Some random lockdown ramblings

[In-Cog-Neeto]

So I recently parted with a BLNR on oyster and an SD43. Both mint full sets. I envy the people who bought them as they now get to feel the way I felt when I first acquired them. And they did the job, for a while. But there is something about modern Rolex which does and doesn’t appeal to me, and it varies per reference.

The BLNR is a stunning looking piece, the ceramic really pops on this model. This is by far, in my opinion, the greatest modern reference Rolex produced (on oyster).

The SD43, while I do generally love it, just started to feel/look a wee bit too big, not excessively, but it was just something which started to niggle me. The bracelet is superb; the glidelock should be standard issue on all Rolex.

And so, having gotten rid of these, my daily is now the 116613LB. Up to this point, this was my weekend watch. It just felt and looked great come down time. Grilling with this on, using the bezel as a ‘readiness’ timer, beer in hand, how can life get much better..... But, now that it is being used daily, I’ve realised that this is simply an all round fantastic watch. My problem with most modern Rolex are the proportions. The bezel/case/lug/bracelet proportions are not right; they just look too ‘heavy’, especially when a jubilee is added. But, with this LB, the heavier look is such a vast improvement over the 5 digit LB; the ceramic is the exact right shade of blue, something I never felt the 16613LB got right, the starburst dial pops and the glidelock is über comfortable. I guess some people may consider two tone/gold to be too formal or dressy, but I couldn’t disagree more. It just blends into whatever you are doing and I actually feel it is even more casual than the all steel version.

All this is coming from a guy who never before considered he’d ever wear a two tone and bought the LB on a spur.

Having had the SD43, and coming to terms with my modern vs vintage-ish views, I have learnt quite a lot about what I really look for in a watch.

The watch I first fell in love with from Rolex was the 16600. I think the proportions of this watch are simply bang on. I’m still a tad unsure of the white gold lume plot surrounds, feel these should be as per the 1665, but beggars and all that. I remember going to see one for sale, opening the box and going a bit funny. It just looked perfect.

For me, very little beats the look of a ‘real’ watch such as those dive references produced through the 70s/80s/90s from both Rolex and Tudor. The way the bezel overlaps the case, the small lugs protruding from each corner, holes for the bars, the tritium lume, the fact they say SWISS or T-SWISS-T or SWISS - T <25, the flat 4s; every small detail just looks right. Perhaps the golden age of watch making, the likes of which will never be seen again.

And this is where my view may become a little controversial. While I love a 1675, and do like a 167xx, the GMT that stands out for me is the black dial 16570. While the Masters are quite flamboyant with their blues and reds, the Explorer II just screams adventure. And when worn on a green nato, it evokes images of traversing Africa in a Landrover Defender in search of lost treasure.

And thus I am daydreaming about the adventures I ‘should’ be having rather than the reality we are currently faced with.

Hope everyone is staying safe. We will be out of this soon, I hope.

[faimag]

There are many people here, myself included, who share some of your feelings. I am partial to the 5-digit references, as I find they combine the "old school" allure of the past (without much of the hassle) with the modern (without being "futuristic" like the 6-digits look in my eyes). Now, whether it's the 16600, the 16700, or the 16570 that sings to you, that's another story!

[Andad]

You have enjoyed owning some very nice models.