Another year has flown by. I hope 2024 has been kind to you. My year was okay, with a few ups and downs, but nothing major either way.
And so, 2024's most-worn wristwatches. I looked at last year's post and I'm not sure if I'll be able to top it with regard to how much info I'll put into this post, the amount of photos I take, etc, but we'll see how we go.
So...
1) Rolex Explorer, Ref.: 124270 (2023)
Having spent 69 days of last year clipped to my wrist, I knew it would be high up on the list but I wasn't expecting it to take top spot.
This watch has a long history within the Rolex brand and some watch nerds consider it a bit of a sleeper these days, as demand for other sports models, such as the Submariner and GMT Master, tend to dominate social media posts and dealer wait lists. For me, though, the beauty of this watch lies in its understated aesthetic and low-key vibe.
Glossy black dial, with bold hour markers and numerals, perfect (for me) 36mm case diameter, and held together by the classic Rolex Oyster bracelet.
This bracelet design has been much copied by various brands since the
late 1950s, but to the trained eye, there's no mistaking the Rolex
design. It looks as good as the actual watch itself, and whenever some other brand copies the Oyster bracelet a little too closely, it always looks like it doesn't belong on the watch.
And, tenuous as it may seem, there's the Bond Connection. I'm sure I've stated this before, but here I go again, as a refresher. Ian Fleming wrote a Rolex watch onto OO7's wrist in his second book, Live And Let Die, in 1954. He described it as a "Rolex Oyster Perpetual, with large phosphorous numerals, on an expanding metal bracelet."
My theory is that this here was the watch, the Reference 6150, from the early 1950s;
Reason being, as Fleming was such a stickler for details and brand names, if Bond's watch had had the word 'EXPLORER' printed on the dial, Fleming would have mentioned it. This model doesn't have the Explorer name on the dial.
Again, it's just a theory of mine. Internet watch and Bond bloggers like to go on about Bond having worn the Explorer model in the novels, as Fleming himself was known to have owned one;
However, as I say, if Bond's watch had had the Explorer name across the dial, I think Fleming would have stated this.
As 1950s Britain was still adjusting to life in the aftermath of World War II, Fleming had created a globe-trotting secret agent who had a taste for the finer things, and something as simple as a wristwatch with the word 'EXPLORER' emblazoned across the dial would have added a further tinge of adventure and exoticism to the world of OO7.
Fleming went to the trouble of describing Bond's own personal car, a 20 year-old 3-and-a-half-litre Bentley with souped-up engine, and wrote of OO7's breakfast preference for Cooper's Vintage Oxford Marmalade and eggs that were hard-boiled for 3 minutes and 20 seconds (made using "speckled brown eggs from French Marans hens", for crying out loud).
Sure, my own little wristwatch theory is not much to go on, but this is the kind of speculating that keeps Bond/Watch nerds like myself awake at night.
Regardless, whatever Bond wore, the current model Rolex Explorer is a formidable timepiece (hated phrase, that) and is one that fully deserves its iconic status. It's robust, understated, and very, very accurate. Mine runs consistently at - 2 seconds per day, which is perhaps the most accurate watch I've ever owned. Sure, I'd prefer it if my watches gained time rather than lost, but it's a very small quibble, and I can have it adjusted when the time comes to have the watch serviced in about five or six years.
Bond fans are forever.
2) Tudor Black Bay Fifty-Eight, Ref,: 79030N (2020)
My 1982 model Rolex Submariner 5513 (archive pic below)...
...is currently being serviced by Rolex and I should have it back sometime in the next few weeks. As such, it didn't spend much time on my wrist last year. Once I get it back, I'll see how I feel about it. At the moment, I'm in a 50/50 state of mind regarding whether to keep it or not.
Either way, I've had the Tudor BB58 for just over four years and, IMHO, it represents the kind of dive watch that Rolex used to make.
As such, this Tudor wound up taking 2nd place to the Explorer, clocking up 59 days on my wrist throughout 2024. Sure, it doesn't possess the iconic status of the Submariner, but that's not the reason why I buy watches to begin with, even though I do have a few classic watches in the collection. In my view, the Black Bay 58 was an instant classic the day it was first released in 2018 and it continues to be a strong seller for the Tudor brand. Detractors would argue that the Black Bay range is Tudor's one-trick-pony, but the brand has other product families that provide some nice and dressy alternatives to the sportier Black Bay series. It's just that the Black Bay models managed to hit the ground running upon their first release back in 2012 and they have never looked back.
I'm wearing my Black Bay 58 as I write this portion of this post and this watch still impresses me as much now - if not more so - as it did the day I got it. There is a lot to like about the BB58. The simplicity of the dial layout, which makes for easy legibility. The perfectly sized 39mm diameter of the case, which works on various wrist sizes. The accuracy of the movement and its 70 hour power reserve.
Again the detractors have their list of gripes about this watch and I suppose I can go through what I think about about it all while I'm here. From what I've read on various watch forums over the years, here are some objections to this watch;
1) The design borrows/steals too heavily from Rolex.
Well, Rolex still makes the Submariner and it is a beautifully made wristwatch. I handle them on an almost daily basis when they come in for servicing and I always take a few seconds longer than required to admire them. However, on my skinny little 6.5 inch wrist, the current model Sub just looks too large on me. The case lugs are wider than they used to be and it makes the entire watch dominate the top of my wrist. The Tudor BB58 sits nicer on me.
Naysayers will then go on about the dial design and layout, stating that it's a poor blend of a Rolex Submariner dial that clashes with Tudor Submariner* snowflake hands. This don't bother me in the slightest. I fully accept that this is a watch whose design delves into Tudor's archives while also giving a nod to its parent company Rolex. Besides, I like the round hour markers, as they are a reminder of Tudor dive models of the past.
*The Tudor Submariner was produced throughout the late 1950s till the mid-1990s. The 1970s model that began using the snowflake hand-set design - in an effort to distinguish it a little more from the same-era Rolex Submariner's classic 'Mercedes' hour-hand design - looked like this;
This watch was issued to divers of the French Navy, officially referred to as the Marine Nationale, but also known as La Royale. These watches had case-back engravings to designate them as official navy-issue items. This particular model has a crisp and bold 'M.N.79' engraved across the case-back to signify its issue to French navy divers, and to show how bad-ass it is.
And, that snowflake hour hand holds a lot more lume than a Mercedes hour hand - as seen on the Explorer up top. Which would be a consideration for a naval diver who might be operating in pitch-black or low-light conditions.
You'll notice the difference between the hour markers of this watch and the Black Bay 58. The square design (again, more lume) mimics the boxy snowflake.
So, does Tudor borrow (or steal) from Rolex? Nope, not as far as I'm concerned. Tudor had its own lineage back in those days.
When Rolex founder Hans Wilsdorf decided to create a new watch brand with Rolex parts, designs and durability, his intention was to make a watch for the working man. Something more affordable than a Rolex, but with a similar durability and reliability. And so, the Tudor watch brand was born in 1946, using cases, dials, crowns, hands, etc made by Rolex, but fitted with outsourced, rather than in-house, movements. This is what kept prices lower for a Tudor watch.
While Tudor may have existed in Rolex's shadow for a long time, it has distanced itself a little in the last decade, with it's own range of bestsellers.
2) There's too much gilt accenting on the watch.
Gilt accents are the little touches of gold that you see on the dial, hands, and bezel insert. On this watch, I like it, as it again harks back to vintage models from the late 1950s.
3) The lume on the dial and hands is fauxtina.
Fauxtina is a made-up word. When white hands and markers age on a watch, they begin to go off-white, then pale cream, then a darker shade of cream (sometimes pumpkin orange, eeeww!), then greenish, then brown. This is referred to as patina. Much like if a yellow painted fence begins to get paler due to constant UV exposure.
When a watch brand uses off-white, cream, or sandy-beige coloured lume for the hands and markers, it is often disparagingly referred to on watch forums as fauxtina. Fake patina.
Me? I don't mind it if it's off-white or cream. I get steamed if brands use a sandy shade of beige, as it gives me the impression that the lume is older than it really is. Makes the whole watch look decrepit, in my view. To each their own.
The cream-coloured lume complements the gilt accents of the watch.
4) The bezel insert is aluminium. Makes the watch look cheap. Why couldn't they use ceramic?
Are you kidding? I'm GLAD it's aluminium. Sure, it might scratch easier than ceramic (no noticeable scratches on any of my watches with aluminium bezels thus far), but I've seen enough watches with ceramic bezel inserts which show little chips (or worse, cracks) here and there. Nahh, give me aluminium any day of the week.
Ceramic doesn't belong on a watch case. Ceramic, as I've said often enough, is for teacups and toilets.
And, my personal favourite/s;
5) Tudors are for people who can't afford a Rolex/Tudor is a poor man's Rolex.
Yeah, and? What's your point, bud? This one bugs me because it comes from a place of snobbery and nastiness. There's enough of that in every corner of existence, so if we can leave it out of a discussion about wristwatches, that would be great.
I can look at any modern Rolex watch and see the DNA of Rolexes past, I can see the history behind it, the work that's gone into the production of the watch, and how it has achieved its legendary place in the world of wristwatches. I wonder if these people can.
Or did they buy it because buying a Rolex watch is what you're meant to do when you've 'made it'?
An exclusivity brag? An Instagram flex?
A Tudor watch is wonderfully well made and extremely reliable.
And it's not trying to compete with Rolex.
Never was.
I learned a long time ago not to worry so much about what other people think. As such, I have a varied collection of watches that cover a wide range of brands and models. The type of person who might gush over my 1982 Submariner would not even look twice at my Baltic Hermétic Tourer. I've spoken to my fair share of watch people over the years who have cultivated a type of 'level up' mentality, whereby they keep aiming for more expensive watches or brands as their collecting journey progresses, to the point where some of them end up with a bunch of fifteen to twenty thousand dollar pieces. Or more. Good for them, I say, but my head doesn't work the same way. I simply like wristwatches, so I can get just as enthused about a two hundred dollar Seiko as I would about a fifteen thousand dollar Rolex.
3) Omega Seamaster Professional 300m, Ref,:2531,80.00 (1999)
This one took me by surprise. I wore it over 49 days of 2024 and, while I suspected it might get some more time on the wrist once I'd made the hand conversion, I was still surprised to see this watch take the third spot on this list. The Seamaster Professional had a stellar run. First produced in 1993, it ended up on Pierce Brosnan's wrist in Goldeneye in 1995 (in it's quartz iteration) and soon became a juggernaut model for the Omega brand.
I wore this watch virtually every day for the fist six years that I had it, before my collection began to get larger, and it served me faithfully.
As the years rolled by, and I got older, I began to have trouble reading the time on this watch in low-light or total darkness. Those skeleton hands don't carry much lume on them. The watch began to be worn less and less. This was a bit of a shame because it fit me very well and its case profile was quite slim, unlike a lot of dive watches nowadays that are quite thick.
So, I began to wonder if there was something that I could do about the hands.
I had read on forums about some folks who had been thinking along the same lines and had found a solution.
The 1960s Seamaster 300 model had a wonderful sword-shaped hand-set;
With a little fiddling (not to be attempted by the faint-of-heart), these sword hands could be fitted to the Seamaster Professional 300m.
As luck would have it, the watchmaker that I work with told me that he just might have a set of these hands at home, and he'd bring them in.
He brought them in the next day and, lo and behold, the hour hand slotted onto the central pipe without any issues but the minute hand would require some delicate broaching to make it fit.
Basically, the hole at the end of the minute hand would need to be reamed out slightly to make it a fraction larger, so that it could fit securely onto the pipe.
Each pipe is narrower and slightly shorter than the one inside it, a bit like an extendable transistor radio antenna. Hour hand slots onto the widest pipe, minute hand goes onto the next narrowest one, and the seconds hand goes onto the smallest. Each of these pipes rotate at different speeds, with the seconds one being the fastest, for obvious reasons. It rotates 360 degrees once every minute (60 seconds). Now, I'm no watchmaker, but I think that's how it all works.
Anyway, the sword hands were fitted to the watch and this was the end result;
Yep, that worked out nicely. To the extent that I began to wear the watch a lot more than I had in a long time.
I have given some thought to getting an after-market bracelet for the watch, just to further 'de-Bond' it a little. The classic brickwork bracelet that this watch is known for seems to have dated a little in my view. Although, who knows? I might just put the original bracelet back on. Not sure.
T'is a fickle business, this watch collecting.
The watch tends to look good and feel quite comfortable on a nylon NATO strap, though, so I might just leave it on this or maybe switch it out to a rubber strap for the Summer months.
Either way, I'm very happy with this conversion. Collectors will scoff, but what the hell.
This simple conversion has rescued this classic Omega from spending more time in the watch box than it really should. Since it's perhaps the longest-owned watch that I have, it deserves to be worn. And I still have the original hands set aside, should I ever wish to reverse the process. All good.
4) Baltic Hermétique Tourer (2024)
I got this watch in late August and by year's end, I was surprised to find that it had made it into the Top Six.
It racked up 33 days on the wrist in a very short time.
At a wonderful 37mm in diameter, it makes for an extremely wearable watch. Baltic is a brand that popped up on Kickstarter in 2016 and hasn't looked back since, having released over half a dozen different models of varying designs with great success since then.
I opted for the brown dial, which you could refer to as chocolate or tobacco, given the rich hue of it. I don't have any watches in brown, so I figured I'd break up the collection a little. The dealer I went to (Time + Tide, Melbourne, Australia) only had this model in stock on a brown Tropic rubber strap. Fine by me, for the time being. I asked them to place an order for the metal bracelet in the meantime.
In saying that, the rubber strap is super-comfortable on the wrist, with a nice pliability to it. I've purchased some rubber straps of this type that were about ten bucks and were very uncomfortable to wear, leaving a deep imprint on the wrist after a day's wear. Something to avoid if possible.
It's a great little watch. The dial has a couple of layers to it, with the extreme outer edge of the dial - along the minute track - having a sunken layer to the rest of the dial.
As for the dial itself, it's a stunner despite its minimalism. The hour marker batons and four Arabic numerals at the cardinal points are made of SuperLuminova. As a result, aside from glowing nicely in the dark, these markers and numbers look like they were piped onto the dial, like lettering on a chocolate birthday cake. The syringe-shaped hands have a generous fill of lume as well. This watch looks as good in the dark as it does in daylight.
The bracelet arrived soon enough and onto the watch it went. This Baltic has 150 metres of water-resistance, so it should handle anything that I may throw at it.
A word on water-resistance
I do tend to go on and on about it, I know. And I always go for watches with more water-resistance (w/r) than I'll ever need. The most that my watches would be subjected to is a day at the beach or pool. I'm of the opinion that 100m will handle pretty much anything that a mere mortal will put their wristwatch through. Now, I've sometimes read on watch forums of people who have swum laps in a pool with their 50m w/r Omega Speedmaster Professionals (the 'Moonwatch' that...you know...went to the moon) on their wrist with no issues whatsoever.
I have also read of somebody who got caught in a storm wearing his Moonwatch with jeans and a t-shirt and water/moisture got into the watch.
Here's the thing; if you have the watch pressure-tested once a year before the Summer season, you should be okay. 'Should' being the operative word here.
I know myself well enough to know that I'm not disciplined enough to pressure-test my watches once a year.
And, some brands will say you can swim with a 50m w/r watch, while others will say it'll just handle accidental splashes or a rinse of your hands. So, to play it safe, I won't put a watch underwater unless it's 100m w/r or more. Your methods may vary, and good for you.
One slight gripe about this Baltic Hermétique. The winding crown sits flush against the case, hence the "hermétique' designation in the name of the watch. This makes winding the watch a bit of a challenge, but I knew this when I signed on. No biggie.
Movado used to make some fantastic pocket/purse watches in the 1920s-1960s that were called Ermeto. These were designed to be totally sealed cases and they had a crown that would sit flat against the case when not being wound or set.
The two leather-clad halves of the watch could be slid together - like theatre curtains - to 'shut' the watch closed. Notice the thin crown sitting flush against the case.
Anyway, the Baltic Hermétique Tourer's crown. Yes, it's super thin and hard to grasp, but the way around this is to give the watch a couple of turns with your fingers, difficult if your fingers are the size of hot dog franks. Then, give the watch a couple of shakes. The way I do this is to hold the by its bracelet so the that the watch protrudes from my hand and then I give it a flick, the way you might when you cast out a fishing rod. You should hear the rotor inside the movement whirring as it spins. I do this a couple of times, then I set the watch and go about my day. Pulling the crown out to set the time offers a little resistance, possible due to the rubber gaskets in the crown tube that are designed to make the watch 150m water-resistant. Like I say, no biggie.
Here it is on the bracelet, a nice bead-of-rice design (due to the shape of the central links which mimic grains of rice) that makes for a very comfy fit on the wrist. The smaller the links on a watch bracelet, the more it will follow the curvature of the wrist.
Notice how the crown practically disappears into the case side. Nifty, and it gives the watch a nice old-school 1950s vibe.
The finish on the case is wonderful, with its blend of brushed and polished surfaces. This is indeed a watch that punches above its weight. Internally, the watch is powered by a Japanese Miyota 9039 Calibre, made by Citizen, and it keeps pretty good time. The use of this well-regarded movement helps to keep the price down below a thousand AUD, when purchased on the rubber strap. It also means that any watchmaker who knows what he's doing would be able to service it without any dramas.
All in all, it's been a great watch so far. If you were to dip a toe in mechanical watch waters, this brand would be a good place to start.
5) Seiko Prospex Solar Diver's 200m, Ref.:SNE585P (2023)
Another surprise. I hadn't realised that I'd worn this one so much last year. Twenty-five days of 2024 saw it narrowly taking 5th place.
This watch is a slightly smaller diver than I'm used to but this was exactly what I was looking for. Measuring 38mm in diameter, it is a barely noticeable fraction smaller than the Tudor BB58 and it sits nicely on the wrist.
I was after something solar-powered. I'd briefly looked at the Seiko Speedtimer Chronograph, but wasn't thrilled with the larger thickness, and I was preferring a dive watch anyway, as I thought it might make a good watch for travel. Besides, the Speedtimer was going to cost more than I was wanting to spend.
This Solar Diver ticked more boxes for me. And it was on sale, too!
I opted for the blue dial, to add a little difference to my stable of black-dialled dive watches. The bracelet was the standard pin and tube configuration and it felt a fragile to me, so I soon got an Uncle Straps Oyster-style bracelet for it.
The dial of the watch is a solar panel and if you leave the watch in good sunlight for a couple of hours, it should give you about ten MONTHS running time before the watch stops. It has a battery in it, which should last about ten years, from what I've read. Nice.
This has quickly become my travel watch. I've only taken it overseas twice, but it has served me well. The set-and-forget nature of a battery-powered watch is a definite plus for me when traveling, as I have enough to concern myself with. Currency exchange rates, phone chargers, language barriers, etc, can occupy enough space in my head when I travel, so if I can remove a minor distraction or task, then I'm all for it.
And, should this watch be heavily damaged or, worse yet, stolen, I won't shed too many a tear over it, as it can be replaced.
I've switched it over to rubber straps and NATO bands from time to time but it seems to end up back on bracelet before too long. Fine by me.
It also makes a good watch to wear on those (unfortunately too rare) occasions when I do a workout. Knocking this watch against dumbells, etc poses no problems at all, and it may look good with a few scuffs and scratches anyway.
Seiko is a favourite brand of mine, and it's because the brand makes watches like this. I did read a snippet from an interview with the Seiko CEO and he stated that the brand cannot be all things to all people, indicating that Seiko may not always make inexpensive watches such as these. Remember that this is a company that makes a $100 mechanical watch as well as the venerable Grand Seiko brand, which starts at three or four thousand AUD.
For now, though, Seiko still produces a dependable solar-powered watch for not a lot of money.
6) Omega Seamaster Railmaster Co-Axial, Ref.:2504.52.00 (2009)
I sold this watch to a customer back in 2009 and he wanted to sell it a few years later, to help fund his impending wedding, and he offered me first dibs on it. It was impossible to say 'no', since I had wanted one for a while but by 2012, this 36mm model - along with the rest of the Railmaster range - had been discontinued.
I wore it a lot in the years after I got it but I'd always found its crappy clasp set-up to be its Achilles Heel. It's a flimsy arrangement, held together by a tiny screw. I wrote about this in last year's Most-Worn Watches post, if you'd like more info.
Aside from that, I can't fault this watch at all, as it encompasses a lot of what I like or want from a wristwatch.
I solved the clasp issue by changing the bracelet over to a mix of two aftermarket bracelets. It was quite a fluke. I used the end-link from a Forstner Flat-link bracelet and attached it to an Uncle Straps FOIS bracelet. This combo leaves about a half-a-millimetre gap which is barely visible. AND it has a standard push-button folding clasp. Nice. And it definitely solved the problem, resulting in the watch getting a new lease on life and getting regular time on the wrist again, spending 23 days on the wrist last year.
Much like the Rolex Explorer, the Railmaster keeps things fairly simple with a dark dial with Arabic numerals at the cardinal points, making for clear legibility.
Add a sapphire crystal and 150 metre water-resistance and you have a GADA watch, which in watch-nerd terminology stands for 'Go Anywhere, Do Anything'.
I've had this watch for over a decade and it is surely due for servicing. Twenty-twenty-five is the year of maintenance for a few of my watches and this one will most likely be attended to at some point.
And that's 2024's list done and dusted. As you may notice, it was mainly dive watches and Expedition watches. I didn't plan it that way but that's how it turned out. It gives a pretty good indication of my current tastes.
Regarding 2025, as mentioned up above, my Submariner (Ref.: 5513) is currently being serviced - long overdue - and I'll hopefully have it back before end of January;
I'm undecided as to whether I'll keep it after I get it back. Part of me is thinking about moving it along and replacing it with a more modern version, one that has a sapphire crystal, such as a Reference 16610 from around 2008. Or perhaps a mid-'80s Reference 16800, which was a transitional model between my watch and the 16610.
It had the same dial as my 5513 - with the plain white lume plots - but it was the first Submariner model to incorporate a sapphire crystal.
On the other hand, the 16610 model made a change to the dial by surrounding the painted hour markers with a white gold ring, as seen on this 2002 model, picture courtesy of HQ Milton.com;
This simple upgrade vastly changed the look of the Rolex Submariner, in my humble op. Of course, it is a phenomenal watch and sold a truck-load.
The Reference 16610 was the watch that brought the Submariner out into the light.
The watch conoscenti had always known about the Submariner's place among collectors but this model managed to work its way onto the wrists of folks who wanted a long-established, robust and reliable sports watch from a well-known brand. The Rolex marketing machine purred along smoothly throughout the 1980s and '90s, thus creating a demand for their products that was unprecedented in its history.
This demand shows no signs of slowing down. In fact, it's quite the opposite nowadays. If you want a Rolex Submariner - or virtually any other Rolex wristwatch - you'll likely need to put you name down on a waiting list and then be prepared to wait.
And I mean wait. Production just cannot keep up with demand, and it's been like this for almost a decade.
Either way, I'm not in the market for a new Submariner. I'd be happy with a model from anywhere between 1990 and 2010. For now, I'm just speculating anyway.
I'll have to give some very serious thought to whether or not my Sub stays or goes. For now, like I say, I'm 50/50 about it.
Aside from that, nothing else on the horizon. I did notice that I wasn't switching watches with the same regularity as years gone by. I used to wear a different watch every day, but found myself wearing the same watch for three or four days at a time last year.
From time to time, I'd read an article about somebody who owns two or three different watches and I'd be a little envious of them. The more you wear a particular watch, the more it gets tied to your identity or personality. And of course, it accumulates more scuffs, scratches and dents over time, in the end making the watch truly yours. There's something to be said for that.
Another thing that a small collection gives you is freedom from having to decide what watch to wear on any given day.
As Henry Kissinger once said; The absence of alternatives clears the mind marvelously.
Most likely, he only owned one wristwatch.
No fool.
Thanks for reading!
