Rant against modern Rolex designs

[By-Tor]

Here's a boring and controversial rant from a conservative and dull Rolex man. If you strongly disagree with my offensive views, feel free to post just as controversial replies.

Biggest recent design mistakes by Rolex:

1. Super Sea Dweller.
How can they replace the beautiful, attractive classic Dweller with this mumbo-jumbo watch? I tried on the genuine yesterday and it's utterly terrible, with all those cheap gimmics. The only thing missing was a radio antenna suddenly popping up from somewhere. It's been popular replica on the forum though. I gotta wonder why... PloProf is purposefully ugly, but it's ugly in a cool way. DSSD wears awful and is ugly as a mule's butt.

2. GMT IIc
How can they replace the classic Pepsi with this utterly boring watch? Where is the original GMT tool watch spirit? The best word to describe this model is the color "GREY". Great watch if you're walking around in a rainy Monday afternoon (sic). And polished middle links on a tool watch? Really.

3. ROLEXROLEX rehaut engraving.
Now that was just plain stupid idea. It destroys the smooth and beautiful rehaut shine.

4. Fat lugs on the classic Submariner.
This is like the Porsche 911 -> 996 transformation. Water cooled engine and Boxster headlamps. Purists say NO. Porsche quickly moved back to the traditional headlights later. People say how the clasp has been improved and blahblah. The fact is that you can't update perfection.

5. Yacht-Master II.
Maybe the ugliest watch Rolex has ever made. If I didn't know better, I would think that it's directly from Canal Street.

The only updates that make any sense are the new Exp, ExpII and perhaps Day-Date/Datejust. Those watches (imho) needed an extra millimeter or two. But they should have left the classics alone, and not made them look like Invictas.

I'm afraid the current Daytona is next on the chopping block. Be afraid, be very afraid.

Thoughts?

[vafarmer70]

5. Yacht-Master II.

Maybe the ugliest watch Rolex has ever made. If I didn't know better, I would think that it's directly from Canal Street.

But they should have left the classics alone, and not made them look like Invictas.

I'm afraid the current Daytona is next on the chopping block. Be afraid, be very afraid.

I could not agree with you more. That YMII is the ugliest thing they ever could have dreamed up.

All we need now is a Daytona II.

I thought you liked the GMT II c though?

[Utheman]

BT, I agree totally on pts 1-5. The only new model I would put on my wrist is the Datejust. I just can't get behind the new explorer2. the dial just seems too crowded. Maybe if I tried it on I would feel different. If only they scaled up the older version...that would be perfect.

[mastrmindalliance]

I agree about the yacht master. Absolutely horrible. Wouldn't wear it if I won it.

[By-Tor]

I thought you liked the GMT II c though?

Yeah it was "ok". It's not a terrible watch at all, but it was a bad replacement. The novelty wore off in a few weeks. Gotta admit that the gen is much nicer though... the gen bezel shine is nice. And it looks brown in a certain lighting. You only realize the difference after you see the gen.

I'd improve that "meh" watch with all-brushed bracelet, red GMT hand and Pepsi bezel... but even with all those things it wouldn't be as amazing as 1675 or 16710. I'm a bit biased here though... it's my favorite Rolex. For me the old Pepsi models are iconic, real Rolexes, the new one is not.

[HauteHippie]

Thoughts?

Agree in principle.

Other thoughts, in a quick drive-by:

In general, I don't like the move to maxi dials or maxi-like dials. I guess for this reason, I also never liked the current Daytona dial with the fatter hour markers (compared to the 16520). I think the Daytona can only go downhill from here. Sad.

The Yachty II is truly a red-headed step child.

GMT IIc - I like it in its own right, despite the big dial markers... But totally agree with you from a heritage standpoint. Perhaps they should have released it along side of a "classic line" GMT. Give peeps a choice, and then end of life one or the other based on sales.

SSD - Heh... I don't object to it. But I have no personal interest in even the rep version of it. I owned a gen SD for a while, and got bored with it. This is less boring, but maybe too Casio G-Shockish.

Sub with big lugs - baaaaad.

Not mentioned - Datejust with wider lugs and non-tapered bracelet. Gotta say I like it.

ROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEX Rehaut --- Horrendous.

[Dizzy]

Here's a boring and controversial rant from a conservative and dull Rolex man. If you strongly disagree with my offensive views, feel free to post just as controversial replies.

Biggest recent design mistakes by Rolex:

1. Super Sea Dweller.

You read my mind... beautiful and sleek to ugly and uncomfortable. If they wanted to make a bigger watch for diving, they should have made a bigger dial also. Thats just stupid to make the case that big and have to have that stupid 1/4" thick rehaut. I had a DSSD and never even wore it out of the house. It was very uncomfortable for daily wear. Very top heavy and boring to look at.

2. GMT IIc

I dont mind the new GMT2c but I agree it needs a pepsi bezel.

3. ROLEXROLEX rehaut engraving.

But it was designed to stop the counterfeiters because there was NO way the chinese could replicate that. Are you saying it didnt work? lol

4. Fat lugs on the classic Submariner.

I agree. It looks stupid and unfinished. I really like the rest of the watch though. The guidelock, the new bezel... Those lugs just kill it for me though. It will be interesting to look ahead 10 years and see how the ceramic inserts are holding up...

5. Yacht-Master II.

"Maybe the ugliest watch Rolex has ever made"

Not much more I can add to that. I wasnt a fan of the original Yachtmaster anyways so it didnt bother me too much. <b><font color="#8b0000">

I'm afraid the current Daytona is next on the chopping block. Be afraid, be very afraid. </font></b>

Oh yes my friend, its doomed. We saw a teaser this month of things to come... Its evolving... We'll see a supercase with fat lugs and black ceramic or some sort of black gold bezels and probably some REDICULOUS looking dial options with flowers and diamonds..

But I think the best thing is that Buddy that was running Rolex has died, so now things might be getting back to normal again. We are seeing more references to vintage and more interest in things like the Edmund Hilary watch etc etc. I dont think rolex is going to open its parts department to everyone on the internet, but I think we will see a little more relaxed attitude when it come to their vintage and heritage pieces.

Dizz

[ronjohn]

Biggest recent design mistakes by Rolex:

1. Super Sea Dweller - yes and Gas Escape Valve on the front of the watch? wtf?

2. GMT IIc - I disagree - but am anxiously waiting for the pepsi...

3. ROLEXROLEX rehaut engraving - My eyes are going - I don't see it, or even if it's misaligned.

4. Fat lugs on the classic Submariner - I like the Sub C - I think they did a good job updating things.

5. Yacht-Master II, yeah WTF? I saw someone wearing one yesterday in Miami - egads it's so horrible...

These are some BIG moves for Rolex - I remember in the late 90's when they made the move to luminova from tritium and then from hollow end links to SEL - you would have thought they redesigned the whole line...!

Man these clasps are SO much better.

[Dizzy]

Biggest recent design mistakes by Rolex:

1. Super Sea Dweller - yes and Gas Escape Valve on the front of the watch? wtf?

They had to put something on that thick ring of steel to decorate it.

At least they didnt engrave ROLEXROLEXROLEX all the way around it!!

[By-Tor]

Chief, I agree about DateJust. 36mm is un-wearable for a larger man.

And I'm a HUGE fan of the Explorer II. Huge. But I honestly felt that it was always missing a millimeter or two. Actually I feel the same way about Daytona. It would be much nicer if it was just 1-2mm larger.

I'm amazed how perfectly the classic 40mm Sub and GMT still wear... even after wearing thick watches like Skyland. They feel perfectly balanced and the size is great. They did NOT need the "fat lugs" upgrade, which just ruined the slender lines.

The new ExpII... I gotta see it in the flesh to make my final decision.

[freddy333]

As some may already know, I was 1 of the 1st to champion & embrace the SDDS when it 1st appeared at Basel a couple of years ago. You may also recall that I immediately wrote-off the Yachtmaster II, describing it as even sillier looking than the Yachtmaster I, which I still view as a silly hunk of bling with hands.

That is, until they reached AD windows & I had the opportunity to try each of them on. Immediately, with the SDDS, it was apparent that Rolex must be having us all on. There was no way they could possibly be marketing such a Bloated Blob of Bling to serious divers, or as anything that a gentleman (their traditional target market) would seriously pair with grown-up street clothes. At least not without flippers, a pink wig & a big, round red nose. Oddly & strange as it may sound, I fell in love with the YMII (preferably, in a white metal). I still cannot imagine ever wearing it anywhere but on my yacht (if I owned a yacht) or at the yacht club (if I ever buy a yacht, I promise to join the club). But it really did/does strike a chord with me & if someone ever produces a truly accurate YMII rep (nothing available now comes close enough), I would probably buy it.

[By-Tor]

I still cannot imagine ever wearing it anywhere but on my yacht (if I owned a yacht) or at the yacht club (if I ever buy a yacht, I promise to join the club).

[lhooq]

Excellent points all around BT, and they do make me reconsider my initial reaction to the revised Exp II. My favorite in the current Rolex lineup is the new Explorer I. That may seem utterly predictable, but I haven't felt any burning love toward any Explorer since the late 80s. The 214270 acknowledged a few realities of the current market (bigger diameter, higher quality bracelet/clasp) while hewing closer to the original concept (matte-finish dial, cleaner graphics). The new Exp II does much the same, and I'd probably be outraged if Rolex had tried a Milgauss-like reinterpretation of the 1655 design.

1. DSSD's biggest sin, in my opinion, is its lack of balance. Its Rolex's most top-heavy design since the Deep Sea Special, and much more cluttered.

2. The GMTIIc has never excited me.

3. The RER is unnecessary ornamentation on the dress watches. On tool watches, it misses the point. As an an anti-counterfeiting device... Well, maybe Rolex ought to make microprinted, holographic dials with UV-activated serial numbers. And maybe the watches could require a wi-fi connection to an encrypted Rolex server before they can start telling time. Or maybe they want to look into something LESS obtrusive!

4. Great analogy, but I think you meant 996!

5. I respect the WM9 replication, but I've never understood the appeal of the YM. The YM2, however, is grotesque.

[LeSentier]

BT- totally agree with you to all points. The fat lugs case was what me made to sell my gen GMTII and the 116610 - I just couldn´t get used to the style

this is why I went back to:

[d-rock]

SSD...to me it would look much better with a cyclops

GMT IIc...the maxi-dials and shiny ceramic bezels aren't really my thing

Engraved rehauts I don't mind as long as they're perfectly aligned

Fat lugs on the Subs I can live with as the 16610 has always been my favorite..(though the 16570 Exp.II is growing on me quickly)

The YM's..both I and II have never really sparked anything in me (although the new ones do...a BIG laugh..THAT'S a foolish looking watch to me)

Daytonas..nice looking but the busy dialed chrongraphs of any brand have never really appealed to me.

The new 216570 Explorer II, even with it's maxi-dial..is SWEET looking. (I prefer the Black dial..white doesn't do it for me.)

And although a busy dial never appealed to me before, I've recently fell for the looks of the Tudor MC...70331 I believe it is.

joerg...what's the watch in your pic...front row, right side??? THAT'S a sweet looking Tudor....WOW !!!

Edited April 1, 2011 by d-rock

[Ronin]

1. Super Sea Dweller - yes and Gas Escape Valve on the front of the watch? wtf?

I have been saying this for some time. It just BEGS for 'fart' or 'full of hot air' jokes around the office IMHO.

Chief, I agree about DateJust. 36mm is un-wearable for a larger man.

And I'm a HUGE fan of the Explorer II. Huge. But I honestly felt that it was always missing a millimeter or two.

As far as size goes, it all depends on the person. I don't think anyone with wrists smaller than 8" should wear a DSSD, and likewise someone with 8" wrists should not wear a 36mm DJ. On my 7" wrist the ExpII is perfect.

The deal breakers for me on the modern lineup:

1. Top heavy designs like the DSSD.

2. The Green GMT Hand on the GMT IIC

3. Maxi Mercedes Hands, and Maxi Dial's in general.

4. Fat Lugs, bulky square CG's. (Rolex could have made a killing with a NO Crownguard Sub Heritage)

I will reserve further (new) EXPII criticism until I see one, but looking at the pictures the components (Dial, hands, bezel/fonts) it just donsen't seem balanced. As I have stated before-- It reminds me of a Seiko and not a Rolex.

The ROLEXROLEX rehaut engraving really doesn't bother me too much. It is less noticeable on white/light dialed versions. Actually, having it lends some credibility when viewed by a person who is not educated in the Rep-vs-Gen Identification game.

Final note, my AD has been trying to "sell" the notion that the maxi-everything, and size gains is a result Rolex's "Aging" customers with bad eyesight.

By that logic the new Rolex designs are the equivalent of "Big Button Telephones for Grandma"

[hascho]

Here's a boring and controversial rant from a conservative and dull Rolex man. If you strongly disagree with my offensive views, feel free to post just as controversial replies.

Biggest recent design mistakes by Rolex:

1. Super Sea Dweller.

How can they replace the beautiful, attractive classic Dweller with this mumbo-jumbo watch? I tried on the genuine yesterday and it's utterly terrible, with all those cheap gimmics. The only thing missing was a radio antenna suddenly popping up from somewhere. It's been popular replica on the forum though. I gotta wonder why... PloProf is purposefully ugly, but it's ugly in a cool way. DSSD wears awful and is ugly as a mule's butt.

2. GMT IIc

How can they replace the classic Pepsi with this utterly boring watch? Where is the original GMT tool watch spirit? The best word to describe this model is the color "GREY". Great watch if you're walking around in a rainy Monday afternoon (sic). And polished middle links on a tool watch? Really.

3. ROLEXROLEX rehaut engraving.

Now that was just plain stupid idea. It destroys the smooth and beautiful rehaut shine.

4. Fat lugs on the classic Submariner.

This is like the Porsche 911 -> 966 transformation. Water cooled engine and Boxster headlights. Purists say NO. Porsche quickly moved back to the traditional headlights later. People say how the clasp has been improved and blahblah. The fact is that you can't update perfection.

5. Yacht-Master II.

Maybe the ugliest watch Rolex has ever made. If I didn't know better, I would think that it's directly from Canal Street.

The only updates that make any sense are the new Exp, ExpII and perhaps Day-Date/Datejust. Those watches (imho) needed an extra millimeter or two. But they should have left the classics alone, and not made them look like Invictas.

I'm afraid the current Daytona is next on the chopping block. Be afraid, be very afraid.

Thoughts?

By-Tor, your're the man!

I agree in all points for 100%

In the past the model range of Rolex was full of covetable classic watches.

Nowadays the most models (except Explorer and Ex II, partial the Datejusts and DD) are just horrible and curious.

I always dreamed of buying a gen Sub one day - but with the new models - no way!

[mjmj]

BT, I agree with you on all points. Having a smaller wrist, these new shapes don't seem to fit as well as the superseeded models. It would be inrteresting to see if the Asian Rolex sports market has dipped due to these new designs.

[rene]

I won't go with this flow. I was never such a rolex fan and never understood the rolex hype, but the new GMT has stolen my....... Finally they made a watch with a proper construction that is beautiful. I fully agree on the YM the recent model is and the SD also with the "gas escape valve" lettering in the front, it's also too chunky. Sorry GMT Pepsi and coke purists and I understand, but when i buy a rolex it would be the new GMT master II ceramic. no offense

[TeeJay]

Thoughts?

I've been thinking the same things (I'm not too bothered by the GMTIIc, but I wouldn't wear a stock one, it's just a springboard for my warped mind to spin off from with a project ...)

[blix]

I could not agree with you more. I'd also like to add: What's up with (supposedly) tool watches that have CERAMIC bezels - seriously!?

[JoeyB]

Here's a boring and controversial rant from a conservative and dull Rolex man. If you strongly disagree with my offensive views, feel free to post just as controversial replies.

Biggest recent design mistakes by Rolex:

1. Super Sea Dweller.

How can they replace the beautiful, attractive classic Dweller with this mumbo-jumbo watch? I tried on the genuine yesterday and it's utterly terrible, with all those cheap gimmics. The only thing missing was a radio antenna suddenly popping up from somewhere. It's been popular replica on the forum though. I gotta wonder why... PloProf is purposefully ugly, but it's ugly in a cool way. DSSD wears awful and is ugly as a mule's butt.

Agreed. When the new DSSD was introduced Rolex had a side view that had the case flow so beautifully and smoothly into the convex crystal. That's the only angle it looks good to me. Too big, too clunky. The 1st $100 can have mine. But I disagree about the Plop-plop. It's just ugly.

2. GMT IIc

How can they replace the classic Pepsi with this utterly boring watch? Where is the original GMT tool watch spirit? The best word to describe this model is the color "GREY". Great watch if you're walking around in a rainy Monday afternoon (sic). And polished middle links on a tool watch? Really.

I came to these forums looking for a GMT 'Coke' with a genuine Swiss movement for less than the $600 -$1000 I had seen online. I didn't know, but found out that I wanted a 16710 with the case holes. BK told me Josh's 'Retro' was best out-of-the-box, so I bought it. I love the watch, but never much cared for the hollow end and mid-links, or the stamped clasp. And I thought that an expensive watch should have a better looking insert than the printed/stamped one. Along came the ceramic, and I thought it was GMT perfection. Nope. They made the case and lugs bigger, so it's a bit 'clunky'. The maxi dial was supposed to help aging baby-boomers with old, tired eyes like me see it easier, but then they went with a green 4th hand, and I can't see that! The insert is nice, if you like black, and should be more durable than any of it's predecessors. The clasp is better, but I put a Glide-Loc on mine, which is the best Rolex clasp, but the polished center is really just silly.

3. ROLEXROLEX rehaut engraving.

Now that was just plain stupid idea. It destroys the smooth and beautiful rehaut shine.

The engraving was meant to thwart the copies. How'd that work out for them?

4. Fat lugs on the classic Submariner.

This is like the Porsche 911 -> 966 transformation. Water cooled engine and Boxster headlights. Purists say NO. Porsche quickly moved back to the traditional headlights later. People say how the clasp has been improved and blahblah. The fact is that you can't update perfection.

And the GMT ceramic. Bad. The Glide-Loc is perfection.

5. Yacht-Master II.

Maybe the ugliest watch Rolex has ever made. If I didn't know better, I would think that it's directly from Canal Street.

The only updates that make any sense are the new Exp, ExpII and perhaps Day-Date/Datejust. Those watches (imho) needed an extra millimeter or two. But they should have left the classics alone, and not made them look like Invictas.

I'm afraid the current Daytona is next on the chopping block. Be afraid, be very afraid.

Agreed.

Thoughts?

All dirty. Very dirty.

[praetor]

hmmm... so are you suggesting that Rolex stays perpetually nostalgic like Panerai? Business wise, I think Rolex is going in the right direction; moving towards products perceived to be of high quality, luxury and status, especially by those who aren't exactly Rolex enthusiasts. And their designs should reflect that.

Rule #1: Make everything shiny. The ceramic bezel, the sapphire crystal, the white gold surrounds, the dial. There's a study somewhere that people are more likely to buy shinier things. Diamonds anyone?

Source

Rule #2: Make everything bigger. Bigger is better right? just following the trend.

Rule #3: Make the watches heavier. Heavier = higher quality? solid midlink bracelets hehehe

Rule #4: You don't talk about the Fight Club!!! hahaha

It keeps vintage watches stay vintage and awesome tool watches =D. For me, the new rolexes are just vintage inspired with a bit of tool watch heritage and a lot of over engineering.

[_brian_]

Well, I'm not a Rolex fan at all but I do remember the "old days" 6-7 years ago when I was looking at some Rolex reps: This was the first time when I saw a rehaut with rolexrolexrolex engravings and it was on a rep! I cannot remember which modell it was but I can recall that the gen did not have engravings and the rep did - I found it awful but it seems that rolex-designers like the idea...

[Ronin]

Rule #1: Make everything shiny. The ceramic bezel, the sapphire crystal, the white gold surrounds, the dial. There's a study somewhere that people are more likely to buy shinier things. Diamonds anyone?

Good marketing does not automatically translate to a good or optimal product. Another example is the computer/monitor industry. The shiny/glossy screen technology pushed upon us by Apple has plagued the computer industry. Try and find a laptop these days without a horrible glare ridden screen. Shiny might sell, and might make the occasion photo of the grand-kids look good in a dark room, but at the end of the day, it is sub-optimal. (Sorry about the computer industry related rant). Likewise adding chrome to the bumper of a car does not make it inherently better.

I still think most of the modern Rolex and even Breitling designs were on the drawing board pre-recession and bigger is better boom.