Rant against modern Rolex designs

[panerai153]

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.

I think you are probably right. There are plenty of really bad stuff coming from good companies. Sometimes you wonder who designed this aberration!. Certainly most of the modern designers have totally forgotten about "Form follows function". You are also probably right about the watches probably being in the design stage when the recession hit, and when "bigger is better" was king.

I have been reading a lot lately about folks returning back to more basic items, not going for so much bling. In fact in one article I read, the writer was speculating that a lot of the major luxury goods manufacturers were a bit worried about the trend to simpler, less expensive items.

I think one of the things that surprises a lot of us older folk who have been around Rolex for many years ( I bought my first one about a year out of college in about 1966) is their move away from their ultra conservative posture of so many years. It seemed like Rolex SA agonized over every little change. People have been begging for a slightly larger datejust, sub and SD for years, to no avail. They got solid end links, sapphire crystals and a blue mainspring, but no bigger watches. Then all of a sudden Rolex got on the bling bandwagon with that ridiculous "Leopard" daytona and the YM (which to me the version 1 is not so bad.) and several datejusts with ridiculous dials. And it just kept getting worse. They took beautiful functional watches and bloated them up with totally unnecessary "improvements"

1. DSSD.- I had one, had it modded, really nice watch if you have 8" wrists, but on my wrist, it always wanted to "turn turtle" Also, when you make it bigger, why not make the dial bigger as well? Mine is long sold and forgotten. truly one that I won't regret selling.Wouldn't wear one diving, all that shiny on your wrist= Barracuda magnet!!

2. GMT IIc- I have one,don't wear it very often.I like it, also wish it had a red GMT hand and a Pepsi bezel. I'm like By-tor, I'm more a vintage fan, so my genuine 16750 gets about 10X the wrist time of the IIc.

3. Explorer - Truthfully, I was never an Explorer fan, so I really don't have a skin in that game

4. Yachtmaster - Never owned one, too blingy for me.I'm like Freddy, if I had a nice 44 foot Swan to go racing with, the new one would probably be OK, of course it would be more appropriate with boat shoes, Grey flannel slacks and a Blue blazer, with your Yacht Club crest on it of course. If you don't fall into that rarefied category, I cannot see it at all. Get a Yacht, get a Yachtmaster, otherwise get a 1665,1680 or and older 16610.

5. Daytona - I haven't liked Daytonas since they went from "Oyster" to "Oyster Perpetual" , so you can see how old fashioned I am!!. And the new ones from what I saw in the BaselWorld photos are awful. Not as bad as the "Leopard", but getting close.

Just my thoughts for what they are worth (2 cents)

[praetor]

I kinda like the direction that Tudor is going though. Their Heritage Chronograph is amazing. It's based on one of the frankenssuper rare models that Rolex built.

[Dave123]

I have a gen TT GMTIIc and i think its the nicest looking Rolex watch ever made.

[BGGodwin]

There pictures of these other than the Yacht Master II? I tried to find this Super Sea Dweller but couldn't...

YM II is awful. Beyond awful, even.

[By-Tor]

@Dave: I agree. GMTIIc is much nicer on two-tone. It's a flashy watch and since it's supposed to have a bit of "bling" and be a departure from a tool watch, the TT Oyster bracelet fits in well.

[rene]

@Dave: I agree. GMTIIc is much nicer on two-tone. It's a flashy watch and since it's supposed to have a bit of "bling" and be a departure from a tool watch, the TT Oyster bracelet fits in well.

[Dave123]

Ya nice pic BT. I love this watch,haven't worn my SA since i got it..

The SS version i have no use for,but i find all SS Rollies too boring for me anyway.

[mastrmindalliance]

With the exception of the Yacht Master (which is hideous), I disagree with just about all of this. It's just modernising the design.

IMO Rolex were way behind the times. They still are really, as they only really took a baby step with these increased sizes. Which isn't surprising given that the originals are considered design classics.

For example I'd rather wear my seiko monster than my gen moonwatch nowadays, Sure it's only 1mm difference but because of the design it wears much larger. Same goes for the new submariner. I know many will disagree based on the design icon thing. But, that the new sub wears bigger than than the old one is the only reason I would consider wearing one. I know this will be unpopular with traditional Rolex fans, but i bet many others my age (GenX) think the same.

I also think that the old bracelet and clasp suck because it feels flimsy and clunky regardless of how reliable it was. The new one feels silky, tough, modern and looks much better. I also think the ceramic insert is huge improvement in terms of looks and durability - finally rolex makes a 'tool' watch that wont ding or scratch with minor use.

For my mind, on average, the new designs are way better, but I'm just a guy who likes non-vintage watches and not a traditional rolex fan.

Once they start ARing the crystals they will be on the right path.

[BGGodwin]

With the exception of the Yacht Master (which is hideous), I disagree with just about all of this. It's just modernising the design.

IMO Rolex were way behind the times. They still are really, as they only really took a baby step with these increased sizes. Which isn't surprising given that the originals are considered design classics.

For example I'd rather wear my seiko monster than my gen moonwatch nowadays, Sure it's only 1mm difference but because of the design it wears much larger. Same goes for the new submariner. I know many will disagree based on the design icon thing. But, that the new sub wears bigger than than the old one is the only reason I would consider wearing one. I know this will be unpopular with traditional Rolex fans, but i bet many others my age (GenX) think the same.

I also think that the old bracelet and clasp suck because it feels flimsy and clunky regardless of how reliable it was. The new one feels silky, tough, modern and looks much better. I also think the ceramic insert is huge improvement in terms of looks and durability - finally rolex makes a 'tool' watch that wont ding or scratch with minor use.

For my mind, on average, the new designs are way better, but I'm just a guy who likes non-vintage watches and not a traditional rolex fan.

Once they start ARing the crystals they will be on the right path.

I couldn't agree with you more... when I think Rolex, I think the same, typical design that has been around. Does that change how I feel about them: no. If I want a classic, timeless piece, it's Rolex. If I want something "newer", it's not Rolex.

I'm still interested in where these pictures are for these watches! I've only seen the YMII

[By-Tor]

Good post MMA. World would be a boring place if we all just agreed on everything.

I'm not a big fan of the vintage Rolexes, either. That means 1680 and just about ANY watch with rivet band and/or bulging huge crystal. 1675 is an exception though... I would love to own one.

But it has nothing to do with size or design... I just prefer the sapphire and SL w/ those white gold surroundings on the dial. That's my favorite "Rolex era". Like Ronin, I'm not a big fan of the maxi dials, either.

The clasp is definitely improved and adding solid middle links is ok... makes no difference to me, really. But I still don't think the old 40mm Sub & GMT versions wear too small. You can make that argument against Explorer II and Daytona though... but I wouldn't add even one extra millimeter to 16710 and 16610. They wear perfect and plenty big, even for a big guy like me. The fat lugs and maxi dials are simply a downgrade from aesthetical point of view... they became "sloppy". It has nothing to do with size or how big they wear. They simply don't look that good. The new Sub looks "fat". GMTIIc would have been great if it was offered as an extra option. I can't think of it as a successor to the 1675/16710, it's so different.

Maybe it has something to do with the fact that 1680/16610 and 1675/16710 have been around for 4 decades, and they became some kind of "standards". They had an iconic appearance. Sacrificing that for the big watch trend's sake wasn't a good decision, imho.

[TeeJay]

For me, the new rolexes are just vintage inspired with a bit of tool watch heritage and a lot of over engineering.

That's a really interesting perspective I hadn't considered before... I like it

[TeeJay]

I kinda like the direction that Tudor is going though. Their Heritage Chronograph is amazing. It's based on one of the frankenssuper rare models that Rolex built.

For all it's inaccuracies in replication, I love my Heritage. It (in terms of design) is what I could call a "Diver's stopwatch" rather than a straight out chronograph, simply because it features the rotating timing bezel rather than a tachymeter scale It is big? Yes. I wouldn't call it over-sized though

[mastrmindalliance]

While we're talking about 'modern rolex designs', size does have everything to do with it (size being fundamental to the design).

It's not going out on a limb to say as we've seen the average watch size grow to about 42mm. I've got to assume that, like my preference, this reflects the preference of the watch buying market. In the last few years we've seen watches trending toward huge - 45-50. That's since pulled back in to a reasonable average minimum at about 42mm. So after the trend whoring, we're left with a new norm - something more modern.

Watch building and selling is still firmly planted in personal preference - which is essentially what we're talking about here. Because the majority personal preference has changed so has watch design (this is simply the basics of demand and supply). The size increase was necessity for companies in the business of selling watches - and I'm sure that's is exactly why rolex modernised. Why else would they do it? Certainly they wouldn't risk their bread butter just for kicks?

I couldn't see them continuing to sell in droves watches that wear much smaller than the modern norm. All the big names, are bigger in design now.

My point is simply about personal preference, and while the norm has changed... there will always be choices for preferences either side of norm.

[Ronin]

Once they start ARing the crystals they will be on the right path.

I totally agree with this. AR would be TRUE modernization for Rolex. I have to say, holding my gen Ball Watch, Breitling, Ebel, Sinn and even DOXA's with double AR next to my non-AR ExpII makes the Rolex looks a bit dingy, and cheap by comparison.

The only real modernization Rolex has done was the move to Ceramic bezels, and improved bracelets. The simple "weight gain / fattening" of the rest of the watch without redesigning hands/dial/markers or adding AR really does not make their designs modernized IMHO.

It's not going out on a limb to say as we've seen the average watch size grow to about 42mm. I've got to assume that, like my preference, this reflects the preference of the watch buying market. In the last few years we've seen watches trending toward huge - 45-50. That's since pulled back in to a reasonable average minimum at about 42mm. So after the trend whoring, we're left with a new norm - something more modern.

...

My point is simply about personal preference, and while the norm has changed... there will always be choices for preferences either side of norm.

Really? Or like my glossy computer screen rant, is this becoming the only choice available? GQ, Esquire, WSJ, and other fashion blogs are starting to poo-poo bigger watches again. ???

Up to 42 I think is safe for most wrists sizes. Many design elements factor in. White/light dials make the watch look even larger than black/dark colored dials. Thick, high standing also contribute to wearablity. A thin 42 will probably wear better than an overly thick 40. (I sold both my Breitling SteelFish and Blacksteel, because they were too top heavy. However, my SuperOcean Heritage @ 46mm but THIN, wears fine on my 7")

[praetor]

For all it's inaccuracies in replication, I love my Heritage. It (in terms of design) is what I could call a "Diver's stopwatch" rather than a straight out chronograph, simply because it features the rotating timing bezel rather than a tachymeter scale It is big? Yes. I wouldn't call it over-sized though

The pic is a 7032 btw. here's another shot of it

Edited April 4, 2011 by praetor

[lhooq]

I would love to see a breakdown of Rolex sales on a per-model basis. At the very least, I think it would be instructive to compare sales of watches that are, say, 39mm and up with those of smaller Rolexes. The preferences of the average WIS may be gravitating toward the mid-40s, but I think it might be a mistake to extrapolate that trend to the wider public. I run into a lot of people who still find a Luminor to be bizarrely big.

And, no, I don't spend most of my time in a retirement home!

[TeeJay]

The pic is a 7032 btw. here's another shot of it

I have to admit, I did wonder, because of the 'wedge' being on the 3 subdial rather than the 9, but I didn't know that the watch was available with the timing bezel as well

[lhooq]

I have to admit, I did wonder, because of the 'wedge' being on the 3 subdial rather than the 9, but I didn't know that the watch was available with the timing bezel as well

Strange thing about that '7033'... I don't think anyone had ever seen one -let alone knew of its existence- until it was displayed alongside the Heritage at last year's Baselworld.

[ispytonyv]

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.

I only somewhat agree. For the SD to be a different model, I think it didn't push the Submariner boundaries enough. I still have to look twice to tell the 2 apart at wrist-length distance. That said, the DSSD went way TOO far. Something in between would have been a more successful design. And while I too think the DSSD to be a top-heavy monstrosity, the PloProf is just as ridiculous.

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.

As has been pointed out, The TT addresses the "blah" nature, but add me to the list of wishing for a Pepsi return.

3. ROLEXROLEX rehaut engraving.

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

I don't really notice it much, but it was indeed a stupid idea. Funny though, that the rep makers can't quite nail this down, or a proper pearl.

4. Fat lugs on the classic Submariner.

This is like the Porsche 911 -> 996 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.

Agree 100%, like everything else these days, watches are getting fatter. A little beefier would have been OK, but this may have gone over the line.

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.

No argument from me here!

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.

Once again, I agree. The Explorer updates (I and to a lesser but still successful degree II) were well-executed to my eyes. And I love that they're adding AR on the Exp II... that should have been applied to the whole range ages ago. It was asked earlier about popularity of the various models, and I've seen it reported that 4 of 5 Rolex sold are still Datejust variations. In that light I'm not sure they could just "leave the classics alone" since eventually those customers will die off. Much as the Cayenne, for better or worse, ushered in a new era for Porsche, Rolex must take more chances with their line. The purists decried it, but the profits fueled a resurgence.

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

I think not. The ceramic bezel signals that they'll be updating the current model, not replacing it wholesale.

Thoughts?

[alterego]

I couldn't agree more with your views on the new versions of the Rolex family. Most of them look like cheap copies of other brand watches that are characterized by their exaggeration when it comes to structural and cosmetic balance. I think the only new Rolex that keeps the traditional aesthetics of the House is the small Perpetual Date.

By they way. If the tendency of the preference of this "poll" represents a validated opinion, "vintage" Rolex prices can only go up in the market.

[Ronin]

By they way. If the tendency of the preference of this "poll" represents a validated opinion, "vintage" Rolex prices can only go up in the market.

Actually, I think the value of the last generation will go up. (16610, 16710, 16600, 16570). Personally, I am hoping this is the case for me with my 16570 as I think the new Exp II will be polarizing with lovers and haters. A similar thing happened with the GMT II when the IIC came out. Pepsi's were the HOT Rolex then.

[Vuggy]

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.

People who post on forums like huge watches for some reason. I'm learning this more and more. Perhaps people who post on forums are all extremely large people? Anyway, even if you like huge watches, the bracelet on the DSSD is tiny in comparison and looks weird.

The entire ceramic line is crap, IMHO.

3. ROLEXROLEX rehaut engraving.

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

This was an anti-counterfeiting measure, pure and simple. And so far it has worked. Rep rehaut printing is terrible.

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.

I agree, now the nice lines of the Rollies look like a square cracker.

5. Yacht-Master II.

Maybe the ugliest watch Rolex has ever made.

Totally agree.

[alterego]

I think your views represent the vast majority of the Rolex fans around the world. New models actually suck. One exception, the new Rolex Perpetual date, with dommed bezel. I think they kept the original oyster spirit in this one, which maintainig the old school aestheetic quality of the watch, has a totally new look by replacing the simple smooth bezel.

Thank you for bringing this topic to the forum, with your all time in depth views about our passion.

Cheers !

By

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?

[plaifender]

With the exception of the Yacht Master (which is hideous), I disagree with just about all of this. It's just modernising the design.

IMO Rolex were way behind the times. They still are really, as they only really took a baby step with these increased sizes. Which isn't surprising given that the originals are considered design classics.

For example I'd rather wear my seiko monster than my gen moonwatch nowadays, Sure it's only 1mm difference but because of the design it wears much larger. Same goes for the new submariner. I know many will disagree based on the design icon thing. But, that the new sub wears bigger than than the old one is the only reason I would consider wearing one. I know this will be unpopular with traditional Rolex fans, but i bet many others my age (GenX) think the same.

I also think that the old bracelet and clasp suck because it feels flimsy and clunky regardless of how reliable it was. The new one feels silky, tough, modern and looks much better. I also think the ceramic insert is huge improvement in terms of looks and durability - finally rolex makes a 'tool' watch that wont ding or scratch with minor use.

For my mind, on average, the new designs are way better, but I'm just a guy who likes non-vintage watches and not a traditional rolex fan.

Once they start ARing the crystals they will be on the right path.

Mastrmind... you speak nothing but the truth! agreed

[By-Tor]

Has there been any discussion about the new Rolex Sky-Dweller?

What's the point of this watch?