Most Classic Rolex

Which Prole-X


  • Total voters
    15
They really like their luxury watches down there. I notice when my colleagues come up on a business trip, they don`t just arrive with one decent watch for the trip, but two which they interchange for different situations. And not just decent watches, I mean high cost luxury ones.

That's been my observation of the ones that have emigrated here but I suspect they came from a posh way of life.

One dentist asked me where he could find a boy to care for his horses. He was quite surprised that we did not have almost-slave labour here
 
That's been my observation of the ones that have emigrated here but I suspect they came from a posh way of life.

One dentist asked me where he could find a boy to care for his horses. He was quite surprised that we did not have almost-slave labour here

Should have hooked him up with a rent boy.
 
Time bandits
Rich people love them. Celebrities adore them. Adventurers won't leave home without them. Sadly, they're also the mugger's watch of choice. What is it about a Rolex?

By John Walsh - Tuesday 24 August 1999

Source: http://www.independent.co.uk


The best unsolicited advertisement Rolex ever received was in 1927, when a London typist called Mercedes Gleitze emerged from the sea at Dover after becoming the first Englishwoman to swim the Channel. Waving to well-wishers, she revealed a Rolex Oyster clamped to her wrist, still ticking after 15 hours in the water. It was a marketing stroke to die for. Myriad virtues were embodied in the single image of Ms Gleitze's extended arm: among them youth, endurance, athleticism, coolness, precision under stress, waterproof-ness and the indefinable cachet of Venus-rising- from-the-waves. Rolex's reputation as the timepiece of choice for sportsmen, pilots, explorers and navigators was guaranteed. Unfortunately, more recently they've also become the timepiece du choix for another group: today's niche robbers, the so-called Rolex Raiders. Indeed, if one of Ms Gleitze's descendants were to try to emulate her swim in 1999, two things would happen. An unknown assailant would dash up, just at the moment of triumph, grab her arm, uncouple the watch and disappear through the crowd. And an article would appear in the following day's newspaper saying how jolly naff it was for Mercedes to be wearing the thing in the first place.

What is it with Rolexes? In the last three years, street robberies in London have increased by 16 per cent. Since January this year, more than 160 timepieces have been whipped from the wrists of the rich and famous - and many of them have been the distinctive and sparkling Oyster Royal and Oyster Perpetual.

Former Page-three girl Jilly Johnson had her £5,000 watch snatched as she sat in a Bayswater traffic jam. Caprice Bourret, the undies model turned singer, was relieved of her watch (and handbag and mobile phone) by a masked gang in Hampstead. Britt Ekland had her £10,000 Rolex grabbed outside a supermarket in Chelsea. The chef Anton Mosimann was attacked in the street, outside his Kensington house, and his wife Kathrin's Rolex went west.

In June this year, Robert Robinson, the chortling radio quizmaster, lost his Oyster Royal when muggers beat him up in Chelsea. Only last week, the film director Ridley Scott's 94-year-old mother was burgled in Hampstead and her £6,000 Rolex removed. More recently still, Anthea Turner, the television presenter, was sitting with friends in a Range Rover outside Stringfellow's nightclub when a man opened the door, lunged in, grabbed the eight-year-old daughter of millionaire businessman Ivor Jacobs, and forced him to hand over his £20,000 Rolex Oyster Quartz Day-Date special.

The police are keen to stress the random nature of the attacks. Andy Trotter, the stylishly titled Head of Crime in Central London, said the muggers "are opportunistic thieves, they are disorganised and they will look around for likely targets. We see them wandering around, looking for targets, losing targets and finding another." Disconcertingly, different police reports variously suggest the bad guys are based in "south London", "the north west" of London and "east London".

All are agreed, however, that they travel to ritzier parts of town in search of jewel-dripping victims. The police have been tracking the watch thieves through surveillance cameras, and have sent plain-clothes officers on to the street, to stand around ostentatiously wearing Rolexes and acting dim. But why Rolexes? Surely their position as the top status symbol slipped years ago. Aren't they now about as up-to-date as an E-type Jaguar? Or have we missed something? Do they secretly possess a cachet on the international villainy market unguessed at by their watch-making rivals?

"For me, Rolexes are too flashy and too obviously trying to show your wealth on your sleeve - although there's a certain type of macho man who is perfectly at home with them," said Geordie Greig, the Tatler's new editor and arbiter of taste to the fashionable upper-classes. "If you're trying to show some style, you definitely wouldn't wear gold. A far better choice would be a Patek Philippe 5.35 with a silver or platinum case, a black strap and all its clever gadgets cunningly concealed."

The design guru Stephen Bayley couldn't disagree more. "I've been a Rolex wearer for ever," he said. "A steel Rolex is a perfect mechanism, self- winding, automatic, lasting for ever, utterly timeless. It's `the power of knowledge objectified', as Marx said about industry. It's very satisfying emotionally, poetically. It gives me pleasure every day. There was a moment, 10 years ago, when it seemed to be acquiring values quite alien to mine. But Rolex is still pre-eminent. Once you've graduated from a Timex, it's the only place to go."

Amid such discussion, it's easy to forget that Rolex started life not as a style object but as a serious chronometer. It was the brainchild of Hans Wilsdorf, a Bavarian-born horologist living in London. He and his brother-in-law formed a clockmaking firm called Wilsdorf & Davis in Hatton Garden in 1905, just as the first wristwatches were starting to appear on both sides of the Atlantic. They experimented with various models and gave them names: the Unicorn, the Marconi, the Rolco and Tudor - then, in 1908, hit on "Rolex" as an all-purpose word suggesting perpetual motion. When the First World War broke out, and all things German were suddenly anathema, Rolex became the company's name.

Wilsdorf was the first man to bring the technology of the testing laboratory (the screw-down winding crown, the automatic-winding rotor, the water-resistant cog) into a box strapped to your wrist. In 1926, he produced the first completely waterproof watch (a year before Mercedes went on her historic swim). In 1945, he invented the Datejust, the first wristwatch to show the date on the dial; then in 1956 trumped it with the Day-Date, showing the very-easily-confused traveller which day of the week he was in.

Rolex was less about telling time and more about precision - about being reliably accurate in extremes of altitude, depth, heat, cold, dryness and humidity. They were an absolute must for anyone venturing into a jungle, a desert, a trek to Antarctica, a scuba-dive or a transatlantic flight. The fact that 99.99 per cent of Rolex wearers would never be faced with any such eventuality did not dent their desirability. They were devices cognate with extreme elements and extreme behaviour, while being simultaneously emblems of perfect accuracy. That was their dual charm.

It was in the Sixties, though, that the Rolex image hardened into tough- guy territory. The black-faced Oyster Perpetual, with its huge white dots and red second hand became an emblem of sporty prowess and masculinity. Edmund Hillary's sidekick, Tenzing Norgay, wore a Rolex Explorer on the summit of Everest (Hillary himself wore a boring old Smith's). Donald Campbell had an Oyster on his wrist when he broke the land-speed record in Bluebird, the same model worn by Chuck Yeager when he broke the sound barrier in 1947. In the near-disastrous flight of Apolo 13, when the spacecraft was behind the Moon, out of touch with Houston, and the astronauts had to time to a split second the instant when they fired the scuppered rockets, Jack Swigert was gazing at the sweep hand of his Rolex GMT Master.

But it was James Bond who fixed the name in the public's mind as the essence of hard-man chic. Fleming was the first popular writer to pepper his text with real-life brand names, in an early literary version of product placement.

Along with Bond's favourite marmalade (Frank Cooper's Vintage Oxford) and cufflinks (Cartier) went the watch - "a Rolex Oyster Perpetual Chronometer on an expanding metal bracelet". Fully equipped - by Q, of course - the watch features, at different times in different movies, as a bullet-deflecting "intensified magnetic field" (which Bond uses to unzip the back of a woman's dress from the other side of the room), as a miniature buzz-saw and a garotte.

The Bond connection took the Rolex message to the ends of the earth - and 007's continuing appeal may partly account for the fact that Rolex watches remain phenomenally popular among Asian businessmen. In China, Hong Kong, Japan and Malaysia, a gold Rolex Datejust is still an instant and immediate sign that you're a big fat success. The best Chinese restaurants in Hong Kong throb to the combined tick of 200 Rolexes. In Yakuza [Japanese mafia] circles, the favourite tough-guy ticker is the Rolex Daytona - of course you've seen it: it's the one with three mini-clocks on the face, recording the passage of seconds, minutes and hours, accessorised by a pair of sunglasses and an amputation saw.

Look at the Rolex catalogue today, and you feel dive-bombed by luxury of a slightly ludicrous, old-fashioned nature. The serried ranks of 18- carat gold watches, with gold hands, gold faces and gold straps, many of them edged, trimmed and studded with diamonds, leave you feeling overwhelmed by excess rather than sick with longing. Who, bar some extra-flamboyant fan of the Emperor Bokassa, could warm to the Oyster Perpetual Day-Date with diamonds encrusted all round the bezel and set into the strap, let alone want to pay £39,350 for it? Elsewhere in the catalogue, you can find some handsome models in steel and "white metal" that are an absolute snip at £1,390.

As you read on it becomes clear that the point of all the assaults and muggings and burglaries by the Rolex Raiders is, pace the police analysts, more than random opportunism. We have to consider the possibility that, somewhere in Catford or Hoxton, a gang of sneering and criminal style- fascists are plotting to relieve the aesthetically-challenged and the insanely rich of their most conspicuous consumer mistake, like a tax on stupidity.

For it is surely self-evident that anyone who walks around, in the 1990s, with a guaranteed minimum of £2,000 to £20,000 in show-off yellow gold and look-at-me white diamonds lightly attached to his or her arm is taking part in an aggressive preening ritual - one that is now an object of wonder only to Pacific Rim millionaires and the nasty modern Dick Turpins who wish to emulate or serve them.
 
If the sole idea is to out-gauche Basic White Motherfuckers, the current poll seems accurate.
 
Which Rolex should doghouse get to interact with Basic White Motherfuckers™

Keep in mind he doesn't really like Rolexs.

Why you no consider Sea Dweller if you want it the bezel? Igents & Basic White Motherfuckers™ never consider it because they want it the sub sub sub.

Worry too much about the added weight & thickness (2mm) and how they think it wears giant for the wrist

Imbeciles

jajajajajajaajaja

I like super thick (that's what she said) PO 600M, so 2mm is no issue.

I do like the colors on the batman GMT II though.

Y' gotsta get a 'lex dat dey understandz, somefin komman: So a Sub, GMT or 'tona iz da rite choyse.

TopTop vernacular. I'm almost sold.

Submariner, ref. 5513 (pre-1984).

Most excellent choice. I have a legitimate fear of opening the wormhole of vintage watch collecting though.

Whilst vintage watches can be charming, and a conversation piece for the knowledgable, I think you should buy new, you're getting a better watch. A new Sub is better than a 20 year old one in every way.

Oh, I'm not buying an old one. I'm probably nokt buying a new one. This is just all a thought exercise.

Anyway, I'm speaking to my personality. If I started down the vintage rabbit hole, I'd be on a tear for months.

White gold day date with double quickset.

36mm of course

Except it is much more bloated!

Even if the case diameter is ostensibly the same (40mm), everything about the most recent iteration is bigger than before: from the thickness of the lugs to the markers on the dial. . . If you have an affinity to the classic proportions of the Submariner, and you also happen to like minimalistic aesthetic of the no-date, two-liner version, yet still want a relatively modern watch, an early example of 14060m may well be the way to go. They are also significantly cheaper than both vintage and new.

At any rate, there is no reason to buy vintage Rolex unless you fap about the rattly loose bracelets and the visual distortions caused by a tophat or domed plastic crystal. And what a singular pleasure that is!

You can vote for an Explorer II, but not the original Explorer I, what mischief is this?

Vintage Explorer I, 36mm. Ian Flemings choice.

GMT with Pepsi bezel.

so. Now I have proof. You are either noodles or foo.

Pepsi, coke or batman (in that order) GMT all the way. Otherwise, no date black sub.

However, most high rollers have replaced the Lex with a $500 fitness watch to show off both their non-existant athleticism and non-existent tech savviness.

Well, the Sub was an example, I could have used any modern Rolex. However, sticking with the Sub, its uses a ceramic bezel as does the GMT, which is much better than the original, the movements are better, the bracelets are better. Modern manufacturing and quality control is better. Technically, its a better watch in every way.

Now aesthetically...

The phenomenon of vintage Rolex's is interesting, for one, it goes against the Rolex ethos of evolution, the continual improvement of their watch line from a technical perspective...

Can't get my head around the Explorer II, if you want a GMT function, buy the GMT. The GMT like the Sub however, are hard to get hold of in the UK. The Daytona...forget it they'll just laugh...

Not quite, one version of the Explorer in particular has a subpar movement (now rectified), but finely tuned by computer aided technology to give prime chronometer performance:

http://www.timezone.com/2002/09/16/the-rolex-explorer-ref-14270-part-1/

http://www.timezone.com/2002/09/16/the-rolex-explorer-ref-14270-part-2/



The Daytona is mystery to me, it doesn't strike me as anything better than similar chronographs that Tudor were doing in the 2000's. It's been around a long time mind you and Miles Davis use to sport one in the late 60s/early 70s. Two ex-colleagues had them, but I noticed after a couple of years the cases were really scratched and they both got rid. The Daytona just isn't as iconic as other Rolex's.

That's easy man. All watches should be GMT watches. The Explorer II just gives a little different aesthetic than the GMT Master.

But seriously though. I see no point in the Daytona.

http://www.timezone.com/2002/09/16/the-rolex-explorer-ref-14270-part-1/

http://www.timezone.com/2002/09/16/the-rolex-explorer-ref-14270-part-2/

Well, from a strictly engineering point of view, if the watch keeps good time, and is reliable all those omitted machining operations mentioned don't add anything to the watch from a timekeeping perspective you could justify leaving those operations out. Plus nobody, except a watchmaker will ever remove the caseback and view the movement. (Its worth noting how the watchmaker notices the high quality finish of the external parts of the watch, those most visible.)

However, given the cost of Rolex you could argue, and perhaps correctly, that the customer should expect a level of movement finishing commensurate with the price, holes correctly de-burred, no swarf left in the movement (which I find odd from a handling pint of view) &c.

Also, we shouldn't forget that Rolex are mass produced watches, they are not haute horology. You are, it has to be said, paying a hefty premium for the name.




Its the Paul Newman connection. You cannot get hold of SS Daytona's in the UK... I don't think Rolex are throttling supply, I just think they can't keep up with demand.

Those VC pocket watches are engineering marvels, but what would you do with them besides put them in a case on the shelf???

I think it's the cases with Rolex, the Oyster etc, which are design classics par excellence.



It's the Rolex business model at work here: a watch seller with a Rolex concession can't say I will just take a half a dozen each of Submariners, GMT's and Daytona's. My understanding is that they have to take what is allotted to them (i.e. the complete range) by Rolex and after a year or so, if they haven't sold them, they have to buy them from Rolex anyway. The individual watch seller may have a waiting list for Daytona's, but from Rolex's perspective they are keeping up with demand.

Well, you'd need bloody big pockets (in more ways than one) and the thing [weighs] close to a metric tonne. So, that's all you are going to be able to do with it...

I'd like to see though, the customer in anonymous however...

Yes, they have [monthly] consignments, and sometimes, you drop lucky and they've just received, that day, the watch you are after. That happened to me with the green sub, even though at the time I was after a Milgauss.

Are service costs more expensive for a vintage lex?

Other than the mass idiocy of casual watch wearers, this is my number one gripe with Rolex over the years and why I've never really been into spending the coin on one. I really don't like their cases at all. Omega makes a far superior case shape.

It doesn't bother me one iota what the 'mass opinion' is, if I like something, and can afford it, I buy it.

If aesthetically, its not your thing...that's another matter.

That's because you aren't a born contrarian like me.

I [strongly] suspect, given the tenor of your posts on this matter that you are concerned with the Rolex image perceived or otherwise.

If you have an interest in watches you will have to deal with the Rolex issue. It is, as one watch commentator rather niftily put it: as like visiting Paris and trying to avoid the Eiffel Tower. This big thing is just THERE, and has to be dealt with...

GMT Master Deux - Noir et Bleu. Its your Eiffel Tower.

'...that's a nice watch you've got there Mr Dawg - Yeah, its not my grail watch, it my Eiffel Tower watch, it has great wrist presence, and its the one watch, in my one watch collection that gets the most wrist action (besides my vintage collection of Playboy magazines). I think I'll tire of it quite quickly though,and flip it for a Special Edition Omega Snoopy/Woodstock/Fifi/Red Baron - Man on the dark side of the Moon...that's my grail...'

...or something like that, or perhaps not...

Masterful work there. I am going to use this verbatim at some point.

I'm having a day off work today, so I'm feeling a little playful...

Not necessarily.

Rolex service centers basically refuse service on certain vintage models (I think sending it to Geneva is always an option. . .). Otherwise, they are more interested in bringing everything up-to-date and to the highest degree of functionality (which is probably something you would like to avoid at all costs, since most vintage Rolexes are reduced to scrap once the original dial and hands are changed. Sometimes even the original bezel ring can run thousands of dollars on its own). Without even considering the loss of value, this jacks up the service costs immensely due to inflated replacement parts (think $1-1.5k and up). To top it off, they do all these replacement on an exchange basis. Which means that they also want to keep original parts, or they either refuse or charge you even more.

Yet now that you are in LA (or soon to be), you can get your vintage watches serviced by ABC Watchwerks at half the price of the official Rolex service (circa $500). The quality of service is ostensibly better, and they take utmost care in preserving the watch's vintage condition.

Theseus's paradox.

well, the SD is very popular among the twats on sf, ymmv. actually, its not as popular as the batman, which is fugly, but not as fugly as the mil and/or the ex II while we talk.

My understanding is that Rolex will always service a vintage watch?

You should always stipulate whether you want just a service or a refurbishment. In the latter case, they will basically give you a new watch with all worn parts and those with patinas replaced with new. This will reduce the value of a vintage watch to the market, albeit you will likely have a watch that keeps better time and looks newer.

I also think they charge more for servicing vintage watches. I would look at a an accredited independent to service a vintage Rolex, easier to deal with for specifics, you may be able to chat to the watchmaker who is actually doing the job.

Rolex have increased their service schedule to 10 years.

Vintage watches in general need servicing more often. Also having your watch serviced at the official dealer will ensure a better selling price, so always keep the receipt. A recent Rolex service will add value, a lot more than some local artisan horologist who when it comes to the international market counts for nought.

The cache for Rolex and several other luxury watch makers is that they will always service a vintage watch. That's a big selling point when you're buying a watch to hand over to the next generation. You can always get it serviced, officially.

I read somewhere recently where someone sent a vintage Grand Seiko from 1964 back to Seiko for a service and they were told that one of the springs was no longer available. They eventually did service and replace it, but only after being shamed. Of course, the new Grand Seiko quartz only need servicing every 50 years or so. But they might need repairing in that time.

Material science has come a long way. You can get away with longer service intervals in basically any modern mechanical device compared to days past. Watches are no exception. Lubricants in particular have really evolved in the past decade.

Was unaware of the SD popularity on SF. Don't read the watch threads.

Explorer II make for a nice lady watch although I knew a bunch of South African surgeons who sported them

They really like their luxury watches down there. I notice when my colleagues come up on a business trip, they don`t just arrive with one decent watch for the trip, but two which they interchange for different situations. And not just decent watches, I mean high cost luxury ones.

That's been my observation of the ones that have emigrated here but I suspect they came from a posh way of life.

One dentist asked me where he could find a boy to care for his horses. He was quite surprised that we did not have almost-slave labour here

Should have hooked him up with a rent boy.

Time bandits
Rich people love them. Celebrities adore them. Adventurers won't leave home without them. Sadly, they're also the mugger's watch of choice. What is it about a Rolex?

By John Walsh - Tuesday 24 August 1999

Source: http://www.independent.co.uk


The best unsolicited advertisement Rolex ever received was in 1927, when a London typist called Mercedes Gleitze emerged from the sea at Dover after becoming the first Englishwoman to swim the Channel. Waving to well-wishers, she revealed a Rolex Oyster clamped to her wrist, still ticking after 15 hours in the water. It was a marketing stroke to die for. Myriad virtues were embodied in the single image of Ms Gleitze's extended arm: among them youth, endurance, athleticism, coolness, precision under stress, waterproof-ness and the indefinable cachet of Venus-rising- from-the-waves. Rolex's reputation as the timepiece of choice for sportsmen, pilots, explorers and navigators was guaranteed. Unfortunately, more recently they've also become the timepiece du choix for another group: today's niche robbers, the so-called Rolex Raiders. Indeed, if one of Ms Gleitze's descendants were to try to emulate her swim in 1999, two things would happen. An unknown assailant would dash up, just at the moment of triumph, grab her arm, uncouple the watch and disappear through the crowd. And an article would appear in the following day's newspaper saying how jolly naff it was for Mercedes to be wearing the thing in the first place.

What is it with Rolexes? In the last three years, street robberies in London have increased by 16 per cent. Since January this year, more than 160 timepieces have been whipped from the wrists of the rich and famous - and many of them have been the distinctive and sparkling Oyster Royal and Oyster Perpetual.

Former Page-three girl Jilly Johnson had her £5,000 watch snatched as she sat in a Bayswater traffic jam. Caprice Bourret, the undies model turned singer, was relieved of her watch (and handbag and mobile phone) by a masked gang in Hampstead. Britt Ekland had her £10,000 Rolex grabbed outside a supermarket in Chelsea. The chef Anton Mosimann was attacked in the street, outside his Kensington house, and his wife Kathrin's Rolex went west.

In June this year, Robert Robinson, the chortling radio quizmaster, lost his Oyster Royal when muggers beat him up in Chelsea. Only last week, the film director Ridley Scott's 94-year-old mother was burgled in Hampstead and her £6,000 Rolex removed. More recently still, Anthea Turner, the television presenter, was sitting with friends in a Range Rover outside Stringfellow's nightclub when a man opened the door, lunged in, grabbed the eight-year-old daughter of millionaire businessman Ivor Jacobs, and forced him to hand over his £20,000 Rolex Oyster Quartz Day-Date special.

The police are keen to stress the random nature of the attacks. Andy Trotter, the stylishly titled Head of Crime in Central London, said the muggers "are opportunistic thieves, they are disorganised and they will look around for likely targets. We see them wandering around, looking for targets, losing targets and finding another." Disconcertingly, different police reports variously suggest the bad guys are based in "south London", "the north west" of London and "east London".

All are agreed, however, that they travel to ritzier parts of town in search of jewel-dripping victims. The police have been tracking the watch thieves through surveillance cameras, and have sent plain-clothes officers on to the street, to stand around ostentatiously wearing Rolexes and acting dim. But why Rolexes? Surely their position as the top status symbol slipped years ago. Aren't they now about as up-to-date as an E-type Jaguar? Or have we missed something? Do they secretly possess a cachet on the international villainy market unguessed at by their watch-making rivals?

"For me, Rolexes are too flashy and too obviously trying to show your wealth on your sleeve - although there's a certain type of macho man who is perfectly at home with them," said Geordie Greig, the Tatler's new editor and arbiter of taste to the fashionable upper-classes. "If you're trying to show some style, you definitely wouldn't wear gold. A far better choice would be a Patek Philippe 5.35 with a silver or platinum case, a black strap and all its clever gadgets cunningly concealed."

The design guru Stephen Bayley couldn't disagree more. "I've been a Rolex wearer for ever," he said. "A steel Rolex is a perfect mechanism, self- winding, automatic, lasting for ever, utterly timeless. It's `the power of knowledge objectified', as Marx said about industry. It's very satisfying emotionally, poetically. It gives me pleasure every day. There was a moment, 10 years ago, when it seemed to be acquiring values quite alien to mine. But Rolex is still pre-eminent. Once you've graduated from a Timex, it's the only place to go."

Amid such discussion, it's easy to forget that Rolex started life not as a style object but as a serious chronometer. It was the brainchild of Hans Wilsdorf, a Bavarian-born horologist living in London. He and his brother-in-law formed a clockmaking firm called Wilsdorf & Davis in Hatton Garden in 1905, just as the first wristwatches were starting to appear on both sides of the Atlantic. They experimented with various models and gave them names: the Unicorn, the Marconi, the Rolco and Tudor - then, in 1908, hit on "Rolex" as an all-purpose word suggesting perpetual motion. When the First World War broke out, and all things German were suddenly anathema, Rolex became the company's name.

Wilsdorf was the first man to bring the technology of the testing laboratory (the screw-down winding crown, the automatic-winding rotor, the water-resistant cog) into a box strapped to your wrist. In 1926, he produced the first completely waterproof watch (a year before Mercedes went on her historic swim). In 1945, he invented the Datejust, the first wristwatch to show the date on the dial; then in 1956 trumped it with the Day-Date, showing the very-easily-confused traveller which day of the week he was in.

Rolex was less about telling time and more about precision - about being reliably accurate in extremes of altitude, depth, heat, cold, dryness and humidity. They were an absolute must for anyone venturing into a jungle, a desert, a trek to Antarctica, a scuba-dive or a transatlantic flight. The fact that 99.99 per cent of Rolex wearers would never be faced with any such eventuality did not dent their desirability. They were devices cognate with extreme elements and extreme behaviour, while being simultaneously emblems of perfect accuracy. That was their dual charm.

It was in the Sixties, though, that the Rolex image hardened into tough- guy territory. The black-faced Oyster Perpetual, with its huge white dots and red second hand became an emblem of sporty prowess and masculinity. Edmund Hillary's sidekick, Tenzing Norgay, wore a Rolex Explorer on the summit of Everest (Hillary himself wore a boring old Smith's). Donald Campbell had an Oyster on his wrist when he broke the land-speed record in Bluebird, the same model worn by Chuck Yeager when he broke the sound barrier in 1947. In the near-disastrous flight of Apolo 13, when the spacecraft was behind the Moon, out of touch with Houston, and the astronauts had to time to a split second the instant when they fired the scuppered rockets, Jack Swigert was gazing at the sweep hand of his Rolex GMT Master.

But it was James Bond who fixed the name in the public's mind as the essence of hard-man chic. Fleming was the first popular writer to pepper his text with real-life brand names, in an early literary version of product placement.

Along with Bond's favourite marmalade (Frank Cooper's Vintage Oxford) and cufflinks (Cartier) went the watch - "a Rolex Oyster Perpetual Chronometer on an expanding metal bracelet". Fully equipped - by Q, of course - the watch features, at different times in different movies, as a bullet-deflecting "intensified magnetic field" (which Bond uses to unzip the back of a woman's dress from the other side of the room), as a miniature buzz-saw and a garotte.

The Bond connection took the Rolex message to the ends of the earth - and 007's continuing appeal may partly account for the fact that Rolex watches remain phenomenally popular among Asian businessmen. In China, Hong Kong, Japan and Malaysia, a gold Rolex Datejust is still an instant and immediate sign that you're a big fat success. The best Chinese restaurants in Hong Kong throb to the combined tick of 200 Rolexes. In Yakuza [Japanese mafia] circles, the favourite tough-guy ticker is the Rolex Daytona - of course you've seen it: it's the one with three mini-clocks on the face, recording the passage of seconds, minutes and hours, accessorised by a pair of sunglasses and an amputation saw.

Look at the Rolex catalogue today, and you feel dive-bombed by luxury of a slightly ludicrous, old-fashioned nature. The serried ranks of 18- carat gold watches, with gold hands, gold faces and gold straps, many of them edged, trimmed and studded with diamonds, leave you feeling overwhelmed by excess rather than sick with longing. Who, bar some extra-flamboyant fan of the Emperor Bokassa, could warm to the Oyster Perpetual Day-Date with diamonds encrusted all round the bezel and set into the strap, let alone want to pay £39,350 for it? Elsewhere in the catalogue, you can find some handsome models in steel and "white metal" that are an absolute snip at £1,390.

As you read on it becomes clear that the point of all the assaults and muggings and burglaries by the Rolex Raiders is, pace the police analysts, more than random opportunism. We have to consider the possibility that, somewhere in Catford or Hoxton, a gang of sneering and criminal style- fascists are plotting to relieve the aesthetically-challenged and the insanely rich of their most conspicuous consumer mistake, like a tax on stupidity.

For it is surely self-evident that anyone who walks around, in the 1990s, with a guaranteed minimum of £2,000 to £20,000 in show-off yellow gold and look-at-me white diamonds lightly attached to his or her arm is taking part in an aggressive preening ritual - one that is now an object of wonder only to Pacific Rim millionaires and the nasty modern Dick Turpins who wish to emulate or serve them.

Tbh, the other options were just window dressing.


imbeciles

please start attaching some pictures

too many words here. a good watch thread requires more pictures than words. this thread sucks big time
 
Do you even Rolex, bro?

Submariner, ref. 5513 (pre-1984).

Perfect specimen:

201706050072.webp
 
So what I'm gathering is the Batman GMT or Explorer II are the best.
 
IMO, buy the real thing or don't bother. If you can't afford, or (in the UK) can't get hold of a GMT, Sub &c find an alternative dive/chrono/GMT from another quality brand.

I think you're right, you should always cut your own swathe through the forest.

I've never bought a homage or fake watch (well I did as a joke: ''As I token of my respect and appreciation of you, here's a Rolex....'') and those Steinhart's are always going to single you out was someone who wants a Rolex, but can't afford one. I would have no problem with some of their other watches, the Marine ones for example. The one that's Euros 450 is decent enough, but it's no Stowa.

Correction, I did buy the Timefactors Blancpain Fifty Fathoms homage, it was suppose to have an original Blancpain vintage calibration in. A good watch actually, but a flex of superluminova came off and really pissed me off, so I got rid. I could have it fixed of course.
 
Last edited:
I think you're right, you should always cut your own swathe through the forest.

I've never bought a homage or fake watch (well I did as a joke: ''As I token of my respect and appreciation of you, here's a Rolex....'') and those Steinhart's are always going to single you out was someone who wants a Rolex, but can't afford one. I would have no problem with some of their other watches, the Marine ones for example. The one that's Euros 450 is decent enough, but it's no Stowa.

Correction, I did buy the Timefactors Blancpain Fifty Fathoms homage, it was suppose to have an original Blancpain vintage calibration in. A good watch actually, but a flex of superluminova came off and really pissed me off, so I got rid. I could have it fixed of course.

There's many reason you shouldn't buy one.

One is, that the company has no design ideas of its own so has to copy others. Now there's always been some copying obviously, a good idea is worthy of emulation but wholesale copying, shows a company with no ideas of its own.

Another is, as a wearer you run a serious risk of ridicule.

If you can't afford a sub, and at over 6.5 grand not many can, there are other watches, quite a bit cheaper that are as good, if not, as in the case of Omega, considered by some, to be better.

You should get one of those.
 
The Buckley dial is quite sexy. Add an Oyster bracelet and you are set.
 
Rolex as much as you may want it, falls into the mid-range, but high quality. A canny buy. And I know diplomats who sport Rolex Datejust before other ranges. It says you can be bought.

So away with your pretence and BS.
 
The datejust is too "fragile" for an oyster bracelet in my opinion
Also, the buckley dial makes the watch even dressier - which clearly calls for a jubilee bracelet!

The Jubilee is great for street hawkers in Los Angeles.
 
Rolex as much as you may want it, falls into the mid-range, but high quality. A canny buy. And I know diplomats who sport Rolex Datejust before other ranges. It says you can be bought.

So away with your pretence and BS.
alright, alright, enough already. this is the fourth thread in a row i've read this. we get it. not singling you out btw sirloin sirloin .
 
There's many reason you shouldn't buy one.

One is, that the company has no design ideas of its own so has to copy others. Now there's always been some copying obviously, a good idea is worthy of emulation but wholesale copying, shows a company with no ideas of its own.

Another is, as a wearer you run a serious risk of ridicule.

If you can't afford a sub, and at over 6.5 grand not many can, there are other watches, quite a bit cheaper that are as good, if not, as in the case of Omega, considered by some, to be better.

You should get one of those.

this is what deserves ridicule. it sounds like your dick gets hard for font types and sycophancy.

IMO, buy the real thing or don't bother. If you can't afford, or (in the UK) can't get hold of a GMT, Sub &c find an alternative dive/chrono/GMT from another quality brand.

so what is it?

if you can't afford, don't bother? if you can't afford, get an alternative from another brand you can't afford?

it's a steinhart. it's a few hundred [insert currency] watch that'll certainly last for a few years before being replaced. nobody who knows watches is going to be like "NICE ROLEX....HEYYYYY WAIT A MINUTE!!!" it's obviously not a rolex. like, from a distance it's not a rolex. a steinhart's like renting an apartment before buying a house...are you going to live homeless because you can't afford a mansion yet?
 
I had a fake Rolex that a sister brought back from the Far East. Could not get the battery replaced though. Maybe I should have tried the market stall that replaced my seiko battery for a sensible price.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top Bottom