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

[Deaf Stan]

Well this was posted on the main forum and then oddly the whole thread was deleted. (I was in the process of posting a comment and by the time I hit reply the thread had gone.)

Surely Rolex fans (and I count myself as one) are interested in the truth? And, being libertarians or at least upholders of democracy, in free speech? Maybe not. But assuming we are then here's the article again, perhaps in a more appropriate part of the forum.

https://www.outdoorjournal.com/featu...versy-to-rest/

Thoughts? Questions? Comments?

[motoikkyu]

I did enjoy the article and don't really have a problem with the logical progression. I love my 6098, it's one of my favorites, super-comfortable to wear and easy to read. I'm sure the question of celebrity endorsements pre-dates written language: "Caveman UGG, biggest man in tribe, use grey rock for spark. Be big man like UGG, use grey rock for spark". Unfortunately, corporate sponsorship is lost on folks like me. Ultimately, the world, as a whole, will tell you if a product is any good, or if it's mostly corporate hype. We live currently in an influencer-driven culture but it hasn't really affected my own buying patterns as much as the enthusiast-blogs and online discussions do. Yes, they may be the best socks you've ever worn, but you got them for free from the manufacturer, and I'd have to pay $40 to try them. Imo buy a new strap instead.

[motoikkyu]

Forgot to say, thanks for posting!

[M4tt]

I'm not going to argue with that. I wore this until someone made me an offer I couldn't refuse and it was a treat every time:



In many ways it makes Rolex's behaviour all the more mysterious. There's no denying that the watches speak for themselves.

[watchmavan]

Great read. Thanks.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

[Old Expat Beast]

Originally Posted by Deaf Stan

Well this was posted on the main forum and then oddly the whole thread was deleted. (I was in the process of posting a comment and by the time I hit reply the thread had gone.)

Surely Rolex fans (and I count myself as one) are interested in the truth? And, being libertarians or at least upholders of democracy, in free speech? Maybe not. But assuming we are then here's the article again, perhaps in a more appropriate part of the forum.

https://www.outdoorjournal.com/featu...versy-to-rest/

Thoughts? Questions? Comments?

Your thread is here. It wasn't deleted, just locked. Probably because it was three years old when you resurrected it. https://www.rolexforums.com/showthread.php?t=456380

[77T]

The word “wore” didn’t appear in any of the first hand testimonials. It is clear to me that sometimes 2 different brands were worn. Other times one brand in the wrist and one in the pocket or rucksack.

Which watch got there first is vague by design - sponsorship support and money from Rolex and Smiths helped buy more supplies. Those are the mother’s milk of success on a climb - not this brand or that brand of watch.

Tenzing and Edmund are smiling as we struggle to divine the firstest


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

[watchmavan]

Originally Posted by 77T

The word “wore” didn’t appear in any of the first hand testimonials. It is clear to me that sometimes 2 different brands were worn. Other times one brand in the wrist and one in the pocket or rucksack.

Which watch got there first is vague by design - sponsorship support and money from Rolex and Smiths helped buy more supplies. Those are the mother’s milk of success on a climb - not this brand or that brand of watch.

Tenzing and Edmund are smiling as we struggle to divine the firstest


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

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 do 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 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 when they were designed to. But their 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 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

[77T]

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

[watchmavan]

Originally Posted by 77T

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

Have you read the article or any of the other material available online? Your statement suggests not! Rolex don't actually make that claim. They imply it. There is a dramatic difference.

There's plenty fairly clear to form.an educated opinion from.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

[77T]

Originally Posted by watchmavan

Have you read the article or any of the other material available online? Your statement suggests not! Rolex don't actually make that claim. They imply it. There is a dramatic difference.

There's plenty fairly clear to form.an educated opinion from.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

Yes, I’ve read many articles before those were written as well as those.

In my many years of research I know those articles unearthed nothing new. The authors drew their own conclusions. You have your opinion and I have mine.

Stop your condescending comments.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

[watchmavan]

Originally Posted by 77T

Yes, I’ve read many articles before those were written as well as those.

In my many years of research I know those articles unearthed nothing new. The authors drew their own conclusions. You have your opinion and I have mine.

Stop your condescending comments.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

There was nothing condescending in disputing that first is a significance worthy of recognition. My second post may have come across unintentionally, but was questioning your statement that both claim first. I believe that Smiths do claim first while Rolex implies it.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

[M4tt]

Did you look at the new source: the UK's premier horology magazine, the in-house magazine of the British Horological Institute.

Because, in it, Smiths asserted that Smiths were the only watch worn on the summit. In the same magazine the next month Rolex UK conceded this fact and apologised for the previous false advertising.

I've not seen that anywhere else before and it certainly does bring a factual rigour to the debate. I suggest you read the article before commenting on it.

[M4tt]

Originally Posted by 77T

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

Did you read the article? Because it addresses this very issue using contemporary sources from when both were very much alive. I'm desperate for critique from people who have actually read the article. I'm less keen for it to be dismissed out of hand with an argument that can only come from someone who hasn't read it. There are at least two entirely novel arguments, based on new (or rather, so old it has been forgotten) evidence in there.

Give it a read, then explain where I've gone wrong.

[M4tt]

Originally Posted by watchmavan

There was nothing condescending in disputing that first is a significance worthy of recognition. My second post may have come across unintentionally, but was questioning your statement that both claim first. I believe that Smiths do claim first while Rolex implies it.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

And in my article I provide contemporary evidence that Rolex publicly conceded it to Smiths in the BHI journal no less.

[FrenchBigCrown]

A very interesting article - thanks for sharing.

As an aside, I own a nice Smiths W10 military watch. It's not worth much, but it's a nice thing to own.

[Deaf Stan]

Originally Posted by Old Expat Beast

Your thread is here. It wasn't deleted, just locked. Probably because it was three years old when you resurrected it. https://www.rolexforums.com/showthread.php?t=456380

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

Originally Posted by 77T

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.

Have you actually read the article? Rolex said Smiths were first.

Originally Posted by 77T

In my many years of research I know those articles unearthed nothing new.

Really? You'd seen that letter from Mr Winter before? OK. I'm impressed.

Originally Posted by 77T

You have your opinion and I have mine.

You have your opinion but the article has facts.

[Deaf Stan]

Originally Posted by FrenchBigCrown

A very interesting article - thanks for sharing.

As an aside, I own a nice Smiths W10 military watch. It's not worth much, but it's a nice thing to own.

They start at about €1,000 these days. Great watches. And worth remembering that Smiths were a true, in-house, vertically-integrated manufacture when Rolex were still using Aegler movements and Valjoux chronographs. In fact they even made their own jewels.

The person I'd really like to hear from on this thread is Philipp Stahl. He's on record as saying "Although it will always remain a mystery if Rolex was literally on the summit, the Oyster Perpetual models were an essential part of the equipment back then."

I don't think it's a mystery any longer. Sorry, Philipp.

[77T]

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

[watchmavan]

Originally Posted by M4tt

And in my article I provide contemporary evidence that Rolex publicly conceded it to Smiths in the BHI journal no less.

Yes. I hadn't seen that when I responded. While it appears first in the timeline now, it was not there when I responded. Apologies.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

[Deaf Stan]

Originally Posted by 77T

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.

Except we know Hillary was first. And he wore a Smiths, so . . . .

Originally Posted by 77T

In the article you posted, I can’t put my finger on a Winters letter.

Images uploaded (and copyright / ownership duly noted -- AHS and BHI)

Originally Posted by 77T

(An aside - were you aware that even if a Smiths was the sole watch, it had a Swiss heart running inside?)

No, it had a cal. 400 Smiths "1215", all made in England (except the jewels; they were made in Scotland)

As I said earlier: Smiths were a true, in-house, vertically-integrated manufacture when Rolex were still using Aegler movements and Valjoux chronographs. In fact Smiths even made their own jewels.

[M4tt]

Originally Posted by watchmavan

Yes. I hadn't seen that when I responded. While it appears first in the timeline now, it was not there when I responded. Apologies.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

That's very decent of you. Can you point it out to 77T who clearly hasn't read the bit where the managing director of Rolex says:

Hillary was, in fact, only wearing one watch at the summit and that a Smiths watch. We congratulate Smiths on the fact that their Smiths Delux ordinary wind wristwatch reached the summit with Sir Edmund Hillary.

As for the claim that the Smiths had a Swiss movement:



Smiths Cal.400 in a Dennison Aquatite case as stated in the British Museum

If Tenzing had been wearing a Rolex, I rather think Rolex would have mentioned it. If not, then that's possibly a far more damaging an accusation than I'd ever be prepared to make. However, they didn't even allot him one for the expedition, possibly because until the very last minute it wasn't even clear he'd be able to be the Sirdar as he was recovering from a back injury. His original contract specified he wouldn't be climbing above, off the top of my head, 27,000 feet. He didn't become part of the climbing party until well after they were on their own. Thirteen watches. How many people were in the expedition? Here's a clue:



Thirteen, plus the Sirdar who was a better, fitter more experienced climber than the lot of them. He's front and centre here, because it's taken afterwards. Before hand he had to sleep in the stables of the British Embassy. The Hillary Tenzing attempt was a last ditch attempt and Hunt was a good enough leader to send his best rather than be blinded by Imperial blinkers.

[Deaf Stan]

P.S. Don't you think that if Tenzing had taken a Rolex to the top we'd know all about it? The silence from Geneva is very telling

[77T]

Originally Posted by Deaf Stan

Except we know Hillary was first. And he wore a Smiths, so . . . .

Thanks for the image - yes I had seen that before.

We do not know Hillary was first. He, Hunt and Tenzing decided to never tell.

From Hillary’s own words...

"When we came out toward Kathmandu, there was a very strong political feeling, particularly among the Indian and Nepalese press, who very much wanted to be assured that Tenzing was first."
"That would indicate that Nepalese and Indian climbers were at least as good as foreign climbers. We felt quite uncomfortable with this at the time. John Hunt, Tenzing, and I had a little meeting. We agreed not to tell who stepped on the summit first.”


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

[M4tt]

Originally Posted by 77T

Thanks for the image - yes I had seen that before.

We do not know Hillary was first. He, Hunt and Tenzing decided to never tell.

From Hillary’s own words...

"When we came out toward Kathmandu, there was a very strong political feeling, particularly among the Indian and Nepalese press, who very much wanted to be assured that Tenzing was first."
"That would indicate that Nepalese and Indian climbers were at least as good as foreign climbers. We felt quite uncomfortable with this at the time. John Hunt, Tenzing, and I had a little meeting. We agreed not to tell who stepped on the summit first.”


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

And then in his 1955 autobiography Tenzing stated clearly that Hillary did. Hillary has since acknowledged that.

[77T]

Originally Posted by M4tt

And then in his 1955 autobiography Tenzing stated clearly that Hillary did. Hillary has since acknowledged that.

Yes - "To a mountaineer, it's of no great consequence who actually sets foot first. Often the one who puts more into the climb steps back and lets his partner stand on top first." The pair's pact stood until years later, when Tenzing revealed in his autobiography, Tiger of the Snows, that Hillary had in fact preceded him.

My apologies for failing to add that last part.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

[M4tt]

Originally Posted by 77T

Yes - "To a mountaineer, it's of no great consequence who actually sets foot first. Often the one who puts more into the climb steps back and lets his partner stand on top first." The pair's pact stood until years later, when Tenzing revealed in his autobiography, Tiger of the Snows, that Hillary had in fact preceded him.

My apologies for failing to add that last part.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

It probably mattered given the claim you were making. Saying

We do not know Hillary was first. He, Hunt and Tenzing decided to never tell.

if you did know that Tenzing, in fact, chose to tell later.

However, if you didn't know, then saying:

My apologies for failing to add that last part.

Implies knowledge you didn't have at the time, which is an odd thing to do.

Which is it?

And while you are apologising, I can assure you that every word of that article was either an attributed quote or entirely my own words. If you would like to show me an example of any 'lifted passages' that were not entirely my own words:

In this new Op-Ed article, I recognized passages lifted from other articles I’ve read over the years.

I'd be very grateful. Otherwise it would be nice to withdraw the slur. I am clear that the article has developed over the years but the implication here is that I am plagiarising, which is a grave accusation.

[77T]

No, you were not plagiarizing. Just standing on the shoulders of the many researchers ahead of you. Nothing wrong in that.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

[springer]

Based on my reading skills, Smiths made it to the top which is detailed at the end of the article in a letter written by Rolex. The facts are very prima facie for the Smiths....sorry Rolex.

[M4tt]

Originally Posted by 77T

No, you were not plagiarizing. Just standing on the shoulders of the many researchers ahead of you. Nothing wrong in that.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

Indeed. A fact I am very clear to state. However, asserting whole passages are 'lifted' goes beyond that.

Thank you for the explicit retraction. You can also see there is a fair bit of original research there. However, we all stand on the shoulders of giants.

So, cutting through the rhetorical flourishes, is the exchange between Smiths and Rolex satisfactory? Smiths are clear and explicit that there was no Rolex on the summit. Rolex do not dispute that, even if they focus on Hillary.