Quote:
Originally Posted by watchmavan
Let's not wax lyrics here. I love my Rolex watches just like anyone else. I'm also very connected to watches that own a narrative. I have an Explorer II Polar, an Explorer and Speedy Professional to help scratch those itches. This and other stories so not diminish my connection to these and other watches, but the marketing arm of Rolex has consistent form here in painting a narrative that is not based on fact. Another example is the the German swimmer crossing the English Channel wearing the bubble back waterproof watch. She didn't cross the channel! She didn't make it.
Neither of these stories should diminish the quality and capabilities of Rolex as they performed where and where they were detuned to. But there marketing arm has built a story to be more than what they were.... With clear intent knowing all the while that they were building a false context. I don't think any less of their achievements or their product, but let's not excuse or justify or downplay who was there first. That's would be like taking credit from the humans who were first in their own endeavours. The first man to the moon, sub 10 second 100 meters, the bottom of the ocean, etc.
The first is always important and should always be recognised.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro
|
I don’t know who was first, the only two people who knew are dead. My guess is both brands were taken to the top whether on a wrist or in a pocket.
Both brands claimed first place.
There is no unequivocal empirical proof that one or the other brand was first.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro