Rolex movements - what, if anything, is 'special' about them
Discussion
With apologies for the slightly provocative title.....
On a purely technical level, is there anything unique, valuble or noteworthy about the in-house Rolex automatic movements?
Are they considered the best in the business?
Is there anything about them that makes them 'better' than, say, the ETA elaboré movement in a Steinhart?
Thanks all!
On a purely technical level, is there anything unique, valuble or noteworthy about the in-house Rolex automatic movements?
Are they considered the best in the business?
Is there anything about them that makes them 'better' than, say, the ETA elaboré movement in a Steinhart?
Thanks all!
Well, it’s marketing of movements that are totally manufactured and assembled in-house, some with a few unique features. They’re rightly proud of them.
Instead of slagging them off, some people might want to question why some expensive watches have generic movements. And maybe ask which makers use no marketing. Not even word of mouth...
Instead of slagging them off, some people might want to question why some expensive watches have generic movements. And maybe ask which makers use no marketing. Not even word of mouth...
Barchettaman said:
With apologies for the slightly provocative title.....
On a purely technical level, is there anything unique, valuble or noteworthy about the in-house Rolex automatic movements?
Are they considered the best in the business?
Is there anything about them that makes them 'better' than, say, the ETA elaboré movement in a Steinhart?
Thanks all!
You could argue that whilst not a revolutionary or particularly groundbreaking movement, they been in production and development since the 50's and are considered pretty robust and reliable. Rolex seem to pride themselves on this rather than overburdening the movements with complications. On a purely technical level, is there anything unique, valuble or noteworthy about the in-house Rolex automatic movements?
Are they considered the best in the business?
Is there anything about them that makes them 'better' than, say, the ETA elaboré movement in a Steinhart?
Thanks all!
Some interesting reading here:
http://www.chronometrie.com/rolex3135/rolex3135.ht...
Tony1963 said:
people might want to question why some expensive watches have generic movements.
I recently started to get interested in what was going on inside various watches and what is *actually* being bought. It's eye-opening! On the one hand, some watches become very interesting, and others suddenly seem to be very expensive just because they can be. Reading up has turned my perception of Rolex around from 'just the most popular expensive watch people get to make a statement', to having an appreciation for what they are.
BS62 said:
Reading up has turned my perception of Rolex around from 'just the most popular expensive watch people get to make a statement', to having an appreciation for what they are.
I don't think Mr Fowsands and his band of Insta followers from the Options thread are worried about who makes the movement.liner33 said:
I think people worry too much or at least add unjustified weight to the whole in-house movement debate, on many watches they are no more accurate and never seen by the actual owner but some simply take solace that they are there
That’s just not the point for many though, is it? I’ve never lab tested my camera’s shutter speeds or exposure meter, but I get a nice feeling from being able to trust the engineering that has gone into making them pretty good. It’s all just a matter of personal taste, in the end. And remember, lots of people blow £3k per year on leasing a Korean buzzbox to drive around in, and there’s no criticism at all! Even though there’s absolutely nothing to show for it within a very short time.
Watches are lovely things, and I think it’s good that more people are at least interested.
Tony1963 said:
liner33 said:
I think people worry too much or at least add unjustified weight to the whole in-house movement debate, on many watches they are no more accurate and never seen by the actual owner but some simply take solace that they are there
That’s just not the point for many though, is it? I’ve never lab tested my camera’s shutter speeds or exposure meter, but I get a nice feeling from being able to trust the engineering that has gone into making them pretty good. It’s all just a matter of personal taste, in the end. And remember, lots of people blow £3k per year on leasing a Korean buzzbox to drive around in, and there’s no criticism at all! Even though there’s absolutely nothing to show for it within a very short time.
Watches are lovely things, and I think it’s good that more people are at least interested.
[cynic]The most noteworthy technical feature is the half-century-outdated plain bearing for the oscillating weight. It wears badly, sheds abrasive metal particles into other parts of the watch (often the top intermediate and third wheel pivots), and routinely allows the weight to strike the plate edges, wrecking the finish. Without the cobbled-together "guard" (which no other brand seems to need) it's also liable to take out the (insanely expensive) balance wheel like Tiger Woods with a 1 iron.[/cynic]
That aside, they're nicely designed and nicely made movements which, if not run too far past service intervals, will last a lifetime + without difficulty. They're also logically laid out and easy to work on.
On the other hand, I'm by no means convinced that every one is "hand assembled by a skilled craftsman" simply because of the production volume by most estimates (between 750k & a million per year).
Given that they (apparently) employ 2800 people total, even if we say half of those are said "skilled craftsmen", that leaves them knocking out 535 to 713 movements a year each. On a 5 day week with 4 weeks leave that's between 2 and 3 a day. Certainly possible, but it's very much assembly line stuff rather than lovingly tuning and tweaking each one!
That aside, they're nicely designed and nicely made movements which, if not run too far past service intervals, will last a lifetime + without difficulty. They're also logically laid out and easy to work on.
On the other hand, I'm by no means convinced that every one is "hand assembled by a skilled craftsman" simply because of the production volume by most estimates (between 750k & a million per year).
Given that they (apparently) employ 2800 people total, even if we say half of those are said "skilled craftsmen", that leaves them knocking out 535 to 713 movements a year each. On a 5 day week with 4 weeks leave that's between 2 and 3 a day. Certainly possible, but it's very much assembly line stuff rather than lovingly tuning and tweaking each one!
Roger Smith - protege of George Daniels, maker of some of the world’s finest watches from near scratch, and most recently seen collecting his OBE for services to British Watchmaking - presumably knows a thing or two and had this to say when asked what watch under $10k he’d recommend someone to buy:
"I don’t know if this would surprise people, but personally, it would have to be a Rolex. They are exceptional watches and what impresses me about Rolex is that they’re not very adventurous, which is good, because they know they have a great movement. The movements that they use are tried and tested. They’ve been around forever — why change the wheel? They have a watch that you can use for dress, sports, and it’s a great all-rounder. Put one on your wrist and you’ll probably die with that watch on your wrist. It’s not everyone’s cup of tea, but I look at the mechanics of a watch, the case and how all the components are constructed; to me, [the Rolex is] bulletproof, and I don’t think you can get much better than that."
He also wears a Rolex Explorer as his daily.
"I don’t know if this would surprise people, but personally, it would have to be a Rolex. They are exceptional watches and what impresses me about Rolex is that they’re not very adventurous, which is good, because they know they have a great movement. The movements that they use are tried and tested. They’ve been around forever — why change the wheel? They have a watch that you can use for dress, sports, and it’s a great all-rounder. Put one on your wrist and you’ll probably die with that watch on your wrist. It’s not everyone’s cup of tea, but I look at the mechanics of a watch, the case and how all the components are constructed; to me, [the Rolex is] bulletproof, and I don’t think you can get much better than that."
He also wears a Rolex Explorer as his daily.
An interesting read, and I’m sure many aspects of the Rolex factory would be similar to other manufacturers. Just not the scale of it, maybe.
https://www.ablogtowatch.com/watch-brands/rolex/
https://www.ablogtowatch.com/watch-brands/rolex/
Balmoral said:
Funny that George Daniels should be mentioned, I once heard him refer to someone's Rolex as "a tractor", although it was probably in jest.
I think some Rolexes are a bit tractor like in certain respects.... totally reliable, go on for years, don't need to be handled with kid gloves etc. The movements are not finished in the way a Patek might be. So I can understand what Daniels might have meant.Yep, think NDA’s hit the nail on the head there - I suspect that was Daniel’s intended meaning, and I would also read it as a compliment.
Rolex aren’t trying to do what Patek, AP, Lange, Vacheron do - Rolex are all about accuracy, stability, durability, toughness, longevity, ease of working upon etc., and mostly dedicated to simply telling the time. And as a movement, the 313X series is pretty robust & thick, with quite a lot of plates/bridges and less concerned with aesthetics.
So ‘Tractor’ isn’t an inaccurate or necessarily derogatory description to my mind - doing something that ‘just’ works as well as that is a notable achievement in its own right.
Incidentally, Daniels offered Rolex (and others) his Co-Axial escapement, even going so far as to retro-fit a Rolex Explorer with it for demonstration purposes. Rolex declined to buy the rights, but Omega of course later purchased. So I doubt Daniels had a negative view of Rolex’s engineering capabilities.
Rolex aren’t trying to do what Patek, AP, Lange, Vacheron do - Rolex are all about accuracy, stability, durability, toughness, longevity, ease of working upon etc., and mostly dedicated to simply telling the time. And as a movement, the 313X series is pretty robust & thick, with quite a lot of plates/bridges and less concerned with aesthetics.
So ‘Tractor’ isn’t an inaccurate or necessarily derogatory description to my mind - doing something that ‘just’ works as well as that is a notable achievement in its own right.
Incidentally, Daniels offered Rolex (and others) his Co-Axial escapement, even going so far as to retro-fit a Rolex Explorer with it for demonstration purposes. Rolex declined to buy the rights, but Omega of course later purchased. So I doubt Daniels had a negative view of Rolex’s engineering capabilities.
Gassing Station | Watches | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff