Selection By Elimination — How I Found The Perfect Rolex Datejust
Before I start this article, there’s something I must confess: I do not currently have a favorite Rolex Datejust. It’s not because I don’t like the watch or because I’ve tried and failed to find one — quite the opposite. If I can’t quickly name my favorite reference of this octogenarian Rolex model, it’s simply because I’ve never taken the time to find out what it might be. What better time to do so than as I write this? Procrastinatory implications aside, join me as I figure out what, in my (soon-to-be-established) opinion, is the best Rolex Datejust of all time.
Why don’t I know already? Well, I’ve never been in much of a rush to find out. The Datejust is not my favorite Rolex model. I still respect its 80-year history and enjoy the concept behind the watch. I even genuinely like the look of some configurations. That said, due to the Datejust’s ubiquitous nature, I’ve never felt a great urgency to get one for myself. This isn’t helped by the fact that, to me, my 1961 Omega Seamaster ref. 14762 has served as a low-stakes stand-in with its jangly beads-of-rice bracelet, date window, and 34.5mm case. Some might consider that sacrilegious, but it’s hard to feel you need to scratch when the proverbial itch isn’t there. This has meant that I’ve never spent much time going down the Datejust rabbit hole. And let me tell you, after 80 years in existence, it’s a deep one.
My criteria for the perfect Rolex Datejust
Now, I’ve not come entirely unprepared (just mostly). There are a few criteria that I can use to significantly narrow down the contenders in my search for the perfect Rolex Datejust. Unlike Mike or RJ, I don’t have any personal attachment to a Datejust reference. But, as charming as it may be to have a story that pulls at the heartstrings and provides a personal link to the Datejust, not having one gives me the advantage of a clean slate. I can follow my nose and bring together the key factors that, to me, make a perfect Datejust. The first one is a quick-set date. This, as I’ve learned by way of my vintage Seamaster’s lack thereof, is a strict necessity.
I’m one of those people who is neurotic enough to want a watch’s time and date set accurately before wearing it. Having to set the date to the 29th when it stopped on the 3rd is enough to either ruin my day or make me reach for another watch, so quick-set is non-negotiable. The other criteria are more pliable but no less important. First, I want my Datejust to feel vintage. This means a 36mm case with a plexiglass crystal on a Jubilee bracelet. I love the Jubilee and plexi combination’s warm, jangly vintage feel. Material-wise, it’s steel for me: not gold, not two-tone, just steel (well, and maybe some steel-looking white gold on the bezel).
Ref. 1603 “Wide Boy”
When it comes to dials, less is more. “Wide Boy” or linen dials are about as crazy as I’d be willing to go. You can keep your stone, wood, tapestry, and Buckley dials. The final note is that I’m not a fan of engine-turned bezels. A fluted bezel works, but I’m also a big fan of a smooth bezel. At this point, those keeping score will have figured out I’ll likely be landing on either a Datejust ref. 16014 or 16000.
The runner-up: Rolex Datejust ref. 16000
Let me tell you why the Rolex Datejust 16000 was almost the winner here. Until just a couple of weeks ago, the smooth-bezel 16000 would have taken the top spot for me. At one point, I was considering a 16000 on an Oyster bracelet as my pick. Shortly after, I realized that as appealing as the combo of a smooth bezel and Oyster bracelet might be, it wouldn’t feel like a “proper” Datejust. At that point, I was creating a pseudo-Oyster Perpetual or even being led astray by my preference for the 36mm Explorer. So the Jubilee had to stay, and I decided also to keep my distance from darker, Explorer-like dials.
Image: Bulang & Sons
Since sold by Bulang & Sons, the one you see pictured here is a prime example of what I would be after. The gray dial is nice and subtle, adding a bit of mysterious character to the watch. The silver print is also less harsh, and paired with the smooth bezel, it strikes a balance that leans ever so slightly in a sportier direction. So, why was this not the one? It all goes back to what I already mentioned. This 16000 is an unquestionably handsome watch, but it just wasn’t Datejust enough. And as much as I enjoy the contrarian appeal of going with this as my greatest of all time, it just didn’t sit right in my mind. I was lost and out of answers.
That was until I visited a friend’s safety deposit box, where he picked up a couple of Datejusts. He was trading up to something special and was faced with a tough call: only one of the two could stay. One of the Datejusts had a smooth bezel and silver dial, and the other — the one he ultimately kept — has continued to quietly haunt me since I saw it, and eventually informed my decision to go with the 16014 you see below as my winner.
My favorite Rolex Datejust of all time: ref. 16014
Now that I’ve found the one, let’s quickly run through my checklist once again. Quick-set date, plexiglass, Jubilee bracelet, 36mm case, white gold fluted bezel, and stainless steel case and bracelet. Yep, this one ticks all the boxes. The final thing left to pick was the right dial. And that’s where my friend’s Datejust comes into play. It introduced me to this irresistible combination of a golden “champagne” dial with a stainless steel and white gold watch. It’s one that I already knew from the patina on my vintage Seamaster, but I didn’t know it existed in a Datejust. Once again, I headed to our friends at Bulang & Sons to find a perfect (but sadly already sold) example.
Image: Bulang & Sons
The only thing I mentioned that requires clarification is my refusal of two-tone. This was referencing the case and bracelet materials. Now, fluted bezels are almost always exclusively made of gold, but the white gold one here maintains the white-metal look. Where it gets tricky is when you consider the dial and hands. Those have a yellow-gold look that, combined with the steel case and bracelet, could be regarded as two-tone. However, this is still a steel Datejust — perhaps two-tone-ish at best.
Still, I find this oddball and potentially dubious combination (the jury is still out as to whether these Datejusts left the factory looking this way) to be as understatedly charming as they come. There’s a certain easy-wearing nonchalance with just the right amount of grandeur that does this Datejust justice.
Just looking at it, I quickly fade into a daydream of a late-afternoon drive on a sweltering day somewhere by the Mediterranean coast, in a boxy, convertible means of transport (Defender, Mehari, you name it — just take the roof off), sunglasses on, on the way to spend the evening at a shady local seaside bar with friends, good food, cold drinks, and great music. I look down at my wrist, and telling me the time (not that it matters) is this golden-faced Datejust. A guy can dream!
Final thoughts
That wishful vision of my perfect Datejust seems like a good place to leave things. And look how far we’ve come since we started just over a thousand words ago! I now have a favorite Rolex Datejust. In the research I’ve done since selecting my contender, I’ve found that ref. 16014 Datejusts will run you about €4k–6k depending on condition and rarity (with some outliers that fetch a little more). The golden-dial apple of my eye sits at the higher end of that range and can be had for about €5,500.
What do you think of my criteria for a perfect Datejust? And do you also like my final pick? Let me know in the comments below, and join us again on Saturday, when you’ll be able to vote between everyone’s favorite Datejusts and crown the best of the best.
