You could say the same about modern CAD and CNC processes, which make designing and building mechanical movements vastly easier than it was in their heyday. The Swiss brands have long since drawn the arbitrary line that putting electronics in the final product is an affront to horological tradition, but anything along the way is fair game.
I know folks are going to complain about the aesthetic. As they do literally every time Rolex does something "new".
e.g. the Skydweller in the last decade or so.
This watch is interesting in that it draws on the Genta-esque integrated bracelet (also reminiscent of their 70s-era quartz stuff). I personally like the hexagons. I think everyone "will have always loved this" in 5-10 years.
The technical details of the watch are really on brand for Rolex: they just kinda turned everything up to 11, i.e. new escapement, turning up the BPS, thinner. Overall, I think it's really a great watch.
I think you're spot on. I'm not generally a fan of Rolex, but I really like this. Feels like the first release to live up to their brand in a while. I think you're right about the hexagons too, I didn't care for them at first but they have already grown on me.
Meta: wish more watches had a day (of the week) display/complication.
Date (of the month) is fine, but Tuesday to Friday often tend to blur together nowadays (especially post-COVID hybrid), and it'd be nice to have that option.
They will really have to have good tolerances, because now there are two wheels connected via a gear instead of just the one in a Lever escapement. The wheels themselves interlock because of their shape, but there's going to be additional backlash.
I'm wondering if the hollow areas in the wheels provide some impact shock resilience with the sides flexing a tiny bit.
The design language sort of echos, to me, the Atelier Wen Perception with the integrated bracelet. Neither of these watches are for me but sort of interesting seeing this style comeback after so many years of diver/tool watches with straps.
I'd personally love to have a Rolex just because of its craftsmanship. Because of this, I'm only drawn to the more subdued variants (all steel, plain bezel, plain dial in blue or black).
However, I have a couple of nice automatics, and don't want to expand my collection any further.
It is. "We are not in the watch business. We are in the luxury business" - former Rolex CEO.[1]
Rolex was originally a maker of working watches for rugged environments. Pilots and divers might wear one.
Today, the watch of choice for people who need accurate time is the cheap Casio G-Shock.
For about US$100, you can get solar power, WWV corrections, good waterproofing, and resistance to being banged on. It doesn't need any attention. It just works. Popular with military types.
My watch of choice remains the OG Casio F-91W, unchanged since its June 1989 introduction (35+ years!)[1] and still available today for the very nice price of $16.88[2]. They recently added Pink, Blue, Clear, Gold, White, Grey, and Green versions.
That's what seems newsworthy about this new movement, generally I would have said Rolex was just conspicuous consumption, you could get mechanically better / more interesting (and certainly more interesting-looking) watches for less, but that isn't their target market. So it's sort of heartwarming to see them making improvements that most of their customers won't notice.
Rolex is a funny brand. They have cheap models that exist exclusively for you to make a dealer happy by buying several of them, before they will consider allowing you to buy a high-end watch.
“Normal” people can’t actually buy these high-end Rolexes, even if they have the money.
It is true that some/many Rolex AD’s will allocate the most desirable watches to customers with an existing purchase history, and that some customers therefore buy less desirable models in order to earn goodwill with the AD.
However, it is not the case that the most desirable watches are necessarily (or even on average) the most expensive models. For instance, it is generally the steel models that are the most desirable and command the highest markup from MSRP on the secondary market. The Submariner, the Daytona, the GMT-Master II: almost all of Rolex’s most iconic, most in-demand, most "flippable" watches are the full steel versions, which are the cheapest versions of those model families.
To give a concrete example, it is generally considered easier to get a full-gold GMT (~$43k) or a two-tone (half steel, half gold) GMT (~$18k) at an Authorized Dealer than it is to get the full steel version ($11k).
The amount of money that has been floating around since 2020 has really exasperated the demand in the Rolex market. Dealers have been playing the "exclusive" game with customers pretending like stock is limited because of the popularity of the watches and the willingness for customers to pay above MSRP in the gray market. There has been a lot of talk recently on the web that this is starting to cool and the dealers will go back to selling to whoever wants to buy one.
Why does 80% of the article describe the movement technically and 20% sounds like AI/crypto hype? Two paragraphs about how the thing works followed by one about how it will change everything or some "unparallelled" sprinkled in...
For accuracy? It's probably a little worse than quartz. The escapement will have a longer overall lifespan, and may need servicing every couple decades, as opposed to a new battery every couple years.
>The escapement will have a longer overall lifespan, and may need servicing every couple decades, as opposed to a new battery every couple years.
My Citizen Ecodrive needed the first capacitor change after 17 years of daily wear. Literally zero service to the watch before that.
Also I really really don't buy that this mechanical movement won't need service every couple years like pretty much any mechanical watch out there. Where do you take the decades part from?
Probably the ruby that the spinning parts sit between and only need to be relubricated occasionally. I'm just going of what I've seen on service videos.
I am surprised we cannot use the self-winding or normal wind-up mechanics for power generation to charge a battery to supplement solar, but I expect the experiments have already been done and it was either not cost effective or just did not give out enough power to be useful.
It's been done and it works quite well from what I've read! I am not sure that Seiko still makes them, but you can still find some new ones for sale. Always wanted to get one of these since they're quite unique.
Unfortunately, Seiko's "Kinetic" movements don't seem to have ever been a big hit, so I don't know if it's something people actually wanted.
Ultimately I think the "problem" is that regular solar watches work so damn well, and that most quartz buyers have no interest in "unique" movements. I mean, I do, but I'm the minority. And I still never bought one...
There was the Bulova Accutron,[1] which used a 360 Hz tuning fork. This was the most accurate watch in the 1960s. Here's high frame rate video of the mechanism.[2] It's an electrically powered tuning fork ratcheting a toothed wheel forward. This is backwards from an escapement clock or watch.
Worked fine, used by astronauts, made obsolete by quartz watches.
The gyroscope in your phone is (microelectro)mechanical. Considering that the Rolex in question are using MEMS-based techniques, they might as well go all the way and make an entire movement out of MEMS designs.
The Rolex Oysterquartz (that this case and bracelet is based off) has a thermally compensated quartz movement that loses less time in a day than this will in a year. Sadly, people love clockwork.
Most interesting point of the article is the fact that Rolex are now using MEMS techniques to make silicon mechanical parts for watches.
IMO that’s kind of “cheating”, fab tech makes it way too easy compared to traditional metal machining craftsmanship.
You could say the same about modern CAD and CNC processes, which make designing and building mechanical movements vastly easier than it was in their heyday. The Swiss brands have long since drawn the arbitrary line that putting electronics in the final product is an affront to horological tradition, but anything along the way is fair game.
I know folks are going to complain about the aesthetic. As they do literally every time Rolex does something "new".
e.g. the Skydweller in the last decade or so.
This watch is interesting in that it draws on the Genta-esque integrated bracelet (also reminiscent of their 70s-era quartz stuff). I personally like the hexagons. I think everyone "will have always loved this" in 5-10 years.
The technical details of the watch are really on brand for Rolex: they just kinda turned everything up to 11, i.e. new escapement, turning up the BPS, thinner. Overall, I think it's really a great watch.
I think the initial design is made to be subtly flashy to signal its presence to the people who are in the know, like Milgauss.
I think more subtle variants will follow in a couple of years.
I think you're spot on. I'm not generally a fan of Rolex, but I really like this. Feels like the first release to live up to their brand in a while. I think you're right about the hexagons too, I didn't care for them at first but they have already grown on me.
Apparently Genta designed the Texan, which the OysterQuartz and therefore the Land Dweller are modelled from.
Meta: wish more watches had a day (of the week) display/complication.
Date (of the month) is fine, but Tuesday to Friday often tend to blur together nowadays (especially post-COVID hybrid), and it'd be nice to have that option.
* https://teddybaldassarre.com/en-ca/blogs/watches/day-date-wa...
You could get an Orient Kamasu which has day/date complication and is probably 1/100th the price of the Rolex.
I don't think Rolex will ever add that to a watch outside of their day-date
Rolex makes the OG Day-Date. Only in precious metals though.
[dead]
Rolex has an animation on their site (scroll about 1/3 down): https://www.rolex.com/en-us/watches/land-dweller
They will really have to have good tolerances, because now there are two wheels connected via a gear instead of just the one in a Lever escapement. The wheels themselves interlock because of their shape, but there's going to be additional backlash.
I'm wondering if the hollow areas in the wheels provide some impact shock resilience with the sides flexing a tiny bit.
The design language sort of echos, to me, the Atelier Wen Perception with the integrated bracelet. Neither of these watches are for me but sort of interesting seeing this style comeback after so many years of diver/tool watches with straps.
https://us.atelierwen.com/products/perception
If you want to have a close-up look at wristwatch movements, including Rolex's, I enjoy Wristwatch Revival on YouTube[1]
He's a gifted amateur, and it looks like a very soothing hobby (until you manage to lose one of the springs).
[1] https://www.youtube.com/c/WristwatchRevival
Obviously an entirely subjective opinion but wow those are ugly.
I think there are some items which look better in real life rather than renders, and watches (esp. higher end ones) are one of them.
I suspect the biggest draw to Rolex purchasers is the high price.
I'd personally love to have a Rolex just because of its craftsmanship. Because of this, I'm only drawn to the more subdued variants (all steel, plain bezel, plain dial in blue or black).
However, I have a couple of nice automatics, and don't want to expand my collection any further.
It is. "We are not in the watch business. We are in the luxury business" - former Rolex CEO.[1] Rolex was originally a maker of working watches for rugged environments. Pilots and divers might wear one.
Today, the watch of choice for people who need accurate time is the cheap Casio G-Shock. For about US$100, you can get solar power, WWV corrections, good waterproofing, and resistance to being banged on. It doesn't need any attention. It just works. Popular with military types.
[1] https://www.businessinsider.com/why-are-rolex-watches-so-exp...
My watch of choice remains the OG Casio F-91W, unchanged since its June 1989 introduction (35+ years!)[1] and still available today for the very nice price of $16.88[2]. They recently added Pink, Blue, Clear, Gold, White, Grey, and Green versions.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casio_F-91W
[2] https://www.amazon.com/Casio-F91W-1-Classic-Resin-Digital/dp...
That's what seems newsworthy about this new movement, generally I would have said Rolex was just conspicuous consumption, you could get mechanically better / more interesting (and certainly more interesting-looking) watches for less, but that isn't their target market. So it's sort of heartwarming to see them making improvements that most of their customers won't notice.
The announcement of the improvements is also conspicuous so people feel compelled to buy new watches.
Rolex is a funny brand. They have cheap models that exist exclusively for you to make a dealer happy by buying several of them, before they will consider allowing you to buy a high-end watch.
“Normal” people can’t actually buy these high-end Rolexes, even if they have the money.
This is only half correct.
It is true that some/many Rolex AD’s will allocate the most desirable watches to customers with an existing purchase history, and that some customers therefore buy less desirable models in order to earn goodwill with the AD.
However, it is not the case that the most desirable watches are necessarily (or even on average) the most expensive models. For instance, it is generally the steel models that are the most desirable and command the highest markup from MSRP on the secondary market. The Submariner, the Daytona, the GMT-Master II: almost all of Rolex’s most iconic, most in-demand, most "flippable" watches are the full steel versions, which are the cheapest versions of those model families.
To give a concrete example, it is generally considered easier to get a full-gold GMT (~$43k) or a two-tone (half steel, half gold) GMT (~$18k) at an Authorized Dealer than it is to get the full steel version ($11k).
The amount of money that has been floating around since 2020 has really exasperated the demand in the Rolex market. Dealers have been playing the "exclusive" game with customers pretending like stock is limited because of the popularity of the watches and the willingness for customers to pay above MSRP in the gray market. There has been a lot of talk recently on the web that this is starting to cool and the dealers will go back to selling to whoever wants to buy one.
Ferrari does the same thing. You need to have a "relationship" with the dealer before you can buy one.
Why does 80% of the article describe the movement technically and 20% sounds like AI/crypto hype? Two paragraphs about how the thing works followed by one about how it will change everything or some "unparallelled" sprinkled in...
I would say shut up and take my money but they don't want my money.
Omega has been doing an "indirect impulse" escapement for decades now. And they actually sell their watches to people.
Is the fancy new escapement better than a crystal oscillator?
No, but it’s also not supposed to be. It’s probably impossible for any mechanical movement to be as accurate as a quartz crystal.
No, but: https://chrono24.app/rolex/rolex-datejust-oysterquartz-ref-1...
Super accurate thermally compensated quartz.
For accuracy? It's probably a little worse than quartz. The escapement will have a longer overall lifespan, and may need servicing every couple decades, as opposed to a new battery every couple years.
>The escapement will have a longer overall lifespan, and may need servicing every couple decades, as opposed to a new battery every couple years.
My Citizen Ecodrive needed the first capacitor change after 17 years of daily wear. Literally zero service to the watch before that.
Also I really really don't buy that this mechanical movement won't need service every couple years like pretty much any mechanical watch out there. Where do you take the decades part from?
For their newest models, Rolex recommends service once per decade. FWIW, my five year old GMT is running noticeably worse than new in 2020.
Probably the ruby that the spinning parts sit between and only need to be relubricated occasionally. I'm just going of what I've seen on service videos.
I may just know a much lazier segment of mechanical watch owners.
I am surprised we cannot use the self-winding or normal wind-up mechanics for power generation to charge a battery to supplement solar, but I expect the experiments have already been done and it was either not cost effective or just did not give out enough power to be useful.
It's been done and it works quite well from what I've read! I am not sure that Seiko still makes them, but you can still find some new ones for sale. Always wanted to get one of these since they're quite unique.
https://www.seikowatches.com/us-en/customerservice/knowledge...
https://www.jomashop.com/seiko-kinetic-watch-ska791.html
Unfortunately, Seiko's "Kinetic" movements don't seem to have ever been a big hit, so I don't know if it's something people actually wanted.
Ultimately I think the "problem" is that regular solar watches work so damn well, and that most quartz buyers have no interest in "unique" movements. I mean, I do, but I'm the minority. And I still never bought one...
I have had a Kinetic since 1999; a millennium birthday present to myself.
It's a bit of an oddity.
The lithium-ion power cell needs to be replaced every 5-10 years, and it's relatively expensive part.
It has more mechanical complexity than a quartz plus the same maintenance.
But it works really well. It's a hybrid.
I love it despite this, it's unusual looking and the quirkiness makes it fun to talk about.
Is it easily user-replaceable? How expensive is it?
I really appreciate your reply.
Do you mean like a quartz timer?
Almost certainly not, but that's not really the point for mechanical watches.
Quartz oscillating frequency is like 32k Hz. Good luck getting anything mechanical to operate at those frequencies.
There was the Bulova Accutron,[1] which used a 360 Hz tuning fork. This was the most accurate watch in the 1960s. Here's high frame rate video of the mechanism.[2] It's an electrically powered tuning fork ratcheting a toothed wheel forward. This is backwards from an escapement clock or watch.
Worked fine, used by astronauts, made obsolete by quartz watches.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bulova
[2] https://youtu.be/CPS7aNCAwAA?t=194
The gyroscope in your phone is (microelectro)mechanical. Considering that the Rolex in question are using MEMS-based techniques, they might as well go all the way and make an entire movement out of MEMS designs.
I’d say so, yes.
It would be cool if it supported getting the time from the network so that you never had to manually fix the time.
For that you want a Seiko Astron GPS watch:
https://www.seikowatches.com/us-en/products/astron
(two decades ago it could have been a Timex Perpetual, but that's 404 these days)
The Rolex Oysterquartz (that this case and bracelet is based off) has a thermally compensated quartz movement that loses less time in a day than this will in a year. Sadly, people love clockwork.
Interesting movement, too bad it costs an arm and a leg.
Looks like a tissot PRX