|
Regarding the review of the Explorer by Walt Odets, you have to wonder why he bothered. If you read his other articles, you'll soon come to the conclusion that he doesn't like Rolex. In fact, you'll get the impression that they have wronged him in some way and he has devoted his spare time to getting even.
As I understnd it, he is a clinical psychologist. Watches are a hobby for him and I believe he has taught classes about watchmaking to other likeminded people. Is he a skilled watchmaker? I can't answer that. I do think he knows more about watches than I do but I do question the depth of his knowledge, or that of his understanding of current trends in watchmaking.
He describes certain features of the movement, then speculates on the reason Rolex chose to use them. I find this odd, as other reviewerss whose work I have read in watch magazines have had any difficulty sorting out the details of the small changes Rolex makes to its movements from time to time.
He describes many flaws in the workmanship and I have yet to read a single review anywhere else that had even one such flaw. That is the part that troubles me the most. I can't reconcile what he found with what everyone else has found.
He has many subjective comments that I find laughable. In describing the underside of the case as unfinished and uncomfortable to wear, he loses what little credibility he has. Certain areas of an older Rolex case were typically made with a brushed finish and other areas were highly polished. This was deliberate, not a result of cutting corners. As for the sharp edges being uncomfortable when the watch is worn, all I can say is none of my watches even touch my arm in those locations. In fact, it's not even close. What kind of circus freak arms does this man possess? Did he even wear the watch?
As for the band, the claim he makes that the watch was originally designed for a strap and Rolex has done a poor job of integrating a bracelet is hogwash. Rolex designed the shape of the bracelet endpieces to look just as they do. Why? Ask them. I don't know. They have changed certain aspects of the design over the years and the latest bracelets look a little different. If they had wanted to style them the way Mr. Odets thinks is correct, they would have. It's not like they can't work to small tolerances.
I am reminded of a review several years ago in a large watch magazine that compared the bracelet on the Submariner to that of a contemporary Omega Seamaster. Although the reviewer judges the Rolex to be the better watch, the Seamaster won the comparison of the bands. Aesthetics, function, quality, it was better in every respect. I had to laugh, having owned and worn both watches for a number of years as my everyday watches. The Omega band clasp would pop open if you flexed your wrist a certain way. The Rolex would only open if the band broke (which of course, it hasn't.) The Omega band periodically would lose one or more of the pins that hold it together and come apart, taking the watch to the floor with it. The first time I had a jeweler fix this, it took 6 months for Omega to supply him with the tiny little pieces that are designed to keep the pins in place. Now, we keep extras around because it's just a matter of time before it happens again and waiting 6 months to fix a watch isn't justifiable. Comfort? the reviewer thought the Rolex band too stiff and also was worried about these sharp edges on the bottom of the case. Neither has been a problem for me, so maybe I have arms like a circus freak.
At the end of the day, I am reminded of the 60 Minutes/Audi debacle. Once the facts came out, I never watched 60 Minutes again. In fact, what they did still makes me mad, as it was the worst manipulation of reality I have ever seen from an "impartial" investigator. Those guys should have been shot at dawn, as an example to others. What about Walt? I know he won't be servicing any of my watches anytime soon...
JR
|