Can anyone explain Rolex to me?

That's a very British and by proximity Irish view of Rolex(two tone FTW) as a brand. The used car salesman/1980's day trader with red braces/drug dealer association. It doesn't have that association in the US to nearly the same degree, if at all. It's very much the aspirational brand. And among the younger generation, or for that matter middle aged buyers today regardless of origin it's not in play either. About the only snobbery involved these days would be third party jewelled examples and rappers and that's not just Rolex, it's all tarted up AP, PP, Hublot. And reverse snobbery of course.

Yeah, that for me has been by far the biggest change in new watch trends in the last decade. Going way back to the egg, most Swiss brands were on the radar of new(and vintage) collectors and buyers. However AP, PP and VC were pretty much absent and if they came up on BB's or forums it would be a gold Patek Calatrava being discussed. The steel stuff almost never did*. My own take is that they were simply another level of cash involved. I can't remember AP/PP/VC being ever 'cheap' used, or vintage. Cheaper than today but still way ahead of Rolex, Omega, IWC et al. And there weren't many about, so they were off the radar.

These days where nearly all the main brands have lifted their RRP's and Rolex in particular have gone nuts on the grey market, expectations have shifted and I think there are enough collectors now living in the dropping 20k on a watch headspace so that the AP/PP/VC came into view organically. So ten years ago when you could buy a Sub in a shop on the spot for 6k, a 20k AP was much more of a giant leap(not sponsored by Omega).

Interestingly, for me anyway, is while vintage stuff also went a bit nuts in prices and values, it didn't grow the market to that much of a degree and if anything stagnated it. I suspect it's because vintage and new collectors are very different breeds. The former being far more 'nerdy' and more into collecting itself as a thing. IE the average vintage bod would rather have a dozen watches that cost 2k each, or two dozen at 1k each, than two that cost 12k each, or one that cost 24k. Unlike new watch buying guys who 'flip' an existing watch if a new watch comes along that interests them, the vintage bods hold onto the old watch for dear life and buy another old watch to add to the collection/mental illness. 😁 Unless they've two of the same old watch of course, which is common with the vintage nutters. If I see a known collector on a forum selling an Omega WWW, I'd happily drop a twenty as a bet he has another three of the feckin' things in his hoard.

*except when vintage pre 1970's steel Pateks came up in high end auctions and went for eleventy bazillion kopeks, simply because they were scarily rare. If you were spending a kings ransom on a top tier watch in the 1950's vanishingly few buyers would go for anything but precious metals. Especially as there was little difference in RRP on them at the time as they were a special order. 'Luxury steel" watches were a contradiction in terms until the 1970's and especially, but not only the Royal Oak. In my humble what was also a driver for that was the new fangled and crazy expensive at first quartz stuff, where many were cased in steel and still cost five and ten times the price of a solid gold mechanical in the same brand's range. Suddenly steel wasn't cheap anymore.

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.