Rolex has gone too far!!!! Time to real them IN!
Looks like Rolex has a lot of explaining to do! This is an internal instruction card for Rolex sales personnel. I'm guessing that it was for Rolex stores and for their Authorized Dealer network usage. Paragraph 5, subitem 4. This card instructs sales personnel to tell prospective buyers that Rolex was the "FIRST WATERPROOF WATCH". This false advertising claim has been categorically proven to be COMPLETELY UNTRUE! Each instance is a separate count according to the United States Federal Trade Commission, MANY other countries around the world have the same laws. Just two days ago Rolex once again posted these false claims around the world when advertising their Oyster case on numerous social media sites, check their SM posts from this past week. Pissed off because you have in fact been lied to? File a complaint with the Federal Trade Commission! If you'd like to read how history ACTUALLY happened check out my latest book. It has ALL of the United States federal government documents that prove, beyond any doubt whatsoever, that Rolex's claim of being the "world's first waterproof watch" is completely false. Charles Depollier released the Waltham Depollier "Field & Marine" Waterproof Watch in 1918. 8 YEARS BEFORE the Rolex Oyster! It was successfully tested for waterproof ability by the United States National Bureau of Standards in 1918. The tests were conducted by Lieutenant Colonel Mauborge, Commander of the U.S. Army Engineering & Research Division in Washington DC. You can absolutely sue for being defrauded, Rolex or the Authorized Dealer. Know your rights and take action! I would be delighted to testify as an expert witness in your legal proceedings.
I wrote the 341 page book, "The inconvenient Truth about the World's First Waterproof Watch, the Story of Charles Depollier and his Waterproof Trench Watches of the Great War".
Recipient of the 2023 NAWCC Roberts-Taylor Award for Excellence in the Field of Horological Research. Multiple Title Watch Book Author, Vintage American Military Watch Dealer, Watchmaker.
More from LRFAntiqueWatches
It might be hard to stomach but Rolex was the first company to patent waterproof watches. Did they copy someone else's design? Absolutely. But they were the first to the patent office.
It might be hard to stomach but Rolex was the first company to patent waterproof watches. Did they copy someone else's design? Absolutely. But they were the first to the patent office.
Sorry to say but you are incredibly misinformed.
"But they were the first to the patent office", this statement is 100% not accurate.
It happened 8 YEARS earlier.
It might be hard to stomach but Rolex was the first company to patent waterproof watches. Did they copy someone else's design? Absolutely. But they were the first to the patent office.
Actually, Rolex purchased the patents from Perregaux
I'm all for pushing against this legally but the www.ftccomplaintassistant.gov url isn't working for me and some people even less motivated than I may need explicit clickable links to make it more convenient for them.
To file a complaint with the FTC, go to ReportFraud.ftc.gov/#/?orgcode=FCC
or call toll-free 1-877-FTC-HELP (1-877-382-4357).
Might be easiest to call and report the false claim.
Not defending Rolex but just playing devil's advocate: is it possible that their claim of the first waterproof watch is "legally correct," even if not historically correct? In other words, Rolex can make this claim on a legal basis due to various patents and patent law. I realize they were not the first to patent waterproof technology, but it does appear they purchased multiple patents and perhaps it's how they incorporated it all into their own Oyster case design that qualifies it as a legally accurate statement?
I just would find it hard to believe they would carelessly market their brand that way without prior review from their presumably huge legal team. Either that, or the darker truth may be that they are daring anyone to try to fight them on it, knowing they are equipped to defend or pay away any suits.
Every single Charles Depollier patent that went into his Waltham Depollier "Field & Marine" Waterproof Watch pre-dates ANYTHING Rolex did by at LEAST 8 YEARS.
Including Depollier's watch coming to market.
CONFIRMED by the federal government of the United States.
I have published the government documents in my latest book that slam dunk Rolex's claim.
The Federal Trade Commission is NOT going to deny the United States War Department reports and the United States Army documents that date back to 1918 - 1919.
The War Department today is known as the Department of Defense (DOD).
https://www.vintagewatchstraps.com/waterproof.php
Funnily enough Rokex only mentions the supposedly high costs of materials and production 🤔, not the massive marketing budget to create the Rolex brand aura which is way more impressive and an entirely valid reason to buy one in my book. Let's be honest, Roger Federer's endorsement can't come cheap!
Rolex do have something of history with dubious marketing claims about technical innovations. In the 50s they had to print a full page apology to John Harwood for claiming they invented the first self-winding wristwatch movement (spoiler, they didn't).
https://www.vintagewatchstraps.com/waterproof.php
While I fully respect your link there is NO actual evidence confirming anything that pre-dates Depollier's waterproof watch.
No proof/documentation from a horological, government or scientific agency confirming a waterproof claim.
No proof, no dice.
If Hans Wilsdorf has taught us anything, it's that advertisements are not proof of anything.
Depollier's watch is backed up by a MOUNTAIN of United States government evidence.
While I fully respect your link there is NO actual evidence confirming anything that pre-dates Depollier's waterproof watch.
No proof/documentation from a horological, government or scientific agency confirming a waterproof claim.
No proof, no dice.
If Hans Wilsdorf has taught us anything, it's that advertisements are not proof of anything.
Depollier's watch is backed up by a MOUNTAIN of United States government evidence.
Sorry-I hadn't realized that you were the worlds foremost authority on waterproof watches.
I posted the link because it provided interesting info that apparently isn't nearly as well researched or informative as that contained in your multiple "watch books".
This makes me feel nothing... I don't really care.. Lame, but it doesn't bother me 🤔
This is pretty interesting , but honestly , I have abandoned my interest in Rolex , so they can say w.e they want
I will not hear them all the way from the Omega AD anyway :p
I don’t know much about the truth of the claim about being the first l waterproof watch but one thing that I know for a fact that is a complete lie is the ‘Rolex aftersales service network’….,which essentially does not exist…… prepare to wait 12 months if your watch requires servicing with no updates or explanations
Hey Stan -
Check out the new issue of the Rolex Magazine (#10).
The CEO of Rolex makes this false claim in the first sentence on the first page of the magazine and then the magazine makes the claim again in the section where they discuss the oyster case.
It boiled my blood and made me want to make another post about the false statements Rolex makes about their achievments.
But then I was reading Gisbert Brunner's great book on Rolex where he often quotes Hans Wilsdorf. And I realized...
Hans Wilsdorf was just another narcissistic promoter like Steve Jobs, P.T. Barnum and Colonel Tom Parker.
Every statement Wilsdorf makes is "I, I, I,..." No credit for the actual people who created the technology or developed the designs. It is all Me, Me, Me...I, I, I.
He makes incredible inflated statements and was an inveterate anglophile. You could tell that this poor orphan boy from Germany wanted so bad to be royalty. It's what drove him his whole life.
For example, the crown logo, the rose logo, using the royal Tudor name, naming his earliest Rolex watches "Prince", and on and on.
I love the quote that Hans received the Rolex name from a genie while he was riding in a carriage in London...the genie whispered the name Rolex in his ear 🤣
Then I thought...what a really sad man. Desperate to be "somebody" it drove him to do what he did.
So now I am at peace. The Rolex lies will continue to spout from their lips and be typed from their fingers, but it goes back to this sad little man who wanted to be a "royal".
David Boettcher's research leaves basically no doubt - neither Rolex nor Depollier were the first. The Tavannes-made Submarine pre-dates Depollier by a solid margin, and the watertightness of Borgel's 1891 design isn't an overstatement. As I recall, the earliest Borgel-cased wristwatch he encountered was an IWC dating to 1906.
Claims about Depollier and ones by Rolex - hit and...ironically...sunk.
Can you please give us the names of the two supposed naval officers at the center of this story about the Tavannes? It being one of the most important moments in horological history you can at least give us their names?
Sorry to say but you are incredibly misinformed.
"But they were the first to the patent office", this statement is 100% not accurate.
It happened 8 YEARS earlier.
You're Late! How the Invention of the Wristwatch Forced Workers to be On Time (thevintagenews.com)
"However, according to the UK Intellectual Property Office, no patents were filed between 1820 and 1900 for waterproof watches. This left the technology up for grabs, and it was Rolex that finally patented the technology and marketed the “first” waterproof watch."
Actually, Rolex purchased the patents from Perregaux
That was a patent for a screw down crown and stem, which was then incorporated into Oyster Case.
Insight: Patents in Watchmaking | SJX Watches (watchesbysjx.com)
That was a patent for a screw down crown and stem, which was then incorporated into Oyster Case.
Insight: Patents in Watchmaking | SJX Watches (watchesbysjx.com)
The Waltham Depollier Field & Marine Waterproof Watch did in FACT have a screw down crown in 1918. So did the 1919 Waltham Depollier THERMO Waterproof Watch.
Every single Charles Depollier patent that went into his Waltham Depollier "Field & Marine" Waterproof Watch pre-dates ANYTHING Rolex did by at LEAST 8 YEARS.
Including Depollier's watch coming to market.
CONFIRMED by the federal government of the United States.
I have published the government documents in my latest book that slam dunk Rolex's claim.
The Federal Trade Commission is NOT going to deny the United States War Department reports and the United States Army documents that date back to 1918 - 1919.
The War Department today is known as the Department of Defense (DOD).
Were these watches ever intended to be made available to the general public or were they intended solely for military use? Did Rolex copy any of the designs you list above? If so, how did they get hold of US Military tech?
The Waltham Depollier Field & Marine Waterproof Watch did in FACT have a screw down crown in 1918. So did the 1919 Waltham Depollier THERMO Waterproof Watch.
Maybe. But they were not the patented tech bought and utilised by Rolex.
I don’t know much about the truth of the claim about being the first l waterproof watch but one thing that I know for a fact that is a complete lie is the ‘Rolex aftersales service network’….,which essentially does not exist…… prepare to wait 12 months if your watch requires servicing with no updates or explanations
Sent 3 of mine of for service this year ,2 divers which came back within 2 months and the explorer 2 did take 4 months,all went to RSC in the UK ,must admit I used 2 different AD and the experience did differ ,as you are experiencing one of mine provided no updates so I just popped in constantly
Were these watches ever intended to be made available to the general public or were they intended solely for military use? Did Rolex copy any of the designs you list above? If so, how did they get hold of US Military tech?
Yes, they were sold to the general public and to the military.
The Depollier and the Rolex both use case key tech, you needed a "key" to open and close the case.
Depollier had this tech about a decade before Rolex.
Both had screw down crowns and gaskets.
Depollier had this tech 8 years before Rolex.
Depollier had a CONFIRMED and tested waterproof wrist watch 8 YEARS before Rolex.
This is undeniable.
Rolex even stole Depollier market campaign!
The picture below is just for OPENERS!
October 1918 ad for the twin cased Gruen, before Depollier.
October 1918 ad for the twin cased Gruen, before Depollier.
Before the Depollier???
It uses completely archaic case inside of another case tech.
Just like the 1922 Rolex Submarine.
Please post the proof of waterproof ability from a scientific, horological or government agency.
Once again, if Hans Wisldorf has taught us anything it's that advertisements mean absolutely nothing until the claim has been proven.
Before the Depollier???
It uses completely archaic case inside of another case tech.
Just like the 1922 Rolex Submarine.
The one in your ad was never released, was it?
The Gruen worked, it was waterproof. Only one point of possible water ingress, as opposed to four on the Depollier.
Please post the proof of waterproof ability from a scientific, horological or government agency.
Once again, if Hans Wisldorf has taught us anything it's that advertisements mean absolutely nothing until the claim has been proven.
Adverts help, always have.
Surviving examples of the Tavannes Submarine, Harrods Aquatic and Gruen hermetic have all been shown to be water resistant.
I don’t think any of this particularly matters now as it’s not like we can have a reasonable debate here.
The author is demanding we sue Rolex, it’s already at a level where it’s too emotionally charged to remain rational.
There are interesting sources on the ‘net that go into the history, but (a) sensible people know there is a limit as to what we can determine is true and reliable, and (b) it again matters little as the author demands more than hobbyists can give effectively to even consider discourse on his level. He has a book to sell damn it… how dare we challenge the man.
I have a number of Borgel-cased watches, and I derive great pleasure knowing they were rugged enough for “extreme” use at the time. I have no intention to drown them to prove a point as they are 90+ years old. I also find the Oyster-cased Rolexes of the time particularly handsome, alongside many other field watches of the era. History aside, it’s the look and wear that appeals more than who did what, when, and why, and if that makes me a simpleton to the author, then fine, I’m a simpleton. I am sorry that history has forgotten Depollier, but it has also forgotten pretty much everyone else and I don’t see the need to tear down the status quo in 2023 as anything prior to 1980 is pretty much gone; very few brands are still family owned and independent.
Good luck with the book, but please bear in mind a positive approach is the better way to convince others to read your research. Stop trying to boil the ocean.