# The Forgotten Rolex?



## Agent orange (Feb 11, 2006)

As most of you will know I have a rather irrational disregard for Rolex. Mainly due to the fact that they're the default choice for most, mention watches and the first name that comes to mind is Rolex. Whilst this is a fantastic coup for Rolex and, you could argue, their just rewards for their consistent marketing and advertising campaigns over the decades, I'm not entirely convinced it's justified.

Obviously it's brilliant news for their pricing strategy and in turn second hand values and that means they become even more of a default choice, even amongst collectors. You'd be extremely unlucky to lose money on a Rolex if you keep it for long enough, even buying new. So it's become a self perpetuating catch 22, which kinda rankles when they're so many more interesting and much rarer watches out there that get overlooked.

However there are some models of Rolex that I personally think rightly deserve more attention, are genuinely rare, incorporated groundbreaking technologies and have a rich sporting history behind them. And no I'm not thinking of some military Sub worth the price of house in Rotherham either. I'm thinking of the Rolex Oysterquartz.

Here's a bullet pointed overview of what's unique about this watch. I'll expand on some of these later.

*â€¢ It contains Rolexs first and only completely in-houes quartz movements. Datejust (cal.5035) and Day-Date (cal.5055)*

*
*

*
â€¢ These movements took 5 years of painstaking research, development and testing before they were manufactured and eventually allowed to grace a Rolex*

*
*

*
â€¢ They're an analogue thermocompensation 11 jewel movement (one of the worlds first) that utilised the latest CMOS circuitry and a 32khz oscillator.*

*
*

*
â€¢ Resulting in it being the most accurate movement ever made by Rolex*

*
*

*
â€¢ They're arguably the most highly finished and over engineered movements Rolex ever created.*

*
*

*
â€¢ In Rolex terms it's genuinely rare. The Oysterquartz was produced between 1977 and 2001 and the total output over the whole of those 24 years is less than 25,000 watches. Yes a mere 1,000 pieces per annum, give or take. In comparison Rolex produce around a million mechanical watches per annum and have done for at least 40 years. That's an awful lot of Submariners etc over the decades.*

*
*

*
â€¢ All this technology is housed in a unique case with a very distinctive bracelet on the early models. Thought of by many as the best bracelet Rolex ever produced, certainly up to the wonderfully engineered DSSD bracelet and clasp anyway.*

As you might have guessed by now I've been fortunate enough to get one of these watches (on my wrist as I type). So here's a few pics to give you a flavour. The movement pic is courtesy of Jocke as I don't have a Rolex case back tool.



















Some dial and handset pics (got a bit carried away here, sorry )





































TBC...


----------



## Agent orange (Feb 11, 2006)

Lovely crisp edges to the case and a highly polished bezel




























And that great bracelet



















Wonderful movement detailing










TBC...


----------



## Agent orange (Feb 11, 2006)

*Dimensions*

It's not a particularly large watch but it wears a lot bigger than its modest dimensions would suggest. Probably due to the case shape and bracelet.

Width sans crown - 35mm

With crown - 38mm

lug to lug - 42mm

Height - 14mm

*Sporting heritage*

Going back to its sporting heritage and hopefully dispelling most peoples conviction that quartz watches are somehow fragile. The Oysterquartz was worn by Reinhold Messner and Peter Habeler on the world's first accent of Everest without oxygen in 1978. Here's a picture of Reinhold Messner at 24,000 feet wearing his.










And Peter Habeler looking a little chilly.










The subsequent Rolex ad.










I found this American ad from 1979 (the same year as my Oysterquartz). What struck me is the price, they were roughly twice as much as the Submariner at the time.










Best of all, given its rarity they're available for a modest amount, certainly in comparison to the vast majority of Rolex watches anyway. I genuinely believe that they're an unfairly overlooked watch.

Thanks for reading. I hope this was informative and dispelled some prejudices towards quartz technology, it certainly dispelled some of my prejudices towards Rolex. If you're inspired to find out more may I recommend the fantastic http://www.oysterquartz.net site. Loads more information and pics.

Cheers,

Gary

P.S. If any owners want to add their pics and/or more information to this post, please feel free.


----------



## ESL (Jan 27, 2004)

Genuinely interesting article Gary, thank you.


----------



## dtc2 (Mar 7, 2010)

excuse my ignorance but until now I didn't know rolex had made a quartz watch :lookaround:

you learn something new every day.


----------



## kevkojak (May 14, 2009)

Not that's a thread!

I've always had a soft spot for these, but after enquiring on service costs recently (a very reasonably priced one popped up on TZ) my watchie advised me to avoid like the plague.

Seems that because so few were made, spares are in pretty short supply.

To put it in perspective, the Omega Memomatic had a run of 35,000 pieces - and anyone who has tried to find spares for those knows its a pain. These had a 25,000 run, so are even tougher to sort out when they go wrong!

Course minters can still be had, and scrappers can be restored, but at Â£400 (Rolex RRP) for just a service I may take his advice and steer clear.

I have to agree though - that squared off case and squared oyster bracelet are just in their own league style wise. Much more striking than the current (or vintage!) datejust.

Interestingly, Rolex developed a new quartz movement in the mid 90's to rival Breitlings high tech Superquartz, but costs prevented it going into full production.

My watchmaker friend (who happens to be Rolex trained/accredited) had one sent in a year or so ago. The movement calibre was something he'd never seen before so he got onto Rolex to check it out expecting it to be a fake and was informed it was one of a handful of prototypes that should have been destroyed!

Wish I'd known him then - thats one I would have made an offer for! 

Lot of info there Gary, I'm gonna print this off and save it somewhere!


----------



## Rotundus (May 7, 2012)

was going to ask a stupid question but then re read the thread properly...


----------



## minkle (Mar 17, 2008)

If this is on page two tomorrow then the forum is going tits up.

Great post Gary, we could all learn something from it, not just about the watch.

Not my thing but glad to see you like it and it looks like its staying for the foreseebale :thumbsup:


----------



## AlexC1981 (Jul 26, 2009)

So you didn't like Rolex until you actually tried one :tongue2:

Seriously now, great thread. Very interesting and handsome watch you have there. I see what you mean about the size. It looks quite big in that photo of Peter Habeler.


----------



## Agent orange (Feb 11, 2006)

AlexC1981 said:


> So you didn't like Rolex until you actually tried one :tongue2:


  Not quite Alex I had this for a while but it didn't really do anything for me.










In hindsight I should have kept it as an investment but then where's the fun in that.



AlexC1981 said:


> Seriously now, great thread. Very interesting and handsome watch you have there. I see what you mean about the size. It looks quite big in that photo of Peter Habeler.


Thanks, I'm glad some appreciate my efforts 

Here's a couple of shots of the OQ on my 7" wrist to hopefully give an idea of how they wear.



















Cheers,

Gary


----------



## Stan (Aug 7, 2003)

Thatâ€™s a great watch to own Gary, enjoy it. In another life, Iâ€™d have one too. 

Rolex was a prime mover in the quartz revolution and it cost them a fortune for little return, but I wonâ€™t get into the reasons people buy watches as opposed to brand names.

Lovely looking watch with a truly brilliant movement.:wink1:


----------



## DaveOS (May 9, 2010)

Brilliant thread. I have never really seen much on the Rolex Quartz before.

That probably has one of the best case shapes of all the Rolex's of the time.


----------



## Chromejob (Jul 28, 2006)

Thanks for the great pics. I've got a back-burner grail of a 1960s Rolex Oysterdate, no fluted bezel, no unnecessary details ... never realized until now that the Oysterquartz is the same minimalist design, taken to a similar high quality level. :think: I love the bracelet, it adds the necessary touch of modernity that classic Rolex designs have traded in for a "timeless classic" look.


----------



## Agent orange (Feb 11, 2006)

Thanks for the replies guys, much appreciated as always 

Whilst I'm here a good friend reminded me of another interesting Oysterquartz fact that I neglected to mention and one that was never really publicised by Rolex. This maybe adds some weight to the theory that Rolex wanted to effectively "bury" the Oysterquartz, I guess we'll never know the truth.

After Rolex spending a considerable amount of time 2 decades earlier designing the Milguass to withstand magnetic fields to 1000 oersted, it almost came about by accident that the OQ is antimagnetic to 1000 oersted to, so it could justifiable be called the Rolex Oysterquartz Milguass.

This feat didn't come about by adding a rather industrial age soft iron movement cover either. It was a by-product of the movement being so massively over engineered. An interesting little fact I thought.

Cheers,

Gary


----------



## harryblakes7 (Oct 1, 2010)

Hi, Great pictures and good thread, thanks for putting them all on.

I remember when the OysterQuartz came out, it was never really advertised and always "at the back" Yours looks lovely

Another rarity was the Rolex "Tru-beat" which was a mechanical automatic but flicked the seconds hand once a second so ticked like a quartz, similar to a Duplex, but never seen a movement in the flesh, they go for mega money sadly......


----------



## JonW (Mar 23, 2005)

Defector! haha! 

Loving this and have long looked at these, but the timing was always off for me when they came up for sale and I know ive missed a trick, this is a great partner to the MQ2.4s and I feel the love 

Great pics as ever m8!


----------



## mitadoc (Sep 25, 2010)

Nice watch but the Submariner is my fitire grail.


----------



## Agent orange (Feb 11, 2006)

JonW said:


> Defector! haha!
> 
> Loving this and have long looked at these, but the timing was always off for me when they came up for sale and I know ive missed a trick, this is a great partner to the MQ2.4s and I feel the love
> 
> Great pics as ever m8!


Yeah I know mate the last 2 watches I've bought haven't been Omegas :shock: :lol:

Don't worry though no doubt I'll be back in the groove pretty soon knowing me









I'm still in shock that you've never owned a Speedy 125 tbh though mate









Cheers,

Gary


----------



## mickyh7 (May 21, 2009)

I've always wanted a 'Rolex'. ( brainwashed by my Dad I suppose) ! The Quartz accuracy would be great.But they have always been out of my price range until soon ?

What I like is Rolex is/used to be a British company.They only moved to Switzerland because of U.K. tax laws.

Please correct me if necessary !

BTW How much do these Quartz ones go for ?

Mick.


----------



## Phillionaire (Jan 23, 2010)

Great pics and a great read

:notworthy:


----------



## Boxbrownie (Aug 11, 2005)

At last, somebody with a bit of sense :lol: I love my OQTT and what a lot of tosh about it only being COSC because Rolex virtually owned the organisation :bull*******:

My OQ is my second most accurate watch at approx +3 or 5 seconds per year for the past two years (the other being a cheap Seiko Chrono which for some unknown reason keeps within a couple of seconds a year!).

This one is a solid keeper.....absolutely no doubt about it.










Good thread, both here and "there" :thumbsup:


----------



## tixntox (Jul 17, 2009)

Boxbrownie said:


> At last, somebody with a bit of sense :lol: I love my OQTT and what a lot of tosh about it only being COSC because Rolex virtually owned the organisation :bull*******:
> 
> My OQ is my second most accurate watch at approx +3 or 5 seconds per year for the past two years (the other being a cheap Seiko Chrono which for some unknown reason keeps within a couple of seconds a year!).
> 
> ...


That's just like my Rotary! :angel_not:

Mike


----------



## Boxbrownie (Aug 11, 2005)

tixntox said:


> Boxbrownie said:
> 
> 
> > At last, somebody with a bit of sense :lol: I love my OQTT and what a lot of tosh about it only being COSC because Rolex virtually owned the organisation :bull*******:
> ...


Might be....but I think Rotary might have made a few more hundred thousand copies


----------



## mel (Dec 6, 2006)

Interesting article and thread, an unusual watch and movement, makes me think a bit about DVD recorder/players - the bl**dy expensive hi-spec ones will only record or play top quality certain discs, the cr*ppy lo-spec ones will play almost anything - but the cheapo lo-spec ones only came about by the research and development of the dear ones. :yes:

So the Japasian Q movements are cheap and cheerful, and accurate enough for most people, but the Rolly ones are EXTREMELY accurate, but cost is way too high. Sounds like maybe the 80% vs 20% rule applies in some way, Pareto's Law, it's easy to produce a realively accurate piece for say Â£20, but to maake it as accurate as the OQ you need to spend the other Â£80 making it a total cost of Â£100. :to_become_senile:

(dare I mention, Timex bought new for around Â£2.50 in the 50's/60's now can easily command 10 to 15 times that on 'tinternet in NOS/mint condition) :man_in_love:


----------



## Boxbrownie (Aug 11, 2005)

mel said:


> (dare I mention, Timex bought new for around Â£2.50 in the 50's/60's now can easily command 10 to 15 times that on 'tinternet in NOS/mint condition) :man_in_love:


Problem there Mel is that if I could have afforded to buy 10 or 20 Timex in the 50/60's as an investment I probably would have gone a bought a Rolex anyway then, and that now would be worth maybe 20-30 times as much rather than 10-15 times as much like the Timex 

I do not know of course, I am just speculating......oooooo ironic! :lol:


----------



## ETCHY (Aug 3, 2004)

Great stuff & photo's :thumbup:

The OQ has always been a favourite of mine, until you actually handle one you've no idea how substantial they feel, the quality is really superb. They feel totally carved from solid & make contemporary mechanical Datejusts feel quite lightweight (my old Rolex GMT Master also felt less solid than an OQ too).

The Oysterquartz was a real top of the line Rolex piece with finishing & build that's still impressive, it's just a pity it arrived at a point when quartz started to appear on cheaper watches (thus devaluing quartz prestige) & a lot of the fake quartz Rolex's appeared, meaning people looked at the way the second hand moved & assumed it meant fake !

Rolex did actually have an all new OQ movement ready to introduce with an independently settable hour hand, 10 year battery life and perpetual calendar etc but sadly didn't decide to produce it.

Dave


----------



## gallch (Jan 7, 2007)

Thank God ! A thoughtful and informative article which was really interesting and enjoyable and the reason I wanted to be on this forum in the first place.

No doubt tomorrow we'll be back to people saying "I don't like Rolexes because I once saw someone in a suit wearing one" etc etc but for now - THANK YOU !


----------



## Boxbrownie (Aug 11, 2005)

gallch said:


> Thank God ! A thoughtful and informative article which was really interesting and enjoyable and the reason I wanted to be on this forum in the first place.
> 
> No doubt tomorrow we'll be back to people saying "I don't like Rolexes because I once saw someone in a suit wearing one" etc etc but for now - THANK YOU !


People in suits wear them? :jawdrop:

Anyone wanna buy an OQTT......... :rofl:


----------



## kevkojak (May 14, 2009)

One of these has just popped up in the new 'fellows' catalogue if anyone is interested?

Not much else (unless you wanna splash Â£7k on a Patek Aquanaught) but the OysterQuartz is a nice one to see come up for sale.

Estimate of Â£800-Â£1200 though, so expect to pay Â£1500 I reckon.


----------



## med (Feb 14, 2011)

great read, thanks for taking the time over it !


----------



## itsguy (Nov 16, 2009)

Another great choice Gary - funny how no matter what what you thought you thought about Rolex as a brand, it's almost impossible not to be seduced once the right one is on your wrist! There's a touch of the Genta AP / VC solidness about the Oysterquartz that sets it apart.

Reminds me a little of this Seamaster Cosmic actually - at least that's what I'm telling myself. Sadly it's not going to fill the Oysterquartz void you've created in my collection.



Agent orange said:


>


----------



## dickstar1977 (Feb 4, 2008)

Can't believe I missed this Gary! Here is my 1977 example:










I have since changed the dial for a correct original one without the Chronometer writing! Absolutely love this watch, I am not a fan of Rolex but the OQ is simply a work of art. I love mine, love the deisgn and the fact that the movement is something out of this world! As you know I am a die hard Omega advocate and a lover of the early HEQ Omegas, particularly the Megaquartz F2.4 nd 32Khz but the movement in the Rolex is another league, if only they'd have put a 2.4Mhz quartz circuit in it I think I could have found 'the one'

Wear with good health mate, sure I will see it when we finally make it over to the Tilley household for the summer get together!

Cheers Tom


----------



## kevkojak (May 14, 2009)

BUMP.

This is one of the best threads I've read since being on here.


----------



## webvan (Apr 6, 2010)

Excellent thread indeed, especially since I've been researching the OQ myself...can't decide between

- the v1 (no COSC cerified) and v2

- the one with the "split" center link or with the "wide" one.


----------



## Dr.f (Jun 29, 2011)

Great thread ,lovely combination of information ,story ,context and excellent photos.Its on my list with 2.4 Megaquartz as WTB ,hopefully in new year.


----------



## LJD (Sep 18, 2011)

I also do not get Rolex. I think many owners lack imagination . But this is Quartz is "history" and one that i would love

great post and pics !


----------



## royalwitcheese (Oct 14, 2010)

This is a great thread for, in my opinion, one of the truly great watches of all time. Totally underestimated by many and, frankly, not even on the radar of most.

A black dial model has been for sale this week on TZ-UK (just went OHPF tonight) for Â£1675. When you look at the way inflation is going and the upward direction of new Rolex prices every year, I bet this investment of Â£1675 will return you circa Â£5000 in ten years, plus the ten years of enjoyment you've had wearing it.

If I had Â£1600 to spend on a watch, I would have bought that one in a flash this week - but I haven't, so I couldn't.

I did buy a Hamilton Khaki King though!

Thanks for the great thread.

David


----------



## itsguy (Nov 16, 2009)

It's good to see this thread bumped back to the top as played a big part in putting the Oysterquartz on top of my list (thanks Gary)... so I'll post a few pics of my latest acquisition here. It took a bit of searching to track down a blue 17000, as bi-metals seem to come up much more often and blue is very much a minority colour for Rolex. Considering the relatively small numbers of this model made, I'm guessing it's a reasonably unusual variant.

This is a heavyweight in every sense, from the heft of it, to the loud and deep tick, to the solid, utterly unstretchable bracelet - even changing the date requires several twists of the crown, as if opening the door of a safe.

For me, the size just perfect. Admittedly I have relatively slim wrists, but that in no way means it's a small watch. It is simply exactly the right size to blend seamlessly with the extremely chunky bracelet.

The way the bracelet catches the light is quite something. Some watches gleam, some glitter, but due to the oversized links, this one wraps your wrist in a slow-motion strobe of paparazzi camera flashes... hard to describe, but unique, and once again, somehow 'heavy'.

Apparently some criticised it in '77 for looking too similar to the Genta designed AP Royal Oak. If that's a problem, it's a problem I can live with!

Finally, unlike most watches it pulls off the trick of going with absolutely everything I wear, day and night, no matter what the occasion. This will be my last new watch post in a while I think, as I won't be needing another watch for a very long time.


----------



## Moustachio (Feb 3, 2011)

great read... I wonder if there should be a special place in the forum for 'articles' like this to get stickied and not lost...


----------



## Pip-Pip (Sep 28, 2011)

I read an interesting piece on this watch on Hodinkee.

I wasn't familiar with this Rolex model before and seems a lot of people not keen on Rolex like this watch.


----------



## tixntox (Jul 17, 2009)

I've just unearthed this:-










It was my daily wearer which I bought for my 40th birthday (I'm now over 60). Apart from batteries, it's never had the back off! It keeps to within a second or two a week and has been drenched with water, power cleaning solution (truck cleaning), diesel, engine oil, (truck maintenance), all manner of dusts (brick, cement, concrete, wood,) building, hammer drilling etc. etc., and I've just popped yet another battery in and off it goes again!

I think that it cost me about Â£30 at the time and kept wondering why people kept asking me "Is it real?". (I knew nothing of Rolex in those days).

I just can't kill it! :notworthy: Sorry to all those Rolly fans!

Mike


----------



## webvan (Apr 6, 2010)

itsguy said:


> It's good to see this thread bumped back to the top as played a big part in putting the Oysterquartz on top of my list (thanks Gary)... so I'll post a few pics of my latest acquisition here. It took a bit of searching to track down a blue 17000, as bi-metals seem to come up much more often and blue is very much a minority colour for Rolex. Considering the relatively small numbers of this model made, I'm guessing it's a reasonably unusual variant.


Superb version! I already have a blue (seems a bit lighter) DJ so I'm set on either the white or black dial but I'd still settle for the blue one ;-) You do see a lot of two-tone versions, which look ok, but I've never seen one with that massive center link that really sets the watch apart.


----------



## LeeKaye (Jun 3, 2011)

Fascinating, thanks for the bump. The comment about Royal Oak made sense to me, as to my (admittedly novice) eyes, it reminds me of one.


----------

