69 replies to this topic

[danslittlefinger]

http://www.luxist.co...roject-x-desig/


Project X Designs, a new London-based Rolex customizer, has already won some high-profile fans including James Bond himself - Daniel Craig. Project X, which also produces its own Limited Edition Rolex designs in small runs, began with a custom Submariner and Daytona a few months ago which have nearly all sold out. Two new Daytona models have just been released. Founder Daniel Bourn, 37, also launched the London Watch Company in 2003 which specializes in building collections of vintage "investment grade" Rolexes for private clients. Bourn is actually a former investment banker who developed an "obsessive compulsion" for collecting rare, modern and vintage luxury watches and decided to change careers.

Bourn launched Project X Designs (PXD), which has offices in Hanover Square, London W1, out of a desire to "provide a service to clients who appreciate the history and allure of original manufacturers' brand name – guaranteeing maximum performance with minimal maintenance – but who seek the individuality that contemporary high volume production does not offer." It's an aesthetic that appeals to celebs like Kanye West - The Classicist reported on his blacked-out Rolex earlier this year - and Craig, a diehard Rolex enthusiast as we noted last year, who owns PXD's custom Submariner.

PXD offers two distinct services via its website: the first, a bespoke service which, like a bespoke suit, tailors a new luxury wristwatch with unique features to the clients' own personal specification. For example, a leading Formula One Racing Team have commissioned a special Daytona - carrying the company logo on the reverse together with the details of the race victory - for each of its Grand Prix winning drivers. Ex Bond actor Roger Moore also has a bespoke watch in development from PXD. The second element of PXD is the introduction of collectible limited edition (runs of 24) customized Rolex watches inspired by the retro styling of the classic Rolex models from the past.

[Eric Stromberg]

Fantastic looking watch. DC will definitely be picking up one of these...

[danslittlefinger]

Fantastic looking watch. DC will definitely be picking up one of these...

Oh I'm sure he will but sshhhhhh, don't tell Omega.

[Binyamin]

It is a very nice looking watch. But, a quick rant:

My understanding is that Rolex considers themselves so "purist" that they consider modifications to their timepieces, such as this one, against policy.

I have been told that individuals who send specially customized watches, such as the one here, into Rolex for maintenance receive it shipped back with every customization stripped. To add insult to injury, Rolex has the audacity to include a *bill* for fixing the "damage" (customization) to their product.

Imagine if you sent a customized classic car for maintenance, only to have it stripped.

It is a beautiful watch, but Rolex is pure arrogance. To each their own. Rant over.

[Trident]

http://www.luxist.co...roject-x-desig/


Project X Designs, a new London-based Rolex customizer, has already won some high-profile fans including James Bond himself - Daniel Craig. Project X, which also produces its own Limited Edition Rolex designs in small runs, began with a custom Submariner and Daytona a few months ago which have nearly all sold out. Two new Daytona models have just been released. Founder Daniel Bourn, 37, also launched the London Watch Company in 2003 which specializes in building collections of vintage "investment grade" Rolexes for private clients. Bourn is actually a former investment banker who developed an "obsessive compulsion" for collecting rare, modern and vintage luxury watches and decided to change careers.

Bourn launched Project X Designs (PXD), which has offices in Hanover Square, London W1, out of a desire to "provide a service to clients who appreciate the history and allure of original manufacturers' brand name – guaranteeing maximum performance with minimal maintenance – but who seek the individuality that contemporary high volume production does not offer." It's an aesthetic that appeals to celebs like Kanye West - The Classicist reported on his blacked-out Rolex earlier this year - and Craig, a diehard Rolex enthusiast as we noted last year, who owns PXD's custom Submariner.

PXD offers two distinct services via its website: the first, a bespoke service which, like a bespoke suit, tailors a new luxury wristwatch with unique features to the clients' own personal specification. For example, a leading Formula One Racing Team have commissioned a special Daytona - carrying the company logo on the reverse together with the details of the race victory - for each of its Grand Prix winning drivers. Ex Bond actor Roger Moore also has a bespoke watch in development from PXD. The second element of PXD is the introduction of collectible limited edition (runs of 24) customized Rolex watches inspired by the retro styling of the classic Rolex models from the past.

Thanks for a most informative article there, danslittlefinger!

I have to confess here my utter and absolute ignorance of the very existence of watch customizers, let alone Rolex customizers. Frankly, I should have thought they already did next to every desecration to their products themselves, if you just were prepared to face their extra charge. Wouldn't have thought there's much you couldn't get from Rolex off-the-customers-peg.

[Professor Dent]

Looks like a style a Michael Westen (Burn Notice) or Jack Bauer (24) character would wear.

[DAN LIGHTER]

Looks like a swatch watch to me

[Aris007]

Bingo! If I ever buy a Rolex, I know which one not to pick!

[Trident]

Obviously there is a market for these..., customisations?

Can't blame anybody for satisfying such needs, although they really are beyond me.

[Binyamin]

Looks like a style a Michael Westen (Burn Notice) or Jack Bauer (24) character would wear.

The problem with $3,000+ watches is that they're just not practical, and completely unbelievable for operator characters.

Bauer wears an MTM Special Operations watch, $600.

Westen has a Chase-Durer, $700.

In real life, the large majority of special operations personnel wear $200 G-Shocks or Suuntos.

Anything more expensive than this would only make them stand out like a Ferrari in Alabama. In all cases, the watches are Quartz, not mechanical. This means they're more durable and more accurate.

Blast, I'm off on a tangent again, but the point is a multi-thousand dollar watch is out of place, whether it's worn by Bauer OR Bond.

[Trident]

Blast, I'm off on a tangent again, but the point is a multi-thousand dollar watch is out of place, whether it's worn by Bauer OR Bond.

Absolutely. Only, with Bond 'reality' is a variable that can assume any given degree, so it would be quite 'flexible'. And, more often than not, the Bond-reality differs drastically from ours, particularly where clothes, food, travel, transport and accomodation are concerned. Common lore has it that it's exactly this divergence that makes up much of Bond's appeal to us.

[Binyamin]

Common lore has it that it's exactly this divergence that makes up much of Bond's appeal to us.

Point taken.

Of course, it's also common lore than pulling that divergence back toward reality, even by a few notches, made the last two films the most successful in the series.

[Trident]

Common lore has it that it's exactly this divergence that makes up much of Bond's appeal to us.

Point taken.

Of course, it's also common lore than pulling that divergence back toward reality, even by a few notches, made the last two films the most successful in the series.

Up to a point, certainly. But one could also argue a case that the greater degree of 'reality' in CR & QOS is for the most part imagined more in our perception than actually grounded in reality.

The luxury goods, the stunts, the plot holes, they all are still there, all still lending The Bond Touch ™. The one thing I think makes us feel closer to Bond in both films is actual emotion and character development. This is the part where we (well, I at least) feel reality is sneaking into the plot. Such as after the stairwell fight, the unsteady hands, the wincing while covering the bruises, the big gulp of spirit and the appal in the look at the face in the mirror, almost a corpse's face, ', that was close' I can almost hear him thinking.

If we look at it this way, it's really not very much that was added, yet it has had tremendous impact on our (well, my at least) perception of Craig's Bond. But the labels, the brands, all that ludicrous designer output (might easily find another term less flattering, four to five letters should suffice ) still pay for a considerable part of the production. And will likely continue to do so in the foreseeable future. On the one hand it's undermining the 'grounded' aspiration. On the other it paints the entire enterprise alluringly tinsel.


Seems a typical case of eating the cake and yet still have it.

[Binyamin]

You make strong points.

I would like to note, however, that a Rolex in 1960 was the toughest and most accurate timepiece available. This is no longer the case.

I wonder if Fleming today would give Bond the same piece, or choose a more rugged, modern watch instead.

[Trident]

You make strong points.

I would like to note, however, that a Rolex in 1960 was the toughest and most accurate timepiece available. This is no longer the case.

I wonder if Fleming today would give Bond the same piece, or choose a more rugged, modern watch instead.

Actually, this could be the case with a lot of things beyond his watch. Take Bond's regular attire, the dark blue tropical worsted suit. Sufficiently inconspicious in the 50's/60's. Today? Even in top class hotels, clubs and restaurants around the world you find wearing a suit is by far no longer the standard. As business attire, yes. But away from the office, away from the City a man in suit and tie quickly stands out like a sore thumb today. I daresay Fleming would have Bond much more often sport casual wear today.

In public perception Bond is of course always the well-dressed, immaculate gentleman. But is he really? Fleming dressed Bond in the same manner he himself used to: dark blue suits mostly, sports shirts with short sleeves (as both hated stained cuffs, arguably), no brand names, generally old yet once expensive cloths.

Much of this would have been due to Fleming's own preferences. He was described as a peculiar dresser, the odd aversion against cuffs making him seem a bit quirky, the worn out suits giving away a mean attitude towards buying new attire. So were the short sleeves maybe just due to avoid frayed cuffs? Perhaps. At any rate looking at Fleming's originals one surely doesn't get the feeling Bond was a dandy in any way. Quality clothes, yes. Fashionable dernier cri, no. Bond in Fleming's time was just dressing comfortable, yet classless and inconspicious. Today he might go an entirely different route than his suits.

[Binyamin]

Precisely.

That ties into my earlier post, suggesting that part of Casino and Quantum's success is due to "dressing right." In both movies, Bond was well dressed, but not outrageously so. Small changes like this make the films more approachable to audiences, even if they cannot immediately identify why.

Does it make any sense for Bond to trounce around in Bolivia with a $4,000 Planet Ocean on his wrist, with no backlight, no alarms, no timers? It does not.

If tomorrow I became the producer of Bond 23, he would carry the new Walther PPS pistol with a Chase Durer Special Forces UDT on his wrist.

He can spend the $3,400 in savings on short-sleeved shirts.

Edited by Binyamin, 26 October 2009 - 08:26 PM.

[Aris007]

You are both absolutely right on what you say! I agree in everything!

And yes Bond in Fleming's eyes was a well-dressed man like Fleming was! Not an expensively-dressed man! This makes huge difference! If it wasn't for spnsors, Bond films would be so different! We wouldn't have the Rolex's nor the Omega's nor the Brioni's and the Tom Ford's! I'm sorry to say this but it's all about money! Bond doesn't ahve THAT money to spend in suits and watches. He's a government's agent. Not a bussinessman or a banker!

[Trident]

Precisely.

That ties into my earlier post, suggesting that part of Casino and Quantum's success is due to "dressing right." In both movies, Bond was well dressed, but not outrageously so. Small changes like this make the films more approachable to audiences, even if they cannot immediately identify why.

Does it make any sense for Bond to trounce around in Bolivia with a $4,000 Planet Ocean on his wrist, with no backlight, no alarms, no timers? It does not.

If tomorrow I became the producer of Bond 23, he would carry the new Walther PPS pistol with a Chase Durer Special Forces UDT on his wrist.

He can spend the $3,400 in savings on short-sleeved shirts.

Interesting choice and good call on the Durer. But, big but, that's maybe arriving at the same point from the opposite direction. Just a few thoughts:

The Durer, especially the 'Special Forces' model, is for one thing quite distinctive (the yellow/red small second hand at six is a particularly nasty marking element, something even casual observers will easily remember). And it conveys also a very clear message. The wearer does either mean tactical business or wants to come across as doing so. Both impressions would have to be avoided at all costs and I can see no undercover operative wanting to be caught dead with one of these if he/she wants to stay below the radar.

If one really expected trouble without a means to equip oneself properly beforehands I think a G-Shock would still be a better choice. A bit sporty looking, but actually so bloody common today that you don't even notice it on a girl's wrist. A zillion times sold every day all over the globe you can get one even in Kabul, should you need a replacement. If it's broke or you don't need it any more you just dump it. No problem at a price of roughly a tenth to half that of the Chase Durer.

However, if one should find oneself in a spot where observant eyes judge ones appearence (as Bond regularly does), even such a common model as the Casio may be a trigger for an alert observer; once more something to be avoided. Under such circumstances the best option would be to wear no watch at all. This has various advantages. No watch means also no watch that clashes with your cover. Think Rolex in a run-down slum and Swatch in the lobby of the Jumeirah Beach Hotel in Dubai. Both options can mark you out and during a mission you may end up in either place or perhaps even both. Wearing no watch rids you of the problem to blend in there with an object that potentially raises suspicions about your status.

Another advantage: no watch minimises the risk of getting unwelcome attention from bandids or a mobsman. Unfortunately, a big part of the world isn't in the same civilised state most of us enjoy currently. Meaning in effect there are places where you can get robbed just for wearing shoes. Wearing a watch, particularly an expensive one, isn't exactly the recommended tactics to avoid such interference by third parties. No watch, no advertisement shouting 'Here is a dumb waiting to get his skull battered to pay for next week's H/crack/strawberry lemonade!' (Oh, btw, wearing a 6000,- $ bespoke suit or designer clothes of roughly the same price tag also isn't particularly good cover in such surroundings. )

But what if an operative just has to go into tactical mode? Well, no problem. If you happen to need a battle dress, a big assault rifle and combat boots, then is the time to strap on your trusted tactical timepiece to thwart terrible terrorist threats. Underwater advance to the target area? Put on your divers watch with the aqualung and dive computer. Parachute infiltration? You don't wear the parachute the whole time under your suit either. Or do you?!?

The point is, as tactical gear the watch could really be carried with the rest of the tactical equipment. For covered work either no watch (mobiles today have most features of a watch and internet access in the bargain!) or a reasonably low profile everyday standard piece that you can also use to smash an enemy's face with it, would do the trick. Somewhere on the net there is an article making the case (supported by Fleming's own letters) that this was apparently what Fleming had in mind for Bond pre OHMSS, a cheap wristwatch that could double as knuckleduster.


So the way to go for the producers would be perhaps to go this route and instead of Bond wearing his Omega 90 plus minutes only show it in close-up during preparation for the climactic battle. Unlikely, most unlikely. But doublessly also a notch closer to reality.

[Dell Deaton]

A few thoughts on this Thread.

First off, in relating the Project X Designs effort to James Bond horology, one of the customizations they do is to remove the crown guards from the current Rolex Submariner Date (reference 14060M). This is to give it more of an at-a-glance look of what Sean Connery wore, circa Goldfinger. One argument in favor of this is that it's surely less expensive than acquiring a vintage piece from that period; not sure how I feel about that.

The other is that it is clearly more practical as an everyday-wear wristwatch. Personally, I own both a vintage Rolex Explorer virtually identical to the Ian Fleming / literary James Bond watch, and a more current (2008) model; the former simply isn't something anyone with any sort of active life would wear without concern - although folks like Watchmakers International could bring such a piece up to early 1960 technology and performance standards.

That, and the fact that the Radium 226 in both the Goldfinger-Sub and the Fleming-Explorer has a half-life of 1600 years. That's certainly enough to cause an issue if you wear your watch 24/7, having it near your eyes (or your spouse's) when you sleep, or resting near your family jewels (for whatever reason).

re Rolex Service, I have heard from a number of sources that they will not work on a modified watch without first returning it to its original state. So, for example, even if you changed out the bezel on your Submariner with a genuine Rolex one, but in a different color, they'd insist it be back to whatever corresponded to how your watch originally left the factory.

But I've never heard of them doing this without asking permission. In fact, they are known for providing no-surprise work-orders up-front. What if you say no? They send you back your watch, without working on it.

As to the "what would Ian Fleming have done?" question, those discussions have a way of defying resolution.

The letter referenced above is from June 5, 1958, written by Ian Fleming to B.W. Goodden, who'd written to him to complain about the James Bond watch stopping after a swamp fight, as described in the novel, Doctor No. That's where Mr. Fleming said Bond's "practice" was to use "fairly cheap, expendable wrist-watches...." I'm confident I've excerpted that at greater length here on CBn; it's also cited in my "Discovered: James Bond's Rolex" article in the February 2009 issue of WatchTime. I've had access to that letter and the original B.W. Goodden letter, but only the former is included in Henry Chancellor's James Bond: The Man and His World. (Caution: The accompanying image of a Rolex he uses there is a generic, as are many of his visuals for the book.)

Personal tastes and what would Ian Fleming have done today? There's strong evidence to believe via You Only Live Twice that he remained of the "cheap watch" mindset. Recall that this is how Bond's watch (admittedly, given to him) is described in that book. In any case, as I wrote in my follow-up article for the NAWCC Bulletin this past June, there's no way Mr. Fleming would have been in favor of a diver's watch along the lines of what we've seen throughout the films. Heavy, bulky, and pieces with complications (including rotating bezels and date windows) were a no-no for him.

That said, times and technologies change; he surely embraced that. So (controversy alert), I think we can look to what he's said about watches in general, and couple that with how he used them as a plot device in building tension for his thrillers, for clues to a preference from among EON Productions film watches. In this case, I think Mr. Broccoli got it right and best with the SEIKO case number M354-5019, model SFX003, worn by Roger Moore as James Bond in Moonraker (the "Corinne Dufour SEIKO"). The "Château de Chantilly SEIKO" from A View to a Kill would in my mind be a contender as well - although not a good fit in my mind vis-à-vis the "cheap" label.

[Binyamin]

Dell and Trident -

You both have interesting points. It seems that if Fleming were here today, Bond would have a simple digital watch.

I was very close to suggesting that he wear a G-Shock, as Ethan Hunt did in the Mission Impossible films. The problem is, of course, that the rugged G-Shock stands out in a suit. Then again, President Clinton wore a cheap Timex as leader of the free world.

Perhaps the Chase-Durer is still a bit flashy, as you say Trident. Maybe the man would wear something more like this:

Casio Illuminator, retail price $40.

[Trident]

Thanks for a most informative article there, Dell! I knew you'd turn up with valuable information on the matter.

One thing marginally concerning the matter I ask myself for some time now. What did Bond with Donovan Grant's Girard Perregaux after FRWL? We learn it's a nifty timepiece 'for people who like gadgets' and Bond takes it from Grant's corpse after the fight. But we never again hear of it. Fleming was obviously deeply impressed by the Perregaux but apparently didn't feel it fitting for Bond.

Dell and Trident -

You both have interesting points. It seems that if Fleming were here today, Bond would have a simple digital watch.

I was very close to suggesting that he wear a G-Shock, as Ethan Hunt did in the Mission Impossible films. The problem is, of course, that the rugged G-Shock stands out in a suit. Then again, President Clinton wore a cheap Timex as leader of the free world.

Perhaps the Chase-Durer is still a bit flashy, as you say Trident. Maybe the man would wear something more like this:

Casio Illuminator, retail price $40.

Problem is, watches have become very much an issue of itself over the decades. In the 50's/60's a watch was just that, a watch. There were luxury ones and cheaper ones, but most people didn't pay them terribly much attention. Today, with collectors magazines selling at every newsagent and supermarket, there is a high chance you run into somebody who notices what kind of watch you wear, even if it's 'merely' a Swatch, a Casio or Seiko. Hell, even if you bought a fake Droolex from some chap at the beach you can easily sit in the plane next to somebody who made the same deal and notices you just for that reason.

These things today can tell a story, regardless what you choose. A sports watch looking shiny and brand new? Take a look at the chap. If he's overweight, pale and short-winded, chances are he's a would-be athlete. To tell the truth, most guys wearing the popular divers watches are prone to getting into trouble in their shower stalls, let alone 200 ft. below the surface. A TAG Heuer Monaco/Rolex Daytona/Omega Planet Ocean? If his shoes are worn out and beaten, his clothes tattered and frayed supermarket couture and the whole person generally an unkempt appearence, chances are you are not looking at a super ritch dotcom entrepreneur but at a pathetic imposter and boast swagger who bought it on his last trip to Thailand. A black tactical watch with numerous different complicated dials, all of them glowing even in bright daylight so you can read the time from across the street? If it goes with a potbelly, chances are it's a fantasy soldier-of-fortune. If it goes with a defined and trained physique, an upright bearing and a military air, chances are it's a real mercenary and you better keep a wary eye on the bearer. If it goes with no destinctive marks whatsoever, chances are trouble is already happening.

You see, someone on guard is likely to learn a great deal about a person from such an item as a watch, even if it's inconspicious. Taking into account the entire person reveals minor gaps in ones cover and an operator or agent would have to close these and keep possible discrepancies to a minimum. All of this is of course quite theoretically, but a real agent would have to consider such questions and choose his equipment, cloths and accessories accordingly. The ideal items would be the ones that either don't get noticed at all or immediately forgotten afterwards.

[Binyamin]

If that's the case, what would your choice be, Trident?

You could, as you suggested, eliminate the watch, but there are countless instances when having the time on your wrist is valuable.

[Trident]

My choice? Depends on the surroundings, as do the clothes. In one of the first class establishments I would probably not wear a watch at all. You don't get noticed for not wearing a watch, but you might get noticed for wearing the wrong kind of.

For 'tactical' activity I'd probably use a Nike Triax model. Various differnt kinds to be had, most all of them lacking the 'special forces' tang. Together with the right kind of clothes that comes across as a middle aged amateur athlete reasonably well trained, bravely fighting against the inevitable results of age. Nothing threatening or 'tactical' at all. Main advantage: models available with push-button lightning. A bit inconvenient, but in my view a definite plus. Large luminous hands and indexes may easily give away your position in a difficult situation. I heard of the solution to tape the face of the watch, but this is a bit Monty Python-ish, isn't it? First buying ungainly big rugged models with a luminous dial rivaling Big Ben and then plastering the face with duct tape so the dial doesn't get you into trouble.

For most other uses not connected to 'commando' stuff: anything quartz available at a supermarket and not too stylish will do the trick. Casio, Seiko, countless no-name brands, they all are quite sufficient for most conceivable uses. Stick to the special bargain offers left over from last season, generally the most forgettable and inconspicious ones. Some places you can even get a watch from an automat.

Still, in some surroundings it's more familiar to see people constantly toying with their mobiles (Italy comes to mind). That's also a good cover for surveillance tasks, being preoccupied with text messages or a mobile game. A wristwatch is not half as good a detraction to suspicions.

I think for the most part I would forego wearing a watch. You can blend into any kind of surrounding, ritch or poor, without one. If the time comes when I feel there will be a need for the time on my wrist, then I'd strap one on.

[Dell Deaton]

A lot of folks (and I'm talking beyond this Thread and even CBn now) inquire after the notion that James Bond wore a Girard-Perregaux because of references to Grant's watch in From Russia with Love.

My belief that it was not is based on a few things. In Chapter 2, Mr. Fleming wrote, "Grant hastily dressed in clothes as drab and nondescript as those he had packed, put on his wristwatch, pocketed his other belongings and picked up his suitcase and went down the stairs."

The G-P would have been inconsistent with the context of the sentence in which the watch was referenced. Then if we hook into "his other belongings" as proof this meant the watch with which the book is introduced, we have to ask why not every other gold trapping as well?

In Chapter 25, we have this of Grant's watch. "On his left wrist there was a battered silver wrist-watch with an old leather strap." That is what 007 put on to replace his own which was shot up, after killing Grant.

Page 107 of the Chancellor book indicates that it wasn't so much Ian Fleming, but, rather, his editor, William Plomer, who fancied the Girard-Perregaux brand. On a page of notes titled, "From William, With Queries," he wrote: "p. 2., l. 3 Suggest 'one of those.' Why not Girard-Perregaud {sic} for the watchmakers? It's such a nice name & they're good watchmakers. [Spelling to be confirmed - perhaps it's Girard-Perregaux]."

This is all further consistent with Mr. Fleming's view of field agents wearing cheap, expendable watches. Donovan "Red" Grant was, I believe, a form of James Bond via another, um, career path.

To the "watch or no watch?" question here, Ian Fleming wrote the following (also on June 5, 1958). "In passing on his comments to you, I would add that James Bond has trained himself to tell the time by the sun in either hemisphere within a few minutes."

How 'bout that?

Edited by Dell Deaton, 28 October 2009 - 11:17 AM.

[Sark2.0]

Given what Binyamin has said, would I be wrong to believe that Rolex's are little more than shallow status symbols? Personally I can't imagine spending thousands (no matter my income) on a watch that doesn't work any better (or look that much better)than one that costs a few hundred. But then, I can't imagine paying the prices that Brioni charges, when I can get a bespoke suit from a local tailor for less than a grand.

Edited by Sark2.0, 28 October 2009 - 12:08 AM.

[Binyamin]

Sark -

That's my opinion. Your mileage may vary.

As an example, this is my everyday watch:



Swiss automatic movement, sapphire crystal, looks gorgeous in every setting -- and I actually scuba dive with it. Cost: $300.

Compare that to this:


Swiss automatic movement, sapphire crystal, looks gorgeous in every setting -- sound familiar? Cost: $4,000 MINIMUM.

What is the difference? One says Invicta, the other says Rolex. I defy anybody to show me a difference in performance. Automatic watches aren't very accurate to begin with.

And -- AND - I've never met anybody who actually uses their Rolex diving. Why would you, if one dropped scuba tank destroys three grand by mistake?

One person I met wore a $4,000 Omega Seamaster, looked at my wrist, and thought it was a Rolex. I had the last laugh.

Now, some people will say "it's an investment." The problem is, investments belong in a bank or in a safe, not around your wrist.

Can some people genuinely enjoy owning a Rolex? Sure. But my guess is that 99% buy them for the wrong reasons.

Edited by Binyamin, 28 October 2009 - 05:31 AM.

[Trident]

Rolex has come a long way from the days of Fleming. And not all of this way has done the brand much good. From the classic brand of tool watches the portfolio has evolved to the icon of the luxury market, not always with a sure sense for taste. This has had not a particularly flattering effect but apparently doesn't worry the brand's management (as long as the sales figures keep above a certain level, as they do).

On the Continent a man wearing a Rolex today is usually regarded as a pimp (depending on if the watch is considered genuine and what amount of obscenely displayed vulgar garishness it sports) or a dork with a phony article, especially divers and sailing models worn by people pursuing both activities at the maximum in their bathtubs. Either way, not exactly the impression one wants to give to others, isn't it?

Of course there are a number of owners who genuinely admire craftsmanship, the style and art of making highly complicated timepieces in a league of its own. You may make up your own mind what kind of customer is in the majority in the not-quite-so-exclusive-any-more club of Rolex owners.

The original reason for using the brand, the outstanding performance as a rugged (divers) tool, has become mostly obsolete over the decades. Cheaper and less conspicious watches have conquered most of this market. Consequently, Rolex has pulled most of it's sports sponsorship and remains only with Golf, Polo and Sailing in a prominent role aimed at the top segment of this market.

One other argument for the Rolex also has lost most of it's relvance today. The watch was considered a kind of last resort nest egg on your wrist, an item you could arguably turn into cash in every place within a matter of hours. Unfortunately, if you really get into a tight spot, chances are the watch gets either taken from you by force or nobody is willing to give you more than a few quid, as most people aren't able to tell if it's a genuine piece. Apart from that, it's debatable if it's really a good idea to equip some agent with a device that might get him a knife in the back sooner than his original assignment.

[danslittlefinger]

http://blog.jameslis...from-an-expert/

JamesList Exclusive: Setting the record straight with help from an expert
Sunday, November 1, 2009


In some for matters in life, it’s always best to bring in an outside expert. Like those old 1990s court dramas, where the entire outcome of the case would depend on a psychiatrist who may or may not have slept with the defendant’s counsel in a leg-crossing twist of events! Such levels of intrigue are rare here at JamesList, and we are probably better off without it. However, a week or so ago, quite a bit of controversy was stirred as a result of an article we published on the personal watch-related choices of the current James Bond, Daniel Craig.

That controversy concerned the Rolex worn by Mr. Craig, followed by some pretty harsh-sounding statements about both the watch and its maker in the comments section. What Daniel Craig is wearing in the photo we’ll let the readers decide and instead turn to an enlightening contribution sent to us by Mr. Dell Deaton.
(the same one that's on here I presume )



Dell is the go-to guy for anything and everything related to the watches of James Bond and 007-creator Ian Fleming, running his own jamesbondwatches.com website and blog, as well as currently serving as Guest Curator for the upcoming National Watch & Clock Museum exhibit titled, Bond Watches, James Bond Watches, running June 2010 through May 2011.

Dell was kind enough to pick us up on a few points we’d made in the article. For anyone who isn’t a complete nerd like I am, this might constitute nitpicking to you, and if I was anything approaching normal I would agree. But alas… Excerpted text from the original article appears in marks below, with Dell’s comments following.

In the article, we claimed that:

JS article: “For watch nerds (especially if you’re also a movie buff like me), the collaboration is not as exciting. Not because there’s something inherently wrong with Omega (I love Omega), but because anyone with the slightest interest in the Bond series will know that there’s only one true Bond watch, and that’s a Rolex (let’s not bring Seiko into this, shall we?). Even in the very first Bond book in 1953, Ian Fleming specifically mentioned that Bond wore a Rolex.”

Dell: Actually, Ian Fleming did not mention Rolex at all, let alone as a Bond watch, in “Casino Royale.” He did, however, have Q-Branch issue 007 a Rolex for specialized use on a dive mission in his second novel, “Live and Let Die” (1954). But no actual, physical watch ties to this brand reference. Evidence suggests that he simply needed to differentiate what Bond wore personally. My current research is leading me to believe he’d asked his new friend Jacques Cousteau for a name, and Commander Cousteau referenced “Rolex” as the timekeeper for this job.

This is further substantiated by correspondence from Mr. Fleming dating to 1958. That’s when he wrote a letter in response to a fan who’d read the then-just-published “Doctor No” and complained about the unidentified Bond watch performance in that book. Rolex was mentioned, and Ian Fleming specifically rejected it by name as a candidate for James Bond’s personal choice. In fact, he thought that “cheap” and “expendable” was the way for this MI6 agent to go. If you look at period advertising, it’s clear that Rolex was every bit as much the prestige brand in those days as it is now: It was and is a high-class watch.

James notes: So much for Rolex’s inherent tool-watch status. G-shocks, anyone?


JS article: “As most of you already know, Omega has been a heavy sponsor of the Bond film franchise, beginning with GoldenEye in 1995. [...] The fantastic Mr. Ehrlich over at Jake’s Rolex blog (a must for any Rolex nutter) recently unveiled the next step in Daniel Craig’s masterplan to annoy the hell out of Omega. Treachery is a bit too harsh of a term, but the alliteration appealed to me.”

Dell: Omega has in fact been the official watch supplier to the James Bond films since “GoldenEye.” They list “James Bond” among their Ambassadors, and their official relationship with Eon Productions gives them rights to use the image of the character in connection with film-worn and certain licensed models (eg, Daniel Craig “as Bond”).

When Pierce Brosnan “was Bond,” they additionally and separately hired him to be an Ambassador for Omega. So there were at that time “James Bond’s Choice” and “Pierce Brosnan’s Choice” Omega models. Mr. Brosnan made separate appearances for Omega, was photographed for independent advertising images, and was compensated additionally for the latter. These were two different initiatives (although not as clearly different as some might have liked).

Not so with Daniel Craig. He is not personally an Omega Ambassador; he has no agreement with Omega other than via his agreement to play James Bond on screen, and whatever associates with that.

James notes: A great and important distinction. It reminds me of a story I heard a while back that Brosnan was not allowed to appear in tuxedos in any other movie while he still was Bond, but don’t quote me on that. I know I’ll probably just wake up to a long e-mail from Dell anyway.

Dell: Who, me? Long e-mail?



Regarding Omega’s theoretical annoyance with Mr. Craig, Dell notes that: There are some who believe that his wearing of Rolex models on his personal time is actually a benefit to Omega. It associates the two as on the same level. This has been a stated strategy of Omega. And, of course, the “Casino Royale” reference would tend to be consistent with that.

As far as any independent modification of Rolex models is concerned, many Rolex aficionados (let alone purists) might consider that a “Franken” effort that brings this brand down a notch. So that would hardly hurt Omega if viewed from that angle.

James notes: It’s certainly an interesting viewpoint. Omega has definitely been climbing the ranks in the Swatch group as of late, with Longines taking their place in the value-for-money market segment. I don’t see them competing with Rolex quite just yet, thought. Regarding the customization of Rolexes, it’s most certainly an area which is deemed controversial by the watch community - just take the Pro-Hunter Milgauss for example. I don’t have much of an opinion on these matters, but I definitely think it’s interesting to note Rolex’s status as a brand if their customers use words such as “heretical” to describe the process of modifying their favorite watches.

See www.jamesbondwatches.com for more information on James Bond Watches and the upcoming Bond Watches, James Bond Watches exhibit at the National Watch & Clock Museum - where the original James Bond watch and the only Rolex Ian Fleming is known to have worn, will be on display- June 2010 through May 2011, in Columbia, Pennsylvania.

Thank you Dell for your contribution!

[Trident]

Thanks for sharing. Once more very interesting.

JS article: “For watch nerds (especially if you’re also a movie buff like me), the collaboration is not as exciting. Not because there’s something inherently wrong with Omega (I love Omega), but because anyone with the slightest interest in the Bond series will know that there’s only one true Bond watch, and that’s a Rolex (let’s not bring Seiko into this, shall we?). Even in the very first Bond book in 1953, Ian Fleming specifically mentioned that Bond wore a Rolex.”

Dell: Actually, Ian Fleming did not mention Rolex at all, let alone as a Bond watch, in “Casino Royale.” He did, however, have Q-Branch issue 007 a Rolex for specialized use on a dive mission in his second novel, “Live and Let Die” (1954). But no actual, physical watch ties to this brand reference. Evidence suggests that he simply needed to differentiate what Bond wore personally. My current research is leading me to believe he’d asked his new friend Jacques Cousteau for a name, and Commander Cousteau referenced “Rolex” as the timekeeper for this job.

This is further substantiated by correspondence from Mr. Fleming dating to 1958. That’s when he wrote a letter in response to a fan who’d read the then-just-published “Doctor No” and complained about the unidentified Bond watch performance in that book. Rolex was mentioned, and Ian Fleming specifically rejected it by name as a candidate for James Bond’s personal choice. In fact, he thought that “cheap” and “expendable” was the way for this MI6 agent to go.

There's one minor thing that to me would indicate the correspondence in question may have started a process in Fleming's mind that made him reconsider his original view as early as 'Goldfinger' (which he would have worked at during the exchange?). Bond is taken prisoner by Gooldfinger's men, questioned and then loses consciousness. He wakes again in a small grey room, together will all his belongings, clothes, shoes, suitcase but minus his gun and his watch. When Oddjob appears Bond is quickly giving a show of confidence:

'Oddjob, I want a lot of food, quickly. And a bottle of bourbon, soda and ice. Also a carton of Chesterfields, king-size, and either my own watch or another one as good as mine...

The term 'as good as mine' would here indicate a certain standard of quality. To me this suggests Fleming had already considered to upgrade Bond's tastes in wristwatches, although not to the stage where he needed to brand the item.

Conseqently, when Bond is given back his own watch it had stopped and nobody cared enought to tell him the time. With a Rolex model Bond would have been able to tell at least the minimum time elapsed since taken prisoner, perhaps even the day. Nothing in that direction is indicated.

If you look at period advertising, it’s clear that Rolex was every bit as much the prestige brand in those days as it is now: It was and is a high-class watch.

James notes: So much for Rolex’s inherent tool-watch status. G-shocks, anyone?

This misses the point somewhat. A tool watch in those days would have to be a prestigious brand. It didn't make sense to go to all the effort of development and design if you couldn't ask the price for it. It was quite the other way around: prestigious brands didn't necessarily have to invest in these sidelines and many didn't do it until the market for these watches opened up. For Rolex to go this way was a risky decision that only in hindsight broadened their customer base.

[Dell Deaton]

Thanks for sharing. Once more very interesting.

... Dell: ... correspondence from Mr. Fleming dating to 1958. That’s when he wrote a letter in response to a fan who’d read the then-just-published “Doctor No” and complained about the unidentified Bond watch performance in that book. Rolex was mentioned, and Ian Fleming specifically rejected it by name as a candidate for James Bond’s personal choice. In fact, he thought that “cheap” and “expendable” was the way for this MI6 agent to go.

There's one minor thing that to me would indicate the correspondence in question may have started a process in Fleming's mind that made him reconsider his original view as early as 'Goldfinger' (which he would have worked at during the exchange?). Bond is taken prisoner by Gooldfinger's men, questioned and then loses consciousness. He wakes again in a small grey room, together will all his belongings, clothes, shoes, suitcase but minus his gun and his watch. When Oddjob appears Bond is quickly giving a show of confidence:

'Oddjob, I want a lot of food, quickly. And a bottle of bourbon, soda and ice. Also a carton of Chesterfields, king-size, and either my own watch or another one as good as mine...

The term 'as good as mine' would here indicate a certain standard of quality. To me this suggests Fleming had already considered to upgrade Bond's tastes in wristwatches, although not to the stage where he needed to brand the item.

Conseqently, when Bond is given back his own watch it had stopped and nobody cared enought to tell him the time. With a Rolex model Bond would have been able to tell at least the minimum time elapsed since taken prisoner, perhaps even the day. Nothing in that direction is indicated.

If you look at period advertising, it’s clear that Rolex was every bit as much the prestige brand in those days as it is now: It was and is a high-class watch.

James notes: So much for Rolex’s inherent tool-watch status. G-shocks, anyone?

This misses the point somewhat. A tool watch in those days would have to be a prestigious brand. It didn't make sense to go to all the effort of development and design if you couldn't ask the price for it. It was quite the other way around: prestigious brands didn't necessarily have to invest in these sidelines and many didn't do it until the market for these watches opened up. For Rolex to go this way was a risky decision that only in hindsight broadened their customer base.

Well-- no surprise to me that the eagle eyes on CBn picked up on this and are adding even further value to the discussion. Kudos.

re The James Bond watch reference you've quoted from Goldfinger, this is a very good catch, in my opinion. The B.W. Goodden letter was written by Ian Fleming on June 5, 1958. The first draft of Goldfinger, which he'd written at Goldeneye, would have been completed well-before then: During the first quarter of that year, while in Jamaica. Then, of course, the text was revised and published in 1959. Does this spell at least an inconsistency?

Taken in the context of the whole Goldfinger story, I don't think so. Remember: Bond has taken on the cover of someone who Goldfinger can rightly consider motivated to work for him out of greed, out for the money. This is also the story in which 007 is issued the Aston Martin DB III to add further credibility to his higher-class image. So the watch may have been issued to him as part of that. It's also possible that it's simply something Bond said, to enhance his bravado. Would Oddjob, as Mr. Fleming wrote him, have known the wiser?

If this is a matter of interpretation, or reconsiling seemingly contradictory information, my basis for making the call was that Ian Fleming had throught about what he'd written in response to his reader and meant what he wrote.

re Your "misses the point somewhat" statement, I'm guessing you're referring to what James wrote.

The point that I was making in this answer had to do with a lot of the mis-information that some folks are pitching about Rolex somehow being so much a different brand image today than it was when Mr. Fleming wrote his Bond stories. (To be clear: This is not at all directed at what you've written here, Trident.) There's a lot of focus on the technical aspect of Rolex models from the 1950s, and fewer really good examinations of marketing (although there are some). When looked at as a whole, it's simply not credible to say that the James Bond of 2009 would never wear a Rolex because it doesn't have the same image as it had in 1963: That's just not supported by the facts, history, or materials so easily available for review.

Finally--

The initial reason the JamesList folks and came to be in dialogue was due to their having been caught up in one of those mud-slinging fests that a few bad apples seem bent on starting every time the topic of one person's preference versus another's come up related to James Bond watches. My position is clear: There are great Omega, SEIKO, and Rolex Bond watches, each with something to recommend it, and with great owners with stories to tell of them.

If Daniel Craig is a watch collector and enjoys his choices as much as some of us do, then I think that's something we have in common. That's where I'd like to see folks focus.

Thanks for letting me weigh-in a bit further regarding my JamesList interview. I also couldn't pass up the opportunity to have them promote the upcoming National Watch & Clock Museum "Bond Watches, James Bond Watches" exhibit!

Edited by Dell Deaton, 02 November 2009 - 03:04 PM.