Talk:Rolex Submariner

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Watches, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of watches on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.WatchesWikipedia:WikiProject WatchesTemplate:WikiProject WatchesWatches

Switzerland Start‑class Low‑importance

	Switzerland portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Switzerland, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Switzerland on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SwitzerlandWikipedia:WikiProject SwitzerlandTemplate:WikiProject SwitzerlandSwitzerland
Start	This article has been given a rating which conflicts with the project-independent quality rating in the banner shell. Please resolve this conflict if possible.
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Brands

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Brands, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of brands on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.BrandsWikipedia:WikiProject BrandsTemplate:WikiProject BrandsBrands
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Tip: Anchors are case-sensitive in most browsers.

This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.

[[Rolex#Rolex watch models|Oyster Perpetual]] The anchor (#Rolex watch models) is no longer available because it was deleted by a user before.

Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. | Reporting errors

Untitled

Why this model of watch is important? dima (talk) 09:20, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Go to Rolex.com and see the watches..This one looks the best...but maybe that's just because I'm a diver myself.... Charles.2345 (talk) 10:10, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Criticism

As someone who has actually served on a Submarine, this watch is ridiculous. A watch that is useful would be one that has Indiglo for ease of reading and providing a small amount of light in berthing spaces and elsewhere. Saturation divers also don't use this because saturation diving is a serious evolution, they don't carry a watch. Sat. divers usually are suited up heavily so they couldn't wear a watch. Go see some submarine movies and you might see that wearing an expensive/non-utilitarian watch is absurd. So, should I add a section that criticizes this watch? Eclecticerudite (talk) 20:39, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As long as your criticism has been published by reliable sources, applies specifically to this watch and it is properly cited, it would be ok. Otherwise it would be original research. Dr.K. logos 22:18, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly that message of Dr K had no effect. -- Hoary (talk) 14:45, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much Hoary. I hadn't noticed this. Maybe I have to trim my watchlist. I know what I have to do. Take care. Dr.K. logos 14:58, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pity, really. This addition seemed plausible, and it could have been a welcome antidote to all the other tosh that's written in the article about this male jewelry. Just look at those quotations at the bottom, which collectively point to the conclusion that this is a bauble for the insecure arriviste. Among them is a link to a Guardian article that ends by approvingly quoting somebody who says such things as "What bloke doesn't want to be Steve McQueen?" (Er, to name one such bloke, me.) -- Hoary (talk) 15:27, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hoary, your irreverent tone is something that took me some time to get used to, but now I thoroughly enjoy it. It is a breath of fresh air, in a rather stuffy and overdone topic, as the Guardian example indicates. I also agree with you. As long as anyone can find an inline citation (from a wp:rs however) that busts the Submariner because of its lack of indiglo or any other sin, it would be a really great antidote to overdone and flowery comments such as the Guardian's. Dr.K. logos 15:50, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I tried to add a "Criticism" section but it was removed. There isn't a a huge list of "reliable sources" talking about what watches submariners wear. As a person who served on submarines, I have first hand account. My knowledge of the watch's perception isn't biased, it is how the watch is perceived among the submariner culture. This is true among US, British, Russian, South American, Chinese, French, et alia. So do I have to go write a book or a newspaper article in order for this fact to become "verified". The Criticism purpose was to point out how Rolex uses the title "submariner" without regard to actual submariners. Please don't tell me that submariners are such a small group without "reliable resources" that Rolex-paid wikipedians get to keep removing this fact.Eclecticerudite (talk) 18:06, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately we cannot rely on hearsay, even among such a distinguished group. If it is not published in reliable sources (WP:RS) and backed up by inline citations (WP:CITE) it cannot be included. It's simply a matter of policy. Dr.K. logos 20:23, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And I just saw your clumsy and offending characterisation: "Rolex-paid wikipedians". I take exception to that, to the point of telling you that your behaviour is not Wikipedian. Any good faith Wikipedian upholds core Wikipedia policies such as WP:AGF (assume good faith) and WP:NPA (no personal attacks), which obviously you do not. Your complete disregard of these policies when you stooped to making such a statement proves my assertion. I will not dignify any further conversation with you by replying, other than to say that I will report your behaviour if it continues. For your information, your baseless and vindictive comments are neither eclectic nor erudite. Dr.K. logos 20:49, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There isn't a a huge list of "reliable sources" talking about what watches submariners wear. I'm sure there isn't. But can you proffer even one reliable source? If you can, then perhaps the little matter of what watches are worn by people within and related to submarines can go somewhere, though probably not in this particular article. ¶ My knowledge of the watch's perception isn't biased, it is how the watch is perceived among the submariner culture. This is true among US, British, Russian, South American, Chinese, French, et alia. So you say. You claim to have first-hand knowledge. Anyone can claim to have first-hand knowledge of such things, which is an excellent reason why claims to first-hand knowledge are dismissed hereabouts. ¶ So do I have to go write a book or a newspaper article in order for this fact to become "verified". No, you wait till you find that somebody else has done so. ¶ The Criticism purpose was to point out how Rolex uses the title "submariner" without regard to actual submariners. That's an interesting notion. My own is that the company uses it with close regard to submariners, or more precisely to the popular perception of submariners by people whose closest encounter with submarines is seeing mockups thereof produced in Pinewood Studios and so forth. The couch potato with more money than brain can thus buy into a fantasy of manliness via the unlikely route of costume jewelry. However, this is merely my notion, and it won't go into this or any other article till it's well sourced. ¶ Please don't tell me that submariners are such a small group without "reliable resources" that Rolex-paid wikipedians get to keep removing this fact. Rolex hasn't paid me a nickel. My unsourced guess is that they already pay quite enough for full-page ads in the Herald Tribune and elsewhere and have nothing left over for a nobody like me. Meanwhile, you seem to have confused "sources" and "resources": for what count as the former, see this; and if you think that they exist for submariners' tools, then let's see them. Yes, please deliver some of the erudition promised in your name. -- Hoary (talk) 00:30, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well done Hoary. I guess you are not on the Rolex payroll either. Like you said, Rolex is busy buying those newspaper ads. Too little money left for us Wikipedians. I should've known but it took you to find the real reason why we are still unpaid volunteers ;) Dr.K. logos 00:43, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I made no personal attacks. My reference to Rolex adjusting this page is based off of article stating at the top "This article may contain wording that promotes the subject in a subjective manner without imparting real information. Please remove or replace such wording or find sources which back the claims." However in this discussion area you both are certainly attacking me. Not cool. The fact that someone hasn't written a newspaper article pointing out the facts I have brought forth does not mean they are less true. Newspapers are disappearing. Wikipedia has grown to the point where some information on the internet can only be found here. This is the expected result of wikipedia being very successful. It's easier to push the delete button on a subject you are unfamiliar with, so I give up. The article stays as it is: incompleteand excessive in irrelevance.Eclecticerudite (talk) 02:07, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Eclecticerudite, the Rolex Submariner wasn't so called because of a connection (or intended connection) to naval submariners. It's just from the literal translation of 'under the sea'. Rolex were pioneers of water resistant watches and the name was intended to reflect that. It was one of a number of names considered which had connotations of diving or swimming.

It could also be noted that the Royal Navy commissioned more that a thousand special edition Submariners from Rolex in the sixties and seventies. These used tritium viles for greater illumination, which I think was an issue you mentioned. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.106.28.52 (talk) 17:19, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

1953?? or 1954

I think it's a error because in the same page, we can saw this text:

---The Submariner model went into production in 1953, and was showcased at the Basel watch fair in 1954. The assigned case reference number of this first Submariner was either 6204 or 6205. It is unclear which model came first and, in any event, the two watches are nearly identical. Neither has the distinctive "cathedral" or "Mercedes" hands now so strongly associated with the Submariner line. Rather, both of these early submariners have straight "pencil" style hands. Few if any of the 6205 watches bear the name "Submariner" on the dial, a major distinction with modern Submariners. Some 6204 models have the Submariner logo printed below the center pinion, while others have the logo blacked out. It is believed that there were unexpected trademark issues connected with the name "Submariner" at the time the 6204 and 6205 were released which account for the inconsistent use of the Submariner mark on these early Submariners. ----

and this text:

---In 1954, Rolex also produced a small number of ref. 6200 Submariners. This was the first Submariner (although not the first Rolex) to make use of the Mercedes hand set ( a feature of all subsequent Submariners). The 6200 also featured an oversized winding crown (compared with the 6204 and 6205 models). Within a few years, Rolex revised its Submariner line, producing the 6536 (small crown) and 6538 (oversized crown) models. These watches had "improved" movements (the cal. 1030), including a chronometer version in some 6536 models (designated 6536/1), the now-familiar Mercedes hands, along with the Submariner logo and depth rating printed on the dial. By the early 1960s, these models gave way to the 5508 (small crown) and 5510 (large crown) models. All of these early Submariners used either gilt (6200, 6204, 6205) or gilt/silver gilt (6536, 6538) printing on glossy black dials. Radium paint was used for the luminous indices. The next wave of Submariners, the 5512 (chronometer version) and 5513 (non-chronometer) marked a significant change in the appearance of the popular Rolex design---

I can't doubt about Rolex, but it's very easy, they began with 6200 in 1954, and presented in Basel watch fair in the same year, and in 1954 began the production, or with this text is the first object whit begun the production before the show.

More info from http://www.vintagesubmariner.com/vintagesubs.html

Rolex introduced the Submariner at the 1954 Basel Watch Fair. The first production model, available for sale to the public that same year, was the reference 6204. The 6204 looked almost identical to a similar Rolex watch, the Turn-O-Graph reference 6202. The reference 6204 was water resistant to 600 feet, and used the Rolex Caliber A260 movement. Reference 6200 lived only a short life. The watch was produced in 1954 only, and housed the caliber A296.

Excuse me for my English —Preceding unsigned comment added by Teixi (talk • contribs) 23:00, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]