Do you think Rolex is stuck design-wise?

[crystalcranium]

Not that Montres Rolex needs my advice...they sell every watch they make but looking at their recent attempts to bust out of their 1960's design hole, the new Yacht Master and rehaut engraved Super Sea Dweller, leads me to believe they are caught between an old rock and a new hard place. Their new designs look so "Un-Rolex"...somewhat cartoonlike, and their old designs are stuck in 37mm, Annette and Frankie land. I have resisted buying a Datejust because it has no size presence other than the name and I wouldn't be caught dead spending thousands for a new design that would have most people saying "that's a Rolex???"

[By-Tor]

The new models are highly unattractive. The ceramic GMT is an exception... it's a fine looking watch in its own merits, but then again all the spirit and tradition of the original GMT is lost.

The new DeepSeaDweller is just silly, Yacht-Master II is one of the worst looking watches ever made, and the new Submariner is another step backwards. I'm afraid they're going to ruin the Explorer II next, which is currently an elegant, understated and classy watch. Those three things seem to be completely missing from the new Rolex design philosophy.

Perhaps the only sensible upgrade was the bigger (40mm) DateJust/DayDate line. But then again I have never cared about them. New Milgauss ain't all bad, either.

[perry563]

Everything needs to change to keep up with the ever changing tastes of the buying public. So Rolex like everything else alters their product but at the same time tries to kep the traditional overall look intact. The alternative is to stagnate and eventually lose sales and in the long run put the entire company in peril. I agree that the new additions appear to be too much of a change from the traditional models. An interesting question would be........keeping the above as true then what could have Rolex done differently to introduce new updated models but at the same time keep tradition intact?

[Dizzy]

well they were stuck.. now we have goofy looking new models.. i dont mind the deep sea though. You're worried about the Exp II and im worried about the next generation Daytona I cant wait to see what they do there.

[By-Tor]

An interesting question would be........keeping the above as true then what could have Rolex done differently to introduce new updated models but at the same time keep tradition intact?

If you look at 1680 and 16610... or 1675 and 16710: there's 40 years between the models. No big changes at all... both watches still have the same "spirit".

They could have reissued the "Red" Submariner for example... to celebrate the 100th anniversary. And add antireflective coating to their lineup. Why change design of something that's already an icon?

And coming up with something as disgusting as YMII requires skill. That watch is a complete disaster. And who wants to have a Submariner that looks like Invicta?

[w.genzo]

This is a post of Bryan Goh, a famous watch collector:

The capitulation of Rolex and the beginning of the end

Basel wasn't disappointing per se. The watch industry has been disappointing for a number of years now. How many series of limited editions launched sequentially does it take to dilute the specialness of a limited edition? How trivial need the changes be to distinguish one limited edition from another? How much further can they pander to slender wrists of both genders seeking ever larger watches? How more desperately attention seeking can the dials and bezels, cases and bracelets be?

To me the Rolex DeepSea marks the end. In investment markets, there is the concept of capitulation. The astute investor who stays well away from tech stocks until in disgust he decides at the end of 1999 to finally invest. The trader who accumulates his positions from 2001 through 2002 only to lose patience, question his own wisdom and sell everything in 2003. So also Rolex despite robust sales sees competition in earnest for the first time in decades, and let's be honest there is serious competition, struggles to understand the logic of the Panerai, which celebrates a gang of Fascist marine terrorists I might add, that wears the slight Asian gentleman, decides to wade into the fray with a larger Day Date and a clock on bracelet called the DeepSea we pretend to call a watch. For years Rolex has defied the temptation to periodically re-case old movements. Instead they have dynamically if a little slowly made marginal improvements upon the functional aspects of the Oyster, shaping that famously robust timekeeping tool while others made jewelry, what else can you call the umpteenth re-casing of a movement unchanged for over a decade?

The US economy is in recession, Europe isn't far behind. Despite the resilience of Brazil, Russia, India and China, these economies will also slow down, although thankfully in their case intentionally. There are a billion wrists still to adorn yes, but this will take time, to educate, cajole, hoodwink. In the meantime the US and Europe, already drunk with horological excess, can only slow down.

If you have to buy a DeepSea, wait a bit. It will go to premium as some IPOs do even in the last legs of a bull market, but they then tend to trade lower than IPO price in the coming years. I would look in the distress to pick up the old GMT II, the Explorer II, the current Sub with date. Don't do it quite yet. The market will give you a chance. And there is no need to buy them new. Always be a buyer in times of distress from weak holders in distress

[freddy333]

I think you are all missing the point. Rolex has never directed their designs at the WIS or collector market. Quite the contrary, they design high quality watches for mass market appeal. And, currently, the mass market wants bigger, gaudier more techno-glamour watches, which is what Rolex is producing. Not my cup of tea (which is 1 of the reasons I prefer vintage models), but, based on the waiting lists for these 'ugly' new designs (that have not even hit the store shelves yet), I expect they will have great appeal to their target market - the average Rolex buyer (this is the guy WHO KNOWS NOTHING about watches other than the name in the dial).

[FasTTaP]

Not that Montres Rolex needs my advice...they sell every watch they make but looking at their recent attempts to bust out of their 1960's design hole, the new Yacht Master and rehaut engraved Super Sea Dweller, leads me to believe they are caught between an old rock and a new hard place. Their new designs look so "Un-Rolex"...somewhat cartoonlike, and their old designs are stuck in 37mm, Annette and Frankie land. I have resisted buying a Datejust because it has no size presence other than the name and I wouldn't be caught dead spending thousands for a new design that would have most people saying "that's a Rolex???"

Could'nt agree more... with the exception of the GMT, all Rolex model are getting worse everytime a new edition comes out.

Think about it : 70s sub vs. modern sub, Paul Newman vs. modern Daytona, DRSD vs. latest fatty SD, not to mention the Milgauss or the Explorers I & II...

The only way to go Rolex is Vintage (considering the last Rolex auction, many collectors think this way, I guess)

just my 2c

[crystalcranium]

Great comments guys...keep it coming. My OP wasn't so much a rant about their ugly new models (they are) but that I'm losing my attraction for their old designs which are classic but dated. Look at what GP has done with their updates of classic lines. The same with IWC and Breuget. Rolex looks lost...the new stuff is tooooo different.

[teddy boy]

I actually like the look of the DeepSea, it strikes me as an updated version of a classic. Their other new stuff looks as though it should light up and give you a free game.

[iceberg1459]

rolex creates his own fashion and matter of taste, whatever he does will be sold as long as they are blingy and high quality. i personally think new bigger models are great with ceramic bezels etc..small is out, big is in

[takashi]

I have seen personally that Deep Sea at the Baselworld... Big disappointment? Not at all! It's infact quite on the contrary. The only thing holding me back is the price point (I think it starts above 10000USD mark).

Rolex brand is so well known. I have to disagree that Rolex leads itself to doomsday.

A few recent issues of well known watch magazine in Germany (Chronos) has highlighted Rolex pretty well. It even gave that (IMHO) ugly YMII above 90 out of 100 points which is a surprisingly high mark. Maybe it's paid review??? I don't know. You be the judge.

[crystalcranium]

I actually like the look of the DeepSea, it strikes me as an updated version of a classic. Their other new stuff looks as though it should light up and give you a free game.

That's what I can't understand. They proudly remain resistant to overt change of their classic lines and then they come out with the Joker's version of a watch in the new YM (it looked comically close to Sector's All In tribute to cable TV poker tournaments). And Rolex green might be an iconic corporate color but it looks hideous on a watch.

[crystalcranium]

Rolex brand is so well known. I have to disagree that Rolex leads itself to doomsday.

Pan Am.....American Motors Corporation.....Bethlehem Steel.....

[By-Tor]

A few recent issues of well known watch magazine in Germany (Chronos) has highlighted Rolex pretty well. It even gave that (IMHO) ugly YMII above 90 out of 100 points which is a surprisingly high mark. Maybe it's paid review??? I don't know. You be the judge.

I'll give this suit 90 out of 100 points too.

"Luke, I'm your Mother!"

Seriously: The new YMII is probably a fine watch, technically speaking. It just looks funny... just like this "Trans Vader" suit.

[POTR]

I have to disagree on the DeepSea...

The "engraved rehaut" that everyone is complaining about, really isn't... nobody seems to understand it's purpose...

what it is is a solid chunk of what basically amounts to pipe... that runs from the bottom of the crystal to the caseback...

the movement is totally captured inside...

The reason for this is to take the pressures the watch can theoretically be subjected to, equalizing the stresses through the ring lock system and thereby protecting the movement inside.

The ring lock system is similar in design to the old milgauss faraday shield, but in this case the shield provides a different sort of protection and the dial is not part of the shield, but inside it... more like the old 3646 that Rolex built for someone else... fashio-risti's probably won't recognize that either...

Seems like even the experts no nothing about Rolex... until it's vintage... and forget it again when antique...

Go ahead... regurgitate H SK Tan or whoever... it's just a bigger watch... only design improvements are incremental like the new ceramic bezel and the guide lock clasp... that thing I don't understand is just ugly marketing...

[southcoast68]

I think the Deep Sea is a good attempt in keeping up with the "bigger is better" trend in watches today. For me, the RolexRolexRolex engraving that appeared a couple years ago was a nice subtle addition to thier new models, but the "Patented Ring Lock System, etc" frontal engraving is a bit too much, especially in black. That text should have remained on the case back only, IMO, other than that, I am warming up to it.

However, the very existence of the Deep Sea proves to me that Rolex IS aiming at collectors. Lets face it, who needs a watch that can go to a depth of over 12,000 feet?? Professional divers use more computerised means of monitoring time when on the job nowadays, and I don't forsee a lot of divers spending 5 figures for a watch when they can get a Seiko that can do much the same job at a fraction of the price when in the diving bell, and rely on the diving equipment supplied when on the job. Even commercial diving companies I don't think would spend that much for watches for thier crews when they are already providing the before mentioned diving equipment. Remember, back in the day, ROlex tool watches, while still costing more than other brands, were not even close to the cost of a Rolex today even when considering the relative cost of all things from then to now. Companies like Comex and Pan-Am used Rolex for thier design enginuity, solid construction, and VALUE. Nope, I see the Deep Sea on the wrists and in collections of WIS worldwide, not necessarily as a diving tool. Of couse there is nothing wrong with that, for the most part, watches today are more for personal expression as they are for telling time, when I want the time when I am at work, I look at the lower right corner of my computer screen.

The design of the Daytona seems safe for this year , and they produced some really yummy looking dials for this year, something to look forward to in the world of reps.

[POTR]

Rolex was aiming at Bell & Ross... (ie: No one needs a watch that'll do 10,000 ft, but...)

It's all about the engineering.... can't let upstarts take Rolex's game... try, and you will lose.

Rolex didn't give a flying flip about the marketing of the Deep Sea other than to make their's the deepest mechanical again.

This is about Rolex being the best, the most effective design, the tool. Possibly an anachronism in a time of digital everything else... but... digital fails as well... How many 'blue screens' did any mechanical watch ever give you? Just remember that when depending on a computer and nothing else.

That is what will sell Rolex and what has sold Rolex... only those preoccupied with fashion see this as fashion < Period >