We have all the time in the world: The wristwatches of James Bond
By Dublo, published on 30 November 2011
In the world of Bond, timing is critical and so should be his choice of wristwatch. James Bond is probably the cinematic hero most associated with his particular timepiece of choice. After all, everybody knows Bond sports a Rolex Submariner, right? Well, for some years preceding the famous “Rolex? Omega” exchange in 2006’s Casino Royale, Bond has actually been known to sport a number of different timepieces.
The very first watch we see Sean Connery wearing as Bond in Dr. No is, in fact, not a Submariner at all, but a gold dress watch on a black leather strap. This watch has not been definitively identified, but there is some speculation that it is probably a Rolex Precision. The first positively identified watch that Bond is seen to wear is indeed the Rolex Submariner, Ref: 6538. This watch first appears in Dr. No and has been said to be either director Terence Young’s own Rolex or producer “Cubby” Broccoli’s, depending on which story you read. Whatever the case, the watch was not Connery’s and the stainless steel bracelet had to be replaced by a black leather strap (probably the strap from the unidentified gold dress watch Connery wears earlier in the film) as it was too small for his wrists.
The Submariner with the black leather strap is then used again by Bond in From Russia With Love, but by the time of Goldfinger, the strap had been replaced by what appears to be a poorly fitting G10 NATO strap. This strap features once again in Thunderball, in which Bond is also issued with a Breitling Top Time, fitted with a Geiger counter.
In You Only Live Twice Bond appears to have reverted to his gold dress watch and in Diamonds Are Forever, whilst it is difficult to accurately determine exactly what wristwatch Bond is wearing, it is clearly not a Sub.
When it came to George Lazenby’s turn to play Bond, it was definitely a Rolex, although the Submariner was dropped in favour of a pre-Daytona Chronograph Ref: 6238. Lazenby makes use of the Chrono function several times in the film, once to determine how long he has left to sneak around a Swiss lawyer’s office, another to aid his escape, by measuring the timing on the cable cars in Piz Gloria.
The Seventies saw a new Bond in the shape of Roger Moore, who is first seen sporting a particularly Seventies wristwatch, the Hamilton Pulsar, in the film Live and let Die. However, he soon trades this in for a heavily tricked up Submariner. Lord only knows what the powerful electromagnet is doing to the movement, though. Soon afterwards, however, Moore made a switch to sporting Seiko digital watches, one of which contained a television screen.
Much was made of Timothy Dalton’s desire to return to Bond’s literary roots; although he actually sported a PVD coated Tag Heuer Professional Night-Dive in The Living Daylights. However, in Licence To Kill, Dalton is sporting a Rolex 16800 Submariner Date, which was to be the last time Bond was to wear a Submariner on the big screen.
When Pierce Brosnan took over the role for 1995’s GoldenEye, Bond’s watch became the Omega Seamaster Professional with a blue face (his nemesis, oo6, has an Omega Seamaster Professional with a black face and black strap.) Pierce wore this watch throughout his tenure as oo7.
In Casino Royale, Daniel Craig’s Bond is seen wearing an Omega Seamaster Planet Ocean with a black face and black rubber strap and then later in the film he wears an Omega Seamaster with a metal bracelet. In Quantum of Solace, Craig sports an Omega Seamaster Planet Ocean co-axial with a black face and metal bracelet. We’ve yet to see which model he will be wearing in the recently announced Skyfall.
As to the literary Bond, he was never described as wearing a Submariner. In fact, when Fleming first wrote the character, the Submariner didn’t even exist. When he did get around to providing some detail, Fleming described it as a “heavy Rolex Oyster Perpetual”. It’s quite likely that Fleming was describing his own watch, a Rolex Explorer I Ref: 1016. Fleming certainly had every opportunity to describe the watch in more detail, but, for a man so associated with putting brands into his prose, he chose not to do so with Bond’s Rolex. It is fair to say though that there is little to suggest he was describing the Submariner in On Her Majesty’s Secret Service.
So, what does all this say about the World’s greatest spy? Well, there is obviously some debate over what constitutes Bond’s preferred model and indeed his preferred manufacturer. However, Bond’s creator gave him a Rolex and that’s good enough for us.
We have all the time in the world: The wristwatches of James Bond
Dublo applies his usual thorough approach to a look at the watches of James Bond.
This section is supported by the patronage of:
11 Responses to “We have all the time in the world: The wristwatches of James Bond”
-
-
Hey Dom,
I’ve just been looking at some reference photos, and it certainly looks as though Lazenby is sporting a Submariner in the casino sequence, although it is difficult to be precise about the reference from the quality of the pics.
However, I think it’s safe to say that it is the chronograph he is most clearly seen wearing.
Interestingly, in the novels, whilst there is no specific mention of a model, Fleming describes “glowing numerals” not the subs markers. So, it is pretty likely he was referring to the Rolex Explorer I, which would make it the definitive James Bond Rolex.
-
-
Dom
2 December 2011
Yes and you only really see the chronograph in the film unless you’re freeze framing it!!!
Great article – and yep, I think Fleming was thinking of his E1.
-
Chris I
3 December 2011
I would have to be in a tough spot to use my Rolex as a “knuckle duster” as my expense account won’t cover a new one.
Great article and thanks for glossing over the digital crapola from the Moore era. I think the watches used in those films more or less tell you everything you need to know about them.
-
Glad you liked the article, Chris.
I would also have to be in a bit of a jam to use my Rolex the way Bond does in OHMSS. Still, it’s better to be alive with a broken Rolex than dead with a working one, especially if you have the means to simply buy a replacement as Bond does.
I didn’t mean to gloss over Moore’s era too much, it’s just in terms of horology these weren’t the most interesting Bond adventures. I know his films aren’t for everyone, but I’m personally rather fond of Sir Rog. Perhaps not the best Bond, but a first class human being and a true gentleman – something to which we should all aspire.
I would have loved to have written more as I have only really skimmed the surface of the subject here, but sometimes its better to keep it short and sweet.
-
Dom
6 December 2011
Probably harsh on Omega but I feel the same way about the Brosnan/Craig Omegas as Chris does about the Moore Seikos – just blatant product placement in my view although successful as far as sales are concerned…..
Agree on Moore – a true gent and he carried the Bond series for many years…..
-
It is a shame that product placement has so infected the franchise. I have no real issue with a bit of subtle product placement (did anyone even notice Heineken in Casino Royale?) but the sickeningly blatant advertising (“Rolex?” Omega”) should stop.
Whilst Fleming was happy to mention brands by name he did so because he felt it would highlight the characters and add to the narrative, never for blatant product placement.
However, product placement also pays for a lot of what we see on the screen. As long as the art is not corrupted by the commerce, I’ll be happy. Still, would Bond be the same without some signature products? Is not the Aston and the Rolex as much a part of him as the ability to bed the most beautiful women, have an almost unbridled knowledge of everything and to be able to save the world as easily as snapping his fingers?
-
-
-
-
Chris I
7 December 2011
From what I know Roger Moore he does seem to be a nice gent. But the Bond movies of his era were poor. I am not sure I will ever get past the Tarzan yell in Octopussy. I doubt he had much say in the end quality of the movies but he is the face of them. It is almost that those films got too caught up in the trendy fashion of the day (wide lapels, shoulder pads, digital watches, etc.) whereas the films before and, for the most part, after offered Bond’s unique timeless style. Connery Bond could walk down the streets of London today and not stand out….Moore Bond not so much. Visually the Moore era films are for me a bit hard to watch.
-
This is the thing, Chris. Bond films are all a reflection of their time. They are all a document of our changing society, our changing trends. Connery’s era is no less a reflection of the times than Moore’s.
Sure, Moore had Safari suits, Seikos and Carry On humour, but if you think that was Moore alone you obviously haven’t watched On Her Majesty’s Secret Service or Diamonds Are Forever recently.
Yes, the “double take pigeon” and the Tarzan yell are probably some of the series low points, but to suggest that the rest of the films weren’t tied in to the fashions of their time is ludicrous. Why would Sean’s Bond look fine walking down the street now? Well, because we’ve embraced the 60s style as classic, simple as that. Does Daniel Craig’s Bond not reflect the fashions and style of the day? Well, go watch a Bourne movie and tell me Casino Royale wasn’t influenced by it.
All the Bond movies reflect the era in which they were created, which is why they’re such a brilliant document of the times. Like the Bayeux tapestry, they provide an ongoing story of the period.
The truth is that there are cringeworthy moments in every Bond film (Sean’s Japanese Bond, anyone?) but we choose to brush over them. Not so with Sir Roger. I’m not saying Moore was a great Bond or that his films were better, but they are what they are; a part of the Bond cannon.
I appreciate all of the Bond films from every era. I certainly prefer certain films, but to dismiss seven of them just because of the actor seems a bit harsh.
-
Perfectly said, Dublo.
-
-
-
Chris I
8 December 2011
Dublo:
True, well said.
Perhaps I just prefer the style in the Connery films and dislike the style in the Moore films.
You are right on the Japanese Bond…and I had forgotten the double take pigeon. Goodness.
/cal
Dom
2 December 2011
That Rolex Chronograph is lush. At the top of my watch wish list!
I thought (although happy to be proved wrong) that Lazenby also wore a Sub in OHMSS and only worse the Chronograph when undercover as Sir Hilary Bray……. You need a decent blueray player to make out the Sub clearly.