Smiths were the only watches worn on the summit of Everest in '53. The proof.

[Broussard]

Oh. And then there’s that second Rolex that he’s wearing in later photos. I don’t think even RPR has identified that one before… it’s not a DJ. Looks similar to EH’s. There’s an advert that we’ve all seen - the “Climbers pay tribute to Rolex” with Hillary, Hunt and Tenzing’s photos and quotes. Tenzing, annoying, suggests that he had used a Rolex watch *before* the 1953 expedition. How long was he holed up with a bad back? Was there time between the end of the Lambert expedition and the Hunt expedition for him to wear a Rolex in the mountains?

[M4tt]

Oh. And then there’s that second Rolex that he’s wearing in later photos. I don’t think even RPR has identified that one before… it’s not a DJ. Looks similar to EH’s. There’s an advert that we’ve all seen - the “Climbers pay tribute to Rolex” with Hillary, Hunt and Tenzing’s photos and quotes. Tenzing, annoying, suggests that he had used a Rolex watch *before* the 1953 expedition. How long was he holed up with a bad back? Was there time between the end of the Lambert expedition and the Hunt expedition for him to wear a Rolex in the mountains?

Frankly, I'm not going to take That advert as remotely reliable for reasons I have explained in detail. None of it rings true and at least some of it is definitely not true. As such it's not a reliable source of anything but the mindset of a certain well known advertising agency.

But there was time between the Lambert expedition in which they nearly reached the summit and 1953. There was a second Lambert expedition late in the season, well after the Monsoon, but it did not go at all well and tends to be gently forgotten. However, Tenzing was a full member who was seen as a very safe pair of hands - and proved to be just that. However, the party was rushed, too late, too small, too cold and didn't go at all well. Is it believable that Rolex would have supplied further Rolex, especially to Tenzing and the rest of the pretty well scratch team - or that Lambert would have gone out of his way to equip him. Absolutely.



There's a nice sense of how poorly it went in this report:

https://publications.americanalpineclub.org/articles/12195339700/Mount-Everest-1952

But the watch on Everest wasn't a Rolex, because they really don't look like that from the side!

[Rev-O]

FWIW I think the two 1950s watches most commonly associated with Bonklip (or B-type) bracelets are the Rolex Bubblebacks and the West End models.

Perezcope says it's an old / obscure / obsolete brand and that it has subseconds so (assuming he's right) my money is on a West End retailed Sowar Prima

https://www.vintagewatchstraps.com/westend.php

(NB the normally excellent David Boettcher repeats the common mistake of saying "CSI" = Civil Service India when in fact it's Canteen Services India, a sort of NAAFI / QMS)

Well, we'll see, Possibly.

[M4tt]

FWIW I think the two 1950s watches most commonly associated with Bonklip (or B-type) bracelets are the Rolex Bubblebacks and the West End models.

Perezcope says it's an old / obscure / obsolete brand and that it has subseconds so (assuming he's right) my money is on a West End retailed Sowar Prima

https://www.vintagewatchstraps.com/westend.php

(NB the normally excellent David Boettcher repeats the common mistake of saying "CSI" = Civil Service India when in fact it's Canteen Services India, a sort of NAAFI / QMS)

Well, we'll see, Possibly.

As you know I identified the bonclip as being one that matched a West End one in my collection, so you can be sure that West End and Taubert/Borgel were front and centre in my thinking. The problem is that in 1953, the overwhelming majority of West End stuff would have been both too deep, too small or entirely the wrong shape. A perfect example would be this dreadfully redialled, but genuine watch here:



It's the Taubert case familiar to anyone who fancies a Patek and it's certainly would be in the running, except it's 29 mm. The same with this military UN, in another variant of the case used by both West End and Patek:

Except it's 31mm

Or this, using almost the same case as the CSI Longines and FL:



which is lovely, but still 32mm. The problem with the West End theory is that the later, larger West Ends were just that, later. There are a couple of other brands using larger Taubert cases, but they were expensive. Most of the Taubert/Borgel West Ends are immediately recognisable and, in 1953, small. I've got a few of them from back when they were a couple of quid a pop, so I can make the point in more detail later.

[M1011]

Why seek a watch worn on Everest, when you can wear Everest on your watch?

[M4tt]

Actually, the source you posted yesterday actually contains precisely the historical source to confirm what I was saying yesterday:


This confirms, with rather convenient precision, that the only West End watches that can be in the frame were produced in a twenty year period between 1934 and 1954. However, to be clear, the 1934 West End Taubert case looked like this:



And it's even teeny tinier. Mind you, I can see how folks could confuse a West End and a Rolex:



Although the difference in quality between the pre'54 Borgel cases and the later ones is striking, and only goes down hill. That said, from some angles, this case shape, found in both earlier and later West End watches might fit:



The problem is. more than anything, the size

[Rev-O]

The problem is. more than anything, the size

Would Tenzing's small stature have any bearing on this? The effect might be to make a small watch look larger? I dunno, just thinking aloud.

Why seek a watch worn on Everest, when you can wear Everest on your watch?

Anyone remember the ill-fated Kobold with a stone face?

https://forums.timezone.com/index.ph...89#msg_7500775

[M4tt]

Would Tenzing's small stature have any bearing on this? The effect might be to make a small watch look larger? I dunno, just thinking aloud.

Anyone remember the ill-fated Kobold with a stone face?

https://forums.timezone.com/index.ph...89#msg_7500775

One of the advantages of doing this for a decade or more is that most of the answers are close to hand:



I assume we can agree that that is a Rolex? The photo is from shortly after their return in 1953 and the watch is definitely between 34 and 36mm. He may only have been five foot six and a bit, but he had fairly chunky wrists.