It has been bothering me for a long time. I look at my collection of Rolex and something just keeps bothering me. I look at my collection of JLC, and oddly the same nagging feeling is just NOT there. I have been trying very hard to figure out what has been bothering me about Rolex. It occurs to me that during 2013, I bought a number of JLC. The Amvox1. The Reverso Rouge. Prior to that I took the Navy Seal. Also a vintage Mk11 came. Three modern watches and one vintage. I look at my Rolex additions, and I see the 5512 and the 6200. What I don’t see is any modern additions. Then, when i look at my overall collection, I see just two modern Rolex amongst myriad vintage. I own the modern version of the Explorer 1 and the Milgauss GV. These latter two were bought some years ago. What is nagging me is my inability to find satisfaction from amongst modern Rolex.
But, with the 2013 release of the GMT Master II (Reference number 116710BLNR), a watch that has become lovingly known as the “Bruiser” courtesy of its black & blue bezel, I saw a watch that caught my attention. On seeing the release from Basel, I said on this forum that my instinct was to like it. A few weeks later, I had the opportunity to see it in the flesh and try it on. And, for the last several months, I have been paying more and more attention to it. I have had it on my wrist three times now. I used to argue that the Milgauss GV was the only great modern Rolex. I think that such a judgment on Rolex is harsh, but only a little harsh. Rolex gained their reputation for being the architects of the tool watch, for building watches that were highly reliable, extremely well put together and with simple but highly effective innovations. I think the GMT Master II now deserves a full review and one that sets out its case for being the best modern Rolex that is available today. Well, at least my favourite modern Rolex.
Many manufacturers shout about their innovations and patents. This is something that so often grabs attention because of some quirky but nonetheless captivating complication. This is very much not the Rolex way. Rolex innovations are very pointed, highly focused and geared towards making their watches perfect tool watches. One of the earlier reviews that I did looked at Rolex innovations. I am going to borrow some of that review as it crosses over with the GMT. Lets start with the choice of steel for the bracelet. Back in the 1980s, Rolex discovered that watches that had been taken in the sea sometimes had water trapped in some of the caseback threading. Sitting in these threads for years (presumably between services), the chemicals in the water caused a reaction with the 316L steel that was used at the time….causing corrosion and pitting. Rolex tested the steel and found that it was susceptible to certain types of corrosion.
With the Submariner 168000, Rolex moved to 904L, a steel with a different composition – containing more nickel and chromium. Furthermore, 904L is also more resistant to chloride. Since it would be expected that a Submariner would be used in the sea, switching to a steel that was especially resistant to the chloride in the sea seemed straightforward. But actually, it was far from straightforward.
904L stainless steel is harder and much less easy to machine than the typical steels used in most watches. As a result, Rolex needed to redesign all of the tools used in the steel as well as deploy machinery that could machine the harder steel. The 904L is more resistant to rust, corrosion and pitting. Its brush-finish (which also requires unique tools) is also very resistant to scratches. Many watch manufacturers take pride in being responsible for 100% of the manufacturing of their in-house movements. Rolex deals with its steel issues by operating its own foundry, developing its own tools, and using materials which set it apart because going the extra mile on reliability is what Rolex are aiming for. 904L is, naturally, the choice of steel for the GMT Master II. In twenty tears time, the 78300 Oyster bracelet will be looking like new still.
The bezel, however, is what really grabbed my attention. The Cerachrom innovation had, of course, been developed in more recent Rolex watches (from 2005). It is patented specifically to Rolex. As my former review describes, the Cerachrom bezel is made from an extremely hard ceramic material. It is essentially scratch-proof and its colour is unaffected by ultraviolet rays (so it won’t fade with exposure to the sun). To inscribe the numerals and graduations in such a hard material, Rolex developed and patented a unique process. To quote Rolex…..“The numerals and graduations are engraved or moulded before the ceramic is hardened in an oven at 1500 degrees celsius. Then, the Cerachrom bezel is entirely covered with either gold or platinum, atom by atom, and polished until only the precious metal in the numerals and graduations remains, permanently. It takes 40 hours to produce a ceramic bezel.”
Such an innovation for the bezel is, of course, a nice addition to the features of the watch. But, what the vintage collector crew had been calling for was a watch that had echoes of the fabulous GMTs of the past. The 6542 and 1675 two-tone marvels of the 1950s, 1960s and 1970s. Nicolas has done some fabulous reviews of the vintage GMTs. See link:
There is no question that other manufacturers, in fact most of the bigger players, have come to realise that there is a tremendous market for modern tributes to classic and iconic vintage pieces. One only needs to look at some of the major successes for JLC and Tudor to see how warmly modern tributes are received. One should also not forget that whilst Patek Philippe do not release “tributes’, there is nonetheless a high degree of affection for modern releases of watches that carry high DNA traits of vintage classics. Audemars Piguet. Longines. The list is endless. Vintage Rolex is replete with iconic watches. The scope for Rolex to capture some of these historic vintage pieces through a modern take is enormous. It is not surprising, then, that so many vintage Rolex lovers were calling for a two-tone Cerachrom GMT.
The problem for Rolex has been that the Cerachrom bezel doesn’t lend itself too readily to two-tone variation. The nature of the manufacture process makes it extremely difficult to create a two-tone outcome. However, Rolex managed to do so, and in doing so created another patent. Being formed of just one single piece of Cerachrom, the initial material starts out as completely blue. During the earlier stages of production, the Cerachrom is permeable, and so black can be added to it to create a two-tone bezel. Many people have asked if it is possible to create a blue/red bezel. Never say never, especially to Rolex innovators, but since both blue and red are primary colours, it would appear extremely difficult to see how this combination could be achieved. One could, conceivably, see a red Cerachrom that subsequently has black added to it to create a red/black variant, but it seems logical to me to argue that black will always need to be at least one of the two colours. Throughout its vintage history, we have seen various colour combinations on GMTs, but there has never been a black & blue bezel until the release of the GMT Master 2 in 2013. I think it is fitting that this modern marvel has its uniqueness.
With the black & blue embedded into the Cerachrom, the bezel is then allowed to cool. Once cooled, the hourly graduations are engraved into the surface and then coated with a layer of platinum via PVD. The result is a virtually scratch-proof, fade-proof monobloc bezel that will almost certainly look as it does today in 20 years time. No other GMT has had this blue/black combination. On the wrist, it looks fabulous. Ok, it doesn’t have the flamboyancy of the vintage Pepsi GMTs, but I think what it lacks in flamboyancy, it gains in stylishness. It is demure rather than showy. Conservative rather than liberal. Black and blue are highly complimentary colours. They look great together. I could see myself wearing this with a suit just as easily as with a pair of jeans and loafers. Yet, it has enough of a feature with its black and blue Cerachrom to make it distinctive. And fun.
I have thought about this long and hard, which is why I am releasing this review ahead of any new innovations at Basel. For me, I think it is not relevant if a Pepsi version arrives (and I don’t believe it will!). I have come to truly appreciate the allure of the black and blue - night and day. So appropriate for a GMT. I am not convinced that a modern Pepsi would be as attractive. It would need to stand comparison with the numerous stunning vintage Pepsis that abound today. I would find it difficult to love a modern Pepsi dial as much as a beautifully patinated vintage Pepsi. It is not as if vintage 1675s are so high in price that a modern alternative is the only option. The “Bruiser”, on the other hand, has no base of comparison. It is its own identity.
Moving onto the specifics of the watch, the next aspect of it that I like is the case size. For those with large wrists, it is plausible to wear watches at 42mm+ with ease. I have one or two watches in that category. My wrist size is 6.75 inches. I can just about get away with 42mm depending on the depth of the case. With this GMT at 40mm, however, it sits almost perfectly for me. I am not sure what represents the perfect size for a case for me, but i suspect 38-40mm is the range. This one works very well.
The GMT-Master II houses the calibre 3186, which features the Parachrom hairspring. Conventional oscillator hairspings are typically made of ferromagnetic alloy, which leaves them exposed to magnetic fields and shocks. After 5 years of researching the phenomenon, Rolex invented the blue Parachrom hairspring. According to Rolex…”Crafted from a new paramagnetic alloy, this hairspring is unaffected by magnetic fields and remains up to 10 times more precise in the event of shocks.” The Paraflex system that is adopted in many Rolexes aims to create a form of shock absorption that limits the impact of shocks substantially. Again. Rolexes attention to build-quality and reliability stands out.
But with this GMT, there is more. There is the small attention to detail that makes such a difference. Take the bracelet. I appreciate that the steel is no ordinary steel, but the 78300 Oyster bracelet also embraces an Easylink clasp offering a 5-mm comfort extension. For someone with a smaller wrist, such as myself, having the flexibility to make very small adjustments for comfort makes a lot of difference.
Another small detail is the use of blue chromalight lume. It gives it something unusual and interesting. My JLC Navy Seal has a blue hue to its lume and to be honest, it just looks awesome. Having the 24-hour hand matching in blue too adds another attractive aesthetic. Small things matter. The hands are made from 18k white gold. No chance of them showing signs of rust in 20 years time. This is a watch that has been built to last.
I like this watch. I like it a lot. The longer I have studied it and the more often I have tried it on, the more I have come to realise that it offers a great deal as a modern Rolex. I think its black & blue bezel is a perfect discretion. I think the use of Cerachrom adds enormously to its appeal. From the comfort of the bracelet to the innovations of its movement that make it not only superbly well put together but classically Rolex in its reliability. In one sense, the two-tone bezel is a wink to its historical ancestry. On the other hand, this watch stands on its own two feet. It doesn’t need its iconic GMT ancestry to stand out as a superb modern Rolex. Is this the best modern Rolex to have been produced in the last decade? I am rapidly moving to the view that it is. Would I describe it as "great"? No, its not a "great" watch, but it is a very cool, under-the-radar, effective GMT. Not many watches do travel as well as Rolex...simplicity...reliability.
Will this be my first purchase of 2014? Of that , there is no doubt.