Review: Smiths “Everest” 36mm
Just posted this over in the Time Factors subforum but thought it deserved a wider audience
Cheers!
Over the last ten ten years or so the watches I love have increasingly fallen into just three camps: vintage Rolexes, old English Smiths and various Time Factors models. These are now the only watches I wear on a daily basis. Many others have come and gone over the years but my preference now is firmly fixed on these three, one of which will be firmly strapped to my wrist as you read this. I've settled on these three as they interest me horologically and delight me aesthetically.
Why? The Smiths is easy: I grew up in and around Cheltenham where these watches were made from sometime in WW2 (wartime records are hazy but some were issued to the RAF) until 1970. Early Smiths, from the late 1940s and ‘50s, have a wonderful English charm and are as much time capsules as time pieces. Outwardly, there’s something slightly homemade about them, a bit “cottage industry”, but inside they contain lovely gilt movements with a full jewel count. And everything was made on-site in the Cotswolds: plates, gears, springs – a true manufacture (except the jewels — Smiths made them at their plant in Scotland, so still in-house; the cases were outsourced to Dennison and made in Birmingham, so still proudly British.) Smiths had contracts with the MOD to supply military watches (and clocks, including in the cockpit of the Spitfire) as well as dials and gauges for many other iconic British vehicles: Land Rovers, Minis, Rolls Royces and motorbikes. At the other end of the spectrum, Smiths also made “dress” watches with hallmarked silver or gold cases which look exquisite when worn with a suit.
The best Smiths watches bore the “De Luxe” or “Astral” marques. The movements are beautiful miniature example of great British engineering. (The cheaper Smiths watches had only 5 or 7 jewels and went by the name “Empire”. They were made in Wales and say “Made in Great Britain” on the dial rather than “Made In England”. Avoid them.) Smiths’ less dressy models are just as good, too: the iconic “1215” (12 linges in size, 15 jewels) movement with its small sub-dial for the seconds hand down at the 6 o’clock position is the same watch that Sir Edmund Hilary wore on his ascent and conquest of Everest; if was good enough for him . . . . (More on that later.)
My second love, vintage Rolexes, needs no introduction or explanation. Besides, there are other people far more knowledgeable about them than I. All I will say is that I don’t think Rolex have made a watch in the last 30 years that I actually like. Rolex used to make understated tool watches and tasteful dress watches; now they make big, bright, blingy status symbols. (Just my opinion.) Old models have simple dials with warm tones of (by now useless) tritium lume and the soft acrylic crystals and the modestly-sized of the cases: all sheer joys.
Finally, my third love: Time Factors, a microbrand created and owned by ex-soldier turned watchmaker Eddie Platts. He has bought the rights to several old companies – including Smiths and Precista – and is busily re-making some classic pieces from their back catalogues, upgrading the original specs along the way to include more recent innovations (e.g. sapphire crystals with anti-reflective coating rather than plain glass and stainless steel cases rather than nickel-plated base metal ones). This, truly, is the best of both worlds: vintage looks – faithfully reproducing the original designs – with new movements and some subtle improvements to ensure both accuracy and robustness, the two things often lacking in “real” vintage timepieces. Indeed, Time Factors are to be saluted for not merely rescuing old brands nor even re-issuing their wares but – and I do not use the word lightly – resurrecting some beautiful and historic watches.
Imagine my excitement, then, when I saw that Time Factors was bringing out a new model which ticked all three boxes: the Smiths “Everest” 36mm, a homage to the classic Rolex Explorer (ref. 1016). Now, if you'd told me fifteen years ago that one day I'd settle on a 36mm watch as my ideal size I'd have laughed. "Too small! Mid-sized! A boys' or ladies' watch!" Back then I'd have gone for a 40 or 42 or even 44 mm watch and worn it with pride. But as I get older I realise less is more. And vintage watches are mostly in that range. Which suits me just fine.
First a word about the original. Rolex started making the 1016 in 1963 and didn’t the stop until the end of the 1980s — an incredibly long production run, but then it was a timeless design: a flat matte black dial with everything clearly and cleanly printed: 3, 6, 9 hour numbers (in a lovely fat and open font) with a triangle at 12 o’clock and thin minute hashes between simple hour batons. Simple, yes, but perfect. Perhaps only the handset departed from the plain jane layout: lollipop seconds and a mercedes hour hand might not look utilitarian but their extra lume added to legibility in the dark. In the almost forty years of continuous production only a few minor tweaks were made: the Oyster bracelet gained solid end links and the cal. 1560 movement was replaced in the mid 1970s with the cal. 1570 (which included the hacking feature for accurate setting). But there was no change to the overall look and feel of the watch. Quite simply it could not be improved on. If only Rolex would revisit their back catalogue, play some of their greatest hits and put the 1016 back into production. Until they do, the options are to pay ten thousand pound for a vintage original or get an outright (and illegal, and rubbish) Chinese fake. Watch buffs aren’t generally able to do the former or willing to do the latter.
What’s needed is a good honest homage. And Time Factors’ Smiths “Everest” isn’t the first remake of the iconic watch — perhaps best-known is the Zeno “Explorer” but the slightly larger Arminda “A6” (at 40mm) and the “Vantage” (at 39mm) by MkII are also lovely. There are others, too, but these have generally been considered the best way to wear a new 1016-esque watch.
So, to the review. There are three big things (dial, case and movement) I like; two things I am ambivalent about (although I know both will have their fans); and three tiny things I’d change.
What I like:
The dial. Very, very impressive. Sharp and clear; the size and proportions are perfect. Easily the equal of any major Swiss, German or Japanese brand and as good or better than any other 1016 homage. The lume is spot on. Big Names (including Omega, Tag and Tudor) are now plastered with faux vintage lume in a variety of shades from subtle creamy through to vanilla and on to a darker nicotine-stained tone. In doing so they are aiming for the look of aged tritium and are following the lead taken by Time Factors and other microbrands (who act as the Big Brands’ de facto R&D departments, trying out new ideas in small batches at the vanguard of taste and public opinion: all rely on and listen to customer feedback; some are even crowdfunded). But Eddie has opted for a modern “new lume” look and very nice it is too.
The case: a very good and faithful interpretation of the classic Rolex Oyster: sharp-lugged but not slab-sided with brushed top and polished sides. (It’s actually nicer than the original in that the bezel doesn’t overhang the midcase on the non-crown side.) I think this is the first 1016 homage to get the case right. On the wrist it’s hard to believe that it isn’t a real 36mm Rolex Oyster. (On the back I was pleased to see that it opens with industry-standard key slots rather than the Rolex propriety serrations, so no special tool is needed to access the movement.) The drilled lugs are a nice touch, allowing for shoulderless spring bars that are essential with a NATO strap (more on that in a minute). The screw-down crown has a positive action and gives an added sense of security.
The movement. There’s not much to say about the Miyota 9015. It’s a Japanese workhorse: 24 jewels, 28,800 BPH, automatic with hacking seconds. A reliable Honda or Toyota engine. It’s not pretty or unusual in any way. It’s well made and unremarkable and you should never need to know it’s there except for a service once in a while. This, remember, is a tool watch. Timekeeping has been very good for a new watch at +5 seconds a day. This will probably calm down once it’s been run-in and everything has settled.
What I am ambivalent about:
The bracelet. Very heavy with screwed links rather than cheaper friction-fit push-pins. But this might divide people. On the one hand the quality is incredible: solid end links and a signed clasp with sliding four-position micro-adjustment. If you like bracelets you will love this one. But for me, well, I think it overpowers the watch. Old Rolex bracelets are thinner and lighter. They rattle and stretch. The end links are more or less acquainted with the case but not exactly seamless soulmates. No-one could accuse them of being over-engineered (some would say they are pretty crappy) but they have a certain charm and they balance the lighter, smaller old models beautifully. But let me cash this out in numbers: my old riveted and expandable Rolex bracelet is a mere 23g and tapers to an elegant 16mm at the clasp but the Smiths Everest is 86g and remains a parallel 20mm throughout. The good news is that this is a watch that cries out, positively screams, to be worn on a NATO: more than a CWC, more than a Milsub, more than any of the 6B chronographs the 1016 is a tool watch that begs for a simple nylon band. The drilled lugs make strap changing a breeze. Nothing could be easier or simpler -- and no unsightly scratches on the underside of the lugs, either, from fiddling about trying to find the flanges (a party game in some houses). Anytime I see a tool watch, especially one with drilled lugs, I fit smooth shoulderless springbars. This is partly for the clean, military look (issued watches all have fixed bars for security) and partly because the shoulders of normal springbars can catch and snag on the nylon of a NATO strap, popping the bar out and leaving the watch hanging precariously.
The crystal. At push I might -- just might -- change the sapphire crystal for an old-fashioned acrylic. But then again I might not. As I said, I’m not bothered either way on the bracelet or the crystal. There are pros and cons to them — and to the alternatives. I can see that for many people they would actually be plus points and clinch the deal. And no-one can accuse Eddie of scrimping or cutting corners: that’s a big bracelet and a fat sapphire at this price point. As always with Time Factors you get a lot of watch for the money.
Finally, three tiny things I’d change. First, the Smiths logo. Personally I'd have gone for the old De Luxe logo and the coronet ("Big Tits") device. But then I love old Smiths. (I have, ahem, a few.) Also the Smiths’ coronet isn’t a million miles from the Rolex crown.
Second, the hour hand could do with being a tad longer, maybe a mm or two extra between the pinion and Mercedes.
Third — and being really picky — I do like the ball-end counterbalanced seconds hands on old Rolexes. It’s just a pleasing detail.
But these are very minor quibbles. The question is: would I buy and wear this watch? Yes I would. Without hesitation or reservation. And at £320 it is amazing value for money.
Finally, a word about the name: Everest. Rolex were keen – hell, they were desperate – to be the first watch to reach the top of the highest mountain in the world. They even had a range of “Everest” branded watches in the 1930s. After the war there was a rush of expeditions, using some of the new technology developed for high altitude flying including oxygen tanks. And as Rolex sponsored (i.e. supplied watches for) several attempts on the summit it must have galled them to have missed out on the actual ascent to the summit.
Rolex did issue (technically lent) members of the successful 1953 Hunt expedition with watches, but only those who hadn’t already been loaned one – including Hillary. He, along with a few other members of the team, had already been issued one on the earlier 1952 Cho Oyu expedition. So we know Hillary had one in 1953. However, he never made any claim to having taken it to the summit of Everest. That accolade rests with Smiths alone. He said: "I carried your watch to the summit" -- a claim he never made for Rolex, although he did say he took a Rolex up as high as 22,000 feet -- which is a pretty telling detail as it is the height of Cho Oyu but far short of Everest's 29,000. So the accolade belongs to Smiths: it was a watch from the Cotswold Hills not the Swiss Alps that was the first up to the top of highest peak in the Himalayas.
The Old and New
https://i.imgur.com/BrjWkAr.jpg
https://i.imgur.com/uboGQIN.jpg
Hillary's Smiths that went to the summit of Everest
https://i.imgur.com/2rYYqc7.jpg
https://i.imgur.com/DQ94v3q.jpg
https://i.imgur.com/qelaeMy.jpg
And some 1950's Smiths De Luxe models
https://i.imgur.com/hSup5KI.jpg
https://i.imgur.com/4Ivf1y0.jpg
https://i.imgur.com/ei2ouwH.jpg
Credits: thanks to Eddie for the loan of the watch; photos are my own crappy iPhone jobbies (apologies)
