Blog: Rolex's Other BrandsCopyright © David Boettcher 2006 - 2019 all rights reserved.
Update 15 October 2017
Wilsdorf & Davis and Stockwell & Co.
A correspondent drew to my attention that I had described Stockwell & Co. as "importers". This was wrong, and I was quite surprised to see that I had done it. Stockwell & Co. were carriers who, from June 1907, also acted as Assay Agents for some of their clients who were importers. Wilsdorf & Davis almost certainly used Stockwell & Co. to transport all their watches from Switzerland to London, and they also used Stockwell & Co. as assay agents for some of their watches. I have added a new section to clarify the relationship between Wilsdorf & Davis and Stockwell & Co.
Update 10 October 2017
I was contacted by a correspondent who had purchased a trench watch and identified the movement as a Beguelin (BTCo.) from my Movement Identification page. From this he also knew that Beguelin supplied watches to Rolex. He told me that there are no markings on the case but the dial and crown are identical to many pictured Rolex on Google. His question was "Is it an unmarked Rolex?"
I explained that Rolex didn't actually make watches, they bought them from manufacturers such as Aegler, Fontainemelon, and Beguelin. Those manufacturers also supplied watches to other companies, so the only thing that distinguishes a watch supplied to Rolex from one supplied to another company are markings, such as the W&D sponsors mark, or the name Rolex or Rolex Watch Co., or one of their "other brands". Therefore there can be no such thing as an "unmarked Rolex".
Beguelin movements were not used in Rolex branded watches. They were used for other Rolex Watch Co. brands such as Rolco, Marconi or Unicorn. Any watch with a Beguelin movement and Rolex on the dial has had the name on the dial added later, Wilsdorf and Rolex did not use the Rolex name for these watches.
I was contacted by a correspondent about a "Rolex" watch he had bought; he said it had Rolex branding on the case and a Unicorn movement. On inspection it had the "W&D" sponsor's mark in the case back, "Unicorn" engraved on the movement ratchet wheel, and "Rolex" on the dial. Let's consider each of these points in turn.
W&D sponsor's mark
- The "W&D" mark in a gold or silver watch case is a sponsor's mark. It was entered at assay offices in Britain so that the company of Wilsdorf and Davis could submit items for assay and hallmarking. It was struck on any items that they sent for hallmarking and forms part of the hallmark. It is not "Rolex branding".
- The name "Unicorn" on the ratchet wheel is a brand that Wilsdorf registered as an alternative to Rolex for use on watches to be sold at lower price points. As such the name Rolex would not be used for these watches, that would have affected sales of the higher priced Rolex branded watches. This is a Unicorn watch, not a Rolex watch.
- The name Rolex would not originally have been put on the dial of a Unicorn brand watch. It is very easy to get a brand name painted onto the dial of a watch. Simply painting the name Rolex onto the dial of a watch does not transform it into a Rolex watch!
The section reproduced here is from my page about Rolex.
If you have any questions or comments, please don't hesitate to contact me via my Contact Me page.
Rolex's ‘Other Brands’
Wilsdorf was extremely pleased with the name Rolex and decided to reserve it as a brand name for his best and most expensive watches, which at the time meant watches made by Aegler with jewelled lever "Rebberg" movements. Often these were ‘fully jewelled’ with 15 or more jewels, but sometimes they had only seven jewels. A lever watch with seven jewels has the balance and escapement jewelled, but not the train wheel pivot bearings. Train wheel bearings that are not jewelled wear much more easily, so movements with less than 15 jewels are not fully jewelled. See Jewels for more about jewel bearings.
Wilsdorf realised that markets also existed for watches to be sold at lower price points, so over the years before World War 2 he created many other brands to fulfil this demand. Note that these were not model names for Rolex watches, like today's Submariner or Explorer, these were completely separate brand names, alternatives to the brand name ‘Rolex’, although they were sold by the Rolex Watch Company. The movements for these watches came from suppliers other than Aegler, from factories that mass produced ébauches such as Fontainemelon and Beguelin. Because of their scale of production these ébauches were cheaper than those made by Aegler, but could be just as good in quality, e.g. with Swiss lever escapements and fully jewelled. However, cheaper movements, even cylinder escapement movements, were also used for these other brands.
With such a wide range of brand names and ébauches ranging in quality from Swiss levers with 15 or more jewels down to those with cheap and humble cylinder escapements, Wilsdorf could supply a watch to suit every pocket. But this inevitably resulted in identity confusion. Such a plethora of names and price points all associated in some way with the Rolex brand detracted from Wilsdorf's aim of making Rolex a prestige brand for which he could charge accordingly high prices.
In the early days Wilsdorf often allowed names such as Rolex Watch Company, RWC Ltd. or even just Rolex itself, to be used somewhere on these supposedly lesser brands. This was to give people the vague idea that they were effectively getting a Rolex watch but at a cheaper price. Sometimes the Rolex name is seen on the dial along with one of these other brand names, such as ‘Rolex Marconi’.
This idea back-fired because it affected sales of the higher priced ‘real’ Rolex watches. One of the first steps was to remove Rolex as a single word from the other brand watches, although it was still used as e.g. part of Rolex Watch Co. Around 1945 all the other brand names except for Tudor were dropped, and eventually Tudor was floated off as a separate company.
The confusion created continues to this day, and working out whether an old watch is or isn't a Rolex ultimately comes down to whether Wilsdorf and Rolex would have called it a ‘Rolex watch’. The problem often occurs with watches that have Rolex on the dial when it shouldn't be there, when it has been added by someone in an attempt to boost the value of the watch.
It is clear that watches with brands such as Maconi, Unicorn, RolCo etc., were intended to be known as products of the Rolex Watch Co., but not as ‘Rolex watches’. These ‘other brand’ watches did not originally have ‘Rolex’ as a single word on the dial. That would clearly have identified the watch as a Rolex, and for Wilsdorf that was a definite no-no. It appears that until Wilsdorf realised what a bad idea it was, the Rolex names was allowed to appear alongside some of the other brand names. If they have the single word Rolex on the dial now, it has been painted on later, often much later.
What defines a ‘Rolex Watch’?
The Rolex Watch Company purchased watches from a number of different watchmaking companies and sold them under various brand names. So what makes one of these watches a ‘Rolex’ watch as opposed to something else? The principal distinguishing feature is that it had the single word ‘Rolex’ put on to it during the manufacturing process. Not ‘Rolex Watch Co.’, and not after it was made.
Because of this, there can be no such thing as an un-named or un-branded Rolex watch with no name on it - that is a non-sequitur. If a watch has Rolex on it, then it is either a Rolex or a fake; but if it doesn't have Rolex on it at all, it is not a Rolex.
The Name on the Dial
Watches branded Marconi, Unicorn, etc. would not have the name ‘Rolex’ on the dial as a single word on its own. That would defeat the whole purpose of creating a brand to be sold at a lower price point. If any of these watches did have a brand name on the dial, it was the same as that on the movement, i.e. a watch with RolCo on the movement would have had RolCo on the dial. Sometimes they had ‘Rolex Watch Co.’ on the dial or elsewhere, often in the case, or even sometimes ‘Rolex’ on the case or movement, or even in a few cases on the dial alongside the other brand name, e.g. ‘Rolex-Marconi’, but since it was not a Rolex watch in the eyes of Wilsdorf and Rolex, it would not have ‘Rolex’ as a single word on the dial, that would have devalued and damaged the main Rolex brand.
Watches are seen with a confusing mixture of these brand names on the dial, movement and case. Sometimes this can be rationalised by understanding what Wilsdorf was trying to achieve, but often it is a result of later modification in an attempt to make the watch more valuable. This most frequently is the addition of the name "Rolex" to a dial which never had it when it left the factory.
Logos and names are usually added using enamel paint, which looks quite convincing. If you know what you are looking for, it is easy to distinguish a name or logo added in enamel paint from a vitreous enamel dial, as I explain at Enamel Dials. Printed metal dials can be more convincing, but if the name shouldn't be there, it is still wrong and, since it is usually impossible to clean paint off a printed metal dial, an original dial has been ruined in the process.
The Other Brands
The first of Wilsdorf's other brands, registered in July 1909, was "Omigra". This looks suspiciously like Omega, a name that was well known and prestigious long before 1909, when the name Rolex still new and unknown. Wilsdorf must have had second thoughts about this and the registration was cancelled four months later at his request. Another brand registered by Wilsdorf that didn't get off the starting blocks was Elvira. Other names included Rolwatco, Falcon, Genex, Lonex, Rolexis, Lexis, Hofex and Wintex.
One of the next brand names created by Wilsdorf was Marconi, after the inventor and wireless telegraphy pioneer. Marconi Lever was registered on 24 January 1911. This was followed by Unicorn Lever (registered 17 March 1919) and Unicorn Watch (registered 20 November 1923).
Marconi Lever: General Watch Co. Movement.
Wilsdorf decided to increase his revenue by creating parallel brands to Rolex that would sell at lower price points. The Marconi name was the first to be used to any great extent. Marconi watches have non-Aegler movements, and Marconi watches in gold or silver cases imported into Britain often have the "GS" sponsor's mark of George Stockwell rather than the Wilsdorf and Davis W&D sponsor's mark. Wilsdorf said that these watches were to be sold through "parallel" channels, i.e. not through Rolex dealers.
Stockwell & Co. were international carriers who, after June 1907, also acted as Assay Agents for some of their clients who didn't have British branches. Wilsdorf & Davis were based in London and had registered their W&D sponsor's mark in 1907 so they didn't require this service from Stockwell & Co., although it is quite likely that they used Stockwell to transport watches from Switzerland to the UK. The use of Stockwell as assay agent for some Marconi watches suggests that in these cases Wilsdorf was trying to hide the connection between the Marconi and Rolex brands. Marconi branded watches are also seen in cases with Wilsdorf & Davis' sponsor's mark and the RWCo. Rolex Watch Company trademark.
Sometimes watches are seen with ‘Rolex Marconi’ or ‘Rolex Marconi Special‘ on the dial. I have seen enough of these now to convince me that at least some of these are genuine. I think that Marconi was Wilsdorf's first venture into creating a cheaper line of watches, and marketing of any sort (in Europe) was in its infancy, so he thought that by calling them ‘Rolex-Marconi’ people would recognise that they were not Rolex watches but another brand with some of the Rolex cachet. Which of course backfired - people simply thought that they could get a Rolex at a cheaper price. This type of dual ‘Rolex+’ branding was not repeated on later ‘other brands’. Today the connection between Rolex and Marconi is well known and Marconi watches are often described as ‘Rolex’ watches, which is not right; at most they are ‘Rolex-Marconi’, and some have no doubt been ‘upgraded’ from simple Marconi watches.
The principal problem with the Marconi name was that it was first and foremost an extremely well known as a company supplying wireless telegraphy equipment, to the RMS Titanic amongst many others. By advertising the Marconi name (with their permission?) Wilsdorf was in fact promoting someone else's brand, which he soon realised was not a good idea.
The movements of Marconi branded watches are often engraved on the central bridge with "Marconi Lever". All the movements that I have seen and identified were made by the The General Watch Co. This was founded as "La Generale" by the Brandt brothers, who also founded the Omega Watch Company. The General Watch Co. was created to manufacture watches aimed at the lower end of the market. In 1906 the Brandts withdrew from involvement with the company and it went its own way, soon diversifying into better quality watches with lever escapements. They made watches with the brand name "Helvetia".
Wilsdorf & Davis and Stockwell & Co.
Stockwell & Co. were a large company of British carriers with links to international carriers. They specialised in the transport of watches from Switzerland to Britain. From June 1907 they also acted as Assay Agents for some of their clients who imported watches in gold or silver cases.
Wilsdorf & Davis almost certainly used Stockwell & Co. to transport all their watches from Switzerland to London, and they also used Stockwell & Co. as assay agents for some of their watches, such as the Marconi watches discussed above. Wilsdorf & Davis had registered their own W&D sponsor's mark in 1907 so they didn't necessarily require this service. There were two reasons I can think of why Wilsdorf & Davis would have used Stockwell & Co.'s assay agent service. (1) To disguise the connection between an unbranded or "other brand" watch and Rolex. In this case, only Stockwell's GS sponsor's mark appears on the case. (2) When the assay offices that Wilsdorf & Davis were registered at had a long backlog of work. In this case, sometimes both the W&D and GS sponsor's marks are seen on watch cases.
Unicorn, ROLCO, etc.
The Marconi name was soon dropped in favour of "Unicorn". One problem with the name Unicorn was that because it was already in common usage it could not be registered as a unique name, hence the registration of "Unicorn Lever" and "Unicorn Watch". But anyone could register another phrase using an image or the word unicorn, as many had already done.
I found a number of registrations of trademarks with unicorns, the earliest being Gabus & Fils in 1887, followed by Courvoisier Freres in 1895, Wittnauer & Co. in 1901, J. Ullmann & Cie in 1912, and so on. I am surprised that Wilsdorf wasn't aware of these, but it is clear that he soon realised that Unicorn wasn't sufficiently unique as a brand to be valuable. Some time later, probably after the Second World War, Adolf Schild (A. Schild ), used the name and an image of a unicorn as a trademark or brand.
Wilsdorf then started using more unique names such as ROLCO, Oyster Watch Company (which understandably confusing since there was also a Rolex Oyster watch) and many others, one of the best known these days being Tudor, which is discussed in a separate section further down this page.
The image here shows a ROLCO branded watch movement. This movement was manufactured by Beguelin & Cie S.A. or BTCo., who also manufactured watches under names Damas and Tramelan Watch Co.. This movement has been customised for Rolex by modifying the shapes of the bridges and cocks and putting the name ROLCO on the ratchet wheel. Beguelin also supplied the same movement to other companies including Ingersoll and these movements were made to look different so that it was not obvious that they were all from the same manufacturer. Apart from the shape of the bridges and cocks, all the other parts of these movements (bottom plate, train wheels, escapement, keyless work, etc.) were identical. You can see five different versions of this particular BTCo. movement on the movement identification page.
There was never any secret that Marconi, Unicorn, etc. watches were made for the Rolex Watch Company, but they were not called Rolex watches and not (usually) branded "Rolex". The distinction he created was subtle, but Wilsdorf was a master salesman, perhaps the first modern marketing expert, and he was manipulating names and brands to alter the way things were perceived. Omega did the same thing with Tissot; In "Omega - A Journey through Time" Marco Richon explains that in 1935 an economic collapse in Brazil made it impossible for Omega to maintain sales at Omega's normal price points. Rather than cut prices of Omega watches just for Brazil, which would have inevitably affected Omega branded watches sold in other markets, the company withdrew Omega marketing and sales from the country and sold watches branded "Omega Watch Co. - Tissot" at lower price points in Brazil.
In 1952 Wilsdorf is reported as saying For some years now I have been considering the idea of making a watch that our agents [emphasis added] could sell at a more modest price than our Rolex watches, and yet one that would attain the standards of dependability for which Rolex is famous. I decided to form a separate company with the object of making and marketing this new watch. It is called the Tudor Watch Company. Of course by this time Wilsdorf had been selling Marconi, Unicorns and all sorts of other branded watches, but the significant point here is that the Tudor watch was to be sold by Rolex agents alongside Rolex watches. The implication of this is that the brands other than Tudor were not sold alongside Rolex watches or by Rolex agents.
Today one sees Marconi, Unicorn, ROLCO, Tudor, etc. watches being advertised (not by Rolex I hasten to add) as "early Rolexes". Although this is not accurate, ephemeral things like brand identity are not black and white, which is clearly also what Wilsdorf himself had in mind when he created these other brands. Wilsdorf wanted purchasers of the "other brand" watches to feel that they were getting a Rolex at a cheaper price, whilst at the same time he was busy persuading other people that it was worth paying more to get a real Rolex, a watch with the Rolex brand name on it.
These were early days for marketing and branding. Wilsdorf tried to create a situation where the "Rolex Watch Company" marketed watches branded as Rolex, and also watches branded Marconi, Unicorn, ROLCO, Tudor, etc. These were sold at different price points, with Rolex branded watches being the most expensive and the other brands filling lower price points, so that there was a watch for every customer no matter what they could afford. The Rolex Watch Company name being associated with all the different brands would give customers reassurance that whatever they paid, they were getting a good quality watch. Unfortunately, most customers were not interested in what was inside the watch, whether it was a fully jewelled lever escapement movement made by Aegler, or a cheaper mass produced movement from one of the &ecute;bauche factories. And no doubt some retailers didn't draw this to their attention.
Soon all these other brands were thought of simply as "Rolex watches" and Wildsorf's carefully differentiated marketing strategy and price structure collapsed. If one could buy a "Rolex watch" with the Unicorn brand on it at a fraction of the price of a "Rolex watch" with Rolex on it, why would anyone pay the higher price. This was not what Wilsdorf had intended. He wanted people who could afford them to buy Rolex branded watches, and others who were less well off to buy one of the cheaper brands. But because of the deliberate association of the Rolex name with the cheaper brands, sales of those soared whilst more expensive watches sat on retailer's shelves. After struggling to differentiate the different brands and their price points, Wilsdorf gave up and all the other brands were dropped. Only Tudor was retained, eventually spun off as a separate company.
I have seen watches from the Great War era with BTCo. movements in silver cases that have the W&D sponsor's mark and "Rolex" in the case back and "Marconi lever" on the movement. Is this a Rolex? I would say no; it doesn't have an Aegler movement and is branded Marconi. Why is the Rolex name in the case back? It might have been punched by mistake or, more likely in my view, Wilsdorf was less careful in the early days about where he splashed the Rolex name. Perhaps he thought he could endorse lower priced Marconi watches with the Rolex name without people calling them Rolex watches. He would have quickly realised that this was a mistake.
Oyster Watch Co.
The movement and case back shown here are branded Oyster Watch Co. The case back has the same list of patents found in the case backs of Rolex Oysters, and the SAR under a coronet trademark, so there is no attempt to conceal its connection to the Rolex Oyster. But this watch was made with a cheaper injection moulded case and was intended to sell at a lower price point than a Rolex watch.
The bottom plate of the movement has the FHF trademark of Fontainemelon showing that they manufactured the ébauch. It's a 10½ ligne FHF 30 movement ticking at 18,000 vph. It has a Swiss straight line lever escapement and fifteen jewels, so it is a good quality movement. Fontainemelon mass produced ébauches so perhaps this would have been cheaper than an Aegler ébauch, but similar in quality to Aegler's own 15 jewel movements. It is marked "unadjusted", which I think was put onto movements to make them cheaper to import into America, adjusted movements being charged a higher rate of import duty.
This movement was also used in Tudor watches, when it was called the Tudor calibre 59. There was also a centre seconds version called the 59(SC). The Fontainemelon reference for this movement was FHF 30-1. Although the Tudor version is usually described as being ‘based on’ the Fontainemelon movement, the only modification seems to be the engraving of the Tudor name on the bridge. This was almost certainly done by Fontainemelon as the ébauche was being made.
The case is made from the "Snowite" injection moulding zinc alloy. This is a very poor quality material and, although it is chrome plated, the back very heavily pitted on the outside. I don't have the other parts of the case so I don't know how well they survived, the case back was against the wrist and some people's perspiration can cause corrosion damage, even on some grades of stainless steel. This case is particularly bad.
Tudor dial with Rolex Watch Co. Thanks to Ray in Australia for the image.
The first mention of the Tudor name was in 1926 in a rather strange context. On a piece of notepaper headed "Horlogerie H. Wilsdorf, Bienne" there is a declaration by "vve. de Philippe Hüther" (the widow of Philippe Hüther) that she has registered the name "The Tudor" at the request of the company of H. Wilsdorf, and that she recognises that the brand is the exclusive property of that company and that it retains all rights to it. The implication of this is that the vve. de Philippe Hüther had been using the name Tudor but that Wilsdorf had proved a prior claim to it so she agreed to register the brand and that Wilsdorf's company would have exclusive rights to it in the future.
Tudor Advert from 1961
The Tudor brand was little used before WW2 except for watches sold in Australia. The image here shows the dial from one of these, which in addition to "Tudor" clearly carries "Rolex Watch Co. Ltd". Surely anyone could be forgiven for thinking that this was a model of Rolex watch, not a completely separate brand.
Many watches sold in Australia have cases that were made by Australia's largest case maker, J. W. Handley in Melbourne. Handley made cases for Rolex, Tudor, Unicorn, Cyma, Omega, Tissot and many others. This was to reduce import duties on Swiss watches imported into Australia. Duties were lower on uncased movements because they were considered to be ‘parts’ which facilitated local employment of craftspeople. Also, the case, especially a gold case, was a significant proportion of the cost of a finished watch. A case in sterling silver cost about the same as the movement, a gold case considerably more. Making the cases locally reduced considerably the value on which import duty was levied.
In 1946 Wilsdorf decided to create a completely separate company to sell Tudor watches and so "Montres Tudor S.A." was registered. An an S.A. is a "Société par Actions" or joint-stock company in English, a company owned by shareholders and run by a board of directors. In this case it appears that the shares in Montres Tudor S.A. were wholly owned by Rolex S.A. rather than being publicly offered.
The relationship between Rolex and Tudor caused the advertising copywriters to dance a merry jig. In early trade adverts it was said that Tudor was "sponsored" by Rolex. Later Tudor adverts such as the one from 1961 reproduced here said that they were "made" by Rolex. The use of the word "made" in this context is stretching the normal meaning of the word rather beyond breaking point in my view, since Rolex didn't actually make anything; the ébauches, dials, hands, cases, straps and bracelets of all Rolex, Tudor, Marconi, Unicorn, ROLCO, etc. etc. watches were made by companies not owned by either Wilsdorf or Rolex.
Emphasis on the (lower) price point of Tudor watches was relentless. Advertising copy said that Tudor watches were "... for the man whose purse is modest, yet whose aspirations are high." The ruggedness of Tudor watches, the waterproof case of the Tudor Oyster, the high quality of the watches, were repeatedly emphasised. Surely only somebody who worked in the advertising department could convince themselves that they were really advertising something completely separate and different to the more expensive "real" Rolex watches. Or am I just too cynical? Actually, these trade adverts were not supposed to be seen by the public - but what salesman sensing a potential sale and commission would resist mentioning the Rolex connection.
In fact, the technical differences between a Tudor watch and a Rolex watch were vanishingly small; even the advertising department couldn't come out with a convincing explanation of precisely what the difference was. The only really significant difference was in their prices. It was therefore understandable that people thought that a Tudor was a cheap Rolex, it just didn't carry the bragging rights of its more expensive stable mate. Which is why a lot of Tudors and other early Rolex Watch Co. watches have been "upgraded" in more recent years by having Rolex added to their dials or movements.
When Is a Watch Really a "Rolex Watch"?
Is a watch with the name Marconi, Unicorn, ROLCO, Tudor, etc. on the movement, or marked "Rolex Watch Co.", or with the W&D sponsor's mark in the case back, actually an early Rolex watch? In the semantically complicated marketing world of Hans Wilsdorf the answer has to be emphatically "No".
These "other brand" watches were made for the "Rolex Watch Company", but they would not have called any of them a "Rolex watch". The other brands were not model names of Rolex watches, they were intended to be completely separate, and cheaper, brands. Whether they actually cost less to make is not the point, they used non-Aegler movements so that they looked different, and they were sold at lower price points. After the problems caused by the Rolex-Marconi mistake they were called simply a Marconi, Unicorn, Rolco, etc., watch. Wilsdorf didn't want to hurt sales of premium priced Rolex branded watches by associating these other brands too closely with the Rolex name, but of course it was inevitable that people did do that, especially in the resale market.
A watch with one of these other brand names is correctly described as a Rolex Watch Company product, but not as a "Rolex watch", even though it clearly is a watch that was made for, and sold by, the Rolex Watch Company. This then opens the question as to how to identify a "Rolex watch" if not from a name painted on the dial. The short answer must be that it is a watch that Wilsdorf himself would have called a "Rolex watch".
By far the easiest identification for early Rolex watches is that they had Aegler "Rebberg" movements. But Aegler didn't stand still and new calibres were developed that succeeded the Rebberg. But the fact remains that almost every Rolex watch ever made has an Aegler movement of some sort. If a watch doesn't have an Aegler movement, or one of the small number made with movements from other manufacturers, e.g. from Valjoux for chronographs which Aegler didn't make, then it isn't a Rolex watch.
Some early Tudor watches have Tudor on the dial along with the name of a Rolex model such as Oyster Prince, and, even going so far as to mark them with "Rolex Watch Co." on the dial or with "Rolex" inside the case back along with the Rolex trademark crown with five points with balls on their ends. The dial shown in the photograph here is clearly meant to be that of a watch of the brand "Tudor", but it also has "Rolex Watch Co. Ltd." around the sub-seconds dial. Is this a Rolex watch? The Rolex Watch Co. Ltd. wouldn't want you to say so, although they might want you to think so — at least while you were reaching for your wallet.
It is clear that Wilsdorf wanted to give Tudor watches more than something of the the lustre of the Rolex brand without actually calling them Rolex watches. However, this confused the identities of the two brands, which was not a good idea for either. Tudor was later separated from the Rolex brand and floated off as a completely separate company that stopped using the Rolex name and trademarks on its watches.
However, and this is probably the critical point for most people who are not professional hair-splitters, a watch made with one of these "other" Rolex brands would not have left the factory with the single word "Rolex" as a brand on the dial. If such a watch has the single word "Rolex" on the dial now, then that has been added later by someone else. You don't think that whoever did that might have been trying to deceive, do you? Dear me, what an unpleasant thought. As always, caveat emptor: don't believe everything that you read or are told.
Unmarked or Unsigned Rolex?
I was contacted by a correspondent who had purchased a trench watch and identified the movement as a Beguelin (BTCo.) from my Movement Identification page. From this he also knew that Beguelin supplied watches to Rolex. He told me that there are no markings on the case but the dial and crown are identical to many pictured Rolex on Google. His question was ‘Is it an unmarked Rolex?’
I explained that Rolex didn't actually make watches, they bought them from manufacturers such as Aegler, Fontainemelon, and Beguelin. Those manufacturers also supplied watches to other companies, so the only thing that distinguishes a watch supplied to Rolex from one supplied to another company are markings on the watch, such as the W&D sponsors mark, or the name Rolex or Rolex Watch Co., or the name of one of their ‘other brands’. Therefore there can be no such thing as an ‘unmarked Rolex’. If there is no Rolex related branding on the watch, it has nothing to do with Rolex and is simply an unbranded watch.
Beguelin movements were not used in Rolex watches. They were used for other Rolex Watch Co. brands such as Rolco, Marconi or Unicorn. Any watch with a Beguelin movement and Rolex on the dial has had the name on the dial added later, Wilsdorf and Rolex did not use the Rolex name for these watches.
Copyright © David Boettcher 2006 - 2019 all rights reserved. This page updated June 2018. W3CMVS.