Debunking the Fictitious History of the Blancpain Fifty Fathoms – Vintage Rolex and other iconic timepieces under the loupe at Perezcope
Debunking the Fictitious History of the Blancpain Fifty Fathoms
Readers of Perezcope know my low tolerance for nonsensical fairy tales in the world of watches. After having dealt for years with all of the hogwash spread by modern Panerai, and that was a lot, I …
“Readers of Perezcope know my low tolerance for nonsensical fairy tales in the world of watches. After having dealt for years with all of the hogwash spread by modern Panerai, and that was a lot, I can literally smell made-up stories from miles away. When I first watched Jeff Kingston’s lecture about the history of the Blancpain Fifty Fathoms at the Horological Society of New York in 2019, and him implying on several occasions that the Rolex Submariner was a rip-off of the Fifty Fathoms, I immediately felt he was trying a tad too hard to push a narrative which on closer examination had no basis in reality. Now, the lecture was nothing but advertising for Blancpain and of course Mr. Kingston is not an independent scholar but an employee of the brand. As such, everything that comes out his mouth needs to be taken with a grain of salt. The false narrative pushed by Blancpain since 2002 that the Fifty Fathoms was launched in 1953, and since 2007, that it even was the very first modern dive watch is easy debunked for people who appreciate facts over what ambitious brands and hired “scholars” have to say. It needs to be said this article is not meant to ruin the Fifty Fathoms in any way but simply to set the record straight. I myself am a big fan of the original Fifty Fathoms, the modern ones not so much. A great watch like this with a unique design does not need made-up stories, even if it was just one of many dive watches inspired by the Rolex Submariner.”
this too is passing….
Idk what to believe anymore.
Uhhh, nice watch?
Idk what to believe anymore.
extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence 🤷🏻♂️
I’m not really buying this one from Jose. The watches were being manufactured independently for a niche group at the same time. This group hung out together and had the same ideas in what a watch should look like and contracted it out in a similar aesthetic from Rolex, BlancPain, and Zodiac.
I’m not really buying this one from Jose. The watches were being manufactured independently for a niche group at the same time. This group hung out together and had the same ideas in what a watch should look like and contracted it out in a similar aesthetic from Rolex, BlancPain, and Zodiac.
This x100. We are talking months apart in some cases with varying degrees of success and execution. We can like all the brands and appreciate them independently for their contributions.
ÒBefore taking a blog online as gospel first ask yourself "What does someone gain by posting this?".
In this case, it's clicks and a "gotcha" that Rolex fanboys can trot out, at a time when Swatch Group is dominating watch social media.
Maybe the blog is right, or maybe they are just presenting people what they want to believe to drive clicks?
Interesting, but ultimately of no significance for me. I"m not going to be buying a dive watch based on who made it first. What I care about is how is it now.
There was a thread over on watchuseek about this article. A number of posters brought up counterpoints and disputed much of the evidence. Jose has actually been quietly editing his article (but without acknowledging any of his mistakes).
It got pretty heated and the thread was eventually locked.
Personally, I don't know or care who made the first diver. But the way Jose responded to legitimate criticism did not do him credit.
First dive watch?
OMEGA Marine ,1932....
ÒBefore taking a blog online as gospel first ask yourself "What does someone gain by posting this?".
In this case, it's clicks and a "gotcha" that Rolex fanboys can trot out, at a time when Swatch Group is dominating watch social media.
Maybe the blog is right, or maybe they are just presenting people what they want to believe to drive clicks?
In fairness to Perezcope, their previous big investigation was to debunk the Rolex Explorer myth of the Mt Everest with clear evidence that no Rolex watch were part of the ascension and it was all a giant marketing trick that people still parrot to this day. So I'd say he is far from trying to pat the Rolex fanboys in the back and an objective person treating all brands equally when it comes to their marketing lies.
Regarding Blanc Pain, the evidence that they created a false narrative about their creation date when changing owner is staggering so I wouldn't put it past them to also lie about the release timeline of their historical watches. They have a lot of money to gain from claiming to be the first at something.
First dive watch?
OMEGA Marine ,1932....
Oyster 1926?
IMO buying a watch because of some claim that its ancestor was the first of a type or the first to participate in some activity is so hilarious that it merits its own debunking article.
Oyster 1926?
Not commercially produced for diving or available to the public ( I was confused too, but look it up) 👍🏻
The criticisms that I have of the article are contained in the comments thereto. Dates on patent applications and appearances in journals are supportive evidence, but do not end debate. It is not as thorough a debunking as it claims. It does cast doubt on the official story, certainly.
I’m not really buying this one from Jose. The watches were being manufactured independently for a niche group at the same time. This group hung out together and had the same ideas in what a watch should look like and contracted it out in a similar aesthetic from Rolex, BlancPain, and Zodiac.
Valid point. Same thing could be said for any number of the companies that claim first issued field or pilot watch. Most were actually made to a standard put out by the DOD or MOD. Which is why the early models from the various companies bidding looked so similar.
Also what about the Bulova Mil-ships? Think it was prototyped and sent to the trials in '55 too yes?.
PSA: HAVENT READ THE ARTICLE YET, so he might have mentioned that in there. Reading it now.
I read the lot ! Bloody insanely interesting 🧐, great post ! Lots of research and well , the Sub is the first for sure no question now…..
Hype is hype. Nothing to blow a circuit about imho. 😂
It does seem fishy that both the Fifty Fathoms patent and trademarking was dated after the claimed launch of a 'groundbreaking' new watch..
The letters and personal accounts don't interest me as much as those pieces of evidence published in the public record.
I was just watching a Theo & Harris vid about this story, and I think the take away was that BP did make it first, but was not sold to open market but to military, Rolex was first to commercial sale, then BP was like “oh damn we built that already” and made some tweaks then filed their patent, and started selling to public.
I’m not really buying this one from Jose. The watches were being manufactured independently for a niche group at the same time. This group hung out together and had the same ideas in what a watch should look like and contracted it out in a similar aesthetic from Rolex, BlancPain, and Zodiac.
We all know which of the 2 brands like to market fake stories 🤣
We all know which of the 2 brands like to market fake stories 🤣
Both apparently. 😂
It has worked so well for Rolex that the guys at Blancpain figured they wanted a piece of that as well. 😂