Comments:
A silly question I know...
...but does anyone know why Rolex doesn’t make a Perpetual Calendar?
They call some of their watches ‘Oyster Perpetual,’ but there doesn’t seem to be any ‘Perpetual’ about them. The ‘Oyster’ part I get...waterproof.
I would probably even settle for an Annual Calendar (grudgingly).
The VC ref. 47050 (triple calendar) is one of the most perfect watches I’ve seen, and is on my list. But if Rolex ever made a PC based on their vintage ref. 8171 (or similar) I would pay A LOT to get one.
Any ideas?
A couple of related links:
Best, m
Perpetual = Automatic, for Rolex. Maybe one day, but it doesn't seem it is Rolex playground. [nt]
No message body
But the Sky-Dweller is a bit of a beast at 42mm...
Owning a vintage Sub I understand what Rolex’s bread and butter is. But wouldn’t it be amazing to have a smaller, thinner, dressier watch with a PC complication (moon-phase included, naturally)?
Perhaps it would be part of the Cellini line, but I imagine such a watch to echo the elegance and simplicity of the triple-dates of yesteryear.
I am happy to forego the sapphire back should they choose to include a less than Lange-esque movement.
Perhaps it would be part of the Cellini line, but I imagine such a watch to echo the elegance and simplicity of the triple-dates of yesteryear.
I am happy to forego the sapphire back should they choose to include a less than Lange-esque movement.
When you can sell so many watches by changing dials, bezels, bracelets, why bother about horological complexity? My 2c. [nt]
No message body
Very well said
Rolex is able to produce any watch and they have a fantastic vintage collection.
But as long as we make each other crazy with all these Oysters with minor detail differences, why would Rolex care. It is a very good brand, but it could have been a very interesting brand too.
George
But as long as we make each other crazy with all these Oysters with minor detail differences, why would Rolex care. It is a very good brand, but it could have been a very interesting brand too.
George
I think you need to look to another manufacturer...
It’s not how Rolex currently position themselves in the market.
The same reasons Grand Seiko doesn’t make one
They don’t want to. They don’t have to. They’re busy enough already.
Cazalea
Cazalea
I’m with everyone else on this, the risks they would take by going down the complication route are simply too big relative to the possible gains in terms of image😉 [nt]
No message body
I imagine it's hard to make a perpetual calendar bullet and idiot proof to Rolex' standards. [nt]
No message body
Thanks for the replies...
...I realize they don’t have to (common response), but I kind of like this reply the best. They would want to build it a certain, way, and perhaps that just can’t be done. I suppose the hunt for a Daytona will continue (not for me).
They have patents for things like high-beat escapements, too.
It's likely when they do the math, the tech doesn't fit into the level of reliability they have as a standard.
Aren't UN perpetuals considered user-friendly . . .
. . . and reasonably reliable, though? It shouldn't be out of the question for Rolex to come up with a comparable solution.
One could pose an even broader question: why don't they offer repeaters, tourbillons, or grand complications? Not that I know much about their history, but I've never come across any Rolex in any of those categories.
Art
Doubt it
Rolex is making an Annual Calendar but the jump to a PC is large and very complex. No reason to do that when they are selling everything they make now. No matter how they package the GMT movement folks have to have each one. They are collectors you know.
I can only believe that...
...the technology necessary is well within the abilities of Rolex. It isn’t magic. I doubt that patents even apply at this point since everyone and their brother make a PC.