Rolex Sub: innovative or marketing legend?

[jshepard]

My next and last (one can hope there is an ending to this obsession right?) watch will be a diver. I've been trying to acquire watch models, within my budget, that have had historical and/or innovative significance in the world of watches. Now the obvious choice in the diver's genre is the Submariner. To be honest, I've been a long time admirer of the Submariner, but both times I've considered getting one I've end up getting something else (Explorer I and GMT Master II). But this time it's going to be a diver! So it's a pretty sure thing right? Only problem is, no matter how much of an icon the Sub is, the more I research the history of dive watches, the more the Sub feels more of a marketing feat than an engineering one. Am I wrong in this?

The first diver, I thought was the Sub, but I found out actually came out decades before with the Omega Marine. Then I learned even Panerai released divers before Rolex (though one can argue it was powered by Rolex but the case seems more important in terms of waterproofing than the movement). Then I thought, wait, maybe the Sub invented the look of the modern diver, with the legible dial and unidirectional bezel. But even that is debatable with some claiming Blancpain came out with the Fifty Fathoms first with the classic diver design and proving itself when it appeared in the film "The Silent World".

I get the impression the Sub became legend when Bond wore it in the 60s. I don't count that an achievement because Bond is not a real person with no real life achievements. Was the Sub just another divers watch before Bond? Or was it THE TOP divers watch back then? Was Bond the only reason it became the quintessential dive watch? Would the Sub still be the most copied design in the world if Bond had worn a DJ or an Explorer I?

FYI, I'm not in anyway commenting whether the Sub is a good or bad watch. I'm just interested in what makes the Sub so legendary... Brilliant first of its kind innovation or popular through the marketing genius of Rolex and pure luck with the James Bond connection...




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[tkerrmd]

Rolex Submariner - Historical Overview Of A Diving Legend
http://www.fratellowatches.com/rolex...riner-history/
An article by watch journalist Gisbert L. Brunner on the Rolex Submariner. ... The answer is quite simple: There was a patent on the uni-directional bezel since ...

[Afghanvet]

To me, the Sub has always been a dive watch first. When I first joined the military and went to Navy dive school (1984), select Navy and Marine Corps units that had divers assigned issued Submariners' to their divers.

[Ritch99]

It was the same in the ARMY, for OOB Qualified divers...they chose the Sub. Sounds like maybe the sub is not your cup of tea. In my mind if you are not absolutely in love with it, don't buy it. And if you let public opinion drive your buying habits, then your desires for watches will constantly be in a state of flux. I'm not saying that's you, I'm just saying... I buy the watches that I am in love with and must have. It just turns out, they are all Rolex.

[Old Expat Beast]

It's valid question, and worthy of serious discussion. Marketing/innovation? Probably a bit of both, I would say.

[Oyster Al]

Originally Posted by Afghanvet

To me, the Sub has always been a dive watch first. When I first joined the military and went to Navy dive school (1984), select Navy and Marine Corps units that had divers assigned issued Submariners' to their divers.

[Ravager135]

I am not aware of Rolex Submariners being standard issue amongst diving units in the United States Navy. Granted my service was much more recent, but from what I understand Rolex Submariners and Sea-Dwellers have been tested by experimental dive units in the past in very limited circumstances. Submariners, to my knowledge, were never given out in large volumes.

I was a humble flight surgeon but I do regularly consult my DMO buddies.

[jshepard]

Originally Posted by tkerrmd

Rolex Submariner - Historical Overview Of A Diving Legend
http://www.fratellowatches.com/rolex...riner-history/
An article by watch journalist Gisbert L. Brunner on the Rolex Submariner. ... The answer is quite simple: There was a patent on the uni-directional bezel since ...

Thanks for the link! Comparing the history of the Sub and the Fifty Fathoms from Blancpain, it's interesting how they come out around the same time with the same design. Some would say that the FF came out to the public first but I understand that public release does not indicate who "invented" the modern diver. I also find it interesting that even though they came out around the same time the Sub comes out on top as the quintessential diver while the FF is viewed by many as one of countless divers who were inspired by the Sub's design. If Bond wore a FF, would the golden standard for classic divers be different. Also, Rolex didn't even sponsor James Bond, unlike Omega today, so it was complete by chance that Sean Connery wore the Sub.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[jshepard]

Originally Posted by Ritch99

It was the same in the ARMY, for OOB Qualified divers...they chose the Sub. Sounds like maybe the sub is not your cup of tea. In my mind if you are not absolutely in love with it, don't buy it. And if you let public opinion drive your buying habits, then your desires for watches will constantly be in a state of flux. I'm not saying that's you, I'm just saying... I buy the watches that I am in love with and must have. It just turns out, they are all Rolex.

Thanks for the input! Don't get me wrong, I think the Sub is great looking watch. But for me being in love with something doesn't end with aesthetics. And I respectfully disagree with your view that public opinion drives my buying habits. On the contrary, the history of the watch is a big part of what interests me in a watch model. For example, the GMT Master is credited to have invented the GMT genre, now marketing can change public opinion, but the fact remains that there was a problem and the folks at Rolex created a watch to fix the problem.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[eco8gator]

To answer the question both. And brilliant Rolex marketing has kept all of the successes of the past relevant and current knowledge.

I agree the reasons I like a watch are because it looks nice and its history. There are the reason I like the following:

-Sub/SeaDweller/Tudor Sub (I love the military history and the link to Bond)
-Omega Speedmaster cal 321 105.003 (1965) and 145.012 (1967)
-Seiko 6159-7010 (First Seiko Designed to work for sat. divers)
-Anything with a Valjoux 72 in it (example: Longines Ref 8224-1)
-Anything vintage 3 register chronograph (example something with Valjoux 71)
-Anything with a Seiko Spring Drive (example: SNR005)
-Anything related to early USN Diving Evaluations (example: Enicar Seapearl 600)

I could go on and on but history + looks = me liking it.

Maybe a year ago I would say Rolex or nothing. But after really diving deep into the history of many other pieces I am starting to look at things differently...

[Mis3]

Should Sea Dwellers be considered to be Submariners?

[AK797]

I wasn't around in the 60s but was Connery wearing Broccolli's sub at the last minute instead of Fleming's Explorer really one of the main reasons why the Sub became so popular at that time? I suspect it might be a more retrospective thing.

[Matt748]

I think it has to be a bit of both great advertising by Rolex (albeit but default) and the fact that the Sub is a great watch.

[Daytonaman799]

I think it a bit of both but the Sub was really the first dive watch as we know it. Back in the 60's and 70's it was really a tool watch. This was the era of the Mil sub, of SD's for COMEX, and when the SEAL ballad had the phrase Rolex wearing in it. I think in the last 30 years it has become more of a style and marketing icon but without the earlier history you can't create a lasting icon.

[jshepard]

Originally Posted by Daytonaman799

I think it a bit of both but the Sub was really the first dive watch as we know it.

It's great you mention that. The Omega Marine came out in 1932, considered a dive watch in terms of water resistance but no rotatable bezel much like the Radiomir used in the 30s by Italian diving commandos . The Fifty Fathoms came out in 1953, the same time as the Sub with designs very similar to the Sub. Yet many view the Sub as the first dive watch including myself at one point. Maybe the technology was already there, maybe the iconic design already existed in a different form or maybe Rolex was just one of many brands (who have probably faded into obscurity) to come out with the unidirectional bezel and depth rating of 100mm. But the difference is Rolex succeeded in making us believe that they created the original dive watch.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[subtona]

The submariner is perfect, I have worn it and used it for everything and anything I have done, never ever an issue.
My favorite is this.

[landroverking]

Adam said it best. "A little of both".
IMO the Sea Dweller should be considered because it started out as a Sub.
Today's modern SD doesn't have too much in common with the Sub, only a couple of parts outside the movement.

[Case61]

I agree the answer is a little bit of both.

RE Bond, though, I think in the books Ian Fleming used name, high-end brands like Dom Perignon and Rolex to show that Bond was a top-shelf guy. Fleming used Rolex to validate Bond, in the early going before Bond became an even bigger brand, rather than the other way around. IMHO.

And one more pic of the ND diving won't hurt anything.

[jshepard]

Originally Posted by Case61

I agree the answer is a little bit of both.



RE Bond, though, I think in the books Ian Fleming used name, high-end brands like Dom Perignon and Rolex to show that Bond was a top-shelf guy. Fleming used Rolex to validate Bond, in the early going before Bond became an even bigger brand, rather than the other way around. IMHO.



And one more pic of the ND diving won't hurt anything.

You bring up a very good point! When Fleming chose Rolex as the watch for Bond in the books you get the idea that it was because Rolex was already known for its class while being able to take a beating (which was no small matter back then). I have no issues with that because even history tells us that that the Oyster Perpetual, in the 20s, revolutionized the idea that watches can be worn in water and that they aren't as fragile as people thought they were. So maybe the association of the Sub to the Rolex name creates the general consensus that it was the first dive watch. Maybe decades from today public opinion may view the Skydweller the first of its kind as an annual calendar with a second time zone, that's how influential the Rolex name seems to be.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Chewbacca]

i think its a bit of both and one only has to look at the era in which the sub really came into its own. wilsdorf and rolex knew (from available resources) how to market something. even back then, there were other japanese and swiss watches that were quite amazing but rolex knew by incorporating marketing, exploiting unique design features, professional affiliations and multiple use applications - the dive watch could be more of a 24hr personal accessory that says something about the wearer than just a guy with a watch. it was also an era where deep sea exploration and Sunday AM discovery television was international. it was full of imagery and little dialogue. everyone wanted to be cousteau or an explorer and the sub got you a little closer to the action.

[locutus49]

Ian Fleming, author of the Bond novels, was from an aristocratic family and wore a Rolex Explorer. He was accustomed to the finer things and life and used those items to flesh out the character of Bond in the novels. Fleming loved diving and after serving as a senior Naval intelligence officer in WWII, retired to Jamaica to dive, wearing his Explorer. Source: biography of Ian fleming by Andrew Lycett.

[watchwatcher]

I don't buy a watch based on what a bunch of people say on the internet. I buy because it flips a switch for me when I look at it.

Some form of the sub will always be in my collection, hopefully.

[milgauss2232]

Do navy divers still get issued with dive watches nowadays? If so, which one?

[HogwldFLTR]

Originally Posted by milgauss2232

Do navy divers still get issued with dive watches nowadays? If so, which one?

Interesting reading...

http://www.timezone.com/2012/07/07/t...james-dowling/

[SemperFi]

I'm not versed enough on the subject to post an insightful or meaningful comment. I just want to thank those who have contributed to the thread for educating me on the topic and to encourage you all to keep it going.

[rootbeer7]

I posted previously about my 3 watches (in my avatar) all with Oyster cases. Part of the incredible history, is this amazing case that can be a diver, enlarged for a deep-sea diver, added complications for a GMT, smaller and no crown guards (as the original Sub)for an Explorer, and then more dressy as a Datejust, Day-Date etc etc. This I'm sure is part of the appeal......

[Gryfalcon]

Originally Posted by SemperFi

I'm not versed enough on the subject to post an insightful or meaningful comment. I just want to thank those who have contributed to the thread for educating me on the topic and to encourage you all to keep it going.

X2 This is a great thread btw thanks for the read everyone.

[jshepard]

Originally Posted by rootbeer7

I posted previously about my 3 watches (in my avatar) all with Oyster cases. Part of the incredible history, is this amazing case that can be a diver, enlarged for a deep-sea diver, added complications for a GMT, smaller and no crown guards (as the original Sub)for an Explorer, and then more dressy as a Datejust, Day-Date etc etc. This I'm sure is part of the appeal......

I agree, the oyster case revolutionized watches.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[eco8gator]

Here is one Navy study on dive watches in 1958...

http://omegaforums.net/threads/rolex...earl-600.5906/

The sub (hopefully more than one) didn't do so well compared to the Fifty Fathoms and the Enicar Seapearl (I have the watch they evaluated:)).

Very interesting reading...not something the Rolex boys probably want people to know about.

Regardless of how well the Enicar did its didn't have a very good team behind them in the marketing department so no one probably even knows about them regardless of how well their product worked. Rolex got the bugs worked out and Comex pushed them to the next level+amazing marketing and they are the world standard for watches...

[Urosfan]

Def a little of both