This historical detail has never been fully clarified even though Rolex has maximized on the accomplishment with its advertising of the 1016.
Sir Edmund Hillary and Tenzing Norgay both made it to the top of Mt. Everest in 1953. Who was wearing what and which watch actually made it there first?
Last edited by Bannon; 11th February 2018 at 20:19.
I sometimes think this advert may have the answer? Maybe the Rolex was worn, while the Smith’s was just ‘carried’ (e.g., just stuffed in their kit, for marketing)?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Originally Posted by marcus.furius
I sometimes think this advert may have the answer? Maybe the Rolex was worn, while the Smith’s was just ‘carried’ (e.g., just stuffed in their kit, for marketing)?
Exactly right. Ten points to Gryffindor!
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I suspect that neither of them actually wore their watches on the peak due to the equipment that they would have been wearing so both watches would have been carried in their packs. I'm no expert though but a watch is the last thing I would be wearing if I was wearing big gauntlets and having to deal with a harness and rope.I sometimes think this advert may have the answer? Maybe the Rolex was worn, while the Smith’s was just ‘carried’ (e.g., just stuffed in their kit, for marketing)?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Sent from my [device_name] using TZ-UK mobile app
That's plausible and could explain Hillary's wording. Clearly having a hand-winding movement wasn't much of an issue on the expedition, it was important to avoid sweating into gloves so they would have been removed when temperatures allowed, such as inside the tent. There are numerous photographs showing the climbers without their gloves on, this one was supposedly taken at around 27,300 feet:
And with a nice warm cuppa, no problem!
Royal Geographic Society Images
The answer to that one is simply that they wore a watch on an extended strap outside of their jackets much as astronauts do. This is confirmed by all the references to extended straps.
That's an interesting thought, I have actually considered this myself whilst in the mountains but have always decided against it as you always need to take gloves off and change layers at different points of the climb, it would be a huge pain to have to take your watch off whenever you wanted to do this. That said I do tend to have my phone in a handy pocket if I need to check the time and my watch is under a few layers, a luxury they would not have had of course.
Sent from my [device_name] using TZ-UK mobile app
It’s possible that Mallory did reach the summit.....but you have to return alive.
The museum label for the Hillary Smiths in the Worshipful Company of Clockmakers collection describes it as having a 15 jewel movement (like other sub-seconds Smiths Deluxe models of the era). The contemporary JW Benson with identical dial pattern has a top jewel on the centre wheel pivot, effectively making it a 12.16 movement. I'd rather like to be able to whip the back off the Smiths to confirm which version it has.
The museum label for the Hillary Smiths in the Worshipful Company of Clockmakers collection describes it as having a 15 jewel movement (like other sub-seconds Smiths Deluxe models of the era). The contemporary JW Benson with identical dial pattern has a top jewel on the centre wheel pivot, effectively making it a 12.16 movement. I'd rather like to be able to whip the back off the Smiths to confirm which version it has.
Actually, while the Worshipful Company of Clockmakers were less than helpful in the Barbican, I have found the folk in the Science museum immensely helpful over the years. If you dropped in a semi formal and very polite request to find out that detail and included your research and reasoning for asking the question, they may well be more helpful than you'd expect. They also tend to try to keep as much context as possible and would be delighted to acquire more; a request like that is the sort of context they like.
Last edited by M4tt; 18th February 2018 at 20:49.
That's probably a bit more sensible than the current plan which is to create a diversion by the Babbage Engine whilst Rev-O pries open the display case, vintage Smiths caseback tool in hand.
Actually, I think I may have half an answer. The Smiths' sales receipt is very clear that they are fifteen jewel watches. Mind you, sales receipts...
Are there not snap back versions with the same dials as the Everest models? I vaguely remember that I have a battered scrap one that is the absolute spit somewhere (and also has a presumably nickel plated movement...).
I seem to recall that the Explorer brand wasn't launched by Rolex until after the summit of Everest was reached and that the glory should go to the humble Rolex Oyster Perpetual worn by Sir Edmund Hillary.
As such, the Explorer wouldn't feature at all in the Everest expedition - despite the marketing drive capitalising on the achievement.
PS: I found the original Hodinkee article here: https://www.hodinkee.com/articles/fo...e-pics-details
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Last edited by adg31; 11th February 2018 at 20:32.
Pretty thorough discussion here, alas the Photobucket photos are no longer showing but plenty of text to chew on
http://www.mwrforum.net/forums/showt...miths-and-mine
If Rolex ever started doing 'historical re-editions' then I'd be all over this one!
What is fairly well accepted is that Tenzing had a Rolex gifted to him by a climber after a previous summit attempt. He wore this when he summitted.
Hillary would only say of the Smiths that he carried it to the summit. Rolex would like it to be thought he worn a Rolex but I have never seen conclusive proof.
Rolex has never said he wore an Explorer. He wore a Perpetual, and the Explorer was created afterward (although the same year) as a version of the Perpetual designed for use in rough conditions. The marketing of the period states this quite clearly.
I never said that they did and apologise if you got that impression.
http://www.rolexmagazine.com/2010/05...onquering.html
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
Last edited by adg31; 12th February 2018 at 09:47.
Hilary wasn’t issued a Rolex for the ‘53 expedition as he had already been given one for Cho Oyu the year before. If he had one at the summit it would have been milked to death. There’s a long thread about it on MWR, see Simon’s earlier link.
Only two people know.
With acknowledgements to SimonK for the pointer, The Ascent of Everest by Sir John Hunt lists both Rolex and Smiths in Appendix IX under B. Firms and Other Bodies, (a) General Equipment:
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(Copyrighted material taken from Amazon.com 'Look Inside' feature)
However Smiths were happy to include this unambiguous statement on the inserts included with their post '53 Deluxe range
Image from Internet
Photo of the smiths in question I took a couple of years ago
Whatever he was wearing or carrying, Hillary made it first, discounting the extremely unlikely possibility that Mallory summited.
Indeed. The unlikely scenario would make the first watch at the summit a Borgel
The famous advert below is telling in what it omits. No mention of Hillary, or of being first.
It's more telling in its similarities to Hunt's letter and earlier publishing date, as I discussed above.The famous advert below is telling in what it omits. No mention of Hillary, or of being first.
Only just seen this thread and can’t think of anything to add except to say I always enjoy reading M4tt and Curta.
Oh, yes, one thing I can confirm albeit at secondhand is that Hillary’s Smiths is a standard 15 jewel movement but was winterised with special low temperature lubricants. Again I only have this at second hand but I did speak to the chap who had worked on the low viscosity oils.
So, to conclude, it was a Rolex Explorer that Hillary and Tensing wore to the summit and anyone who says otherwise is a hater and doesn’t know how to read simple Rolex publicity. ;-)
It is interesting to note that Hillary's watch description at the Clockmakers' collection states that it was "worn by Sir Edmund Hillary's during his successful climb to the summit" and that Hillary himself uses the very odd phrase "I carried your watch to the summit".
In an era of scrupulous honesty and precise phraseology, it seems clear that his Smiths was not considered as vital as the PR guys would have liked, and that it was in his rucksack, or pocket, but most definitely not on is wrist at the time that he and Tensing summited.
As I understand it for 30 years neither man stated who reached the top first, so I doubt we will ever really know. Tensings sons say he stated to them he did and after Tensings death Hillary stated it was him.
A mystery the truth of which will ever only be known by two men.
However on the watch front.....Smiths all the way.
Does it really matter?
I mean you have the:
McQueen Monaco = never wore one except for a role in a film
McQueen Exp-II = never wore one, it was a case of mistaken identity by an Italian magazine
Just as a few of examples
But, it matters not, people still want them because of the 'connection' even though there isn't one.
An even more deluded example is the Newman Daytona.
Massive premiums to buy a watch like the one some dead actor wore for a while, bonkers
Last edited by nunya; 13th February 2018 at 09:27.
Oh gosh yes....terribly.
But probably not to Smiths ownersOh gosh yes....terribly.
M
Tenzing wore both the Rolex from the 1952 Lambert expedition and the Smiths, one on each wrist. So the answer is either both or Smiths.
Why is it unlikely that Mallory summited?
https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2007/...s4.mainsection
Last edited by M4tt; 13th February 2018 at 12:04.
May I recommend Everest 1953: The Epic Story of the First Ascent by Mick Conefrey. This clears up in detail who was first to summit (it was Hillary) and why there was a great deal of politics and confusion which surrounded news of their achievement.
First published 2012. Not sure it does.
I do not think we will ever know regardless now what people say.
While the ascension of Mt. Everest was a major accomplishment, Rolex really blew it by flunking the NASA space tests. Can you imagine how far they would have milked this one? Fortunately, the Omega Speedmaster made the grade and created a legacy all its own.
It might be worth bearing in mind that the success of Rolex has never been based on major historic events. Take the, arguably, three most successful sports models...Submariner, Daytona and GMT. None are associated with great historical moments, rather with movies, actors ...and ‘pilots.’
Same with the DateJust, a best seller associated with no-one in particular. Even the DayDate tends to be loosely associated with “Presidents” rather than a specific man or event.
M4tt. Got it, so the Rolex went up there with Tensing.
So it got me wondering. As neither of the two ...for 30 years.. did not declare which laid the first foot on the top, why did Smiths capitalise on the Event but not Rolex?
Was it because Tensing was carrying a watch from a previous attempt but not officially given for this attempt in '53. Or was it just that Smiths were quicker off the mark and for Rolex to then claim an 'Everest ' watch as well would not have been taken well.
I think that the point that is implied throughout the attached article is most likely. At the time it wouldn’t have made good copy for Tenzing to carry a gifted Rolex as that would have played into a common racist narrative of the time.
Rolex had been involved with Everest since before Smiths made a watch capable of going there and had already made models called Everest. They had every reason and right to make an Everest model. However, having missed that boat, there were other frontiers and Explorer was generic enough to cover all of them.
Say what you like about Wilsdorf but he knew all about the psychology of product placement to make aspirational statements to his target market. Don’t forget Rolex were founded in London and Wilsdorf was an Anglophone Anglophile who married into the English upper middle class. He knew us better than we did. That’s why there was never a Bond Rolex...
However, whisper it quietly, but Rolex in the fifties were a relatively small company who were yet to make their millionth watch. Smiths were, and still are, a vast instrument maker who made all the instruments for the expedition, not just a few watches. One reason vintage Rolex are so pricy is that there are not many of them. Smiths, on the other hand built most of the instruments for uk military aircraft, many cars and so on as well as rather a lot of watches and They still do:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smiths_Group
Rolex supplied seven watches to the Hunt expedition, which was a team of thirteen plus two sherpas. The six members who had already received an Oyster Perpetual the year before for the Cho Oyu expedition (which included Hillary) were excluded, apparently at Hunt's request. Unsurprisingly for the era, the sherpas were excluded as well, Tensing's Rolex that he wore during the ascent was gifted to him after his participation in the Swiss Everest expedition in '52. It is reported that Hillary stated that he left his Cho Oyu Rolex at Base Camp in '53.
Rolex supplied seven watches to the Hunt expedition, which was a team of thirteen plus two sherpas. The six members who had already received an Oyster Perpetual the year before for the Cho Oyu expedition (which included Hillary) were excluded, apparently at Hunt's request. Unsurprisingly for the era, the sherpas were excluded as well, Tensing's Rolex that he wore during the ascent was gifted to him after his participation in the Swiss Everest expedition in '52. It is reported that Hillary stated that he left his Cho Oyu Rolex at Base Camp in '53.
As I said, Rolex had the watches waiting for them when they returned. The letter above clearly adds support to that chronology as it is dated the 25th of June 1953. Everest, of course, was conquered on the 29th of May 1953. The watch given to Hillary by Rolex in Calcutta was to be auctioned in 2010, but the family blocked the sale:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukne...o-be-sold.html
I admit that this
Is news to me. I'd be delighted to discover where it is reported.It is reported that Hillary stated that he left his Cho Oyu Rolex at Base Camp in '53.
I was cautious with the wording because there are numerous articles, often with conflicting details depending on the agenda of the author. Some of the purported statements could well have been fabricated as often they only appear in a single report without references. I would love to find out a bit more about the assertion here: https://horahalus.com/2016/06/24/the...mount-everest/
"While Edmund Hillary did, in fact, take his Rolex Oyster Perpetual during the 1953 expedition, it has been verified with various sources, including an account from the man himself, that he left his Rolex back at the base camp before making his ascent up the final stretch."
The subsequent paragraph is definitely inaccurate, so maybe the vague 'various sources' can be taken with a large pinch of salt.
Of course the Rolex watches could have been issued to the expedition prior to a revised invoice being issued; the initial invoice for thirteen watches was dated 20 May 1953.
We'll never know the full and exact story but at least there is one statement directly attributed to Hillary regarding carrying a watch to the summit.
Last edited by Mr Curta; 15th February 2018 at 14:30.
You could make an arguement that Everest was never really climbed until Messner and Habeler made the first oxygen free ascent in 1978; bottled oxygen having the effect of lowering the altitude of the peak. I believe they both wore Oysterquartz watches.
I'm not sure you could, because that's a nice example of a well known informal logical fallacy :
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman
Of course they climbed it, with oxygen. For sure add the caveat, but that doesn't mean that they didn't do it. The problem is that when you start adding caveats that disallow a particular tool then you open the floodgates to disallowing other tools, like clothes. I'm not hanging out for the first unaided naked ascent, not least because they wouldn't be wearing any watches at all.
/pedant.
I confess that I'm constantly bemused by the way fact, fiction and fallacy are utterly intertwined in even the most authoritative accounts. This would be bad enough, but the incestuousness of sourcing premises means that the any pretence of scholarship has roots as sound as Birnam Wood. It doesn't help that Bosecks of Calcutta also gave watches to (at least) Hillary, Hunt and Tenzing independently, and in addition to, any given directly by Rolex directly. It also doesn't help that Rolex also retained Hunt and Hillary, ensuring that they got decent copy while Smiths got faint praise. The whole mess is further confused by the profusion of watches subsequently showered on Hillary and Tenzing.
However, there are facts of the matter and, in this case, actual museum exhibits and auction catalogues, especially those with detailed photographs, start to give a shape to who had what when. There are far fewer photographs that clearly identify a particular watch let alone at a particular time and place and any smoking guns are apparently lacking.
It would be a right pain of a job but the fact is that there are less than thirty people to track and, once you got going, cross referencing works. I did a bit a few years ago while involved in a particularly protracted row over on watchuseek (that I can't seem to find now). Sadly it's a word file and half the links have changed which is a pain, but there were a slew of auctions that actually gave detailed photographs of watches. Sadly, Rolex serial numbers don't usually feature as they are hidden away on the lugs, at least they are on all of mine that are not Dennison cased.
I'm quite convinced that some enterprising souls have had access to watches central to that debate and I'm sure some have reported accurately, but my faith in enterprising souls whose characters are not directly known to me is less than stellar as a matter of bitter experience, so I just don't know which.
If only there were more hours in the day...
Just to say, I've thoroughly enjoyed this thread, and in particular your contributions. Cheers.
It's very true - the more you delve into topics such as these, often it's like an initial, seemingly clear pond that then becomes progressively more muddied/opaque as you wade into the water & disturb the silt of information. But I'm more informed than before, which is the aim of the game.
I think the statement that Smiths supporters place their greatest stake on- I carried your watch is the one that creates
the most doubt. Let us imagine we are not talking watches but other mountaineering gear, let's take shoes for example.
If Hilary was wearing La Sportiva GS boots at the summit, can you imagine how ridiculous it would look if he said - I carried your shoes to the summit and they worked perfectly. There are a lot of pictures and people are interpreting the evidence the way that suits their belief. The only evidence that would count is a picture on the summit. Smiths have made a claim that Hilary wore their watch to the summit, Rolex has talked about in circles. Both on the blogs that support the Smiths theory and the members here who do the same there are snarky undertones suggesting Rolex is the big bad wolf that stole the candy from Smiths. It is incredibly fascinating to see these images and certainly a very interesting debate. As said previously, I am not sure of anything here. The fact that Rolex has made no claims could either suggest that they don't have definite evidence or that they don't have a valid claim. Hilary could very well have been wearing a Smiths but his statement creates doubts. May be he didn't wear any watch and kept Smiths with him at the summit and didn't 'carry' his Rolex to the summit in which case it is still a valid case for it being the watch to the summit AND back, just not the first watch worn up and down. Rolex marketing is what it is- an incredibly well oiled, well funded and successful machine. Any smart company would do the same. Whether they can do it as successfully is another matter. Constant gripes about the marketing are plain silly and unhelpful in resolving the debate.
Re: There are people who still debate whether the moon landings or the Holocaust actually happened.
These matters are not being debated. They are talked about by lunatics and conspiracy theorists on the fringes. I am not sure the analogy works at any level. Treating debaters on either side of this divide to such a comparison is a disservice to both.
^ Interesting document.
Stupid question: If one watch cost £61.10, why were 7 of them £430.10?
Someone who lies about the little things will lie about the big things too.
Sixty one pounds and ten shillings, i.e. £61.50.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
