Rolex Forums - Rolex Watch Forum - View Single Post - Ian Fleming’s 1016 Explorer Movement and SN? Quandary? (v2)

M4tt · 10 June 2020, 04:55 AM

Well, as I'm here, I think I might want to have an opinion on Mr Deaton being the person who first put forward the hypothesis that Bond's original watch was an Explorer. He unambiguously wasn't.

I first put forward the hypothesis here:

https://forums.watchuseek.com/f20/ja...-198533-3.html

On the 31st of October 2008, nearly six months before Mr Deaton claims he was the first to make that connection. See post 21 followed by post 25 in which I explicitly make the claim with a clear argument that will be familiar to anyone who has read Mr Deaton's exclusive.

What is perhaps more damaging is that Mr Deaton demonstrably became aware of my hypothesis here:

https://forums.watchuseek.com/f20/ja...-198533-5.html

(Post 48) on November the fifth 2008. His article was published in February of 2009. It wasn't a scoop.

I'm not accusing Mr Deaton of plagiarism, although others in the Bond and watch community certainly did at the time. However, as a few moments on the link provided above will show, I first put forward the hypothesis that Mr Deaton claims to have been the first to make, back in November of 2008 on WUS.

Mr Deaton was fully and utterly aware of this fact and yet has claimed that this was his scoop ever since. It wasn't. Whether he stole my idea or not is something that is between Mr Deaton, his conscience and God. That he still claims he was the person to break the story demonstrates the relationship he has with his conscience.

What he did do is recorded in this collection of links:

https://forums.watchuseek.com/f20/wh...ux-222506.html

It's not pretty, but it's all still there to be found for anyone who wants further confirmation.

10 June 2020, 04:55 AM	#48
M4tt "TRF" Member Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: UK Posts: 49	Well, as I'm here, I think I might want to have an opinion on Mr Deaton being the person who first put forward the hypothesis that Bond's original watch was an Explorer. He unambiguously wasn't. I first put forward the hypothesis here: https://forums.watchuseek.com/f20/ja...-198533-3.html On the 31st of October 2008, nearly six months before Mr Deaton claims he was the first to make that connection. See post 21 followed by post 25 in which I explicitly make the claim with a clear argument that will be familiar to anyone who has read Mr Deaton's exclusive. What is perhaps more damaging is that Mr Deaton demonstrably became aware of my hypothesis here: https://forums.watchuseek.com/f20/ja...-198533-5.html (Post 48) on November the fifth 2008. His article was published in February of 2009. It wasn't a scoop. I'm not accusing Mr Deaton of plagiarism, although others in the Bond and watch community certainly did at the time. However, as a few moments on the link provided above will show, I first put forward the hypothesis that Mr Deaton claims to have been the first to make, back in November of 2008 on WUS. Mr Deaton was fully and utterly aware of this fact and yet has claimed that this was his scoop ever since. It wasn't. Whether he stole my idea or not is something that is between Mr Deaton, his conscience and God. That he still claims he was the person to break the story demonstrates the relationship he has with his conscience. What he did do is recorded in this collection of links: https://forums.watchuseek.com/f20/wh...ux-222506.html It's not pretty, but it's all still there to be found for anyone who wants further confirmation.