Many thanks for spending the time to leave such extensive – and very interesting – comments. You’ve turned what was just a short blog post to highlight some interesting coverage we’d read elsewhere into a really insightful piece.

For those of you who missed it in Dell’s comment, the link to his site is: http://www.JamesBondWatches.com It’s a great resource for anyone interested in the movies’ greatest spy and his choice of timepieces.

The first reference to Rolex via Bond through the publication of “Live and Let Die” was no more than name-dropping by Ian Fleming, intended to add a dash of reality to anchor the emerging fantasy of his thriller-novels. Rolex didn’t appear again until seven (ironic?) years later, as a pejorative (ie, horology to characterize a villain), in “Thunderball.”

Then, as I wrote for “WatchTime” magazine this past February, it was when James Bond became big-screen flesh-and-blood that the 007 Rolex became associated with tangible reality. And it wasn’t any Submariner model. As a matter of fact, in my follow up article for the June “NAWCC Bulletin,” I detail what I believe to be Mr. Fleming’s informed and purposeful rejection of that diver’s watch as any sort of personal choice for his secret agent from MI6.

This forced and motivated the selection of a specific Rolex. That Rolex was a model 1016 Explorer, produced in 1960 and acquired by the author some time later.

Now, although Ian Fleming himself predicted an end to the Cold War (which is one of the reasons he created “SPECTRE,” to serve as a timeless adversary), that fall didn’t actually come until decades had passed. Timothy Dalton as Bond wore the last Rolex, a Submariner Date, in “Licence to Kill.” Then litigation and other issues stalled production of the next feature, which would be “GoldenEye.” With that, Pierce Brosnan became Bond.

Would the character still be relevant, and, more importantly, draw theater audiences, with no Soviet Union to battle?

Among the many strategic changes that were made to ensure that it would, Omega was selected as watch supplier. Sure, there was something in this for the film production. But Omega is to be greatly admired for standing up and demonstrating its faith in taking a risk on what was not at all as certain a franchise as what was off-and-running again when “Casino Royale” was allowed the risk of re-booting things to the beginning.

As for Daniel Craig and his personal interest in James Bond watches, I believe it was my Blog that first substantively raised this question with a quote from his having acquired a vintage Rolex Submariner precisely because of its supposed “Goldfinger” connection (by type of model: It was not the actual piece worn by Sean Connery in the film).

It may not be possible to say “if” he’d be collecting Rolex models were it not for Bond, and perhaps, Bond-income. But it’s reasonably certain that the degree to which he’d be in a position to finance such a collection, at this point in his life, would probably be different.

Thank you for considering this feedback.

Dell Deaton
Author, http://www.jamesbondwatches.com
Guest Curator, “Bond Watches, James Bond Watches”
(NAWCC exhibit, June 2010 – May 2011)