closing tag is in template navbar
timefactors watches



TZ-UK Fundraiser
Page 4 of 8 FirstFirst ... 23456 ... LastLast
Results 151 to 200 of 389

Thread: Smiths or Rolex - Which One Was the First Watch on Mt. Everest?

  1. #151
    Master
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Sussex
    Posts
    6,386
    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.

  2. #152
    Quote Originally Posted by M4tt View Post
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by Broussard View Post
    D W Barrett, Director and General Manager of Smiths English Clocks, Ltd.
    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.

  3. #153
    Master
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Sussex
    Posts
    6,386
    Quote Originally Posted by KAS118 View Post
    Wow - great information.

    Am I the only one that finds it slightly ironic that the current Smith's Everest is designed as a homage to the Rolex Explorer?

    Perhaps what's needed is a homage to the actual watch worn by Hillary - call it the Summit - or something like that?
    How about the Everest Expedition?


  4. #154
    Master Mr Curta's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Location
    Mainly UK
    Posts
    9,353
    Quote Originally Posted by Rev-O View Post
    Me too.
    Me three. Fabulous stuff.

  5. #155
    Master Mr Curta's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Location
    Mainly UK
    Posts
    9,353
    Quote Originally Posted by M4tt View Post
    How about the Everest Expedition?
    Obviously closer in appearance to the ‘Antarctic’ models, but draws nicely on the Smiths heritage and a damn good looking watch in my book.

  6. #156
    Master
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Sussex
    Posts
    6,386
    Good thinking Matt.
    Cheers

    That's not a A409 by the way, it's an A404.
    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).

    Confusingly Hillary's actual watch isn't a 409 either.
    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).

    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.
    Just so

    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.
    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.

    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.
    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.

    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.
    I suspect you do now!
    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
    [/QUOTE]

    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?
    Last edited by M4tt; 3rd March 2019 at 00:16.

  7. #157
    Master
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Sussex
    Posts
    6,386
    Quote Originally Posted by Mr Curta View Post
    Obviously closer in appearance to the ‘Antarctic’ models, but draws nicely on the Smiths heritage and a damn good looking watch in my book.
    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:



    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!

  8. #158
    Master
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Sussex
    Posts
    6,386
    Anyway, carrying on as I intended, here's the next pair of images for your consideration:



    and here's something to compare it with:



    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.

  9. #159
    Here are mine.



    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

  10. #160
    Master
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Sussex
    Posts
    6,386
    Quote Originally Posted by Rev-O View Post
    Here are mine.



    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:




    Odd things brains!
    Last edited by M4tt; 3rd March 2019 at 09:50.

  11. #161
    Master Mr Curta's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Location
    Mainly UK
    Posts
    9,353
    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 . 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.




    Quote Originally Posted by M4tt View Post
    It's worth remembering that Hillary went on that too (and wore the A454 to do so)
    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:




    But hold on...

    Last edited by Mr Curta; 3rd March 2019 at 12:21.

  12. #162
    Master
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Sussex
    Posts
    6,386
    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?

  13. #163
    Grand Master abraxas's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Location
    London
    Posts
    31,897
    Quote Originally Posted by KAS118 View Post
    ...

    Am I the only one that finds it slightly ironic that the current Smith's Everest is designed as a homage to the Rolex Explorer?
    I cannot get my head around that but in a certain "tongue in cheek" way it works.

    Perhaps what's needed is a homage to the actual watch worn by Hillary - call it the Summit - or something like that?
    The actual watch looks so boring I can never see it being desirable to wear.

  14. #164
    Master
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Sussex
    Posts
    6,386
    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


    Two


    Three


    (and just to help, here's Hillary's in The Science Museum:)



    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.
    Last edited by M4tt; 3rd March 2019 at 12:55.

  15. #165
    Grand Master abraxas's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Location
    London
    Posts
    31,897
    Quote Originally Posted by M4tt View Post
    How about the Everest Expedition?

    That is a terrific looking watch and I won't be able to fight it.

  16. #166
    Master
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Sussex
    Posts
    6,386
    I cannot get my head around that but in a certain "tongue in cheek" way it works.
    I agree, I even bought one, but I'd prefer the 36mm now!

    The actual watch looks so boring I can never see it being desirable to wear.
    I read the other day that Patek have the same problem. I'm quite fond of mine.

  17. #167
    Master
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Sussex
    Posts
    6,386
    Quote Originally Posted by abraxas View Post
    That is a terrific looking watch and I won't be able to fight it.
    Hang on, I'm, confused - the original watch looks boring, but this looks terrific? Am I missing something?

  18. #168
    Grand Master abraxas's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Location
    London
    Posts
    31,897
    Quote Originally Posted by Mr Curta View Post
    Obviously closer in appearance to the ‘Antarctic’ models, but draws nicely on the Smiths heritage and a damn good looking watch in my book.
    The sector dial even hints to JLC.

  19. #169
    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).

  20. #170
    Grand Master abraxas's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Location
    London
    Posts
    31,897
    Quote Originally Posted by M4tt View Post
    Hang on, I'm, confused - the original watch looks boring, but this looks terrific? Am I missing something?
    You are not missing anything. We just appreciate different designs.

  21. #171
    Craftsman
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Location
    Coulsdon
    Posts
    897
    Quote Originally Posted by abraxas View Post
    That is a terrific looking watch and I won't be able to fight it.
    Loose the central seconds hand and give it a seconds sub-dial at 6 o'clock - then you've got it

  22. #172
    Grand Master abraxas's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Location
    London
    Posts
    31,897
    Quote Originally Posted by KAS118 View Post
    Loose the central seconds hand and give it a seconds sub-dial at 6 o'clock - then you've got it
    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.

  23. #173
    Craftsman
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Location
    Coulsdon
    Posts
    897
    Quote Originally Posted by abraxas View Post
    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.
    Why couldn't you use a Sellita SW-260-1?

  24. #174
    Quote Originally Posted by M4tt View Post
    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.

    Hi Matt

    Picture 1 isn't showing but the 2 I'd say could be either, probably Rolex and three looks a lot like a Smiths.

  25. #175
    Grand Master abraxas's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Location
    London
    Posts
    31,897


    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
    Last edited by abraxas; 3rd March 2019 at 14:52.

  26. #176
    Master
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Sussex
    Posts
    6,386
    Quote Originally Posted by Rev-O View Post
    Hi Matt

    Picture 1 isn't showing but the 2 I'd say could be either, probably Rolex and three looks a lot like a Smiths.
    Cool, so let’s just focus on those two. Does anyone else have an opinion?

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by Rev-O View Post
    Hi Matt

    Picture 1 isn't showing but the 2 I'd say could be either, probably Rolex and three looks a lot like a Smiths.
    Cool, so let’s just focus on those two. Does anyone else have an opinion?

  27. #177
    Craftsman
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Location
    Coulsdon
    Posts
    897
    Quote Originally Posted by abraxas View Post


    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

  28. #178
    Master Mr Curta's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Location
    Mainly UK
    Posts
    9,353
    Quote Originally Posted by abraxas View Post
    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.
    Perhaps a hand wound movement would be more appropriate, such as the ETA 7001/Peseux 7040. The position of the sub-dial might seem a little unbalanced (although obviously relative to overall dial diameter) but it would be nice to see a mockup.

  29. #179
    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)





    Tom Stobart wearing an Oyster Rolex (smooth midcase, sharper lugs)




  30. #180
    Master
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Sussex
    Posts
    6,386
    Quote Originally Posted by Rev-O View Post
    Who is Mr Barrett? Why was his letter so convincing?

    And I believe Mr Winter is wrong in at least one respect: Rolex did not issue watches to all the members of the Hunt party, but seemingly only to those who hadn't already had one for the Cho Oyu expedition the previous year (which included Hillary).
    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:

    "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."
    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:

    L
    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.

    Sold including buyer's premium:145,300 Swiss Francs
    Allow 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.

    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.

  31. #181
    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.
    Last edited by Rev-O; 3rd March 2019 at 23:09.

  32. #182
    Master
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Sussex
    Posts
    6,386
    Quote Originally Posted by Rev-O View Post
    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:

    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!
    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!

    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.
    Last edited by M4tt; 3rd March 2019 at 23:43.

  33. #183
    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.

  34. #184
    Master
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Sussex
    Posts
    6,386
    Quote Originally Posted by Rev-O View Post
    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:

    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!! 
    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:

    * 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:


    and comparing it with the back of the watch in the Beyer Museum:


    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...
    Last edited by M4tt; 4th March 2019 at 15:59.

  35. #185
    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

  36. #186
    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.
    Last edited by Rev-O; 4th March 2019 at 18:35. Reason: speeling

  37. #187
    Quote Originally Posted by Rev-O View Post
    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
    Did the same.
    Let us see if he is inclined to chime in.

  38. #188
    Master
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Sussex
    Posts
    6,386
    Quote Originally Posted by Rev-O View Post
    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.
    Are you going to share the replies (in the pit if necessary?)

    Incidentally, you do know that Griffith Pugh wore an Omega on Everest (and Wylie undoubtedly wore one of each!)?

  39. #189
    Quote Originally Posted by M4tt View Post
    Are you going to share the replies (in the pit if necessary?)
    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.

  40. #190
    Master
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Sussex
    Posts
    6,386
    Quote Originally Posted by Rev-O View Post
    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.
    Well, one thing we know is that a watch made in 1953 can't be up a mountain in 1952. And that means that his theory is toast. There's not much you can say to that.

  41. #191
    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.

  42. #192
    Master
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Sussex
    Posts
    6,386
    Norgay may have worn a Rolex (possibly his gold Datejust or one of the “issued” OPs). Or not. We’ll never know.
    Well, he certainly didn't wear the gold Datejust on Everest, because there's colour pictures of the watch he wore:

    On the way up:



    On the South Col immediately before setting off:



    and on the way down again:



    As a friend on another forum put it:
    People can debate lug shapes in a less than sharp picture, but it’s hard to argue that grey is yellow
    However, lets have one last go at lug shapes:

    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:



    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:



    And again:



    I really don't know what else to add here.
    Last edited by M4tt; 4th March 2019 at 22:41.

  43. #193
    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.

  44. #194
    Master
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Sussex
    Posts
    6,386
    Quote Originally Posted by Rev-O View Post
    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:



    Shipton:



    As well as the ones I've already posted.
    Last edited by M4tt; 4th March 2019 at 22:57.

  45. #195
    Quote Originally Posted by M4tt View Post
    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!
    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.)

  46. #196
    Quote Originally Posted by Rev-O View Post
    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.

    I am very inexpert in this matter, and have enjoyed seeing the detailed discussion and research in this thread, but is it not possible that Rolex was the first watch ‘atop the world’ IF that is what Tenzing wore and IF Tenzing were the first man on the summit?

  47. #197
    Master
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Sussex
    Posts
    6,386
    Quote Originally Posted by Rev-O View Post
    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...

  48. #198
    Master
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Sussex
    Posts
    6,386
    Quote Originally Posted by Dark Side of The Loon View Post
    I am very inexpert in this matter, and have enjoyed seeing the detailed discussion and research in this thread, but is it not possible that Rolex was the first watch ‘atop the world’ IF that is what Tenzing wore and IF Tenzing were the first man on the summit?
    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?
    Last edited by M4tt; 4th March 2019 at 23:37.

  49. #199

    Smith's or Rolex - Which One Was the First Watch on Mt. Everest?

    Quote Originally Posted by M4tt View Post
    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?
    Looks to me like a Smiths, just wasn’t entirely sure.

  50. #200
    Master
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Sussex
    Posts
    6,386
    Quote Originally Posted by Dark Side of The Loon View Post
    Looks to me like a Smiths, just wasn’t entirely sure.
    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.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •