Search the Community

Some observations I've made lately that may interest you guys: While working on my recent Submariner build, I began to wonder about certain design elements, where they came from, and what they say about the watch's purpose. For instance, the finishing of the case. The brushed metal top surface suggests an attempt to eliminate reflection, and this is done on most military equipment. But if Rolex was serious about eliminating reflection, why are the sides polished, and why is the dial gloss-coated? Similarly, the "sword and dagger" dial markers seem intended for high visibility in adverse conditions, yet the dial is famously gold printed, an unnecessary excess for a utility watch. It's almost like a field aesthetic rather than field practicality was the intent. I'm not too knowledgeable in horology, but I realized that I couldn't think of a single earlier watch with a gilt dial, sword and dagger markers, brushed top surfaces, or even the Mercedes style hands. And the only rotating bezel watch I could think of is the Longines Weems, where the bezel's purpose is simply to be a second chapter ring for the seconds hand, allowing pilots to synchronize time to the second without a hacking movement. Where did these features come from?? I delved a bit into the history of the Submariner to try to find answers. What I found instead is immaculate conception. As far as casual internet history goes, no one has any idea where the Submariner came from. The usual narrative is, diving became big in the early 50s thanks to SCUBA and Jacques Cousteau, so Rolex, the pioneer of water-resistant watches, simply made their first purpose-built dive watch in 1953. True, sure, but not a satisfying explanation for why the Submariner is the way it is. The 6202 Turn-o-graph is cited as the proto-Sub, but that watch appears to be simply a smaller Submariner with a different bezel insert, begging the question of its origin. Likewise, a Sub-Aqua branded watch was produced, but only differing from the Submariner in name. Oddly enough, it appears that Rolex experimented a lot more with branding on the dial than any other aspect of the watch. So if the 6200, 6202, 6204 all came out fully formed in '53, I was left wondering what the heck Rolex came out with in '52, '51, '50, etc. I still have much more to learn, but what I've found is that the Submariner, foremost and interestingly enough, has nothing to do with previous dive watches like the Rolex-made Panerai, Blancpain, or the Longines watch made for British frogmen in WW2. The Submariner appears to have no naval design provenance whatsoever, even though it is documented that several navies, notably the British, tested and issued big crowns from the mid-50's on. As best I can tell, the Submariner is a conglomerate of features experimented with on luxury civilian watches, Rolex Oyster and Oyster Perpetual, "bubble back" watches, designed in the early 1940s. Perhaps this is already obvious to Rolex enthusiasts here, but it was quite surprising for me, as I became interested in Rolex by the avenue of pure military watches. Anyway, here are a few examples: "Army" 3139 You can see the precedent is already set for the gilt dial, sword and dagger markers, and Mercedes hands on a "tool watch". These features originated on other, much more Art Deco-looking Oysters of the 1930s, and it seems that form has always trumped function even in Rolex's most utilitarian designs. It's telling that this watch is simply branded "Army", a stylistic statement, instead of carrying actual acceptance markings like most military watches--I severely doubt these were ever issued. The quotes are theirs, not mine, as if even Rolex didn't take the idea of a purpose built army watch seriously. "Speedking" 4220 Quite a beautiful watch, shares the general "tonneau" shape and brushed top surface of the Submariner. I'm not sure if that rivet bracelet is original, but that would be interesting. 3725 This steampunk monstrosity is the only pre-Submariner watch (by anyone) I've seen with dot markers, and, along with many of the bubble backs, has a weird indiced bezel that I don't think has any function. Nothing to do with the Submariner, but damn what a beauty, couldn't help but post it. Seriously, if you've never looked into these watches, head here now just for the images. There are a dizzying amount of variations in the 30s-40s Oysters, and as far as I can tell, every Submariner design element, save the rotating bezel, is present in these watches. Yet, as popular as the Submariner is, there seems to be very little information about or interest in these precursors. Apparently bubble back collecting was big in the 80s and has gone quiet since. Still, nice examples sell for several thousand dollars, about the cost of a contemporary Submariner. All this leads me to some questions for the vets here. Being fairly new to the replica world, I wonder why there seems to be zero interest in any pre-1953 Rolex reps. I would love to wear something like the "Army" or Speedking above, but I'm not likely to spend 5 grand on a radioactive watch with a likely unserviceable movement. I'm surprised that at least the Vietnam builders don't make some of these cases, dials, and hands, which you could almost mix and match to your liking and still be true to history. They look really cool. So, is anyone aware of attempts that have been made to replicate pre-'53 Rolexes? Maybe there is info out there and parts sources that I've overlooked. Even a Turn-o-graph build would interest me a lot if it were possible. Do you guys think that as the bravado element of having a huge, clunky-looking ego watch is wearing thin, and smaller sizes and vintage styling are coming back in vogue, that there might be rep building possibilites for these Submariner forefathers in the future?