Reference:neanderthal-daytona
The Neanderthal (Daytona 6240)
The Neanderthal is a Paul Newman-configuration 6240 that Phillips sold in 2018 for CHF 3,012,500 including premium as the earliest known Paul Newman prototype. The nickname points to the dial's crude, proto-Paul-Newman look. Perezcope's 2022 dossier disputes the prototype story and argues for a later construction using a 6238 donor dial. Both readings remain on the public record.
What the Neanderthal is
The Neanderthal, as it appeared at Phillips, had five identifying features that distinguished it from the documented Paul Newman Mk1-Mk4 progression:
The Neanderthal has five practical tells.
- Mk1.75 typeface sitting between the known Mk1 and Mk2 Paul Newman forms.
- A 6240 host case with screw-down pushers.
- Block markers without the outline seen on Mk2 dials.
- Sub-dial geometry that Perezcope reads as closer to 6238 than 6239 production.
- A pre-1970 case serial.
The Phillips sale (12 May 2018)
Phillips sold the Neanderthal as Lot 32 at Daytona Ultimatum and framed it as the earliest known Paul Newman prototype: a dial from before the documented Mk1 run, with typography and proportions Rolex later abandoned.
| Detail | Value |
|---|---|
| Reference | 6240, stainless steel |
| Sale | Phillips Daytona Ultimatum, Geneva |
| Date | 12 May 2018 |
| Lot number | 32 |
| Price (all-in) | CHF 3,012,500 |
| Position on Rolex auction list at sale date | 4th all-time |
| Framing | Earliest known Paul Newman prototype |
The sale placed the Neanderthal at the fourth position on the all-time Rolex auction list at the time, behind Newman's own 6239 (USD 17.52M at Phillips Winning Icons, 2017), the Unicorn 6265 (CHF 5.94M at the same Ultimatum sale), and the Bao Dai 6062 (USD 5.06M).
The Perezcope dispute (November 2022)
Jose Pereztroika's November 2022 dossier — "Rolex Daytona 6240 Paul Newman Neanderthal: A myth goes extinct" — disputes the prototype framing. The dossier's central evidence falls into four categories:
Orologi & Market April 1998
The April 1998 issue of Orologi & Market is the core of Perezcope's case. It appears to show the same dial in a construction context decades before Phillips presented it as a 1960s prototype. If that reading is right, the prototype story collapses.
Mk1.75 typeface analysis
Perezcope's typeface argument is simple: the printing does not look like a missing pre-Mk1 step, it looks like a later attempt to imagine one. Font weight, spacing, and stroke endings all read wrong against period Singer dials.
Sub-dial geometry from 6238 donor
Perezcope's geometry argument is that the dial reads more like a 6238 donor than a true 6239-era Paul Newman dial. On that reading, the Neanderthal is a reworked 6238 dial, not a lost prototype.
Singer stamp comparison
The Singer dial-maker stamp on the Neanderthal's dial back, compared against authenticated Singer stamps across the Mk1–Mk4 progression, reads as mismatched to any production window. The stamp style does not fit the 1965–1969 6240 production range or any adjacent Singer production batch.
Phillips's position and the Neanderthal's case
Phillips did not claim an archive-backed Rolex prototype. The house argued from the dial itself: if it did not fit Mk1 production, it might belong to a pre-Mk1 phase. That is the exact reading Perezcope rejects.
The case itself — the 6240 stainless-steel case with screw-down pushers, acrylic crystal, and acrylic bezel insert — is not disputed. The 6240 production years (1965–1969) are period-correct for a pre-Mk1 Paul Newman framing, and the case authentication passes through the standard 6240 verification checkpoints. The dispute is dial-specific, not case-specific or movement-specific.
Why the dispute matters
The disagreement matters because the two readings imply completely different objects. If Phillips was right, the watch rewrites early Paul Newman chronology. If Perezcope was right, the market paid prototype money for a later construction.
Both positions stay on the record per BezelBase's never-pick-one-truth rule. The market's read on the Perezcope dossier will emerge at the next public sale of the Neanderthal, should it surface — the lot has not been re-catalogued publicly since the 2018 sale.
Relation to other disputed Daytona variants
The Neanderthal sits in a cluster of high-value disputed-authenticity Daytona variants, each with Perezcope as the second voice raising forensic questions against an auction-house lot:
| Variant | Phillips framing | Perezcope counter | Status |
|---|---|---|---|
| Albino 6263 | Factory Rolex variant (Hodinkee 2013 consensus) | 1990s Tom Bolt construction (Perezcope 2025) | 3 examples sold; dispute unresolved |
| Unicorn 6265 | Only known white gold manual-wind Daytona with period-correct service replacements (Phillips 2018) | Frankenstein — components assembled post-2010 per 2010 Newoldschlock IG photos (Perezcope 2022) | Sold CHF 5.94M 2018; dispute unresolved |
| Neanderthal 6240 | Earliest Paul Newman prototype (Phillips 2018) | Late-1990s construction on 6238 donor per Orologi & Market April 1998 (Perezcope 2022) | Sold CHF 3.01M 2018; dispute unresolved |
The pattern is familiar. An auction house presents a watch with a rarity story, a forensic counter-dossier appears later, and no final authority closes the argument. The market then keeps trading the watch with that uncertainty attached.
Host reference
The Neanderthal is documented as a single example on a single 6240 case. No other 6240 Paul Newman examples are documented in the published literature — per Rolex's standard production record, Paul Newman dials on 6240 are extremely rare, and the Neanderthal is the sole cited example at auction.
Where to go next
- Reference 6240 — host reference - Paul Newman Daytona — the disputed dial family context - Albino Daytona — parallel disputed variant - Unicorn Daytona — parallel disputed variant - Daytona glossary — quick definitions
Source list
- Made for Racing: Rolex and the Daytona — Phillips, 2018
- Phillips Geneva, Daytona Ultimatum, Lot 32 catalogue essay, 12 May 2018
- Rolex Daytona 6240 Paul Newman Neanderthal: A myth goes extinct — Jose Pereztroika, Perezcope, November 2022
- Orologi & Market, Italian collector magazine, April 1998, page 44
- Historical Perspectives: The Very First Rolex Daytona — Benjamin Clymer, Hodinkee, 2013
- In-Depth: The History of the Rolex Daytona — Erik Slaven, Monochrome, 2024