Quote:
Originally Posted by Deaf Stan
No. It wasn't "my" thread, I was just posting a comment.
And it wasn't that one, it was this one:
https://www.rolexforums.com/showthre...1#post10659148
Have you actually read the article? Rolex said Smiths were first.
Really? You'd seen that letter from Mr Winter before? OK. I'm impressed.
You have your opinion but the article has facts. |
Yes, Stan, I did read it. And the 2016 thread of yours - the one Adam cited - was reviewed too. You have every reason to opine a Smiths made it to the summit - I respect your patriotic opinion.
This is a good discussion despite a few who wish to deride other’s opinions.
I agree a Smiths made it - but even in this new article - not to the
exclusion of a Rolex as well. Did you know the model Tenzing wore?
So that is why I have the opinion that we shall never know “firstest” - and that’s the consensus I’ve read in the past.
In this new Op-Ed article, I recognized passages lifted from other articles I’ve read over the years. As well as advert copy I’ve read in vintage Rolex collateral. Nothing wrong with that.
I started my reading in the late ‘80’s. Of course it is dominated by Rolex authored literature since Smiths had already ceased to make watches. (An aside - were you aware that even if a Smiths was the sole watch, it had a Swiss heart running inside?)
In the article you posted, I can’t put my finger on a Winters letter. Was it in a slide show inside the article like the Sir John Hunt signed testimonial cited by Matthew Knight? I read it on my iPhone so maybe the images are not all displayed.
I respect your opinion but I saw no new factual material in the article - just more insightful speculation by that author.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro