Going from modern to vintage is not so easy. Picking three Rolex from the current listed watches was not as hard as I thought it might be. Going through the same process for vintage Rolex has proven much harder. Firstly, should I use the same criteria for selection? Secondly, how should I define vintage as an era? Taking modern as anything from the current list was an easy definitional choice. But with vintage, should I include modern watches that are no longer in the official Rolex list or apply a more realistic definition of vintage? Further, with vintage, should price be taken into account? With the modern “Just Three Watches” option, I managed to keep my total spend for the three at under $50,000. With vintage, $50,000 doesn’t go anywhere near as far. So, given all these caveats, I am applying the following criterion to selecting my “Just Three Watches” collection, some of which is the same as for the modern criterion.

• Diversity of complications across the three.

• Different personalities for each watch so that each provides a different experience.

• Something special about them…a factor that really drew me into the watch.

• Each watch to reflect a particular aspect of the heritage of Rolex.

• Each watch must exude that vintage “charm”.

I have found it necessary to split vintage into two categories. Pre-1966 and Post-1966. I have chosen these two periods as they essentially define Rolex into a pre- and post-Radium era. It also allows me to spread my “Just Three Watches” across six watches……so a legitimised way of cheating, if you like. This first section will deal with post-1966 era vintage Rolex, and in that I am including all watches up to but not including the current range.

As subjective as this is, my choice for the three post-1966 Rolex would be the Sea-Dweller 1665 “Double Red”, any of the Cosmograph Paul Newmans and the Milgauss 1019.

The very nature of Rolex has differentiated each reference according to a whole range of collector preferences. Dial colour, pusher style, early series etc etc etc will all influence what collectors deem as “most desirable”. My purpose here is not to pick out any specific variant, but rather to pick three specific watches (from within the broad reference universe) that I would want within my “Just Three Watches” collection.

Post-1966 Vintage Era

Rolex Sea-Dweller Reference 1665 (Mk2 Patent Pending)

The 1665 Sea-Dweller is an icon for Rolex. I am attaching a link to one of my earlier articles of this reference.

www.watchprosite.com

So many reasons to include this reference within a vintage collection. The 1665 saw the invention of the HEV that took Rolex tool watches into a different league. It marked a definitive turning point in the history of the company. The 1665 was the very first Sea-Dweller. Originally, it was marketed as being a part of the Submariner range, but quickly grew to be a reference all of its own. It is a tank of a watch. Built to take the most brutal of beating, and indeed, the diver test reports from the early prototypes testify to that process. Within Rolex, this is probably my favourite reference. It looks and feels like no other watch on the wrist, having a presence that is overt rather than discrete.

Rolex Cosmograph (Paul Newman)

Crazy or not, the Paul Newman Daytona has to be included in the list. if one is going to include any Rolex chronograph, then it would be an oddity to include something above the PN. “Yes, prices have gone absolutely crazy!” That statement has been said about PNs for the last 10 years. Each year sees it go just that little bit more crazy. Sometimes not so little. There is absolutely nothing special at all about the movement. In terms of rarity, Rolex actually made a fair few PNs. And thanks to the proliferation of forgeries, there seems today to be more PNs than even standard models. Yet, when one wears a fabulous version of a PN, it absolutely exudes something special. Maybe that feeling stems from the fact that one could buy a small island with what is on one’s wrist rather than any specific horological angle, but nonetheless there is a real frisson of energy with the PN. It has to be included in the Post-1966 “Just Three Watches” collection.

Rolex Milgauss Reference 1019

There is something very 1970s about the Reference 1019. Again, I am attaching my old review of this reference if anyone is interested.  

www.watchprosite.com

If I was to pick two watches as being very un-Rolex, one would be the 1019 and the other would be the 1655. Neither feels much like a Rolex when on the wrist. It is for that reason that I am including in this collection the 1019 - it is just so different. It has the “scientist” angle to its origins within the heritage. Although its amagnetic status has obviously been superseded by history, its sole purpose was that of scientific tool watch. It brings that dedicated complication to the table.

I have noticed one interesting factor when wearing this watch. Namely, I typically rotate watches after 1-2 weeks. However, with the 1019 on, that period often stretches out much further. It is so enjoyable to wear.  


So, there one has my choice for a post-1966 “Just Three Watches” collection. 1665, 6239 and 1019. Obviously subjective, but at least it is one that I can say I have worn and experienced as an owner.

Pre-1966 Vintage Era

If you made it to this part of the post, then you are about to swallow the red pill. Pre-1966 vintage Rolex is definitely going down the rabbit hole. From radiation, forgeries and myths made up by dealers, it is an area that is shrouded in mystery and romance. Rolex, for its part, certainly helped the process by keeping essentially no historical records of the watches that it made. So, historical research is so often impeded by a complete absence of facts! Conjecture rules.

Submariner Reference 6200

Attaching my former review  www.watchprosite.com /

The very first “Big Crown” Submariner. A legitimate claim to be the very first Submariner. I can honestly say that I have never owned a watch with more vintage charm than this one. The movement is more tank engine than Ferrari. The dials are inevitable heavily pitted through years of radiation burn. More often than not, lume has just fallen off. Virtually every one I have ever seen has some issue or other. Yet, with only around 50 or so in existence, this watch is the King of Submariners. I cannot do it justice in just a few words, so i recommend reading the attached review. But first on my list for this Pre-1966 “Just Three Watches” is the 6200.


Explorer I Reference 6610 (Red Depth)

I would be guessing that there are probably no more 6610 red Depths than there are 6200s. This is, again, a rare bird. Again, it will be hard to do full justice to the watch in just a few words so I attach a former review.  

www.watchprosite.com

Notice that the hands on the 6610 are identical to the one’s on the 6200 and both come from a similar era. Brimming with vintage charm and not without considerable personality, the 6610 forms the second of my Pre-1966 collection. Smaller in size, this simple time only variant has often been overlooked amongst the Rolex icons. Regrettably it had a radiation output equivalent to having a cat scan three times per day. But how beautiful is that watch!

Rolex GMT Reference 6542

I should probably sub-contract out this part of the post to Nicolas as he has written more about this reference than any man alive. Within GMT, the 6542 stands head and shoulders above other variants. Its charm, its colour, its historical importance to Rolex not to mention its undoubted beauty has this watch as the final part of the pre-1966 “Just Three Watches” collection.

A 6200, a 6610 and a 6542 make up quite a trilogy of vintage Rolex. Add to that the 6239, 1019 and 1665 from the post-1966 era and one has what I would see as a nice collection of Rolex. Broad diversity across complications. Enormous personalities. Oozing with vintage charm. Yet one enormous rabbit hole. All of these watches have, at some time or another, been in my collection. Some still are.