Good article on Rolex vs Smiths: who was first to the summit of Everest in '53

[Brew]

Interesting article. Unpleasant thread.

[M4tt]

Originally Posted by watchmavan

Given the official comms from both companies, isn't this already settled?

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

I would sincerely hope so. However, my life has given me enough 'ooh. I didn't think of that' moments that I'd rather not take anything for granted.

I think my article does three things:

1) It appears to prove, beyond doubt, that there wasn't a Rolex on the summit of Everest. This has been accepted as a fact for as long as I've been talking about watches.

2) Given the nature of that proof, it proves that Rolex are fully aware that there wasn't a Rolex on the summit of Everest.

3) It reflects on the way that Rolex have subsequently advertised in a way that, while not actually factually inaccurate, often invites a reasonable reader to infer that there was a Rolex on the summit of Everest in 1953. I then challenge Rolex to put the record straight. I wouldn't bother doing that If I wasn't aware of the absolutely moral nature of Wilsdorf's founding charter for the company. Rolex's behaviour is consistently in line with the spirit of that charter, except here.

So I have a dual aim- if I'm wrong in any way, I want to know. Where better place to have my complacency shattered than here? I haven't spammed the boards with this. I have only posted it here and in forums I regularly use. I have fond memories of having my preconceptions challenged by JJ many years ago and hoped that things hadn't changed.

My second aim is to prick the conscience of the king, To do that I need this to be noticed. Where better to ask the question of Rolex? I don't expect them to respond, but I do expect them to notice and, just perhaps, the next adverts will not put my teeth on edge. I'm pretty certain my publisher has already contacted Rolex, but while I don't believe Rolex to be a capitalist company, rather a Swiss company, which is quite different. I do believe they have to be responsive to their market and I'd be delighted to change the market a tiny bit...

[M4tt]

Originally Posted by Brew

Interesting article. Unpleasant thread.

Surely a bit of a curate's egg? good in parts.

[M4tt]

Originally Posted by Subterranean

M4tt.you have obviously done a lot of research on this topic and it shows...im entitled to my 2 cents worth and I hope that you can understand that..my input and opinion on this topic has concluded.

That's a pity. Your two cents were explicitly and clearly addressed in the article. It would be so much better if you rebutted that rather than talking past it.

[Deaf Stan]

Originally Posted by Brew

Interesting article. Unpleasant thread.

The two are not unrelated. This is a Rolex forum and the article finds against Rolex as being the first to the summit of Everest.

Some people are very heavily invested (emotionally, intellectually and financially) in the brand. When confronted with evidence that goes against it they react in all sorts of irrational or negative ways. The cognitive dissonance is deafening.

That reflects badly on them, in my opinion. And I say that as a seeker after truth first and a Rolex fan second. As, again in my opinion, we all should be. Let's not allow our love of, and loyalty to, the brand cloud our judgement or make us uncritical -- and worse.

[M4tt]

Originally Posted by Deaf Stan

The two are not unrelated. This is a Rolex forum and the article finds against Rolex as being the first to the summit of Everest.

Some people are very heavily invested (emotionally, intellectually and financially) in the brand. When confronted with evidence that goes against it they react in all sorts of irrational or negative ways. The cognitive dissonance is deafening.

That reflects badly on them, in my opinion. And I say that as a seeker after truth first and a Rolex fan second. As, again in my opinion, we all should be. Let's not allow our love of, and loyalty to, the brand cloud our judgement or make us uncritical -- and worse.

I'm not sure that's fair. There's really only been one person who has been unreasonable in the way you describe, and to be fair, you are trailing your coat a little and I have little ante to be here since I last posted in 2011. I think the response has been generally reflective and a credit to anyone. I'd welcome a little more criticism focussed upon the argument.

[Old Expat Beast]

Originally Posted by M4tt

I'm not sure that's fair. There's really only been one person who has been unreasonable in the way you describe, and to be fair, you are trailing your coat a little and I have little ante to be here since I last posted in 2011. I think the response has been generally reflective and a credit to anyone. I'd welcome a little more criticism focussed upon the argument.

I enjoyed your article and thought it was very well put together

[Deaf Stan]

Originally Posted by M4tt

I'm not sure that's fair. There's really only been one person who has been unreasonable in the way you describe, and to be fair, you are trailing your coat a little and I have little ante to be here since I last posted in 2011. I think the response has been generally reflective and a credit to anyone. I'd welcome a little more criticism focussed upon the argument.

Fair enough. I guess I'm just a little disappointed with some of the engagement here, it feels a but defensive (or maybe it's just me that does?)

Anyway, thanks for the article. I have a lot of respect and affection for Smiths and this has only increased it! Any company who made clocks for Spitfires can claim some serious attitude -- AND altitude!

[watchmavan]

I've been spending some time looking through old advertising material. It reads like entirely new text in all of them. Very interesting.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

[M4tt]

Originally Posted by watchmavan

I've been spending some time looking through old advertising material. It reads like entirely new text in all of them. Very interesting.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

It is quite amazing the effort that they go to to say something without saying it isn't it! Technically, they are abusing something called implicature:

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/implicature/

Which is virtually unknown outside of linguistics and philosophy. I'm a philosopher and, if I'm honest, it was doing precisely what you are doing that initially convinced me that something was wrong. The amount of polished creativity that went into never quite saying something while implying it relentlessly began to feel very strange. It's always a pattern of behaviour rather than individual acts that gives people away.

[M4tt]

Originally Posted by Deaf Stan

Fair enough. I guess I'm just a little disappointed with some of the engagement here, it feels a but defensive (or maybe it's just me that does?)

Anyway, thanks for the article. I have a lot of respect and affection for Smiths and this has only increased it! Any company who made clocks for Spitfires can claim some serious attitude -- AND altitude!

Ahh, but here's the rub: Smiths have nothing to be proud of there.

Back in the Thirties, there was a very good chronometer clock designed for aircraft. It was called the chronoflight and, initially, it was designed by Jaeger and made by LeCoultre (before the two became one). Unfortunately, in the thirties. protectionism was rife and to get around this, LeCoultre opened shadow factories in the UK, US and USSR to make this very clock and other instrumentation.

Within two years, the Soviets had nationalised the Russian one, which carried on churning out Russian Chronoflights until 1993 - the are easy to get on ebay but very radioactive. The American outfit carried on happily for years, but in the UK, Joseph Smith, acting like a gangster, engineered a situation in which Lecoultre had little choice but to sell a controlling interest in the factory and allow Smiths to rip off their deign which they merrily did via a proxy, a distant relative of Jaeger, for a short while before absorbing it into Smiths.

Meanwhile, The chronoflight was only used in the earliest of Spitfires. Before a handful of squadrons had been equipped, the Spifire was equipped with an entirely inferior design, mostly made by smiths but topped up by US imports. By the middle of the Battle of Britain, there were a handful of Chronoflight equipped Spitfires. By 1942, the clock position was usually blanked over as it was realised that the Spitfire really didn't need one in the role it was used for.

Ironically, a thousand war weary Spitfires were given to the USSR with the clocks stripped out - the Russians gleefully retrofitted them with their own identical clocks. As a result, it is probably more likely that a Spitfire (or Hurricane) was fitted with a Russian variant than the original which was probably only fitted to a handful of pre-production models.

And IWC was owned by CG JUng who I argue was culpable for the death Of James Joyce!

They are all rotters. The lot of them! ;-)

[M4tt]

Originally Posted by Old Expat Beast

I enjoyed your article and thought it was very well put together

Thank you, I was after constructive criticism, but I'll take a compliment at a pinch.

[Deaf Stan]

Philipp Stahl has done a lot work on this; I'd love to hear from him. If anyone can put the case for Rolex, it's him.

[M4tt]

Originally Posted by Deaf Stan

Philipp Stahl has done a lot work on this; I'd love to hear from him. If anyone can put the case for Rolex, it's him.

I confess that, in my limited experience, that is not the case. It's like arguing theology with the Spanish Inquisition. All I ever heard from him is The Comfy Chair. No one expects that.

[Deaf Stan]

Originally Posted by M4tt

I confess that, in my limited experience, that is not the case. It's like arguing theology with the Spanish Inquisition. All I ever heard from him is The Comfy Chair. No one expects that.

I'm sure he's a really nice chap. I've reached out to him so we'll see what, if anything, he'll say.

Enjoying this thread by the way. Thanks

[Deaf Stan]

“And IWC was owned by CG Jung who I argue was culpable for the death Of James Joyce!”

What the —? I’m going to message you to find out more about that before we derail this thread any further

[NWCarver]

Very well researched article - intriguing read - and very clear in its findings, which to my mind finally answers the question of which watch was carried to the summit in 1953.

Thank you for taking the time to put this on here and explain your research behind this - it was good to read something that challenged thinking around this subject.

But I must say that I am surprised, and simply do not understand, the defensive tones of some of the comments here about a good piece of research - almost as if the author of the research has committed a crime of some kind - yet he has simply drawn conclusions from where the raw data that he has researched has lead him to...amending his original research, as fresh data has come to light..

For the record - I am a Rolex fan and have three Rolex watches and five Tudor’ watches (as well as another 30 watches from various makers - both vintage and modern).

[watchmavan]

Also of interest here are the few people who choose to believe something that has, at it seems, absolutely no basis in any factual information. Their arguments that they "believe" one of the climbers had one in their bag or wore a second watch is incredible to hear from supposed educated adults. Then there is the only so far known official documents from both companies! I wasn't aware that Rolex had a cult like following that was absolutely blinded to facts. The call that Smiths were alone in the first summit of Everest is not inferred but based on all available facts both before, during and post climb. The call that Rolex were also there has as it's best defense, that they had one in their possession therefore they had it with them. I wonder what else went to the top of Everest, the mind boggles.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

[wb55]

Originally Posted by Brew

Interesting article. Unpleasant thread.

Fact Vs opinion was never a happy marriage. I'm happy to see facts won in the end and am grateful for the discussion. Very interesting thread.