Rolex

For most of its life the Sea-Dweller never sold particularly well because it was too thick and too heavy for the ordinary consumer. And the Submariner could be bought for less and it looked nearly identical. In fact, on the secondary market the Sea-Dweller 16600 went for almost the same as the Submariner 16610 for the longest time.

 

 

 

 

Then in 2008 Rolex replaced the Sea-Dweller with the colossal Sea-Dweller Deep Sea, sparking off a rabid but brief frenzy as folks fell over themselves to acquire the departed Sea-Dweller. But deliveries of the Sea-Dweller continued until mid-2009, with the last being V-series Sea-Dwellers delivered in 2009 (Rolex collectors track the serial number letters with an embarrassing obsession), which were the absolute last of the Sea-Dweller.

 

Often one sees the Sea-Dweller being described as being “over engineered”. I dispute that. The Sea-Dweller was an elegant and sufficient solution to a problem, while the neurotically over engineered DeepSea appears to be an answer to a question no one asked.

 

But in some respects the Sea-Dweller is only adequate or even insufficient; the bracelet, for example, could be a lot better. Yet the whole is greater than the sum of the parts.

 

The story of the Sea-Dweller is well known: the watch was originally conceived for Compagnie Maritime d'Expertise, better known as COMEX, a French deep-sea engineering firm. The first watches provided to COMEX were stock Rolex ref. 5513 Submariners with a helium escape valve drilled into the side of the case; this was necessary for saturation diving as helium would enter the watch case and require release during decompression.

 

 

From 1970 to 1997 Rolex supplied COMEX with a variety of Sea-Dweller and Submariner models, all of which are outrageously valuable today. Nearly all the models supplied to COMEX (except the ref. 5514) were also sold to civilians with the only difference being the lack of the COMEX lettering and numbers on the dial and back.

 

Rolex’s partnership with COMEX was arguably the last of relationships that created watches made for specific professions. Those included the collaboration with Pan American Airways, which produced the GMT-Master, as well as the Royal Navy and resulting military Submariner. PanAm no longer exists while COMEX has been taken over. Rolex has survived and prospered but it has evolved and makes a different kind of watch.

 

 

 

The Sea-Dweller, along with the Explorer I and II and the steel Submariners, is thus one of the last remnants of the Rolex of the last century, when the company made fairly serious watches for serious minded folk. Oddly enough, the most distinctive feature of these old-style watches is their rinky dink bracelets.

 

 

 

Such bracelets were acceptable forty years ago when the Oyster bracelet was introduced but times changed and they did not. They possess contemptible stamped steel clasps and hollow centre links, and have long been derided by collectors as the weak link in a Rolex sports watch. Yet these bracelets do their job well with little fuss.

 

For the longest time the Sea-Dweller had the best bracelet of all the sports Rolex watches, it was thicker, heavier and generally more solid, and it even sported the much vaunted solid end links since the eighties. As a testament to how glacially Rolex evolves, it took the company another 20 years to add solid end links to the bracelets of the other sports watches.

 

The old style sports watches stand in stark contrast to the current range of Rolex sports models which are beautifully built and beautifully polished. The new spring-loaded clasp found in the GMT-Master II and other sports models is a brilliant design. But the whole watch is so well made and so shiny it feels almost jewel-like, more for passengers in first class than the pilots – not that most Rolex wearers were pilots or deep sea divers.

 

As a wise friend of mine pointed out, sand and grit accumulated from diving and other rigorous activities could be rinsed off easily and the old clasp wouldn’t be any worse for the wear; imagine grains of sand getting stuck in the new spring-loaded clasp and the scraping and scratching that would ensure.

 

Rumours abound that the current steel Submariners and Explorers will be replaced at Baselworld 2010. Imperfect as they are, the outgoing Rolex models have a quaint charm that is extremely and mysteriously compelling. They will be missed.

 

- SJX

 

 

A lot of food for thought !

I will be one of those who will regret the Explorers and Subs, IF they are really discontinued, which we'll know soon, well, in a pair of months.

They are timeless pieces, whose charm is indeed difficult to describe.

A page is turned, and all the problem is to know if the new models will be as iconic as those we're afraid to see discontinued.

If you look at what happened to the Explo II ref 1655, it never sold well, till...nowadays.

There is some Irony, here, which may be repeated with the models to come.

Future will tell...

Now, if we look at the catalogue, there is another more recent piece, which is not concerned by the rumor : The Yacht Master.

Launched in 1992, so almost 20 years ago, it may be the survivor of what we may call a " Past Era ".

Will it become the older model still in production?

It's interesting to see that the Yacht Master featured some details which inspired Rolex for a stylistic evolution of the Submariner: The Maxi Dial.

While the Maxi dial was part of the Past ( 1675 / 5513 / 1680 / 1665 ), and was the principe, it became since the 80ies, an exception, as only the YM got it.

The Green Sub, the GMT II, and the Deep Sea now share the maxi dial, and if I refer to the latest WG Blue dialed Sub, the new one, IF, once again, it has to come, may well have this characteristic.

So, will we have an Evolution, or a Revolution, here?

I can't believe that the Submariner will disappear without being replaced, of course.

I don't know nothing about the Explo II, and I hope that, IF it is discontinued, Rolex will replace it too.

One thing is certain: It will be difficult to touch to a Myth, and I'm very curious to see how Rolex will proceed.

About the Sea Dweller, I slightly disagree with you on the its value, compared to the Sub.

If you compare the respective value of a 1665 and of a 1680, in white or red, you will notice that one ( the 1665 ) has always be almost 2 times more expensive than the other ( the 1680 ).

They all had their respective fans, and in certain cases, the fans were the same.

Both were attractive, and loved, for their qualities and flaws...Because both had this charm we'll all miss!



Best, SJX, and thanks a lot for this interesting post.

Nicolas

This message has been edited by amanico on 2010-01-08 23:06:53

Hi Nicolas,

A couple of points in response:

The Yacht-master also was the first to have the polished case (top and
sides) that is now standard on the Daytona, GMT-Master II etc.

As for SD vs. Submariner pricing, I was referring to the last 16600 and
16610, not the matte dial vintage models.

- SJX

You're absolutely correct about the YM...

That makes all the interest of this watch, a kind of precursor.

I misread you, I thought you were speaking IN GENERAL, about the Sea Dweller and the SUB.

I didn't get that you spoke about the modern production, well, should we call them Néo Modern, now?



Thanks for the correction.

Best,

Nicolas

You both offered very interesting points on these models.

such a complete review and complete answer is there is not much else to add....

Thanks....

Cheers

What were your favourite Subs and SDs?

What do you want to see as a future Sub?

What do you think about these models which will maybe disappear?

You see?

Best,

Nicolas

true my friend.....

So some quick thoughts......

I do not see the current sub disappearing as a lot of them were produced.....

They will have their place in the second hand market and the vintage but not in the sense of todays vintage rolex....

My favourite sub are the vintage ones... but that will be another topic (as promised before)....

A future sub....

Well I would prefer a larger case.... 42,5 or 43....
not as thick so it would wear comfortably, no magnifying date, same oyster case
And the capability of interchanging yourself the bracelet with a strap ala JLC

Cheers

There is something " new " to come???

HeHe...

You're always where I don't expect for you to be.

Best,

Nicolas

I t is nice to be surprised my friend isn't it?

I hope that you have a great Sunday......

Cheers

No message body

my friend.....

Soon.....

Cheers

you had plenty of clues.....

Cheers

The Rolex tool watches originate from a time when precise time keeping under extreme conditions became necessary and was not universally available.

Up until the 80ies you could really argue that you bought a tool and this was reflected in the design: matte surfaces, external parts that are easily replaceable - and at low cost.

Today, divers use computers, the militaries use Casio - no need for a Rolex tool watch. But the desire for adventure lives on in the rich and beautiful of the world, and all luxury brands cater to that desire: from the Porsche Cayenne, the downtown offroader, to the Rolex Deepsea, the caricature of a diving watch. No longer designed for professionals but for luxurious reminescence of adventure.

One thing about the bracelets: my favorite Oyster bracelet is the folded Oyster of the late 60ies/early 70ies. It is strong enough, very light and adapts beautifully to the wrist. On my older Subs I like the charm of the fragile rivetted Oysters and would never even think of putting a later heavy Oyster on them.

Even on my Daytona 116520 I swapped the bracelet for the older version from the 16520: lighter, less chunky clasp - oh, and it was scratched already so I could keep the newer bracelet in the safe!

And yes, I absolutely love the SD:

This message has been edited by amanico on 2010-01-09 00:16:56

agree....how past utilitarian tool has now evolved into mass luxury products...similar story for Panareis. bejewelled Rolexes and precious metal PAMs...

As Anatol has elegantly put: Rolex, at the end of the day, is a luxury watch, and most people who buy a luxury sport watch would only reminisce about the adventurous lifestyle.

To most, it's the embodiment of an adventurous lifestyle, not the actual adventure, that truly matters.

Hence, as a luxury watch brand, I applaud Rolex's effort in making their sports models more solid, more beautifully polished, even to the extent of being...well, "jewel-like". I think this attention to detail is what a "luxury" watch is all about, and I think most admirers of luxury watches would appreciate it.

I have always been fascinated by the Rolex sports models, but for the longest time I cannot get over those thin clasps. My first Rolex was a two tone Daytona (Ref. 116523) precisely because of the solid links and the solid clasps.

Of course, perhaps there are specific issues about the ruggedness of the spring-loaded clasps, as SJX has pointed out. But over all, I think the new models are just more well-made watches...

Just my 2 cents worth...

Jon (Z3)

No message body

very NICELY written too!! Indeed, we are witnessing the end of an era...

I know I am, because I agree with your post. Your arguments are right to me. But of course Rolex must have a good marketing department. They at least try to find out what their customers and new customers want for a watch. And this is probably what they came up with. In the end we have to be happy with that, cause this is what the company keeps running. IMO it's the same thing with (sports)cars For the time being we can look back at the great watches Rolex (and other brands) made and of which some are in our possession.

What I could imagine is that a brand such as Rolex keeps designing two or three "Purist" models. Models that represent what Rolex was meant for. Watches that might be not to everybodies modern taste, but what the hack, plenty of Dayjust II will keep the cash coming!

Thanks for your post; makes me even more happy with my old school Explorer II.

Best,

Starman

Awesome pics, btw!  Thanks.

=:^D

As a heartfelt fan of my Sub LV, I have to agree, that despite the 'crappy' bracelet-clasp, I still vastly prefer the 'old' Rolex's to the new ones. BTW, I never thought or think of the clasp as crappy--I am in the camp who looks upon the clasp as perfectly created for the simple job it does--hold the bracelet shut securely. I lOVE the lightness of the bracelet, and the wonderful finish--these are watches you truly can wear every day, and forget you are wearing them. While I like the new Rolex's a lot, I can't see myself ever buying one. Your criticism of the new clasp getting sand in it, is a great insight. It's 'better' yet it isn't better, for the purported use of the watch as a diver. With all this said, I never could sustain my momentary love for my SD, because it looks exactly like a regular Sub, at a glance. And I just can't wear the same watch as twelve (thousand) other guys on the same sidewalk... I admired the watch, and the utility and strength of it, but the ubiquitous black bezel was just too common, ultimately, for my enjoyment... Hence my love of my old-style (and transitional to boot) Kermit.

thorough review... A long and interesting story..... Cheers This message has been edited by PinkPanther on 2010-01-09 13:16:21

No message body

...ultimately, these last changes will pretty much mark the full change of the Rolex line. As your post stated, many people rushed to buy the last of the Sea Dwellers and I followed along - luckily I was able to get a V series. As these forums are all about info and opinions, I will respectfully express my own about these soon to be extinct styles - the are and always will be the best of Rolex! No matter how cool and well engineered the new models are I don't think they will ever be as interesting, cool and stylish as the former sports line-up (note: the new ceramic bezel inserts are pretty slick though!). Your post underscores a great point - you can take the sub or SD to the beach or jungle, beat them up, then just rinse them off and they look and work perfectly - while I'm sure the new models would also work just as well taking the same beating, you'd likely notice just how much they'd suffered from the scratches!!

I agree with many of the things that you say in your review, but I personnally consider that Rolex is doing a great job with its new models. It's kind of funny to think that for twenty years people have complained about Rolex bracellets and clasps and that the day they actually get it right, this positive evolution of the brand is deemed as unecessary. Kind of contradictory if you want my opinion.

Sure no one is going to go down to 3900 meters, but how many people that own See Dwellers have ever reached 1000 meters and that did not stop them from buying the watch.

Who knows maybe the Deep Sea will actually be used for space exploration or the technical breackthroughs of this model could serve for space exploration.

This having been said, it is true that it is sad to see the Sea Dweller disapear.

Regards,

George

as I wrote in my original post, the new Rolex watches, especially the bracelets, are wonderful. I wore a Daytona for the last 2 days and the bracelet is an amazing piece of work, especially for the price (even though the steel Daytona sells at a premium).

But my point is that these watches are designed as luxury watches, almost as piece of jewellery. The original SD was not designed from that perspective.

- SJX

..for space exploration/travel.  Plus the SD is not a chronograph.  Only one watch passed all the rigorous NASA tests and that is the Omega Speedmaster.  Of course today we have the Timex Ironman and Casio G-Shock, and now the Seiko Spacewalk approved for space, inside and outside of the space vehicle.  So these latter watches will probably be selected for future missions as well as any moon and mars landing shots that might occur.  The Speedy will be there too, since it is still on the NASA approval list.  I think some astronauts have worn Rolexes into space, but never outside on a spacewalk.

mind is a culmination of Rolex research over the past 50 years - that they can put together a 'street legal' watch that can drop 4km down and still run just fine.  The watch retains all that is Rolex.  Sure, it might be over engineered, but for most purposes, most of the Rolex watches are! 

Thanks for post

Andrew H

The SD was originally designed for professionals in mind. It was extremely difficult to sell a SD to a civilian in the 70s, 80s and even 90s. On the other hand, the SDDS - which is an incredible piece of engineering - is clearly designed for the luxury sports watch buyer.

- SJX