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?
Thanks for all these detailed explanations. Concerning "Cerafeu", "Emaillium" and "Grandoyster", I am afraid that they are already trademarked pokemon names :D
I just posted a response to that text on my Instagram @relogiosmecanicos , as follows: @kingflum, @perezcope and @watchoosy — people I deeply respect for voicing opinions that challenge the status quo — have written posts, and in kingflum's case a careful long-form text, arguing that Rolex inappropriately appropriated the term "grand feu" to describe the dial of the new Daytona. I beg to differ, on the basis of sources that everyone seems to have overlooked.
The critics' argument rests on the ASM International definition, according to which glass fused onto metal is "porcelain enamel" and glass fused onto ceramic is "glaze." Correct — but that is twentieth-century industrial nomenclature. The historical record tells a different story: the V&A Museum and LACMA document that "grand feu" was born in the French faience tradition of the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries precisely to describe high-temperature firing onto a ceramic substrate. The term later migrated into watchmaking's metal-based enamelling and acquired there a restrictive meaning that was never part of its origin.
There is a second problem with the premises. The narrative of grand feu as a difficult and industrially irreproducible craft does not survive historical scrutiny. Elgin and Waltham produced millions of grand feu enamel dials in fully industrial fashion, for cents on the dollar, with no one ever questioning the term. Today, anOrdain, Venezianico and Seiko deliver technically correct enamel dials on watches costing around two thousand euros. Temperature-controlled kilns have made the process far less unpredictable than it was in Breguet's era.
And here lies the greatest irony: the need to match thermal expansion coefficients between vitreous enamel and tungsten carbide-enriched zirconia — an inert substrate chemically hostile to adhesion — makes Rolex's process very likely more complex and more costly than any conventional grand feu on a metal base. Rolex solved in a sophisticated way a problem that traditional counter-enamel solves far more simply.
For me, it is grand feu. But this debate deserves stronger premises than those that have been circulating.
Thanks Flavio... fair correction. I've updated the post to point out "Grand Feu" was defined differently outside of watchmaking. Note, however, if you read the original, I was always ever talking about definitions in watchmaking, not elsewhere.
So in ceramics, "Grand Feu" meant high-temperature firing onto a ceramic body - but it is still true that when the term migrated into watchmaking, it did narrow to mean fusing glass onto metal, with all the counter-enamel and thermal-expansion drama that comes with it.
The watchmaking community has indeed used the narrower definition for centuries, and every horological glossary still defines it that way.
So even if we say Rolex is reaching back BEFORE the "watchmaking definition" to an older "ceramics definition" - the truth is, they are presenting the term to a watch audience that will obviously hear "the watchmaking definition"... so the point still stands, that Rolex get the prestige of the "horological tradition" but now, technically are also satisfying the ceramics-origin meaning. So in fact, it's not one arbitrage for them, it's two 😂
Either way, the correction stands and I appreciate you taking the time to share it.
Very interesting points. I'm more or less in the pragmatist's camp (as defined by KF above). The term's history based on your research, seems to suggest a descriptive rather than prescriptive perspective on the term; the fact that "grand feu" in the context of watchmaking has generally meant vitreous enamel on a metal base, seems more an artefact of accepted practice than anything else.
So much of modern watchmaking (and luxury in general) is “doing hard things for the sake of doing hard things” as Lange’s CEO put it. Hand finishing, engraving, guilloche, enameling - they are intentionally inefficient. You could make them more efficient, but then something is lost. There have been some minor controversies when collectors discovered some such process was industrialized.
The industry *should* call this “cerafeu” (or whatever) to maintain the distinction. Linguistic drift is real.
It doesn’t make what Rolex has done any less cool. I would argue it makes it even more special. And, to Rolex’s credit, they described exactly what they did.
Having read this, would I still buy one? Absolutely. Take my money, please, Mr. Dufour. Will I ever be given the opportunity to buy one? Absolutely not.
“ So much of modern watchmaking (and luxury in general) is “doing hard things for the sake of doing hard things” as Lange’s CEO put it. Hand finishing, engraving, guilloche, enameling - they are intentionally inefficient. You could make them more efficient, but then something is lost. There have been some minor controversies when collectors discovered some such process was industrialized.”
I get a serious sense of Rolex doing this for the discussion that would ensue. Also, for shits and giggles, someone should trademark that process for the name Cerafeu. 🤣
Agree with you that the watch is very cool, but the use of “grand feu” is not only misleading but also a slight to all others who still employ the traditional method.
Somewhat related, it has often struck me how Rolex seems a bit like a cult with all its own special made up words. In the psychology of cults and cult members, language is very often used to reinforce one’s belonging and status within the group. The made up words, in the cult members’ knowledge, function like special tickets that differentiate those people on the inside of the group from those on the outside. Rolex marketing videos also often look like Scientology videos 😂
I suppose in the world and history of watches, “grand feu” carries more weight and prestige than any word Rolex could have come up with themselves. And so like you said, the jumped on someone else’s hard work and vocabulary for a free ride. I’m wondering if this decision was motivated by Rolex’s ambition to creep into the market of A. Lange & Söhne, Patek, and all the other brands that employ traditional technique. The collectors of those brands love the old school craft, and I can see Rolex trying to capture some of that market with this.
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.
Having held the new Rolesium Daytona in my hands, whilst wearing a genuine Grand Feu enamel dial, I can objectively state that the ceramic dial is much nicer.
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.
The lovely people at Donze Cadrans have come back to me with an update on the definition of grand feu enamel:
“Enamel fired on a ceramic base is generally not considered traditional “grand feu.” Grand feu typically refers to enamel applied on a metal base (usually gold or copper), built up in multiple layers and fired repeatedly at very high temperatures. On ceramic, there is typically only a single layer of enamel, which makes the process less complex—so it doesn’t strictly fall under the classic definition.”
I guess they would know... or perhaps have a vested interest in that position 😂 Either way, I appreciate you reaching out to get this feedback and for sharing it here - thank you!
Love the comments section on this article 😂. Honestly I lean more towards thats its grand fue. Judging by the results of it: glossy, depth of the dial, can last 100 years pure, it has the same characteristics of beauty of the “traditional” grand fue dials.
Though when you say metal base, what do u mean? Traditional grand fue dials have been made on white gold plates, rose or yellow gold plates, also copper bases. So the variety exists!
The arguments on the comments section is that if u change “slightly” in this case the process of producing something, does it change the nature of the product itself? I think no, Henry Ford improved the production process of cars, but they are still cars by definition.
Besides maybe the new Rolex enamel is actually inferior to the traditional grand fue. After all pictures usually can’t get the jest of enamel, I realized this when I handled one with my hand. So in terms of beauty, one can say that the traditional way is actually superior and traditionalist will be the happiest people on earth. What we seem to know is Rolex just upgraded the process of producing it so its less likely to break. Good, other brands will follow if the quality is the same, its a win for all if thats the case.
Love this take! Wherever people land on this I think the real takeaway should be buyer beware. Stamped guilloche, cnc anglage, hand frosted (media blasted by a person) this is just another shady marketing bamboozle. The con goes the other way too, just because someone follows the traditional process, does it the hard way, doesn't mean they are any good. Plenty of mid enamel dials and uneven hand turned guilloche out there. Buyers need to buy the process and the quality of the end result.
Very informative deep dive on this topic F. I feel like an expert now in all grand fue, glazing and enamel. It’s a bit sad that Rolex calls it grand fue when it’s not grand fue in a true horological tradition as you very well articulated. This labeling actually undermines the impressive technique they came up with to create this enamel - glazed - dial at a larger scale and stringent quality control manner that is consistent.
I had many issues with this release. First of all, it is not grand feu enamel not in a traditional sense. Second, it looks too close to a Panda Daytona but this isn’t looking much better as a dial so what did the enamel even achieve?
It is insanely overpriced and their R and D for the enamel, use of platinum etc. should not have been reflected to this level. Them pushing a video of it to Clymer although this is an off catalogue piece is also uncharacteristic. They are trying to convince themselves, the media and the buyer it is worth this much
I feel like this is egregious pricing and I dont ever say that with Rolex
Very late comment on this but I was just re-reading and came across: "The term holds the prestige of hundreds of years of enamelling tradition - a tradition Rolex is not part of and has never tried to be part of." and it occurred to me – this isn't relevant to the main points of the story, but it's an interesting if minor part of Rolex's history – that some of the most collectible vintage Rolex watches have enamel dials, see for instance: https://www.phillips.com/detail/rolex/229921
Definitely not mainstream Rolex but boy do they go for some serious coin when they show up at auction.
Thanks for all these detailed explanations. Concerning "Cerafeu", "Emaillium" and "Grandoyster", I am afraid that they are already trademarked pokemon names :D
I just posted a response to that text on my Instagram @relogiosmecanicos , as follows: @kingflum, @perezcope and @watchoosy — people I deeply respect for voicing opinions that challenge the status quo — have written posts, and in kingflum's case a careful long-form text, arguing that Rolex inappropriately appropriated the term "grand feu" to describe the dial of the new Daytona. I beg to differ, on the basis of sources that everyone seems to have overlooked.
The critics' argument rests on the ASM International definition, according to which glass fused onto metal is "porcelain enamel" and glass fused onto ceramic is "glaze." Correct — but that is twentieth-century industrial nomenclature. The historical record tells a different story: the V&A Museum and LACMA document that "grand feu" was born in the French faience tradition of the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries precisely to describe high-temperature firing onto a ceramic substrate. The term later migrated into watchmaking's metal-based enamelling and acquired there a restrictive meaning that was never part of its origin.
There is a second problem with the premises. The narrative of grand feu as a difficult and industrially irreproducible craft does not survive historical scrutiny. Elgin and Waltham produced millions of grand feu enamel dials in fully industrial fashion, for cents on the dollar, with no one ever questioning the term. Today, anOrdain, Venezianico and Seiko deliver technically correct enamel dials on watches costing around two thousand euros. Temperature-controlled kilns have made the process far less unpredictable than it was in Breguet's era.
And here lies the greatest irony: the need to match thermal expansion coefficients between vitreous enamel and tungsten carbide-enriched zirconia — an inert substrate chemically hostile to adhesion — makes Rolex's process very likely more complex and more costly than any conventional grand feu on a metal base. Rolex solved in a sophisticated way a problem that traditional counter-enamel solves far more simply.
For me, it is grand feu. But this debate deserves stronger premises than those that have been circulating.
Thanks Flavio... fair correction. I've updated the post to point out "Grand Feu" was defined differently outside of watchmaking. Note, however, if you read the original, I was always ever talking about definitions in watchmaking, not elsewhere.
So in ceramics, "Grand Feu" meant high-temperature firing onto a ceramic body - but it is still true that when the term migrated into watchmaking, it did narrow to mean fusing glass onto metal, with all the counter-enamel and thermal-expansion drama that comes with it.
The watchmaking community has indeed used the narrower definition for centuries, and every horological glossary still defines it that way.
So even if we say Rolex is reaching back BEFORE the "watchmaking definition" to an older "ceramics definition" - the truth is, they are presenting the term to a watch audience that will obviously hear "the watchmaking definition"... so the point still stands, that Rolex get the prestige of the "horological tradition" but now, technically are also satisfying the ceramics-origin meaning. So in fact, it's not one arbitrage for them, it's two 😂
Either way, the correction stands and I appreciate you taking the time to share it.
Very interesting points. I'm more or less in the pragmatist's camp (as defined by KF above). The term's history based on your research, seems to suggest a descriptive rather than prescriptive perspective on the term; the fact that "grand feu" in the context of watchmaking has generally meant vitreous enamel on a metal base, seems more an artefact of accepted practice than anything else.
It’s a way to sell a mostly steel Daytona for a lot more money. Cool
Appreciate this note.
So much of modern watchmaking (and luxury in general) is “doing hard things for the sake of doing hard things” as Lange’s CEO put it. Hand finishing, engraving, guilloche, enameling - they are intentionally inefficient. You could make them more efficient, but then something is lost. There have been some minor controversies when collectors discovered some such process was industrialized.
The industry *should* call this “cerafeu” (or whatever) to maintain the distinction. Linguistic drift is real.
It doesn’t make what Rolex has done any less cool. I would argue it makes it even more special. And, to Rolex’s credit, they described exactly what they did.
Having read this, would I still buy one? Absolutely. Take my money, please, Mr. Dufour. Will I ever be given the opportunity to buy one? Absolutely not.
Yeahhhhhh, this for sure.
“ So much of modern watchmaking (and luxury in general) is “doing hard things for the sake of doing hard things” as Lange’s CEO put it. Hand finishing, engraving, guilloche, enameling - they are intentionally inefficient. You could make them more efficient, but then something is lost. There have been some minor controversies when collectors discovered some such process was industrialized.”
I get a serious sense of Rolex doing this for the discussion that would ensue. Also, for shits and giggles, someone should trademark that process for the name Cerafeu. 🤣
Well caught and researched, F
Thanks KF, appreciated this deep dive!
Agree with you that the watch is very cool, but the use of “grand feu” is not only misleading but also a slight to all others who still employ the traditional method.
Somewhat related, it has often struck me how Rolex seems a bit like a cult with all its own special made up words. In the psychology of cults and cult members, language is very often used to reinforce one’s belonging and status within the group. The made up words, in the cult members’ knowledge, function like special tickets that differentiate those people on the inside of the group from those on the outside. Rolex marketing videos also often look like Scientology videos 😂
I suppose in the world and history of watches, “grand feu” carries more weight and prestige than any word Rolex could have come up with themselves. And so like you said, the jumped on someone else’s hard work and vocabulary for a free ride. I’m wondering if this decision was motivated by Rolex’s ambition to creep into the market of A. Lange & Söhne, Patek, and all the other brands that employ traditional technique. The collectors of those brands love the old school craft, and I can see Rolex trying to capture some of that market with this.
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.
Having held the new Rolesium Daytona in my hands, whilst wearing a genuine Grand Feu enamel dial, I can objectively state that the ceramic dial is much nicer.
But, beauty IS in the eye of the beholder.
yes, it’s for each of us to decide what is more beautiful. and the majority decision across all of us consumers will set the value of the watch.
i reckon the majority will find the grand feu dial on the 126502 more beautiful than older grand feu dials or ceramic dials. we’ll know soon enough.
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.
I reckon Rolex called it a Grand Feu dial just to have us all arguing and talking about Rolex and Grand Feu dials :/
The lovely people at Donze Cadrans have come back to me with an update on the definition of grand feu enamel:
“Enamel fired on a ceramic base is generally not considered traditional “grand feu.” Grand feu typically refers to enamel applied on a metal base (usually gold or copper), built up in multiple layers and fired repeatedly at very high temperatures. On ceramic, there is typically only a single layer of enamel, which makes the process less complex—so it doesn’t strictly fall under the classic definition.”
I guess they would know... or perhaps have a vested interest in that position 😂 Either way, I appreciate you reaching out to get this feedback and for sharing it here - thank you!
Love the comments section on this article 😂. Honestly I lean more towards thats its grand fue. Judging by the results of it: glossy, depth of the dial, can last 100 years pure, it has the same characteristics of beauty of the “traditional” grand fue dials.
Though when you say metal base, what do u mean? Traditional grand fue dials have been made on white gold plates, rose or yellow gold plates, also copper bases. So the variety exists!
The arguments on the comments section is that if u change “slightly” in this case the process of producing something, does it change the nature of the product itself? I think no, Henry Ford improved the production process of cars, but they are still cars by definition.
Besides maybe the new Rolex enamel is actually inferior to the traditional grand fue. After all pictures usually can’t get the jest of enamel, I realized this when I handled one with my hand. So in terms of beauty, one can say that the traditional way is actually superior and traditionalist will be the happiest people on earth. What we seem to know is Rolex just upgraded the process of producing it so its less likely to break. Good, other brands will follow if the quality is the same, its a win for all if thats the case.
Great article, thank you!
Love this take! Wherever people land on this I think the real takeaway should be buyer beware. Stamped guilloche, cnc anglage, hand frosted (media blasted by a person) this is just another shady marketing bamboozle. The con goes the other way too, just because someone follows the traditional process, does it the hard way, doesn't mean they are any good. Plenty of mid enamel dials and uneven hand turned guilloche out there. Buyers need to buy the process and the quality of the end result.
My favorite post so far! Lots of interesting rabbit holes; linguistic and technical. The Alighiero Boetti appropriation is so RUDE, and a disgrace.
Very informative deep dive on this topic F. I feel like an expert now in all grand fue, glazing and enamel. It’s a bit sad that Rolex calls it grand fue when it’s not grand fue in a true horological tradition as you very well articulated. This labeling actually undermines the impressive technique they came up with to create this enamel - glazed - dial at a larger scale and stringent quality control manner that is consistent.
Thanks for the technical coverage, it shows how watch media is garbage for not spending the time to go into the details, shameful.
But do you think Rolex has smartly played a game with words (since people are not technical) to bump the price up?
I had many issues with this release. First of all, it is not grand feu enamel not in a traditional sense. Second, it looks too close to a Panda Daytona but this isn’t looking much better as a dial so what did the enamel even achieve?
It is insanely overpriced and their R and D for the enamel, use of platinum etc. should not have been reflected to this level. Them pushing a video of it to Clymer although this is an off catalogue piece is also uncharacteristic. They are trying to convince themselves, the media and the buyer it is worth this much
I feel like this is egregious pricing and I dont ever say that with Rolex
Very late comment on this but I was just re-reading and came across: "The term holds the prestige of hundreds of years of enamelling tradition - a tradition Rolex is not part of and has never tried to be part of." and it occurred to me – this isn't relevant to the main points of the story, but it's an interesting if minor part of Rolex's history – that some of the most collectible vintage Rolex watches have enamel dials, see for instance: https://www.phillips.com/detail/rolex/229921
Definitely not mainstream Rolex but boy do they go for some serious coin when they show up at auction.