Smiths were the only watches worn on the summit of Everest in '53. The proof.

[Rev-O]

I was listening to Brendan Cunningham in this recent podcast interview...

Yes, we've covered some of that already in this thread. e.g. post 127

It's what they've done since 1953. And the first waterproof wristwatch etc etc

What with waiting lists and ADs retaining cards and randomised serial numbers etc I'm afraid Rolex have lost any affection or respect from me.

Their watches are good -- good, not great -- but their marketing is phenomenal and, at times, mendacious.

Still, the fanboys will queue up (literally) to get their hands on these boring, stale, mass-produced Veblen bling bracelets.

I honestly can't see how they are an option for true watch lovers though.

So e.g. this:

"1926
The first waterproof wristwatch
In 1926, the creation by Rolex of the first waterproof and dustproof wristwatch marked a major step forward. Given the name “Oyster”, this watch featured a hermetically sealed case which provided optimal protection for the movement."

from Rolex's own website (here: https://www.rolex.com/about-rolex-wa...tory/1926-1945) accessed today.

And:

"Since the creation in 1926 of the Oyster case, the first waterproof case in the world, we have developed multiple innovations that have honed this hallmark." Again, Rolex's own copy (here: https://www.rolex.com/watchmaking/ma...waterproofness )



Really?

See "The Inconvenient Truth about the World's First Waterproof Watch, the Story of Charles Depollier and his Waterproof Trench Watches of the Great War" by Stan Czubernat

here: https://www.lrfantiquewatches.com/

And the Rolex forum had their minds blown here:

https://www.rolexforums.com/showthread.php?t=885601

("Wait, what, Rolex lied and are still lying?")

good discussion (to which Stan Czubernat contributes) here:

https://www.watchcrunch.com/LRFAntiq...-them-in-35209

[M4tt]

I was listening to Brendan Cunningham in this recent podcast interview...

1. He says that Rolex (at the time) was heavily into research on how the cold affects timekeeping and how to deal with it.

2. Also Rolex admitting that they lied they were the first in something else (I think the auto rotor) and having to publicly apologize.

A LOOK INTO THE ROLEX MARKETING MACHINE, WITH AUTHOR BRENDAN CUNNINGHAM
https://www.scribd.com/podcast/64201...nd-them-and-th

I love Brendan Cunningham's website
https://www.horolonomics.com/

I didn't realise there was a book! I'll have to polish off the pile of stuff I've already bought first, but this has to be a must buy in the very near future. Cheers. While I'm sure that Rolex were publicly into 'researching' how cold effects timekeeping, the fact is that there are one or two minor advances that were already known well - Use invar, not brass for your plates elgiloy for your mainspring and so on through a list of materials. Ironically, for all the advertising and vaunt, the only watch made explicitly for climbing mountains prior to 1953, that I'm aware of, was made by Lip and had already been used by Herzog to scale Annapurna. If you are after a purpose built mountaineer's watch, that's the one you want.



It's ironic that Rolex actually used the first modern materproof and dustproof movement - from Borgel, to case some of their watches. Hell, there was even one on the wrist of the first man to really reach the top of Everest.

[Broussard]

The Inconvenient Truth... fails to recognise other water-proof / water-tight watches that were also being made at the time, as there is no "evidence" of their testing. This means that he doesn't deem the Submarine (or others) to be "waterproof watches", which is a shame, as they seemed (to me, at least) to be a good example of a water-tight watch from c1915.

As for Rolex's experiments with cold temperatures, they (like Smiths) were looking at oils that could withstand freezing temperatures. They provided the 1953 expedition with vials of "arctic oil" and used the same oil on the watches they provided (see letters from Rolex in the RGS Collection). Their suggestion was that this same oil could be used to lubricate camera shutters, etc, for use at high altitudes.

Interestingly, these high altitude cameras were never used for their intended purpose: Gregory notes (in The Picture of Everest, 1954) that "no camera which had been specially greased or degreased went higher than 23,000 feet."

[Broussard]

Also interesting to note that the first use of a fish bowl / fish tank to display a water-tight watch was not Rolex, or even Depollier.

"A silver watch, which performed while suspended in a glass globe filled with water containing goldfish, was exhibited by Messrs. Pettit. The object of this invention being to secure the protection of timekeeping and other instruments from water and sea-damp." (Curiosities of Clocks and Watches from the Earliest Times by Edward J Wood, 1866).

Wood also repeats the claim that "a pendulum-clock was ... made by Richard Harris, a London artist, for St. Paul's church, Covent Garden, in 1641 or 1642; Inigo Jones, the architect of this church, having been in Italy while Galileo was living, possibly communicated to Harris what he had heard there of the pendulum." But I'm still looking for more evidence of that claim.

[M4tt]

The Inconvenient Truth... fails to recognise other water-proof / water-tight watches that were also being made at the time, as there is no "evidence" of their testing. This means that he doesn't deem the Submarine (or others) to be "waterproof watches", which is a shame, as they seemed (to me, at least) to be a good example of a water-tight watch from c1915.

As for Rolex's experiments with cold temperatures, they (like Smiths) were looking at oils that could withstand freezing temperatures. They provided the 1953 expedition with vials of "arctic oil" and used the same oil on the watches they provided (see letters from Rolex in the RGS Collection). Their suggestion was that this same oil could be used to lubricate camera shutters, etc, for use at high altitudes.

Interestingly, these high altitude cameras were never used for their intended purpose: Gregory notes (in The Picture of Everest, 1954) that "no camera which had been specially greased or degreased went higher than 23,000 feet."

At least not in 1953…

[M4tt]

It's not really worth rehearsing all the information about turn of the century Borgel patents, except to say that Borgel - and Borgel/Taubert were consistently decades ahead of whatever Rolex happened to be making at the time. The earliest wristwatch version of the 1891 waterproof patent that I own is this one:


But both Dennison and Borgel had a fully waterproof watch on the market prior to WWII



and it's worth remembering that while the title 'Oyster' didn't change, the case certainly did - and the first version was a direct rip off of the later Borgel patent, like so:



Followed by a two piece case:



Which again, was rather too similar to an earlier Borgel/Taubert design for comfort...

Before finally settling on the three part case.

I wrote a bit about the original oyster a while back:

https://www.intlwatchleague.com/show...htly-annoying)

[Rev-O]

The Inconvenient Truth... fails to recognise other water-proof / water-tight watches that were also being made at the time, as there is no "evidence" of their testing. This means that he doesn't deem the Submarine (or others) to be "waterproof watches", which is a shame, as they seemed (to me, at least) to be a good example of a water-tight watch from c1915.

Yes, I think Stan's methodology is sound though: as I understand it, he ignores advertising and other PR claims (which is a very good idea as far as Rolex is concerned!). He wants independent proofs and, for assessing "firsts", the all-important patents.

As for Rolex's experiments with cold temperatures, they (like Smiths) were looking at oils that could withstand freezing temperatures. They provided the 1953 expedition with vials of "arctic oil" and used the same oil on the watches they provided (see letters from Rolex in the RGS Collection). Their suggestion was that this same oil could be used to lubricate camera shutters, etc, for use at high altitudes.

That's interesting. I wonder who Rolex were working with to develop the oils? Smiths, of course, made their own in-house. :-)

Also interesting to note that the first use of a fish bowl / fish tank to display a water-tight watch was not Rolex, or even Depollier.

"A silver watch, which performed while suspended in a glass globe filled with water containing goldfish, was exhibited by Messrs. Pettit. The object of this invention being to secure the protection of timekeeping and other instruments from water and sea-damp." (Curiosities of Clocks and Watches from the Earliest Times by Edward J Wood, 1866).

Yes, that was a pocket watch though, which is inherently easier to waterproof. Still, the goldfish are nice touch -- strong visual impact. I wonder if Depollier knew about the fish or arrived at the same idea independently.

Edit: is anyone any good at wikipedia editing? I've corrected the claim the Oyster was the first waterproof wrist watch case but am having trouble referencing that. I tried to add the link to Stan's website / book (i.e. https://www.lrfantiquewatches.com/ ) but not really sure how. I

[Broussard]

Yes, I think Stan's methodology is sound though: as I understand it, he ignores advertising and other PR claims (which is a very good idea as far as Rolex is concerned!). He wants independent proofs and, for assessing "firsts", the all-important patents.

He doesn't use patents as evidence for "firsts" - the Submarine patent pre-dates the Depollier patent. I'm pretty sure that the Fortis patent does too (27 August 1915).

[M4tt]

He doesn't use patents as evidence for "firsts" - the Submarine patent pre-dates the Depollier patent. I'm pretty sure that the Fortis patent does too (27 August 1915).

So what we need is to see a variety of very old watches with fish swimming around them?

[M4tt]

Yes, I think Stan's methodology is sound though: as I understand it, he ignores advertising and other PR claims (which is a very good idea as far as Rolex is concerned!). He wants independent proofs and, for assessing "firsts", the all-important patents.



That's interesting. I wonder who Rolex were working with to develop the oils? Smiths, of course, made their own in-house. :-)



Yes, that was a pocket watch though, which is inherently easier to waterproof. Still, the goldfish are nice touch -- strong visual impact. I wonder if Depollier knew about the fish or arrived at the same idea independently.

Edit: is anyone any good at wikipedia editing? I've corrected the claim the Oyster was the first waterproof wrist watch case but am having trouble referencing that. I tried to add the link to Stan's website / book (i.e. https://www.lrfantiquewatches.com/ ) but not really sure how. I

When talking about actual wristwatches, I'm pretty sure that the 1891 patent is for the first genuinely waterproof wristwatch. That really should be the end of the matter. However, it clearly isn't. Whether this is because the original patent uses a pocket watch, which is a whole lot more contentious, or because no one really believes the patent and accepts that a silver pin set watch can actually not leak like a sieve.

For those that don't have the faith to believe without seeing, what you need is evidence. While I'm loath to put my watch to the test, all I need is a hundred year old watch, one that predates the Oyster and clearly meets the criteria for the 1891 patent and a tank full of goldfish.

Sadly, the ever expanding menagerie curated by my beloved children doesn't actually contain goldfish. The closest I can manage is Lottie, the axolotl.



But it's still a large tank full of water, and a pre war Borgel. It's not leaking, and:



It's definitely underwater.

I hope that's satisfactory? The Borgel has a clear patent, was actually used by Wilsdorf well before the Oyster existed and, a century later, the case is demonstrably still up to the job. I'm really pretty sure it was also the first watch on the summit of Everest.



Still there...

[Sweetwater]

Now that is brilliant. Chapeau bas.

[Rev-O]

Matt your experiment is invalid because it doesn’t use goldfish.

Wilsdorf actually invented water, fish and time itself— all Rolex “firsts”. A lot of people think Jesus said “I am the Alpha and Omega” but he actually said “I am the Alpha male who wears a Rolex”. (Omega! As if!)

[Rev-O]

The perezcope instagram "reveal" has run into the sand: predictably, it seems Norgay's sons aren't talking. They certainly don't seem willing to confirm what watch was worn on the summit. Why? Well, imho, money. Lots and lots of lovely Rolex money.

When I put that to perezcope he said: "I think you’re right but sooner or later the truth will be revealed. Problem with the watch I was shown is I cannot assert to 100% that it’s indeed the watch we see in the pictures. It could be but without confirmation from the owner, Norgay’s son, it would only lead to further and unnecessary confusion. I hope you understand."

Oh, I understand all right!

(My guess? Fwiw I think it's a West End of some kind -- maybe a "Prima" or "Sillidar" or "Secundus.")

Anyway, a bit disappointing (and embarrassing) for the usually excellent perezcope. He's almost always on the money with his research and reveals; looks like this time the money is on him, sitting tight and shutting down his sources. Interesting, though, that Norgay's son owns the watch in question. Makes his silence all the more . . . interesting.

[M4tt]

As you are talking to the chap, can he confirm the watch that he was actually shown? He doesn't need to go as far as confirming that it is actually the watch pictured. I'll happily concede that Dennison were, at best, inspired by the Borgel Calatrava style, but the problem remains the size. I've never seen an early fifties West End in larger than 33mm and that's just too small for the one in the picture. Some sort of lead on what he thinks it is could either keep the idea in the frame or exclude it.