I really thought I 'd seen it all and then, out of nowhere, that letter is an absolute gem. I'd love to see more of the exchanges, especially Mr Barrett's. Thanks Broussard, that letter made my day.
I really thought I 'd seen it all and then, out of nowhere, that letter is an absolute gem. I'd love to see more of the exchanges, especially Mr Barrett's. Thanks Broussard, that letter made my day.
Me too. The wife thinks I'm nuts.
Ah, yes, stupid of me. "Irrepressible and driven [Barrett was. . .] never one to go down without a fight" from A Long Time in Making: The History of Smiths
by my friend James Nye.
Lots of info in there about how Smiths equipped the Hunt expedition.
How about the Everest Expedition?
https://forum.tz-uk.com/pics/expedition3.png
CheersQuote:
Good thinking Matt.
I sort of know that. On the one hand, yes that's absolutely right. On the other hand, it's clearly the closest watch to the one Hillary actually wore, with only minor dial variations and little else (pending jewel counts from the Science Museum).Quote:
That's not a A409 by the way, it's an A404.
Well, yes and no. The watch on his wrist is clearly the watch in the museum and presumably the watch given to the expedition, along with all the other kit. As such, the documentation with it clearly calls it an A409. As such, the temptation to call my watch, with the 18mm lugs and so on an A409 is pretty overwhelming, especially as the sold A409 looks less like Hillary's watch than the A404. However, it certainly is really called an A404 so I'm just being pedantic (and wrong).Quote:
Confusingly Hillary's actual watch isn't a 409 either.
Just soQuote:
There's some confusion about it as it's a unique model: it says De Luxe on the dial, which was introduced in 1952. So it presumably dates to that year. The layout is a rare type: I know of about a dozen examples that are the same but none of them says De Luxe. They are however cased in the 12''' Dennison Aquatite so they presumably date to 1951.
Yes I agree, I also have the earlier version of the dial and I see your point. However, it's in a snap back case which is even further from the watch worn by Hillary.Quote:
My own guess is that Hillary's watch (and presumably the others', too) are either transition models: the older, rare dial with the De Luxe script added.
If you hadn't answered your own question I would have done so here - not only do both Smiths and Rolex have invoices dated after the summit, both have letters that reference a request for the invoices and, as I said earlier, I've been told by a chap at the RGS that tidying up the paperwork after an expedition had been launched was common practice.Quote:
The paperwork that details the delivery of the A409 watches is dates after the ascent (24/7/53).
So it looks like Smiths loaned the Hunt team some especially prepared watches (not least Winterised with low temperature oils) and then gifted the party with some standard retail A409 models. The Everest watches were to be returned Cheltenham to see how they'd held up (although Hillary et al. seemed pleased with their performance) so the others were for the team to keep.
I suspect you do now!Quote:
Against that is the information label (plate? plaque? board?) alongside the actual watch in museum, which says it was "Presented by Sir Edmund Hillary" (i.e. not by Smiths) implying it was retained rather than returned. So why the gift of the A409 (and, note, alarm clocks!) after the successful summiting I do not know.
[/QUOTE]Quote:
Another explanation is that after Hillary and Norgay summitted Smiths realised they'd backed the right horse but had lost their betting slip so they hastily regularised their affairs with this pro forma invoice. They could (I would) have backdated it and they should not, really, have called the watches A409s (they weren't). But Smiths wanted to something to show that they had supplied the successful expedition with watches (and alarm clocks. Don't forget the alarm clocks!)
More info here: https://www.mwrforum.net/forums/show...miths-and-mine
And pressure gauges, altimeters and so on. Rolex may have given them watches, Smiths gave them a lot of essential kit and worked with them on the design of the rebreathers. Smiths made a substantial contribution to the expedition beyond the obvious. The other possibility is quite simple - they got the model number of the alarm clock wrong in the invoice, how hard is it to imagine that they got the model number wrong too, especially for what was a one off?
It's worth remembering that Hillary went on that too (and wore the A454 to do so) Me, I'm still enjoying the hell out of the Air Ministry. I even wore it to the the theatre this evening:
https://i.postimg.cc/HsSrcVJ6/IMG-7189.jpg
I think its Eddie's best since the PRS 53. But put this in exact A404 spec and I can't see how it couldn't be a runaway success, especially as this thread seems to be well on the way to proving conclusively that Rolex didn't get a watch on top of Everest until after the Enicar SeaPearl600 in '56!
Anyway, carrying on as I intended, here's the next pair of images for your consideration:
https://i.postimg.cc/zXtX06F7/Tenzing-A2-1.jpg
and here's something to compare it with:
https://i.postimg.cc/TYY3jfgh/Tenzing-A2-2.jpg
Here I think the smoking gun is that the Smiths has brushed chrome along the side of the case and lugs, while the Rolex is, as always, a high polish. The difference is quite clear, I think.
Here are mine.
http://i753.photobucket.com/albums/x...s/IMG_2967.jpg
Yes, all the shots I see of Norgay seem to be a stainless steel Rolex
Other team members seem to wear a mix of Smiths and Rolex
Those are two beauties! Is that actually a 6298? That’s much closer than mine which is a Royal from a bit later.
I agree with the second statement, but it looks powerfully to me that the case sides in the last image are brushed not polished. I can’t think of any Rolex of the period that is brushed there.
It is amazing how two people can look at the same image and see two different things. However, it’s notnremotely surprising:
https://www.mrc-cbu.cam.ac.uk/people/matt.davis/sine-wave-speech/
We have known for decades that what one expects to see influences what one sees if there is any ambiguity and that, with a bit of practice we can even swap between two interpretations:
https://www.illusionsindex.org/image...rabbit/tx4.jpg
Odd things brains!
Here's my family shot, along with the AM and A453. The earlier 'Non-Deluxe' Smiths like the one that Rev-O just posted does have a screw-back case, BTW. I couldn't resist taking a few of these along to Glashütte last week :smug:. The green lume Benson appears closest to the 'Hillary' to my eyes and I love it on the Martu/Carlton-Browne tweed strap. Interestingly, Hillary's watch has hands with two different lume colours. I'm really looking forward to seeing Eddie's Everest Expedition.
https://farm8.staticflickr.com/7895/...b1256898_o.jpg
That's a whole different discussion! Hillary and Miller were given IWC Mark 11 watches for the Antarctic Expedition whilst Smiths supplied the entire team. Here's a photograph of the presentation in Wellington:
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped...on%2C_1956.jpg
But hold on...
https://secure.i.telegraph.co.uk/mul...y_1751481c.jpg
That’s a fine, fine collection of Smiths, and a joy to behold. Mine are significantly more battered and I failed to buy myself a Tropical Benson before the prices went insane. I assumed it was a SnapBack as that is what I have, except mine spent too long without a crystal at some point and is tragically foxed. I’ll sort out pictures later...
As for Antarctica, how can you get so many worms in one can?
I cannot get my head around that but in a certain "tongue in cheek" way it works.
The actual watch looks so boring I can never see it being desirable to wear.Quote:
Perhaps what's needed is a homage to the actual watch worn by Hillary - call it the Summit - or something like that?
Ok, I've had a think about this. So, how about these images - don't worry about Tenzing, all I'm interested about is whether people think they are A409 (a404), Rolex 6098 (6298) or something else.
One
https://i.postimg.cc/sDC6N885/Smiths-A3-2.jpg
Two
https://i.postimg.cc/gk4VHTPz/smiths6.jpg
Three
https://i.postimg.cc/CLCPT7TX/smiths5.png
(and just to help, here's Hillary's in The Science Museum:)
https://i.postimg.cc/pVsQx8X6/IMG-2683.jpg
To be quite explicit, these might well be deliberate modern pictures of a Smiths on a Bonklip style strap, they could be cut from real pictures taken of others on Everest or they could all be previously unseen pictures of Tenzing, but obviously, they are may well be a mixture of all three.
The point is that you cannot bring any non conscious preconceptions or prejudice to bear. I promise that I'm not mucking anyone about and that the sources will be fully revealed once there is some sort of consensus.
I agree, I even bought one, but I'd prefer the 36mm now!Quote:
I cannot get my head around that but in a certain "tongue in cheek" way it works.
I read the other day that Patek have the same problem. I'm quite fond of mine.Quote:
The actual watch looks so boring I can never see it being desirable to wear.
Finally caught up with the last few comments on the thread even though had read them a bit here and there.
Seems there is considerable evidence to suggest Hilary had a Smiths with him at the summit with Winter's letter providing the most robust of all evidences. Still uncertainty about Norway.
May be someone can sum up all the evidence and information in one write up, hopefully in a neutral manner (and not a Smiths versus Rolex one upmanship battle).
Personal preferences aside, the only movement that can be considered for such a model would be the ETA 2895. Apart from it (being an ETA) would not be available to Eddie... the seconds sub-dial is too close to the centre (when compared to the Smiths) and that is why all the Longines Heritage models which use that movement look unbalanced.
https://i.imgur.com/HgGqyxh.jpg
The Sellita SW-260-1 is a clone of the ETA 2895. Look how close the subdial of the Sellita is to the center of dial on this Baume and Mercier, Clifton.
https://watchbase.com/sellita/caliber/sw260-1
Maybe its a tad higher than ideal - but at the end of the day the Smiths, that appears to be the 1st watch to the top of mount Everest (where its owner came down alive) had a Sub-Dial 2nd hand - so if a homage was to be made to it - that's what I'd personally prefer; even if its slightly higher than the vintage version
Some pics from Wilfrid Noyce's book "South Col" as mentioned in a previous post (#128)
Noyce wearing a Smiths De Luxe (slab-sided Dennison Aquatic case with squarer lugs)
https://i.imgur.com/4XC0wEU.png
Tom Stobart wearing an Oyster Rolex (smooth midcase, sharper lugs)
https://i.imgur.com/3BChxsI.png
Sorry to keep doing this, but rereading this thread I was reminded that I rebutted this in detail last year - and promptly forgot about it! Here's the 'quote' from Philip Stahl:
You'll remember that Gregory was a member of the '53 expedition and that his Everest watch was auctioned back in 2010 - here's the lot and the rather neat pictures that came with it:Quote:
"As you know Rolex in Geneva wanted a Rolex on the summit of Mt Everest and they supported the Swiss 1952 expeditions but they also sponsored the British 1952 Cho Oyu expedition as well. In 1953 Rolex again sponsored the British but John Hunt felt it was unfair (on the other expedition members or perhaps Rolex) that the Cho Oyu expedition members should get a second Rolex so only the 1953 members who had not already been issued with one got a Rolex in 1953. That explains the numbers of watches that Rolex sent to the British expedition in 1953."
LAllow me to draw your attention to the bottom left picture of the inside of the case back - as you will know, Rolex cases up to the early seventies had the year and quarter of manufacture stamped in the caseback. This clearly has I.53 stamped in the case back. That's the first quarter of 1953.Quote:
ot 621 - The Property of The Family Of Alfred Gregory Rolex, Ref. 6098 – The Highly Important and Historic Pre-Explorer Wristwatch of Alfred Gregory – Issued by Rolex for the 1953 Mount Everest Expedition – Reaching 8500 Meters, 350 Meters from The Summit. Rolex “Oyster Perpetual, Precision”, Ref. 6098. Made in the first quarter of 1953. Fine and historically important, tonneau-shaped, water-resistant, center seconds, self-winding, stainless steel wristwatch with honeycomb dial, engraved caseback “A. Gregory – Everest 1953”. Accompanied by the Ice Axe used during the Everest expedition, 5 original photos taken by Alfred Gregory during the climb – 3 showing various members of the expedition wearing a Rolex, a Rolex Geneva service letter, and a letter of authenticity from Alfred Gregory's wife.
http://people.timezone.com/jmerino/621.jpg
Sold including buyer's premium:145,300 Swiss Francs
So there is literally no way that this watch could have been issued in '52 as it simply didn't exist then. If, as is claimed (and I'm entirely unconvinced) the watch in the Bayer basement has a serial number only two apart from this one, let alone any credible connection with anything, then it seems entirely unlikely that it was made a year earlier.
I'm afraid my dealings with Philipp Stahl have been rather . . . bad tempered (on his part not mine)
But this seems problematic.
He says that the members of the 1952 Cho Oyu expedition who were issued with Rolexes then didn't get one if they were part of the Hunt team the following year. (The others, who hadn't already had one, did.)
http://rolexpassionreport.com/907/my...edition-quest/
But Gregory was. So according to PS / RPR he got one in '52 and/or was given one to celebrate the successful '53 climb after the event but he didn't get one for the '53 trip. And this watch would seem to be the latter (caseback Q1 1953) and therefore never on the mountain.
Don't forget that:
Hillary only joined Shipton mid way through the '51 expedition and his joining was entirely unplanned. As such, if the Bayer watch really does have a number only two away from Gregory's and is actually authentic, then the same is true of that!Quote:
For instance, Sir E Hillary’s Rolex at Beyer Museum has 726.xxx serial, Gregory’s Rolex that got auctioned last year had also 726.xxx, only 2 numbers away from eachother!
Personally I think there's a far simpler explanation - his story is just made up nonsense. The fact is that Gregory is clearly one of the chaps wearing a Rolex on the mountain. He seems to think that this was the Rolex he wore and the watch's case tells us it was made in quarter I of '53. If we just ignore Stahl's post hoc rationalisation there's no problem.
Would someone here like to reach out to Philipp and send him a link to this thread?
I'd like to hear his side of the story. Research is an on-going thing and minds can change as new facts emerge.
Well, if he does visit, I have a few questions, because there are a lot of claims there that are not remotely supported by the evidence given. For example:
Now, we already know that the Director of Rolex UK was clear that Hillary wasn't wearing a Rolex, but Mr Stahl seems to know differently. As such, I have a few questions:Quote:
Charles Evans Rolex is still in all original condition, his super historical Rolex was already in 1952 on the greatest mountain during the Swiss attempt with Lambert & Tenzing Cho Oyu 1952 ‘Research for Mt.Everest expedition’. Now look at it, isn’t it a beauty? Super fat case, brilliant radium patina, elegant markers, very readable luminous hands & blue second hand. The engraved historical important Rolex case back, “Everest 1953 – Dr. R.C. Evans” & the secret number “29”, Rolex Everest Prototype Code. So 1953 Evans Everest Rolex is No.29. Sir Edmund Hillary’s Everest Rolex in Zurich Beyer museum has the proto number 28!. So Evans No.29 almost made did it to the top already 26th, then Hillary made his step May 29th, same day of the Coronation of Queen Elizabeth II wearing his No.28 . I very much like second best, but with best possible No.29. Whaaaoooooo!!
* What is the source for his claims about "The secret number “29”, Rolex Everest Prototype Code." It's clear that Hillary's watch has 28 on it, but I can't see it on Evan's watch; what reason is there for thinking it has that meaning?
*What precisely made the watches worn by Hunt's expedition a prototype? it's an A296 winding module on a Cal.765 movement in a 'Big Bubbleback' 6098 case. Nothing about them, individually or collectively, could remotely be described as a prototype in 1953, and that specific combination was commercially available well before the '53 expedition.
*As for Hillary's watch, if the watch is two digits removed from Gregory's, then it was made in the first quarter of 1953. How do you square this with the story told by Hodinkee who claim that the 'watch was produced in 1950'? Or indeed with your claim that it was given to him in '52?
* Looking at the back of Doctor Evan's watch from the RPR article:
https://i.postimg.cc/05TxpRcn/Evan-s-Rolex-14.jpg
and comparing it with the back of the watch in the Beyer Museum:
https://i.postimg.cc/CKRf6nfk/Beyer-Rolex-2.jpg
I can't help but notice a few differences - unlike every other 6098 with a direct connection with an Everest expedition, it seems to lack a certain amount of engraving, drilled lugs, has a different strap and even a completely different caseback.
It certainly has 28 engraved on it, but it's hardly secret, but I can't see the 29 on Evan's, or Gregory's watch. Where is it?
*If Evan's is 29 and Hillary's is 28 are we to assume that the two watches are also very close in serial number?
*If Evan's is 29 and Hillary's is 28 what is Gregory's?
That would do for a start...
Email sent:
Hello Philipp
Have you seen this?
https://forum.tz-uk.com/showthread.p...-Everest/page4
Would you care to comment?
I think it’s only fair that you have the right to reply
Regards
Oliver
Well that went badly. I asked Philipp three questions:
1. Where's the “29” on Evans’ watch? Do you have a picture?
2. How come Evans got a "1953 Everest" watch if he was on the 1952 expedition and already got one then?
3. And what do you make of Mr Winter’s letter?
So far answers come there none, although of replies there have been several -- all short and none sweet.
On another note I remembered that I'd started a thread on this subject over at Rolex Forums (I hadn't realised it was three years ago!)
I found it and added the letter from Mr Winter.
Seconds later the thread was locked.
https://www.rolexforums.com/showthread.php?t=456380
It's a like a cult. True believers will say "The answer is Rolex; now what's the question?"
And heaven forbid that it should be a humble hand-winding watch from England. To lose the moon to Omega is one thing, but to lose Everest to Smiths (after Rolex had "Everest" branded watches in the 1930s and almost got there in '52) -- well, that doesn't bear thinking about. So they don't.
But it looks like it was a watch from the Cotswold Hills and not the Swiss Alps that went to the top of the Himalayas.
No. I lived in Holland for several years and know the Dutch well. Sometimes they seem rude to the English when they are simply being themselves: blunt and direct.
Still, Philipp didn't want to answer the questions so either he knows (or at least has opinions) and isn't saying or he doesn't know and won't admit it. The trouble comes when you call your blog "Rolex Passion Report". That's hardly unbiased and I can only assume that evidence here causes some cognitive dissonance.
One thing I've learned is that knowledge grows through constructive, positive arguments and even disagreements: not all friction is traction but all traction is friction. But the prerequisite is an open mind, one wiling to change when the facts change.
Rolex inspires an almost fanatical, ideological devotion and if they want to believe that Rolex was the first up Everest they will, aided and abetted by Rolex's own craftily worded copy and use of juxtaposed images.
I own and love and wear both Smiths and Rolex so I’m really not partisan (although perhaps I have a slight leaning towards the English underdog here, but not enough to sway my intellect.)
From all the evidence I’ve seen (and I have spent hours reading books and looking at pictures and trawling the net — including everything Everest related in Philipp Stahl’s RPP) my own conclusion is that Hillary wore the Smiths he himself gifted to the museum in London and where it is now on display. He may also have had a Rolex by that point (perhaps from the ‘52 climb?) and may have taken it with him in ‘53. But the only watch he said he took (wore, “carried”, whatever) to the summit was the 1215 De Luxe. You can see it yourself in the Science Museum in London with its provenance clearly stated in plain English.
Norgay may have worn a Rolex (possibly his gold Datejust or one of the “issued” OPs). Or not. We’ll never know.
Rolex have done all they can to suggest and imply and associate. This hardly discourages obsessive fanboys from going to great lengths to show it was *this* (or *that*) Rolex that was on Hillary’s wrist when he set foot on the summit. Fact is Smiths quoted Hillary saying it was their watch. An endsorsment Rolex would have dearly loved but never got.
And that, for me, is the end of it unless new material evidence changes the facts.
So, Philipp: got any? I’m genuinely open to changing my mind if you can prove otherwise. Convince me. As I said I have a “passion” for both brands so I (for one) am not partisan.
Well, he certainly didn't wear the gold Datejust on Everest, because there's colour pictures of the watch he wore:Quote:
Norgay may have worn a Rolex (possibly his gold Datejust or one of the “issued” OPs). Or not. We’ll never know.
On the way up:
https://i.postimg.cc/504Ctj1S/Tenzin...-1024x1024.jpg
On the South Col immediately before setting off:
https://i.postimg.cc/0j66by26/tnzing-7.jpg
and on the way down again:
https://i.postimg.cc/K8pVf3pR/tenzing-magic2.jpg
As a friend on another forum put it:
However, lets have one last go at lug shapes:Quote:
People can debate lug shapes in a less than sharp picture, but it’s hard to argue that grey is yellow
Here's Major Wylie demonstrating that Hunt (who also wore both from time to time) wasn't remotely interested in a fair distribution of watches:
https://i.postimg.cc/NM3RD9Mc/everes...ditorial-1.jpg
I assume we can all agree that it's Rolex on his left, Smiths on his right?
Now, with that in mind - here's Tenzing again:
https://i.postimg.cc/pTpBqMJD/nepal-...torial-736.jpg
And again:
https://i.postimg.cc/zXF3y8td/S0001490-cropped-jpg.png
I really don't know what else to add here.
Of course it may be that a pro-Rolex (and therefore biased) blog knows better than one of the most respected museums in the world. Such things have happened. Amateurs have made discoveries that overturn received wisdom. It wouldn't be the first time.
So if anyone out there can offer any evidence to the contrary, speak up! Let's be having it. Show us what you've got.
Or admit the conclusion that it was a Smiths -- specifically the Smiths in the science museum given by Hillary -- that was the first watch to the top of Everest.
Actually, it's not one museum, it's two! The collection actually belongs to the Worshipful Company of Clockmakers and used to be housed in The Barbican. It moved to The Science Museum a few years ago, and so the level of specialist knowledge brought to bear on the watch is doubled!
Oh, and I own most of the watches and pocket watches used on the mountain between 1921 and 1960. So I don't think I'm partisan either.
Mallory:
https://i.postimg.cc/ZnVX5zgZ/kc6.jpg
Shipton:
https://i.postimg.cc/QtxJvJ7r/Oyster.jpg
As well as the ones I've already posted.
Still, it's not like Hillary himself gave them the watch and said he'd worn to the summit.
Even if that's what they claim, what do they know? It's a "wannabe" and Rolex is the "real deal" because my "passion" tells me it must be and I will find evidence and make it fit my theory and not engage in any debate or discourse because you can just read my blog. End of. Now go away (puts fingers in ears and shouts "la la la" loudly.)
Don't forget that the director of Rolex at the time acknowledged it as well, in response to the director of Smiths rubbing his nose in the fact.
And then. of course. Enicar were the next up in '56 with their 600 Seapearls, the one the US Navy preferred to a certain other dive watch...
Tenzing is on public record as saying Hillary was first. The only Rolex anyone has ever argued he owned was a gold Datejust from Lambert and you can see clearly he wasn't wearing a gold watch on Everest. All the pictures of Tenzing I have posted recently are demonstrably from the '53 expedition - what do you think he's wearing?
That’s absolutely fair enough. There’s too much absolute certainty going around. Personally, it’s convincing to me, but that doesn’t make me right. There’s enough pictures of all the watches involved in the thread, personally, if I’m not sure, I put the two images side by side and compare.