From a history section on the Rolex website:
"On 29 May 1953, Sir Edmund Hillary and Tenzing Norgay were the first to reach Everest’s 8,848-metre summit. This remarkable human adventure also served to reinforce the reputation of the Oyster watches that accompanied the expedition.
"The Oyster Perpetual Explorer, launched in 1953 in the wake of the successful ascent of the world’s highest mountain, soon achieved iconic status.
"The epic feat was so emblematic of the qualities of precision and reliability associated with the Oyster watch that the brand marked the occasion in 1953 with the launch of a dedicated model: the Rolex Explorer. It benefited from all the technical know-how gained during the Himalayan expeditions over the decades to make it one of the most rugged of all Oysters."
Does anyone know what precisely was learned and iterated into the watches from the Himalayan, ah, “accompaniments”?
I have an Explorer (I) myself so not bashing here... just seems to me that it was likely to be more of a marketing exercise than R&D. Does anyone have some proof either way?
Why has this reminded me of 1953's other great invention, coronation chicken?
Well that’s very carefully worded!Originally Posted by Der Amf
“The very first Rolex Explorers were created for the first successful ascent of Everest.”
No, they might have been developed from the watches used (bubbleback OPs iirc) but no watch called an Explorer even existed in May 1953.
The joys of marketing.......one thing seems reasonably clear; the watch “Explorer One” did not exist when Everest was first climbed. So, the claim to fame is weaker than for something like the Speedy Pro, which existed, and was used by NASA, long before men reached the moon.
As it is, both events were before the majority of people on this forum were born (I would guess). How much they still help sell watches is hard to judge.
You could argue that such designs continue to sell because they are unusually good designs, not because of history.
Let this clearly incontrovertible contemporaneous evidence put further debate to rest.
I know that Smiths were oiled with special low temp lubricants. Whether that proved anything I don't know.
Oh, that’s brilliantLet this clearly incontrovertible contemporaneous evidence put further debate to rest.
I’ve spotted three, er, anomalies, is that all of them?
Edit : just spotted the hat. Four!
Viewed it on my phone first, spotted one of the additions and thought to myself “what’s that clown doing there?” before laughing aloud when recognition hit. Doh!
Surely if either Sir Edmund Hillary or Tenzing Norgay had actually worn Rolexes in the conquest of Everest then Rolex wouldn't have confined themselves to equivocal statements involving wording such as "issued to the expedition" etc.
The only statement made by those who reached the peak, so far as I'm aware, was Sir Edmund's endorsement that he "carried [a Smiths] to the summit".
It is indeed bollocks. Between the death of Mallory and the 1951 runout there was exactly one man known to wear a Rolex - Eric Shipton - and that was an Oyster of almost the same design and vintage as the one worn by Mercedes Gleitz as she failed to swim the channel in 1926. Boy did Rolex make copy out of that.
It's not remotely contentious to anyone who has actually looked at the wealth of pictures of the climb - both men wore Smiths A409 - Hillary on a standard strap and Norgay on a Bonclip. The other assault team both wore Rolex. Hunt often wore both, one on each wrist. Both were certainly given Rolex (and retained, as was Hunt) after the climb which makes the idea that the watches were being tested rather than offered as speculative gifts as was the habit of Rolex's owner, who had an eye for good publicity. Norgay didn't turn down the offered watch, he added it to his collection alongside the gold one given to him the year before - that he certainly didn't wear on Everest. As a first class pedant, the language I want to argue about is rolex's - note that they consistently imply that Rolex were on the summit without ever once stating it. That's because they know damned well that they were not and anyone who fancies visiting the RGS in London can look at the pictures themselves, or even look at the remains of Mallory's Borgel, which I reckon was the first watch on the summit.
Either way, just ot be really pedantic, the watches that failed to get to the summit were far from being the 1016 which Rolex states is the MK1 What should we call the 6098, 6298 and the other half dozen Explorer models before the 1016 - the MK -6?
Equal opportunities bitching here:
I know, none of them apart from the Borgel are exactly right, but they're not far off.
Last edited by M4tt; 21st February 2019 at 02:12.
I don't want to quote the entire post, Matt and certainly don't want to get into the debate of who wore what during the climb and on the summit. It has been extensively discussed elsewhere. My understanding is a little different. But, it doesn't matter. People can believe what they choose to believe. There is no incontrovertible evidence in either direction. I also accept that you are more well read on the subject than I am. My impressions are based on what I have read on different fora and blogs and is possible that they are not entirely accurate. Regardless, my point was what Rolex claims is not 'bollocks' as they have worded it very carefully and they haven't made claims they cannot back up. Not their fault if people choose to read more into it. There is no question this was a huge marketing opportunity and they have milked it dry and they are well within their rights too.
Weren't the A409's gifts to the expedition party after the climb? Hillary's SmithS De Luxe that he carried to the summit is in the Science Museum on display and it would appear to have a (possibly) unique dial. Rev-O is the expert on this topic, I am sure that he will provide the facts as they are best known.
Just to be clear: “The very first Rolex Explorers were created for the first successful ascent of Everest.”
No watch called an Explorer even existed in May 1953. (And how could Rolex have known it would be the "the first successful ascent" before the fact?)
So, yes, it is demonstrably bollocks.
As for the rest -- who wore what -- all I can say is what I put in my review of the new Time Factors Smiths 36mm "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."
(source: https://forum.tz-uk.com/showthread.p...verest%94-36mm)
Hillary's Smiths that went to the summit of Everest (you can see it yourself in the Science Museum in London; it's a pre De Luxe 1215 in a Dennison Aquatite case)
The fullest account is probably this thread here:
https://www.mwrforum.net/forums/show...miths-and-mine
Hang on.
It’s not bollocks because they have worded it very carefully?
Surely wording it so carefully that it gives the impression that Rolex were worn on the summit while not actually saying that is the very definition of bollocks. (At least in one of its figurative forms - a statement intended to mislead). Technically speaking, as every good pedant should be able to, Rolex are in deliberate violation of pall Grice’s maxims of conversational implicature.
That generations of Rolex fanboys have fantasised a wide variety of Rolex models onto a Norgay’s wrist doesn’t actually mean much. Now if you wish to argue a particular case, that’s great, but vaguely gesturing to the fact that lots of blogs endlesly repeat the same claims while bringing nothing new to the table is to be guilty of the same sin. The fact is that we know that this expedition was equipped with Smiths A409 and Rolex 6098 models. The Smiths was demonstrably specially made (you can’t buy that model today) and the Rolex wasn’t (you can buy it today if you look hard enough). The two models demonstrably have different profiles with different lugs and there are literally hundreds of pictures available to compare. Now I’ll concede that the colour pictures taken immediately before they set off for the summit are just too blurred, but they clearly show both men wearing a single watch each. However, there are plenty of black and white shots that allow you to work out exactly who wears what.
Now I’m a primary research kind of chap so I have spent quite some time going through all the pictures in the RGS and the evidence is unambiguous. However, pursuading the RGS to digitise the pictures and paying for the rights to use them is another matter...
Thanks, Matt and Rev-O for the detailed replies. I will concede that it is possible and even likely that both of you are correct. I have never made a claim to the contrary. You guys have obviously invested more time and effort in the subject.I have a healthy respect for Rolex but I am not approaching this from a fan boy perspective. The issue was whether their marketing material is 'bollocks'. We can agree to disagree on that.
I'm pretty sure they were given:Rolex did issue (technically lent) members of the successful 1953 Hunt expedition with watches,
The words 'Free Gifts' on the invoice seems pretty unambiguous to me. More to the point, a few of them are still around in private hands.
as were the Smiths:
Talking to the folk at the RGS, they account for the the later date on the two receipts quite simply: when putting an expedition together, they tended to deal with the non essential paper work including things like receipts, once the expedition has began. Anyway to kick off with a bit of fun, here's the alarm clock mentioned in the paperwork:
They got it wrong in the invoice, there is no KAZ 2.Z but there is a KA 22 and it is the high end Smiths military alarm clock:
Complete with stock number:
And quite remarkably radioactive, so if you are after one, treat the high end radium lume with real caution.
I've tried to verify this claim in the past and can say with certainty that there is no supporting evidence in the Royal Geographical Society's files on this expedition.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.
Rolex certainly gave watches to both Swiss attempts in '52. Lambert's is still available. However I have never seen any solid evidence whatsoever, that Hillary owned or wore a Rolex prior to having been given a 6084 by Bosecks of Calcutta well after the descent.
Don't forget that Hillary was very much a junior member of the expedition having been plucked from total obscurity by Eric Shipton in 1951. Here he is in 1951 with the NZ Alpine club Garwhal expedition.
He's not wearing a Rolex.
In fact, the bloody great angular nut of a caseback hanging out of the back identifies it as a variation on a Taubert decagon, at the time considered to be the finest waterproof watches available and a direct descendent of the Borgel cases that Rolex borrowed so much from.
So Hillary had a perfectly good waterproof watch in 1951. When he joined Shipton in 1952, I've not been able to find an image on the internet or at the RGS of him wearing any Rolex. There certainly is one of Shipton wearing a Rolex in 1952:
However, it's exactly the same late 1920's Square Cushion RWC Oyster that he'd been wearing on Everest since 1933. This watch alone seems to be the basis or Rolex's claims of involvement with Everest in the transwar years (again, unless anyone can show otherwise...) It's odd that he's wearing a venerable watch if he'd been gifted new ones by Rolex.
I'm really not remotely clear how we do know this, but I'd be delighted to be convinced. The closest to an argument I have seen is arguing backwards from the receipts for the seven watches given to key members of the expedition by Bosecks after they came down. This rather silly argument is further undermined by the fact that Hunt spent much of the expedition wearing two watches as did other senior members of the expedition. While Norgay is famous for wearing two watches, that came later. On the mountain, he wore one, on a bonklip from start to finish. Hillary likewise wore one on the issue black strap from start to finish.So we know Hillary had one in 1953.
That's certainly the case.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,
I've not seen this quote and it would be fantastic to have a source for it.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.
Well, the first up and down. Personally, after a lot of research, I'm convinced that the first one up was a Borgel owned by Mallory. However, that really is conjecture (until they pick up the camera...)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.
Last edited by M4tt; 21st February 2019 at 15:38.
But surely that's the one thing that is unambiguously bollocks. They are deliberately equivocating to give a false impression. what could be more bollocks than that?
The unequivocal proof that a Rolex did not reach the summit is precisely the fact that Rolex have never, ever explicitly stated that one did.
The more I read the more confusing it seems.
Matt, with due respect there is a lot of conjecture in your post.
Norgay is clearly wearing his below the ulnar styloid, so it doesn't count anyway.....
Cool, please explain what the conjectures are and why they are unsound.
Meanwhile, no one is denying that Lambert gave a gold Rolex Datejust to Norgay after the '52 expedition - that he's wearing it for a staged formal photograph well after returning from the expedition is hardly surprising.
He categorically didn't wear it on Everest.
Meanwhile, that's certainly Hillary on Everest in '53 and while it is one of the RGS images that has been digitised and is managed by Getty Images, it's a poor reproduction from a magazine or book. The original is not captioned and while that caption says Rolex, that's not data that was included with the original image as it wasn't actually a priority for anyone. Thus, I think looking at the watch he's actually wearing rather than the caption might prove more helpful.
In this case, I'm not quite sure that the image in that picture is quite good enough to unambiguously tell the difference between a Smiths A409 and a Rolex 6098. I know what it looks like to me, but I'm also acutely aware that visual perception is as much top down as bottom up and so there is a dialectic between what I see and what I know.
However, there are better quality versions of this very picture out there - it's image number 104409641 from the RGS collection. Here's a higher resolution scan of the picture. It has the Getty watermark and, if you want that removed you can pay the eye watering charge for rights to post (which, incidentally, is my problem) I concede it's in a pretty unfortunate place though:
Now have a look at that and compare what you see, carefully, to the watch presented to the Company of Clockmakers and held in the Science Museum...
You know, the one he said he wore, the one he says he carried to the top.
Here's a poorly bodged comparison of two near identical watches to the two given to the expedition:
Notice the lugs. Some might call them a bit of a giveaway. Notice also that the Smiths has a bit less bezel and a bit more dial. Don't forget that the radium has darkened the numerals rather a lot - It's not the high class lume used in the alarm and is far less radioactive, strangely.
Last edited by M4tt; 21st February 2019 at 18:04.
In fact, while I'm at it and in anticipation of people actually looking at the bloody photos carefully for a change, here's a few more shots of the exact watch that Hillary said he wore on Everest and that appears in varying degrees of fuzziness in rather a lot of pictures, film and even colour:
Notice the way that the embossed and machined subsecond dial catches the light.
Last edited by M4tt; 21st February 2019 at 18:17.
Well this is turning out to be quite the thread!
Some great stuff on here
"So we know Hillary had one in 1953."
Yes that's just based on him getting on having had one for the 1952 Cho Oyu expedition, which in turn is based on the fact that the number of watches Rolex gifted / loaned (and it looks like you are right about the gift rather than the loan) to the 1953 Hunt expedition minus the numbers of members who'd been on the earlier one. Some conjecture there for sure.
It's based on this:
"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.”
The 6 members of the Cho Oyu 1952 ‘Research for Mt.Everest expedition’ that had already received their Rolex were:
– Gryffith Pugh
– Tom Bourdillon
– Charles Evans
– Alfred Gregory
– Edmund Hillary
– George Lowe
The 13 members of the British Mt.Everest 1953 Expedition were:
– George Band
– Tom Bourdillon
– Charles Evans
– Alfred Gregory
– Edmund Hillary
– John Hunt
– George Lowe
– Wilfred Noyce
– Gryffith Pugh
– Tom Stobart
– Michael Phelps Ward
– Michael Westmacott
– George Wylie
13 x Rolex in 1953 minus the 6 already given in 1952 makes a total of 7 delivered for British Mt.Everest Expedition. This also explains the big difference in serial numbers we see when we compare these Rolex in detail.
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! But George Bands Rolex (He was NOT at ’52 Cho Oyu Expedition) has serial 916.xxx. Michael Phelps Ward was also 916.xxx!"
Source: http://rolexpassionreport.com/907/my...edition-quest/
And this:
Hillary "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."
You asked for a source.
Here you go
I'm glad you think so, I've enjoyed enough of your writing (and watches) over the years.Well this is turning out to be quite the thread!
Some great stuff on here
I know he claims that this comes from a member of either Norgay or Hillary's family. However, I just have the word of a chap on a blog. More to the point, I'm aware that members of Norgay's family are on record as stating that Tenzing was convinced to join the '53 expedition by Princess Elizabeth or that he wore the gold Datejust On Everest. One seems rather unlikely to me and the other simply isn't supported by the photographic evidence available."So we know Hillary had one in 1953."
Yes that's just based on him getting on having had one for the 1952 Cho Oyu expedition, which in turn is based on the fact that the number of watches Rolex gifted / loaned (and it looks like you are right about the gift rather than the loan) to the 1953 Hunt expedition minus the numbers of members who'd been on the earlier one. Some conjecture there for sure.
It's based on this:
"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.”
The same evidence shows Hunt and other senior climbers wearing two watches. Hardly the behaviour of a man who wanted everything shared out fairly. More to the point, he was running a massively excessive brute force assault on the mountain. Watches simply wouldn't have been a major concern. If this was said about his predecessor, I'd believe it, but Hunt? It just seems an odd thing to say.
Well, it's certainly the case that those were all members of the '52 expedition apart from but I'm unclear that they all got Rolex. I know that Pugh wore his Omega and I confess I'd read that dodgy hagiography so many times that the fact that Hillary actually made a substantive claim about wearing a Rolex on Cho Oyu had completely passed me by - thanks for pointing it out, we are both learning here!The 6 members of the Cho Oyu 1952 ‘Research for Mt.Everest expedition’ that had already received their Rolex were:
– Gryffith Pugh
– Tom Bourdillon
– Charles Evans
– Alfred Gregory
– Edmund Hillary
– George Lowe
True.The 13 members of the British Mt.Everest 1953 Expedition were:
– George Band
– Tom Bourdillon
– Charles Evans
– Alfred Gregory
– Edmund Hillary
– John Hunt
– George Lowe
– Wilfred Noyce
– Gryffith Pugh
– Tom Stobart
– Michael Phelps Ward
– Michael Westmacott
– George Wylie
[/QUOTE]13 x Rolex in 1953 minus the 6 already given in 1952 makes a total of 7 delivered for British Mt.Everest Expedition. This also explains the big difference in serial numbers we see when we compare these Rolex in detail.
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! But George Bands Rolex (He was NOT at ’52 Cho Oyu Expedition) has serial 916.xxx. Michael Phelps Ward was also 916.xxx!"
Source: http://rolexpassionreport.com/907/my...edition-quest/
Sure, but an equally credible explanation is that the thirteen were brand new stock while the seven were gifts from Bosecks that had been hanging around as unsold stock.
Personally, I have always thought it absolutely surreal that people accept the story told by the Beyer Jewellery shop about the watch in their basement 'museum'. The idea that Rolex would gift them the watch worn by Hillary in any adventure seems surreal. That the only provenance that they can get for such a watch is a scrap of parcel seems even stranger. Surely if Rolex were gifting it, they'd include decent provenance? I'm unsure where the serial number information comes from. Gregory's is legit, but what is the source for the other one, because they look quite different for two watches produced so close together.
Gregory's from the auction catalogue
The one claimed to be Hillary's in Beyer's basement.
I'm open to being convinced that the two serial numbers are just a few numbers apart, but given the massive variance between the two watches, the only thing that will do it is a lugshot.
By today’s archival-obsessed standards, the norms and mores of organisational practices up to about the last 35 years can seems lackadaisical to say the least. That doesn’t mean they didn’t happen.
From BMC losses on the mini to the Michael Fagan incident; in hindsight and given current practices, these do seem idiosyncratic. But the past is a different country, they do things differently there.
That’s all perfectly true. However, today we have a jeweller’s shop claiming that they have the Rolex that Hillary wore on Everest (When we know he didn’t wear one) That they claim was only lent to him for that purpose and returned (when we know that Rolex gave them away) and that the best evidence they can offer is a scrap of parcel with Hillary’s address on it.
Seriously, how much of the story has to be factually false before scepticism begins?
It’s a watch I’ve never seen the back of, but that should be unambiguously marked with Hillary’s name and the expedition. That’s a bit of provenance I see no reason not to show off when all you have is a scrap of envelope and a story that we know has key elements that are false.
Even if they claimed it was the putative ‘52 watch, rather than from 53, they still have to explain how they came to own it, because their current story doesn’t hold water.
We also have a very much solicited testimonial. We know that Hunt’s testimonial was actually copied from a Rolex advert. We know that both Hunt and Hillary were employed by Rolex on their descent and, oddly what was Hillary’s ‘Most treasured possession’ at the end of the ‘52 season was absolutely not the watch he wore in ‘53 and was never seen again.
Now, if the watch in the jewellers shop was the watch mentioned in the advert, then it’s stolen. Rolex gave away their watches to climbers, just as they did to astronauts, explorers and sportsmen - many of which are still in private possession today.
We know it’s not the 53 watch, but if there were a 52 watch as the advert suggests (and that is solid evidence there was one, even if the copy may be hyperbolic) then the tale of how a watch given to Hillary ended up where it did is one I’d like to hear. I’d also like to see the serial and the caseback...
The fact is that if it were Hillary’s 'most treasured possession' then it really is hard to see how it ended up there
I also wouldn’t mind knowing quite why Gregory’s watch is the only non chronometer watch when all the other watches given to Hunt, Lambert and Shipton expeditions clearly were...
That’s just a couple of the many questions I have about the murky world where reality collides with advertising, dissonance and big business.
Last edited by M4tt; 23rd February 2019 at 00:09.
Wonderful thread and photos of a great Kiwi icon thanks
I confess that from that photo I keep expecting him to jump up and start singing 'Destination Zululand'
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wt4Zhdoj65o
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
