History of evolution of Rolex watch design language
From left:
Air-King 5500 (1982)
Explorer II 16570 (2006)
Air-King 126900 (2023)
(Sadly not all of them are mine.)
As 5500 inherits design from 1957 and 16570 from 1989, this photo shows how Rolex's design language has evolved over the past 70 years.
Most obvious is the bracelet. Vintage and neo-vintage bracelets can't compete with modern ones in terms of functionality and durability, the old ones have their own charm—lightweight and wearable.
As they are all different models (I consider vintage and modern Air-Kings to be different models), it is hard to directly compare other design elements (e.g. dial, case, bezel, etc.). But we can see that they are generally becoming larger, heftier and shinier.
I guess it reflects how the market's perception towards Rolex has evolved—from an everyday object that reliably tells the time to a status symbol that tells how rich you are. Thankfully modern Air-King is still in the tool realm.
In this sense I wholeheartedly disagree with what Rolex is doing with some professional lines, namely GMT Master II or Daytona. Leave precious metals and stones to Datejusts and Day-Dates—Professional line means freaking professional.
My thoughts aside, a more interesting comparison would be the evolution of GMT Master and GMT Master II's over time. Hopefully I get rich enough to build that collection.
Welcome to my WatchCrunch profile.
You're not wrong about the vintage bracelets.
I'm in a sort of a neovintage-Rolex-love phase. The 90's Datejusts look like the most versatile watches - new enough to have immortal movements (is it true?) and old enough to be comfy and restrained.
I'm not sure how much metallurgy improved since then, but to make a bracelet of a similar mass, but more solid, would be a most welcome improvement by many.
The bracelets are a massive improvement. One thing I really like is how they have made the cardinal indices larger to really stand out from the other indices.
I absolutely love that 2023 Air-King. It’s a grail watch for me.
I'm in a sort of a neovintage-Rolex-love phase. The 90's Datejusts look like the most versatile watches - new enough to have immortal movements (is it true?) and old enough to be comfy and restrained.
I'm not sure how much metallurgy improved since then, but to make a bracelet of a similar mass, but more solid, would be a most welcome improvement by many.
I wholeheartedly agree. Neovintages are the best. I still think five-digit references are in the sweet spot, but 7-80s are an interesting time period to buy watches from. I appreciate Rolex's not-going-back-to-the-past policy, but sometimes wish they would bring back these styles with modern metallurgy and movement as you mentioned.
The bracelets are a massive improvement. One thing I really like is how they have made the cardinal indices larger to really stand out from the other indices.
No doubt that the bracelets are incomparable. But the old ones, well they grew on me. Their simplicity and lightness is what I like the best.