Feature: 5 BIZARRE Changes Rolex Made

Watchmaking is a slow-moving industry, and for Rolex, being as popular as it is, that’s exaggerated by the enormous pressure exerted on the brand to make every decision an exceptional one. Most of the time, Rolex absolutely nails it—but not always. Here are five changes made to Rolex watches that are downright bizarre.

40 To 41mm Cases

This first change is one of the most recent ones, a 2020 update to the ever-popular steel and ceramic Submariner that was released a decade before. The 2010 Submariner didn’t just replace traditional aluminium in the bezel for ceramic—first introduced to the Submariner for the 2008 steel and gold version—but also beefed up the steel case, particularly in the lugs where the strap is held in place.

That particular detail, those thicker lugs, have been a bit of a gripe for many Rolex fans ever since. The tapered, elegant lugs found on older models had been replaced with a bluff, stumpy pair that gave the watch a more bullish appearance.

If you didn’t believe that Rolex moved slowly, understanding that it took more than ten years for the Swiss watchmaker to address this complaint should paint a picture of the glacial evolution exhibited between one change and the next.

Better late than never, however, because sure enough, in 2020, over a decade after the first complaints had been expressed, Rolex decided to fix those stumpy lugs. Slimmer, more tapered and better reflecting the original design, the updated lugs are indeed what many people had been holding out for.

What they hadn’t expected, though, was a millimetre expansion to the case and bracelet. A Submariner has been 40mm since the late fifties, with fans hungry for larger case sizes satiated by the Sea-Dweller and Deepsea. But, for some reason, be it trends or overall proportions to blend into the lugs, Rolex upped the case size from 40 to 41mm.

Truth be told, the reality is that the case went from around 40.2mm to 40.6mm, a marginal change that’s exaggerated by rounding up and rounding down, but nevertheless, it’s there. My guess? Fixing the lugs on their own looks like fixing a mistake. Adjusting the entire case looks like progress.

Daytona Strap Link

Fans of the Rolex Daytona will know that 1988 was a good year. That’s because everything Daytona prior to ’88 was a complete failure, and everything after a complete success. The rise in Rolex’s popularity triggered a campaign to reimagine what had been one of Rolex’s least successful watches into one of its most desirable. No mean feat, I’m sure you’ll agree, but if anyone could do it, it would be Rolex.

Queues for the new, updated Daytona model spanned around the block and even around the calendar, as customers the world over fought to be allocated a watch in this exciting new phase in Rolex’s rise to the top.

But, for some customers, there was a sting in the tail. Previous owners of Rolex’s Daytona would have enjoyed the ability, whether in steel or gold, to liven things up a bit by switching from a bracelet to a strap and back again on a whim. The simple design of both case and bracelet made it easily removeable and easily replaceable by a strap of the owner’s choice.

Purchase the newer 1988 Daytona on a bracelet and nothing had changed. It could be removed and replaced with a strap as it had been before. Purchase one on a strap, however, and something was different. What at first glance appeared to be a nice detail on the strap to fill the gap between it and the case turns out to be a fixed part of the case itself.

Dismayed, these customers quickly realised that if they wanted to put a bracelet on their new gold Daytona, they’d have to buy another Daytona, losing that casual ability to go with the look they wanted on the same watch. I’m sure Rolex wouldn’t mind selling them another one.

The Sea-Dweller Conundrum

This next change is perhaps more a bizarre sequence of changes with a model that Rolex apparently didn’t know what to do with: the Sea-Dweller. With the Submariner already serving as Rolex’s ubiquitous dive watch, the extreme Sea-Dweller, with its increased thickness and greater depth rating, lost out in popularity what it gained in ability.

Really only intended for professional use, the Sea-Dweller was still made available to the general public—although its ungainly proportions made it a more unusual choice. So, when Rolex was dutifully updating its collection with chunkier cases and ceramic bezels, starting with the GMT-Master II in 2005, that left a bit of a question mark over the Sea-Dweller.

The Submariner was easy, getting the same treatment as the GMT-Master II in 2008. In that same year, Rolex unexpectedly also decided to go all out on the Sea-Dweller’s larger size and release the 44mm Sea-Dweller Deepsea, a gargantuan model that was probably one of the largest departures from the norm ever seen in a Rolex release.

Like the Sea-Dweller before it, the Deepsea was hideously unpopular at launch, causing Rolex to rethink its approach and augment the collection with another Sea-Dweller model that slipped in between the Submariner and Deepsea. That came out in 2014, a more literal update of the Sea-Dweller than the Deepsea had been.

It had a slightly thicker 40mm case, a helium escape valve, absent date magnifying window and the Sea-Dweller name on the dial to compliment 1,220m of water resistance. Problem was it had the same issue as its forebear: it was basically the same as a Submariner, except thicker and more ungainly. The solution? Up to case size to 43mm, change the Sea-Dweller script to red and pop the magnifying window back on. Problem, apparently, solved.

Rolex Le Mans

Earlier I mentioned that the Daytona was one of Rolex’s least successful models. It’s hard to believe, but in the early 1960s when it first came to be, the watch was truly unloved. To be honest, unlike Rolex’s other professional watches, aimed at pilots and divers and whatnot, the Daytona didn’t really get the same backing.

Rolex already carried a few chronograph models, equally unpopular, but it was the 1957 Omega Speedmaster that gave Rolex the kick in the pants it needed to try a little harder. Only a little harder, mind you, because the new Cosmograph—not yet named Daytona, by the way—was basically the same as its older chronographs but in a slightly different shell. Bigger external tachymeter, clearer dial, overall sportier size and feel—basically a knock-off of the Speedmaster.

The watch didn’t really have a name, aside from Cosmograph, presumably because Rolex’s interest had been piqued by NASA’s need for a chronograph to send to the moon. Naturally, being the supplier to the pros, Rolex took the opportunity, but ultimately failed. Omega had engineered the better watch.

This left Rolex with a quandary: what to do with its failed space watch? The only other place for it was the racetrack, another profession Rolex was building a reputation with. In fact, Rolex had very close ties with NASCAR, a series that raced modified cars originally built to speedily transport alcohol across the country during prohibition. The home of this series was Daytona Beach, Florida.

But that wasn’t the name Rolex chose, at least not at first. Le Mans, the great 24-hour race set in France, was the original choice. Whether there were licencing issues, or a better commercial relationship with the Daytona Speedway or whether it was harder to pronounce, the Le Mans name was quickly dropped in favour of the now-famous “Daytona”.

Syloxi Hairspring

But perhaps the most bizarre decision Rolex has made is one that, if you didn’t know where to look, would slip you by completely. Mechanical watchmaking may be an old technology, but watchmakers still very much compete to keep it up-to-date, most often by using very modern materials.

This isn’t just a superficial thing: one of the biggest flaws of the mechanical watch has been its sensitivity to magnetism. A metal balance spring, very thin and delicate, is easily magnetised, binding it together and making the watch run exceedingly quickly, and so many manufacturers have sought out ways to fix that problem.

In 2000, Rolex introduced a new material for its hairsprings, an alloy of niobium and zirconium that offers great shock resistance and anti-magnetic properties. There we go, problem solved. Well, not quite, because the approach that Rolex took wasn’t exactly the same as everyone else.

From the debut of the 2001 Ulysse Nardin Freak, silicon has made a big impact in the watch industry as the anti-magnetic material of the future. Rolex had already invested in the development of its Parachrom alloy, but nevertheless it joined Swatch and Patek Philippe in a joint research project to figure out how to make silicon work in a balance spring. And they were successful, with all three releasing versions of their own movements with silicon balance springs.

Did Rolex make the switch from Parachrom to silicon, or in Rolex parlance, Syloxi? No. Did it just stick with Parachrom instead? No. Rolex decided to do both, using Parachrom in its larger watches and Syloxi in its smaller ones. Why? There’s rumination that Rolex believes Parachrom has better shock resistance, but we’ve seen silicon balance springs in some pretty tough watches, so that doesn’t really hold much water. The likelier story? Rolex simply hasn’t paid off its Parachrom-making machine just yet.

As much as we enjoy seeing all the exciting new addendums to Rolex’s ever-evolving collection, it’s equally as fascinating to see some of the times the masterful brand has faltered. It happens to the best of us, Rolex too, and only goes to serve as a reminder that the people who work at Rolex are still exactly that—people. After all, every one of us makes the occasional bizarre decision every now and then.

What other bizarre decisions have you seen from Rolex and other watchmakers?

Looking for a pre-owned Rolex watch? Click here to shop now