Feature: Why Doesn’t Rolex Make Tourbillons?
Back in September 2018 any watch-obsessed Instagrammers scrolling through their morning feed might have choked on their croissant at one of the images that popped up.
There, in all its glory, was a Rolex Milgauss tourbillon.
Initial thoughts might have ranged from a thoroughly horrified “WTAF, Rolex!” to a thrilled, “About time, too.”
And then they would have realised that the watch, which started life as an authentic Rolex, had actually been heavily modified by the independent Geneva-based company Label Noir, which specialises in watch customization and, to quote its own website “fulfilling [their customers’] most extravagant follies”.
Well, that’s one way of putting it…
Independent company Label Noir modified this Rolex Milgauss with a tourbillon
Still, it was fascinating to see what a Rolex tourbillon might look like, because despite over a century of watch-making, the brand has never shown a sniff of interest in this rather challenging device, and we’re going to take a look at some of the reasons why…
For Caves And Cockpits
From the 1920s when it released the world’s first water-proof wristwatch, the Oyster, Rolex has focused on making utilitarian tool watches—that is, robust luxury watches designed for a specific purpose or profession. These, of course, have included the Submariner for diving, the GMT-Master for jet pilots crossing multiple time zones, and the Daytona for motor-racing. It even launched a watch designed for cavers, the Explorer II.
Rolex is known primarily for its robust tool watches.
Often, prototypes of these Rolex watches were tested in the very environment they were created for, whether in cockpits, caves or the high-altitude slopes of the Himalayas. Each time, Rolex took the watches back, listened to the peeves—and praise—of those who wore them, then learnt, re-assessed, and tweaked accordingly, making further incremental changes over the decades.
Keeping things simple—i.e., being the best at doing the basics—has pretty much been Rolex’s modus operandi for yonks and it’s the foundation of its success. It’s why it’s the world’s best-known luxury watch company, synonymous with quality.
Big Three? No Thanks.
It’s also the price it pays for not being included in the so-called “Holy Trinity” of watchmaking, a club whose membership comprises Patek Philippe, Vacheron Constantin and Audemars Piguet.
Entry to this exclusive club requires being at least a century old, as well as having the capability of making such complications as perpetual calendars, minute repeaters and, of course, tourbillons.
It also helps if you have hand-painted dials and meticulously engraved movement components. And even then there’s no guarantee of entry. Just ask Jaeger-LeCoultre!
Actually, you suspect that should the door of the club ever be pushed ajar and the red carpet unfurled, Rolex would give it the one-finger salute, quoting the Marx Brothers’ oft-repeated line: “I refuse to join any club that would have me as a member.”
It Doesn’t Do Delicate
A tourbillon is essentially a device in a high-end watch that eliminates vertical position errors by being suspended in a revolving cage that goes through all such positions so that they neutralise each other. Still with us? No? Fine, then just think of it as a tricky little gizmo added to a movement that makes it more accurate.
Rolex refuse to put a tourbillon in a watch
Anyway, it’s a finely filigreed little thing. Fascinating to observe. A bit of a show-off that often has its own little circular window in the dial in which it can flaunt its fancy moves.
Such showboating is anathema to Rolex, however, which is happy to keep its comparatively spartan-looking movements under its even more spartan steel casebacks.
Tourbillons and Rolex. It’s almost a contradiction in terms, like putting a crystal chandelier in a Sherman tank.
In The Realms of Affordability
Some watches are forever out of the reach of most of us. We could eat nothing but porridge for twenty years, live in a shed and sell a kidney, but that H Moser & Cie Minute Repeater Tourbillon we drool over would still be out of reach.
A Rolex however remains in the realms of affordability. Sure, you might have to forego buying that new car and ditch the Arsenal season ticket, but an entry-level Oyster Perpetual? Probably do-able.
If Rolex put a tourbillon inside its most expensive watch it would cost the price of several Rolex Daytonas. It would also mess up their pricing scale and, well, it just wouldn’t be a very Rolex thing to do.
And if there’s one thing that’s constant about Rolex it's that it never does anything that’s not very Rolex.
Oh, and if you’re wondering how much a Rolex tourbillon might cost, the Label Noir model mentioned above costs around 125,000 Swiss Francs.
Candidates For “Tourbillonification"
Ok, so let’s pretend for a moment that we live in a world where winged pigs have taken to the skies and Rolex has decided to make tourbillons. Which of their models would they choose?
A tourbillon in a Rolex Cellini? Maybe…
Despite Label Noir’s offering, it’s safe to say Rolex wouldn’t choose to put a tourbillon inside any of its tool watches. That pretty much leaves something from the dressier end of the spectrum. A rectangular Prince model? A rose gold Cellini?
Even speculating about it seems slightly sacrilegious, so let’s put the matter to bed for now. At least until Label Noir decides to stick a minute repeater inside a Submariner!
Looking for a pre-owned Rolex watch? Click here to shop now
Looking for a tourbillon watch? Click here to shop now
