J.Bond back to Rolex!!

[candycandy]

That looks like movie opening in Japan (all Japanese launguage).

GV huh? Omega is big in Japan, but Rolex is even bigger... the wrist 'respect' you get from people b/w Omega and Rolex is night/day difference....

[MrCowboy99]

great.. now he can get the bad guys in style.

[SubKing]

in the first bond flick the girl asks him if he is wearing a rolex and he replies "omeega" so they would have not mentioned rolex inless they were getting paid to do so..

[Dr.B]

He should have been wearing a WG Daytona with a Black Strap...
Oh well....at least it's Rolex...

[Omega_Precision]

regardless, he can wear whatever he wants and I am also surprised that it wasn't in the contracts for him to wear only Omega to film events or premieres. I've seen the Milly in person and it's not my cup of tea and it looks horrible on him with the tux. That's why I don't wear watches loose.

[BZA]

I think it looks great on him, but hey, I'm biased

[Eli]

Originally Posted by Omega_Precision

regardless, he can wear whatever he wants and I am also surprised that it wasn't in the contracts for him to wear only Omega to film events or premieres. I've seen the Milly in person and it's not my cup of tea and it looks horrible on him with the tux. That's why I don't wear watches loose.

My guess is that he was offered a sum that was deemed unacceptable by him to wear only Omega on his personal time. Since the offer was not accepted, he has to do the opposite and attract attention to Rolex.

I'm not doubting his love for Rolex but if all the deals I've been through teach me one thing.. Is that once you say no to a deal you have to make 'em regret the offer

[baldyspoon]

Originally Posted by Maple

I hope Rolex doesn't get into the product placement thing with the Bond series. I think it "cheapens" the Omega brand (IMO). I have to say that I like the Omega divers, but stay away from getting them because of the James Bond marketing, which just doesn't seem classy to me.

Rolex should be above such business, and stick to associations with the people and activities that better reflect Rolex's traditions and values.

But surely everyone thinks of the Rolex Sub as the original and best Bond watch, so why should it cheapen the brand. They seems to be lots of Rolex wearers and people on this forum who want Rolex to be the next Bond watch

[delldeaton]

Rather an interesting Thread here, and I'm intrigued by the points that have been raised. Thanks for sharing this.

Assuming we are, indeed, talking about a new or newer model Milgauss here, that sorta ups the ante for Daniel Craig and Rolex. When I first wrote about the EMPIRE magazine reference, that was a vintage piece (Submariner) and the justification was that it was somehow a way of connecting to Sean Connery's James Bond in Goldfinger.

Now we've got a contemporary Rolex, and one with (so far) no 007 affiliation whatsoever.

Additionally, a lot of watches have shown up since the vintage Sub. Have these been limited to Omega and Rolex, or are other pieces showing up? The reason I ask is to sort for possible "WIS" interests here.

Some other things, then.

The other day, I saw on one of the more reliable James Bond Forums a statement attributed to a Latin American (Mexican?) newspaper that Omega was suing Craig for disparaging comments he'd supposedly made against their brand. I haven't seen anything independent to corrobrate that, and it may well just be something someone threw out there. But, as such, the fact that someone has is of interest. Why?

Irrespective of the specifics regarding a current agreement between Omega and EON Productions, I suspect it could be ended if the relationship stopped working for the parties involved. The last issue of WatchTime had that Omega special which noted a 10x increase in Seamaster (2541.80) sales following the GoldenEye cross-promotion. Is the ROI still that significant? In my area, for the last month, I've seen at my Omega AD all three of the last three 007 LEs available for purchase, w/ 20% discounts offered before I said a word. Okay, so the Seamasters were seeming a bit much, and 10,007 pieces not so limited. But they had the "Quantum of Solace" limited, too.

There's a reference in a book titled, The Art of Bond, which suggests that it's EON, as opposed to Omega, that is driving the production of Limited Editions. So if that's what folks are seeing as a "cheapening" of the brand, then I would think other watch makers potentially interested could work around that.

The real deal, supposedly, between EON and product placements is not an exchange of money, but cross-promotion. The idea that Rolex doesn't do that isn't supported by the facts. I have a Peter Benchley ad in my possession that's by Rolex and promotes JAWS. They used Charleton Heston for a celebrity endorsement: No different from Omega using Pierce Brosnan.

I know a lot has been made of Rolex supposedly not wanting to be involved w/ Dr. No in 1962. How far does that go beyond the recollections of a single person involved, subsequently quoted in James Bond: The Legacy? I dunno. But it's certainly come to amaze me to see how far that one anecdote has gone by way of extrapolating all sorts of wild assumptions about James Bond and Rolex.

One argument asserts that an early 16610 could not have been provided for Timothy Dalton to wear as 007 in Licence to Kill, because, of course, there was this poor relationship dating back to Dr. No. If that's true, why did EON go back to Rolex for the 6238 in On Her Majesty's Secret Service after showing a clear willingness to depart from the brand in Thunderball?

If it makes good business sense, the deal will happen. Period.

I don't think there's anything but positive things to say about Omega as a James Bond watch here. When GoldenEye was being made, it was half-a-decade or more after Licence to Kill. Irrespective of "why," a lot of folks thought Bond dead, that the franchise could not recover. Omega stepped up. That means a lot to me as someone who enjoys the films.

Similarly, if EON came back next time w/ 007 wearing a Rolex, I think the free media buzz would be phenomenal. Just the talk about it would be worth the move, regardless of what either player did. And I'm not talking a movie-Bond Rolex; everybody and his neighbor has written about what Sean Connery (an actor) wore. Put Bond back in a Rolex that shows some real thought was put into getting it consistent with what Ian Fleming designated (eg, remember that the Rolex Bond wears in On Her Majesty's Secret Service has numbers, which no Submariner worn by Connery ever has had).

And for goodness sake, make it a new watch: The exact quote for Bond's last-known Rolex, from On Her Majesty's Secret Service, reads as follows: "He glanced at the new Rolex on his wrist..." (Chapter 23, Gauloises and Garlic). Since that was written in 1962 (and published a year later), does anyone seriously believe Fleming really intended that watch to have been a 1915 model? Well, that's what it would be like to outfit Daniel Craig in 2009 with a 1962 Rolex.

Oh, my--. It would seem that I do have some rather clear thoughts on this matter.

Thanks for listening.

[Latrodectus]

very nice to see him with a Rolex...

[vegaseddie]

Agreed. Bond should only wear a Rolex!

[hflee55]

i wonder what omega execs are thinking.....

[ArizonaHD]

I don't care what a fictional character wears, I care what I wear! Besides he is far from the best Bond, that is Connerey, Shawn Connerey.

At least he is not wearing LCD Seiko's and driving Renault 5's 9's and 11's

[ArizonaHD]

Originally Posted by hflee55

i wonder what omega execs are thinking.....

No Bonus for Daniel Craig

[Andad]

Originally Posted by delldeaton

Rather an interesting Thread here, and I'm intrigued by the points that have been raised. Thanks for sharing this.

Assuming we are, indeed, talking about a new or newer model Milgauss here, that sorta ups the ante for Daniel Craig and Rolex. When I first wrote about the EMPIRE magazine reference, that was a vintage piece (Submariner) and the justification was that it was somehow a way of connecting to Sean Connery's James Bond in Goldfinger.

Now we've got a contemporary Rolex, and one with (so far) no 007 affiliation whatsoever.

Additionally, a lot of watches have shown up since the vintage Sub. Have these been limited to Omega and Rolex, or are other pieces showing up? The reason I ask is to sort for possible "WIS" interests here.

Some other things, then.

The other day, I saw on one of the more reliable James Bond Forums a statement attributed to a Latin American (Mexican?) newspaper that Omega was suing Craig for disparaging comments he'd supposedly made against their brand. I haven't seen anything independent to corrobrate that, and it may well just be something someone threw out there. But, as such, the fact that someone has is of interest. Why?

Irrespective of the specifics regarding a current agreement between Omega and EON Productions, I suspect it could be ended if the relationship stopped working for the parties involved. The last issue of WatchTime had that Omega special which noted a 10x increase in Seamaster (2541.80) sales following the GoldenEye cross-promotion. Is the ROI still that significant? In my area, for the last month, I've seen at my Omega AD all three of the last three 007 LEs available for purchase, w/ 20% discounts offered before I said a word. Okay, so the Seamasters were seeming a bit much, and 10,007 pieces not so limited. But they had the "Quantum of Solace" limited, too.

There's a reference in a book titled, The Art of Bond, which suggests that it's EON, as opposed to Omega, that is driving the production of Limited Editions. So if that's what folks are seeing as a "cheapening" of the brand, then I would think other watch makers potentially interested could work around that.

The real deal, supposedly, between EON and product placements is not an exchange of money, but cross-promotion. The idea that Rolex doesn't do that isn't supported by the facts. I have a Peter Benchley ad in my possession that's by Rolex and promotes JAWS. They used Charleton Heston for a celebrity endorsement: No different from Omega using Pierce Brosnan.

I know a lot has been made of Rolex supposedly not wanting to be involved w/ Dr. No in 1962. How far does that go beyond the recollections of a single person involved, subsequently quoted in James Bond: The Legacy? I dunno. But it's certainly come to amaze me to see how far that one anecdote has gone by way of extrapolating all sorts of wild assumptions about James Bond and Rolex.

One argument asserts that an early 16610 could not have been provided for Timothy Dalton to wear as 007 in Licence to Kill, because, of course, there was this poor relationship dating back to Dr. No. If that's true, why did EON go back to Rolex for the 6238 in On Her Majesty's Secret Service after showing a clear willingness to depart from the brand in Thunderball?

If it makes good business sense, the deal will happen. Period.

I don't think there's anything but positive things to say about Omega as a James Bond watch here. When GoldenEye was being made, it was half-a-decade or more after Licence to Kill. Irrespective of "why," a lot of folks thought Bond dead, that the franchise could not recover. Omega stepped up. That means a lot to me as someone who enjoys the films.

Similarly, if EON came back next time w/ 007 wearing a Rolex, I think the free media buzz would be phenomenal. Just the talk about it would be worth the move, regardless of what either player did. And I'm not talking a movie-Bond Rolex; everybody and his neighbor has written about what Sean Connery (an actor) wore. Put Bond back in a Rolex that shows some real thought was put into getting it consistent with what Ian Fleming designated (eg, remember that the Rolex Bond wears in On Her Majesty's Secret Service has numbers, which no Submariner worn by Connery ever has had).

And for goodness sake, make it a new watch: The exact quote for Bond's last-known Rolex, from On Her Majesty's Secret Service, reads as follows: "He glanced at the new Rolex on his wrist..." (Chapter 23, Gauloises and Garlic). Since that was written in 1962 (and published a year later), does anyone seriously believe Fleming really intended that watch to have been a 1915 model? Well, that's what it would be like to outfit Daniel Craig in 2009 with a 1962 Rolex.

Oh, my--. It would seem that I do have some rather clear thoughts on this matter.

Thanks for listening.

I'll get back to reading all that later DD.

In the meantime.

Dum da da da daa da da da
Dum da da da daa da da da

Hmm. Didn't need to remove any links for a prefect fit.

[investmd7]

Thats sooo cool! Hell yeah!

[marshallr47]

Cool shots.

[Z-Sub]

hard to get a very clear shot at night

[oworkman]

I recently read an article/interview in an Australian mens fashion magazine and the photos showed DC also wearing a Rolex, i will dig it up and post the pic. Never doubted Bond for a second!!

Omega, Ha!

[JJ Irani]

Originally Posted by Z-Sub

hard to get a very clear shot at night

Did you see a ghost when you took that pic, pal? Your hand does look kinda pale!!

[Andad]

Hi Dell,

I read your post - I read it again - It's possible I am over complicating a situation which refers to a fictional character who kicks a**.
It was obvious that you had a point to make but I honestly couldn't work out what it was. Please tell me.

[Jimbits76]

It still breaks my heart that a screenwriter (or team of writers!) allowed their 'art' to be compromised for product placement in C.R.... "Nice watch, Rolex?" "Omega!" or whatever the bloody line and retort were!!!!!!!!!!!

Worst product placement ever!!!!!!!!!!!!!

J

[Omega_Precision]

Originally Posted by ArizonaHD

I don't care what a fictional character wears, I care what I wear! Besides he is far from the best Bond, that is Connerey, Shawn Connerey.

At least he is not wearing LCD Seiko's and driving Renault 5's 9's and 11's

lol...if in your opinion he's the best Bond, atleast, you should know how his name is spelled....

Sean Connery

[Omega_Precision]

I know there are people that are infatuated with the history of Bond. James Bond historians want Rolex to be his watch. If they wanted to bring back the original James Bond, they should bring back his Sub and cigarettes. Bond was a smoker.

Daniel Craig is no James Bond, those series are done. Daniel Craig does some good spy movies with a lot of action and tries to call them Bond films.

[delldeaton]

Originally Posted by Jimbits76

It still breaks my heart that a screenwriter (or team of writers!) allowed their 'art' to be compromised for product placement in C.R.... "Nice watch, Rolex?" "Omega!" or whatever the bloody line and retort were!!!!!!!!!!!

Worst product placement ever!!!!!!!!!!!!!

J

Don't get me started on Vesper Lynd: Less than my favorite woman in the novel, less than my favorite woman in the 2006 film. She looked right at a blue, blue Omega Seamaster and confused it w/ a Rolex of any sort? Incredible!

That said, you'll never hear me complain about product placements associated w/ James Bond. Historically, Ian Fleming was a pioneer in the use of brand names in story-telling, and he didn't benefit from it by getting money or free stuff. Yes, he was criticized for it in his time. But the reason he did it was in support of his famous "sweep" of action, hooking readers to the known and therefore credible, in support of fantastic plots.

Had he not been so, we might never have had a branded 007 watch at all. (Admittedly, a thing some would argue as a good thing: But that's not me or this Thread!)

Originally Posted by Omega_Precision

I know there are people that are infatuated with the history of Bond. James Bond historians want Rolex to be his watch. If they wanted to bring back the original James Bond, they should bring back his Sub and cigarettes. Bond was a smoker.

Daniel Craig is no James Bond, those series are done. Daniel Craig does some good spy movies with a lot of action and tries to call them Bond films.

Yeppers on the smoking. That's 100% Fleming and when Fleming was told to stop, he chose not to - preferring to live life fully as he wanted, rather than extending his life by, um, not doing something he enjoyed so much. Moreover, as I understand it (and this is far from my field), they were a special Turkish blend. Yikes-a-doozie!

Rolex, yes; but Fleming categorically rejected the Submariner as Bond's watch.

As to Fleming's vision of Agent 007, I've already said that I believe in the widest range of interpretation of the literature, Timothy Dalton is the closest. I won't get into an argument of "best," because I respect that others have their reasons why they like other actors better. I'm just talking about closest to Fleming, if that's the criteria. Just like the Submariner: If you're talking what actors wore, Connery is best known for wearing the Sub, Brosnan the Seamaster. Six of one, half-a-dozen of the other.

Originally Posted by directioneng

Hi Dell,

I read your post - I read it again - It's possible I am over complicating a situation which refers to a fictional character who kicks a**.
It was obvious that you had a point to make but I honestly couldn't work out what it was. Please tell me.

Do I have to admit that James Bond is a "ficational charater" before answering?

Okay, my points:

1. There's been a lot of talk about Daniel Craig's interest in Rolex, personally, and what that may or may not mean to his commitment to Omega - which is the paid product placement watch for Quantum of Solace. He's been seen wearing a vintage Submariner, and, at that, on a NATO strap (albeit, properly-sized!). This has been associated w/ Sean Connery and Goldfinger. Then he was seen w/ another vintage Rolex model. So, he's a vintage Rolex guy? Now this: Assuming we're talking about a newer Milgauss, my point is that we've got a guy who really seems interested and invested in Rolex.
2. Recently, a guy from Mexico Posted a link on a 007 Forum to a local newspaper that said Craig was being sued by Omega for making a disparaging remark about the brand. I don't know if the link was legit. But I mention it if it makes sense in a larger context of distancing Craig from Omega. Personally, I don't think this is just about Craig; I think it has something to do w/ the films. But I say that as a researcher, not someone who's been told anything directly.
3. Another of my points: When folks complain about cheesy Omega limiteds, I just wanted it to be known that at least one source reports that as being at the direction of the film producers, as opposed to just something Omega came up with.
4. As far as the likelihood that Rolex might get involved w/ Bond officially, I don't take this off the table. That is another point I was making. Heck, they are sponsoring an Internet Forum now! Additionally, a lot of folks have made arguments that go way beyond anything intended about Rolex not supplying a watch for Dr. No in 1962. The producers clearly had a good relationship w/ the brand after that, as witnessed by many other movies and watches, including those featured after they'd embraced other brands and could easily have moved from Rolex (eg, to Breitling). When I mention Licence to Kill, it is to keep the door open to an insider-provided watch that would have been the truly latest model, as opposed to having been limited to what was available from a retailer.

Does this make my reply any clearer?

[dkpw]

Dell,

please take this in the friendly and well meaning spirit with which it is offered, "you need to get out more."

[delldeaton]

Originally Posted by dkpw

Dell,

please take this in the friendly and well meaning spirit with which it is offered, "you need to get out more."

Got out for a bit. Didn't find anything that interested me more than "the" subject. (But I did take your advice in the spirit in which you intended; thanks.)

So-- is the speculation here that Mr. Craig is interested more broadly in Rolex, beyond simply the Goldfinger Submariner? Or should we now keep our eyes open for great classics like the Hamilton Pulsar P2 "Astronaut" LED from Live and Let Die or the Seiko 0674 from The Spy Who Loved Me?

Both, by the way, would make incredible pieces to honor the contribution of Albert R. Broccoli ("Cubby"), as he is shown in separate pictures from the dust jacket of his autobiography wearing these watches. Regardless of any particular brand preference, he was around for 'em all (so far). And, if people look at their fascination with the mix of James Bond + watches + movies, I think his role is the nexus.

[argee1977]

I take it someone has been on photoshop, the original picture has him wearing a badly fitting Omega, could this be the GV gang trying to keep the prices inflated

[delldeaton]

Originally Posted by argee1977

I take it someone has been on photoshop, the original picture has him wearing a badly fitting Omega, could this be the GV gang trying to keep the prices inflated

Did you mean Eddie ("directioneng") or Yenning ("Z-Zub")? Oh, silly me! You meant the image of Daniel Craig.

Thanks for weighing in on this, Ryan. I'm glad the Thread bumped up and you responded. People sometimes ask me why I don't go w/ "facts" that "everyone accepts," based on "arguments resolved long ago," and this is why. You Post something in a Forum. And folks talk about it. And it comes up again; more talk. Maybe it's right, maybe it's wrong. But a lot of eyes go across it: Some of those eyes maybe not having been around the last time (say, for example, you were here in Michigan, shoveling out from under half a foot of snow since yesterday, and still falling).

I do a lot of cross-referencing and original-source documentation research. Not so much w/ images Posted to the Internet. However, I'd be very interested in the technical aspects behind your statement (which, admittedly, may simply be opening the door to another possible explanation).

[Quicksilver]

There is some fascinating speculation here. Truly, the situation is becoming more tangled than any international intrigue in which Bond was involved.

What fascinates me are the obvious statements being made by Craig personally - fairly obviously wearing choice vintage and modern Rolex models - and how that fits in with the Omega sponsorship of Rolex. Someone is buckling against the tyrany of Omega here - I suspec its Craig rather than the film producers.

Put yourself in Craig's shoes. If you, as a Rolex aficionado, are forced to promote Omega on a character you know has a long association with your esteemed brand - how would you feel. Of course you would do it and I am not suggesting that you would seeth with hatred about it (Omega is a fine watch) - but when you are free of the constraints of the film set you might want to cut loose and express yourself in your own way.

It would be interesting to know if Craig has always liked Rolex. Is he truly a Rolex lover. Are there any pics of him pre-Bond wearing a Rolex ?

This just shows the limitations of film sponsorship. Omega don't own Craig. Craig is not an Omega ambassador in the way that George Clooney is - it is the Bond franchise that is the Ambassador. In his personal life Craig can wear what he wants and Omega can't do a thing about it.

Imagine if Craig agreed to become a Rolex ambassador That would put the cat amongst the pidgeons - Omega could not do a damn thing about it, but they could I suppose make trouble with the Bond producers.

I can't see Omega taking Craig to court as reported in Mexico - it would draw attention to an issue which for most people falls way below their radars. Its only us obsessives that care about such things.