Hillary's Everest ascent: Smiths and/or Rolex?

[Deaf Stan]

Originally Posted by Memphis

When Sir Edmund Hillary and Sherpa Tenzing Norgay finally made it to the top of the world on 29 May 1953, their expedition, led by Sir John Hunt, was equipped with Rolex Oyster Perpetual chronometers." -Rolex

OK, so "Edmund Hillary and Sherpa Tenzing Norgay finally made it to the top of the world on 29 May 1953".

Does this say that one or both of them wore (or carried or whatever) a Rolex? In other words, did Rolex reach the top of the world on 29 May 1953?

Umm, well, "their expedition, led by Sir John Hunt, was equipped with Rolex Oyster Perpetual chronometers."

Oh I see. But "their expedition, led by Sir John Hunt" was also equipped with, among other things, Romney's Kendal Mint Cake, Rowntree's chocolate and Typhoo tea. I suppose all of those products "reached the top of the world on 29 May 1953"?

Did Hillary say they did? No. But they might have.

Did he say Rolex did? No. But they might have.

Did he say Smiths did? Yes -- all the way "to the summit."

[toomuchtalk]

Good thread

[TK-710]

Originally Posted by Deaf Stan

OK, so "Edmund Hillary and Sherpa Tenzing Norgay finally made it to the top of the world on 29 May 1953".

Does this say that one or both of them wore (or carried or whatever) a Rolex? In other words, did Rolex reach the top of the world on 29 May 1953?

Umm, well, "their expedition, led by Sir John Hunt, was equipped with Rolex Oyster Perpetual chronometers."

Oh I see. But "their expedition, led by Sir John Hunt" was also equipped with, among other things, Romney's Kendal Mint Cake, Rowntree's chocolate and Typhoo tea. I suppose all of those products "reached the top of the world on 29 May 1953"?

Did Hillary say they did? No. But they might have.

Did he say Rolex did? No. But they might have.

Did he say Smiths did? Yes -- all the way "to the summit."

Thank you for joining this forum and setting the record straight. I feel a great miscarriage of justice has finally be righted. I think Rolex should turn over all their profits for the last 60 some years to Smith as they have obviously profited by misleading their customers on this enormous historical fact at the expense of Smith watches. Smith would clearly be a dominating force in the watch world today if it hadn't been for that meddling Rolex.

It's nothing more than a celebrity endorsement. It was no different than as it is today. Pay someone enough and the will wear anything. It means no more to me than the watch a golfer wears, the shoes a basketball player wears or the car a race car driver drives. If I was going to summit Everest today I wouldn't wear either.

[Base-Z]

Well, if the body of Andrew Irvine is ever found, we may just have to re-write
the history books.
My vintage 5513 Sub has made the trip up Everest, but alas that missing camera
was not found.

[Gary.]

Originally Posted by Deaf Stan

With respect, sir, that is exactly what I am talking about. To the best of my knowledge Rolex have never claimed to have reached the top, only to have supplied the Hunt expedition.

Yes, there's something worryingly precise about those words. They manage to never specifically say what they could so easily do- that Hilary and Tensing wore Rolexes to the summit.

"When Sir Edmund Hillary and Sherpa Tenzing Norgay finally made it to the top of the world on 29 May 1953, their expedition, led by Sir John Hunt, was equipped with Rolex Oyster Perpetual chronometers."

When they made it to the top, their EXPEDITION was EQUIPPED with Rolexes. Certainly, the implication is there but... Whenever you see words produced by publicity departments which manage to imply everything without ever hitting that nail on the legal and factual head, it's hard not to draw a certain conclusion.

[Malak]

Hillary wear a Rolex OP.

http://www.hodinkee.com/articles/fou...e-pics-details

[GordonC]

That's the same precision wording that leads to the suspicion that the Smiths were "carried" to the summit... In someone's pocket or pack, rather than the climbers "wore" them on the summit. Hillary's choice of wording is equally precise.

So a Smiths watch was stuffed in someone's pocket when they reached the top of Everest - honestly, big deal, that's certainly no better than the expedition being equipped with gear that you don't know was actually used by those who made the summit.

If Hillary had written that he WORE the Smiths watch when he reached the summit, then that would be extremely significant. Carried? Not nearly so.

[Old Expat Beast]

Originally Posted by Gary.

Yes, there's something worryingly precise about those words. They manage to never specifically say what they could so easily do- that Hilary and Tensing wore Rolexes to the summit.

"When Sir Edmund Hillary and Sherpa Tenzing Norgay finally made it to the top of the world on 29 May 1953, their expedition, led by Sir John Hunt, was equipped with Rolex Oyster Perpetual chronometers."

When they made it to the top, their EXPEDITION was EQUIPPED with Rolexes. Certainly, the implication is there but... Whenever you see words produced by publicity departments which manage to imply everything without ever hitting that nail on the legal and factual head, it's hard not to draw a certain conclusion.

Rolex was similarly circumspect and ambiguous in its claims of Mercedes Gleitze wearing (around her neck) one of the first Rolex Oysters on her swim across the English Channel. Consequently most people seem still to be unaware that she wore it on an uncompleted follow-up swim, and not on her first successful crossing.

[jake]

In 2009 I discovered Sir Edmund Hillary's Everest Conquest Watch in the Beyer Museum in Switzerland and documented it here:

http://rolexblog.blogspot.com/2009/0...iscovered.html

I also wrote a super detailed 8 part series on this in 2008:

http://rolexblog.blogspot.com/2008/1...d-hillary.html

[joe100]

Doesn't matter if it was in his pocket or on his wrist. It was there, that day

[Old Expat Beast]

This Explorer manual is particularly misleading. Are we supposed to think that 'for' means 'in tribute to' rather than 'to be used during'?

[Gary.]

Originally Posted by Old Expat Beast

Rolex was similarly circumspect and ambiguous in its claims of Mercedes Gleitze wearing (around her neck) one of the first Rolex Oysters on her swim across the English Channel. Consequently most people seem still to be unaware that she wore it on an uncompleted follow-up swim, and not on her first successful crossing.

"There are none so blind...."

It's always hard to have a genuine inquiry into something like this on a brand-specific board because many of the people involved are, by their own declaration, fans.

[Deaf Stan]

Originally Posted by Gary.

Yes, there's something worryingly precise about those words. They manage to never specifically say what they could so easily do- that Hilary and Tensing wore Rolexes to the summit.

"When Sir Edmund Hillary and Sherpa Tenzing Norgay finally made it to the top of the world on 29 May 1953, their expedition, led by Sir John Hunt, was equipped with Rolex Oyster Perpetual chronometers."

When they made it to the top, their EXPEDITION was EQUIPPED with Rolexes. Certainly, the implication is there but... Whenever you see words produced by publicity departments which manage to imply everything without ever hitting that nail on the legal and factual head, it's hard not to draw a certain conclusion.

My point exactly.

Originally Posted by Malak

Hillary wear a Rolex OP.

http://www.hodinkee.com/articles/fou...e-pics-details

"In 1953, the not-yet-Sir Edmund Hillary became the first man to summit Mount Everest along with expedition partner Tenzing Norgay. And he did so with a Rolex on his wrist, an Oyster Perpetual that would prove to be the ancestor of the Explorer. While browsing the Beyer Watch and Clock Museum in Zürich, I suddenly found myself face-to-face with this legendary watch and knew I had to share it with all of you.

This watch was produced in 1950 and was never purchased commercially. Rolex was one of the sponsors of the 1953 Everest Expedition – only one expedition was allowed each year by the Nepalese government – and part of this sponsorship included providing Hillary with this watch. It was not a gift, but rather a watch for Hillary to wear during the expedition and then to return to Rolex for extensive testing after the descent. And that is exactly what happened."

I believe this is the watch supplied to Hillary on the 1952 Cho Oyu expedition which says he took as high as 22,000 ft. Members of that expedition who had been issued with Rolexes were not supplied with one for the '53 Hunt expedition.

Originally Posted by GordonC

That's the same precision wording that leads to the suspicion that the Smiths were "carried" to the summit... In someone's pocket or pack, rather than the climbers "wore" them on the summit. Hillary's choice of wording is equally precise.

So a Smiths watch was stuffed in someone's pocket when they reached the top of Everest - honestly, big deal, that's certainly no better than the expedition being equipped with gear that you don't know was actually used by those who made the summit.

If Hillary had written that he WORE the Smiths watch when he reached the summit, then that would be extremely significant. Carried? Not nearly so.

Maybe you don't think "carried to the summit" is a big deal -- or not as big a deal as being "worn" there -- but it's still a lot more than we can say for Rolex. Smiths reached the summit that day. We can't say -- and we'll never know -- whether Rolex did.

Originally Posted by jake

In 2009 I discovered Sir Edmund Hillary's Everest Conquest Watch in the Beyer Museum in Switzerland and documented it here:

http://rolexblog.blogspot.com/2009/0...iscovered.html

I also wrote a super detailed 8 part series on this in 2008:

http://rolexblog.blogspot.com/2008/1...d-hillary.html

"These next two photos are of Sir Edmund Hillary's actual Rolex Watch he was wearing when he conquered Mount Everest."

Again, no. Allow me to repeat myself: this is the watch supplied to Hillary on the 1952 Cho Oyu expedition which says he took as high as 22,000 ft. (It's there in the advert you reproduce on that page.)

Honestly, don't you think that if Hillary had worn (or taken or even merely "carried") his Oyster Perpetual to the actual summit Rolex would have shouted it from the rooftops. Instead we get these very carefully worded adverts saying how Rolex "supplied the successful Hunt expedition" etc etc.

Please look very carefully at the OP (I mean the first post in this thread, not the Oyster Perpetual!) -- it's all there. Very little, if anything, by way of facts has been added to it in all the subsequent posts.

Originally Posted by joe100

Doesn't matter if it was in his pocket or on his wrist. It was there, that day

Why let facts (or the lack of them) get in the way of thinking what you want to think? :-) Wouldn't Hillary have said so if it had?

Originally Posted by Gary.

"There are none so blind...."

It's always hard to have a genuine inquiry into something like this on a brand-specific board because many of the people involved are, by their own declaration, fans.

^^ this.

[Seiji]

Rolex Oyster Perpetual ref 6098 was the first Rolex to reach the top of Mt. Everest May 29, 1953.

[Deaf Stan]

Gentlemen, I have just had my attention drawn to this:



Look closely in the bottom right hand corner of the text.

This is the first and so far only directly and definitely claim by Rolex I've seen that their watch "reached the top of Everest".

Yes, it's odd that it's tucked away in the corner and not in the main body of text or even the headline but there you go. Yes, it's a shame that no source is quoted (unlike Smiths) and, yes, I do wonder whether it really is *the* watch or just the same reference / model? (I think the expedition watches all had leather straps? Ah, who cares!) But there you have in black and white.

Thanks to Seiji on mwr for pointing this out.

http://www.mwrforum.net/forums/showt...611#post243611

[The Joker]

You can sleep easy now Deaf Stan

[ref1655]

all things considered...while a Rolex or Smith's atop Mt. Everest is noteworthy, a 50's era Timex Marlin probably would have been just as successful.

[Deaf Stan]

Originally Posted by The Joker

You can sleep easy now Deaf Stan

[Limey-]

Oh I see. But "their expedition, led by Sir John Hunt" was also equipped with, among other things, Romney's Kendal Mint Cake, Rowntree's chocolate and Typhoo tea. I suppose all of those products "reached the top of the world on 29 May 1953

If you have ever done any high altitude climbing on glaciated peaks you would agree, that these were as likely there as any timepiece.

Ascent time and more importantly descent time is a vital component of staying alive on high peaks. The idea that Hillary had two watches on him on summit day is completely logical.

Hillary was a lifelong Rolex fan before and after Everest. The great names in Exploration at the Royal Geographical Society like Thesiger, Newby, Hunt, all wore Rolex watches. Rolex were very much a tool and not jewelry at that time.

Rolex was originally established in England and was a young company.
For perspective at the time of the Everest ascent Rolex was a young innovative company. Younger, for perspective, than Apple is to us today.

[Rashid.bk]

So let me understand.
The point of this is just who was at the top. It doesn't have any relevance to durability, reliability or usefulness in any context.
He carried a Smith...
A Rolex was "supplied"....
Is the point that irregardless of any bearing of the working of the watch, it is solely "WHO WAS THERE?" that day at the top.

We do not place such emphasis on the Romney's Kendal Mint Cake....or more importantly than the watch in this context....none here care about his BOOTS or COAT....his PANTS....items infinitely more crucial in reliability and dependability "ANYWHERE" on Everest.

I don't care if the Rolex made it to 22k ft 25, or 29k ft....why because I can attest that there's is virtually no distinction in use between 20-30k feet in those conditions. As a soldier when you take a piece of equipment on a deployment, I don't give a rats behind if the item is there on spotlight day, what is infinitely more important is all that space in between from where you leave TO GO on the mission and all that space from when you leave the site and "GO HOME". Ever had a headlamp fail at a camp site before your destination or your waterproof jacket tear with five more days to go in the field.....the time in between is crucial...or you may not even make it. I carry back ups of back ups of essential items. A watch seems pretty essential to me. Not hard to believe he double dipped sponsors and backed up resources in the process.

Why do I say this, well because if they were "supplied" and the watches were on Everest, on that very expedition and there is some evidence suggesting throughout the expedition, than that's all that counts for me.
"The watch was the first in "space" but which was the first outside the ship....sigh...I don't care. Did it function out "there"....That's what's important, I'm not lawyer, I don't have investments in Rolex or Smiths, I'm in no relation to any Smiths or Wildorfs...I just want the best product. I'm not buying a marketing line..."The First"....My money doesn't buy "the first" in this context, I want the best, more reliable, durable, etc.

Let's not forget that money was likely payed, the lawyers were involved, and that marketing and who said what and when was carefully manipulated....just as it is today with athletes and celebrities. They couldn't make it to the top on there own dime, they were sponsored, which brings obligations....
Sir Hillary might have well worn neither but had to acknowledge something and I find the wording of "carried" to be ambiguous enough to meet his obligation to Smiths yet free him to give Rolex room for "wore"...since in fact it was "supplied".
Hillary was no idiot, it is a simple matter to state what you wore and at this juncture in history we are well into wearing watches, to misspeak and say "carried", he was just as today careful as to alienate any of his sponsors either due to, contract obligations and or legal marketing obligations.

Daniel Craig at James Bond events. Omega
Daniel Craig sitting in his backyard smoking cigar in flip flops. Rolex, etc
So what's the point, which was "first" on "TOP" just "because"...go with what he said...the carried one. The end.

Chase all the papers and jargon you want, the dude was paid by both parties as it seems(maybe unbeknownst to both companies), they both could not be acknowledge clearly, specific ambiguous words were chosen....so that means I'm left to ambiguously decide for my own.....which watch I like.

I'll take the Explorer.

[Deaf Stan]

^^^ Good points.

I've no idea why I got so obsessed with this.

My depression has been playing up and I think that's not helped.

Anyway, it's been interesting. A bit. Has it? I hope it has. OK well maybe not.

[pd999]

Looks like Smiths went belly up in the late 1970s; shame.

The business name is now being used by someone else:-

http://www.smithswatches.com

[Old Expat Beast]

Originally Posted by Deaf Stan

^^^ Good points.

I've no idea why I got so obsessed with this.

My depression has been playing up and I think that's not helped.

Anyway, it's been interesting. A bit. Has it? I hope it has. OK well maybe not.

Interesting and enlightening

Engaging discussion about Rolex history is thin on the ground here lately.

[TempoKing]

Originally Posted by GradyPhilpott

Hillary wore the Rolex and carried the Smiths.
Hillary and Tenzing never revealed which one summited Everest first.

I agree - and given Sir Edmund's "madness" for Rolex Explorers,....I'd say the Rolex went to the summit first
and also... because there was a gentleman's agreement between Rolex and him about tests afterwards etc.

Right before his passing (below) he was wearing a steel & gold Rolex Oysterquartz

http://rolexpassionreport.com/5478/o...lfred-gregory/

[Deaf Stan]

Originally Posted by pd999

Looks like Smiths went belly up in the late 1970s; shame.

The business name is now being used by someone else:-

http://www.smithswatches.com

Nearly: that site is a dealer in vintage Smiths watches (James Merrens).


Smiths made their own in-house movements in Cheltenham from about 1946 until 1970 (including the 15 jewel "De Luxe" Hillary wore and the "W10" military watches issued to the British army, lovely gilt-frosted hand-winding movements.)

In the 1970's they started casing up Swiss movements under the Smiths name and finally stopped watch production in about 1979 to make other instruments (lots of aircraft and aviation).

Eddie Platts at Time Factors (and owner of the tz-uk forum) now owns the rights to Smiths and make "new" old ones, including a homage to or re-issue of the "W10".

I could bore for England on Smiths so I'll stop now.

[fskywalker]

The moon may belong to the Speedmaster, but Everest belongs to the Explorer! 😀




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[pd999]

Originally Posted by Deaf Stan

Nearly: that site is a dealer in vintage Smiths watches (James Merrens).

Smiths made their own in-house movements in Cheltenham from about 1946 until 1970 (including the 15 jewel "De Luxe" Hillary wore and the "W10" military watches issued to the British army, lovely gilt-frosted hand-winding movements.)

In the 1970's they started casing up Swiss movements under the Smiths name and finally stopped watch production in about 1979 to make other instruments (lots of aircraft and aviation).

Eddie Platts at Time Factors (and owner of the tz-uk forum) now owns the rights to Smiths and make "new" old ones, including a homage to or re-issue of the "W10".

I could bore for England on Smiths so I'll stop now.

Thanks; great info

[Limey-]

Originally Posted by Deaf Stan

^^^ Good points.

I've no idea why I got so obsessed with this.

My depression has been playing up and I think that's not helped.

Anyway, it's been interesting. A bit. Has it? I hope it has. OK well maybe not.

Always enjoy anything mixing mountaineering and Rolex. They have had a long relationship with the greats from Hillary to Messner and Viesturs and counless others.

[HogwldFLTR]

Great discussion and documentation!!! one of the reasons I'm such a fan of the OPs. They are truly the originals and perhaps one of the reasons Rolex is so highly esteemed!!!

Note that I resisted making any comment about being surprised that the candidate climbed Everest.

[Rashid.bk]

Originally Posted by Deaf Stan

^^^ Good points.

I've no idea why I got so obsessed with this.

My depression has been playing up and I think that's not helped.

Anyway, it's been interesting. A bit. Has it? I hope it has. OK well maybe not.

I enjoyed it. To be honest, I had never knew there was a controversy regarding which watch made it to the "top" first. I had only heard of Rolex and never Smiths so this is good information for a true WIS to know. I just don't think it's X-Files level conspiracy and that an answer is "out there" hidden. I think it's relatively easy to surmise a number of plausible outcomes....but due to Rolex's continued existence, dedication and marketing with the Explorer, it is the one that has stood the test of time.

Seems that with every milestone, there was a controversy, first dive watch, first chronograph, He valve, etc....so Everest also joins the club.