Having spent some time wearing a rather lovely PAM that was a chunky 44mm without the crown guard, I’ve come to realise that a 6.75″ wrist doesn’t need a large watch. In fact, I can wear anything from 34mm to 40mm and feel completely comfortable, to the extent that my Speedy (at 42mm) feels relatively large.

This lovely little thing arrived this morning just as I was going to go out for a run. It’s an A serial from 1998, which would make it the first year that Luminova was used on the dial (the replacement for tritium was invented in 1993 and patented in 1995; Nemoto & Co was contracted to provide “LumiNova” to the Swiss Watch Industry in 1998 and it was widely used thereafter).

It came with the complete set of everything, and was fully serviced and pressure tested last year so is good to go. I like it a lot, and the blue dial looks pretty (and pretty cool), changing slightly as the light hits it in different ways. It’s a good precursor to a (very old) vintage JLC that I’m hoping to add soon.

The original “Zenith” Daytona housed Zenith’s Cal. 4030 movement. Rolex heavily modified what was in fact the El primero engine, and beside other modifications altered the beats per hour count from 36,000 to 28,800 (from 5 to 4 Hertz). In fact, only some 50% of the parts of the original Zenith movement were untouched after the modification.

Notwithstanding the success of the 4030, Rolex had been working on the new in-house movement for some time before it’s launch at the Basle World Fair in 2000. On October 31st 1995, a patent with drawings of parts of the movement construction was applied for (Swiss patent number CH199 5000003077), and on October 29th 1996 Rolex applied for further patents of the movement (US patent number 5.793.708). This was, of course, what transpired to be the in-house cal. 4130 – the movement rated as one of the top ten ever made.

Aside from this, of course, the Daytona is – quite simply – a beautiful watch.

You either like it or you don’t!

Well, it is, isn’t it?

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?

Sometimes things are so lovely that it’s almost impossible to describe them adequately. This is, without a doubt, the most beautiful watch I’ve seen, worn or owned.

I first tried on a Daytona a couple of years ago. It didn’t really do anything for me at the time, but over the last few months I’ve been fighting a growing desire to own one. In the end, I decided that resistance was futile and I’m now delighted to have added one to my collection.

I was initially going to go for an older reference housing the Zenith movement; the reality, though, is that Rolex modified about 50% of the parts to make it their own. The newer Rolex movement is lauded as one of the best chronograph movements ever made, and the sub-dial arrangements (with the running seconds at six) is to my mind preferable. I’ve therefore gone for a 2004 model (barely worn since new), with a black dial.

I really love this watch, and it’ll be getting a lot of wrist time!

One non-date Sub from 1991… gorgeous creamy patina in contrast to the white gold indices and sharp case lines.

One flashgun, mounted on the camera – no other lighting.

Simplicity personified?

The Datejust is arguably as iconic a watch as the Submariner. As recognisably “Rolex” as any watch that has come out of that great stable.

I’ve owned a couple before but foolishly let them go. I’ve been biding my time,though, and when I was offered this beautiful bronze-dialed 16030 from 1983 I simply couldn’t say no. It comes with box, punched papers and even the original sales receipt; aside from that, it’s simply… beautiful.

A few weeks ago, I began wondering if I was being too dogmatic in my decision only to wear vintage watches – there are lots of modern pieces that I like a lot, and it seemed daft to place obstacles in my path if I wanted to try/own them. Anyway, having come to the conclusion that it was sensible to mix it up a bit I imported a nice new MM300, and then decided to fill the modern Rolex void that I’d created.

Initially I was going to go for a 16610LV but I was also conscious of the fact that I’d previously allowed a Sea Dweller to be prised from my grasp after a few hours (big mistake), so switched my attention to a 16600 instead. As luck would have it, a virtually NOS example from 2001 was available, with absolutely everything to make it a complete set, from punched papers to plastic seal. It really is like an unworn watch, and has the benefit of being just about the last of the lug-holed models whilst also being one of the very early Super Luminova dials.

Anyone who’s owned a SD will know what wrist presence they have. I can’t see any reason ever to move this on, either, as it’s the kind of watch that should always be at the core of any diver collection.

Happy Christmas to me 🙂