What Would Be Considered Rolex's Golden Era?

[ref1655]

when discussing high-end manufactured goods, their 'golden era' often enters into the conversation. this can apply to just about anything considered vintage/collectible & with appreciating values (e.g. certain years/models of cars, guitars, cameras, watches, furniture et al).

in the case of Rolex...would the period between, the early 1960s to about the mid 1970s be considered its 'golden era' as certain 4-digit references (especially sport/tool models) with tritium hands/dials & acrylic crystals always seem to be appreciating & in the highest demand amongst collectors?

a typical criteria for a 'golden era' is that the item was manufactured at the highest level of quality/aesthetics/operation during the time of its creation & if properly maintained, continues to perform at an exemplary level today. limited availability + demand also enters into the picture.

while Rolex has continued to incorporate improvements over the years (i.e. sapphire crystals, solid-link bracelets, ceramics etc.), the more recent models have become less collectible...perhaps due to increased production numbers. since no 'golden era' lasts forever, has that concept (if applicable to Rolexes) now a thing of the past?

[joe100]

1980-1999

[Vincent65]

1960-1980

[MonBK]

x2 ^

[77T]

Rolex's achievements in the mid-20's to mid-50's define my idea of a golden era. The "Oyster/Self-winding" to the GMT phase. Many other innovations since then, but I believe that period defined the brand's aura.

[Old Expat Beast]

Originally Posted by 77T

Rolex's achievements in the mid-20's to mid-50's define my idea of a golden era. The "Oyster/Self-winding" to the GMT phase. Many other innovations since then, but I believe that period defined the brand's aura.

Agreed. The most inventive, innovative period from Oyster to Perpetual to Datejust and all the basic sports models.

[Qinhan]

Originally Posted by joe100

1980-1999

Any particular reason(s) you cite this period?

[watch-guy.com]

Yes we all know that 5512 is different to 5513 and totally different to the earlier 6200 and 6536/8 but I intrinsically they are all waterproof automatics

Then the daytonas are also all variations on a manual wind chrono

I think the golden period was the early bubble backs and the princes

But like all things it is just an opinion not fact

Julian

[joe100]

Originally Posted by Qinhan

Any particular reason(s) you cite this period?

The 5 digit references. The much loved 16610, 16710, 14270, etc. The last of the tool watches before rolex became jewelry, easily replaceable bezel inserts, bracelets which almost never failed and didn't require a diagram to explain, sapphire, fantastic movements, a no-nonsense machine. The advertising was good.

Are the watches better now? Of course. I own a 6 digit myself, but the magic isn't there. It's sorta like the BMW e39 5-Series. Arguably the best production car ever. You can argue about that a day but that car was recently in the news 10 years on. They are fondly remembered just like the 5-digits.

Are BMWs better today? Yes. Are Rolex products better today? Of course.

[Richard Carver]

1960 until quartz, the last years Rolex (or any mechanical watch) actually mattered. If your life depended on it you certainly considered Rolex even if you went with something else. Military, deep sea or aviation, when it 'had' to work most times Rolex was the answer but the real Rolex reputation was being built by the millions of Dates, DJs, OPs, 6917s that more ordinary people were buying and making lifetime companions. How many of us came to Rolex because of that old DJ dad wore for 30 years?

If you led an active life the average watch in those days would last 2 or 3 years. That was a way of life, break it. buy another one. Rolex broke that routine for millions of middle class people. Those were the years that Rolex became 'it' for most people in the world, nothing really compared.

Rolex lives today on the reputation those 200 dollar watches built. :)

1969 1600 Date Just About $195.00 new?

[Flywheel]

The brand's heratage was largely defined by its innovations in the 20s through the 50s, but I'd argue that it's ultimate maturity is happening right now, with the much improved six-digit models. Looking forward 30 years, placing personal nostalgia aside, I suspect this will be seen as the brand's golden age.

[THC]

Originally Posted by joe100

1980-1999

I would say this by a landslide.. I am of course going off USA only, not globally as I do not know.

[adam78]

I think that to say 1980-1999 is to misunderstand the deep history of the brand. I think that this period was the beginning of its decline, esp. aesthetically (but what do I know?)...

[JP Chestnut]

Originally Posted by Qinhan

Any particular reason(s) you cite this period?

Maybe trit changed over to SL around that time? Plenty of five digit refs went past 2000.

[CRM114]

Originally Posted by Richard Carver

1960 until quartz, the last years Rolex (or any mechanical watch) actually mattered. If your life depended on it you certainly considered Rolex even if you went with something else. Military, deep sea or aviation, when it 'had' to work most times Rolex was the answer but the real Rolex reputation was being built by the millions of Dates, DJs, OPs, 6917s that more ordinary people were buying and making lifetime companions. How many of us came to Rolex because of that old DJ dad wore for 30 years?

If you led an active life the average watch in those days would last 2 or 3 years. That was a way of life, break it. buy another one. Rolex broke that routine for millions of middle class people. Those were the years that Rolex became 'it' for most people in the world, nothing really compared.

Rolex lives today on the reputation those 200 dollar watches built. :)

1969 1600 Date Just About $195.00 new?

Agree with this. Those were (and still are) the vast sweet spot of design and sales that make Rolex what it is. They're still the bread and butter of the company. The Pro Series models had gone from innovative to solid designs but still niche watches in comparison. They still are in many respects, despite the bandwidth they get.

[joe100]

Originally Posted by adam78

I think that to say 1980-1999 is to misunderstand the deep history of the brand. I think that this period was the beginning of its decline, esp. aesthetically (but what do I know?)...

Yeah, I think 9 years and nearly 12,000 posts I know the history of the brand.

[Ghould]

I'd say it's still in its golden age (maybe starting to decline), given that everyone knows what a Rolex is today; eventually Rolex may not be so conspicuous of a brand, then we'll look back at the times and say "remember when everyone wanted a Rolex?"

[droptopman]

Hard to argue with the 20's-50's when Rolex was so innovative and the industry leader in advancements.

Personally, my favorite era is mid 50's through late 60's. Some great gilt sport watches during that time and the transition from gilt to matte. Most of my all time favorite models are from that era.

[jrs146]

Originally Posted by joe100

The 5 digit references. The much loved 16610, 16710, 14270, etc. The last of the tool watches before rolex became jewelry, easily replaceable bezel inserts, bracelets which almost never failed and didn't require a diagram to explain, sapphire, fantastic movements, a no-nonsense machine. The advertising was good.

Are the watches better now? Of course. I own a 6 digit myself, but the magic isn't there. It's sorta like the BMW e39 5-Series. Arguably the best production car ever. You can argue about that a day but that car was recently in the news 10 years on. They are fondly remembered just like the 5-digits.

Are BMWs better today? Yes. Are Rolex products better today? Of course.

I think this is a perfect analogy. Although you can't blame the brand for moving with technology with ceramic bezels, more advanced lume, better metal, etc. The 5-digit references during this time period really set the bar for the next generation of watches, and the watch industry as a whole one could argue.

[Flywheel]

Originally Posted by adam78

I think that to say 1980-1999 is to misunderstand the deep history of the brand. I think that this period was the beginning of its decline, esp. aesthetically (but what do I know?)...

Agreed, despite how many posts anyone has...

[speedolex]

I think the easy answer here is "the 1960's".

During that decade all of the new models developed during the expansion period of the 1950's were perfected and the Sport models settled in to the familiar form factors we still enjoy to this day.

Frank Sinatra's golden era wasn't at the beginning of his career or the end; rather it was the part towards the beginning when he first found his groove and settled in, the start of his run of classic recordings. For Rolex, that's the 1960's.

[ref1655]

Originally Posted by speedolex

I think the easy answer here is "the 1960's".
During that decade all of the new models developed during the expansion period of the 1950's were perfected and the Sport models settled in to the familiar form factors we still enjoy to this day.

have to agree...the mechanical/engineering aspects of the movements were perfected & firmly established along with the classic case designs.

for many, a favorite Rolex timeframe equates to their perception and/or definition of a Golden Era. I'm just as guilty...for me, the 6238/Pre-Daytona & 5512 Submariner timeframes up to the discontinuance of the original 1655 design is my 'golden era' for Rolexes.

as with many things...there's a (1) pioneering stage; (2) a perfection stage; & lastly (if commercially successful), (3) a mainstream 'take it to the bank' stage. Rolexes are probably at stage (3) now.

[Frogman4me]

1953-1975

[2JHead]

Originally Posted by joe100

The 5 digit references. The much loved 16610, 16710, 14270, etc. The last of the tool watches before rolex became jewelry, easily replaceable bezel inserts, bracelets which almost never failed and didn't require a diagram to explain, sapphire, fantastic movements, a no-nonsense machine. The advertising was good.

Are the watches better now? Of course. I own a 6 digit myself, but the magic isn't there. It's sorta like the BMW e39 5-Series. Arguably the best production car ever. You can argue about that a day but that car was recently in the news 10 years on. They are fondly remembered just like the 5-digits.

Are BMWs better today? Yes. Are Rolex products better today? Of course.

This. I agree on all counts.

[Fredrik]

Personally I would say that it ended when they started putting sapphire glass on the sport watches.

[MonBK]

Originally Posted by joe100

Yeah, I think 9 years and nearly 12,000 posts I know the history of the brand.

Imagine what I know.

[R.W.T.]

Well....it's gonna be tough...

I think sapphire went beyond the golden era...for sure.

Truly the 15xx series movements...even though not so handsome...and all the watches that they were installed in have to be considered to be A golden era if one was to try and find one. They made a bazillion of those watches and they are pretty darned accurate and extremely reliable. It was the last part of the old generation of watch building....the height of that ethic.

The 3035 and beyond...while I will say that it is a very very good movement...having just serviced one tonight and having done a 1570 last night...I really find the 3035 to be a pain in the ass...although it's not tough to do..it's just....lots of little bits of bs to complicate things...1570 is a dream.

I like plastic crystals...the sapphire is a pain to mount sometimes. It's not as friendly to work with imho.

I dunno....it's like to me...the sapphire watches were the beginning of the end. I have a few...I like 'em.

I have a 16710 that I built from the grave of being wet. All that jumping hour module and stuff it's such a pain to work on...they take a lot longer to do than an old school GMT.

But really the 1030...Rolex was REALLY hitting their stride with that movement...it was the first Rolex movement designed from the ground up with standardized interchangeable parts. You can take any 1030 bridge or wheel and put it on any 1030 and it will work...not so with previous watches.

[belligero]

Originally Posted by adam78

I think that to say 1980-1999 is to misunderstand the deep history of the brand. I think that this period was the beginning of its decline, esp. aesthetically (but what do I know?)...

I'd agree with that.

While the watches certainly continued to improve incrementally in quality to the present day, their purpose has undeniably changed for for most folks.

The period of transition from matte dials to WG-surround glossy ones coincided with a fundamental shift in why they were typically bought and how they were typically used; they soon became one of the defining yuppie status symbols of the '80s. (And it's ironic that so many people are now afraid to take a Rolex near water considering that the company's repuation was built on the Oyster case's excellent water resistance.)

This of course wasn't the watches' fault, as they were and still are capable of doing anything the older references could handle and more. Although the watches keep getting even better in terms of pure manufacturing refinement, I agree they started to lose some of their charm in the process of going from a practical necessity to a luxury.

Originally Posted by Richard Carver

1960 until quartz, the last years Rolex (or any mechanical watch) actually mattered. If your life depended on it you certainly considered Rolex even if you went with something else. Military, deep sea or aviation, when it 'had' to work most times Rolex was the answer but the real Rolex reputation was being built by the millions of Dates, DJs, OPs, 6917s that more ordinary people were buying and making lifetime companions. How many of us came to Rolex because of that old DJ dad wore for 30 years?

If you led an active life the average watch in those days would last 2 or 3 years. That was a way of life, break it. buy another one. Rolex broke that routine for millions of middle class people. Those were the years that Rolex became 'it' for most people in the world, nothing really compared.

Rolex lives today on the reputation those 200 dollar watches built. :)
[...]

Spot-on.

If you needed a wristwatch that you could depend on under any circumstances in the pre-quartz era, Rolex was undoubtedly the one to have.

So much of the emotional appeal of their classic plexi models comes from how there was no better alternative for tough, reliable and accurate timekeeping in their day. Before quartz, there was no inexpensive way to achieve these goals, and Rolex's high quality was directly related to this need for functionality.

As you said, less-adventurous folks also benefitted from these characteristics. Many of these pre-quartz-era watches are still around even after decades of non-babied use because of how well-built and well-sealed they are.

Their modern counterparts are still extremely good watches that are capable of enduring far more than their wearers can, even if they tend to get treated more gently these days. In fact, I'd say that Rolex's watches have never been better-made. Unlike the golden era of no-BS mechanical watches, though, the difference is that nobody legitimately needs them any more.


But despite its products having become luxury goods, Rolex still leads the industry in manufacturing integrity and is worthy of huge respect as a watchmaker. People still tend to appreciate nice things.

[harry in montreal]

I understand that the Golden age is a term that describes a peak period

I think the late 50s for rolex as they produced their sub, Gmt and explorer. After this time, I don't think they ever developed products this interesting. The 3 models I mentioned became classic designs copied by most manufacturers. These became industry standards

[belligero]

Originally Posted by harry in montreal

I understand that the Golden age is a term that describes a peak period

I think the late 50s for rolex as they produced their sub, Gmt and explorer. After this time, I don't think they ever developed products this interesting. The 3 models I mentioned became classic designs copied by most manufacturers. These became industry standards

For sure.

Rolex models from this period become legitimate classics that defined their not only the company's style, but also the practical mechanical wristwatch as we currently know it, and they continue to look great to this day. They were expertly hand-drafted to the professional design standards that were expected of established manufacturers at the time, instead of being mashed together by an unskilled person playing around with an office computer, as so many (non-Rolex) watches so clearly are these days. And to be fair, while they're still better than 99% of the industry, Rolex's design expertise ain't what it used to be, either.

What adds hugely to the original professional series' appeal is the fact that their introduction coincided perfectly with the development of jet aviation, huge breakthroughs in high-altitude mountaineering, the invention of SCUBA diving, and the dawn of space exploration.

Put simply, they were the best tool available for the job during a period characterized by unprecedented human achievement — plus they actually look good.