Can anyone explain Rolex to me?

I'd say it's more speculators buying them up hoping to get them in the same direction as Rolex. Rolex don't care they're guaranteed sales and if grey market prices go north then Rolex can up the RRP because the market expects to pay more. If anything the AD's are the ones in the middle, and the ordinary non investment buyers of course.

Yes the bracelets aren't a patch on the new ones(Rolex upped, nay reversed their game there. Best bracelet on the market today). However that 'iconic' watch got that way because it was an actual 24/7 tool watch that could take dog's abuse. Famously so. The owner's tales of just how tough they could be are legion. Old Rolex Subs, Seiko divers and Vostok Amphibias beat up G-Shocks for their lunch money. 😁 About the only reason you even know about Rolex tool watches as a thing was built on the solid rep of those models. The latest models are indeed far more finely made and finished, the movements are leagues ahead, but they're as much, if not more a luxury watch for office diving than the 14060. And I would agree it's more elegant than the current crop. I have no idea what they were thinking with those fat lugs. Look awful clunky to my eye anyway.

Old

Current

Maybe, or clearly it's just me? But I much prefer the older design(though the Milsub is my fave by many furlongs. Drooool).

Actually, what's the story with buying an older model and slapping a newer bracelet onto it, or are the bracelets unobtanium too?

I mentioned them earlier and with all this talk had to go looking for porn 😁

That's the GOAT Rolex for me. Nails it IMHO. The British divers took the best of the two watches they were issued, that and the Omega 300 Seamaster and with their experience and requirements changed the bezels on both(for the better IMHO), installed solid bars, gave the Rollie the Omega handset and the Omega got a screwdown crown. Result. And yet again I'm surprised Rolex never released this as a special edition. I reckon it would fly off the shelves so fast the shockproofing would be sorely tested, especially as they go for north of 100k when they come up for sale. Maybe the 'Omega' handset is the sticking point?

We talk about size and shape of watch cases and how they can feel better or worse depending on an individual wrist(the Speedie a good example of that), but I'd add bracelets into that mix too. Rate of wear another aspect that's tied up with design. The three link type like the Rolex and others are far more prone to stretch and droop than the more 1970's style single piece type. My 74's Seamaster bracelet came to me well worn and I polished and rebrushed it, but even so it doesn't droop. A three piece type from any brand(unless NOS) of that age would be in dire need of viagra. The single piece type is more expensive to make though. The difficulty and cost of bracelets is rarely written about. One of the biggest hurdles the AP Royal Oak had was in the manufacture of the bracelet(and the case was enough of a pain).

The history of bracelets is an interesting one. Leather and cloth had been the mainstays until the 1920's when steel bracelets started to come along. Steel had been a pain to machine and one reason why early wristwatches were more likely to be silver and gold, or brass and plated. Innovations in manufacturing changed that. Still, other than Bonklip style mostly for the military guys, bracelets in any metal don't really figure that commonly until the 1950's(and far more in the US). Though this was something Rolex got in on early enough compared to the other brands.

!953 advert. Now you did see bracelets in other watch ads, but not nearly to the same degree(their bracelet design hasn't changed much either). Note the "not an extravagance" and "at a moderate cost" bits. Calendar watches were generally pretty pricey as it was seen as a complication, the Rolex wasn't, but was still good quality.

They didn't invent the date window(Girard Perregaux/Mimo), but they were one of the few to embrace and promote it, until everyone had to. Same with the GMT(Longines), now you say GMT and watch people will think "Rolex". Ditto for the automatic movement(Harwood), though Fortis and Eterna share credit there. Wilsdorf again being a towering marketing genius who ended up driving many aspects of it. Rolex were one of the least innovative Swiss brands out there, however they(Wilsdorf) were incredibly good at spotting other's innovations that nobody else did, or didn't bother with and bringing them to the masses and making them must haves and in the past at more affordable prices with it. They deserve serious kudos for that.