LX (Alex)
1109
I wish to disagree that it is not important who released what first.
Sep 26, 2023,03:08 AM
As a buyer of the new titanium FF Bathyscaphe that I bought from my AD in Zurich and in consideration of the outstanding quality and movement finishing of the watch (better than what I have seen in the sub-50k CHF range at Patek or Vacheron) AS WELL AS the Fifty Fathoms being advertised as the first modern diving watch and having preceded Rolex in doing so, I now feel like a fool because - in all honesty - I would not have considered any Blancpain watch for purchase otherwise. The whole story about the brand having been in existence since 1735 was already borderline wrong and misleading, especially since Jean-Claude Biver himself stated in an appearance in Asia a few years ago that before he was involved in resurrecting Blancpain there were neither any machines nor any employees and he made it absolutely clear that only the brand name existed and nothing else. I was willing to give Blancpain a pass for this because I considered the Fifty Fathoms an important milestone in horology. However, that has now been called into question. As a result, the initial reason for which I bought the watch, will now have fallen away if the allegations in the Perezcope article are true.
A good example of a watch brand being transparent about its history is Arnold & Son. While it says 1764 below their logo (which I do find misleading), they make it very clear on their web site that the history of the original brand ends in 1857 and that the brand was relaunched in 1995.