Reply With QuoteI have to say, that was pretty compelling!Originally Posted by RAJEN
Not according to Pezerscope
https://perezcope.com/2023/09/09/deb...fifty-fathoms/
Very interesting article, but one thing jumps out, the dates are all incredibly close. Even using todays standards when a new watch (being mass produced) is announced, how long is it before anyone sees one and these early watches were no more than prototypes. The suggestion that the early FF dial was a copy of the Sub dial made seems unlikely given the small time scales involved, would it have even been possible if BP wanted to rip the dial off.
Clearly written by a Rolex fanboy as he even manages to criticise Omega later on.
I would like to think that both companies were effectively working on the same thing in direct competition against each other and that would at least help explain the short time scales between the actions suggested.
One thing that stood out to me is it was published on the day the Swatch/BP watch came out
Let another battle who was the first begin.
Apparently first watch on Everest wasn’t enough :)
I won’t believe it until M4tt starts a thread
In all seriousness Jose does the watch community a continuous service and somehow gets constant grief for it.
The whole Panerai mess with his Meta pages going missing, getting banned and legal threats was pathetic from the brand and group.
I’m coming down on the side of Blancpain for one simple reason. If there was any doubt, Rolex being Rolex wouldn’t have shut up about it. The fact that it has been universally accepted for decades that Blancpain were the first, and Rolex have allowed that narrative, speaks volumes.
Here in post 9 I posted a video with a far more plausible explanation as to the sequence of events, a very enjoyable story.
https://forum.tz-uk.com/showthread.p...-Diving-videos
Looking forward to him doing the research to follow up on my ground-breaking discovery that the name Rolex popped into Uncle Bulgaria's head just as the new foot treatment brand Radox was first being advertised. ThE tRuTh WiLl OuT, mark my words.
His next revelation will be that Blancpain bio-ceramic is made from plasters ripped off poorly children in hospital.
Blancpain claims the Fifty Fathoms was launched in 1953, one year before the Rolex Submariner. To be clear, there is no evidence to back this up. If we dig into old Swiss Horological Journal editions, there was no mention of a dive watch made by Blancpain, or Rayville S.A., as the company was officially called at the time, in 1953. And neither was there in 1954.
here you go:
https://www.watchuseek.com/threads/s...ariner.573216/
I’m not sure why the king of self-promotion is using this to support his case. It clearly states that the Blancpains had, by February 1955, been in use by the navy for one year and the officers were so impressed that they now all wanted to buy one in a personal capacity. Now, if they were available and had been in navy use from February 1954 there are two possibilities. They could have been ordered on 1st January 1954, designed, built, tested and delivered in one month, or they were designed, built, tested and made available to order in 1953. The second possibility is, of course, the only plausible answer. Game over.
This has thrown my horological world view for a loop of large radius.
What next? Is anyone seriously suggesting that the Fifty Fathoms *wasn't* the first watch on the moon?
I'm so confused and distraught.
I have always felt that he is pushing a personal agenda as well.
Let’s not forget he is judging the blancpain historian but it very much feels like he wants to become the Rolex paid historian.
Also let’s not forget that he has been called out for producing replicas of the ww2 era panerais. He has tried to explain it but all of it feels a bit disingenuous to me.
Although I enjoy some of its pieces it is always clear to me that he is using material he finds just to create another view/story/narrative around it without any concrete proof, just a possible explanation instead.
So using his work as a definite source of truth is not something I would do
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Don’t forget that they were also delivered via a third party, Spirotechnique, a different company in a different country. They even sorted out a shadow company, LIP, to manufacture them too - if not for this contract. Fast workers. Mind you, not fast enough to conclusively beat Zodiac or Enicar, but why quibble.
Last edited by M4tt; 10th September 2023 at 08:31.
This.
+1
He’s definatelty got an agenda, and he clearly loves the attention of standing on his soapbox.
Just a shame its a reflection of today’s society, shout loud enough, and people forget your shady past.
I’m just catching up from being away for a few days.
I really like JP’s forensic evaluations and attention to detail.
My enthusiasm for his work is tempered by the feeling that he has an agenda to push, and of course he has a dodgy past as well documented.
He is a storyteller as much as anything, and the Swatch Blancpain was quite an opportunity for some storytelling.
Which was first? They are both pretty close, and I don’t care as BP have never been my cup of tea.
D
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Wow, suddenly a lot of brickbats coming Perezcope’s way!
I can't speak for anyone else, but in my case, the fact that one of the sources he used, the letter from Commando Hubert, dated the fifth of February 1955, talks of using the watches for a year and is addressed to Spirotechnique, the French distributor for -specifically - the Blancpain Fifty Fathoms, leads to the inference that the watches were in production and use significantly earlier than Perezcope suggests. However, I'm all in favour of folks making interesting inferential arguments, and this is definitely that. In this case, he's made some inferential claims that, appear, given the slightly combative tone, to assume that there isn't further hard evidence out there that he's made himself hostage to. I suspect that there is and I hope that his work will now shake it loose, because if I were Swatch, I'd be having a chat with the French Navy to see if there was any more evidence to be released. If it was the UK, I'd be down to Kew for a dig and I'd hope that any French WIS will be visiting the Archives Nationale in the very near future looking for documents that will inevitably be there.
Either way, here's a waterproof watch from 1938 with a bezel that can be locked or turned :
and an entirely waterproof watch from before Rolex existed:
Last edited by M4tt; 11th September 2023 at 18:31.
It's fascinating how little we *really* know about anything related to watches (and indeed clocks) and how that knowledge (and the agreed truths) can change.
If we go back to the history of the pendulum, there are still unanswered questions about the first use in clocks (I've been researching a weird stub that suggests the first pendulum clock may have been in London, for example). Or the first "wrist watches" to be marketed as such or indeed the first water resistant wrist watches. Actually, you could have a similar conversation about automatic movements, too.
So it's of little surprise to me that there are (conspiracy) theories surrounding the last twenty-plus years of BP FF hype. The first major milestone was, I believe, 1997, when the FF reemerged. After that, the 50th Anniversary of the FF in 2003 cemented the 1953 date in watch lore. So this story goes back a long way...
I'd like to believe the BP story, although Fiechter (who became CEO in 1950) must have been a *very* early adopter of SCUBA; the diving scene was not well established in the late 40s, even in Cagnes-sur-Mer!
The thing I find strangest is that rather a lot of this was very clearly known at one point that really wasn't so long ago and the information is still, in most cases, still out there to be found. However...
Wasn't there a Muslim one? I think I read something by Laplace that referred to this years ago - I've got the book somewhere.
SuperbThis has thrown my horological world view for a loop of large radius.
What next? Is anyone seriously suggesting that the Fifty Fathoms *wasn't* the first watch on the moon?
I'm so confused and distraught.
Don't just do something, sit there. - TNH
The release of this is rather strange - similar time to the Blancpain Swatch collaboration.
Are you sure that’s waterproof ?Either way, here's a waterproof watch from 1938 with a bezel that can be locked or turned :
Actually, no, now you ask I'm not. I've had it for years and thought i remembered it having a screw back, but when I dug it out, it doesn't. I'm sure that there was a waterproof navigator's watch, but it isn't this one and I've misremembered. Thanks for checking.
Looks rather Weems-y Matt.
Either way, here's a waterproof watch from 1938 with a bezel that can be locked or turned :
and an entirely waterproof watch from before Rolex existed:
Cheers,
Neil.
Indeed - based on the Weems 1929 patent for a movable bezel that can be used for a range of purposes. It's fundamentally the early Weems Longines - it's tiny though, the early ones were. As you know, I have a real soft spot for all those sub 30mm watches that actually measured the world back in the day.
And it doesn't have a screw back...
Indeed, Wittnauer and Longines worked a lot together.
In fact the Wittnauer Allproof (released 1918) might even lay claim to be the first commercially sold waterproof watch that was designed as a wrist watch (rather than a re-purposed pocket watch). It certainly advertised itself as
WATERPROOF
SHOCKPROOF
NON-MAGNETIC
DEPENDABLE
You mean this one?
Personally while I agree that the wristlet style of the Borgel isn't much like a modern watch the rather unique two piece case was definitely designed to be what it is, while the Borgel pocket watches tended to be three piece cases, like the early Rolex:
Last edited by M4tt; 12th September 2023 at 17:56.
Well, that is a really lovely thing. A modern version in steel and ~38mm and I'd be first in the queue.
I’m pretty sure longines are there for you; they’ve been jazzing on this theme a fair bit recently.
Thought that was a little odd too. The article presents this as a Blancpain vs Rolex thing, even though the Zodiac Sea Wolf is generally considered to have been introduced at Baselworld 1953. I do believe Enicar dive watches, certainly those with a rotating bezel, came a few years later.
Does that qualify as a dive watch? There's no lume on the bezel.I can't speak for anyone else, but in my case, the fact that one of the sources he used, the letter from Commando Hubert, dated the fifth of February 1955, talks of using the watches for a year and is addressed to Spirotechnique, the French distributor for -specifically - the Blancpain Fifty Fathoms, leads to the inference that the watches were in production and use significantly earlier than Perezcope suggests. However, I'm all in favour of folks making interesting inferential arguments, and this is definitely that. In this case, he's made some inferential claims that, appear, given the slightly combative tone, to assume that there isn't further hard evidence out there that he's made himself hostage to. I suspect that there is and I hope that his work will now shake it loose, because if I were Swatch, I'd be having a chat with the French Navy to see if there was any more evidence to be released. If it was the UK, I'd be down to Kew for a dig and I'd hope that any French WIS will be visiting the Archives Nationale in the very near future looking for documents that will inevitably be there.
Either way, here's a waterproof watch from 1938 with a bezel that can be locked or turned :
and an entirely waterproof watch from before Rolex existed:
The current ISO 6425 for dive watches was implemented in 1996, I think. There was an earlier 1982 version.
The watches pictured are from 40 or 50 years before there was a standard.
______
Jim.
So far my understanding is that the patenting process could take a couple of years even.
Therefore watches marked with "patent pending" were actually commercialized before the actual patent was granted.
This means the date of the patent not necessarily equals the date when the watch hit the market.
Perezcope did make some significant detective works down the line but this isn't one of them I'm afraid.
Sent from my XQ-BQ52 using TZ-UK mobile app
But for a Patent to be "Pending" the application has to have been made.
It may not have been granted, but if it is Pending, that must by definition post-date the submission.
The US Patent for the case that Perezcope refers to was applied for in June 1955. It was granted in October 1959. The Swiss were quicker, applied for at the same time theirs was published 1957.
So it is certain that these watches were commercialised before the Patent was granted, but one cannot label goods as Patent Pending before the application is accepted.
So cases stamped with Patent Pending must post-date the application.
Perezcope is right in this respect.
Better?
However, for various reasons, I’m not claiming it’s a dive watch, merely fully waterproof. However, I’m pretty sure an allproof would be good for scuba while the original Panerai is a direct ‘homage’ of a Borgel design and can be seen, for example, in the Elgin used by Odell on Everest in’24.
Last edited by M4tt; 13th September 2023 at 22:50.
The patent for the Borgel predates the 1996 standard by a century or so.
This is a really fascinating area of discussion. I can see why Perezcope is inferring that Rolex were "first" but, like waterproof watches (think 1915 Submarine vs Depollier in the US) I can see why he's come up with his conclusion even though there appears to be an earlier watch. It's hard to find contemporaneous accounts of the BP FF being used in 1953, whereas it's relatively simple to find such documents for Rolex (apart from the letter referring to having used the watches for a year). Rolex has always been better at getting things in print than just about any other brand - the whole enterprise was built on such marketing, after all. But to call out both Maloubier and Riffaud (who appeared to have been looking for a French watchmaker in 1952, and approached Lip first, and were then put in touch with BP) seems disingenuous. Maloubier even specifically mentions Rolex in his book, Plonge dans l’Or Noir, Espion! (1986), in the paragraphs after he describes meeting and working with BP (which Perezcope even quotes in English translation, without attribution):
A son tour Rolex se penche sur notre bébé. Par la suite combien de fois Claude et moi avons nous revu notre fée des grands fonds baptisée l'Oyster - Huitre - la montre des abimes tronant au poignet de stars en page de garde des magazines de luxe. Habillée d'or, de platine, de diamant.
Strangely, this exact discussion, raised by Perezcope, is then referenced in the following lines:
- Ha si on avait déposé un brevet! maugrée Riffaud
Trop tard ... au moins Rolex ne fait pas faillite comme Lip et nous fournis au prix de gros.
If there were to have been a conspiracy, it's hard to see such people being part of it. Of course, I don't have a copy (the ebook, for sale here confirms these passages).
As for the various dial and bezel differences he calls out, who knows whether these were original to the watches, replacement parts, or just whatever BP was toying with at the time. It might be that the naval archives have more info - my historical diving research has thrown up next to nothing (the Club Alpin Sous-Marin, of which Fiechter was a member, had an amazing membership at that time including Honor Frost)
Last edited by Broussard; 14th September 2023 at 14:20.
I mentioned Enicar earlier, and so I thought I'd back up the mention. The watch I had in mind was the Seapearl, and if we are looking for firm documentary evidence, then there's a trademark filed in 1953:
As opposed to Submariner which was 1954:
By 1956, the Seapearl was, as you would expect in a thread started by Rajen, on the summit of Everest as the watch of choice of the Eggler expedition. That's not the first Seapearl, but a later one, the Seapearl 600
Then of course, in 1958 the US Navy famously tested the Blancpain, Sub and Seapearl and concluded that the Sub was not sufficiently waterproof (5.1.1) which is rather a critical feature in a dive watch.
So, looking for explicit dive watches (after the thirties Omega Marine) you get - at least -the Seawolf, Seapearl and Fifty Fathoms. None of which leak. Of course, there's also the later Taubert Borgels using the 'Aquadura' system which were tested down to 120m in the 1930s.
While Mido made a big deal of the Taubert tech,
https://www.midowatches.com/uk/mido-...datometer.html
it was found in a range of watches, including Patek and, more affordably, West End as well as the earlier Borgels like the one above in the axolotl tank. So if you really want the first traditionally shaped divers watch, as used by Hillary 1951:
then there's loads on ebay for the price of a pizza.
Last edited by M4tt; 14th September 2023 at 20:26.
And also, as ever, nice research there Broussard! The patent comment felt really poignant, but must have been a pain to find.
Very interesting. Thanks for taking the time to look that up. And welcome information for an Enicar fanboy like me. To be fair to the author of the perezcope article though, I believe the intention of the article was to look at the first ‘modern’ dive watch by his definition, that is a watch in the style of the Fifty Fathoms and Submariner with an external rotatable bezel. The early Enicar Seapearls didnt’t have that I believe until around 57/58.I mentioned Enicar earlier, and so I thought I'd back up the mention. The watch I had in mind was the Seapearl, and if we are looking for firm documentary evidence, then there's a trademark filed in 1953:
As opposed to Submariner which was 1954:
By 1956, the Seapearl was, as you would expect in a thread started by Rajen, on the summit of Everest as the watch of choice of the Eggler expedition. That's not the first Seapearl, but a later one, the Seapearl 600
Then of course, in 1958 the US Navy famously tested the Blancpain, Sub and Seapearl and concluded that the Sub was not sufficiently waterproof (5.1.1) which is rather a critical feature in a dive watch.
So, looking for explicit dive watches (after the thirties Omega Marine) you get - at least -the Seawolf, Seapearl and Fifty Fathoms. None of which leak. Of course, there's also the later Taubert Borgels using the 'Aquadura' system which were tested down to 120m in the 1930s.
While Mido made a big deal of the Taubert tech,
https://www.midowatches.com/uk/mido-...datometer.html
it was found in a range of watches, including Patek and, more affordably, West End as well as the earlier Borgels like the one above in the axolotl tank. So if you really want the first traditionally shaped divers watch, as used by Hillary 1951:
then there's loads on ebay for the price of a pizza.
I’m sure there are more quotes to come. I just need to work my way through his (and Riffaud’s) other books.
Yes, I think you are right. I'm just going off on one as I tend to do. Face it, it's not often that threads like this turn up and there's a lot of waterproof stuff that doesn't often get mentioned. I haven't even got around to the Fortis stuff that went off in a completely different direction.
I saw one of the early Aquatic watches recently; one of the best cases I’ve seen from that era (c1918, I think). Absolutely beautiful thing.
Early (Fortis?) Aquatic water-right wristwatch
Last edited by Broussard; 15th September 2023 at 09:03.
Please continue going off. It usually makes for some of the more interesting threads here!
That’s rather lovely. It looks a bit like some of the very first waterproof IWC that just had two discrete little slots on the caseback.I saw one of the early Aquatic watches recently; one of the best cases I’ve seen from that era (c1918, I think). Absolutely beautiful thing.
Posting Permissions
