Rolex was NOT the World's First Waterproof Watch, US Army Documents Contradict their Story
I've decided to release one of the United States Army documents I found in the United States National Archives pertaining to Charles Depollier waterproof wrist watch technology, dated November 9, 1918. This is just ONE of the documents I found, there is actually a BIG stack of them, this is just a teaser. The Armistice was signed just two days later on November 11, 1918 that ended the bloody fighting of WWI. Note that it CLEARLY states the “DuBois Watch Case Company”, (owned by Charles Depollier). The U.S. Army Engineering & Research Division was commanded by Lieutenant Colonel Mauborgne. His division worked hand & hand with Charles Depollier in 1918 on the final case design and features for the "Field & Marine" mil spec waterproof case. The “Executive Board” consisted of 7 officers according to other documents I found in the National Archives. These 7 U.S. Army officers decided if Depollier's waterproof watch would be purchased by the War Department after all the documentation and independent waterproof testing was presented to the Executive Board. I could not figure out if a unanimous decision by the Executive Board was required or a simple majority vote would suffice. Either way, Depollier's waterproof case was APPROVED in 1918 and the United States War Department purchased 10,000 of them! United States War Department contract #160615. Sorry Rolex, but your origin story of creating the "world's first waterproof watch" in 1926 has been SUNK! My latest book "The Inconvenient Truth about the World's First Waterproof Watch" covers this topic in great detail.
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
Neat piece, but it is worth noting this is for a pocket watch not a wristwatch. The first waterproof watch dates back to 1851. The debate is; who made the first waterproof wristwatch, which did not come into fashion for until the early 1900s? Also, it is important to remember "Waterproof" had no set standard, so many watches claiming to have done so had dubious records at best. Sort of like Jeep claiming "Trail Rated." Having a title that you created and only applies to your brand literally means nothing in comparison.
I think everyone acknowledges Rolex certainly was not the first waterproof wristwatch. What they did do is make it better and mainstream, and like much of history, the winners get to write it and sadly people tend to easily agree without researching.
Neat piece, but it is worth noting this is for a pocket watch not a wristwatch. The first waterproof watch dates back to 1851. The debate is; who made the first waterproof wristwatch, which did not come into fashion for until the early 1900s? Also, it is important to remember "Waterproof" had no set standard, so many watches claiming to have done so had dubious records at best. Sort of like Jeep claiming "Trail Rated." Having a title that you created and only applies to your brand literally means nothing in comparison.
I think everyone acknowledges Rolex certainly was not the first waterproof wristwatch. What they did do is make it better and mainstream, and like much of history, the winners get to write it and sadly people tend to easily agree without researching.
I've been studying this subject for many years and I've never seen anybody come forward with actual proof of independent waterproof testing for any other watch, pocket or wrist pre-1918. The 1851 claim and the Tavannes claim are completely unsubstantiated. No government testing, no testing done by a recognized horological or scientific agency. A claim is just a claim until it has been proven to be true. I do not consider advertisements or a newspaper clippings evidence of anything. This is why the FTC had to step in and reel advertising claims in, 1960. After 1960, we now use the term water-resistant. Depollier's technology was independently tested by the United States National Bureau of Standards for waterproof ability and passed their tests in 1918. The Bureau of Standard was America's first physical science laboratory, founded by Congress in 1901. I 100% agree with you, nobody who writes about this subject in the mainstream did any research. They probably just went to the Rolex webpage to get their talking points. Unfortunately, this story won't be mainstream. None of the big watch media outlets is going to publish information that completely contradicts Rolex's origin story. Probably afraid of losing advertising revenue and access to Rolex, that's just the world we live in these days.
I've been studying this subject for many years and I've never seen anybody come forward with actual proof of independent waterproof testing for any other watch, pocket or wrist pre-1918. The 1851 claim and the Tavannes claim are completely unsubstantiated. No government testing, no testing done by a recognized horological or scientific agency. A claim is just a claim until it has been proven to be true. I do not consider advertisements or a newspaper clippings evidence of anything. This is why the FTC had to step in and reel advertising claims in, 1960. After 1960, we now use the term water-resistant. Depollier's technology was independently tested by the United States National Bureau of Standards for waterproof ability and passed their tests in 1918. The Bureau of Standard was America's first physical science laboratory, founded by Congress in 1901. I 100% agree with you, nobody who writes about this subject in the mainstream did any research. They probably just went to the Rolex webpage to get their talking points. Unfortunately, this story won't be mainstream. None of the big watch media outlets is going to publish information that completely contradicts Rolex's origin story. Probably afraid of losing advertising revenue and access to Rolex, that's just the world we live in these days.
Do not disagree, but again the differentiation in Rolex’s marketing is first waterproof wristwatch, not watch. In theory they could argue they were the first to demonstrate theirs actually works because their tests were better than others. All BS at the end of the day.
This also applies US patent law and rules to non US products. Companies all over Europe were working independently of another having no clue about what each other were doing, nevermind not caring about what the US was doing at the time. Thankfully we have the internet and phones now. :-)
As I referenced, just because a company said it was, did not mean it was. Even the Brogel claim is suspect. Anyone genuinely think a Jeep Compass is “Trail Ready?”
To the greater point, most people into watches know Rolex wasn’t the first waterproof wristwatch. Similarly, most know Movado didn’t design or invent the Museum Watch, but mainstream shoppers have no insight nor care to. They buy the marketing.
Two watches beat the Depollier to it.
1916 ads, 3 years before.
Two watches beat the Depollier to it.
1916 ads, 3 years before.
Advertisements are not proof. Have any actual scientific data of independent waterproof testing done by a recognized scientific, horological of government agency? I'd love to read your research on the matter.
From the British Horological Journal, 1917.
First ever waterproof AND first ever antimagnetic wrist watch.
Advertisements are not proof. Have any actual scientific data of independent waterproof testing done by a recognized scientific, horological of government agency? I'd love to read your research on the matter.
"Advertisements are not proof".
But you use advertising as proof in your books?
Anyway, of course they are.
This is your "proof"? Seriously?
A 3rd hand story that has absolutely zero corroborating evidence to back anything up.
No scientific data, no testing, no nothing.
Even the author of the article admits: Unfortunately, it was very short, more of a "news item" then an in-depth article.
"And it is "CLAIMED" that the demand has now been adequately met".
Claims are nothing until they have been proven.
Call me a skeptic, but I want to see all the scientific data that goes along with the claim you are hyping.
Yes, I use advertisements in my books.
Mine are corroborated by United States federal government documents from the United States War Department, the United States Army Engineering & Research Division, the United States Army Signal Corps Division and the United States District Court Southern District of New York.
All you have is an advert and a newspaper clipping.
We are well beyond those days.
This is your "proof"? Seriously?
A 3rd hand story that has absolutely zero corroborating evidence to back anything up.
No scientific data, no testing, no nothing.
Even the author of the article admits: Unfortunately, it was very short, more of a "news item" then an in-depth article.
"And it is "CLAIMED" that the demand has now been adequately met".
Claims are nothing until they have been proven.
Call me a skeptic, but I want to see all the scientific data that goes along with the claim you are hyping.
Yes, I use advertisements in my books.
Mine are corroborated by United States federal government documents from the United States War Department, the United States Army Engineering & Research Division, the United States Army Signal Corps Division and the United States District Court Southern District of New York.
All you have is an advert and a newspaper clipping.
We are well beyond those days.
Talking of claims, I see you now claim that the Field and Marine case finish was "japanned", and not "painted".
Did that come from military specs, or an advert?
The advert also says the watch had a "silver case", but they were nickel, as per milspecs.
"Advertisements are not proof".
But you use advertising as proof in your books?
Anyway, of course they are.
Some of these "adverts" are actually testimonials from the people who were reporting on their personal experiences, I think those carry more value than simple advertising.
I'm not a government testing body so maybe my opinion has no weight in this debate. However as an accredited watchmaker of nearly 20 years experience. I have now serviced 3 of the Brook & Son Submarine watches. One of them couldn't be pressure tested as the crown tube had been filed down and damaged to fit a later replacement crown, the other two however both were tested and passed at 5 bar, equivalent to 50m water resistance.
My personal experience and opinion is that the Submarine is a water-resistant watch.
Some of these "adverts" are actually testimonials from the people who were reporting on their personal experiences, I think those carry more value than simple advertising.
I'm not a government testing body so maybe my opinion has no weight in this debate. However as an accredited watchmaker of nearly 20 years experience. I have now serviced 3 of the Brook & Son Submarine watches. One of them couldn't be pressure tested as the crown tube had been filed down and damaged to fit a later replacement crown, the other two however both were tested and passed at 5 bar, equivalent to 50m water resistance.
My personal experience and opinion is that the Submarine is a water-resistant watch.
5 bar is amazing for a watch over a century old.
That sounds like the first ever modern pressure testing of an antique wrist watch to me, mate!