What Watch Did James Bond Really Wear?

[M4tt]

Thanks Eddie, I cannot think of higher praise.

However, I am hoping to wring a bit more out of the thread first...

So, as it stands, I think that we have three, perhaps four credible watches (did they ever make a perpetual Commando?)

1) The Submariner (anyone fancy making a list of the potential versions that are in the frame?)

2) the Explorer

3) Some sort of Bubbleback

Something I said earlier has been echoing around my brain all day at work... The Explorer clearly had a proto-Explorer which, in that classic Rolex transitional evolution sort of way, would have shared a number of features with both older and newer models. Can anyone shed any light on these 'proto-Explorers'. (Now that Eddie has said he will be moving this into classic posts you are guaranteed immortality for your efforts!)

In (weak) support of this, as Fleming has Leiter say to Bond in Thunderball: 'You're still wearing that old wristwatch of yours with the big phosphorous numerals'. In 1961 the Explorer would be largely unchanged from the fifties. While Leiter might simply have been saying that it was merely old to Bond, it is possible that he was highlighting - or rather that Fleming was highlighting - that Bond was making a deliberate and anachronistic choice. This was a choice he was still making in 1963, radiation threat or not. Fleming clearly also made anachronistic choices when he wore the trench watches and small 30mm WWW watches that we see in some of his photographs.

However, so much for theory; time for some more photographs!

To have a shot at the size of the watch on Fleming's wrist I offer you a piss poor portfolio of painfully posed photographs of watches from 29mm to 36mm. To put them in context I have a seven inch wrist apparently.

29mm:

30mm

31mm

32mm

33mm

34mm

35mm

36mm

Fleming


Before anyone makes a snooty comment about the Alpha Explorer homage, I just want to make it clear that it is hardly crap at all. The hands move and everything! It is the perfect watch for mountaineering, car maintenance and throwing at cats. At just under three bob it is also nearly almost a bargain. I have done all three with it and it hasn't broken yet.

Actually, I have a confession to make. I was entertaining the idea of driving down to Swindon, taking a photograph of a certain well known grave and then coming home, and photographing the Alpha in a hole, covered in mud and artfully poised between a couple of chicken leg bones. The plan would have been to post the resulting photographs under the headline: Bond watch mystery solved, shock revelation! Unfortunately, the beloved used her Women's Intuition to divine that this was a Bad Idea and vetoed the mission in favour of Ikea... Curses.

Ok, back to you, gentlemen. (And Eddie, if the paragraph above is as bad an idea as She says, feel free to mod away.)

[nanuq]

Remember the other day one of the watch companies withdrew an air-pilot's watch from the market because the Atomic Energy people got fussy? Same thing. They thought this particular pilot's watch, with the big phosphorous numerals, was giving off too much radiation to be good for the wearer.'

This would seem to be a clear reference to the early GMT Masters bought by PanAm.

Ah, but the GMT Masters all had luminous dots... not numerals. Both variants, the 6542 and 1675 are this way.

From the film snippet showing Bond's watch, that seems to be either a 6536 or 6538 Submariner. And from the huge size of the Brevet crown, we can narrow it down to the Rolex 6538 Submariner.

But where are the luminous numerals mentioned in the text? Those are only found on the Explorer-dialed "Submariner", rather a 6200 model designation, circa 1955. The early 6200 did not use the text "Submariner" on the dial... it was later added.

And so we arrive at what may well have been the real "Bond" watch:

[swanbourne]

I'm going to phone Derek Acorah and get him to ask Ian Fleming.

Eddie

[M4tt]

From the film snippet showing Bond's watch, that seems to be either a 6536 or 6538 Submariner. And from the huge size of the Brevet crown, we can narrow it down to the Rolex 6538 Submariner.

But where are the luminous numerals mentioned in the text? Those are only found on the Explorer-dialed "Submariner", rather a 6200 model designation, circa 1955. The early 6200 did not use the text "Submariner" on the dial... it was later added.

And so we arrive at what may well have been the real "Bond" watch:

I don't wish to appear rude, but I think you may have missed the point of this thread. As you can see from the first post, there is very little doubt as to the identity of the watch in all of the Bond films bar one. This thread is entirely concerned with the watch in the books alone (and as worn by the author)

Moving on a tiny bit, Klytorus, while agreeing with me about the quality of the picture, has suggested intriguingly that the bezel is golden:

it is a very good painting with a lot of detail (the shadow on the veins, for example) which is why it can't be an explorer because of the gold (?) bezel, imo

while this is so very Rolex, I have a counter suggestion. While my colour vision is, frankly, a bit crap, I agree that some of the bezel appears golden.

However, it is worth noting that Mr Fleming is sporting a tan that wouldn't shame a Saturday night TV entertainer. I think that it is a possibility that the artist is merely trying to capture the reflected orangey glory of Ian Fleming's tan. Like this:



notice how the bezel is reflecting the pink?

Convincing idea?

[M4tt]

I'm going to phone Derek Acorah and get him to ask Ian Fleming.

Taking this as a response to my 'Swindon' suggestion, I just showed it to the beloved. She made a noise a little like a one second clip of a steam train pulling away and swept out of the room. Cheers Eddie!

[SimonK]

"Ah, but the GMT Masters all had luminous dots... not numerals. Both variants, the 6542 and 1675 are this way."

But it was the numerals on the 24-hour bezel which were the problem, the tritium was contaminated with strontium 90.

[nanuq]

You say "contaminated with strontium 90" like that's a bad thing. :tongue3:

My apologies for the reference to the 6200, I missed the part in the first post about discussing books and Fleming.

[M4tt]

You say "contaminated with strontium 90" like that's a bad thing. :tongue3:

My apologies for the reference to the 6200, I missed the part in the first post about discussing books and Fleming.

Not a problem, I've done it enough times myself. As for the strontium: a perfect Beta source and with three times the half life, not only that, but you could use it to do your own home Xrays, just rest your wrist on photographic paper and you are away. Result!

[goz211]

Enjoyed the post. Great research!

[DeusIrae]

There is another strand of supporting evidence. While the Submariner came on a variety of straps it did not come on an expanding metal strap. The Explorer did; the strap looked like this:

Actually, the Submariner could be delivered on an expanding bracelet: the 6636. It was a customer option. It is identical in outward appearance to the non expanding 7206.

[M4tt]

The level of arcane knowledge here is quite remarkable!

[stevieb]

Actually, the Submariner could be delivered on an expanding bracelet: the 6636. It was a customer option. It is identical in outward appearance to the non expanding 7206.

I actually saw a very early Submariner on an expanding bracelet this afternoon that was believed to be originally supplied with the watch. Didn't seem to be the strongest of bracelets though.....

[M4tt]

I agree that the Rolex expanding bracelet doesn't look like much but it undeniably has stood the test of time. Mine is still pretty close to perfect while solid bracelets of that age are invariably foxed. It would be irritating to wear in and out of water though...

[adrian]

Moving on a tiny bit, Klytorus, while agreeing with me about the quality of the picture, has suggested intriguingly that the bezel is golden:

it is a very good painting with a lot of detail (the shadow on the veins, for example) which is why it can't be an explorer because of the gold (?) bezel, imo

while this is so very Rolex, I have a counter suggestion. While my colour vision is, frankly, a bit crap, I agree that some of the bezel appears golden.

However, it is worth noting that Mr Fleming is sporting a tan that wouldn't shame a Saturday night TV entertainer. I think that it is a possibility that the artist is merely trying to capture the reflected orangey glory of Ian Fleming's tan. Like this:



notice how the bezel is reflecting the pink?

Convincing idea?

I don't think the light could reflect like this, there will always be an alternation of light and shadow on a smooth polished surface. None of the photos you previously took show this kind of reflection on the entire bezel, besides, the tan reflection will be prevented by the lugs, bracelet and by the fact that the watch sits higher on the wrist. Should something reflect, then it will rather be the light from the bracelet. The Klytorus has spoken. :lol: :lol:

[hogthrob]

Bond then uses the watch in question as a knuckle duster, breaking the crystal

I know that this 'knuckle duster' thing is from a work of fiction, but didn't the subs of the time have big thick acrylic crystals, that looked like they could take a punch? Now if you were talking/writing about a watch with a 'glass' crystal, on the other hand, then you might think it would break. So could we assume the watch in question had a 'glass' crystal, and not acrylic?

[M4tt]

I agree, but having spoken to a couple of artist friends (yes, I am getting a bit obsessed) all three agreed that painting is not like taking a photograph. As one of theme said in a phrase of almost continental oddness: 'I'm trying to represent the reality of the thing, not what's actually there in front of me; otherwise I'd just take a picture'.

Thus, while conceding that you are in fact correct, I'm going to pull the 'noumena' defence and claim that, as in the case of the hands, the painter may well have gone for a continuity of this rather fetching 'bronze halo' effect rather than trying to represent the complex play of reflections and shadows, which out of context, would have looked a bit, well, crap.

As for smashing the crystal, as an official hamfisted lunk I can assure you that smashing a crystal is far, far too easy unless it is hesalite. Notice how several of my watches have stress fractures on the crystal? I'm not proud of it but I am a watch killer.



Apart from that, I'm pretty sure (and about to be contradicted, I'm sure) that all of the watches in the frame used hesalite at the time. Hesalite really is a magic, magic material! However, using it as the sharp end of a fatal uppercut to the jaw will without doubt shatter it. (Although it will probably shatter in a 'sacrificial' way which would protect the dial and movement where sapphire would happily take the whole damn watch with it!)

Righty ho - I'm off to work to cast some more pearls before swine.

Hello everyone,

Making my first post in a great thread so will tread respectfully.

A quick introduction - I'm Andrew and have been into watches for at least 15 years. Current daily wearer is a Rolex Datejust and also have a Vostok Europe Arktika, A Chinese GMT and the infamous Pulsar Military Chrono. Currently saving hard for a decent mechanical chronograph. Photos to come if can take any half decent ones!

I went to the Ian Fleming exhibition recently at the Imperial War Museum. I am sure that in one of the cases there they have a Rolex Explorer I that they label as Ian Fleming's personal watch. I remember at the time thinking that it looked a bit "shiny" and wondered if it had been unsypathetically restored or if it was a new model representing the older model that Fleming himself wore.

Andrew

[swanbourne]

My former watch repairer could refurbish the old spring-link bracelets, I watched him do it many times and he made it look easy. He had cardboard tubes, approximately 250mm long, which contained compressed rectangular springs in various widths and he just cut off the required length for the link.

The following link is vaguely related to this thread, showing the refurbishment of a 1953 Explorer 6610.

http://www.clockmaker.com.au/w/repair_e ... _6610.html

Eddie

[Ron Jr]

Hello everyone,

Making my first post in a great thread so will tread respectfully.

A quick introduction - I'm Andrew and have been into watches for at least 15 years. Current daily wearer is a Rolex Datejust and also have a Vostok Europe Arktika, A Chinese GMT and the infamous Pulsar Military Chrono. Currently saving hard for a decent mechanical chronograph. Photos to come if can take any half decent ones!

I went to the Ian Fleming exhibition recently at the Imperial War Museum. I am sure that in one of the cases there they have a Rolex Explorer I that they label as Ian Fleming's personal watch. I remember at the time thinking that it looked a bit "shiny" and wondered if it had been unsypathetically restored or if it was a new model representing the older model that Fleming himself wore.

Andrew

I found pictures of that exhibition but sadly none of a watch, plenty of his clothes though.

[Plissk]

Interesting that few talk about Seiko being James Bondish, but many do about the Rolex 5513 :-)

[M4tt]

This is a pity, Seiko produce some fine Gentleman's watches in (for example) their Grand Seiko ranges. However, they used James Bond as the vehicle for their then 'high tech' watches. The main problem with last year's high tech is that it will always date horribly. Imagine if Omega had bought in at the time that Seiko had. How many people would still be taking this alternative universe Bond Watch seriously:

http://www.timezone.com/library/workbench/workbench0010

[adrian]

I agree, but having spoken to a couple of artist friends (yes, I am getting a bit obsessed) all three agreed that painting is not like taking a photograph. As one of theme said in a phrase of almost continental oddness: 'I'm trying to represent the reality of the thing, not what's actually there in front of me; otherwise I'd just take a picture'.

Thus, while conceding that you are in fact correct, I'm going to pull the 'noumena' defence and claim that, as in the case of the hands, the painter may well have gone for a continuity of this rather fetching 'bronze halo' effect rather than trying to represent the complex play of reflections and shadows, which out of context, would have looked a bit, well, crap.

He took the time to do the reflecting light in the crystal and bezel and obviously the artist is not a novice. To my eyes, the way he painted the bezel shows a different material and color. I also study the light and some of the tortures my drawing teacher submitted me were to draw a textile wrapped around tinfoil or make a selfportrait using the reflexion of an INOX pot. I'm trying to emphasize that if something wasn't there the painter didn't just put it to make it pretty and this painter is a very good one.

It bugs me however why the "gold bezel" stops at the second lug, it is not consistent with the light and reflexions. I blame the aliens. :mrgreen:

[adrian]

Imagine if Omega had bought in at the time that Seiko had. How many people would still be taking this alternative universe Bond Watch seriously:

http://www.timezone.com/library/workbench/workbench0010

Thanks heavens they didn't. :lol: :lol:

[M4tt]

Actually, I see precisely what you mean - it runs around from about one until five - it's almost like there is a gold bezel that is actually missing from the other half.

[Neil.C]

Agreed, that looks very weird when you really look at it.

Obviously not an amateurish effort at shading as the rest of the painting is so well executed.

[mr1973]

Could be the reflection of the brown table?

[Neil.C]

I think you could be right.

[M4tt]

Having slept on it and, I confess, blowing up the image and staring at it for an unhealthy period of time I think Adrian is definitely right and there is either a whole, or the remains of, a gold bezel on the front of that watch.

So naturally, as we are talking about a Rolex and Rolex are famous for slapping gold on even the most inappropriate applications, I decided to go hunting for pre 1960s gold bezeled Explorers....

And guess what?

Buried in this:

http://www.xs4all.nl/~rkeulen/watch/explorer.html

article, is the revelation that:

We have even seen a gold capped Explorer with a Tiffany dial with the reference no 5510. The earliest one of these to turn up has been a model 6298, having the manufacture date of ii1 53, and bearing the phrase "Self Winding" more often seen on Tudor watches. It seems that these watches were made in the 1950s or 1960s when Rolex was unsure if the Explorer would succeed or not, and attempted to increase the popularity of the watch by broadening the line. When the mainstream Explorer began to sell it seems that these "piggyback" models were with- drawn. This is one more example of the bizarre fact that it is a company's failures that become the most desirable and valuable items in any collection.

(my italics)

This inspired me to keep searching and then, paydirt:

http://www.watchestobuy.com/RolexExplorer5501.htm

A whole new concept: the 'Dress Explorer':

The second variation are the "dress Explorers." These are standard Oyster Perpetuals in steel or gold with white or black non-Explorer dials but signed, "Explorer". Seen both with and without date these watches seem to have been predominately in the North American Market.

I also found an excellent little article on the Explorer which included pictures of Tenzing's Rolex proto Explorer.

http://www.idolreplicas.com/replicawatc ... xplorer-i/

So, putting together a few more details:

Another possibility is that the watch in the picture is a 'Dress Explorer'. I have struggled to find a picture or description of a Dress Explorer that didn't have a Tiffany Dial instead of the standard Explorer dial. Did such watches exist? most probably. Whether they would have been a factory standard watch or an aftermarket conversion is another matter. Would it be credible to think of Fleming having such a conversion done? Yes, I think so. However, here I think we have a problem. Fleming loved describing the little details of Bond's lavishness; it seems most unlikely he would leave a detail like a custom, or even standard, gold bezel out of his description.

However, I have found another fine example of Fleming equipping Bond out of his own experience. Many have commented upon the inappropriateness of the Beretta 418 to Bond's line of work. It transpires that Fleming chose this weapon as it was the one he was issued when he worked in Naval Intelligence.
Bond's eventual weapon of choice: the Walther PPK, emerged after a fan convinced Fleming that the Beretta was more of a lady's choice and the PPK was a far more appropriate weapon. Frankly, he'd have been better off with a Walther P88 as my experience (obviously now rather outdated experience for legal reasons) is that you can actually hit a barn door with one at 25 yards, a feat quite beyond the Walther PPK I am assured.

Having chased down the quarter dozen people who are 'the real' James Bond, it becomes quite clear that Fleming drew from a number of sources in putting together this composite character. The key point is that he only appears to have asked for, or leant upon, the experience of others when his own was lacking. Clearly in the field of horology his experience was quite sufficient.

Finally, a request:

following my quixotic series of photos which simply demonstrate that I have thin wrists, can anyone get a photo of a 34mm watch on a wrist as thick as Mr Fleming's? It would be really helpful.

[M4tt]

Oh Bugger - I was staring at the redacted image in which the table doesn't feature. Anyway, there is yet another option!

I think I may well have to sit down and pull everything we have found out together again!

[VinceR]

Somewhat late into this thread, but nevertheless a real interesting one! As for me, I could not care less if the 'real' Bond watch is a Sub, Explorer, SMP or whatever. I buy/wear a watch because I like it & not because a fictional character by the name of James Bond does, although no doubt others will. Mind you I will concede that currently the appearances of the Rolex outweigh those by Omega - but in several years time that will (in all probability) change. So, if that does come to pass, will the 'real' Bond watch then become the SMP?

[magirus]

Somewhat late into this thread, but nevertheless a real interesting one! As for me, I could not care less if the 'real' Bond watch is a Sub, Explorer, SMP or whatever. I buy/wear a watch because I like it & not because a fictional character by the name of James Bond does, although no doubt others will. Mind you I will concede that currently the appearances of the Rolex outweigh those by Omega - but in several years time that will (in all probability) change. So, if that does come to pass, will the 'real' Bond watch then become the SMP?

Who can forget Connery being so realistically disguised as an "Oriental in You Only Live Twice"? Perhaps the next and definitive Bond watch will be an Eastern offering?



:D

[mr1973]

An U-Boat perhaps?

[Neil.C]

..following my quixotic series of photos which simply demonstrate that I have thin wrists, can anyone get a photo of a 34mm watch on a wrist as thick as Mr Fleming's? It would be really helpful.

I don't know how thick Flemings wrist was but here is a woefully poor pic of a 34mm Zenith on my 8 inch wrist if that helps. :lol: :wink:

[M4tt]

Yes, I think it does - that's far closer to Fleming's and, scrolling back and forth I think that the sizes look pretty similar. Anyone agree?

[mr1973]

and:



Yup. I agree.

[hogthrob]

Surely that's a stainless steel Explorer on an Oyster bracelet?

[adrian]

and:



Yup. I agree.

Me too.

[M4tt]

Surely that's a stainless steel Explorer on an Oyster bracelet?

I wish I'd thought of that.

[stevieb]

Surely that's a stainless steel Explorer on an Oyster bracelet?

I wish I'd thought of that.

:D

[M4tt]

Thanks for your efforts in 'shopping that photo up a treat. I think that 34mm is beyond contention now.
Just out of interest, what other options have we got at 34mm

More to the point is there any further movement on the golden bezel question - brown table, 'Dress Explorer' or some other possibility.


On another front, I found this article here:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/19/books ... ref=slogin

Bond himself, Fleming said, was “a compound of all the secret agents and commandos I met during the war,” but his tastes — in blondes, martinis “shaken, not stirred,” expensively tailored suits, scrambled eggs, short-sleeved shirts and Rolex watches — were Fleming’s own. But not all the comparisons were ones the author liked to encourage. Bond, he said, had “more guts than I have” as well as being “more handsome.” And he was eager to discourage the idea that he had been as much of a Lothario as Bond before his marriage to Ann Rothermere, whom he wed in 1952, the year he wrote
“Casino Royale.”

I would say that this supports the hypothesis that Fleming would imagine his watch onto Bond's wrist.
I assume that there is a quote out there to find, if only one knew where to look...

[hogthrob]

Surely that's a stainless steel Explorer on an Oyster bracelet?

I wish I'd thought of that.

Yeah, haha, very droll. :)

It might be nice to speculate about all the different models it could be, but when it looks so much like an Explorer, what's to be gained?

[M4tt]

Sorry, you cannot give me a feed line like that and not expect me to take it?

As for the speculation, Well, without the speculation, I, and I hope, a few others, would not have considered all these possibilities and, frankly, some of the watches being speculated about remain live possibilities. I think we have closed down the 31mm bubbleback now but that was looking pretty likely for a moment. oh, and it's fun.

Personally I am now drawn to thinking that it was probably a proto Explorer much as worn by Tenzing on Everest. As such, it's not actually an Explorer, while it looks an awful lot like one. This would explain why Fleming doesn't use the word 'explorer' when he effectively reads off the contents of the dial of his watch.

In addition to this, having gone back and stared at the painting some more I don't see a table, I see a bookcase and perhaps an optical illusion. As such, I think that personally I am currently tending towards a 34mm 'Dress' pre Explorer.

This would be a watch with a gold bezel, Mercedes hands, an 'Explorer' dial but without the words Explorer on it Just as they are not in the picture...

Such a rare and interesting watch would sit well with the character of the man. So until NeilC tells me that such a watch doesn't exist, there is my hypothesis. Not so obvious!

[adrian]

Very interesting discussion and an interesting conclusion too. 8)

[SimonK]

Went to the Ian Fleming exhibition at the Imperial War Museum yesterday. There is his Rolex Explorer I on display in one of the cabinets.

[cdmackay]

This topic has been quiet far too long :)

that gold colour on the bezel seems to also appear further down along the bracelet, too, suggesting that it is merely a reflection. at least to me.

[M4tt]

Went to the Ian Fleming exhibition at the Imperial War Museum yesterday. There is his Rolex Explorer I on display in one of the cabinets.

Following this I took a trip there too - with my camera!



However, it looks to me as if this is a 36mm version while the watch in the OHMSS painting looks to be a 34mm. Can any Rolex expert identify the precise model and thus date?

[mr1973]

The one in the picture seems to be an Explorer 1016, built from 1963 to 1989. However, the riveted bracelet indicates that it's probably one of the earlier models. But you better ask the experts ;-)

[hogthrob]

It looks like it has some gold bits on the case and bracelet :wink:

[swanbourne]

It looks like it has some gold bits on the case and bracelet :wink:

Like the ghost red lines on the "Original Bond strap".

Eddie

[Neil.C]

Riveted bracelet and white writing would indicate 1960's.

Earlier 50's models were gilt writing and 70's models were folded bracelet.