Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by ubermonkey 1515 days ago
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.

3 comments

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.
so funny you say that. I wear a g shock with my tux.
And you probably shouldn't. Great watch, but inappropriate with a suit or tux.
I think you could pull off a Casioak :)
And kind of a "tell", in-story, that he was not some posh twat.
That watch was pure product placement, you can see the sequence here: https://timeandtidewatches.com/the-complete-list-of-bond-wat...
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.)

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.

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.