The man who said no to a Rolex Red Submariner

Third article by our friend Luis for our Blog. No matter how hard you try it in Watches83 we will not get tired of reading you. Thanks Luis!

WRITTEN BY
LUÍS GONZÁLEZ

In the contemporary cultural imagery there are several male characters that remain in memory for the decisions they made or the great acts they undertook. There’s the man who could reign (Sean Connery), the man who knew too much (James Stewart), the man who killed Liberty Valance (John Wayne) or the man who sold the world (David Bowie). And then there’s me, the man who rejected a Rolex red Submariner. Yeah, because I’m worth it.

And in turn, in the imagery of the collectors of vintage watches, there is the Rolex, the Submariner and then the red Submariner (ok, there are also the so-called bubbleback or the freccione, but we’ll leave them for another day, not to influence the line of the tale).

A red Rolex Submariner is a reference 1680, introduced in 1969, sixteen years after the first Submariner model. Among its technical peculiarities, it is noteworthy that it was the first Submariner with a dater and also the first reference of the model that incorporated the amplifying lens in the Plexiglas crystal.

But what has made it, over the years, a real object of collecting is that between 1969 and 1973 the name of the model (the word “Submariner”) went red on the dial. Hence the nickname “Red Submariner”. In that last year, the usual design was recovered and that is why the models manufactured during those years, which also have some variations in the design of the dial among them, are today an object of avid search and capture attempts.

Once the model is contextualized, I will tell you a tale.

 

(Picture of hypo.physe)

I grew up in the 80s, in a standard middle class school where you both lived together (and argued) with a heavy metal fan whose father was a garage assistant as well as with posh guys who spent the weekly pay in Lacoste accessories. It was those times, not transversal as they are now, but rather ‘together but not mixed up’.

And then there were the normal ones, like me (seriously, yes). Those who abominated aesthetically both the first ones because they carried the cigarette’s pack on the shoulder, under the short half sleeve of the black shirt, and the others, because they had as a goal in life to have a  Rolex watch presented to them to celebrate their 18 years birthday.

Yes. Although they did not have the glamour of today, nor the prices, nor there were waiting lists to enter the waiting lists, Rolex was already a symbol of ostentation and social status for the emerging middle class. And they were because they had become the same for the dads of those boys before (and mums, that’s why now goes on sale so many units of vintage women Rolex, although they are no longer of contemporary taste).

I did not know I had the enemy at home. My unconcern prevented me from noticing that my own brother was “one of those”.

My father and my grandfather were watch aficionados. No collectors, just amateurs. So  since a young age we were familiar with the concept of people having different watches, although we did not give much importance to it. In fact, I took many years to become a true fan and even more to add collector criteria to that hobby.

Both my grandfather and my father (who inherited them when my grandpa died) were accumulating a collection of some interest, based on pieces that they bought when they went away on tourism or for special celebrations, watches that spent a lot of time languishing in drawers and neglected: a solid gold Longines Flagship, a manual Zenith from the 50s, a couple Omegas also made of solid gold (one manual and another automatic), a Spaceman designed by André Le Marquand, two Zodiac … and a pair of Rolex: an Oyster Perpetual date from 1970 (I think it was a 1500 reference, I have not seen it for a while) and a Rolex Submariner from about the same time. Two classic models that fitted the posh people at school.

Particularly, as a little ostentatious person I am and very aware of the bad taste of boasting (that were other times, I insist, then they were truly objects of distinction, not as now that their use has been more popular and normalized ), Rolex produced me a certain disgust. They were the demonstration of being a wannabee. Or even worse, to be cocky. In my juvenile awkwardness I did not differentiate between the Rolex crown and the Lacoste crocodile, the sailor knot of Amarras, the Privata cloth triangle or Martinelli’s unbearable nautical shoes (without socks and “well” combined with fisherman length trousers, of course). Unfortunately, I was not  already particularly interested in watches either.

(Picture of section215)

And then a day came when my dad passed away.

And of course, after the duel and the cumbersome administrative procedures, came that necessary moment (we are not ancient Egyptian nobles, we will not bury ourselves with them …) to share his material possessions among the family.

And then, still with the old unsolved youth prejudices, it was when I said to my brother: “Bah, the Rolex, those pimp things, you keep them, they fit you much better”.

I swear. I said.

“The Rolex, you keep them.”

I kept the rest of the pieces, which seemed cooler to me. Always a hipster.

And of course, my brother could be pseudo-posh, but not an idiot.

And it happened that not long after, without knowing very well how (although the research on the inherited pieces had a lot to do) I became a fan of vintage watches.

And today I remember my father very fondly when I wear his Zodiac Astrographic mystery dial and my grandfather when I look at the Longines Flagship with diamond markers.

And my brother, to whom the watches continue to interest him no more than as an object of luxury or looks, has what turned out to be (as we found out much later and on the day of the deal we had no idea) a Rolex reference 1680, Submariner red , dated 1969.

There is no celebration event or family meeting where I do not try to remind him that in this specific moment of his life he would be much happier if he parted ways with his material goods and opted for a more essential and less consumerist life.

Unsuccessful so far.

“The Rolex, you keep them.”

In bad hour I was educated with such a high sense of discretion.

And although money does not give happiness and you should never mistake the price of a watch with its value, today that model is being sold in, depending on condition, around 20,000 euros.

But I was a man consistent with my ideas.

I’d rather had been the man who sold the world.