Two Rolex Maniacs Debate the Brand’s Most Important Models

This is an edition of the newsletter Box + Papers, Cam Wolf’s weekly deep dive into the world of watches. Sign up here.

We just published our big, comprehensive list of the “best” and most significant Rolex models in the brand’s history—ranking everything from the Prince and King Midas to the Submariner and Daytona. I spoke with quite a few Rolex experts and dealers along the way and, of course, they all agreed my list was perfect. Just kidding: Any effort to rank the best of anything is always going to be a hotly contested subject. The word “best” simply invites all manner of interpretations and personal preferences.

Analog:Shift’s James Lamdin and Menta Watches’ Adam Golden were two noted Crown experts I conferred with who held very different opinions on how these watches should be ranked. So, in the spirit of debate, I opened the floor to let them settle it like men: over a Zoom call nearly 1,100 miles apart—Lamdin from his home base in New York, Golden in Miami.

GQ: What are you guys wearing?

Golden: Four line, tropical, Big Crown [Submariner]. Nothing too fancy.

Lamdin: [Patek Philippe] 3940.

I want to lay down one ground rule before we start, because where I netted out with the Oyster Perpetual is that we differentiated between the actual watch model and the Oyster Perpetual technology, which is the most important advancement in Rolex history. And with that, we'll start our battle to the death for the soul of collectors.

Golden: James, in my opinion, if you put Oyster Perpetual at the top of the list as a model, most people are not going to understand what your actual intentions are. And they're going to be like, “Are you fucking crazy? Why? Because it has the Tiffany-blue on it?”

Lamdin: I think the delineation you just made solves the problem, right?I recognize that there are two things going on here. There's what's commercially important, what's sort of in the cultural zeitgeist. And then there's historically—if we're going to be academic about it—what is the most important thing in the Rolex lineup? It's a waterproof, automatic watch. That's, conceptually, at the core of everything that Rolex does. But as a model, I totally agree with that, and I think that's a good way to delineate it.

So, is the list most popular or most important? Semantics matter.

It's most important, but that factors in cultural, historical, and technical contributions as well as popularity. It's an alchemy of all of these things. So here's the top 10, starting from the top: Submariner, Daytona, Datejust, Day-Date, GMT, Explorer and Explorer II, Oyster Perpetual, Milgauss, Sea Dweller, and Air-King.

Golden: I can make the argument for both the Sub and Daytona being number one. You're not wrong to say the Sub is number one—it's the most iconic watch in the Rolex lineup. It's the biggest dive watch in the world.

And I absolutely think if Sub’s one then Daytona is two—Daytona is their only chronograph. It is the most recognizable chronograph in the world. It is the aspirational watch for everybody when you talk about Rolex. It wasn't a commercial success at its launch and it didn't become big in popular culture until Paul Newman and whatnot. And it really took the Zenith Daytona to become a commercial success. But I think you just can't understate its importance in terms of watch collecting in general and to Rolex.

It goes to show that there has not been another chronograph model since [the debut of the Daytona], and I don't think there ever will be one that they produce. Whereas before the Daytona, you had several different models of chronographs throughout their history.

I think the Daytona is probably the one that you guys differed on the most.

Lamdin: I looked at this from a perspective of historical importance. There's no debate that the Daytona occupies a large percentage of the mind share of the collector community and upwardly mobile buyers today. Everybody wants a Daytona—that is factual. However, I thought if we're about watches that hold the most importance in the history of Rolex, it isn't the Daytona, because the Daytona wasn't their first chronograph, but a wildly important part of their story. What's important is the Rolex chronograph—whatever pre-Daytona variant you choose to put as the flagship.

My argument is that if you look at it from an importance standpoint, the Daytona is part of that story, but it's actually the Rolex chronograph, which was the most complicated watch that they made for decades in any of its variations, that’s more important.

And the reason I looked at it that way was that it wasn't really until the Sky-Dweller came out that they moved beyond two-hand, two-hand and a date, two-hand and a second time zone. The chronograph was it. And the Daytona fell into being a motorsports watch, and it's since become the motorsports watch, but I think I looked at it from a historical angle as I’m wont to do.

Golden: But I'm also looking at it from the perspective that history is still being written. So from the launch of the Daytona until now, you just can't understate the importance of that watch and the effect it's had on Rolex as a company. If we walk down the street right now in New York City, LA, Miami, and you walk up to random strangers and ask, “What are two Rolex models?” I guarantee you 90% of them are gonna say Sub or Daytona—maybe an Explorer or GMT in there. And for me, that's all you need to know.

Lamdin: I don’t disagree with that.

The thing that helped elevate its ranking, for me, was the cultural effect it has had on the watch world and what it did for vintage collecting in general. When the Newman's Newman sold in 2017, that was such an inflection point for the industry and the hobby and invited people in. James, when we last spoke, you gave me that interesting analogy that it's like if you were into Star Wars but it was nerdy and you had to hide it, and then suddenly Star Wars became cool and everyone wants to talk about it.

Golden: Vintage Rolex collecting wouldn't be where it is now without the Daytona. At the end of the day, it is the grail for most people. The “Big Crown” Sub is great, but this is a super fucking niche watch, which is why the market tanked on them, whereas the Daytona market has been strong and steady for the past 10 years.

Lamdin: Again, I think I took a slightly different perspective here. And while I agree with everything Adam just said, I would just point out that what matters to the watch collecting community doesn't mean a hill of beans to the general consumer market. So if we're going to play devil’s advocate on these points for the purposes of that argument, we have to at least pay attention to the fact if we’re talking about sales numbers, historically, Datejust outsell the Daytona hundreds to one every year. And the Datejust, even arguably the President [Day-Date], is as identifiable to the layperson as a Submariner.

Golden: Sure, that's why they’re three and four on the rankings, which I don’t disagree with. But I think those deserve to be three and four because of their ability to bring the common man to the brand and be that entry to Rolex for so many people.

Lamdin: When I rank these watches, I put the Daytona probably somewhere in the top five or six, but I put the GMT-Master ahead of the Daytona for the sole reason that the GMT-Master defined a category that Rolex created. It was not as groundbreaking to introduce a chronograph, particularly one with an outsourced movement at that time. Whereas the GMT-Master was first of its kind in wristwatch form and defined a generation that the world became smaller in. It may not be as important or significant today, and I acknowledge that from a consumer standpoint. However, my perspective was looking at historical importance and what made Rolex Rolex, and the GMT-Master ranks higher, to me, on that list than the Daytona, which was in some ways an accidental success that has now exploded into a cultural phenomenon.

Golden: Listen, the GMT is my favorite sports model. I absolutely love the GMT and I agree with everything you just said there. My whole point was that I'm looking at this argument and this list as something more holistic from start to finish. So it's not just what was the impact when it was created because a lot of brands have done a lot of innovative things that were first on the scene and defined a genre, yada yada yada, but what was the overall impact of that model throughout its entire history? That's the difference.

James, I want you to expand on your argument that the GMT helped make the world a smaller place.

Lamdin: It's inseparable from the jet age. Because in the post-war years—10 years after the end of World War II—you can suddenly fly across the Atlantic in a single go. And the pilots and the first jet setters needed a watch that would be able to tell the time at departure and destination. And that was the first wave of the world becoming a smaller place. And here's where I put on my Adam hat and go, the world continued after the 1950s so I have to take that into consideration. Now, we live in an age of smart devices, but that was not the case in the 1950s. From a technical innovation standpoint, this watch was cutting-edge. Whether it was literally a pilot or someone traveling on business, the GMT was a total game changer. But, yeah, that’s romantic as fuck.

Golden: It is, but everything you said is absolutely true, and it's part of the reason I absolutely adore the GMT as well. But while that did have a massive impact at the time, I think its impact on the brand's importance as it relates to Rolex was confined to that era of the ’50s and ’60s.

James, where do you land on the Day-Date versus the GMT?

Lamdin: I think culturally, the Day-Date has to go higher. The Day-Date is the President's story, it’s part of that heritage of Rolex, and it's part of the allure and mysticism behind the brand. It's also proof positive that Rolex doesn’t exclusively make tool watches. And it’s very significant culturally and historically, and remains a great seller today.

I also wanted to talk about the Explorer II because, James, you had it lower on your list than a few other people.

Lamdin: The Explorer II has been a marketing success for Rolex, but, mechanically, it was essentially the GMT-Master. That's not to downgrade the Explorer II. But I think if you had to put that model and the GMT-Master head-to-head, it's no competition for historical significance.

Golden: I don't disagree with that at all. The Explorer comes way, way after the GMT. But the Explorer model in general, like James just accurately said, was an exercise in brilliant marketing. At the end of the day, it's not a watch that did anything new for Rolex, but it hit upon another subgroup of people who didn't find refuge in a Submariner because they weren't a diver, or a GMT because they weren't a world traveler or a pilot, or in a Daytona because they weren't timing any events or racing.

The Explorer was marketed to the person who was going to climb Everest. Yes, I know, Cam, you correctly pointed out this wasn't even the watch that went to Everest, but it was marketed as a watch that was for that outdoorsy person who wanted that rugged watch to be used in all occasions. And I think the fact that that watch and that model has existed since the ’50s [is important].

So in comparison to something like the Milgauss, I'm like, they just discontinued that, and it was much more niche. There's a clear delineation with everything that comes after the Explorer. It's these top models, and then everything else.

I totally agree. The watches up to and including the Explorer are the ones that form the foundation of the entire brand. And then the rest of the list is everything they’ve built on that foundation.

Golden: James, where did you put the Sea Dweller?

Lamdin: It’s not as high on my list as yours.

Golden: Really? I put it in the top 10 but toward the bottom because, for me, it's an upgraded Submariner, but it has a lot of historical context. It is very well recognized, it’s a collectible model. There are Sea-Dweller collectors, whereas I don't think there are Yacht-Master collectors. It is a studied model that has a lot of scholarship. It's been around since 1967 so I put it in the top 10.

The Sea-Dweller is just inside my top 10, too, right before the Air-King, the Yacht-Master, and then the dress watches. When I got down to it, how am I going to put the Air-King ahead of it? The Sea-Dweller’s not one of the foundational models, but it’s the very next tier. It has ties to James Cameron’s dive to the bottom of the Mariana Trench. It shows off the depth rating. The watch brought some technical innovations and achievements to Rolex.

See all of our newsletters, including Box + Papers, here.