[zucked]

I came into collecting modest watches around 2010. There was certainly a renewed interest in mechanical watches at the time, a lot of it being driven by things like MaleFashionAdvice on Reddit. I believe MFA had a significant hand in rescuing Seiko from obscurity with the SNK809 and SKX007. Old Seiko mechanical chronographs like the 6139 could be had readily for less than a thousand dollars. I had a beautifully restored one I bought and sold for around $300. The same watch is worth at least three times that today.

At that time, it was still possible to acquire steel Rolexes at "modest" prices. As a goal to celebrate my (future) career achievements, I set my sights on a birth year Submariner - which were attainable at the $3,500+ price points at that time.

You can't really buy a Submariner for less than $10k today. As mentioned in the article, Rolex dealers and others play crazy games where stainless models are virtually unobtanium. Even trickle down brands (Tudor, for example) have ridden the wave. I can no longer afford, nor do I want to afford, a birth year submariner. To me, the beauty in those watches is that they are tools; they were built to serve a purpose.

I ended up lucking into a Tudor Pelagos Left Hand Drive. The ultimate tool watch - light titanium, great lume, etc. I wear it. I wear it hard. It's been with me for dozens of life momentous events. When the watch craze passes, I hope I can pass it down to my kiddo as a reminder of my existence.

[ubermonkey]

Re: built for a purpose, I think a lot of folks today just see Rolex as a luxury brand, but when Sean Connery walked out of the waves in Dr No wearing a Rolex, it was because it was precisely the sort of robust, fault-tolerant timepiece a super-spy WOULD wear. Moreover, back then, they weren't NEARLY so expensive. Rolex's prices have drastically outpaced inflation FOR SURE.

I had thought I'd buy a Subbie, too, but even at the turn of the century they had gotten a bit nuts. I opted for a Seamaster instead, at HALF the price.

>I can pass it down to my kiddo

As I noted uptopic, my first fancy watch was a 1970s Rolex I inherited from MY dad. Someone will inherit it from me. My friend C. has his grandfather's steel Rolex; his son will inherit that one.

That's a nice thing about mechs you can't really get out of electronics.

[dharmab]

Spot on. Bond wearing a Submariner with a tuxedo woumd be like showing up to a black tie event wearing a Casio G Shock today.

[achenatx]

so funny you say that. I wear a g shock with my tux.

[ubermonkey]

And you probably shouldn't. Great watch, but inappropriate with a suit or tux.

[dharmab]

I think you could pull off a Casioak :)

[ubermonkey]

And kind of a "tell", in-story, that he was not some posh twat.

[Retric]

That watch was pure product placement, you can see the sequence here: https://timeandtidewatches.com/the-complete-list-of-bond-wat...

[ubermonkey]

It was not product placement as we think of it today, i.e. paid product placement; sometimes filmmakers use products that the character would use without any other motivation, in order to add depth to the character. (Aston Martin didn't pay them, either.)

In 1962, pretty much the only watch that someone in Bond's role would have worn was a Rolex -- the whole idea of a waterproof dive watch was pretty novel at the time, since Rolex invented the idea in the 50s, and was already associated with intrepid adventurous types after Hillary wore one on Everest (again, because pretty much nothing else was up to the task).

I believe the Bond wore it Dr No on a NATO (nylon) strap, not leather; it's definitely a NATO in some of the later films, but shifts to the iconic bracelet eventually (e.g., certainly by the time Roger Moore wore one with an absurd magnet and unbelievable spinning saw in Live and Let Die a decade later).

Anyway, that site isn't a great reference. It's got some things wrong. The traditional story about the watch in that film is that they got to the beach scene without a watch for Connery, or without a proper one, and the scene was shot with Cubby Broccoli's watch to get at least the right brand in the shot. That story has been printed and repeated a shitload of times, but all the principals are long dead so I have no idea if it's been verified properly in recent times. (In Googling for references for this reply, I saw a new version of the story, which is that the watch was Connery's own; I've never read that before.)

[Retric]

I was mostly pointing out the sequence from Rolex > Seiko > Omega.

> Rolex invented the idea in the 50s

Your timeline is off: “In 1922, Rolex launched the Submarine – a watch attached on a hinge inside a second, outer case, whose bezel and crystal screwed down to make the outer case watertight.” https://www.rolex.com/about-rolex-watches/waterproofness.htm...

What they don’t say is the Blancpain Fifty Fathoms and Zodiac Sea Wolf both predate the iconic Rolex Submariner. By 1962 there where quite a few dive watches though rarely owned by people that used them for diving.

As to product placement that also goes back to the 1920’s films. By 1962 they where commonplace, though as you say hard to prove. Much like payola of the day, brands could make deals with individuals rather than the movie it’s self. Really it’s mostly the prominence in the early bond films that suggest otherwise.

[doopy1]

I think even back then a Rolex would run you at least 1-2 months salary. Granted money went further back then... but if you consider the median tech salary, a lot of Rolexes are still 1-2 months salary away.

[randomcarbloke]

You absolutely can get a sub for sub $10k, new (if you're willing to go on the waiting list and buy your dealer a bottle of something special), or old if you don't have a specific vintage in mind.

[vgeek]

If you like lume, check out tritium watches from companies like Luminox or Traser. They have automatics that are reasonably priced and are super utilitarian. Most of their models are field or divers, so they may fit your preferences.

[adamomada]

My personal favourite tritium that I’ve been wearing for almost 20 years: the GSAR from Marathon Watch company.

And yes the tritium half-life is real. I can still see it well-enough but it ain’t like it used to be.

To GP: I humbly submit this one as the ultimate tool watch

[vgeek]

Seconded on the tritium fade, my oldest is around 15 years and you can tell a big difference vs newer ones.

I've had my eye on a Marathon GPM for a while, I already have a GPQ-clone with no date complication. Bertucci A5s are similar if you like compact field watches.

https://www.fullgear.watch/en/ these are supposed to use Seiko movements and you can customize the dial quite a bit, but haven't seen much about the build quality.

[kettro]

The GPM is honestly really underwhelming -- I tried them on at the windup fair this past weekend. There is no lack of khaki field watches out there with better build quality, not to mention actual water resistance (Hamilton being chief amongst, or other Seiko 5's)

[zucked]

I do love the Marathon watches - they are truly a tool of timetelling. I just happen to like my Tudor more :D

[animalgonzales]

this. the speculation around watches right now is completely unhinged. my Rolex Date 34mm sold for $3k in excellent condition three years ago. the same watch now sells for nearly $6k.