Rolex

Baron - Mr Red
14613

• Show profile
• Show other posts

Rolex Submariner 6200 - the review

For many, the Submariner 6200 represents the essence of Rolex. I was lucky enough to buy one a few years ago and can say that it is a very special watch. To review such a watch, however, has not been easy. It is not as if Rolex have provided detailed history from which to draw. Further, even to this day, there remains dispute and controversy over which Rolex was the very first Submariner. 

This review will take a hands-on approach to the watch, looking at it as it is today as well as touching on the many issues which surround its place in Rolex history. It will also look at the dial variations (with many thanks to Marcello for his invaluable contributions).

Before the discussion starts, lets just take a brief look at what the 6200 is?

Is the 6200 the “first” Submariner?

Lets start off by stating that nobody knows the answer to this question for certain. There are many theories. Many different opinions. What does seem accepted fact is that three Submariner references were produced by Rolex at approximately the same time. These three were the 6200, 6204 and 6205. Over the course of time, experts have made various arguments for which came first. Accepted wisdom places the 6204 as the first Submariner. I disagree. First, however, lets look at the key arguments behind the 6204 “first Sub” perspective. 

The 6200 has the A296 movement whereas the 6204 and 6205 have the A260 movement. Marcello makes the point that the A260 is not an improved movement, but rather just one that is appropriate for the case size - the 6204 and 6205 having a much slimmer case. No real clues from the movement. One cannot say one movement was more or less advanced.

The small crown 6204 was issued within serial numbers 949000-989000, from 1953. The 6200 has case numbers around the range 32000, after the serial number rotation at the beginning of 1954, placing its production in 1954 and thus after the 6204. The Basel Fair of 1954 saw the 6204 released officially as the first Submariner. This would seem to be conclusive evidence, right? 

The 6200 also, unusually, carries the Explorer 3-6-9 dial. The Explorer was first introduced in 1954. If it dates from 1954, doesn't this, again, place the 6200 verifiably after the 6204?

I think the evidence is extremely strong supporting the idea that the 6204 was officially released as a Submariner before the 6200. The Basel Fair provides hard copy proof and the serial number chronology is also very hard to dispute. Likewise, the use of the 3-6-9 dial suggests 6200 as post-1953. All of these factors provide a convincing argument for the 6204 being the first Submariner issued to the general public.

So the 6204 is probably the first Submariner? Not for me. I think another line of thinking makes more sense. Firstly, watch development does not take place overnight. Indeed, when producing watches with new technical capacities, it can often take years of planning and development, testing and re-designing before a watch is ready for release. When did Rolex start working on the 6200? 1953? 1952? Maybe even before. It was certainly some time before official release! Indeed, given that the 6200 incorporated a new technological advance - a much deeper depth rating (c180m), it is plausible that the development for the 6200 took place well before the official release. So, are we to use the release date and serial number as the absolute arbiter or is it meaningful and reasonable to ask whether Rolex developed the 6200 first, but chose to release the 6204 before the 6200 because the 6204 was ready for release before? The reference chronology does support the 6200 as designed first. Why would Rolex manufacture a reference, 6204 or 6205, then manufacture another at a later date and call it the 6200? Pure logic would suggest that there is another explanation. It is hard to imagine that Rolex developed the 6204 before the 6200. 

The 6200 was the very first Submariner proofed to c180m. Maybe the 6200 was the prototype professional divers Submariner whilst the small crown 6204 was for the general public. This distinction is not one that is generally made, yet there are some decent arguments to be found. The 6200 was designed with a more professional user in mind. With an enhanced depth rating, it could be argued that perhaps Rolex received a “special request” order that required enhanced technical capacity.  It is also verifiable that a number of 6200s surfaced from original owners - military owners. Is it possible that Rolex received a special order for an enhanced diving watch, produced the 6200 prototype for that special order and then realised that its fatter case would not be popular with the general public so used the 6200 prototype to develop a subsequent reference (6204) that would be slimmer and more desirable by the general public?

Note, also, that Rolex chose to use a dial on the 6200 from a watch from a completely different reference. To my mind, this is not pure marketing. Legibility for a professional diver, perhaps? The Explorer 3-6-9 dial provides a clear and identifiable means of differentiating the 6200 from the general public version - the 6204. When one thinks of the way that Rolex developed the Sea-Dweller with its prototype Mk1 and Mk2 versions (produced in quantities of under 100 watches) to precede the general public offering event, the DRSD….It was the Rolex way to develop the professional version first and then adapt it to something that would have more mass-appeal. Very Rolex. 

To my mind, it makes more logical sense that Rolex started to design the 6200 first. With its new 180m depth capacity, I would argue that it was on the Rolex drawing board before the 6204. Once Rolex were happy with the prototyped 6200, they produced and refined the 6204 for official release for the general public but with a slimmer case and a more marketable watch for the non-professional. Following this official 6204 release, Rolex then cased and numbered the 6200 for release aimed mainly at the professional market. So, for me, the 6200 is the first Submariner as it was designed and prototyped as such. The 6204 was the first released Submariner. I know many will have a differing view on the chronology, but this is my theory that I believe holds a degree of logical consistency. As ever with Rolex, I am very flexible to change my mind should evidence emerge suggesting otherwise!!

What makes the 6200 special?

Some more history, however, is pertinent. What makes the 6200 special? Clearly, whether it was the first or second Submariner is only a marginal issue. Its place in Submariner history is clear. I think history is also an interesting arbiter. When Rolex collectors talk in awe about a particular watch, one rarely hears the 6204 outscore the 6200. Why is that? 

The thicker case that was needed for the greater depth rating of the 6200 may not have been especially popular with the general public back in the 1950s, it did however necessitate the first appearance of the 8mm Brevet crown. In Swiss French, Brevet means “patent”. With this Submariner was born the “Big Crown”. There is no question, the style and presence of the Big Crown has captured the hearts of Rolex collectors to an extent that is hard to explain. Yes, the crown differentiates the watch relative to the many Submariner references that followed. Only three references have carried the Brevet Big Crown - 6200, 6538 and 5510. All three are iconic watches. The presence of the Big Crown and the implied presence on the wrist of the thicker case in no way plays a small part in the process of elevating the 6200 to iconic status.

But the Big Crown may actually be more central to the story of the 6200 than has been thought. There are several things that differentiate the 6204 and 6200. The need for the Big Crown on the 6200 was due too the need to use the watch with thick gloves in heavy-duty situations. According to Marcello, the request came, principally from the UK military. The need for a bigger crown made it necessary to have a thicker case to place the crown. And so, seemingly, another explanation for why the 6200 and 6204 had different style cases is derived. 

What other features have elevated the 6200? When one looks at so many wonderful gilt 5512s and 5513s from the 1960s that feature today, one sees many almost-perfect and mirror-like gilt dials. The 6200 was also issued with a gilt dial, and despite being just 5-10 years older than these 5512s and 5513s, it is extremely unusual to find a 6200 with a perfect gilt lustre. Why such a difference in the dial sheen? One theory is that the existence of radium rather than tritium on the dial explains the lack of sheen. The dial on my 6200 can clearly still be discerned as gilt, but compare that with its subsequent Submariner offspring from the early 1960s….quite a difference! Marcello’s theory is that it is not an issue of radium-burn. Indeed, since many dials from the 1957-58 period have radium but also beautiful mirror-like dials, the rationale for the duller dial on the 6200 lies elsewhere. During this period, many Rolex dials were made by the Stern Company, and it is entirely plausible that there were problems galvanising the dials. As Marcello points out, many chrono dials from the 1940s developed a semi-lacquered effect too. Dials from the 1960s onwards had a much thicker coat of lacquered paint and it is likely to be this factor that differentiated the mirror-like dials from the earlier problem dials of the mid-1950s. A similar story holds true for many of the gilt dialled Explorer dials from the 1950s - made by Stern, but gilt has become very dull. This is just a theory! Marcello’s theory, and I like this one!

Notwithstanding the lack of mirror-like finish to the 6200 dial, what is one looking for from the dial?What one looks for on a gilt dial of this nature is an evenness of small pitting, and of course the puffball nature of the lume. Puffball sums it up quite well. For a watch that is 60 or so years old, it is inevitable that the dial will show some wear and tear. Indeed, if there were problems with the galvanising, then wear and tear is inevitable. Pitting is typically evident on 6200s. What i liked about the dial on mine was that the pitting was mild, but evenly spread without areas of intense concentration. Makes the dial far more pleasurable to view.

A further feature that makes the 6200 stick out is its bezel. Unlike the traditional Submariner bezel, the 6200 bezel has no gradation markings. It is these differences that make an original version special. 

And lets not forget the Mercedes hands. Although there is some dispute, it is argued that the 6200 was the first Submariner to adopt the now classic Mercedes hands. The hands, of course, also have a number of special features. The gilt colouring of the hands seems to offset the sandpaper-like nature of the lume. Against the backdrop of the deep black gilt dial, the hands seem to add warmth and no small amount of charm to the dial. Notice, also, that the hour hand is longer than is typically the case from later Submariners….and different too to the design of the 6204. It is a small point, but again one can see that these two watches did have very specific differences. Why the need for longer hour hands on the 6200?

Dial variations

There are, naturally, some variations in the style of dial on 6200 that one can expect to see. To examine the various nuances that come with the 6200 dial, I am indebted to Marcello for both his expertise, scans as well as commentary. Marcello....thank you. All the dial scans and commentary after the scans come courtesy of Marcello.

Version 1

6200 dial standard combo with minute ring but with word SUBMARINER: dial has standard printings at 12 ( word PERPETUAL with height growing from left to right ) ; about this dial :

1) the word SUBMARINER is printed in silver above the coat of transparent paint ;

2) case number is in the usual range ( 32XXX )

3) watch sold to UK in 1954.

Version 2

Another variant : a watch seen in a famous auction with completely different printings at 12;

1) Rolex crown and other printings at 12 seen also in a few old explorers ;

2) this dial has appeared either with the T ( added ? ) at 6 and without it. ;

3) most likely the present dial has relumed indexes and btw seems to  be a later replacement 

Version 3

Same dial seen in variant 2 ( explorer style crown and printings ) but with these differences:

1) dial is  signed only SWISS at 6 and doesn't seem to be a replacement ;

2) dial is also signed SUBMARINER ( in silver as in variant 1 ). In this watch insert is a later replacement ( long 5 ).

Version 4

At last here is the standard dial : 6200 standard combo and dial : pristine set of hands with "

swan-neck " hours hand and " lollipop " seconds hand ; dial has standard gilt printings with the so called   " twisted mouth " crown, minute ring and is signed " SWISS " only at 6.

The 6200 has many claims to fame. Some can be verified. Some are left to myth. What remains is a watch of stunning power, presence and personality. For many good reasons, it sits in Rolex history as one of the most covetable and instantly recognisable watches. 

The 6200 had a new technology. It was specially developed with a much greater depth rating. It beggars belief to think that the development time for this watch was not significant. Indeed, maybe it took so long to get the development and testing correct that the subsequent watches in the development line, the 6204 and 6205 (that did not have the thicker case and big crown) were ready for release before the 6200 was ready or were just seen as more marketable to the public. That seems to my mind to give the 6200 a legitimate claim to be recognised as the first Submariner designed by Rolex. 

First….or not….it is a king of Submariners to me.

To finish, a few more scans.

Site Info.