Reply With Quotethanks for a great thread Gary - nice to see a WT thread that is actually about watches for a change!
As most of you will know I have a rather irrational disregard for Rolex. Mainly due to the fact that they're the default choice for most, mention watches and the first name that comes to mind is Rolex. Whilst this is a fantastic coup for Rolex and, you could argue, their just rewards for their consistent marketing and advertising campaigns over the decades, I'm not entirely convinced it's justified.
Obviously it's brilliant news for their pricing strategy and in turn second hand values and that means they become even more of a default choice, even amongst collectors. You'd be extremely unlucky to lose money on a Rolex if you keep it for long enough, even buying new. So it's become a self perpetuating catch 22, which kinda rankles when they're so many more interesting and much rarer watches out there that get overlooked.
However there are some models of Rolex that I personally think rightly deserve more attention, are genuinely rare, incorporated groundbreaking technologies and have a rich sporting history behind them. And no I'm not thinking of some military Sub worth the price of house in Rotherham either. I'm thinking of the Rolex Oysterquartz.
Here's a bullet pointed overview of what's unique about this watch. I'll expand on some of these later.
• It contains Rolexs first and only completely in-houes quartz movements. Datejust (cal.5035) and Day-Date (cal.5055)
• These movements took 5 years of painstaking research, development and testing before they were manufactured and eventually allowed to grace a Rolex
• They're an analogue thermocompensation 11 jewel movement (one of the worlds first) that utilised the latest CMOS circuitry and a 32khz oscillator.
• Resulting in it being the most accurate movement ever made by Rolex
• They're arguably the most highly finished and over engineered movements Rolex ever created.
• In Rolex terms it's genuinely rare. The Oysterquartz was produced between 1977 and 2001 and the total output over the whole of those 24 years is less than 25,000 watches. Yes a mere 1,000 pieces per annum, give or take. In comparison Rolex produce around a million mechanical watches per annum and have done for at least 40 years. That's an awful lot of Submariners etc over the decades.
• All this technology is housed in a unique case with a very distinctive bracelet on the early models. Thought of by many as the best bracelet Rolex ever produced, certainly up to the wonderfully engineered DSSD bracelet and clasp anyway.
As you might have guessed by now I've been fortunate enough to get one of these watches (on my wrist as I type). So here's a few pics to give you a flavour. The movement pic is courtesy of Jocke as I don't have a Rolex case back tool.
Some dial and handset pics (got a bit carried away here, sorry :o)
Lovely crisp edges to the case and a highly polished bezel
And that great bracelet
Wonderful movement detailing
Dimensions
It's not a particularly large watch but it wears a lot bigger than its modest dimensions would suggest. Probably due to the case shape and bracelet.
Width sans crown - 35mm
With crown - 38mm
lug to lug - 42mm
Height - 14mm
Sporting heritage
Going back to its sporting heritage and hopefully dispelling most peoples conviction that quartz watches are somehow fragile. The Oysterquartz was worn by Reinhold Messner and Peter Habeler on the world's first accent of Everest without oxygen in 1978. Here's a picture of Reinhold Messner at 24,000 feet wearing his.
And Peter Habeler looking a little chilly.
The subsequent Rolex ad.
I found this American ad from 1979 (the same year as my Oysterquartz). What struck me is the price, they were roughly twice as much as the Submariner at the time.
Best of all, given its rarity they're available for a modest amount, certainly in comparison to the vast majority of Rolex watches anyway. I genuinely believe that they're an unfairly overlooked watch.
Thanks for reading. I hope this was informative and dispelled some prejudices towards quartz technology, it certainly dispelled some of my prejudices towards Rolex. If you're inspired to find out more may I recommend the fantastic http://www.oysterquartz.net site. Loads more information and pics.
Cheers,
Gary
P.S. If any owners want to add their pics and/or more information to this post, please feel free.
thanks for a great thread Gary - nice to see a WT thread that is actually about watches for a change!
Wow, what a fantastic post, thanks for posting.
Really intresting, I had no idea they were so scarce, I have seen one belonging to another member here, I liked it a lot.
I will be clicking the link and doing more reading.
:D
Hi Omegary,
I saw one of your recent posts with a picture of your new oysterquartz and thought to myself it's a perfect dress/tool watch..
Great thread to highlight some of the less discussed classics, nice pictures as well, if anyone has more info it would be great to hear about ownership..
Hmm now to find one for myself 8)
Interesting post, and makes a change from the usual Rolex stuff.
I'm not sure whether I ever really liked the look of this model of Rolex though. Maybe one in the flesh might be different.
The association with the climbing world I find very interesting also.
A couple of pics on my 7" wrist to give an idea of how they wear.
Enjoying some sunshine.
In the shade.
They were originally water resistant to 100m so they make a very practical tool watch and the battery last for around 3 years. My example passed a pressure test with flying colours, not that I'll put it to the test personally though.
Cheers,
Gary
Was looking for one of these as a full set - but went for the sub instead.
It's just a matter of time...
Great post! Thank you! I've always been a fan of the oysterquartz. Didn't know a lot of its history and stats though, interesting reading. Love those old ads!!
Great post mate, thanks for taking the time.
Informative, educational with great pictures to boot. Just what watch talk should be.
Nice watch too .
Classic looking watch, very nice. I'd be afraid of dink though.
Well, aside from the totally unnecessary and unrelated first paragraph, yes.Originally Posted by wust588
The Oysterquartz, a watch very much of its time but it's remarkable that they kept making them until 2001.
...but what do I know; I don't even like watches!
Lovely catch Gary, many congrats (honest, green envy actually! :D )
Have you considered yet creating a manual to specify what is appropriate and relevant, for the benefit of all of us?Well, aside from the totally unnecessary and unrelated first paragraph, yes.
We often disregard the non steel sports like the datejust as they fill most windows of AD's so as not to be noticable, that said I think every serious entusiast should own a DJ or similiar to appreciate what went into the evolution of the brand
RIAC
great post gary, lovely reading and great pics as always. thanks for putting that together.
Good luck everybody. Have a good one.
Excellent post. Loved the "Everest" ad BTW. They had the marketing of it spot on. Interesting that it remained in production so long given its apparent relative unpopularity.
Well, not quite.
They sóld them untill 2001.
There was only one production run of movements.
This, combined with the fact that Rolex áre pretty much the COSC org., was the reason Rolex got away with the ´certified´ bit as the movement was nót +/- 15 secs/year.
I like the Oysterquartz maimly because being a Rolex it illustrates so clearly that ´quartz´ is not at all thát different from the revered mechanicals.
The thread on the internals illustrated to perfection that an analogue quartz has the same gear box driven display et all. Only a different (far more accurate) oscilator and - power source putting less load/stress on the gear box. Craftsmanship and quality of manufacture apply to ány kind of time keeping instrument and it´s encasing/band.
The fact that this one of the best made, relatively (for a Rolex) rare, most accurate of all Rolexes comes as one of the cheapest because it is quartz is :idea:
Congratulations Omegamanic :!:
It did not. They just took that long to sell the last of the stock.
The appearant unpopularity was a marketing thing.
Rolex was walking tightrope here.
They could easily have buried their mechanical line.
By putting too much emphasis of the quartz greater accuracy and -ruggedness, they would have shot the rest of their range in the feet.
Look at Omega today. Despite them selling quartzes they have a high profile marketing hype about the co-axial performance and the site ventilates bs.
There in NO WAY they will advertise the quartzes as being 10 times more accurate, a lót more rugged at a discount.
So they lie about the their co-axial being thé most accurate movement while selling moe accurate quartz controlled movements. It also is the reason why the tc quartz movements are no longer marketed under the Omega brand. The customers wánt to believe that to justify the expense to themselves :idea:
I enjoyed reading this - very interesting post.
Having grown up with cheap quartz digital watches, I remember it took me a while to get over how inaccurate my first 'expensive' watch (mid-1990s TAG 2000 series) was by comparison.
I think the Oysterquartz looks great.
Thanks Gary - enjoyed that a great deal. Sadly, though, I suspect it's going to cost me money (as this place always does :D) I've had one of these on the shopping list for a while now - so time to go hunting properly!
I agree, a great looking watch.
A quartz with black/dark grey face sold earlier this year and it was an absolute beauty.
I think it's the integrated bracelet that appeals most. It all looks just "right!"
(note to self: add to wish list! :) )
Thanks for taking the time to put the info in this thread together Gary. And what a stunning watch.
I'd have one of these in a heartbeat after seeing your pics. 8)
Nice post. But a lot of made up facts and numbers im afraid.... a million watches a year for the last 40 years? Rolex would wish that was true :mrgreen: !
Also, its not just marketing campaigns that got them where they are... the quality of the watches and their ultra robust movements would have something to do with it, one would think...
A case of being different for the sake of being different...? At least you can trust Rolex to be able to service your quartz watch for the forseeable future, unlike some japanese competitors I could mention :)
Stunning watch, congrats.
Just wanted to echo the thanks and appreciation for a really excellent post on Rolex history. Though not particularly a Rolex fan, I thoroughly enjoyed it. More please...
The only decent Rolexes are the ones you own eh' Gary? :lol: :wink:
Only joking, not my cuppa tea but I am glad you are digging it.
I still think you have gone a bit funny lately with all this quartz stuff.
Had a bang on the head? :lol:
Cheers,
Neil.
Thanks for that Gary, these are the kind of posts I love to read :thumbup:
Really Great post, loved the old ads!! I had been warned it would be dangerous to join the forum....now I see why :mrgreen:
Chris
Thanks for all the replies and comments, much appreciated as always :)
Tbh I thought this would become 'The forgotten post' as I know, rightly or wrongly, there's not a huge amount of love for quartz on here.
I knew my views about Rolex would irritate some here who've bought into the brand. Remember chaps it's just my personal opinion, your mileage may vary. I don't take umbrage at others opinions on Omega, Seiko, Longines or any of the other brands I admire. As for Rolexs annual production figures I apologise if I've got that wrong, I was quoting from another source. However it doesn't change the fact that 1,000 per annum is a very small number, even if they only produce a mere half a million watches a year.
With that out of the way here's another couple of my opinions (time for Rolex fans to close your eyes :wink:). There's only two things that elevates Rolex from any other watch manufacture.
1. The oyster case
2. Excellent long term after sales service. Although Omega probably have the edge on them tbh.
With that I'm running for cover with my tin hat firmly in place :lol:
Cheers,
Gary
Very informative, thanks for putting that together, oh and a nice watch as well!
I must admit, I always assumed that Rolex never actually made anything other than mechanicals, so you learn something new every day right enough.
I'm with you Gary I want an OQ.
Great post too!
Paul
GOT...TO...KILL...CAPTAIN STUPID!
Why naturally my friend :wink:
:) Thanks. I realise these aren't for everyone and I guess that's why they're not talked about too much.
Actually I did fracture my skull falling off a climbing frame as a 4 year old, maybe that explains it all :lol:
Cheers,
Gary
Ask any watchmaker worth his salt and the movements is top of that list. Otherwise you're correct (even about Omega, although not really a fair comparison since noone really cares about replacement dials there, whereas they are pariah among the vintage rolex guys.)
I had heard that there were two oyster quartz movements made one that ticked like a standard quartz and the other that swept more like an F300 from Omega. Is this true?
Cheers
Rob
Rolex used the Beta 21 (Rolex cal.5100) in the very early 70's Rob. The movement was co-developed and paid for by a consortium of 21 watch manufacturers as it was so expensive to research and develop and took 10 years to get from the drawing board and into a watch.
AFAIK Rolex only ever produced 1,000 watches using this movement, so it's an incredibly rare beast and I'd imagine extremely expensive. Essentially because of the movements size and shape they couldn't use their famous Oyster case to house it. So they backed out of the consortium and began developing their own in-house quartz, resulting in the Oysterquartz.
More info an the link below.
http://www.oysterquartz.net/the_quartz_date_5100.htm
Cheers,
Gary
Great post, Gary and the links are bookmarked for later.
SWMBO's OQ says hello:
R
Ignorance breeds Fear. Fear breeds Hatred. Hatred breeds Ignorance. Break the chain.
Great pic of a great watch
got one in my hand for the first time a few weeks back must say it is a beauty 8)
Wear it in good health 8)
Thanks Ralphy :)Great post, Gary and the links are bookmarked for later.
SWMBO's OQ says hello:
R
Here's a slightly later Rolex ad (from 1980 I think) featuring Reinhold Messner and your wife's model of Oysterquartz.
Cheers,
Gary
[quote=Omegary]Why naturally my friend :wink:
:) Thanks. I realise these aren't for everyone and I guess that's why they're not talked about too much.
Actually I did fracture my skull falling off a climbing frame as a 4 year old, maybe that explains it all :lol:
Cheers,
Gary[/quote:ioquir0b]
There had to be a reason! :lol: :wink:
Always enjoy your posts Gary. :)
Cheers,
Neil.
I think one or two people may have got the wrong end of the stick.
When I said "makes a change from the usual Rolex stuff" no offence was intended.
I meant to say it was nice to see a post about a watch I'm not used to seeing.
I've loved the Rolexes I've owned since the 70's, and currently have a lovely Mk5 maxi 5513, a 16600 SD and a 1970 1016.
Lovely looking watch
I think the oysterquartz is a fantastic looking watch and more weighty than the equivalent oyster perpetual datejusts of their time. A friend of mine has one in steel unfortunately it doesn't keep time it's In need of a circuit and that's mega money from Rolex think he said it's going to be 6/700 pounds. Can anyone suggest another route to get it repaired?
Do drag this one along at the GTG, Gary - it'd be terrific to see it in the metal.
Without wanting to swell Gary's giant head any further :lol: I would add that in his posts about his watches (most of which are horrible :wink: ) he always attempts to give some interesting background which I for one appreciate.
In this case, info about the movement and some period advertising make the posts so much more interesting and educational compared to the, "look what I've got" type of posts with no additional information at all.
Cheers,
Neil.
I must say I thoroughly enjoyed reading this! Not only was it brilliantly written and illustrated (as always :) ) but it also introduced to a Rolex I never really knew much about.
I also noticed that although it is somewhat small by today's standards, it wears somewhat bigger which is always a good think in my book
Alex
Great post for a novice like me - ther's a lot to learn, and stuff like this makes learning a pleasure.
Nice review Gary, it really is an interesting piece in Rolex history :)
I can't offer any advice on an alternative repair route I'm afraid, however I can perhaps offer a little perspective. I know £600 is a lot of money but it's probably the first time the watch has needed any work in its long life. Assuming (and for the sake of easy maths) it's 30 years old, that works out at £20 a year for cost of ownership. By contrast a mechanical Rolex, serviced every 5 years at roughly £250 a pop, would would have cost £1,500 or £50 year.
Whilst that's no consolation for your friend facing a potentially large bill, it hopefully dispels some of the myth that quartz is somehow expensive to keep as a long term proposition.
Cheers,
Gary
See the IEEE source document I linked in a seperated topic.
Only 6000 Beta21 movements were made by CEH.
Rolex themselves made another non ticking quartz. Two in fact.
They produced a successor of the Oysterquartz movement but also a solid state electronic digital (LED) module all the way through the prototype stage.
The remaining Rolex quartz caliber can be found in the Cellini line.
So; Rolex put three different quartz types in their sold watches and produced two others that were held at the starting grid.
Whilst I'm here a good friend reminded me of another interesting Oysterquartz fact that I neglected to mention and one that was never really publicised by Rolex. This maybe adds some weight to Petrus's theory about Rolex wanting to effectively "bury" the Oysterquartz, I guess we'll never know the truth.
After Rolex spending a considerable amount of time 2 decades earlier designing the Milguass to withstand magnetic fields to 1000 oersted, it almost came about by accident that the OQ is antimagnetic to 1000 oersted to, so it could justifiable be called the Rolex Oysterquartz Milguass.
This feat didn't come about by adding a rather industrial age soft iron movement cover either. It was a by-product of the movement being so massively over engineered. An interesting little fact I thought.
Cheers,
Gary
The electronics should give no problems when through the initial warranty period.
The weakest link is the gearbox. Oysterquartz shares the same gearbox with the mechanical brethren. In the quartz it lives an easier life, thus experiencing far less wear and tear, thus needing less repair/replacement.
The only thing remaining is the need for an oil change every now and then.
With the modern lubricants this should be once in ???? or as some say never.
Posting Permissions
