- Posts
- 2,026
- Likes
- 7,157
MTROIS
·I agree with the point of view in the initial post in this thread - and dislike Rolex's direction in the past two decades (I'd probably praise it if i were their shareholder).
I wonder if there are brands that have consciously chosen the opposite direction.
Brands that have become less "see my chunky shiny watch" and more tool and purpose built driven.
Having just posted a pic of a DSSD, I do take your comment on "chunky shiny watches" a bit personally (but it is ALL good, we are all entitled to our opinions). 😁
I get the fact that Rolex watches have become so sought after and expensive that they are no longer seen as "tool watches", but they are not the only ones to have followed the trend. Even Tudor is not "cheap", for example when compared to any of the amazing Seiko dive watches.
At the same time who can argue that, from a technological point of view, Rolex have become better than ever. Their bracelet and clasp are top notch. Their movements (31xx or 32xx) are also top notch, with proven durability and serviceability, great power reserve etc. Ceramic bezel, yes, have less opportunity for building "character" and "battle scars"- and could be deemed more fragile as they are more brittle than anodized aluminum - but in terms of long term day to day performance in normal conditions (that exclude accidents), they are still superior IMO. All in all, I think the watches have never been better tools and purpose-built watches.
Whether people who wear them are perceived differently (at times for good reasons), whether the price has nearly become prohibitive and whether the "romantic" attachment that some of us have to the 4 and 5 digit series has been shattered (or at the very least been under attack by the "sterile" watches), is a different discussion in my mind.
By the way, you can substitute Rolex by Omega in my previous paragraph, and the message still
holds true IMHO.
