OK, so strapping a Rolex to your wrist has never been the epitome of understatement. That’s why more discrete watch aficionados have always gravitated instead to brands like Patek Philippe, Girard-Perregaux, or even Jeager-LeCoultre.

That said, Rolex still used to have a knack for producing some pretty timeless and Prodigal watches.

The Guide has a particular fondness for Rolex’s stainless steel sports models like the old Submariner, the GMT Master and even the granddaddy of them all, the Cosmograph Daytona. Recently though, something seems to be going badly, badly wrong at Rolex.

With every new model range, we’ve seen the ‘bling factor’ upped little by little.

First, we winced at the polished middle links and the new ‘maxi dial’ (with its larger hour markers and hands) on the latest Subs and GMT Master IIs. A few months later, we recoiled in horror at the tacky looking abomination that is the Yacht-Master II. Now, just when we thought that the vulgar and rather unnecessary ‘reworking’ of the legendary Milgauss was surely Rolex’s last faux pas, the firm announces the latest abuse of its rich heritage: the Sea-Dweller Deepsea.

Regular readers will know that we have a lot of respect for the regular Sea-Dweller model - a truly Prodigal watch - so seeing it bastardised like this really hurts.

Where do we start?

Well, let’s be kind and start with the positive. The Sea-Dweller has always been about pushing the envelope in terms of engineering. And in this respect, Rolex have outdone themselves. We love the design elements that have enabled them to make it waterproof to an amazing 3,900 metres (12,800 feet): the complex new Ring Lock System, the slightly domed sapphire crystal, and titanium case back. All good; all impressive examples of the ‘over-engineered’ philosophy behind the Sea-Dweller.

Where Rolex lets this watch down - badly - is the same place it’s let all of its more recent models down: the looks. The firm just can’t seem to resist tinkering with them to make them more...yes, for lack of a better word...’bling’.

Why did they feel the need to emblazon yet more text around the inner ring of the face? The words “Ring Lock System” and “Original Gas Escape Valve” just look like adverts and have no place there. And was it really necessary to make the case both taller and slightly larger than its predecessor? As for the ‘maxi dial’, we don’t like it on the new Subs and GMT Master IIs and we don’t like it here.

Not so long ago, if you were strolling the streets of Bangkok and some friendly local offered you a Rolex for ‘too good to be true’ prices, it was very easy to tell the real from the fake. Nowadays, the real thing looks tackier and less authentic than the replicas.

We’re realists at the Guide and we fully understand that any commercial entity has to cater to its target market. And yes, like it or not, a significant proportion of Rolex’s considerable production is snapped up by people who, shall we say, lack a certain flair. Nonetheless, we believe that the excess of bling which is now beginning to affect every major model in their portfolio is going to create problems for the firm - and its customers - in the long term.

If Rolex don’t tone down the ‘bling factor’ on their new models, these watches are simply not going to be classics in 30 years time the way many of their predecessors undeniably are.