Rolex

Jack Forster
[Elite User]
4381

• Show profile
• Show other posts

Well, if your quibble is with. . .

. . . the original assertion that "every serious collection should have a Rolex" obviously that's just a bit of rhetoric designed to point out that Rolex makes much more horologically serious watches than is generally realized.  I wouldn't waste too much energy fighting an assertion that was hardly meant to be taken literally in the first place ;-) .

My appreciation for Rolex and what they represent horologically has increased significantly over the years.  If you are under the impression that Rolex has not done much to advance the cause of horological science it is understandable as they don't go to very much pains to advertise the fact.  It's an unfortunate, perhaps, reality that it's not much part of their marketing message.

However, my impression (based on my day job as an industry journalist) is that they have made, and continue to make, a number of incremental improvements to their movements which largely escape the notice of their fans.  This includes improvements to lubricants, refinement and improvement of hairspring, lever, and train alloys- the new Parachrom hairspring is a pretty significant advancement- as well as continuous improvements to the consistency and reliability of performance of their watches.

If you care to look on any of the available online patent databases you'll find that Rolex has a pretty huge and pretty steady number of patents to their name, many of which find their way equally steadily into their watches.

Does that make "at least one Rolex" a "requirement" for any serious collection?  Of course not.  Does it make their contributions to horology generally underappreciated and unacknowledged?  I think probably so, but that's just one man's opinion.

Cheers,

Jack