Comments:
Not so long ago, Europa Star magazine published an article on its website dedicated to advertising watches in the twentieth century:
Also, the Milgauss' origin story with CERN's involvement has been sold to death...
...when the reality hasn't been nearly as clear. Rolex has mostly suggested its watches were "part" of the conquest of Everest - it pitches the Explorer with images of mountains, copy about climbing, photos of Hillary and Norgay holding Rolex watches given as trophies... I'm not totally sure Rolex has claimed in years that its watches were at the first summit of Everest. But with the marketing images and language, it's easy to get confused!
Best,
Tim
Best,
Tim
Exactly! If one were to go only off of Rolex marketing materials from the period, it would be reasonable to infer they did actually make the summit.
"Congratulations to the British Everest Expedition - Rolex - 7 Times on Everest. Finally to the Top!" - June 2nd 1953
Without the benefit of all the other details around the expedition and smith's own statements a reasearcher finding the headline above in the London Times could easily read this as a summit. Not saying Perezscope is wrong, but it's worth remembering the context of the source materials.
Without the benefit of all the other details around the expedition and smith's own statements a reasearcher finding the headline above in the London Times could easily read this as a summit. Not saying Perezscope is wrong, but it's worth remembering the context of the source materials.
There is enough evidence for it…
… and even the article delivers it.
This letter proves that Lieutenant Riffaud received his watch around February 1954.
Let’s 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 people read the article precisely and beyond the conclusions pushed by the author… who by the way knows exactly what above mentioned letter proves. But creating a stir up and catering to a certain fan base was more important to him.
This letter proves that Lieutenant Riffaud received his watch around February 1954.
Let’s 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 people read the article precisely and beyond the conclusions pushed by the author… who by the way knows exactly what above mentioned letter proves. But creating a stir up and catering to a certain fan base was more important to him.
Yes, I saw this too and agree, it's reasonable to assume Fifty Fathoms watches had to exist at least in development and testing in 1953 to be able to supply to Riffaud in early 1954.
This in particular is what made Perezscope's article feel biased since it seems to at times mix public launch vs creation/existence. This was my.point, clearly both watches existed in some form in 1953, there's a gray area around public launch which is separate from deliveries and reality still being separate from print archives which we would expect to be dominated by Rolex.
Wishfull thinking of an obviously biased Blancpain customer
"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 Riffaud designed the watch in late 1953 after seeing the Rolex Submariner on Cousteau's wrist, the first prototypes were only made in 1954 in my opinion.
Unidirectional bezel patent
"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
Hey my German friend, can you point me to the patent for the unidirectional bezel pls?
Cheers
Jose
I doubt it exists
Even early 1970s No Rad FFs had bezels that could be turned both ways.
Cheers
Jose
Cheers
Jose
Yes, owning 5 vintage FF, and having seen almost 100, I never saw one with an unidirectional bezel, so... ;)
Blancpain states that it was "launched" in 1953 on their own website if you look at the screenshot posted by schen on September 10th, 2023.
While I do not think the article is
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 on which they base their business. This is not mere storytelling. This is hard facts and serious money. Just my 2 eurocents.
Cheers
Marc
Cheers
Marc
Yes, it was not necessary to hit Jeff this way, I agree. And even more, it doesn't serve the main goal of this article. He could have done the same without stabbing Jeff this way.
Maybe Mr. Kingston could let us know his side of the story.
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 nothing less.
Just my opinion, nothing more nothing less.
If the 2533 counts as a diver, I think that raises some questions about what comprised a "dive watch" prior to the ISO 6425 of 1996
I assumed that in this thread, we were considering only watches that embody the format of a modern diver with a timing bezel and a screw-down crown. If highly water resistant watches like the Rolex 2533 and the Panerais now are divers, how do we rank or acknowledge Rolex's 1926 Oyster itself or Omega's Marine of 1932? It was tested at 73-135 meters. Unless Omega's 1932 claim is unsupported, that sleeved Marine design appears to pre-date all the watches discussed in this thread. And Rolex goes back even further with the Oysters and Oyster Perpetuals.
Great article re-post my friend!
As always I go by the presented facts, not what it could’ve 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 conclusions from this article is not how hard Jose went after Blancpain, rather that Blancpain manufactured a fake history of arguably their signature model.
Now, after Omega, Blancpain being ruined(in my eyes) by Swatch Group, I can only hope Breguet(the last one from this conglomerate that I like), will not follow…
I also think that it’s quite admirable from Rolex not to go after Blancpain to prove “we were first” but to keep working on a better product instead!
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 conclusions from this article is not how hard Jose went after Blancpain, rather that Blancpain manufactured a fake history of arguably their signature model.
Now, after Omega, Blancpain being ruined(in my eyes) by Swatch Group, I can only hope Breguet(the last one from this conglomerate that I like), will not follow…
I also think that it’s quite admirable from Rolex not to go after Blancpain to prove “we were first” but to keep working on a better product instead!
Either way, I don’t think Rolex needs any defending!!
They need to let people buy watches at retail!!
According to Jose's article "the first Submariner batch was produced in the second quarter of 1953", whereas in the public Fifty Fathoms exhibit (https://www.watchswiss.com/perpetual/history-told-by-those-that-pioneered-it/) one of the earliest examples of a Blancpain FF (branded LIP) is exhibited which was also manufactured in 1953. No doubt one could have preceded the other by some months, although the FanBoy aggressiveness from both camps borders on childishness.
Who really cares? Both dive watches were a product of that particular unique time in the early 50's, but neither was developed in a vacuum and each owes just as much to the watches which came before as they do each other.
The Rolex patent for the bezel does not belong to the diver philosophy.
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 this bezel was created for the Turn-o-Graph model, and not the Submariner. The Turn-o-Graph was the first, possibly the only Rolex model where the bezel patent was mentioned at all. Which was advertised as a tool for timing races, negotiations, flight time, etc. In fact, the Submariner is a Turn-o-Graph with a higher degree of water protection, no more.
Patent CH322328 from Rayville (Blancpain) 1954, on the contrary, indicates the design of the bezel specifically for diving, with its protection against accidental displacement, with luminescent numbers applied to it. That is, JEAN J. FICHTER more fully revealed the goals and objectives of diving watches than Rolex.
Regarding the unidirectional bezel, there is a Rayville advertising poster that clearly shows how to use the bezel. Pressed down with three fingers and turned in one direction, clockwise. If the rotation would be in either direction, then the picture would certainly have an image of the direction of the arrow in both directions:
Not so long ago, Europa Star magazine published an article on its website dedicated to advertising watches in the twentieth century:
In an article advertising the 1950s, the magazine cited a Rayville/Blancpain advertising poster from 1957 with Fifty Fathoms watches, where it was indicated that watches appeared in 1953:
Blancpain has an absolutely adequate historical footprint in the creation of Fifty Fathoms.
I would be glad if you (or someone) read the patents listed in Jose's article, the numbers of which I duplicated, and saw their different purposes.
Rolex adapted the bezel from Turn-o-Graph for the Submariner, whereas Rayville (Blancpain) conceived it specifically for diving.
I did read them! Hence my previous post that the patent dates weren't really any kind of smoking gun evidence as Rolex patent seemed like random r&d vs Blancpain's more specifc patent
What i didn't realize was the history and timing potentially connected to the turn-o-graph which helps connect the dots. Thank you!
First Rolex Submariner prototype tested in 1951
Speaking of historical footprints, in an interview with Europa Star in 1964, Rolex director and passionate diver René-Paul Jeanneret stated the following: “La première montre Rolex “Submariner” fut créée en 1951. Je fus d’ailleurs le premier à l’expérimenter en plongée en descendant jusqu’a 50 mètres.”
Translation: The first Rolex “Submariner” watch was created in 1951. I was also the first to test it by diving down to 50 meters.
Cheers
Jose
In the same issue of the magazine, on other pages, the same interview, but in different words. Instead of "submariner", the word "underwater".
First Submariner then Turn-o-Graph
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. IV.53). The first batches of both models have case numbers in the 949,xxx range but the Turn-o-Graph's are slightly later. Both models were presented at the Basel Watch Fair in 1954, together with the Rolex Explorer.
Cheers
Jose
Cheers
Jose