Chronotriggered destroys watches… #2

We're voting for the worse offender here, right?

Yes - same premise as before. Vote for the one you want to destroy.

2 watches claiming the same first, no proof to either, both brands capitalising on this, still arguing over it 70 years later. I wanted to give this match-up a spin.

Exploration such as climbing mountains in harsh conditions is about surviving if put to the edge. I have no relation to either of the watches. I have an Explorer that I love but my recently modern watch have not much in common with the one from the period. Since their claims can’t be judged it has to be ”surviving of the fittiest” for me. Rolex has survived as original brand. Smiths hasn’t and has to be destroyed, unfortunately. It’s a beautiful watch.

So because a brand doesn’t make it past the quartz crisis it deserves nothing? There are so many excellent brands that were wound down: Buren, Cyma, Vertex... Smiths also supplied the British army from the late 50s into the 70s, so their pedigree for field watches is hardly lacking. It seems a shame that this one might just be down to nobody knows Smiths, fuck Smiths.

The arguments for Smiths and Everest are very compelling, but the whole saga is pretty suspect… I’m assuming people are reading into this before voting?

Scale of the crime matters.  Smiths sold a small number of watches at a relative pittance.  Rolex built a massive tax dodging, queue creating scheme on the back of the Everest untruth.

One does not go after the corner dope dealer if El Chapo presents himself.

Burn the rollie.

Haha, you like this game. You gave a tricky question. I tried to come up with an answer to devide two important watches and watch brands. Of course they deserves a lot. I just didn’t know there was a right and a wrong answer🥹

Burn the rollie 🔥(but I already wasted my vote)

There isn’t, but I’m deliberately asking difficult questions 😉

I mean this is a studs-high tackle, but this is what I like in this potential format. Rolex absolutely capitalised on this affair, but if there’s was not the first to the summit, the Explorer was launched on a lie…

The way I see it, you decided to have a good old fashioned pitchforks and torches witch hunt.  

And my mother always taught me, never show up to a potluck without a dish.  

I just decided to bring kerosene 😂

I am taking Rolex's history of dubious claims into account here. Their product is trustworthy but their marketing deserves the highest scrutiny.

I liked the concept of the show, as I implied in part one, so I did think about trialling it on here with watches, and to try and actually come up with horological matchups with actual controversy is not as easy as I thought, so it’s a challenge for me to actually make these both relevant and thought-provoking. I also thought it might be an interesting way to sift through some baggage with regards brands and other things like movement snobbery and appreciation of brands and history. 

No, we talked about this, don’t play nice just pick one 😂

Funny how everything seems to come back to marketing? I wonder if that was deliberate? 🙃

prep the bonfire 

Burn the Rolex!

Oops, I thought we were voting for the keeper. I’m an idiot, but I did happen to wear the Everest today.

The Smiths has got to go!

#1 - They were way too angsty for their own good

#2 - The brand died, and then some schmoe bought the name, and does Rolex homages, and then treats customers like dirt.  Come on!  Put that sh*t 6 feet under, please!  This is literally Timefactors's customer support training...

Decisions, decisions, this is so hard! what to do, what to do?!

It's hard to decide which one is more annoying and more deserving the stake. On one hand is a representative from a company with a rich tradition of dodging both taxes and innovation. On the other hand is a representative from a company that own the record for the most frustrating purchase experience ever.

They both claim something which I suspect never happened.

Hmm...but the A409 is a true Smiths sharing only a name with the brand that patented the amazing automagically self emptying shopping cart experience. It's not really guilty of anything beside bad management. So....burn the tax dodger?

My Interest would be in which he wore most on the trip. If he carried it in his pocket or his wrist, no matter to me. They are both first. But which did he depends on the most? 

It's notable that Hillary later went on an exploration of Antarctica, and he wore the Smith. Make of that what you will ;-). 

Just to throw fuel on the fire.  This is one of the most thoroughly researched articles on the matter; and a fascinating read in its own right.

https://www.outdoorjournal.com/featured/opinion-editorial/rolex-vs-smiths-which-watch-summited-everest-in-1953-putting-a-controversy-to-rest/

(tl;dr - I wouldn’t put my money on Rolex)

It is 🙂

If a letter from the Head of Rolex conceding that "Sir Edmund Hillary was in fact only wearing one watch at the summit and that a Smiths watch" isn't enough to convince you then I would love to see what actual evidence you have that everyone else is missing

Couple of points:

1. I'm not claiming to have evidence to the contrary; I don't even wade into the debate regarding who got there first. This has been going on for years. There are many who don't believe despite that letter being very well-known - and it's less the fact now it's the reaction and loyalty. Was the Explorer launched upon a lie? There is also the common theme of watch marketing which really skews the picture, the earliest Rolex ads say they reached the summit, and that seems the most engrained view in history amongst the public, despite evidence. Show the proof? There is nothing photographical, there is anecdotal, but still, many refuse to believe. Is it therefore true, or if the watch was in his pocket does it still count? The Smiths Everest is an Explorer homage, so what is that all about? The range of responses is what I'm really going for, or the reasoning... it's fascinating (to me).
2. You voted the destroy the Smiths. 

oh you greddy rolex, always want to be first of everything but not the waiting list. im vote for destroyed the rolex. modern smiths watch are awesome 👍👍

So it’s close again. Early indicators had this as a clean sweep for the Smiths to be destroyed, but it‘s 52/48 for the Rolex after the overnight… 

I love how tight these margins are. It’s polarising; beautiful.

2. Sorry thought we were voting for not against 🤦 yes I'm an idiot 😂 

Although in fairness even though I believe the Smiths was first I wouldn't want to destroy either

I picked the Rolex, though that has to do with their behavior towards their customers (i.e. long waitlist, and concerningly, anti-consumer behavior). As for the Smiths, I give that a free pass since Eddie sold a version of the Everest inspired by the Smiths De Luxe A454 from the 1950s called the Everest Expedition, and Eddie also sold a reissue of the W10 military field watch that was issued to the British Army from 1967 to 1970, he also sold a homage to the IWC Mark 11 pilot's field watch (feel free to disagree with me over that term) called the Navigator. Although Timefactors's bad customer service can be caused by the fact that a) Eddie is a former soilder, though that is less likely to be the cause, which leads to the more probable cause that b) Timefactors is a one-man company, so Eddie's behaviour can be explained by the 2nd one, though feel free to figure out the true reason behind their bad CS.

Edit: Eddie just teased the upcoming Transglobal, which is a homage of the iconic Universal Geneve Polerouter, but with multiple dial colors and anti-magnetic to 20000 Amperes per meter (my favorite dials is the Aventurine and Salmon dials)

I voted Rolex on this one. I don't know if Smiths watch was a conscious choice of Sir Edmund Hillary, but Rolexes were clearly sent to climbers to wear as a part of sponsorship deal. So no matter if the watch was good or bad, did it function or not, they couldn't say anything bad about it's performance. So Rolex kind of made up all that story about reaching the summit artificially to later feed on that for decades. I personally hate all that milestone things (our watch was to space, our watch was worn on the moon, our watch reached the bottom of the ocean, our watch is made of the part of titanic, our watch was worn by *** army forces once). It doesn't make the watch better. If so G-Shock should be only advertised by that - been everywhere, worn by everyone. So Rolex is more to that milestone claims than Smiths, so let's burn the Rolex this time.

It hurt (and is complete anathema to a self professed rolex fanboy) but I chose to get rid of the OP. Why then, when without that OP existing, the Explorer (one of my grails) wouldn't exist, did I choose to get rid of it?

1. The Smiths is a better looking watch with more personality designwise. OP is exactly that, an OP. A precursor to today's Oyster Perpetual, as barebones a rolex as possible. Not my thing.
2.  Smiths was Britain's working man's watch (my favourite class of vintage)  imo the British answer to Timex. 5 Jewelled pin pallets (and I irrationally love pin pallets) are awesome, and I loved mine before I gave it away. 
3.  It was put together in good old Blighty. You rarely see that anymore.
4.  Small seconds. 

Im SOOO surprised to see that the poll is that close. I would have thought (well, gut-feel) that Rolex would be under the hammer by a huge margin?!?! 

Just goes to show, never trust your gut. 

For the record… Rolex can get f**ked 💥🔨

This is the A408 from the famous Hilary quote poster. Vintage Smiths really are something else.