Less is certainly more in this case.

Jon
This message has been edited by Z3 on 2010-01-09 22:26:25

Just calling it like I see it.  The beauty of this hobby is that there is something for everyone. 

Hope you are keeping well.

Cheers,

Daos

You do have a valid point.....

However, personally, I would welcome an innovation from Rolex....

We admire for eg. JLC diving watches, why not something different form Rolex...maybe an alarm?

Cheers

Would I be interested to see Rolex's take on an alarm or some other complication?  Naturally.  As a watch lover, it is always great to see something you've never seen before.  However, I think Rolex will continue to find success regardless of whether they create such complications or not.

Cheers,

Daos

With so many watches sold every year, it will be a nightmare trying to service so many different complications and movements. It will be a major logistical issue trying to stock all the spare parts for so many different movements...

Although I've had my Rolex serviced yet, I heard many anecdotes of how people were satisfied with Rolex's service and fast turnaround.

Jon (Z3)