|
Post by Sam on Oct 23, 2005 20:48:03 GMT -6
But if it's 8 ticks per second then it wears out the battery 8 times faster. Right? No expert here....but I'd think that 8 small 1/8 sec ticks would use about the same battery "juice" as a 1 second tick. If it uses that larger battery and lasts 10 years that'll be sweet!
|
|
|
Post by GMF on Oct 23, 2005 20:56:40 GMT -6
Hey Gary, Any thoughts on the case and bracelet? I'm sorta hoping they bring back the integrated case and bracelet of the old Oysterquartz. I can say without hesitation that the bracelet on the 17000 Oysterquartz is the best bracelet Rolex ever produced, bar none. The case on an OQ was considerably beefier than a typical Datejust or Day-Date Perpetual model. By way of example, a 17000 Oysterquartz Datejust (which is the stainless steel model) weighs as much as a Sea-Dweller.
|
|
|
Post by GMF on Oct 23, 2005 21:01:53 GMT -6
But if it's 8 ticks per second then it wears out the battery 8 times faster. Right? It would use more juice from the battery for sure but I don't think 8x as much. My guess is that it would use twice as much power as a typical 1 pulse per second movement. It's obvious that the 5335 movement uses a 3.3v lithium battery, which in a Breitling SuperQuartz has an expected life of 10 years. So if the 5335 uses twice as much power, we could expect a 5 year battery life, which is perfectly acceptable I would think. And given that Rolex will probably recommend that the movement be serviced every 5 years, that works out just right.
|
|
|
Post by mike on Oct 23, 2005 21:02:36 GMT -6
That would be great,the bracelet on the 17000 oysterquartz does appear so strong.
|
|
|
Post by Sam on Oct 23, 2005 21:06:52 GMT -6
That would be great,the bracelet on the 17000 oysterquartz does appear so strong. I agree! I'd like to see the bracelet remain physically different from the Oyster & Jubilee, too. Just to help set the OQ apart.
|
|
|
Post by mamas on Oct 24, 2005 2:38:26 GMT -6
Do all OQs have a sweep second hand?
|
|
|
Post by jp on Oct 24, 2005 7:38:39 GMT -6
Do all OQs have a sweep second hand? The old OQ ticks like any quartz watch - if I'm not mistaken.
|
|
|
Post by GMF on Oct 24, 2005 7:46:11 GMT -6
Do all OQs have a sweep second hand? The old OQ ticks like any quartz watch - if I'm not mistaken. That's correct. The Quartz Date 5100 was not an Oysterquartz and used the Beta 21 movement. It had a sweep second hand. You can read more about this watch here: www.oysterquartz.net/the_quartz_date_5100.htm
|
|
|
Post by mamas on Oct 24, 2005 8:33:13 GMT -6
thanks gmf.. your oysterquartz site is a veritable mine of information!
|
|
|
Post by atomic on Oct 25, 2005 8:10:16 GMT -6
Not to rain on anyone's parade here, but we're all so stuck on the sports line of Rolex that many (most) forget they also have the Cellini line, which features a few quartz movement watches.
I wouldn't be surprised if these new calibers are for the Cellini line, rather than a resurrection of a recently discontinued model. They only stopped OQ production a couple of years ago. It doesn't make business sense to stop production for a couple of years, only to start up again (unless you're talking the Daytona ;D ).
If Rolex relaunches a new OQ, I'll eat my Rolex 24 At Daytona ballcap. Given the history of the company and how conservative they are, I'd be mightily surprised if the two quartz movements find their way into Sports cases.
Just my humble opinion, though.
|
|
|
Post by GMF on Oct 25, 2005 9:08:23 GMT -6
They only stopped OQ production a couple of years ago. It doesn't make business sense to stop production for a couple of years, only to start up again (unless you're talking the Daytona ;D ). Actually, production of the Oysterquarz ceased in 2001, so it's been almost five years. And keep in mind that Rolex introduced the Oysterquartz in 1977, which was five years after the last Quartz Date 5100 was sold in 1972. In the case of the 5335 and 5355, these movements clearly don't share anything in common with the 5035 and 5055 so it isn't really a case of stopping and then restarting production. The new Oysterquartz (if there is one) will be a new model all the way around. The relationship between the new Oysterquartz and the old will be like the relationship between a 4130 Daytona and a 4030 one: to the casual observer they may appear identical, but if you look closely and know what you're looking for they are completely different watches. Also, since the 5335 and 5355 movements were cased in Oysterquartz cases as prototypes it's not likely they were intended for the Cellini line. And, of course, as you pointed out with the Daytona, there is always an exception to the "rule" at Rolex.
|
|
|
Post by jp on Oct 25, 2005 10:48:38 GMT -6
How about a "budget Daytona" with quartz chronograph? Okay, I'm just joking.
|
|
|
Post by atomic on Oct 25, 2005 11:28:55 GMT -6
They only stopped OQ production a couple of years ago. It doesn't make business sense to stop production for a couple of years, only to start up again (unless you're talking the Daytona ;D ). Actually, production of the Oysterquarz ceased in 2000, so it's been five years. And keep in mind that Rolex introduced the Oysterquartz in 1977, which was five years after the last Quartz Date 5100 was sold in 1972. In the case of the 5335 and 5355, these movements clearly don't share anything in common with the 5035 and 5055 so it isn't really a case of stopping and then restarting production. The new Oysterquartz (if there is one) will be a new model all the way around. The relationship between the new Oysterquartz and the old will be like the relationship between a 4130 Daytona and a 4030 one: to the casual observer they may appear identical, but if you look closely and know what you're looking for they are completely different watches. Also, since the 5335 and 5355 movements were cased in Oysterquartz cases as prototypes it's not likely they were intended for the Cellini line. And, of course, as you pointed out with the Daytona, there is always an exception to the "rule" at Rolex. Fair points. The one sure thing about Rolex is that there is no sure thing about Rolex. Look at the marvelous and radical design shift in making the 50th anniversary Sub and GMT models. WOW! I guess a new OQ is possible. But as I said, i'll be surprised in a big way.
|
|
|
Post by maverick on Oct 25, 2005 20:30:11 GMT -6
They come out with an OQ and I am going in the opposite direction. I am looking for more vintage Rolex. I would love a 17000 though. =) maverick
|
|
|
Post by dman on Oct 25, 2005 21:05:09 GMT -6
They could just always paint the dial green and call it a special edition. I agree though Mav, a 17000 would be NICE.
|
|