Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

new rado ceramica

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • new rado ceramica

    What's your opinion on the new rado ceramica by Konstantin Grci?

    ceramica.JPGnewceramica_22.jpg

    https://www.hodinkee.com/articles/ra...ic-introducing
    https://www.instagram.com/the_rado_collector/

  • #2
    To my eye it looks like they mated a Ceramica with a Sintra and this is the offspring. Ceramicas were noted for their bracelet type approach meaning they were the same width all the way around while the Sintra tapered away from the watch head. They seem to be a nice update but not sure i would group them in the same family as Ceramicas. Would be nice if they had continued the innovation and gone with a nice slim auto winder or maybe tied the AutoQuartz movement to a traditional dial. At the end of the day not really a materials innovation or movement innovation (which has been Rado's biggest selling points over the years) Just a shape change and that brought about by an industrial designer. Can anyone say 5.5?? I afraid these may fall as flat as the 5.5.
    The difference between stupidity and genius is that genius has its limits - Albert Einstein

    View my collection photostream at FLICKER

    Comment


    • #3
      Not a fan of this industrial designer's work. Two digit numerals to mark the hour? Grind, or in this case, just remove the battery.

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by SUCRAM1161 View Post
        To my eye it looks like they mated a Ceramica with a Sintra and this is the offspring. Ceramicas were noted for their bracelet type approach meaning they were the same width all the way around while the Sintra tapered away from the watch head. They seem to be a nice update but not sure i would group them in the same family as Ceramicas. Would be nice if they had continued the innovation and gone with a nice slim auto winder or maybe tied the AutoQuartz movement to a traditional dial. At the end of the day not really a materials innovation or movement innovation (which has been Rado's biggest selling points over the years) Just a shape change and that brought about by an industrial designer. Can anyone say 5.5?? I afraid these may fall as flat as the 5.5.
        All of this. I have nothing to add, except that there is something oddly familiar about them.
        Solve all your doubts through question mode.

        Comment


        • #5
          Oh, oh, oh. I know what it is. Sucram, it's an Anatom.

          R10385151_FXA.jpg
          Solve all your doubts through question mode.

          Comment


          • #6
            I do like the Anatom. It works for me.

            Comment


            • #7
              Yup I don't like it.

              The first one is a limted edition and is not even numbered, but I kind of like the dial markers and hands.

              I just hate the second one. They try to hard to keep the symmetry having the small seconds and placing the date at twelve, but it doesn't work to have the date number below the 12. Also I can't stop reading "rado 03"

              I will waut to have the funds to buy the old ceramica chrono in ashford, that is a watch I really like.
              https://www.instagram.com/the_rado_collector/

              Comment


              • #8
                My first thought was Anatom too. I like the original Anatom even less than I like this new Rado, but that doesn't make either a bad design - it's just personal, subjective preference.

                Rado has a well established history of referencing design cues from earlier watches. Think faceted crystals and trapezoidal date windows on Originals. On this very forum, the 50th LE Diastar was slammed for not being 'special' enough, whatever that means. In particular, it was criticized for not having a trapezoidal date window or a faceted crystal. I think Henry will agree, the 50th LE is one of Rado's more successful designs. Good design does not necessarily equal radical design or innovation. There is certainly nothing innovative about the 50th LE, just subtle improvements over earlier case shapes. Nor do I think radical or innovative design necessarily = good sales or instant popularity.

                The multiple award winning R5.5 is another example of good design being recognized by the industry, but not this forum. Not liking a design is not the same as bad design. Not innovative enough you say? Rado had to design a new molding technique to integrate the lugs on the R5.5 which was then also used on the True. The asymmetrical 2-subdial layout of the quartz module was to be exclusive to the R5.5 and, as far as I know, remains so.

                So when is it OK for them to reference past designs and when not? And who gets to decide?
                Last edited by FSM71; 08-26-2016, 04:18 AM.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Can you say ANATOM Henry???? No I had not read the other new posts when I posted this. It just hit me when I looked at the new ceramicas again. In fact that vaunted industrial designer should probably lose his design license for plagiarism. The two are that close.
                  Last edited by SUCRAM1161; 08-26-2016, 05:06 AM.
                  The difference between stupidity and genius is that genius has its limits - Albert Einstein

                  View my collection photostream at FLICKER

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    I'm struggling to understand the vitriol. You'd think a company would be very sensitive to their own designs being stolen and sold back to them? - Unless that was his design brief from Rado!

                    I am sure that if Rado wasn't satisfied with his efforts, they would not have put his design into production, especially given the current tough market conditions.

                    Tudor's designers must be running in fear now, lest they also lose their license to design.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      I sorry FSM No vitriol intended! I like the 5.5 just don't have one in my collection yet. As far this particular it seems we have ID'd that this is more of an update of the Anatom ( I do have an Anatom and I love it) yet they are calling it a Ceramica. There really is no vitriol on my part. just discussing what is presented and voicing at least a bit of my disappointment at another Rado that leaves me feeling meh... rather than wowed.
                      The difference between stupidity and genius is that genius has its limits - Albert Einstein

                      View my collection photostream at FLICKER

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        I agree that it's a complete misnomer. Clearly this is a next generation Anatom.

                        If I were a cynic, I would say it's probably because Marketing Department figured it might sell better under the Ceramica name.

                        It least it's not ridiculously massive, like some of their latest pieces. Still want a Cape Horn, but the size...

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by FSM71 View Post
                          My first thought was Anatom too. I like the original Anatom even less than I like this new Rado, but that doesn't make either a bad design - it's just personal, subjective preference.

                          Rado has a well established history of referencing design cues from earlier watches. Think faceted crystals and trapezoidal date windows on Originals. On this very forum, the 50th LE Diastar was slammed for not being 'special' enough, whatever that means. In particular, it was criticized for not having a trapezoidal date window or a faceted crystal. I think Henry will agree, the 50th LE is one of Rado's more successful designs. Good design does not necessarily equal radical design or innovation. There is certainly nothing innovative about the 50th LE, just subtle improvements over earlier case shapes. Nor do I think radical or innovative design necessarily = good sales or instant popularity.

                          The multiple award winning R5.5 is another example of good design being recognized by the industry, but not this forum. Not liking a design is not the same as bad design. Not innovative enough you say? Rado had to design a new molding technique to integrate the lugs on the R5.5 which was then also used on the True. The asymmetrical 2-subdial layout of the quartz module was to be exclusive to the R5.5 and, as far as I know, remains so.

                          So when is it OK for them to reference past designs and when not? And who gets to decide?
                          Pay your money and take your choice. The market always decides winners and losers.

                          BTW, My first experience with Rado was in 1988 when I was walking through a department store in Ala Moana Center (Honolulu) and randomly killing time while my wife was shopping. I drifted by the watch counter and spotted a
                          sleek looking watch like I had never seen before. Turned out to be a Rado Anatom. We walked out the door with a sales slip for matching his and her models (the only two Anatom models the store had in stock). I never question the decision to buy, although I thought the price was a bit unreasonable.

                          I will disclose that at the time I had nothing more than a casual passing interest in watches. I was wearing a Bulova automatic for the prior 12 years before buying the Rado. I still have both the Bulova and the Rado, but they are aren't in the rotation to be worn. The Rado was my daily wearer for approximately 12 years until I started collecting watches.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by Woodlands1 View Post
                            I do like the Anatom. It works for me.
                            I don't blame you. I have casually looked for one, or the Diastar that preceded it, more than a few times. It was an original that was much copied by all sorts of other manufacturers. It defined a whole segment of the dress market through the 80s and 90s. It is iconic. This... if someone over at WUS emailed me to ask if their Rado was fake, I would have said "Yes, but at least it's a good one."
                            Solve all your doubts through question mode.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Yep, just like Sucram I am simply disappointed. It turns out, now that I have one, I get the Ceramica and I actually like it's profound oddness. This just isn't one.
                              Solve all your doubts through question mode.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X