On a related note:
https://i.stuff.co.nz/the-press/news...ng-off-everest
Makes interesting reading.
It seems there was an orchestrated effort to make it all- British. And that is where Smiths come in.
If Hilary was first on summit, it was by design. If Hilary wore/carried/ took or claims he took/carried/wore a Smiths-it is all a part of a pattern. If Hilary was first and Smiths was first- fair play to them. Winners get to write history.
The fact is either men or watches could have been first on summit.
To pretend that Rolex was after glory and Smiths happened to be first on summit by chance or anything else is foolish.
Barrett letter is particularly amusing.
Another interesting link:
https://www.climbing.com/news/everests-other-guy/
At the end of the day, all claims are just claims. Hillary claiming when Tenzing was no longer there that he was first,Tenzing claiming he was first or Hillary claiming he 'carried' a Smiths. There is little documentary evidence other than dodgy pictures and case backs and serial numbers and convinient interpretations of the scant evidence. Understandably, all parties had a vested interest in their own interpretation or representation of 'truth'.
That includes Hillary,Tensing,Rolex,Smiths,India and the British.
It is just tiring to hear the constant refrain that what Rolex claims is propaganda and what Smiths and Hillary claim is the truth as pure as driven snow. Pardon the pun.
Hillary was also a complicated and a fiercely ambitious man.