I popped a new insert on the LV a couple of days ago, and whilst it took literally two or three minutes I thought it might be useful to emphasise the difference between modern and vintage insert swaps.

Vintage watches will usually have friction bezels, which means that the bezel will turn in both directions with infinite variation in how it can be positioned. Ratcheted bezels are different – they’re unidirectional but also have definite clicks; this means that they have to be positioned very carefully during fitting if the pearl is to be lined up properly with the 12-hour marker once on the watch. The easy way to do this is as follows:

1) Mask off the case and then prise off the bezel with a flat blade.
2) Gently push out the insert – thumbs are the best tools for this.
3) Ensuring that the ratchet pin/spring is still positioned properly on the case, push the bezel (without insert fitted) into place. It’ll click audibly as it snaps into position.
4) Line up the new insert (first making sure that the bezel isn’t “between clicks”), using a loupe if necessary to position it correctly; then push into the recess on the bezel.
5) If necessary, place a soft towel or similar on a table and use it to push down on the insert; sometimes they can be stubborn and need a little pressure all around the circumference.

There – try it instead of sending the watch off next time.

Personally, I think the the LV is by far the best of the modern Submariners. retaining the “old” shaped case if boasts a maxi dial and green insert, as well as an SEL bracelet with a good heavy feel to it.

I know a lot of people don’t like the green accent on the watch. I’m not one of them.

The Sea Dweller is a strange watch for me. Compared to the Submariner it sits a little higher, it’s slightly heavier on the wrist, and it looks a little… I don’t know, less refined in some way. Perhaps it’s the style of the bezel, which seems to shout at you “I’m functional, not just an accessory!” whereas that on the Sub is neater… more of a distraction to play with whilst you while away the hours in those never-ending board meetings.

Anyway, the thing is that – whilst a Sub is probably a more sensible choice for what I need – I don’t think I can bring myself to change one for the other. And when I’m in the pool with the kids, it’s pretty reassuring knowing that I have about 3990 feet of WR more than I’ll ever need! Really it is.

One of the biggest watch-related regrets for a long time was selling the 5513 that I owned until a couple of months ago. It was pretty much in perfect condition, and even as I was packing it for shipping I knew that i shouldn’t have done it.

Well, I mulled and mulled, and then by chance came across an absolutely gorgeous meters first from 1967. I didn’t really have the funds, and the price was a bit toppy; however, it was just something that I had to do… I’ll worry about it later!

With an unbelievable 94 years of history between them, and both overflowing with charm, warmth and character. I can’t really explain or justify to those who don’t share this obsession the time and money I spend thinking about (or drooling over) watches, but if I had to try, then this is how I’d do it.

A while back I decided that I was only going to allow myself one Rolex diver in what was meant to be a decreasing number of watches making up my collection. Okay, so that plan didn’t quite come to fruition, but it did result in a lovely 1660 from 2006 arriving at Half Past the Hour goods inwards. I do like this one a lot, and being relatively new it’s ideal as an all-purpose watch that doesn’t need pampering.

Now, the question is… does a vintage beauty from 1966 (due for collection today) make this diver redundant, as per the One Diver Rule? Time will tell, if you’ll excuse the pun!

A vintage watch look like a vintage watch? It’s actually rather easy.

Before…

And after (all of three minutes or so)…

But really, the Datejust needs to be on a Jubilee. They were made for each other, weren’t they?