If you’d like to skip the novel to get the Coles Notes version of what my grail watch could be, scroll to the bottom of this article.

Watch collecting, like many things in life, isn’t so much about the destination as it is about the journey. I know, it’s lazy to lean on platitudes – but, I’m too busy dreaming of the next watch that will temporarily defer my insatiable appetite.

Many of us kid ourselves that there is a promised land, where we will be able to retire from the hunt and consider our collection complete – our thirst at long last quenched, once and for all. Unfortunately, I don’t think that’s a realistic expectation for anything in life. Happiness never comes from the realization of an accomplishment – it comes from the pursuit of those things that cannot yet be attained. The truth is, we’re always in search of what’s next.

While that tangent is nothing short of anecdotal rocking chair wisdom, it does speak to the theme of this article. Ever since this hobby became my obsession, I’ve had several grails. For each one, now possessed, I thoroughly enjoyed the time spent striving toward owning them. However, the more I bought and sold watches and as the landscape of my collection remained in flux, the more precisely honed my tastes became. I began to zero in on exactly what I enjoy with greater accuracy. Slowly, I was becoming more and more discerning.

Of course, like most watch lovers, I’ve had many watches leave my collection. While only a select few have stood the test of time, I don’t regret purchasing those pieces that have gone. I enjoyed them while they were mine and each of them taught me what my preferences are (and what they are not). As the parameters of those preferences constricted further and further inward, what I want in a watch has become all the more specific.

However, a grail isn’t just some watch you want. It is “the” watch you want in your collection – your crown jewel. We all have one in mind. Actually, you might have a couple. But we all have a grail of grails. That one watch that, to each of us, is perfection. I know I do.

Unfortunately, my grail watch doesn’t exist. Well, not yet anyway. But I have the ability to be optimistic from time to time, so I’m holding on to hope. For now, I’ll enjoy dreaming about it and telling you what I think it should be.

If you’ve read any of my blogs, you’ll know I’m infatuated with the Rolex Explorer Reference 1016. However, the 1016 is not my grail. I love vintage watches, but my grail is not a vintage watch. For my grail, I have to be the first and only owner. Not only that, it has to be up to the task. I don’t want something I need to baby. What I’m really looking for is the design of a 1016, in a completely new reissued version. In my mind, there are a few ways this kind of release would succeed in satisfying my vision of what my grail watch is (would be). More specifically, there are exactly four outcomes that would meet my criteria for my imagined grail. I will detail each within this article and rank them from a passing grade to my most preferred.

Before I get into the nitty gritty, I should first set out the ground rules for my grail. Each of the four options mentioned within this article will, at the very least, meet the below criterion. If I were fortunate enough to see a release that met the majority of these requirements (but not all), I would certainly consider it. I don’t need to get everything on my wish list. However, this is my grail, so I can be as picky as I want in conceiving what it should be (or could be).

Must Haves:

The watch will have a steel oyster style case and be no more than 36mm in diameter.
Lug to lug, the watch will be no more than 44mm.
From case back to crystal top, the piece will be no thicker than 12mm.
Its dial will be an “Explorer dial” configuration (i.e., 3-6-9 Arabic numerals). A 3-6-9-12 configuration would be acceptable as well.
The dial will be matte black (non-reflective).
Extremely vibrant and long-lasting luminescence will be featured.
There will be a smooth, unmarked bezel.
My grail will feature a branded screw-down crown, located mid-case.
Water-resistance must be at least 100m – preferably 150m.
The case back will be screw-down and will be unmarked (without any branding or specifications).
The watch will be a three-hander, with no date.
Whatever movement is inside, it must be COSC certified.
The movement will be an automatic one with at least 48 hours of power reserve.
When setting the time, the seconds hand will be hackable.
Domed crystal, instead of flat. My preference is acrylic, but I understand that’s not as marketable as sapphire. If it’s sapphire, there can’t be a milky ring around the outer edges of the crystal. If for some reason, that can’t be made to happen, the crystal should be a domed acrylic. If that is deemed incompatible with market demand – stick with flat sapphire. A domed sapphire crystal with a milky ring is unacceptable. It would break up the flow of the design.
This dream piece will be fitted with a steel oyster style tapered bracelet.
Endlinks will be solid.
The clasp will feature a system that allows for quick, toolless micro-adjustment which empowers the wearer to slightly extend the bracelet on the fly.
There will be no gold (yellow, white or rose) or platinum on any part of the watch.
Printing on the dial will be minimal, with the logo positioned just below 12 o’clock, and some additional text located above 6 o’clock.
The MSRP will be no more than $8000 CAD (approximately $6000 USD).

Nice to Haves:

If the crystal is sapphire – anti-reflective coating should be applied.
Believably colourized faux patina on the numerals, markers and hands.
Blue luminescence instead of green.
Drilled lug holes.
The watch should come in a fully featured set, including presentation box, alternative brown genuine leather strap, alternative admiralty grey fabric nato, spring bar tool, and leather watch roll.

So, now that we have the ground rules, without further ado, let’s get into the details for each of the four options that would best suit my grail watch dreams – in a countdown style.

Number Four

Tudor Heritage Black Bay 36 Remastered

The current version of the Tudor Heritage Black Bay 36 (Reference 79500) is quite a tempting piece for those of us on the hunt for something in the 1016 ballpark. It has a 36mm diameter case – check. Lug to lug, it’s 44mm – check. The BB36 is 10.5mm thick – check. Just like an Explorer, it has a smooth bezel with no markings – check. Featuring a screw-down crown, it has 150m of water resistance – check. It is, of course, a three-hander without a date complication – check. Its oyster style bracelet tapers from 19mm to 16mm – check.

As it is, it already hits the mark on quite a few of the features needed to form my grail. It doesn’t tick all the boxes. However, it’s close enough that Tudor has a unique opportunity to capitalize on – should they so choose.

I propose the Tudor Heritage Black Bay 36 Remastered. Of the options described herein, this imagined timepiece is my / Tudor’s minimum viable product. The 36 Remastered would retain its 36mm case and 44mm lug to lug measurement, but the watch’s thickness would expand to 12mm with the inclusion of a domed crystal.

As mentioned above, my preference is acrylic. In my mind, the way it refracts the elements of a dial and the visual access it provides far outweigh its penchant for picking up faint scratches easier than sapphire. However, my goal in this article is to walk a fine line between what I want and what could resemble a blueprint for success for the referred to brand. After all, I really would like to see one of these suggested options released imminently (preferably during Baselworld 2020).

So, in keeping with that “fine line”, if the crystal had to be sapphire to appease the market, Tudor (and everyone else) should take lessons from Oris when it comes to implementing a domed sapphire crystal. I previously owned an Oris Divers Sixty-Five and let me tell you, in my mind, no one does domed sapphire better than Oris. I don’t know how they achieve it but the sapphire on the Sixty-Five has a very pronounced bulb effect without even the slightest appearance of the typical milky ring you tend to find on domed sapphires. I don’t think there’s anything I despise more in the watch world than that milky ring effect. Without fail, every single watch I have seen with this affliction immediately falls out of favour for me – regardless of whatever other appealing features it may have. That ring completely breaks up the design of a watch and traps the eye within the dial. The design of a watch’s dial and crystal should allow the wearer’s eye to spill out onto the bezel, and flow down the lugs and along the bracelet. But, that damn milky ring acts as a barrier and separates the dial from the rest of the watch. If you can’t tell, it drives me up the wall – but that’s enough ranting.

Bottomline, the 36 Remastered would have a domed sapphire crystal (with anti-reflective coating), and Tudor would make sure to figure out what Oris has been doing to curtail the scourge of the milky ring.

As for the Remastered’s case features, the unmarked bezel is perfect as is but the sides of the case should be slightly reimagined to make them less slab-like. Take a page out of Timesfactors’ Smiths Everest’s book. There’s a smooth and gradual curve to the Everest’s case sides that gives it a vintage flair, allows the watch to sit flush with the wrist and adds a higher level of comfort for the wearer. From my perspective, it just looks better.

When it comes to the crown, I’m not terribly picky about the size. Although, I’m aware that some find the “big crown” too big on the BB36. So, maybe a reduction in size would be in order. The change that I would insist on seeing, with regard to the crown, is the colour of the crown tube. In its current iteration, it’s black. For the 36 Remastered, it should be given the steel treatment – much like the Black Bay Fifty-Eight (Reference 79030N).

The BB36’s existing bracelet will do the trick, but the clasp should be replaced with one that is Rolex GlideLock-esque. What makes the Explorer design concept so perfect is that it is both an elegant and adventurous watch at once. In order for a piece to successfully transition between the two, it needs to be able to compensate (on the fly) in the event of wrist swelling. There’s no better clasp for this purpose than the GlideLock design. A watch of the calibre I am suggesting needs to be comfortable. Slapping a micro-adjustable clasp (that doesn’t need tools) on the Remastered will ensure the watch is a treat to wear – whether trekking through a humid, lush forest or tucked beneath a French cuff at a gala event.

Now – the movement. I’m not a cogs and wheels aficionado. I am interested in the inner workings of a watch in so far as I respect the engineering and craftsmanship. And, being a watch enthusiast, I accept that movements are an important part of the conversation. However, my interest in timepieces is skin-deep. When I look at my wrist to admire the watch I am wearing, I don’t see the innards (and no, I don’t own any skeletonized watches). So, decoration and finishing of a movement don’t rank high on my wish list. That said, what does matter to me, regarding movements, is that I can trust them to keep my watch ticking – even in harsh conditions. So, what should the Remastered’s movement be? I recommend that Tudor swap out the BB36’s ETA Calibre 2824-2 for their in-house Manufacture Calibre MT5402. These two movements are a similar size (the 2824-2 is 25.6mm in diameter while the MT5402 is 26mm), so there should be no issue regarding compatibility. What makes the MT5402 a great candidate is that it checks all my boxes and then some. It’s a self-winding, COSC-certified workhorse with a beastly 70-hour power reserve. I have experience with this movement in my BB58. Plain and simple – it’s awesome.

That fantastic movement will be pushing three hands. Speaking of which, what should the handset be? Definitely not the snowflake variety. I’m not in the camp of snowflake haters. Actually, I like them quite a bit on the Fifty-Eight. However, they would be out of place on the 36 Remastered. My recommendation – the handset from the 1967 Tudor Oyster Prince Ranger 7995/0. I’m in love with the pairing of the arrowhead hour hand, sharp baton minute hand and block syringe second hand. All should be steel, filled with white or faux patina lume. When I look at photos of the vintage Ranger, I’m always a little perplexed by the block syringe second hand. I’m usually partial to a lollipop instead of something so cornered, angular and jagged. However, there is something about it that works. It’s intriguingly foreign and adds just the right amount of quirkiness to the watch. And that arrowhead hour hand – I can’t adequately express how perfect I think it is. The vintage Ranger’s handset is a masterpiece and would go a long way in making the 36 Remastered a viable option in my grail-laden dreams.

Those gorgeous hands will need to sweep across a matte black dial. There shouldn’t be any reflective properties in the dial. It should be ash-like. The BB36’s current dial, while nice, won’t cut it. The Remastered’s dial needs to be a flatter black. Something like the colour found on the gritty, lustreless black dial of the Tudor Pelagos (Reference 25600TN) would work well, I believe. As for the printing on the dial, the BB36’s current logo and script can remain as is.

Last, but not least, the indices and hour markers. To begin, the existing indices running along the edge of the dial and the inverted triangle marker at 12 o’clock can stay. However, they should match whatever colour the other hour markers are (whether white or custard). The circular hour markers should be replaced with rectangular markers, much like the existing markers at the 3, 6 and 9 o’clock positions (only with their size diminished slightly). As for the rectangular markers at 3, 6 and 9 – they should be replaced with explorer-style rounded Arabic numerals. Fortunately, this type of numerals already exists in Tudor’s inventory. The Black Bay Bronze (Reference 79250BA) features numerals that will fit the bill well. All that will need to be done is to size them accordingly to ensure balance on the smaller dial, and match them up to the white or faux patina colour scheme of the other markers and hands.

And, voila – there you have my minimum viable grail, coming in at number four. The Tudor Heritage Black Bay 36 Remastered.

Price? $3800 CAD (approximately $2900 USD).

**Recapping the Roadmap for the Tudor Heritage Black Bay 36 Remastered:**

Take a Tudor Heritage Black Bay 36.
Replace its flat crystal with a domed sapphire (free of the milky white ring).
Introduce slightly rounded case sides.
Reduce the crown size and change the tube colour from black to steel.
Add a GlideLock-like clasp to the bracelet.
Swap out the movement for Tudor’s in-house Manufacture Calibre MT5402.
Substitute the snowflake hands for the vintage Ranger all-steel arrowhead set.
Subdue the reflective dial, making it completely matte flat black.
Place rectangular hour markers where the circular plots currently are.
Steal the Arabic numerals from the Tudor Black Bay Bronze and size them accordingly.

While this watch represents the bare minimum imagining of what my grail watch could be, I wholeheartedly believe, with the mentioned tweaks and additions, this would be a stone-cold killer of a watch. I have no doubt this would be well-received by the watch community and an immediate success for Tudor.

Number Three

Rolex Explorer 314270

The Rolex Explorer 214270 (Mark II) is gorgeous. While I prefer the numeral font design of a more vintage Explorer (à la Reference 1016), I don’t despise the modern 3-6-9. The elements I love about this instalment of the Explorer most are its Mercedes handset, the shape of its oyster case, and its long-lasting bluish Chromalight luminescence.

Without a doubt, there’s a lot to like in the 214270. But, it’s not my grail. However, it could be well-positioned to become just that should certain adjustments be made. Frankly, it wouldn’t take much. The newest version isn’t that far off.

The following suggested changes could be packaged and sold as the Rolex Explorer 314270. This proposed watch is included in this list because its conception is reasonable enough to sustain some hope that Rolex may actually produce something like this some bright, shiny day.

So, let’s get into it. What needs to happen to transform the 214270 into the 314270?

As mentioned above, the case shape of the 214270 is spot on. However, its dimensions are not. From my perspective, an Explorer can’t be larger than 36mm. The Explorer isn’t just a tool watch – it’s an elegant tool watch. At 39mm, the 214270 is taking up too much wrist real estate to maintain the Explorer tradition of modesty and reservation. The 314270’s diameter should shrink 3mm to the time-tested 36mm (much like that of the Explorer 114270). The lug to lug measurement should follow that reduction accordingly, coming down from 48mm to 44mm. As for the thickness, there should be concessions made there as well. At its current 12mm thickness, the 214270 does comply with my earlier established parameters. However, that’s 12mm with a flat crystal. The case’s thickness should be slimmed to 10.5mm.

Speaking of the flat crystal – that just won’t do. The 314270 will have a domed sapphire crystal, bringing the overall watch thickness to 12mm. Oh, and Rolex – please, for the love of God, have an open mind about adding anti-reflective coating to the crystal.

Next on the docket, the clasp. There’s nothing wrong with the 214270’s Easylink extension. It’s just that the GlideLock clasp exists. Slap that puppy on the 314270’s oyster bracelet, because it’s objectively better.

Nothing should need to be changed in the movement department. Rolex’s Calibre 3132 has the same 28.50mm diameter as the Calibre 3130 that was housed in the Explorer 114270’s 36mm case. I see no reason to introduce a new movement for the 314270.

Regarding the handset, hour markers and numerals, keep the design style for all but make them steel instead of white gold. Also, scale down the size of the 314270’s dial appliqués, in keeping with the reduction of the watch as a whole. As a side note and as I said earlier, I definitely prefer the 1016 numerals to the more modern interpretations found on the 214270. However, for what they are, I do give praise to the team who conceived their design. It’s clear to me the modern numerals are a nod to the vintage Arabics. Reason being, when you look at a 1016 from a certain angle, the domed acrylic crystal stretches and distorts the numerals, causing them to resemble the stout, horizontally accentuated 3, 6, and 9 of the current day’s design.

Lastly, flatten out the black colour of the dial. The 214270’s dial is too reflective. An Explorer’s dial shouldn’t capture light, it should repress it. The 314270 will have a subdued matte dial.

That’s number three – the Rolex Explorer 314270.

MSRP for this imaginary beauty - $6000 CAD (approximately $4600 USD).

**Recapping the Roadmap for the Rolex Explorer 314270:**

Reduce the 214270 (Mark II) to 36mm in diameter and 44mm lug to lug.
Replace the crystal with a domed anti-reflective sapphire.
Ensure the watch’s thickness is no more than 12mm.
Swap out the Easylink extension clasp for the superior GlideLock.
Replace the white gold clad handset, markers and numerals with steel versions.
Introduce a matte black dial, instead of the reflective version featured on the 214270.

By making these changes, but keeping the rest of what the 214270 has to offer the same, Rolex would make me and quite a few others happy campers. I understand why Rolex pushed the Explorer up to 39mm. However, the market’s appetite is quickly going back to from whence it came. There’s a small window where Rolex can maintain its brand identity of influencing the market, instead of complying to its demands. Releasing a new 36mm Explorer, sooner than later, will keep them ahead of the curve. However, the opportunity to seemingly create the momentum instead of responding to it is closing quickly. Do it, Rolex! Do it now, so you can live up to the image you wish to project and we (the consumers) can get what it is that we want.

Number Two

Tudor Oyster Prince Ranger 7995/0 Mark II

This is where things get incredibly exciting for me. We’re getting into no-compromise territory. Should either of my top two featured in this wish list see a release, I would not have to feel any sense of settling. Either one of the next two would, for me, be perfection.

More than any of the other options discussed here, I believe option number two has the best chance of being brought to life. What’s more, it represents the greatest opportunity for the brand in question. That brand being Tudor. Before I explain why such a great opportunity exists for Rolex’s younger sibling, let’s hash out the details of the watch that takes the number two spot on my grail list.

There are a lot of beautiful watches to lust after. However, I’ve only ever seen two watches that made me feel that if I owned one of them, I wouldn’t want for any other watch in my collection. Those two watches are the Rolex Explorer 1016 and the Tudor Oyster Prince Ranger 7995/0. Today, both the Explorer and Ranger models exist in their respective brand’s collection. However, the current in-production generation of these models are not faithful to their ancestors. They are close enough in design to their predecessors to be recognized as such, but are far enough off that those who adore the originals (and nearly everyone does) won’t be fulfilled by their existence.

Both Rolex and Tudor (and many other watch brands for that matter) need to come to the realization that every once and awhile, the stars align and a watch design is conceived that can never again be improved upon, and any deviation from that design or futile attempt at besting it can only diminish and disturb its unique and inexplicable harmony. Such is the case with both the Explorer (1016) and Ranger (7995/0).

I submit for your approval, the Tudor Oyster Prince Ranger 7995/0 Mark II – a near total reissue of 1967’s 7995/0. Just the thought of this gives me chills. So, what makes the Mark II the Mark II? Well, almost everything that made the 7995/0 what it was.

Frankly, if the Mark II I dream of existed and you were holding it in your hand, one of few hints you’d have to conclude that it was indeed the Mark II, as opposed to the 1967 version, would be the absence of wear and tear on the piece. That’s how similar it would be. One of the only significant deviations from the original would not even be visible to the eye – unless you opened the case up.

Instead of using the same movement as the vintage 7995/0 (ETA Calibre 2483), the Mark II would (should) use Tudor’s in-house Manufacture Calibre MT5402. The 2483 and MT5402 are nearly the same diameter, so the newer in-house movement would be compatible with the Mark II’s case size.

Speaking of case size, the original 7995/0 had a 34mm case, instead of the typical 36mm size of an Explorer-esque watch. I think that’s an intriguing size for the Mark II, and would be to my liking. However, I want this watch to be released and I want it to be a success. So, in the spirit of appealing to the vintage Explorer enthusiast market, Tudor should up the case size to 36mm. It’s beyond me what they were thinking when they expanded the case size to 41mm in the current Heritage Ranger (Reference 79910). That’s way too big. No Ranger variant should be larger than 36mm.

Regarding the dial – the lumed areas (hour markers, Arabic numerals and inlays on the steel handset) should be colourized in a custard faux patina style. The vintage 7995/0’s lume paint was originally white, but turned a mustardy hue over time because of its tritium composition. To be wholly faithful to the original (as it was retailed), the Mark II’s lume paint would have to be white. However, that colour of patinated tritium is just too rich and beguiling to resist. Which reminds me, this is definitely a foregone conclusion but I’ll put it on the record anyway – the Mark II will not have tritium lume (nudge, nudge – it should be Chromalight). Since the lume will be comprised of a more modern substance, the “T’s” enclosing the word “Swiss” just below the 6 o’clock numeral should be removed. As for all other text and branding on the dial, it should remain exactly the same. And, when I say exactly, I mean to a T (wink, wink – except for the tritium “T’s”). Tudor should make sure the exact gothic font is used for the brand printing and the “rose in relief” logo should be a carbon copy of the one found on the vintage 7995/0. I’m not sure what they were going for with the rose logo found on the modern Heritage Ranger, but it’s definitely not a faithful reproduction.

While we’re talking logos, Tudor should refrain from placing the shield logo anywhere on the Mark II’s dial. However, it should be placed on the crown, replacing Rolex’s coronet. The original 7995/0 was released during a time when Tudor, as a brand, was almost an afterthought – fitted with hand-me-downs from Rolex’s bits and bobs bins. This isn’t the case anymore. Tudor will always be inextricably linked to Rolex, but the brand has forged its own successful path and can now stand on its own two feet.

Omega Speedmaster Professional Moonwatch

Tudor should strongly consider offering the Mark II with a domed acrylic crystal – just as the original 7995/0 was. Would they catch some criticism for producing a watch that doesn’t have a sapphire crystal? Sure, they would. However, just because some wouldn’t appreciate acrylic versus sapphire, doesn’t mean there can’t be a success case for the former. Just look at the hesalite version of the Omega Speedmaster Professional. A large portion of Speedy consumers consciously choose the hesalite over the sapphire version, specifically because it’s more faithful to the original Moonwatch. Could the same logic apply to the Mark II? I don’t see why not.

The final touch is the clasp. As with the other options described thus far, the Mark II should be fitted with a GlideLock-esque micro-extender. These Explorer style watches have the look of being able to do it all (whether thrust into rigorous or refined environments). The Mark II should be equipped with the hardware that ensures it can conquer both, not only in form but also in function.

Whatever elements I didn’t mention, it’s because they shouldn’t deviate in any way from the original. That means the Mark II’s case shape, handset and bracelet should be identical to the vintage 7995/0. Tudor’s current Heritage Ranger misses the mark on every one of these counts. The case gives way to the dial far too much, that red second hand is jarring and the bracelet seems like some sort of aftermarket oyster knock-off (sans endlinks). When a brand reissues one of their beloved models, I applaud them because their heart is in the right place and they are moving in an appealing direction. However, it takes a lot of gumption to do a reissue right. Reason being, people need to park their ego and that’s easier said than done. Sometimes, leaving your mark doesn’t mean making changes – but instead facilitating a resurrection.

Now that I’ve detailed the specifications of the Oyster Prince Ranger 7995/0 Mark II, it’s time to offer up the reasons why, as I suggested earlier, such a great opportunity to deliver on this piece exists for Tudor.

Reason #1: “Born to Dare”

Tudor’s slogan doesn’t just represent their brand identity – it hints at the purpose of the brand’s very existence. Translated, “Born to Dare” means “created to do what Rolex cannot (or will not) do”. Such as, faithfully reissuing a beloved design. It may not seem daring to identically replicate what once was. However, in the current watch industry climate, next to no one is making the case that such a move would be commonplace. What’s sad about this reality is that watch brands are actively ignoring market demand. The vintage watch market has never been so healthy. I’d say that’s pretty good evidence for gauging the watch community’s appetite for bygone models and designs. So, while watch enthusiasts happily hand their cash over to reputable vintage dealers, brand houses that bear the same name as those found on the various tropical dials purchased on the pre-owned market don’t profit a cent and continue to attempt creating demand instead of responding to it. Tudor, your slogan says it all. Live up to it and be courageous enough to produce what your customers want.

Reason #2: The Black Bay P01 (Reference 70150)

I have to come clean. When Tudor reps were barricading themselves inside their ramparts after releasing the Black Bay P01 at the last Baselworld, I was among the pitchfork wielding mob calling for blood outside their gates. I wasn’t leading the charge, but I was certainly following the crowd’s seemingly unanimous mania. In retrospect, I think we all would have benefited from a deep breath and a self-imposed time out. Having the advantage of time to reflect on the P01 release, strange though it may remain, it emboldens my belief that Tudor is showing signs that it will indeed live up to its slogan. Even if you have nothing good to say about Tudor’s Baselworld 2019 premiere release, you at least have to admit that it’s a daring concept. So absurd a design does the P01 offer, I am forced to conclude that Tudor must have known the risk they were taking. There was no chance for in between. The market was either going to love it or loathe it. Seeing that kind of gamble through takes guts. The kind of constitution that may be necessary for parking your ego and placating your target audience’s demand. That kind of backbone could be just the right recipe for seeing a watch like the 7995/0 Mark II lit up in AD showcases.
A final lesson regarding the P01, from which I hope Tudor learned. During the lead up to the Baselworld that would see this model’s release, Tudor (who does a great job of staying active on social media platforms) was teasing that something big was coming. In one of these “teasing” posts (via their Instagram), Tudor gave a hint by sharing a macro photo of a triangle marker. Unfortunately, there’s no way Tudor fans could have known (even slightly) what was coming. Even more unfortunate for Tudor, those fans interpreted that sneak-peak to be the triangle marker design that would soon be found at the 6, 9 and 12 o’clock positions of an imminent Submariner 76100 reissue – a revival that has been called upon for quite some time. It goes without saying, Tudor enthusiasts were primed for severe insult to injury. And, as the saying goes, the rest is history. The reason I’m recounting this story? I suspect Tudor learned a very important marketing lesson the hard way. Hinting at something is all fun and games, until it’s not. If you’re going to try to influence your target market a certain way, you better make sure they conclude what you want them to. Otherwise, you’re motivating them to want something you can’t deliver on – which sours people.

*Screen capture of Tudor’s January 20th Instagram post ahead of Baselworld 2019.*

Reason #3: Hinting at It

Speaking of hinting at something – Tudor has, over the last two years, been sharing photos of a well-preserved Oyster Prince Ranger 7995/0. You might say, “this could be nothing more than heritage appreciation posts”, but that’s not an explanation I can accept. Since the modern Heritage Ranger is not a convincing representation of its ancestor and has not been well-received, most won’t be able to look at these posts of the vintage version and appreciate the evolution that brought us the current iteration. I know I can’t. My hope is that these aren’t heritage appreciation posts, since that wouldn’t really make sense. My hope is that they are indeed hints of a faithful reissue. Intermittently trickling out these portraits of this beautiful relic have allowed Tudor, and its decision-makers, to test the market in a vacuum. If you go to Tudor’s Instagram feed and scroll through their gallery to find the few images they have posted of the vintage 7995/0, in reviewing the many comments attached to each of these photos, you’ll get a pretty clear sense of what watch enthusiasts think of this model. Let’s just say it’s an unanimously different reaction than what the P01 was subject to.

*Screen capture of Tudor’s October 21st Instagram post showcasing the vintage 7995/0.*

Reason #4: Case Studies

There are a few brands that have brought to market the exact watch their target audience demanded. The two examples I’d like to highlight here are Hamilton’s Khaki Field Murph Auto and Breitling’s Navitimer Ref. 806 1959 Re-Edition. There are many models from different brands that I could have used as case studies for successful response to demand. However, these two interest me because each was demanded in a different way. The Murph was Hamilton’s response to the specific demand for that exact watch, while Breitling’s 1959 Re-Edition was a response to a general trending of the market demand toward vintage. Both scenarios deserve praise. But I believe the release of the Murph should earn Hamilton a standing ovation from the watch community for the precedent it sets. I’m not a fan of the Murph particularly (for what it is, it’s too large for my taste), but that’s beside the point. Hamilton deserves applause because their target market begged and pleaded for this model to be produced for years following the release of the movie Interstellar (which it was featured in), and they finally did. What’s more, they didn’t release an interpretation of the watch or an “inspired-by” version – they produced the exact same Murph that was seen in the film. Precisely what consumers were asking for. By releasing this watch, Hamilton proved they value their customers’ wants over their brand’s ego. We need more of this in the watch industry. As for the Navitimer 1959 Re-Edition, good on Breitling for taking action to intercept monies that would otherwise be earmarked for the pre-owned market. This is vintage reissue done right. Breitling seems to understand that when you’re reproducing a legend, you don’t tinker. It’s just too bad this model is limited, because it’s a beauty. For my grail 7995/0 Mark II to be released, Tudor will have to channel both Hamilton and Breitling, as they will need to understand the importance of responding to specific asks and respecting the vintage designs that influence demand. If they are able to embody these ideals, as Hamilton and Breitling have proven, there is success in it.

Reason #5: The Market is Primed

Tudor Black Bay Fifty-Eight (Reference 79030N)

“Ding-dong, the witch is dead.” The spell has been broken – the days when bigger meant better are over. Gradually, market demand is turning in favour of watches that offer a more classic and tasteful wrist presence. Nearly every watch brand is offering models that are sub-40mm – and, lo and behold, these smaller models are seeing success. These days, it’s not uncommon to hear a watch influencer or enthusiast say, “if only it were a little smaller”. After design, diameter and lug to lug measurements are becoming make or break features. In keeping with modest sizing, the vintage aesthetic has become the people’s choice. As mentioned earlier in this article, the pre-owned vintage market boom gives undeniable credence to the notion that buyers want timeless timepieces. I’d like to put it on the record at this point that I don’t believe for a second that Tudor isn’t already totally cognizant of the revelations regarding diminutive sizing and old-fashioned design. If they weren’t aware of these shifts in market demand, the Black Bay Fifty-Eight wouldn’t exist. A 39mm diver with very vintage styling – the BB58 was not a slow burn success. It essentially out-and-out won Baselworld 2018 for Tudor (and, don’t kid yourself – there are winners of the show). To this day, it can still be difficult to get your hands on one with a steel bracelet. Tudor had to have known something of what I have been discussing to prompt releasing such a piece and I’ll hasten a guess that whatever their convictions were in producing the Fifty-Eight, they were more than validated and encouraged by the watch’s overwhelming (and all but unanimous) approval from the masses. This experience paired with their consumer base’s consistent urging to reissue a faithful version of their vintage Submariner (Reference 76100) should embolden the brand to confidently bring back to life some of the most beautiful watches ever made – including my Mark II. Oh, and without question, after you’ve released my grail (preferably at Baselworld 2020), win the show back-to-back by appeasing the Tudor Sub fans in 2021. Tudor’s most recent big splash was a diver (in the 58). It’s time to mix it up before releasing another dive-focused model. What I have suggested in the 7995/0 Mark II is a perfect next addition to their offering.

Reason #6: One Trick Pony

The Black Bay line is nothing short of amazing. The prevailing design language across the models found within the Black Bay family has certainly struck a chord in the watch community. Plus, the line single-handedly resurrected the Tudor brand. Unfortunately, Tudor’s other lines aren’t really pulling their weight. The Pelagos line is well-loved but certainly not even close to as commercially successful as the BBs. So, when you boil it down, Tudor is really just the Black Bay line. I mean - even their GMT (Reference 79830RB) is part of the Black Bay family… Why is an aviation style watch included in a dive watch line? Quite confusing. If you’re a decision-maker at Tudor, the fact the brand is leaning so heavily on one line should keep you up at night. While some believe there are enough Black Bays currently available, I have no issue with Tudor continuing to release new models. Why should we discourage them when the line has only improved and become more interesting over time? Keep pushing the Black Bay line, but breathe new life into your other lines so you aren’t eventually seen as a one trick pony. Don’t rest on your laurels. Give watch enthusiasts something to talk about, outside of the Black Bay line. My suggestion would, of course, be to look toward the Ranger line prior to any other. The 7995/0 Mark II is an absolutely perfect model to refresh the Ranger line. A compelling Ranger model would complement the Black Bay line in all the right ways, without being something so niche that it would not find comparable market success. The Black Bay and Pelagos lines offer pure tool watches – purpose built. While the Mark II is still a capable sports watch, its smaller size and under-the-radar features allow it to assume dressier roles the other lines cannot. That versatility would make a faithful Ranger reissue a steadfast companion to the variety of Black Bays.

I’ve gone into great detail, providing a blueprint for what the Oyster Prince Ranger 7995/0 Mark II should be and key reasons why Tudor has an opportunity (unique to them and them alone) to produce a watch (my grail watch) that will both further advance their influential position in the industry and be a tremendous commercial success. For my part, all that’s left to do is suggest the price and provide a roadmap recap (as I have for each grail option thus far), and continue to hope and dream that Tudor will see this for the no-brainer that it is.

What will this watch cost? $4250 CAD (approximately $3200 USD).

**Recapping the Roadmap for the Tudor Oyster Prince Ranger 7995/0 Mark II:**

Replicate nearly every detail of the original Tudor Oyster Prince Ranger 7995/0, except;
Strip the innards of its ETA Calibre 2483 and institute Tudor’s Calibre MT5402,
Take the original case size from 34mm to a more palatable and familiar 36mm,
Mimic the custard colour of fully patinated lume on the handset, numerals and markers,
Remove the tritium “T” markers from the dial, as the lume material will be Chromalight,
Replace the Rolex coronet on the crown with a Tudor shield, and
Swap out the vintage style clasp for a GlideLock-esque system.

Tudor – please – do not deviate from this blueprint. The changes that have been suggested above allow a legend to step out from behind the sands of time and, while becoming sufficiently modern, remain true to itself.

Number One

Rolex Explorer Reference 1016-L (AKA, the Dash L)

You may have noticed that I went pretty hard in the paint in making the case for the Tudor that slots in at the number two position on my grail wish list. That’s because I want the Oyster Prince Ranger 7995/0 Mark II to happen more than any of the options I’ve presented. But, if that’s the case, shouldn’t it take the number one spot instead of the option I’m about to describe? Not necessarily – and here’s why. The 7995/0 Mark II isn’t the very best option to make my grail dreams (and the collective dreams of many) come true. However, it’s got a much more realistic chance of coming to life than the “when pigs fly” model I’m about to elaborate on. Since it’s such a way, way outside chance that my number one option will see the light of day, the Tudor at number two is sort of a de facto number one. Nonetheless, it’s worth spelling this top option out in hopes that it may spark just enough inspiration in the right people.

So, what is this pie in the sky watch that tops this grail list? I think this was a bit of a foregone conclusion, being that this entire article provides suggestions throughout for prospective models that will sufficiently offer a believable stand-in to the much-loved Rolex Explorer Reference 1016. Yes, top billing goes to the real McCoy – or at least a revival of it.

This Rolex will be known as the Explorer Reference 1016-L. I can envision enthusiasts giving it a cool shorthand like the “Dash L”. I’ll use this moniker as reference going forward. Before we blueprint this beauty, I’d like to explain the “L” in its name. The final run of 1016s, prior to the iconic design’s disappearance into the mist, were serialized beginning with the letter “L”. As it stands right now, that letter may just as well have meant “last” – as in “last of its kind”. However, should the following insight be heeded, the 1016 can carry on from where it was stranded and that “L” can stand for “legendary”.

Regarding the details of this watch, I’ll cut to the chase. Frankly, there would be very little that needs changing.

First off – the movement. The vintage 1016 uses the Caliber 1570. Since the current Rolex Calibre 3132 shares the same diameter as the 1570 (28.50mm), the Dash L should be fitted with the latest and greatest.

The beloved 1016 boasted 100m of water resistance. I’d appreciate if the Dash L’s resistance were slightly bumped up to 150m, for just an extra bit of confidence when immersing it into the elements. This is certainly not a deal breaker, but preferred nonetheless.

As for the dial, only two elements should be changed. First, the 1016’s lume material (tritium) should be replaced with the blue-glowing Chromalight. However, the lumed appliqués, when not lit, should be coloured to match the patinated custard hue found on the face of vintage Explorers. The other revision needed for the Dash L’s dial follows from the change in lume material. Below the 6 o’clock position of the vintage 1016, you’ll find script that states, “Swiss – T < 25”. Since tritium will not be used on this reissue, the script should simply read, “Swiss Made”. Other than those two changes, the rest of the dial features should remain identical.

Lastly, like all the other options I described in this article, the Dash L should be fitted with a GlideLock clasp.

And that’s it. Keeping everything the same, save those few small changes, will truly make the Dash L legendary. It’s really a shame this article even needs to exist. The 1016 is such an unanimously coveted design and yet, it’s not represented in a modern model – it’s baffling. There’s no shortage of watch enthusiasts and influencers going so far as to say the 1016 is the greatest watch design ever conceived, and I can’t disagree with them. I just have to shake my head, shrug my shoulders and throw my hands in the air because this design’s absence from Rolex’s currently offered collection is totally beyond my comprehension.

There is no worthy reason why Rolex shouldn’t try to repatriate some of those dollars spent on vintage 1016s back into their vaults. As it is right now, savvy vintage watch dealers are making big money at Rolex’s expense. The coffers of the crown are being pilfered while the king sits back and watches. Rolex doesn’t stand to benefit in any way from vintage watches, bearing their brand, being sold at huge premiums. The fact that many of their watch models from decades ago still function well and are incredibly sought after provides Rolex with brand prestige - no doubt about that. However, granting that, what does further brand prestige mean to Rolex? How much prestige does a brand need until the very concept of prestige is unintelligible? Rolex needs more prestige like they need more profit (even though, personally, I think it’s rude to suggest as a manufacturer of goods that your bottomline is fine as is). So, if they don’t need prestige or money (hypothetically), why would they try to appease their consumer base? My suggestion is they do it purely to prove they don’t allow their ego (which they’ve certainly earned) to get in the way of perpetually asserting they make iconic timepieces. And, if one of their most iconic watch designs has been retired these many years, have the honed modesty of a time-honoured winner to admit when something was right and can be again.

Before I offer up the roadmap recap, which will obviously be quite brief for this option, I think it’s worth explaining why I think there’s little chance we ever see a Dash L or the like.

Rolex transcends the watch industry. It is one of the most recognizable brands on the face of our Earth. Yadda, yadda, yadda. Don’t get me wrong. I do care about Rolex. If you’re a watch lover, how can you not? I placed the Dash L at the top of my grail watch list not only because I believe I’m right that overwhelming market demand is evident, but also because I would personally like to have a Rolex in my collection. Unfortunately, I don’t see much reason to conclude that what people want matters to Rolex, and that’s a shame. Based on my observation, Rolex seems much less interested in responding to demand than they do in creating it. There’s certainly nothing wrong with striving to continually influence the market. That’s how designs like the 1016 were created in the first place. However, every once and awhile, the market knows exactly what it wants. This doesn’t happen all that often but that doesn’t make it less valid. Frankly, it should be taken as the greatest compliment a brand can receive. Alas, I don’t think that’s how Rolex sees it. They’re too intimately aware of their own grandeur. They know, without question, they don’t have to fight for people’s affection. Nonetheless, I really wish they would this time. They’d be wrong to think they can’t both respond to and influence demand at the same time.

Fending off my pragmatism and attempting to introduce some optimism, I’ll keep dreaming of a day when a faithful Explorer manifests itself from the archives, for a new generation of watch wearers to behold.

Since it only makes sense the Dash L will replace the modern Explorer (214270), it will assume its price point as well – $7500 CAD (approximately $5600 USD).

**Recapping the Roadmap for the Rolex Explorer Reference 1016-L:**

Reissue the 1016 and change nothing, except;
Put the 1570 movement in a museum and install the more modern Calibre 3132,
Boost the water resistance from 100m to 150m,
Use Chromalight instead of tritium for the luminescence,
Update the script at the bottom of the dial to reflect the change in lume material, and
Attach a GlideLock clasp to the oyster bracelet.

If this imagining of an Explorer reissue existed, I don’t think I’d ever need another watch again. Come to think of it, maybe that’s why they let this design go with way of the Dodo.

Rolex, I’m not confident you will ever release a faithful modern version of the 1016. If I’m right and you don’t, know this – any attempt at reimagining or reinvigorating the timeless design language of the 1016 will always fall short. On this, I am confident.

Recapping My Grail Watch Options & Debrief

I, like many watch enthusiasts, have visions of 1016s dancing in my head. Within this article, I’ve described four options that I believe would serve well in making our collective dream a reality. These options are…

Tudor Heritage Black Bay 36 Remastered

Rolex Explorer 314270

Tudor Oyster Prince Ranger 7995/0 Mark II

Rolex Explorer Reference 1016-L

I’d like to believe that one of these will be brought to life someday. Surely, someone will eventually capitalize on the opportunity presented by market demand. However, if our appetites are never to be satisfied, I can at least say I enjoyed spit-balling (at length) about what could be.

If you’ve read through this entire article, I thank you for being so passionate about watches (and the 1016 in particular) that you were willing to give my musings your time. I hope you enjoyed the read or, at the very least, that I was successful in providing you with fodder for your vintage Explorer dreams.