The Daytona 126502 is beautiful and inventive - but technically it is not Grand Feu enamel. So why did Rolex, for once, borrow a word instead of branding one?
this is the type of semantic criticism thrown at rolex because no objective criticism can be thrown at a brand that’s better than everyone else.
now you say grand feu needs a metal base to be grand feu, but that’s only because nobody figured out a way to use a ceramic base before. this is the “improved” grand feu, the dials thus produced will be more durable, but still look just as beautiful.
people have to find something negative to say when they see yet another rolex that will inevitably trade for hundreds of thousands of dollars. the same price people pay for snooty indie product. and that has gotten the indie crowd very nervous. they love to pretend their low-volume junk is better than rolex. but “better” is just an opinion, while price is fact. deal with it.
The point is that the use of a metal base has long been established as one thing, and the use of a ceramic base is something else... and it has a different name. That part is not an opinion nor is it a criticism, it's just stating facts. So I don't follow... what - specifically - is "not objective"?
and let me give you another example. there are vintage dealers who don’t want to call what baltic and dennison are producing as “true” stone dials. because they’re upset they’ll no longer be able to charge the ridiculous prices for older stone dials.
tough luck, someone figured out a way to mass-produce what they have gatekept for so long, boohoo, deal with it.
Well that's a legit example - what Baltic and Dennison make are obviously stone dials. They are sourced in China for $5-10 per dial. I know because a friend of mine in China has visited the suppliers, and they have 'sample books' of these stone dials, and in one of those sample books they had a few Dennison dials with the name printed on... and that was available to buy (at wholesale).
So yeah - fully agree that the whole stone dial premium is a load of BS.
And here is the real irony; when I sat down with Rolex today, on my wrist was a 9ct cushion Oyster from 1926. And on that watch was a proper Grand Feu enamel dial, with separate inserted subsidiary seconds sub dial and full counter enamelling on the back.
The last watches sold by Rolex fitted with a Grand Feu dial were the Oyster Scientific chronometers from the late 1930s.
Last year they introduced a GMT Master with a dial of pure ceramic. In this they followed Frodsham’s lead, they introduced the world’s first ceramic dial. Owning both Grand Feu enamel dials and a Frodsham, I would choose the Frodsham any time. So I don’t know why Rolex didn’t use a pure ceramic for the dial, rather than a hybrid.
the grand feu dial on the 126502 is more beautiful than the ceramic dial on the vtnr. that much is obvious just from the photos (i doubt i’ll ever get to see it in person). the surface is just more “alive”, i don’t know how else to describe it.
it is an opinion that the metal base is what makes it “grand feu”, and not the firing process itself.
that is a deliberately uncharitable opinion. an unbiased observer would instead praise rolex for figuring out a way to improve the durability of grand feu dials.
the only reason for a name-change will be to retain a special status for the older inferior grand feu dials. but they don’t deserve any special status, they’re worse, they should be downgraded in status. the industry should should retrospectively rename those older dials as “inferior grand feu”.
But it's not an opinion - I already spelled out why... and even if you ignore all the cited definitions of Grand Feu, there is an industrial standards definition which I imagine legally and scientifically codifies that fusing glass to ceramic is a glaze, not enamel.
Your love for Rolex, and your disdain for any criticism of Rolex, is no secret to anyone so I fully understand where you're coming from with these remarks, but the bias here is your own. I actually like the watch, and I don't really care what they call it - but objectively, I think this is wrong. Whether or not the counter-enamel technique is inferior is a separate topic altogether, and I will leave you to it!
did you say “legally” and “codified”? bullshit! i thought you were a lawyer, do you really think that’s gonna hold up in any court in any country?
and if you wanna go the ad hominem route, your obsession with diminishing the prestige of present-day rolex is no secret to anyone. just like everyone else who’s invested in indie junk or vintage crap.
Lol that wasn't ad hominem - I said it affectionately.
And yes engineering / industry standards absolutely DO hold up in court! Not that I think this would ever get to court... but now who's using semantics? The point is, objectivity is intact. You're free to interpret however you please, but you can't claim it's 'not objective'.
Obsession with diminishing the prestige of present-day Rolex? Have you confused me with Tony Traina?
So you don't think ASTM standards _aren't_ used as support in court filings over manufacturing disputes, like, _frequently_? That's nearly the whole point of standardization bodies.
In any case, my opinion, worth not much here, is that the term Grand Feu isn't predicated on a metal base. Nor is the key the glass on top. The term is the totality of the process that fuses metal to glass. If you are not using that _specific_ process to fuse those two _specific_ materials, you aren't, um, Grand Feu-ing.
you’re describing the old inferior grand-feuing process. this is the new superior grand-feuing process.
but if you, or whoever else, don’t agree with this definition, then feel free to take rolex to court. i would love to see that. and if the court rules in favor of the plaintiff, then i’ll stand corrected.
perezscope was complaining about this too.
this is the type of semantic criticism thrown at rolex because no objective criticism can be thrown at a brand that’s better than everyone else.
now you say grand feu needs a metal base to be grand feu, but that’s only because nobody figured out a way to use a ceramic base before. this is the “improved” grand feu, the dials thus produced will be more durable, but still look just as beautiful.
people have to find something negative to say when they see yet another rolex that will inevitably trade for hundreds of thousands of dollars. the same price people pay for snooty indie product. and that has gotten the indie crowd very nervous. they love to pretend their low-volume junk is better than rolex. but “better” is just an opinion, while price is fact. deal with it.
The point is that the use of a metal base has long been established as one thing, and the use of a ceramic base is something else... and it has a different name. That part is not an opinion nor is it a criticism, it's just stating facts. So I don't follow... what - specifically - is "not objective"?
and let me give you another example. there are vintage dealers who don’t want to call what baltic and dennison are producing as “true” stone dials. because they’re upset they’ll no longer be able to charge the ridiculous prices for older stone dials.
tough luck, someone figured out a way to mass-produce what they have gatekept for so long, boohoo, deal with it.
Well that's a legit example - what Baltic and Dennison make are obviously stone dials. They are sourced in China for $5-10 per dial. I know because a friend of mine in China has visited the suppliers, and they have 'sample books' of these stone dials, and in one of those sample books they had a few Dennison dials with the name printed on... and that was available to buy (at wholesale).
So yeah - fully agree that the whole stone dial premium is a load of BS.
And here is the real irony; when I sat down with Rolex today, on my wrist was a 9ct cushion Oyster from 1926. And on that watch was a proper Grand Feu enamel dial, with separate inserted subsidiary seconds sub dial and full counter enamelling on the back.
The last watches sold by Rolex fitted with a Grand Feu dial were the Oyster Scientific chronometers from the late 1930s.
Last year they introduced a GMT Master with a dial of pure ceramic. In this they followed Frodsham’s lead, they introduced the world’s first ceramic dial. Owning both Grand Feu enamel dials and a Frodsham, I would choose the Frodsham any time. So I don’t know why Rolex didn’t use a pure ceramic for the dial, rather than a hybrid.
the grand feu dial on the 126502 is more beautiful than the ceramic dial on the vtnr. that much is obvious just from the photos (i doubt i’ll ever get to see it in person). the surface is just more “alive”, i don’t know how else to describe it.
it is an opinion that the metal base is what makes it “grand feu”, and not the firing process itself.
that is a deliberately uncharitable opinion. an unbiased observer would instead praise rolex for figuring out a way to improve the durability of grand feu dials.
the only reason for a name-change will be to retain a special status for the older inferior grand feu dials. but they don’t deserve any special status, they’re worse, they should be downgraded in status. the industry should should retrospectively rename those older dials as “inferior grand feu”.
But it's not an opinion - I already spelled out why... and even if you ignore all the cited definitions of Grand Feu, there is an industrial standards definition which I imagine legally and scientifically codifies that fusing glass to ceramic is a glaze, not enamel.
Your love for Rolex, and your disdain for any criticism of Rolex, is no secret to anyone so I fully understand where you're coming from with these remarks, but the bias here is your own. I actually like the watch, and I don't really care what they call it - but objectively, I think this is wrong. Whether or not the counter-enamel technique is inferior is a separate topic altogether, and I will leave you to it!
(Edited for typos)
did you say “legally” and “codified”? bullshit! i thought you were a lawyer, do you really think that’s gonna hold up in any court in any country?
and if you wanna go the ad hominem route, your obsession with diminishing the prestige of present-day rolex is no secret to anyone. just like everyone else who’s invested in indie junk or vintage crap.
Lol that wasn't ad hominem - I said it affectionately.
And yes engineering / industry standards absolutely DO hold up in court! Not that I think this would ever get to court... but now who's using semantics? The point is, objectivity is intact. You're free to interpret however you please, but you can't claim it's 'not objective'.
Obsession with diminishing the prestige of present-day Rolex? Have you confused me with Tony Traina?
So you don't think ASTM standards _aren't_ used as support in court filings over manufacturing disputes, like, _frequently_? That's nearly the whole point of standardization bodies.
In any case, my opinion, worth not much here, is that the term Grand Feu isn't predicated on a metal base. Nor is the key the glass on top. The term is the totality of the process that fuses metal to glass. If you are not using that _specific_ process to fuse those two _specific_ materials, you aren't, um, Grand Feu-ing.
you’re describing the old inferior grand-feuing process. this is the new superior grand-feuing process.
but if you, or whoever else, don’t agree with this definition, then feel free to take rolex to court. i would love to see that. and if the court rules in favor of the plaintiff, then i’ll stand corrected.