Like this content? Please check out The Real Time Show podcast, where my friends Alon, Rob and I give you a peek behind the curtains of the watch industry, all while offering our candid, unfiltered thoughts.

Note 1: I refer and link to many organizations and product listings in this post. I have used these references for illustration purposes only. I receive no compensation for any of these links, and my providing these links does not constitute an endorsement of any of the retailers and/or product listings to which they refer (except for l’etiquette magazine, they don’t pay me to say this so it’s my 100% opinion that it’s awesome).

Note 2: If you do want to support my work on this site, please visit my SHOP page.

“Sell the sizzle, not the steak”.

It’s a decades-old saying that’s a cliché in 2022, but no matter how much advertising has evolved to levels the “Mad Men” could never dream of, the idea is still the same: convince a consumer that they’re buying into a dream and they’ll open their wallet for you, no questions asked.

Indeed, every consumer-facing company in the world spends tremendous sums to ensure that when you consider purchasing one of their products, you’re not only thinking about the product itself, but also - and arguably far more importantly - the lifestyle benefits that said product will bring to you.

“Be Like Mike”, “The Ultimate Driving Machine”, “Think Different” - among many other famous slogans - have helped their respective companies move billions of dollars’ worth of high-tech sneakers, cars and computers.

Don’t count out watchmakers though!

Despite being seen as comparatively old-fashioned, ever since the Quartz Crisis and the evolution of mechanical watches from necessary tools to luxurious objects of desire, watch companies have had to become masters at selling emotions.

For me, Patek Philippe’s “You Never Actually Own a Patek Philippe” tagline is hands-down one of the winning-est slogans in all of advertising, never mind watches, but my feeling is that this is still pretty “inside baseball” to the general public.

That said, in terms of sheer marketing brute force, Rolex wins, every time; everyone knows Rolex, everyone recognizes the Rolex logo. Even if someone couldn’t name a single Rolex model (believe it or not, watch-nerds, there are such people out there), they could still tell you that Rolex makes watches that cost a lot of money and therefore are mostly owned by people who are successful and presumably very interesting.

Judging from decades of Rolex ads, achieving this type of automatic association in the public’s mind has to have been deliberate. Whereas Omega is happy to talk about some strange part called a “co-axial escapement”, such jargon rarely surfaces in Rolex’s marketing, despite its own clear technical prowess.

With Rolex, it’s all about deep-sea dwelling, race-car driving and Everest-climbing.

That consistent messaging combined with unrelenting presence - in airports, in magazines, at sporting events - has no doubt been astronomically expensive for Rolex, but the strategy has also been astronomically successful, to the point of becoming problematic. For several years now, the company has been a victim of its own success, and today the question potential customers have to consider is not “which Rolex model do I want” but rather “which Rolex model do I realistically have a shot at buying without having to debase myself in front of an AD?”

Rolex has the steak and the sizzle, but it’s also one of very few companies that has the seasoning flicked into the pan, SaltBae-style, in the form of hype. Whereas any good watch review should aim to assess a watch on the merits, free from the marketing, a Rolex review stands apart because 1) any Rolex made today is objectively a well-made, “good” watch, and 2) any Rolex review written today also has to acknowledge the massive hype and weight the assessment accordingly, you cannot separate the product from the marketing, or more specifically the effect that marketing has had on the growing watch-buying public.

With that in mind, the real question to ask is: “Is the Rolex ownership experience worth the baggage that comes with it?”.

I feel awful telling you that “it depends”, but it does, and that brings me to the subject of this article, the Rolex Datejust 36 mm. To me this is THE Rolex, the one my mind jumps to every time I hear the company name.

As I’ve already said, like any Rolex, the Rolex Datejust 36 mm is an excellent choice. In fact, it’s the archetypal example of what a “nice watch” should look like and be. So, if you are considering a Rolex Datejust 36 mm feel free to skip the next ten thousand words or so, because it’s a solid buy.

But what if you’re frustrated at not being able to buy a Submariner or an Explorer, or frankly any other stainless steel Rolex sports model, and are wondering whether or not a Datejust will scratch the itch?

What about if you can’t get your hands on (or can’t afford) a Patek Philippe Nautilus 5711 or an Audemars Piguet Royal Oak (don’t laugh, I’ll get to that)?

What if you just think the Rolex Datejust is boring?

Getting back to the matter at hand, saying the Rolex Datejust is a nice watch is a take so obvious as to be basically useless, so in this article I’m going to take my time to unpack my own experiences with the Rolex Datejust 36 mm, and try my best to lay out why this watch is as exciting or boring as you want it to be.

Indeed, the Rolex Datejust has been with me in some form or another almost uninterruptedly since the very beginning of my journey into watches almost 12 years ago, and in that time I’ve come to view it as “Schrödinger’s Watch”: it’s both the perfect sports watch and the most boring way to spend a few thousand dollars.

A lot’s happened since 2010 and I’ve formed a lot of watch-related opinions in that time, so before you go any further, make sure you have a nice cup of coffee nearby; the subject of this article is “just” the Rolex Datejust, but I’ve got a lot to say.

Who needs Holy Trinity sports watches when you can have a Datejust?

Though Rolex does not provide any insight on its sales figures, it’s usually an accepted fact that the Datejust is the company’s bread-and-butter, because for years it’s been THE watch that people have mostly turned to to celebrate a promotion, a graduation, or some similar event.

That’s not so easy to do now, because in 2022 the watch industry is nuts, hype seems to drive everything and the cases at Rolex ADs are basically empty. There are many theories as to what’s going on, but what always strikes is that you can’t easily see a Rolex Datejust 36 mm, and yet NO ONE talks about the Rolex Datejust 36 mm.

Think about it: the watch community spent thousands of person-hours talking about how the new Submariner picked up a millimeter and how the Explorer II picked up nothing (it’s the same watch, convince me otherwise), but how much do you ever read about a Datejust?

Is it that AD’s are automatically sending every watch they get to the grey market, or that watch buyers just want anything they can obtain from the crown in the event they can’t get their first (or second, or third…) choice, or…

Is it that customers have sub-consciously realized a long-held belief of mine that I’ve never seen written or vocalized elsewhere:

The Rolex Datejust is the most perfect example of a stainless steel, integrated bracelet sports watch that you can buy today.

“Whoa, slow down there David”, you say.

“Do you have any idea of what you’re talking about?”, you ask.

I know this doesn’t make a lot of sense at first, but I am absolutely prepared to make the case that if you can’t find or can’t afford the Patek Philippe 5711, the Vacheron Constantin Overseas (or, be still my beating heart, the new Vacheron Constantin 222), or the Audemars Piguet Royal Oak, you should absolutely look at the Rolex Datejust 36 mm and not think for a second that you’re “settling”.

Let’s start by laying out some common characteristics of those iconic watches:

1. Stainless steel construction (I know, gold models exist but the mania, and in fact the original Royal Oak, started with stainless steel)

2. A perception that they can go anywhere and do anything, serving as both a dress watch and sports watch (though the reality doesn’t necessarily support that perception…)

3. The bracelet on these watches is “integrated” to the case, making them seem more like a piece of jewelry that occupies your whole wrist rather than a watch head you simply strap to the top of it

If we go by this checklist, how can you deny that the Datejust falls into this category of watches? I’ll be explicit:

1. This one is obvious, and you can get a Datejust in precious metals as well.

2. This was the original selling point of the Rolex Oyster line, with regards to its water resistance. Today the Rolex Datejust has a screw-down crown, 100 meters of water resistance, and hacking seconds; how long have Patek Philippe and Audemars Piguet been given a pass for not including these features? How is the Royal Oak a “sports watch” with water resistance more befitting a dress watch? Can we also bring up how the Rolex 3135/3235 movements have a full balance bridge, compared to the more fragile balance cock of the Patek Philippe Nautilus, or that Rolex certifies its modern watches to -2/+2 seconds per day?

I understand I’ll get push-back on point 3, but hear me out. While I admit that strictly speaking, the Rolex Datejust’s bracelet is not integrated to the case, it is absolutely integral to the design of the watch. What I mean is that while you can certainly put a strap on a Datejust (lots of vintage models are worn this way), the Datejust - and basically all other Rolex sports models - is designed to be worn on a bracelet because in the company’s mind it’s inseparable from the watch head.

Today, if you take a look at the GMT-Master II, you cannot turn a Batman into a Batgirl because Rolex specifically designed the bracelets not to be interchangeable! Think about this: Vacheron Constantin built in a quick release system to its Overseas and provides factory straps, and on the lower end Tudor had a factory strap option for its North Flag, which is absolutely an integrated, stainless steel sports watch.

So, if those brands offer straps for their integrated bracelet sports watches while Rolex basically mandates bracelets, can’t we say that the Rolex Datejust should also be considered an integrated bracelet sports watch?

If you think I’m making a stretch, consider that the “Oyster” and “Jubilee” bracelets have those names in the first place! They are iconic, so if you see either out in public your immediate association is to a Rolex. What about the “President” bracelet? With its hidden clasp?

Come on, that’s an integrated bracelet sports watch.

If you’re still unconvinced, I’ll make the next point by referencing the latest hotness in stainless steel sports watches, the Tissot PRX Powermatic 80.

When the quartz PRX came out, the general feeling was that, value proposition aside, the watch was essentially a pastiche of integrated steel sports watch tropes that first appeared on much more expensive models (maybe people also said that when the original PRX came out decades ago, but let’s stay focused).

When the Powermatic 80 version was announced, the watch community saw that aside from the movement, a stamped tapisserie dial was incorporated and honed in the comparison to the Audemars Piguet Royal Oak.

I guess that makes sense superficially, but that’s the wrong comparison.

So, what’s the correct comparison?

The Rolex Oysterquartz!

The resemblance is so obvious, but I’m going to hammer this home hard with a picture of the newly released “gold” Tissot PRX Powermatic 80:

To me, the reasoning is clear:

1. The Tissot PRX Powermatic 80 is viewed as an integrated bracelet sports watch.

2. That watch was clearly inspired by the Rolex Oysterquartz.

3. The Rolex Oysterquartz itself has very, very clear traces of the Rolex Datejust DNA.

4. All you have to do is work backwards to arrive at the conclusion that the Rolex Datejust is an integrated bracelet sports watch, perhaps even “Patient 0”, the very first integrated bracelet sports watch that existed.

The only thing that would make this reasoning more airtight would be if you found out that Gerald Genta himself designed the Rolex Oysterquartz.

That would be nuts, right?

And wouldn’t you know it, while researching this article I came across this article from Esquire, dating back to 2016, on the connection between Rolex and the Audemars Piguet Royal Oak. I don’t know about you, but this passage blew my watch-mind:

This is wild. If you read the article, you’ll learn that Gerald Genta designed a Rolex watch that I’ve never heard come up anywhere, called the “Texan”. Genta apparently said that the Datejust was the “perfect watch”, and its DNA is clearly apparent in the Texan. To the extent that Rolex then piggy-backed on that watch to create the Oysterquartz - inarguably an integrated bracelet sports watch (leading into another such watch, the Tissot PRX) - though I can never say for certain what Gerald Genta was thinking, I think it would be fair not only:

1.To hypothesize that the “seeds” for the integrated bracelet sports watch as we know it were sown from Gerald Genta’s views on the Rolex Datejust.

2. But also to draw from that the assertion that if you can’t find or can’t afford the heavy-hitters from Patek Philippe, Audemars Piguet or Vacheron Constantin (or now Czapek, Peter Speake-Marin, Laurent Ferrier…) the Datejust should in theory fill the void.

I could stop here, but I won’t because I want to make my case absolutely airtight. The final point I want to make on this section, drawing the parallels between the Rolex Datejust and any other integrated bracelet sports watch, is nebulous but highly important.

I want to talk about “vibes”.

In watch-industry speak, you might use the word “emotions”, which are what brands try to create in their customers’ minds when they spend massive sums on celebrity ambassadors and boutique “experiences”.

Going back to my opening paragraphs, the Patek Philippe Nautilus isn’t just popular because it’s a “nice” watch (though let’s be honest, at current market rates it’s not nearly nice enough, you could say it’s downright deficient relative to other options), but rather because people can easily picture themselves wearing it on the deck of a yacht or observing the ocean from a private beach cabana in Fiji.

Don’t you get the same vibes from a Rolex Datejust?

Sure, you could see the Datejust as a watch worn by stuffy, boring, uncool people, but given the right dial and bracelet combo? You’ve got a sharp-looking, timeless, very (very) robust sports watch that will leave you with enough money left over relative to its haute-horology competitors to take at least a couple of Fijian vacations.

I recognize that the arguments I’ve made above pre-suppose a certain level of familiarity with the watch industry, a level that I definitely did not have back in 2010. The “Datejust = integrated sports watch” statement is important and I’ll come back to it, but it does not explain my motivations for buying several Rolex Datejust watches.

My motivations were much simpler, and drawing them out will require a stroll down memory lane.

Wisdom from the Watch Snob

I’m sure everyone has a childhood memory of obtaining a watch and all of a sudden feeling like a grownup (mine was a yellow Timex Ironman when I was about 12 years old). Though we all share this memory, falling all the way into watch-nerdery is something else entirely (few go that far) and my time didn’t come until years later, in early Summer 2010.

I’d been sent to the field in Saskatchewan, Canada to help with a workover. As tends to be the case with these types of jobs, you are sent out urgently but as soon as you arrive you realize you have quite a bit of time to kill.

At that time the #menswear movement was really hitting its stride, and having been actively interested in clothing in some way or another since my early teens, I was highly receptive and keen to learn as much as I could.

Naturally, “I want to look as put together as possible” quickly turned into “I should get myself a nice watch”, so with my motel’s fast-ish internet connection and plenty of standby time, down the rabbit hole I went.

Looking back, my initial searches were very crude, and of course I had nothing in mind other than “if it ticks it’s cheap and I don’t want it, if it’s an automatic from a French-sounding manufacturer, then it’s a potential candidate for a watch purchase.”

I also had a pretty stereotypical idea of what a “nice” watch should look like: old-fashioned, slim, probably with a leather band. It just didn’t occur to me at all that sports watches could also be dress watches (or that the term “sports watch” was even a thing), so that led me in some pretty interesting directions, like my first purchase almost being a Mido Baroncelli!

As I write all this out I’m struck but just how quaint this was, truly a throwback to much simpler times. That’s not only nostalgia kicking in, but it’s also a reflection of the limitations of the early aughts, because in addition to my lack of knowledge, there wasn’t even close to the amount of easily accessible content there is today. Yes, forums have been around for decades, but trying to learn about watches from those would be like trying to learn about physics by starting with Einstein’s Theory of Relativity, in the sense that both sources are very dense, very technical, and require a large knowledge foundation to understand them properly.

With little easily accessible content out there, my internet searches led me to askmen.com, which featured a recurring column named “Ask the Watch Snob”, written by…the Watch Snob. I don’t think the Snob’s identity has ever been revealed, but true to his nom-de-plume, the column was written with a mix of knowledge and derision. The column relied on reader questions, and usually the format would be two questions the Snob would answer seriously, and the third would be referred to as the “Question From a Watch Knob”. In this case, the Snob felt the question was so obvious and/or beneath his insight that he would turn up the snobbery to 11 and let rip with sarcasm and condescension.

Again, this sounds very silly and quaint from the year 2022, but in 2010 it’s what I had, and if you looked past the tone of the responses, the Watch Snob did have a lot of knowledge to impart on readers. For instance, from those columns I first learned about Lange, I found out what a “movement” was and how many watch companies were apparently “cheating” their customers by utilizing off-the-shelf movements by some company called “ETA”, rather than developing their own “in-house” offerings.

If I had to pick one overarching take-away I gleaned from those columns - the thread you can weave through the above examples and that eventually led me to the Datejust - it was that certain watches were “worthy” of praise, while others were not worth your time, let alone your money. Some of these opinions (like Bell & Ross not being worth anyone’s attention simply because they use ETA movements) are laughable in hindsight, but I knew nothing and was easily impressionable. All I could do was cling to what I knew and what seemed to get a nod from the Snob: Rolex.

Rolex meant quality and it might as well have been the only game in town, because to me, if it wasn’t Rolex, it wasn’t worth having. Plus, Rolex had the Watch Snob’s stamp of approval, so what further encouragement did I need?

You might have thought to yourself “geez, it’s a long way from a Mido Baroncelli to a Rolex, how did that happen?” Well, the same way it probably happened for you:

1. “I should get myself an adult watch”

2. “$300 for this because it’s automatic, are they nuts?!”

3. “Whoa, there are watches that cost over $10,000!!!”

4. “Whoa, there are watches that cost over $100,000!!!”

5. “$5,000 for a luxury mechanical watch? What a great value!”

In reality, I went from considering a $300 Stuhrling (yea…) to being open to a roughly $1,000 Mido Baroncelli, to telling myself “sure, what’s a couple thousand more to get a Rolex”. Could I have kept digging? Maybe, but back in 2010 when it was much more difficult to cross-shop models, I wasn’t going to risk spending such a sum on a Jaeger-LeCoultre as my first big watch purchases.

Also, I was about 26 years old at the time, full of “piss and vinegar” as some of the people in the field used to say, and I had a serious chip on my shoulder. I wanted to prove that I was “somebody” and that I was making it in the world.

How do you do that?

You buy a Rolex.

Rolex Datejust 36 mm Number 1: The “Mature” Datejust

Rolex is not known for having a particularly diverse catalog, and that’s part of its appeal; the Submariner you buy now will look more or less like the Submariner someone buys 50 years from now. That’s not to say you are completely limited with your choices, and the Datejust is a line in which you can definitely have some fun.

Once I’d rationalized spending the money required to buy a Rolex, I had to decide what I was going to buy. Again, at the time, I couldn’t have told you a GMT-Master II from a Submariner from a Daytona, and since I assumed that “nice watch” = “adult watch” = “dress watch”, the Datejust was naturally the model that I gravitated to.

In line with the “mature” look I was going for, I had a very specific list of criteria:

1. White dial, so sophisticated.

2. Fluted bezel, because how would someone know I owned a Rolex without the fluted bezel?

3. Oyster bracelet, because I wanted to look mature, but still sporty.

4. Roman numeral markers; to me, this was the ultimate sign of taste and sophistication.

5. No lug holes, since (and this ended up being factual) my understanding was that this implied a more recent model.

It took some time to find exactly what I was looking for, but after a few weeks of searching, I came across a model without box and papers at a pre-owned dealer called Texas Watch & Gold, in Houston, Texas, for the princely sum of…

$2,850.

That was the single most expensive object I’d ever bought, but times have indeed changed, haven’t they? If you saw this price today you might ask yourself what the seller wasn’t disclosing…

On that point, looking back I suppose I feel a certain anxiety at how badly things could have gone buying a first Rolex on the pre-owned market, I mean even today that can be a bit of a viper’s nest. But, a new watch would have been quite a bit more expensive so very early on I realized that pre-owned was the way forward for me. Some seller research combined with being young and naive meant that at the time I didn’t overthink the purchase; I wanted it and so in June 2010, I went for it.

Despite the reasons behind my purchase criteria sounding very “cringe” today, the resulting watch actually looked very nice. If I still had it, I would be very happy wearing it.

I’m sure you know where this is going though, because not too long after I reached a milestone common to so many watch collectors: I flipped my first luxury watch for another one.

Rolex Datejust 36 mm Number 2: The “Texas Timex”

What do you think of when you hear “Texas?”

Cowboys, the Wild West, BBQ?

Texas DOES have those (the BBQ, man, that is some good stuff), but I think what people don’t realize is that in addition to those historical touch points, its largest cities have all the trappings of the most cosmopolitan global hubs: thriving arts scenes, luxury car dealerships, homes well into the 7 figures, and, yes, plenty of luxury watches.

It’s no secret where the money for all this comes from. Indeed, another valid word-association answer when you hear “Texas” is “oil”, and though the oil industry’s fortunes are notoriously rocky, Texas as it is today, for better and for worse, would not exist without oil production.

Texas is home to many oil & gas producers and service companies. Those companies employ professionals who then spend money in the local communities, for instance those luxury watch dealers. There has always been quite a varied selection (here’s a watch-oriented guide to the city of Houston from Hodinkee), but the juggernaut, the luxury watch that is seemingly on every wrist in downtown Houston or Dallas or Midland and their respective Petroleum Clubs (yes, there is such a thing) is the Rolex Datejust.

The Rolex Datejust I always think of when I think of the Datejust has a champagne dial, stick markers, fluted yellow gold bezel and two-tone Jubilee bracelet. This particular watch is so ubiquitous in Texas, either as a purchase or a marker of tenure at an oil & gas company, that it has earned the nickname the “Texas Timex”.

Though it would be factually untrue to say that everyone in Texas owns this watch, you wouldn’t have to try very hard to spot one in an upscale area. In fact, Texas’ cities have a bit of a rivalry with each other, and Dallas is known as the “snooty” one; Houstonians like to joke that Dallas is full of “$30,000 millionaires” and that their standard uniform is a BMW, a blue blazer and a Rolex Datejust! Interestingly, those markers seem to go for men and women, because I’ve lost count of the amount of Texas Timex-configured 26 mm Datejusts I’ve seen on women’s wrists from having spent nearly three decades in Houston.

This is all relevant to the second Datejust I bought, because whereas many people today will not even entertain the thought of a two-tone Rolex due to its 80’s/Miami Vice connotations, I have no such negative feelings. My dad worked in the oil & gas industry and did in fact receive a two-tone Rolex as a gift from his company for 25 years of working there (slightly differently configured, but that’s for a future post). Because of growing up around the Texas Timex and then seeing him wear his version, for me a Two-Tone Datejust was THE symbol of having made it, and I had/have no negative reservations about its design.

Given my repeated exposure to that watch growing up, it didn’t take long for me to look at my original Datejust and think “I wonder what it would take to turn this into a two-tone model…”

That took me back to Texas Watch & Gold in mid-2011, where I was able to spend about $700 dollars plus the trade to get another no-box-no-papers Texas Timex.

That was a good day for me. I know, there’s not much original to the idea of buying a Rolex to celebrate your success, but that’s only because, yea, it feels awesome so, yea, everyone wants to get a piece of that magic.

As I’m writing this sentence I realize that my description of the Texas Timex could give you the impression that it was my “grail” or “exit” watch. For many people it is (good for them, they’re stronger than I was/am), but as my journey in watches continued, so did my journey with the Rolex 36 mm Datejust.

Rolex Datejust 36 mm Number 3: Copying Anthony Bourdain

One of the watches that kept coming up in the Watch Snob’s columns was the Rolex Submariner, specifically how tough it was. After the Datejust, buying a Submariner became a goal of mine and in March 2011 I bought a used 16610 model, again from Texas Watch & Gold but this time with box, papers AND the anchor), and again because I could stomach paying $5,000 for the older model but not $7,500 for the newer one with a ceramic bezel (those were the good old days, weren’t they?).

That watch was my daily driver until late 2014, around which point two things happened.

1. Realizing how much wrist time the Submariner was getting and wanting to do something for my soon-to-be-wife, I traded in the Texas Timex to Hal Martin’s in Houston for what I thought (and still think) is THE most-down-the-middle, “sensible” Rolex you can buy, reviewed ably by Hodinkee’s Stephen Pulvirent years ago (with the only difference that I got the 31 mm model instead of 36 mm). Technically, this was the third Rolex Datejust I bought, but since it wasn’t for me, we can set this one aside.

2. I reached the final form of “young-unmarried-guy-who-just-got-a-bonus” when I bought two Rolexes at the same time. For months I’d been going back and forth between the Rolex Submariner 116613 two-tone “Bluesy” and the Rolex Explorer II 216570 black dial. I was seeing my now-wife at the time so I wasn’t yet married, and at some point it occurred to me that the opportunities to be totally stupid with my money were dwindling; since I couldn’t decide between these two completely different and completely necessary watches, then - obviously - I decided I should just get both (buying two Rolexes…at once…from an AD…with a discount for the “bulk” sale…again, those were the good old days).

It would be superfluous to go into those two watches in great detail in this article, but I will just say that while the Rolex Bluesy is stunningly beautiful (really, it’s gorgeous, and the blue/gold combo plays perfectly to the nautical theme of the Rolex Submariner), I found myself feeling very self-conscious while wearing it. While 24 year old me wanted to shout to the world “see what I can do!”, 30 year old me just wanted to enjoy some nice things discreetly.

Once I realized how little I was going to wear this watch and how much cash I had tied up in it, naturally I started asking myself “what should I get instead?”

What would make me feel the pleasure of wearing a Rolex without sticking out so much, but for my daily use-cases be just as robust as a Rolex Submariner?

Obviously a Rolex Datejust!

At the time, I was - and still am - a huge fan of Anthony Bourdain’s various travel shows, and from watching him I’d come to realize he had an appreciation for watches, with a focus on Rolex as evidenced by a quote of his. Though on some level I’d like to think marketing and celebrity associations don’t work on me, the fact is that I do think of James Bond when I wear an Omega, and back then I thought that if I could find a Rolex that I liked AND give me just a little bit of Bourdain’s charisma, that would be the watch for me.

The watch I most associated with him at the time was what I thought was a blue-dial 36 mm Datejust, but in fact turned out to be a 34 mm Rolex Oyster Perpetual Date, as shown in the picture below:

The “debate” around watch sizing can wait for another post, but personally I think my father’s 34 mm Rolex Oyster Perpetual Date fits me beautifully and Anthony Bourdain, a much taller man than I am, also had no qualms about wearing a “small” watch. For those reasons I had zero issues walking into Hal Martin’s again with the intention of trading in my Bluesy for some cash and what I’ll now call "the Bourdain”.

Long story short, the lead sales person told me that for resale purposes, I’d be better off with a 36 mm Datejust. Today, I don’t care about resale at all, firstly because I’m much more certain of my tastes, and secondly because I’m just really turned off by what that concept has turned the watch hobby into. Back then though, sure, if I was going to buy a watch, why not have a bit of insurance in the form of higher resale value down the line?

That brings us (finally) to the main watch in question for this article, the one that appears in the masthead picture: a modern, blue dial, stainless steel, smooth bezel Rolex Oyster Perpetual Datejust 36 mm with Oyster bracelet and stick markers.

Before I dive into that, it’s probably helpful to provide a quick recap of all the Datejusts I acquired leading up to this:

1. My first luxury watch, a Roman-numeraled, white-dialed model

2. The two-tone Texas Timex, bought from flipping that first Rolex

3. The 34 mm Rolex Date I inherited from my father (not the same strictly speaking, but let’s be generous with definitions here as the vibe is absolutely similar to that of a Datejust)

4. A modern, grey-dialed 31 mm model I bought for my wife, from flipping the Texas Timex

5. The blue-dialed “Bourdain” that I bought from flipping a Rolex Submariner Bluesy (I know, my watch isn’t like his, but for ease I’m now calling mine the Bourdain)

The Rolex Datejust: They don’t make ‘em like they used to

Most watch reviews follow the same format, an introduction followed by the meat of the assessment, where the writer really gets into the nitty-gritty of every aspect of the watch, covering everything from the bevels on the case to the technical details of the movement.

I’m not going to do that here.

This is the Rolex Datejust, one of the world’s most famous watches; you’ve seen them around, maybe you’ve tried one on (hopefully your local AD at least has some display models), and as I said upfront, the Datejust is really the archetype of what a wrist watch should look like.

Yes, I’ll cover some of the physical aspects of the watch, but - as is arguably the case for every Rolex now - the technical specs really are secondary to the “vibe” it gives off, and how it makes you feel.

There are those who like the cyclops, and those who are wrong

With that out of the way, I want to emphasize just how simple this watch is, particularly in the configuration I own: a round-ish case, single color dial (in a sun-ray finish, sure, but you can find that on a Longines), and stick hands.

Stick hands!

I really want to emphasize that design aspect because it is absolutely the most simple, straightforward, downright unimaginative way of incorporating watch hands; two rectangles for the hour and minute hand, a needle for the seconds, and you’re done. In fact, the markers to which the hands point are just straight up rectangles also.

On my version of the Datejust, the only real flourish on is the magnifying cyclops paired with the namesake date complication. Though I don’t imagine this is something you’ll see discussed at length in most Datejust reviews - or indeed any Rolex review - I want to spend some time telling you why I think that on such a simple watch, this is perhaps its most important detail.

I imagine many people will cross-shop the Datejust with the Oyster Perpetual (non-date) models, especially after the recent mania Rolex started by introducing some new dial colors to the latter. Personally, I do NOT buy any watch unless it has a date function. The truth is that while I do think a watch is more practical than checking my phone for the time (and more polite, depending on the circumstances), a mechanical watch is not the most technically optimal choice, and a luxury mechanical watch is even more of a decadent bauble. Watch lovers (myself included) manage a very fine cognitive dissonance whereby if you asked them, I’m sure they’d admit watches are pretty foolish, but they’d also try to tell you they’re actually very handy (“like, what if an electromagnetic pulse knocks out all of the world’s quartz watches?”).

If we’re going to tell ourselves that we carry watches not only for pleasure but also practicality, then any added information should be welcome, provided it’s delivered in a novel, or at least thought-out, way. I do check the date on my watches regularly, and that brings me to the next logical design item of the Datejust, the cyclops.

If you dislike date complications, you’re probably doubly-triggered by the cyclops, since it’s basically a large sign on your watch that says “HEY, LOOK, I’M AN EVIL DATE WINDOW THAT’S HERE TO RUIN THE DIAL SYMMETRY”. That said, isn’t this just such a “Rolex” way of going about things? Rolex wanted to make its Datejust as readable as possible, and what more straightforward way than putting a magnifying glass over it? It’s a perfect example of making form follow function, and indeed, this product feature has now turned into a Rolex design signature, particularly on the Datejust.

I know, some people hate the cyclops, but to me this is one of those weird “group-think” takes that are so common in the watch hobby (off the top of my head, not liking date windows and calling the original Tudor Black Bay “too thick” are other examples of such group-think). These opinions are presented as fact but they make no sense, and seem only to be repeated because some people think it will gain them greater acceptance into the watch hobby.

If you couldn’t already tell, I’m a big fan of the cyclops. I don’t really notice it that much in daily use, but looking at the bigger picture, this is THE feature common to all Rolexes that telegraphs that you own a Rolex, and I’m not being facetious at all when I write this. Leaving out homage brands and some Seikos, I can’t think of any other luxury watch brand that incorporates this feature. Let’s face it: everyone buys a Rolex because to some extent they want to let people know they own a Rolex, and if you take away the cyclops (especially on watches without a fluted bezel), how can anyone know that you’re wearing a Rolex?

Think about that next time you’re considering an Oyster Perpetual…

The Datejust gets its own “Maxi” case

Turning now to the case, I think we can all agree that it’s not round but rather “tonneau”-shaped, and this is where I want to things back to the title of this section, by comparing my newer model to my experiences with previous generations.

Rolex is a lot like Apple in the sense that while they absolutely do work in design elements that are then copied (green dials, ceramic chronograph bezels…), they also take a wait-and-see approach on trends, letting others take the leap before deciding to go all-in themselves. Granted, it doesn’t happen often, but it’s noticeable when it does, and to me the Datejust is one of the best examples.

While the tendency now from watch buyers is to want smaller case sizes, that was not so a decade ago. It wasn’t just the 47 mm Panerais and 48 mm Hublots, the market really did want larger watches generally and eventually, Rolex responded the way Rolex does: quietly but (more or less) still noticeably.

The most glaring concession to case sizing was the introduction of the Datejust II, which I never found very attractive, the proportions were just “off”. That watch has since been discontinued and superseded by the Datejust 41, which I also find large and unattractive, but I recognize that’s purely a matter of subjective preference. This is an aside, but if you’re looking for a watch that has the presence of an Audemars Piguet Royal Oak then yes, you’re better off buying one of the larger models; perhaps the market has already recognized this, since anecdotally I only ever hear interest in the 41 mm size.

Getting back to more classical sizing, Rolex didn’t just tepidly jump on the “bigger is better” bandwagon by introducing a new, larger line and leaving the others untouched. In a move that Rolex carried across its catalog, Rolex doubled-down on its concession to the bigger-is-better crowd on the Rolex Datejust 36 mm by squaring off the lug shoulders; it’s a small change but absolutely noticeable when you compare an older model with one from the newer generations.

Despite this change, when you actually look at the 36 mm Datejust in comparison to others (rather than older versions of itself), it’s fair to ask: how much of a change did that really make? Regarding the newer Rolex case geometries, you’ll hear people say “they wear larger than their measurements”. That may be true for a Datejust 41, but I’m not sure I believe that for the smaller versions, and as proof please consider this shot comparing the Rolex Datejust 36 mm with my Hamilton Khaki Field Automatic 38 mm:

Even though the two watch cases look somewhat similarly sized, the Rolex Datejust 36 mm is still clearly the smaller watch. Also, it’s interesting that the width-gain of the lugs are offset by their “squat”, short length, which gives the case its tonneau look. Now, the Hamilton Khaki line is known for having long lugs so perhaps this is an extreme example, but for me the takeaway is that the Rolex Datejust 36 mm does indeed wear very much like a 36 mm watch.

You know what though?

That’s great!

Unless you are an absolute giant, a 36 mm watch will fit you perfectly. Really, if you’re considering a Datejust 41, seriously take some time to consider the 36 mm version, I think over the long term you’ll find this size much more versatile, and therefore satisfying (though again, if you’re seeking Genta-style looks, you do want the larger 41).

The bracelet gets beefed up…leaving the Datejust worse off.

Now we get to the bracelet, which is, in typical modern-Rolex fashion, constructed with very tight tolerances and solid components (goodbye hollow end-links and rolled links!). Putting this watch on feels similar to what knights must have felt when putting on the wrist protection for their suits of armor.

This isn’t surprising. For years, Rolex bracelets were derided as flimsy and “jangly”. Now, when you buy a Rolex you get some combination of ceramic pins to prevent bracelet stretch, ratcheting systems to adjust the bracelet sizing on-the-fly, and milled clasp components that are much more sturdy-looking and feeling than the older stamped components, which Tim Mosso regularly qualifies as “tinsel”.

The engineer in me wants to say that this is fantastic, and actually all of my watch purchases - with this one exception - are driven by how much tech I can get for my money. On the Rolex Datejust though, this gain in objective quality contributes, to me, to a subjective loss of pleasure to the wearing experience.

Maybe it’s because I spent my life growing up around Rolex Datejusts flopping around on people’s wrists, but I can confirm that it really did feel better wearing my older Datejust models. On the new Oyster bracelets the tolerances between links are so tight that you can definitely feel resistance as you are wrapping it around your wrist, whereas on the old ones you get the impression that it’s the metallic equivalent of a well-loved and well-worn fabric strap. Furthermore, everything on the new bracelet is polished, so visually you end up with something much more “in-your-face” than the older models, especially with the beefier clasps.

Even the Audemars Piguet Royal Oak, whose much higher price should imply an even more solid bracelet construction, is in my opinion not built in such a way. The bracelet is designed with multiple links not only to maximize the number of polished facets, but also create a structure that drapes around your wrist, sort of like luxury chain mail. Isn’t this feeling of unbuttoned luxury the core design intent of the Royal Oak, by taking non-precious steel and elevating it to the level of precious metals?

Back to Rolex, I can understand you’d want a feeling of rigid robustness in a purpose-built tool like a Submariner or an Explorer II, but the Datejust? That’s the watch for lazing about in your Summer home or taking a morning swim before your afternoon board meeting. The “louche” look you see in so many older pictures of people wearing Datejusts, looking non-chalantly cool, comes from the looser, unbuttoned nature of the older watches.

Those are the “vibes” I prefer, and I’m afraid that in engineering the Rolex to the bleeding edge of manufacturing capabilities, Rolex blunted some of that charm.

Again, I stress that this wasn’t Rolex’s intent - they only strive to make the most solid product possible and leave the emotions up to the consumer - but the evolution of the Datejust towards a more “perfect” product has, to me, led to a less fun wearing experience.

The older generations, with their brushed links and light components were “rakish rogue”, the newer generations are a little bit “buttoned-up, junior banker try-hard” (before you get upset, keep in mind that I had that “try-hard” mindset when I acquired this watch, so I’m not pointing fingers at anyone but myself!).

What I’m trying to say here is that they don’t make ‘em like they used to anymore, because they make them BETTER.

And I’d still rather have an older model!

This is a strong statement from me because I usually do not care - at all - for vintage watches. To me, so much of the pricing in the vintage space comes contrived stories, told to paper over the truth that you can buy a newer, more higher-performing watch for (likely) less money if you go new or “neo-vintage”. I can make an exception for Rolex, and here’s where you can make Rolex’s legendary engineering and QC work for you.

My dad’s retirement watch was made in 1982 (from what I gather his company gave employees a watch from the year they started, not from their work anniversary, which is fun), and after he passed away in 2014 I had it serviced at Hal Martin’s.

Would you believe it, this watch passed the pressure test!

So, no, spec-for-spec a Rolex Datejust (or Date) will not match up to a modern Rolex Datejust (especially on the point of lume performance); that’s in-line not only with the Rolex philosophy of constant improvement, but also just the watch industry’s progress generally.

That said, if you’re looking for a watch that can still go anywhere and do anything, provided you do your homework upfront and get it serviced, you have a very large time interval from which to choose, meaning a very broad catalog of models as well (more on that later).

And, it’s worth nothing that unlike some vintage watches, you actually don’t pay more for the “privilege” of owning an older watch. So many Datejusts have been made over the last 30 or 40 years that, as you would expect, the newer models cost more to buy into.

Finally, the answer to the question: is the Rolex Datejust worth your money?

Despite being thousands and thousands of words into this article, I haven’t given you a hard “yay” or “nay” on the Rolex Datejust. When I initially considered how I feel wearing my Datejust today, I thought this review would settle on a positive, if muted, assessment. Then, the more I thought about it, I realized that despite being such a seemingly simple watch, it is full of contradictions, and weighing those out will determine whether or not you see yourself owning one.

Who is the Rolex Datejust NOT FOR:

I stand firm on my opinion that the Rolex Datejust is an alternative to Patek Philippe Nautilus 5711, Audemars Piguet Royal Oak (among many others). If you’ve been considering these watches, or own one now, you may not like what I’m about to write, but these thoughts go a long way to explaining why the Rolex Datejust doesn’t excite me very much compared to the early part of my watch journey.

I deeply, deeply respect the Rolex Datejust. I see it as almost technically perfect, a showcase for state-of-the-art manufacturing and the purest distillation of what defines a wristwatch. Its performance specifications allow it to accompany you pretty much anywhere, and it performs in a way that other so-called “sports watches” can only aspire to.

As an engineer, that technical excellence should be enough to make me over-the-moon for the Rolex Datejust, but of course, if specifications and rationality were the only driver of watch purchasing decisions, we would not be seeing the frankly stupid prices for the Patek Philippe Nautilus, Audemars Piguet Royal Oak, and Vacheron Constantin Overseas (even after the recent market correction). Anyone who knows watches even a little bit will tell you that they are attractive watches, sure, but objectively they’re also pretty boring: straight-forward movements, lots of machine finishing and few if any complications.

You could take the same amount of money and find truly beautiful pieces in those manufacturers’ catalogs, but many don’t want to hear this, because quite frankly, here’s what’s driving the market for integrated, stainless steel sports watches:

The desire to “flex” and look rich.

That’s it, it’s that simple, and on a much less lavish scale that is exactly what drove my desire to buy my first Datejust; I wanted to show the world that I’d “made it”. That was true all the way to me acquiring my “Bourdain”, because even though I wanted something less flashy than my Submariner Bluesy, I was still clearly not comfortable enough in my own skin and watch knowledge to stray from the Crown.

Today I wear watches for my own enjoyment and my tastes have taken me firmly to Omega’s lineup. More practically, the insanity in the watch market, particularly for Rolex, has led to a very sharp increase of watch-related crime, from New York to Paris and seemingly every other major Western city. I don’t want to victim-blame anyone for wanting to wear a nice watch outside of their homes and yes, in an ideal world, people wouldn’t steal.

As we know though, the world is not ideal, we all have to live with its multiple imperfections and balance out the pros-and-cons of our risk-tolerances while we attempt to navigate it. For me, not only do I not find the Datejust that emotionally exciting, I also just don’t care to put myself in a situation where I could be accosted for one. I have considered the possibility of one day buying a plain-as-possible neo-vintage model, but even though it is much less polished (literally), the cyclops and Jubilee or Oyster bracelets are dead give-aways.

So, the Rolex Datejust is neither for those who want something horologically exciting, nor is it for those who don’t want to attract undue attention when they go out. That’s a small group of people, considering the undeniable fact that Rolex sells boatloads of Datejusts, so who is buying these watches? Should you take the plunge if you are considering a new watch purchase?

Who is the Rolex Datejust FOR:

The first category of Rolex Datejust buyer is the one that I’m presuming has historically made up the largest slice of Rolex’s sales: the customer who has worked their way up and wants to buy a
”nice” watch to celebrate their success. To the extent that Rolex has marketed themselves as THE horological marker of success, that was the brand towards which these buyers gravitated, and this gift to themselves was likely their first, last and only luxury watch purchase.

Speaking personally, my wife falls into this category. She wears her 31 mm Datejust and enjoys it because it’s a Rolex. I’ve tried to get her interested in some other brands, but she has absolutely no interest. The watch performs well for her and she likes how versatile it is, but all those considerations are secondary to the fact there is a crown on the dial.

If you’ve found this article, that’s not you, because if you were in that first category, you would simply have known you wanted a Datejust, no research necessary, only a decision on what options you wanted on it. I would therefore designate a second category of buyer, those who are just getting into watches and want a Rolex because that’s a totally natural step in the journey.

I was mulling over writing another article on alternatives to the Rolex Datejust 36 mm. In that article I’d have written about the usual suspects, like the Hamilton Khaki Field Automatic 38 mm, the Sinn 556 and the Tissot Powermatic Gentleman (among others). The truth is that to me, the Rolex Datejust has no competition.

I want to repeat that: I do not believe that there is any other equivalent watch to the Rolex Datejust.

That’s not true of the Submariner, since there are other companies making very good luxury dive watches. It’s also not true of the Rolex Daytona, because other very good chronographs are also available, for way, way less money. Even the GMT-Master II seems to be getting a run for its money with the not-the-same-but-still-really-good Tudor GMT models.

The Rolex Datejust though is absolutely without equal, and I don’t say that lightly because theoretically pretty much product category today should be well-served enough that one can find acceptable substitutes for a given offering. That’s not the case for the Rolex Datejust, because for the money, there is no dress watch that is as robust as the Datejust, and there is no sports watch that looks as good with a suit.

That’s especially true for the 36 mm, so if you can set aside its relatively boring appeal on paper in favor of its proven wearability, and you want a “beater” that delivers luxury as well as practicality, you can jump into the Datejust pool without hesitation. As I wrote earlier, my choice would be an older model because of the wearing experience, and in that space the choices are almost limitless (but make sure you do your research to weed-out the “Franken-watches).

Speaking of older models, quick side note: I haven’t mentioned the Rolex Turn-O-Graph yet, but if you want something a little off the beaten path that is a great option to investigate. Though it’s a discontinued model, I hear it come up only very, very rarely and I can’t recall ever seeing one in public, so you might find yourself a good deal somewhere.

That aside, if you must go new, from the boutique, Rolex also offers quite a bit of choice, and that brings me to the last category of potential Datejust buyers:

The hypebeast-fuccboi.

Surely, this is not you. But, let’s say that your wife or girlfriend’s best friend is dating or married to a newly rich crypto-bro. Then let’s say your partner sets up a double date one Saturday night, and though you’ve gotten bored quickly of him telling you how Bitcoin is played out but Dogecoin is the future and that anyone who ignores the blockchain is a moron, he then says: “Dude, I’m looking to drop some of this cash on a Rolie so I can flex on the proles who don’t believe in the blockchain, what do you think?”.

As I type this, the crypto market is in free-fall so you probably don’t want to suggest paying 4-times retail for a Daytona, but this is where you can work the Datejust into the conversation.

My blue-dial model is about as low-key as a modern Datejust gets, but if you want it’s very possible to have a lot of fun with the Rolex configurator. I personally would opt for a smooth bezel, but for that right mix of taste mixed with a little heat, you could suggest a fluted-bezel, Wimbledon-dial model, as seen below.

That is a gorgeous, gorgeous thing to behold, isn’t it? Not only does it absolutely give off the vibes of someone who’d have a spot of tea with his strawberries and cream near Centre Court before dashing off to his yacht, it will hold up to whatever rigors that type of life entails (I volunteer for that hardship if anyone knows of any openings).

Though I would say that the Wimbledon configuration is relatively understood, it’s not something that has really taken off. Put it this way, would crypto-bro feel better buying now, or after John Mayer brings it up on an eventual episode of “Talking Watches With John Mayer Part 3”?

That’s the beauty of the Datejust: you can get wrist-fire like the Wimbledon, or you can get a vintage model, or a new one configured like my Bourdain and it’s relatively understated (of course, I’m still talking about the 36 mm; our hypothetical crypto-bro might just opt for the larger Datejust 41 for a more integrated-bracelet-in-your-face-look, at which point even an understated configuration on paper becomes much more, well, in your face).

I use the term “relatively” because sure, compared to a solid gold Submariner or a Pepsi GMT, it won’t stand out that much, but a Rolex is an icon for a reason, and anyone with malicious intent will know what to look for. So, now I have to answer the question I posed when you started reading:

Is the Datejust worth going after and then wearing in today’s crazy market conditions?

You CAN buy a Datejust, but I personally (again, personally) would NOT buy one

I’ve taken my time talking about the Datejust without putting it in the context of the Rolex experience in 2022, which is that there are none in the case to buy. I can’t not address this but I also felt that I could delay this topic because my hypothesis is that while you may not see a Datejust in a case, you could still order one with relative ease.

If you’re thinking “I have to wait, so that still implies a supply shortage”, I have to push back on that because I understand the position of ADs and even Rolex boutiques, which is that holding inventory is expensive.

It’s one thing to criticize Rolex - rightly - when it can’t keep a limited family of watches like the Submariner in stock, but when you’re talking about a Datejust, which can be configured in hundreds of ways, it’s just not practical to have examples in stock of each and every one.

Going back to when I bought my Explorer II and Bluesy, I did have to wait a couple of weeks for the the AD (I.W. Marks) to place an order with the factory, and I understood why. So, if an AD doesn’t keep a type of Submariner in stock, which is a very small category, should they be expected to carry every possible Datejust you are considering?

Now, will the difficulties the company is having stocking those Submariners hold up the production of your Datejust? Maybe, but to what extent? There may be a shortage of highly desirable models in cases, but that doesn’t mean Rolex isn’t producing anything, it’s just that customer demand is mismatched against the company’s full product catalog. If you place an order for a Datejust, it’ll get made and I suspect it will be on your wrist faster than you think (this is based on anecdotes though, so if anyone has a different view, please let me know in the comments.).

If we assume that you can indeed buy a Datejust now, this gets me to the question of actually wearing a Datejust in 2022. Even if I appreciate my own blue-dial Datejust on the merits, and I almost talked myself into wanting another Wimbledon-dial model in the previous section, the Rolex Datejust just not get much of my wrist-time.

My tastes have evolved significantly since buying my first Rolex. Nowadays I’m much more interested in Omega (on the face of it, I admit it’s not particularly original but I have solid reasons which I may lay out in a future post), but I find even my Seiko Turtles more satisfying to wear than my Datejust. Part of that is probably due to having seen and heard SO SO SO SO SO MUCH about Rolex for about 5 years now, that to me it feels I’ve already experienced all the brand has to offer, even it’s only been virtually.

I also do have very real concerns about wearing any Rolex in public, and though I think you have to exercise caution wearing ANY luxury watch these days, a Rolex really cuts down the list of places in which you can be truly carefree. It’s to the point now where I basically keep my Rolex watches stashed away, perhaps as an emergency fund if I’m ever close to destitution, or more happily to pass down to someone, who can hopefully wear it with less worry than I do.

Any watch review will have some level of subjectivity baked in, and my risk tolerance is a part of that for this review. Yes, the Rolex Datejust is excellent on the technical merits, but nothing sucks the fun out of the watch experience than fearing for your safety most of the time you wear it.

The Rolex Datejust is the most complicated “simple” watch on the market

Even though I knew going into this that I’d have a lot to say, I didn’t realize quite how much. It turns out that the Rolex Datejust, despite being a really simple watch to describe in theory, in practice presents many nuances.

In hindsight I could probably have written more or less the same article about the Oyster Perpetual, with the key distinction that people seem to care much more about the Oyster Perpetual than they do the Datejust, and for what, a few new dial colors?

That’s the reality of hype.

It has less to do with the inherent qualities of a thing, and more the market’s reaction to that thing.

It’s the reason people will pay triple digits for a brick if it says “Supreme”, or why a gold Rolex Daytona with a green dial goes from sitting in cases to trading for multiples of MSRP, because one person all of a sudden made it “cool”.

But how cool is following the crowd? In the market trajectory of that Daytona, John Mayer is the only cool one; everyone else who rushed out to buy one after he co-signed it?

At best an opportunistic flipper, at worst a follower.

A common theme in my writing is the belief that the best way to move through life is not to chase hype, but rather not care about it at all. Go with what you like, do exciting things, and who knows, this may one day lead you to being a taste-maker for someone else.

To sum all this up:

Is the Rolex Datejust kind of boring?

Yes.

Is the Rolex Datejust possibly the most capable, the most solid, hypest watch you can buy.

Yes.

Up to you how you behold it.

(And while you consider how the Rolex Datejust fits into your life, please also consider giving The Real Time Show a shot!)