Guys and gals, so I want to see what other people think regarding this topic.
For example the vintage and older rolex's with Aluminium bezels seems to have aged well, and people seem to like their looks even decades after it was introduced.
So what do you think will happen with the new ceramic bezels? For example 30-40 years from now, will we still be using them? Or do you think it will pass as a "phase"? As ceramic bezels wont "age", not sure how it will stand up to the test of time.
Or more generally, what do you guys think of ceramic as a material on watches? We all know how brittle they are and can crack etc.
Impossible to say what'll happen in the future, in my opinion.
I like ceramic bezels as they're more hard wearing than the old aluminium type. I think the risk of cracking/shattering is minimal - you'd need your watch to experience a hefty thump for any damage to occur and then there'd be other damage to sort out too.
I think they will age bletter than aluminum as they won't fade, get scratched etc. and look tatty. Since we all love tool watches they will remain more functional!
I also think the brittleness concerns are overdone. Seiko have used ceramic shrouds on their 1000m tunas for ages (I have one from 1999) with very few reported problems.
Yeah just to clarify, im not trying to do an alu vs ceramic thread. Just want to see what others think in terms of ceramic bezels many years down the road. I wonder if they will become "vintage" 50 years later, or will the industry move to another bezel material and ceramic will be sought after etc. I know noone knows the future!
Sounds similar to the differences between a sapphire and an acrylic crystal. I've a couple of watches from the early 90's with sapphire crystals, the crystals look like new but the case and lugs have an appropriately aged look. A similar watch with an acrylic crystal would tend to have a more even aged look. Therefore applying the same comparison to the bezels a ceramic bezel will look newer longer that an aluminium one. Not an issue if you regularly have the case polished but it might look like a new bit on an old watch I you don't.
regards
grant
I'm reasonably confident that even high performance ceramics age, more so when exposed to water, and even more so when the water is hot (>140C). Whether it is significant is another matter. I don't know the nature of the composites used, but have wondered (a background worry) about how brittle they are, and how brittle they will become. However, I've not seen any evidence concerning this (haven't really looked), but am relying on experience with ceramics that might be outdated, or much too limited in scope..
Best wishes,
Bob
I reckon the ceramic bezels would have a near infinite life unless they are badly shocked.
Anyone who uses ceramic machine tools (like lathe and milling machine) tools would testify how this material has come on in the last 15/20 years.
A few months back I saw a ceramic CBN (Cubic Boron Nitride) milling tool doing an 'interrupted cut' through hardened steel. The tool was getting the life thumped out of it and it was still eating through the steel. Having seen something like that in anger I would have very high faith in ceramics.
I think it might look a bit strange 40 - 50 years from now.
I mean if the manufacturers are right and the ceramic bezels stay scratch resistent they will still look like new while
the rest of the watch looks banged up and scratched.
What I'm trying to say is that the aging will not be "in sync".
If you break your ceramic insert, you can always use the pieces as cutting tools in your lathe!
^ Yeah. That's my concern with them too.
(the lack of ageing thing)
Last edited by verv; 3rd March 2015 at 21:43.
Rado have been making ceramic watches since 1986, and they don't appear to suffer any particular ageing difficulties. And I'm sure that the technology has moved on in the 30 years since the Integral was released.
I'm reasonably sure my plates, cups, saucers take a harder hammering than my watch bezel, including high temperature water in the dishwasher.
They still look fine.
Uneven wear is the only issue I see.
"Bite my shiny metal ass."
- Bender Bending Rodríguez
i am 45 years old - i would be very surprised if i give a flying fig what the bezel of a dive watch looks like in 50 years time.
So I guess investing in ceramic is safe then?? it seems everyone is sold on the properties of ceramic I'm just curious whether they will become "classics" or they will never reach that status haha
"Ceramic" describes a wide range of materials - so it very much depends on the type of ceramic used and the degree of sintering. If they are anywhere near fully dense engineering ceramics then the likelihood of hydrothermal degradation is going to be minimal under normal use.Originally Posted by rfrazier
The kinetics of hydrothermal degradation increase significantly as temperature increases. The peak is at around 180°C for stabilised zirconia ceramics for example, but in normal service I would not expect many would autoclave their precious timepieces or expose them to conditions such as these temperatures - so degradation in everyday use is not likely to be an issue.
z
The ceramic inserts will probably last far better than aluminium, but the steel bezel will still pick up knocks and damage. Omega SMPs pick up marks easily on the scalloped edges, and I can`t say I`d fancy popping the ceramic bezel insert out to refinish one. Popping the old-style ones out is easy once the bezels's off, but the risk of cracking the ceramic would put me off.
Paul
My prediction is that there will be a lot of cracked ceramic bezel inserts around in the future. Whole ones will still look good, but there'll be more physical damage than is seen with aluminium bezel inserts.
Last edited by markrlondon; 4th March 2015 at 05:09.
My instinct tells me Wedgwood is making a comeback with all the watch brands going for ceramics.
It won't be long before Rolex will launch an English floral pattern bezel on their new Sub.............
Daddel.
Got a new watch, divers watch it is, had to drown the bastard to get it!
I think ceramic is a great material used well for watches - my Hublot has barely a mark on it after a few years of use. The clasp is interesting as the titanium parts have worn but the ceramic looks like new. If I take a key or similar I can "scratch" the ceramic and then just rub the marks off - I think the only thing holding it back as a watch material is the un-traditional colours/finish.
In the future I think we will see more of the hybrid metal- ceramics like Hublot's "magic gold" which is a fusion of ceramic and gold. It looks unique and very impressive when seen - sort of like bronze but definitely not your regular ceramic/composite type material but has much more durability than gold. OK the name is a bit of gimmick and you can argue gold is perfectly adequate but I think these sort of materials will come to the fore over the next years.
Ceramic is much better than PVD/DLC type coatings which of course wear and so aren't really appropriate for a luxury watch - unless that is the whole point of the question ? Whilst people seem to like Rolex for a faded bezel I am not sure my Zenith every got that respect nor a knocked about PD PVD coated watch so I think durable materials are more appropriate where they are available and I won't get tired of my watches continuing to look like new.
I personally find the ceramic insert too 'shiny'/'glossy' for a toolwatch / military inspired watch.
I can hardly imagine liking a tropical Submariner with a 'like new' insert in about a your or 30, but then again, tastes change over time.
I seem to recall that when the Subc and GMTc first came out somebody reporting on the forum they had dropped theirs and the insert had shattered and were looking at something like £800 to replace it.
Have a look at the JLC Navy Seals range is matt finish.
I've been wearing my GMT2C 95% of the time since they first went on sale and the bezel still looks brand new.
Personally I hate worn out looking bezels (or watches for that matter) so I hope mine stays this way for many years to come.
To be fair though, if you're dropping a £5k+ watch you've been a bit of a chump and expensive bills should not be unexpected.
Am not sure about 30 years from now but find it very hard to buy a watch these days if there is no crric insert. I care more for how it looks when new rather than 30 years down the lane.
Even so, £800 for a new bezel insert is bonkers. £100 maybe, £200 maybe, would be reasonable for a luxury watch but £800 is surely excessive, even for a watch costing £5K+.
Having worn a fully tegimented U1 daily since August, it is still absolutely mint - not even the tiniest line or swirly, in comparison to regular steel there appears to be no contest in terms of retaining that 'new' look. I'm surprised Rolex and Omega aren't more interested in hardening the whole case as opposed to just making a hard, ageless bezel. A Sub that has been polished a few times at service will look a bit odd in 30 years time IMHO. Personally I just don't really like the sheen of the ceramic inserts, too jewellery-like on a chunky men's watch, I preferred the old days when you could get the insert replaced at service if you chose for £30!
+1 for all the content.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
