radicaldog
Distinguished Member
- Joined
- Feb 11, 2009
- Messages
- 3,239
- Reaction score
- 982
I don’t think so, no. For the most part, Rolex evolution has been incremental and iterative. Finishing and materials have gotten more luxurious to be sure, but not at the expense of originally-intended durability and function. In fact, durability has generally gotten better. Ceramic bezels and solid link bracelets are some key examples. Overall, like them or not, Rolex tends to march to its own Rolex-defined beat.
In contrast, IWC model changes and introductions are much more driven by broader market trends and tend to be entirely about fashion, which can make the watches worse at what they were originally designed for. See the pilot watches as an example. They have repeatedly made the dials less legible in order to look more “aviation-inspired”—including stupid gauge meter-styled date windows, airplane-shaped hand ends, and removing the soft iron inner case to make way for display backs.
Good point re: IWC's gimmicky design details. I agree, now, that IWC is a worse sinner.
But I do think that Rolex have gone in a direction that crosses some lines in terms of their original design philosophy. You say: "Finishing and materials have gotten more luxurious to be sure, but not at the expense of originally-intended durability and function." But not compromising function and durability is too weak a condition. Even setting aside the added non-functional bling/polish (and why should we, really), it seems to me that for the core line of steel tool watches the design philosophy was to achieve maximal durability and functionality while keeping finishing quality at a sufficient level--indeed arguably just the level that didn't compromise function and durability. This sort of no-nonsense, almost Waspy approach is what made Rolex the choice of mid-century tastemakers. It's a very Eames-like design philosophy, if you like. My sense is that Rolex started treating finish quality as something to be maximised only after the quartz crisis, when they effectively decided to become jewellers. Basically I'm a curmudgeon but from a design perspective I just can't see the point of a modern, post-quartz crisis Rolex (and I say this without even having to get into Goldberger/Montanari's usual points about manufacturing techniques and such, about which I have mixed views). But don't let me beat that dead horse again.