When did Rolex STOP being a tool watch?

[J!m]

Originally Posted by rq3

I bought my 5512 in the early 70's when I was a commercial diver. I had owned Seikos and Bulovas. They all leaked. All I wanted and needed was a good, rugged watch that wouldn't fill with water. No bells, no whistles. I think I paid $275, maybe $375, for that 5512. It just got its first service last year, and it's on my wrist today. And yes, I still dive and shower with it. It's a damn diving watch.

Amen brother!

My take on the "transition" is a bit earlier than most here pin it. Like most things Rolex, cold and calculated.

They say the writing on the wall. They tried to make an exclusive quartz watch. They SUCEEDED in making a luxury "tool" watch, which paved the way we now walk, way back in (not certain of exact release date) 1967 or so. It was, and is, the solid gold 1680. That dear friends, was Rolex testing the waters to see if a high-dollar diver watch would sell. And it did. Pricing remained stable a few years, to ride out the Swatch Group takeover of watch consumers globally, and then the price increases started to deviate from inflation, as the chart posted above shows nicely.

Now they can charge $10,400 for a seadweller and we smile and pay it. Well, those of us with pockets deeper than mine anyway.

As a side note, I agree Rolex should have kept the plexi option in the lineup. Omega did for the Speedmaster- why not? Because it scratches. Rolex became more concerned with their image than providing the best tool for the job (in my opinion). Watches that will get banged around,particularly at depth, need a shatterproof Crystal. Why not throw some 21st century technology at it? I bet your eyeglasses are not sapphire!

[jguitron]

Originally Posted by rq3

I bought my 5512 in the early 70's when I was a commercial diver. I had owned Seikos and Bulovas. They all leaked. All I wanted and needed was a good, rugged watch that wouldn't fill with water. No bells, no whistles. I think I paid $275, maybe $375, for that 5512. It just got its first service last year, and it's on my wrist today. And yes, I still dive and shower with it. It's a damn diving watch.

Pics please! Awesome story


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[janice&fred]

Originally Posted by Vincent65

There's nothing "extremely gullible to say the least" about just wearing a watch for every-day life, and not obsessing over it, and then getting it serviced when it needs one.

well vincent it seems you often follow my posts so you can disagree, nit pick and take things out of context but you forgot the "beat up" part of my reply in your quote. the fact is if one is to take literally the rolex brochures over the years it seems they are not just promoting "wearing a watch for every-day life" but are implying it's ok to risk beating the very expensive item up while wearing it during unusual and strenuous activities. splashing around in the shower, a pool or taking a dip at the beach is quite different from whacking the watch up commercial diving, coral diving and exploring underwater caves. sure a very small percentage of owners did just that but let's be serious at the price subs have cost for the past few decades, most average owners would not risk banging the things up and the "tool watch" description is mostly glamorous hype.

[Vincent65]

Originally Posted by janice&fred

well vincent it seems you often follow my posts so you can disagree, nit pick and take things out of context but you forgot the "beat up" part of my reply in your quote. the fact is if one is to take literally the rolex brochures over the years it seems they are not just promoting "wearing a watch for every-day life" but are implying it's ok to risk beating the very expensive item up while wearing it during unusual and strenuous activities. splashing around in the shower, a pool or taking a dip at the beach is quite different from whacking the watch up commercial diving, coral diving and exploring underwater caves. sure a very small percentage of owners did just that but let's be serious at the price subs have cost for the past few decades, most average owners would not risk banging the things up and the "tool watch" description is mostly glamorous hype.

Well janiceandfred (?) I don't ever recall disagreeing with you, apart from right now, vehemently. In fact, I'm not certain I've ever even responded to any of your posts - maybe you're keeping track of that - but I thought in this instance that your assertions about marketing etc. were exaggerated, at the least. I most certainly don't "follow" you AT ALL, let alone "often", and as for "nit pick" and "take things out of context", I think you need to relax a bit, wind your neck in, and get your facts straight. Name one instance when I've taken something you've said, and "nit picked" it, or "taken it out of context." Go on, try and do it. Often? And it could hardly be out of context on a discussion about watches, on a watch forum, regardless.

I don't find swimming, hiking, skiing etc. to be "unusual and strenuous activities", nor do I find the term "tool watch" to be "glamorous," and I doubt ROLEX does, either

[16610v]

Once the watch will be broken when fallen on the ground, it was no longer a tool watch.

[mui.richard]

When we start treating Rolexes like this...



When instead they should be treated like this...



a watch is meant to be worn

[subx]

Interesting thread. I would venture to say that they are still fine tool watches, but it has been a progressive phenomena directly linked to their ever increasing purchase price:

as their purchase price increased: their adoption as tool watches decreased.
as it deters many less fortunate tool adopters from being able to afford one,
while at the same time increasing the appeal to more fortunate status symbol seekers.

I mean that with no ill commentary, I've been in the game for many years, and have always enjoyed them from the start for both : a Tool, and a beautiful Object.

[HeartRolex]

Originally Posted by Fredrik

Actually, it is not! There was a recent article here http://www.ablogtowatch.com/rolex-pr...ling-analysis/ on the subject.

Depending on how you count, it is between 3 and 6 times as expensive today. The prices took of early to mid eighties. It is six times as expensive if you only look at inflation but three times as expensive if you compare it to the disposable income.

Agreed. My first DJ was approx $2700 with tax in late 80's. My most recent DJ purchase (2 weeks ago) was almost $13,000 w/o tax.

[jguitron]

Originally Posted by HeartRolex

Agreed. My first DJ was approx $2700 with tax in late 80's. My most recent DJ purchase (2 weeks ago) was almost $13,000 w/o tax.

May I ask, being an admirer of Rolex and Blancpain, is such piece something you save up for and pay in full or finance? Unless you're in the lucky 0.5%.

Cheers and congrats on your DJ!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[HogwldFLTR]

Originally Posted by mldaytona

The current sports models from Rolex (Sub C, Deepsea, Explorer I & II, GMT C) are no less tool watches than their older siblings from decades ago. What makes them appear fragile is that disease called OCD.

Actually nothing makes them appear fragile; what takes them out of the tool realm is the expense associated with purchase and the potential loss in value through use.

[motoikkyu]

We live in rather pussified times. Apparently, within a year, every square inch of every national park will be WiFi accessible. So much for retreating to the wilderness. I have a four-wheel-drive vehicle: you will not catch me off-roading. Sometimes, we incorporate objects into our lives for their potential. My Daytona IS a tool: I use the timing functions in my work AND it makes me look more successful than I actually am and gives me confidence that I am projecting a successful image. Will I use it for racing? Not likely. But how many of us have professional-grade refrigerators and blenders in the kitchen? Will we be opening cantinas, or entertaining large-scale? Probably not, but we like to imagine we could, if we chose that option. Having unused capacity in your objects, that lets you dream.

[janice&fred]

Originally Posted by Vincent65

Well janiceandfred (?) I don't ever recall disagreeing with you, apart from right now, vehemently. In fact, I'm not certain I've ever even responded to any of your posts - maybe you're keeping track of that - but I thought in this instance that your assertions about marketing etc. were exaggerated, at the least. I most certainly don't "follow" you AT ALL, let alone "often", and as for "nit pick" and "take things out of context", I think you need to relax a bit, wind your neck in, and get your facts straight. Name one instance when I've taken something you've said, and "nit picked" it, or "taken it out of context." Go on, try and do it. Often? And it could hardly be out of context on a discussion about watches, on a watch forum, regardless.

I don't find swimming, hiking, skiing etc. to be "unusual and strenuous activities", nor do I find the term "tool watch" to be "glamorous," and I doubt ROLEX does, either

what's the use...

[janice&fred]

Originally Posted by motoikkyu

We live in rather pussified times. Apparently, within a year, every square inch of every national park will be WiFi accessible. So much for retreating to the wilderness. I have a four-wheel-drive vehicle: you will not catch me off-roading. Sometimes, we incorporate objects into our lives for their potential. My Daytona IS a tool: I use the timing functions in my work AND it makes me look more successful than I actually am and gives me confidence that I am projecting a successful image. Will I use it for racing? Not likely. But how many of us have professional-grade refrigerators and blenders in the kitchen? Will we be opening cantinas, or entertaining large-scale? Probably not, but we like to imagine we could, if we chose that option. Having unused capacity in your objects, that lets you dream.

i agree 100% it's like the old magazine ads with a 60's muscle car spinning the tires. many people enjoyed these high power cars but matting the throttle and side-stepping the clutch at every stop lite or winding the engine up to red line at every shift will only prematurely damage the car and serve no purpose. however using the same line of thought as the tool watch ads then one was simply using the cars for what they were built for. if stuff costs a lot of money and one values the item it's more practical to enjoy owning them and just dream of being like the guys in the ads.

[HeartRolex]

Originally Posted by jguitron

May I ask, being an admirer of Rolex and Blancpain, is such piece something you save up for and pay in full or finance? Unless you're in the lucky 0.5%.

Cheers and congrats on your DJ!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I considered financing my first DJ when I was much younger but decided to pay in full to avoid interest charges. Today I have a better income (5 percenter), I save and invest. I still pay in full, but I also carefully plan these purchases because I consider watches heirlooms and investments in and of themselves.

Thank you for the well wishes on the new DJ. :-)

[HeartRolex]

Originally Posted by Vincent65

Well janiceandfred (?) I don't ever recall disagreeing with you, apart from right now, vehemently. In fact, I'm not certain I've ever even responded to any of your posts - maybe you're keeping track of that - but I thought in this instance that your assertions about marketing etc. were exaggerated, at the least. I most certainly don't "follow" you AT ALL, let alone "often", and as for "nit pick" and "take things out of context", I think you need to relax a bit, wind your neck in, and get your facts straight. Name one instance when I've taken something you've said, and "nit picked" it, or "taken it out of context." Go on, try and do it. Often? And it could hardly be out of context on a discussion about watches, on a watch forum, regardless.

I don't find swimming, hiking, skiing etc. to be "unusual and strenuous activities", nor do I find the term "tool watch" to be "glamorous," and I doubt ROLEX does, either

I believe Rolex uses the term "professional" rather than "tool". They mean the same (watch for a particular profession) but it seems "tool" has come to be the slang or layman's term for these watches.

[janice&fred]

Originally Posted by HeartRolex

I believe Rolex uses the term "professional" rather than "tool". They mean the same (watch for a particular profession) but it seems "tool" has come to be the slang or layman's term for these watches.

unfortunately it's also the slang term my wife refers to me as.

[HogwldFLTR]

Originally Posted by janice&fred

unfortunately it's also the slang term my wife refers to me as.

So she's really calling you a professional!!!

[janice&fred]

Originally Posted by HogwldFLTR

So she's really calling you a professional!!!

you know i never really thought of it that way. i'm feeling better already

[rq3]

Originally Posted by roadie1

Very cool! Post pics please!

I'll give it a shot. I'm not a photographer, and not generally a poster. Again, this is still a tool watch to me. The bezel is original, but has a new Luminova pearl style insert. I changed the bracelet to a NOS 93150; the original folded bracelet was beyond shot years ago. And the crown I insisted be replaced with a new TripLock.

Hands and dial are original. Movement parts were replaced as required. The auto-wind didn't work anymore in 2015, so I sent it in for it's first service last year since I bought it in the 1970's.

Yes, I have the original bezel insert. It's basically unreadable, faded to beyond pale blue/grey, almost like pure aluminum, with barely legible numbers. My girl-friend (now wife) plucked the pearl out about 30 years ago, and it got lost under the water bed.

It was a $275 watch. Expensive for me at the time, but nothing special, just a diving tool. A good SCUBA regulator back then cost about $90. After the new $4200 service on the watch (including new bracelet), it's still just a machine that keeps good time (better than 1 second per day).

No box or papers. I threw them away at purchase, figuring I'd bought another disposable tool of the trade.

I had a tough time saving money, so my Dad gave me a tea pot full of wax one Christmas, because I'd asked for a $100 Bulova divers. He told me to melt the wax and imbed my spare change in it so I couldn't easily get to the coins. I actually bought the Bulova with wax coated lucre at the local jeweler's shop.

The Bulova is long gone. I'm still wearing the Rolex. I hope my grandson will, too.

[exador]

Originally Posted by rq3

My girl-friend (now wife) plucked the pearl out about 30 years ago, and it got lost under the water bed.

This takes the prize for the oddest hard luck story

[Arclight]

My 114060 is no less a tool watch than my 14060M ...and neither is any less a tool than a 6204. It's about durability and the ability to perform its intended task under adverse conditions, not about lug holes or bezel material.

[HogwldFLTR]

Originally Posted by Arclight

My 114060 is no less a tool watch than my 14060M ...and neither is any less a tool than a 6204. It's about durability and the ability to perform its intended task under adverse conditions, not about lug holes or bezel material.

I don't really agree; I believe it is more about the potential cost of putting the watch at risk. How many of use with late model beauties would be willing to risk serious damage to our precious gems?

Here's a shot of a casually worn one on the wrist of Jacque Cousteau.

[JP Chestnut]

Rolex watches where actual tools when they were the most appropriate choice for whatever task drove their design. Now there are better (dive computers) and cheaper (quartz tunas) alternatives.

You can drive nails with your iphone, but that doesn't make it a tool. A hammer is cheaper and better suited to the task. Just like a modern Sub can be used for diving.

[RationalPragmatist]

it stops for me when watch 'enthusiasts' and YouTube watch 'gurus' pejoratively refer to Rolexes as "tool watches"

[J!m]

Originally Posted by mui.richard

When we start treating Rolexes like this...



When instead they should be treated like this...



a watch is meant to be worn

That's a great camera photo... reminds me of one shoot at a Land Rover event in Virginia in the pouring rain. I was using my EOS -1 (not sure if it was the v film gamers or the digital body) while everyone was cowered in a truck trying to keep their lenses free of fog... I got some great shots that were published and they got... a cold?

Buy quality and use it. If it breaks, it can be repaired. Buy cheap and toss is and buy another. Is it really less expensive?

[mui.richard]

Originally Posted by J!m

That's a great camera photo... reminds me of one shoot at a Land Rover event in Virginia in the pouring rain. I was using my EOS -1 (not sure if it was the v film gamers or the digital body) while everyone was cowered in a truck trying to keep their lenses free of fog... I got some great shots that were published and they got... a cold?

Buy quality and use it. If it breaks, it can be repaired. Buy cheap and toss is and buy another. Is it really less expensive?

Agreed!

That's what I see with Rolex Sports watches, at least the SS ones. While I don't deliberately try to damage them, I don't baby them nor do I restrict my activities when I'm wearing one neither. They are meant to be tough watches and deserves to be treated as such.

The oldest sports watch in my small collection is a Tudor Submariner bought new back in 1992 and I got it for like USD860. Despite all the scratches and chip in the crystal it's managed to survive whatever activities I engaged into. Factoring in the costs of the 2 full services it received and crystal replacement at the RSC it came to less than USD74 a year. That's USD0.2 a day. Not to mention if I were to sell this watch today with full set box and original papers I could probably get something...

There, that's my 2 cents worth.



a watch is meant to be worn

[strafer_kid]

Originally Posted by Arclight

My 114060 is no less a tool watch than my 14060M ...and neither is any less a tool than a 6204. It's about durability and the ability to perform its intended task under adverse conditions, not about lug holes or bezel material.

Would agree on this one - the latest Subs and probably the SDs and Explorers are still,probably the closest to the original toolwatch concept!

[Valenciawatchrepair]

Reminds me of the trailer and storage queens in the car realm. Use the thing!! I daily drove a '65 Mustang in high school(1999-2002). I think that set me up for "using" an item rather than trying to keep it mint. It's way more satisfying than letting it sit there to collect dust. Even if I missed out on some monetary gain!

[hatidua]

I purchased my 5513 new in 1983, a SeaDweller a couple of years later. Mine both quit being "tool" watches when my professional underwater time ended. At that point they were serviced and put in the bank box with the original purchase receipts.

I now wear an 114270 which thankfully doesn't scream R-O-L-E-X from across the room. The Sub's worked great for me underwater but I don't have a need or desire to wear them now. Someday, when I get up the courage, I'll sell mine and smile about how I paid less for the watch new than a service visit costs now

[Bigsykedaddy]

Originally Posted by locutus49

I think Rolex made a corporate decision at some point, maybe in the 70's or whenever the quartz crisis occurred, to transition to a luxury brand. This was a slow, methodical transition, which was accompanied by a change in advertising and corresponding price increases commensurate with luxury goods.

And this strategy succeeded as Rolex is now perceived primarily as a luxury brand even though their watches retain their tool DNA.

Very well stated.