Shahanshah, Watch of watches

Specs
Diameter: 41mm
Lug to lug: 48mm
Thickness: 12mm
Lug width: 21mm
Movement: Rolex caliber 3230, 70hrs power reserve, automatic, 28,800vph

TLDR

I only got this to try what I believe is the most iconic diver, perhaps watch, in the world. It was really nice and this model is a huge improvement over the 114060, but I’d still prefer vintage and found this edition to be a bit cold.

Getting back to the basics

Everyone and their mother owns a Rolex Submariner in the wealthy oases of west Los Angeles. Strolling down the sidewalks of Rodeo or Mellwood, Submariners float by me like trash on the LA River. It’s a luxury item so common it’s like seeing yet another Tesla; it was probably cool once when only those in the know knew, but now that Timmy and his mum Tammy are straining their eyes at their wrist trying to figure out whether the marker at 10 o’clock means it’s 10 o’clock or 11 o’clock, it doesn’t have that same it factor.

Gatekeeping aside, perhaps it never did. The Submariner isn’t a unique looking watch. In fact, it has what is perhaps the most basic diver design in existence, but this is a testament to its ingenuity. It isn’t that the Sub is boring so much as that so many other watches copied the design language of the Sub because it makes so much sense. Sure, Rolex didn’t make the first dive watch, but they set the standard. It’s that standard that countless other divers are compared against that I wanted to experience first hand.

So I took a trip down to the land of Mickey Mouse with my fat stack of cash from my $97 Datejust sale to pick up Rolex’s latest (greatest?) edition of the Submariner. Since I was already down south and close enough to the water, I decided to take it out for its first spin by the ocean, its natural habitat. As the previous owner had kept the watch covered with a sort of watch “screen protector,” my photos from that first day don’t show the watch naked, as I wore it for the rest of my time with it. Keep that in mind when viewing.

Swimming with the school, flocking with the gaggle

Most of us like to think of ourselves as unique, always standing out in a crowd and going against the tide. But there is something comforting about giving in and submitting to the flow of banality, finally hopping on board the hype train and becoming a basic ass binch with Timmy and Tammy. It’s why costly signaling allows religious groups to form stronger bonds with their communities and watch aficionados to humiliate themselves on forums dedicated to hating on Rolex fanboys. And costly this little signal is. At around $11,000 on the aftermarket the 124060 carries around with it a hefty price tag and plenty of watch world baggage. Let’s see if it’s worth it (spoiler alert: it’s not, no watch is worth that much money)…

The Submariner 124060 is a beast of a watch, I have to admit. It looks and feels expensive and well made. I’ve heard plenty of fuss about the beloved bezel action and it doesn’t disappoint. It was the first thing I did when I got the watch; play with the clicky ring. The 120-click bezel feels crisp as it rotates below the fingers and the glazed ceramic bezel insert glistens as it spins. The back play isn’t insignificant, but the bezel aligns perfectly with the chapter ring below once put in place. You win this one Rolex, your quality control is a little better than Seiko’s, but I think that the Tudor Black Bay 58’s 60-click still takes the cake. I’ve never owned a watch with a ceramic bezel insert and typically prefer the charm of an old aluminum one, but the reflective quality of the ceramic makes this bezel appear grey in most lighting and I love that. It’s like a new old stock (NOS) ghost bezel and it’s a beautiful sight in person as well as through the lens.

Cut down (or rather up) to size

This latest configuration of the Submariner is actually 1mm larger in diameter than the previous 114060 and, if you have read almost any of my previous articles, you’ll know that I really prefer watches on the smaller side. Surprisingly though, this 41mm watch looks much less imposing than the 40mm 114060. This is thanks to Rolex’s very wise (opinion) decision to put those beefy maxi-case lugs on a diet and slim them down to more traditional proportions reminiscent of the beloved vintage models. They achieve this by widening the bracelet to a fairly uncommon 21mm. Sure, this isn’t great for strap changes, but I love the bracelet so much that I kept it on for most of my time with the watch.

The Oyster bracelet is probably my favorite bracelet on a watch and the modern rendition comes with solid center links, which add a considerable amount of weight as well as the feeling of quality to the age old faithful. The clasp boasts Rolex’s patented Glidelock system, which is the most useful micro adjust apparatus I’ve come across yet. It has such a wide range, essentially the whole length of the clasp, that it can fit just about any wrist without the need for link removal/addition. It fits my girlfriend, me, my dad, my mom, Timmy and Tammy, and everyone’s mother in Beverly Hills. This feels like it is truly built with its intended purpose in mind. If you’re a crazy person and actually dive in the actual ocean, you can wear this over the wetsuit in the water and then easily slide the Glidelock back to a tighter setting on your naked wrist for the ride back to safety and sanity.

Time will tell, accurately

Speaking of utility, let’s briefly discuss the movement. The most accurate non-quartz watch I’ve ever owned is the Tudor Black Bay 58. This is now being challenged by these modern Rolexes that I’ve been exploring since my raffle win. The Datejust’s 3235 was just about as accurate, tied for first, and this time-only 3230 is a close second (see my next article to see how my next 3230 outperforms them all). These modern Rolex movements are Superlative Chronometers (“officially certified” oowee) with a promised tolerance of +/-2 seconds per day and this two year old Sub is keeping time in spec. I almost forget that I have to ever set it and that’s a good feeling, though at this price I suppose a watch damn well better tell the time accurately.

When looks truly matter

Now let us turn to the most important aspect of this watch. Not how well it functions or how accurately it performs, but how it looks. That is why the overwhelming majority of people acquire this watch, after all; to wear an icon on their wrist. To me, someone who wants to be cool and shun mainstream society yet somehow also have the latest greatest thing like the new iPhone, this watch makes me confused in my tummy. Part of me feels special, I get to wear that one watch that everybody knows and covets (nobody knows it, only you and me because we’re losers who care about watches), but the other, more modest or perhaps just insecure side of my Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde psyche, feels a little embarrassed. Remember, Timmy and his mum Tammy wear Submariners. It’s not actually cool. Though it may be difficult, I can at least try to appreciate this watch without the very large set of baggage that comes along with it.

So, forgetting the unforgettable, how does it feel and wear? Well, I actually do find it a little boring. When I drop the positive and negative associations that I have with the Submariner, there is very little about the 124060 that really jumps out at me and pulls my attention down to my wrist. This is subjective, of course. One of my favorite watches of all time is the admittedly humdrum Rolex Explorer I, so I can understand how there are people out there who love the new Sub despite its, as I see it, uninspiring design. I proudly displayed this watch to my roommate who I recently gifted a Seiko quartz diver and he said, as he is wont to say when I show him a new acquisition, “that’s a good looking watch…” Then he hesitated before continuing with something novel, “though, to be honest, I’m not sure what makes this one $11,000 and mine (Seiko) $300.” And I have to agree with him. Looking at them side by side, it’s really hard to justify the Submariner WITHOUT all of its baggage. It’s the history and the ubiquity of its design that makes it desirable. To me, that isn’t enough.

-G