diracpoint
716
Fifty Fathoms - Fictitious History?
Sep 09, 2023,14:50 PM
An interesting article just published on perezcope! Link to the article
(Hope posting the link doesn't break the forum rules!)
Comments:
view entire thread
Fifty Fathoms - Fictitious History?
By: diracpoint : September 9th, 2023-14:50
An interesting article just published on perezcope! Link to the article (Hope posting the link doesn't break the forum rules!) ...
Well said Tim_M!
By: patrick_y : September 9th, 2023-16:13
Jeffrey Kingston, Esq. is a gentleman collector who is fed information from the brands' historical departments and marketing/PR departments - and he generally reasonably assumes it is true and relies upon it. We cannot fault Kingston for being off a few y...
Got it!
By: patrick_y : September 26th, 2023-19:07
Well... Even the experts can make mistakes. Here on WPS, we've had to make a retraction every now and then. So I wouldn't be too harsh on Jeffrey Kingston. BUT YES! One should look at it this way - can we really trust experts whom are almost solely dedica...
I wish to disagree that it is not important who released what first.
By: LX (Alex) : September 26th, 2023-03:08
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 th...
That's fair!
By: patrick_y : September 26th, 2023-04:26
You bought it on the premise that the facts were accurate, and now these facts are in question. Naturally, you're upset. Very fair.
It begs the 'Bigger Question'...
By: enjoythemusic : September 9th, 2023-16:42
...we are doomed by those who write history incorrectly. So perhaps correcting things now gives a sharper, more honest perspective for those writing today. I very much look forward to a deep-dive investigation into the 1960's marketing for three brands. S...
The winners of wars write their version of the history...
By: patrick_y : September 9th, 2023-16:57
The biggest platforms write their versions of history. And now it's whomever has Search Engine Optimization done best who writes the definitive version of history - since it's the version most people would've read!
Interesting read.
By: andrea~ : September 9th, 2023-16:49
It's nice to see Rolex gettting props for what is rightfully their achievement.
The story I read is...
By: mdg : September 9th, 2023-18:01
...it was actually only water resistant to forty fathoms. But 'Fifty' rhymes with 'Nifty' so they went with that instead...
The whole premise of the article is offâŠ
By: shortys home : September 10th, 2023-06:13
⊠since it refers to a claim not made. Blancpain refers to the Fifty Fathoms being created in 1953, not launched to the public in 1953. The author himself creates the windmill he then wants to fight heroically. And he plays skillfully with facts, words, i...
In various sections of the website it cites the FF âbornâ in 1953âŠ
By: shortys home : September 10th, 2023-09:20
⊠in the Fifty Fathoms documentary movie Jean-Jacques Fiechter himself speaks about having created the FF in 1953. A debate about which expression is used at what time in what publication doesnât help. Over many years the birth year of the FF was specifie...
A simple Google search will find out
By: schen : September 10th, 2023-14:40
Just Google "fifty fathoms launched 1953 site:/" and the first result is landing.blancpain.com Here is the screenshot, just in case this webpage is gone or edited in future. Not going to argue what "launched" really means here, but literally "laun...
Lets not forget, Rolex in 1953 also said they summitted Everest. Rolex marketing, appearance in publications, tradeshows, etc would have absolutely dwarfed Blancpain then as now, maybe moreso
By: Fastwong : September 10th, 2023-23:57
Really like the work from Perezscope and while this article seems extra angry, some great points are made. However, need to include context, Rolex was (is) the king of marketing so while this might prove Rolex was right there in the running in 1953, I'm n...
+1...
By: amanico : September 11th, 2023-06:15
There is enough evidence for itâŠ
By: shortys home : September 13th, 2023-04:34
⊠and even the article delivers it. This letter proves that Lieutenant Riffaud received his watch around February 1954. Letâs be real: how can you ask for more evidence that the Fifty Fathoms was in existence well before that date of Feb 1954? If only peo...
Wishfull thinking of an obviously biased Blancpain customer
By: pereztroika : September 13th, 2023-16:15
"This letter proves that Lieutenant Riffaud received his watch around February 1954." No, it doesn't! The letter states the watches were in use since one year which probably includes the testing phase. While I think it's possible that Maloubier and Riffau...
Unidirectional bezel patent
By: pereztroika : September 11th, 2023-11:57
"He conveniently leaves out that Blancpain in fact held the patent for exactly that bezel." Hey my German friend, can you point me to the patent for the unidirectional bezel pls? Cheers Jose
I doubt it exists
By: pereztroika : September 12th, 2023-08:29
Even early 1970s No Rad FFs had bezels that could be turned both ways. Cheers Jose
While I do not think the article is
By: Gwai : September 10th, 2023-08:47
well written and believe it would've benefited from some toning down, I'm left convinced Jose is presenting the facts here. And while I appreciate Tim's insights, I think watchmakers can, and should, be held accountable for how they present their history ...
Maybe Mr. Kingston could let us know his side of the story.
By: fmc000 : September 11th, 2023-14:13
He looks like he's a very respected menber of the horological community judging by the comments I read here so maybe he can share something with us, directly if he's a member here or by a third person he trusts if he's not. Just my opinion, nothing more n...
Great article re-post my friend!
By: ZSHSZ : September 10th, 2023-12:14
As always I go by the presented facts, not what it couldâve been⊠And here we are presented with (existing) documents that the crown was first, something I suspected for a long time but not relevant enough for me to dig deeper, however the message and con...
ÂŻ\_(ă)_/ÂŻ
By: jehclap : September 10th, 2023-21:39
apps.dtic.mil
By: j.jota : September 11th, 2023-22:31
According to Jose's article "the first Submariner batch was produced in the second quarter of 1953", whereas in the public Fifty Fathoms exhibit () one of the earliest examples of a Blancpain FF (branded LIP) is exhibited which was also manufactured in 19...
The Rolex patent for the bezel does not belong to the diver philosophy.
By: Dmitriy : September 15th, 2023-14:10
In February 1953, Rolex applied for a rotating bezel, the operation of which provided for a wider range than diving. In the patents CH312285 and CH305177 cited in the article, there are no lines about diving at all. This is due to the fact that initially ...
First Rolex Submariner prototype tested in 1951
By: pereztroika : September 21st, 2023-17:54
Speaking of historical footprints, in an interview with Europa Star in 1964, Rolex director and passionate diver RenĂ©-Paul Jeanneret stated the following: âLa premiĂšre montre Rolex âSubmarinerâ fut créée en 1951. Je fus dâailleurs le premier Ă lâexpĂ©rimen...
First Submariner then Turn-o-Graph
By: pereztroika : September 21st, 2023-18:06
There is a common misconception that the Rolex Turn-o-Graph preceded the Submariner and was presented in 1953. In reality, the Submainer was produced before the Turn-o-Graph (2.53 vs. ). The first batches of both models have case numbers in the 949,xxx ra...
The Submariner takes the cake with a first prototype in 1951
By: pereztroika : September 23rd, 2023-15:33
There is zero info about diving in the Rolex patents because they didn't want to tip off anyone about what they were working on. It's game over my friend but of course, you and all the Blancpain fans are free to believe whatever you want.