Let me start by saying: if I could get a fairly nice 5 digit Sub with a reliable history for around seven, I'd almost certainly jump on it with both feet. So, I'm not against having one, even at what I would consider a hefty investment.

That out of the way, I read an article on the Hodinkee site the other day absolutely SWOONING over the new Rolex Submariner. I mean, I've never thought about a woman the way the cat was writing about this watch.
I scroll down to the comments, and they didn't let me down. Some Fanboy-ism, some hating... But the best comments were in relation to a particular portion of the write-up featuring pictures of Robert Redford and Steve McQueen wearing their famous Subs.

It's hard to have a lengthy conversation about Rolex without these two fellas or - for good measure - Paul Newman and his Daytona coming up. That's the point where you hang a lot of Rolex's value on those watches; the "cool factor". I will admit, it's attractive to me, too, though the real world, historic usage aspects are more so.

At any rate, I thought the best comments stated, in one way or another, that the Sub IS NOT cool any more, and hasn't been for a long time. The first analogy that popped into my head was, whomever that first guy that wore a pair of Chuck Taylors' with a dinner jacket, that guy was pretty cool, I guess. But wearing a $500 pair of LE basketball shoes with a suit is not and never will be.

What made the Sub neat-o then was that it was incidental. Now, more than anything, it reminds me of the business card scene in American Psycho. I think it's a shame that the Submariner necessarily demands some sort of explanation from the wearer now that no other watch does.

For instance, I saw for the first time a Royal Oak out in the wild, on the wrist of an unassuming dude in a very common setting. It's my understanding that they don't just give those watches away. I'm sorry to say, in reflection, I thought, "Hey! An AP! I've never seen one of those in real life". Whereas, had the guy been wearing a Sub, there's a good chance, deep in the evil recesses of my ugly brain, I would have thought, "That guy's probably a wiener".

I can't emphasize enough, I WOULD TOTALLY WEAR A SUBMARINER, even with that baggage. There's a lot to be said about the idea that, there's Rolex, then there's every other watch. And there was another article ( I wish I could properly cite it ) that basically said: we have Rolex to thank for pretty much every other mechanical watch after the eighties. Or, at least, the wider range of choices. And I think that's true.

Blah blah blah, wall of text...
The choices for mechanical watches, including all the micro brands, has to be hovering around where it was in the 60s, yet there's still this perception hung on The Crown that you too can be Steve McQueen or Redford or Newman, or at least glean some of their stardust, by strapping on a Rolex.
But in a world where 90 per cent of people don't use a mechanical watch, I think the What Are You Wearing section of this forum broadcasts more awesomeness than those dudes of yore. Yes, the Subs in that section, too ( damn you! ).

I guess I just wanted to openly muse, and to give a HUGE "like" to EVERY post on the What Are You Wearing thread, which I think honestly break down into two categories:

1) Check out my watch. I collect them and you might think this is neat. Otherwise, I don't really give a @*#?.

and

2) Check out my watch. I hope it's as cool as I think it is and that I didn't just throw five grand in the toilet.

I, for one , think they're really, really awesome, because they're "real" watches, and they belong to you.


PS: watches bought as an "investment" are not, nor will they ever be...