Re: Some rolex thoughts

"Jack Denver" wrote:

> I don't know that Rolexes are really finished so shamefully. They are
> obviously not up to the standards of finish of Patek or Lange (they
never
> were, nor (especially back when their watches cost $300) did they ever
> pretend to be anything but a "tool watch". But by modern (ever
declining)
> standards their watches are not so bad that they should be hidden.
See this
> review for look inside:
>
> http://people.timezone.com/mdisher/andrewb/3135/3135_1.htm
>
> An expert might note the rather slapdash circular graining, the lack
of
> anglage, black polish, etc. but to the casual observer it is not so
ugly
> that it must be hidden - if Rolex was not Rolex (the company that
rarely
> changes anything) they might well put a glass back on this watch and
be able
> to sell it.


I hope you still think so after you've had a look at the following link:

http://www.timezone.com/library/horologium/horologium0036

and seen the movement photos in part 2 of Walt Odet's article (though I
assume that you're already familiar with it as it wasn't posted only
yesterday).

It isn't exactly what you expect from a watch that comes so dear, is it?


> Invicta (obviously in another price category, but still) is
> not ashamed to take a stock Miyota movement (they don't even bother
> engraving the Invicata name on it - in the quantities that Invicta
buys,
> I'll bet that they could have this done for well under $1/watch) with
a
> sandblasted finish utterly devoid of decoration and put a window on
it -
> for the modern buyer it is enough to be able to see that little
balance
> wheel dancing and know that it is not a quartz watch. The fine points
of
> watch finish (Geneva stripes, colimaconnage, etc.) go right over the
head of
> the average buyer.

Invicta is in a price range where it'd be downright unreasonable to
expect elaborately decorated movements and a handcrafted surface finish.

I didn't expect any decorative bells and whistels from my
Mühle-Glashütte M12, either. (Even if there were any, they'd be
invisible as that particular model doesn't come with a see-through
bottom). Anyway, the glass-back watches that M.-G. offer reveal plain
vanilla ETA movements with only two modifications, namely their own
'woodpecker neck' regulator for better fine tuning and their own rotor,
the latter being decorated and fitted with a two-part oscillating weight
which is composed of a gold and platinum alloy and riveted to the rotor
disc. What may sound like excessively complicated handcraft, is in fact
no more than the fully automated production of a rotor with an increased
unbalance so as to more efficiently wind up the spring in case there's
too little movement owing to a watch wearer's rather sedentary
lifestyle. The increase in unbalance, however, would cause the rotor
bearing to wear down faster. M.-G. cancels this effect by modifying the
rotor bearing, too.


> Note also the considerable wear on the rotor axle caused by their
stubborn
> refusal to adopt the ball bearing - sapphire jewels are great for low
load
> bearings such as balance wheels but there is a reason why sapphire
jewels
> are never used as bearings in machines of greater than miniature
scale -
> under sapphire's other name (corundum) it is famous as an abrasive
owing to
> its extreme hardness (second only to diamond). The sapphire jewel is
> virtually designed to wear down the rotor axle.

.... which is precisely the reason for which Eterna developed their rotor
ball bearing. However, Wilsdorf didn't live long enough to see Eterna's
patent on that system expire, and paying royalties to a competitor
apparently wasn't the old man's ways to tackle technical problems. Mind
you, that would have been Rolex' official declaration of horological
incompetence, so it's probably the reason why they decided to stick with
their own solution, although it was technically inferior. After the old
man had closed his eyes, nobody dared touch or bothered to touch that
issue again, even after Eterna's solution had become public domain - it
would have required too much redesign of the otherwise reliable Rolex'
calibers, I suppose.


> It should be noted that Rolex did experiment with quartz watches in
the
> "Oysterquartz". They made a odd decision in that they put the
Oysterquartz
> movement into a funky angular 70's style case rather than just porting
the
> quartz movement into their existing models as an option in lieu of the
> mechanical movement. I don't know whether this was an intentional
decision
> to "protect" the integrity of their original models or a thought that
a
> modern movement should have a modern case (I suspect they were
thinking the
> latter),

I can only vaguely remember seeing those Oysterquartz watches in the
jewellers' shop windows - in my teenage years I wasn't really that much
interested in Rolex, or analogue watches altogether. "Mechanical watch"
in those days was a synonym for "old-fashioned people's watches", and
little did we know about horology. Digital watches were all the rage
with us junior highschool students. Supercharged with gadgets such as
multiple alarms, countdown timers, full calendar, stop watch, and so
forth, teenagers' watches of choice had to be, and to hell with all
those outdated, ticking handwinds and auto-winds. Our conception of the
future was that of a bright and happy, nuclear-powered, quartz-timed,
digital world. ;-)


> but it had the former effect - the Oysterquartz was a poor seller
> and eventually disappeared without a trace, in large part I think due
to the
> styling which rapidly became dated as so much of '70s styles did,
while
> their traditional lineup motored on. Again I think that the angels
were
> smiling on Rolex (maybe Wilsdorf intercedes for the company with the
Big
> Guy)

I'm sure there's more than just one original inhabitant of Geneva to
believe that God holds a Swiss passport. :-)


> in that if they had gone the other way it might have weakened their
> image and made them "just another quartz watch" - if there really was
such a
> thing as a quartz Submariner, then the $10 fakes would be truly
> indistinguishable from the real (at least to the casual observer).

If we exclude the option that Rolex far-sightedly cancelled their feable
attempts to go quartz (I'd rather say they were half-heartedly testing
the water) only so as to take the bread out of the mouths of those
all-too-cheap counterfeiters who would put quartz movements in fake
Rolex watches, it turned out a real stroke of luck for them, and
probably saved their hide.


> It should be noted that the Oysterquartz movement was a rather nicely
done
> movement by quartz standards - built like a mechanical movement with
metal
> plates done in Geneva stripes, fully jeweled, etc. Unfortunately, the
level
> of finish of a quartz movement contributes little if anything to its
> accuracy.

All to true, I'm afraid. Even Patek couldn't make quartz movements be
more precise with all their traditional watchmaking skills - which is
probably why they've stayed clear of all attempts to go quartz, either.


> Wilsdorf was obsessed with accuracy and I'd bet that he would have
pushed in
> the direction of "superquartz" watches with compensated crystals, etc.
I'm
> not sure that digital displays or radio control would have interested
him,
> but we'll never know since the man died before the quartz era. I
should note
> that by the time he died (1960) the American companies were already
> producing electricly driven balance wheel watches but AFAIK Rolex
never
> ventured in that direction - perhaps this is a clue.

Maybe we shouldn't speculate too much into what a great man did or
neglected to do. By that time Wilsdorf was almost 80 years old, and it'd
be rather unfair to expect even of a brilliant mind at that venerable
age to fully grasp the implications of a new technology that was
beginning to cast its menacing shadows over the hitherto slow-paced
world of horology. :-)

Best regards,
OP

.

Relevant Pages