Rolex

I have a lot of friends who love their watches. I have one friend who just adores Richard Mille because he sees it as pushing the engineering excellence to the very edge. I have other freinds who just adore JLC because of their heritage for innovation. Equally, I have friends who adore their Pateks thanks to the history of extraordinary attention to quality and detail that Patek has in its reputation. Most of these guys point to modern watches as examples of excellence demonstrated in their watches. New patents on different technologies. New ways of thinking about watches. Where am i going with this?

I look at my collection and see 60% vintage Rolex, one modern Rolex, and everything else either modern Patek, JLC or other. Bottom line is that I essentially have vintage Rolex and modern non-Rolex. And that had me thinking. Rolex's reputation was born from its innovation in advancing the tool watch. WIth HEV or whetever. Rolex fame is pretty much based on its innovation of the tool watch. Many will argue with me on that, but that is my impression. The pride with which I wear my vintage Rolex is based upon that history and the fact that today's Rolex share an almost identical DNA to the Rolex of the 1960s and 1970s.

And that is a tremendous shame. The reason that the 1960s and 1970s Rolex are so prestigious is because they were not just ahead of the game...Rolex invented the game. It is why I think they have such personality. Isn't it time that Rolex decided to take a trip back into their history and realise just why their vintage watches are so prized? And then, once realising just what it was that created such historic watches, went back to the drawing board and did something spectacular for the modern era? I know the tribute watches will always have their place. But honestly, isn't it time Rolex took a look at their modern watches and said to themselves..."Right, what we used to do is make tool watches better than any other brand. Today, there are countless brands that make technically better tool watches. That has to stop...right now. Notice to the world...Rolex are back and we are going to reclaim the title of best tool watchmaker in the world...and by a margin."

Come on Rolex.....give us something for the modern era that is more than a shadow of the great watches you used to produce in the 60s and 70s. Rolex makes a small fortune re-issuing carbon copies of former great watches. Time to move forward with the modern era... time to re-assert Rolex as maker of the best tool watch in the world. I am just so bored with the modern Rolex.

Am I alone? I know there are some fun modern Rolex out there. The Rasta Milgauss. The Explorer I. But really, this is fun, and not what Rolex should be doing, is it? Just re-issuing? Lets have something totallly ground-breaking. The indestructible Rolex. The Rolex that can go 1000m with a faraday cage to withstand enormous shock. Unbreakable. The Steve Austin of the watch world. Better than before. Stronger. And something that doesn't follow the fad of being 47mm and weighing 38kg.

 

This message has been edited by amanico on 2011-05-02 23:06:40 This message has been edited by DrStrong on 2011-05-07 22:09:28

You said it in these few words, Baron, and pretty perfectly.

Let's see that...

Who made the Diving watch?

Panerai, first... If not Rolex, as we all know that the 3646 was a Rolex, made upon Panerai specifications.

Who made modern diving watches, such as we know them even today?

Rolex, again, with Blancpain and the Fab FF... It seems that Blancpain has a " short head " ahead, by the way, but we can reasonnably say that both Blancpain and Rolex are pionners in this domain.

Who invented the, or should I say ... THE GMT?

Rolex, without possible discussion.

The amagnetic watch?

Rolex, with the Milgauss, way before the Omega Railmaster and the IWC Ingenieur, if I'm not wrong.

The watch for adventurers?

Rolex, once again, with a short head ahead ... JLC with the Geophysic, which came one year later the Explorer.

And so on....

The tough thing is that perfection is when reached whne you don't have nothing to remove nor add, and obviously, these " Holy Vintage " Rolexes don't need much more than they had when they were released.

Therefore, these Vintage Rolex have Soul, a strong charm I'm pleased to call soul.

How can the modern Rolexes can compete?

Sometimes with Humour, such as the Rasta Milgauss.

Sometimes with Talent, as it is the case with the Yachtmaster.

Sometimes with Elegance, with the Dayto Zenith, which is an extraordinary ( in my opinion ) compromise between Moderns and Vintages.

Am I happy with the new production, with the latest offers?

Like you, I'm not.

The latest production lacks, and misses, inspiration, style, and maybe ... Sex Appeal, ( in my opinion, once again ).

The Deep Sea Sea Dweller is interesting, technically, but those who wore it for a while sold it, too heavy and too thick for an every day wear.

The new Dayto? Well, I will wait for y lawyer to speak.

The new Explorer II... A pale copy of the Freccione!

The new Explorer lost its balance and elegance when it gained some more millimeters and grams.

The 41 mm Datejust? Come on!

Inspiration and sex appeal, that is what Vintage have, and what Modern Rolexes need!

Best,

Nicolas. This message has been edited by amanico on 2011-05-02 06:23:56

to point out the aesthetic diffrence of the Zenith dayto and its successor? I can't seem to tell

Best
Tyler

Here is the 116 520 ( Credit picture: P.W )



Here is the 16520 ( Zenith ) :



The finish of the case is not the same, the dial is different ( not the same indexes, thinner and longer on the Zenith, the surroundings of the subdials are different, too ) not the same movement...

Not the same watches!

Best,

Nicolas

I was looking at the black dial version and couldn't really tell beside the fat index.  Now with your white dial photos i can see clearly.

Now I don't know whether I like the black dial or the white dial more.

Best
Tyler

Dear sir

 

Would you tell me the price of daytona second one and what is the condition is it with box and how much is it ? i am in dubai how can we echange the monay and watch ? what is the garantee of orginality ?

00971504575383

reg/Ali

Hi Nico,
As usual beware of superlatives such as the first, the only, etc. This watch precedes the Milgaus by at least 20 years... and might well be the first anti-magnetic wrist watch.

How many Gauss is it resistant to?

Was not too sure about Rolex being the first amagnetic watch, hence I added " If I'm not wrong " but I didn't know this one!

Superb Tissot!

Best,

Nicolas

This message has been edited by amanico on 2011-05-02 09:48:26

it could be that Nico meant "the first" that worked properly?

 

The Milgauss was certainly the first that was specifically designed for use against substantial magnetic force, no? Sometimes greatness is achieved on the shoulders of giants.

I like the idea of Rolex going back to their roots and pay hommage to their successful vintage models but i cannot bear the thought of paying sky-rocketed prices as definitely if they re-issue, they wont be cheap.  Moreover, if they re-issue, you guys who already own vintage, real vintage models, may again mention that the new "vintage" may not be comparable to the real vintage.  Thus with their think tank working full force to determine designs and what to release, they might not be able to do it.

Also, i am on the same boat that their new releases for 2010 / 2011, are not as palatable as i thought.  I just consider myself lucky to not be able find and own the genuine vintages but decided to get the 36mm Exp I and the lug-holed 14060M.  Thats the closest i can get

Nicolas, i did not know Rolex came out with so many "firsts".  Very good.  Make me more proud of the brand.  The undisputable crown, if i am rich enough, i may consider the FP, non-vintage of course

No message body

The only thing I still don't get is why you let them go...

Best,

Nicolas;

the only people who dont understand is Rolex themselves...

look after your history,,,,,and the future will look after itself.

I still cant understand why Rolex did not celebrate the 100th anniv.....

 

Which needs a lot of research, some strong convictions, perpetual efforts and hunts to get the best of the Vintage Rolex, without getting the worse.

I agree that there are easier matters, but not more passionate, intriguing, and enthusiasming.

Best,

Nicolas.

 

So the patent for a screw down case and screw down crown was Rolex? No.

I don't disagree that Rolex was ahead of the game in the robust/purposeful watch field. But to say they invented it....well. But that's the case when there's any claim for a 'first'.

As for Rolex reclaiming its 'tool' watch roots, this ship has sailed. They'd merely be competing with the latest hulking dive watch with 10^10m WR, yottaGauss or whatever ridiculous claim is next. The 'tool' watch (I hate this term. all watches are tools....to tell the time!) has moved on. A Casio PAG40 is more 'tool-like' than any modern Rolex could ever hope to be.

You comments on the latest 're-issues' are spot on. Particularly the new Explorer II. Attempts to reclaim the past need to be precise. JLC has done this successfully with the Deep Sea, Polaris, etc, the bizarre hands on the neo-Freccione are just....lazy?

I was sure it was Rolex.

Am I victim of another Urban Legend?

If you know, please tell me, as I'm very interested to know.

As for the evolution of  the toolwatch concept, I'm sadly in agrement with your words, when it comes to Rolex.

I also have to agree on these new Freccione hands.

Hoping that this page will be  quickly turned.

Best,

Nicolas.

February 22, 1916. So predates the 1921 (?) Rolex patent.

I have an image on a memory stick somewhere...can't find it.

In the meantime, try Google patent search for "Depollier patent". The actual number is 1172601.

Also, email sent!

This message has been edited by BDLJ on 2011-05-05 23:42:12

No message body

My 2 cents:

I think that the basics of aesthetic has been lost in lot of novelties and also the balance.

When watches were a real everyday tool Rolex ruled it with its technological advance but there was also this special aesthetics of the oyster which made it appealing. The basic success comes from a waterproof, automatic, reliable watch, THAT is Rolex since the 20/30s . There were automatic watch before, or waterproof, but not as reliable, as efficient, as practical and finally as beautiful. The biggest success of Rolex is the Datejust and for me this is the perfect example of what Rolex achieved.  It went further with diver watches, antimagnetic and very good commercials on these success which made the legend. Nicolas explains it perfectly.

The need of a technical watch is not true anymore and aesthetics is the main criteria and the vintage Rolex had a real balance. When I look at my GMT, I love the overall aesthetic, the thin case of the 1675 is marvellous, the pointed crown guards have this fantastic aerodynamic line, the gilt dial is deep and beautiful. I would love to have a Daydate, the case is a perfect combination of curves, sharp edges, a nearly tonneau shape. I could detail Daydate from friends for hours, this is for me the perfect example of aesthetic and balance in a classical round shape, fantastic classical design. I was completely stuck by a double red Mk III , I didn't expect that because I am not into SD. They are too big for me, but this round case back, the effect of the domed glass, wow, that is strong and the case is not that thick as I thought, there is a real aesthetic balance in this toolwatch even if it was conceived for real underwater issues!

Nowadays with the SDDS they pushed the technology further and it is still not so big for the depth performance. But is this watch really for underwater workers? not really... the profile went through the Super Size Me programm. The same with the GMT , the GMT II C sells well, it is a good watch for sure, but never ever it will have the same beauty in my eyes that my 1675.... and the same soul. I like the last Daytona, the caliber is fantastic, it is a really good watch, but there are many details that I prefer on the vintage ones. I like the Yacht master, a special Rolex, the milgauss is fun too with a sensual case. In the new "massive" case, I think this suits well to the Submariner. It is a diver and this suits well a diver watch, but I would not dare to compare it with an old 5513.

Rolex kept the same line for 50 years, it was time to move on, but they reached a kind of perfection (especially during the 60s imho ) and it is difficult to go away from that point.

Technology is better, finish is better but we lost soul and aesthetic in some novelties...

I wish the best to the new GMT, I stick to the oldy

I think al ot people will agree here because older Rolex movements were among the very best ever made, trouble free and reliable, they are made to last generation. The dial variations and of course the exotic and rare version like the serpico i laino watches, like the 5517, like the argentinian air force daytos, argentinian air force gmts, pan am gmts, rare blue bezel usmc 5512/5513 subs or thunderbird turn o graph from the 50's make the rolex from the old yesteryears very collectible and enjoyable to own. We can also include the rare 6062 with the moonphase or the rare full gold kew a teddington observatory chronometer that was made in very limited numbers during the 30's for the public.

All I can add is yes the Vintage Rolex has soul.  They have survived the ravages of time yet the appear as modern today as any of the newer Rolex models  But the retain an aesthetic balance that some of the newer model are challenging and in some cases not doing a very good job.

I think that the whole Rolex sport model category of the 50/60/70's will always retain a place in history often imitated but never duplicated.

Bill

I just needed 20 lines to sathe same

Hi Cisco

The other key word for Rolex is Passion.  Over used but under rated.

Thanks

Bill

" Formule Choc " !

Best,

Nicolas.

Obsession.

And the list is just beginning. 

 How about:

  Camaraderie – Both with the collection and the collectors

 

:<{)

 A+

Bill

What woild be the boarder between Obsession and Passion, according to you?

Best,

Nicolas.

the addition of the word compulsive shifts the balance a little.

I think we blur the line everyday.  Creating some  boundaries helps but then hit the term addiction or even affliction.

As long as you don't steal or harm anyone in your pursuit it remains a passion / obsession / compulsive "Hobby".....

It is a slippery road and probably the subject of a separate thread.

A+

Bill

At the end of the day without passion it is a meaningless obsession.