Rolex Forums - Rolex Watch Forum - View Single Post - The original James Bond Rolex: The Ian Fleming Explorer 1016

JacksonStone · 9 December 2016, 11:19 AM

Reviving an old topic. I have some issues with Deaton's thesis. For one, there is no definitive way to identify any literary Bond Rolex, since none are ever named by model. The best anyone can do is speculate, which is exactly what Deaton has done. The problem is, Deaton claims he has done more than speculate, and boasts (not without a hint of ego) that he has definitively identified Bond's Rolex. I think Deaton really wants to believe he has made a significant contribution to Bond lore, and therefore claims he has made a discovery he hasn't. At best, he has speculated correctly, but ultimately all his speculation can be surmised as, "This is the Rolex model Ian Fleming owned, which must mean he intended for Bond to wear it." There is nothing definitive about that kind of assumption, so at a minimum, Deaton is fallacious in claiming he has made any kind of definitive identification, even if he is correct in his identification.

But there's another problem. For sake of argument, let's accept as correct Deaton's assertion that the Rolex Oyster mentioned (but not identified) in On Her Majesty's Secret Service is the definitive Bond Rolex, since it's the one Bond bought for himself. (This handily dismisses the Rolex Bond wore in Live and Let Die - which was most likely a Submariner - on the grounds that it was supplied by Q branch, rather than personally acquired by Bond.) OHMSS was published in April 1963. The Explorer 1016 - Fleming's own Explorer, and the watch Deaton argues was intended by Fleming to be Bond's Oyster Perpetual in OHMSS - was introduced that same year. Based on these dates, it is highly unlikely Fleming actually owned the 1016 prior to publication of OHMSS. Even if Fleming did own the 1016 prior to publication, he certainly was writing the novel prior to owning the watch, meaning he couldn't have had it in mind for Bond when he was writing it. Despite all of Deaton's research, he never mentions this inconsistency, nor have I seen him address it in other threads. I think the reason is simple: it conclusively disproves his thesis.

9 December 2016, 11:19 AM	#24
JacksonStone Banned Join Date: Jul 2011 Location: Oregon Posts: 5,150	Reviving an old topic. I have some issues with Deaton's thesis. For one, there is no definitive way to identify any literary Bond Rolex, since none are ever named by model. The best anyone can do is speculate, which is exactly what Deaton has done. The problem is, Deaton claims he has done more than speculate, and boasts (not without a hint of ego) that he has definitively identified Bond's Rolex. I think Deaton really wants to believe he has made a significant contribution to Bond lore, and therefore claims he has made a discovery he hasn't. At best, he has speculated correctly, but ultimately all his speculation can be surmised as, "This is the Rolex model Ian Fleming owned, which must mean he intended for Bond to wear it." There is nothing definitive about that kind of assumption, so at a minimum, Deaton is fallacious in claiming he has made any kind of definitive identification, even if he is correct in his identification. But there's another problem. For sake of argument, let's accept as correct Deaton's assertion that the Rolex Oyster mentioned (but not identified) in On Her Majesty's Secret Service is the definitive Bond Rolex, since it's the one Bond bought for himself. (This handily dismisses the Rolex Bond wore in Live and Let Die - which was most likely a Submariner - on the grounds that it was supplied by Q branch, rather than personally acquired by Bond.) OHMSS was published in April 1963. The Explorer 1016 - Fleming's own Explorer, and the watch Deaton argues was intended by Fleming to be Bond's Oyster Perpetual in OHMSS - was introduced that same year. Based on these dates, it is highly unlikely Fleming actually owned the 1016 prior to publication of OHMSS. Even if Fleming did own the 1016 prior to publication, he certainly was writing the novel prior to owning the watch, meaning he couldn't have had it in mind for Bond when he was writing it. Despite all of Deaton's research, he never mentions this inconsistency, nor have I seen him address it in other threads. I think the reason is simple: it conclusively disproves his thesis.