All About Watches

doghouse said:
I'm trying not to laugh, really. Rolex had no influence on the Blancpain. The FF was designed from scratch by two special forces leaders and the owner of Blancpain. It's the first true dive watch ever created and Rolex repurposed it with the Sub. Those are the only historic facts. The Blancpain is also a way better watch. And as I've said, the Turn-o-graph doesn't even have anything to do with this conversation and I have no idea why you keep mentioning it especially since the FF came first, s

I am an Omega fan boy, and I can promise you the FF was way out in front.
Click to expand...

this advertorial has been approved by blueballs

IMG_7457.webp
 
doghouse said:
I'm trying not to laugh, really. Rolex had no influence on the Blancpain. The FF was designed from scratch by two special forces leaders and the owner of Blancpain. It's the first true dive watch ever created and Rolex repurposed it with the Sub. Those are the only historic facts. The Blancpain is also a way better watch. And as I've said, the Turn-o-graph doesn't even have anything to do with this conversation and I have no idea why you keep mentioning it especially since the FF came first, s

I am an Omega fan boy, and I can promise you the FF was way out in front.
Click to expand...

Right, let us look at this another way. The FF going into series production beats the Sub by a few months. Now, you claim that the sub, is a copy of the FF. So, for that to be true, Rolex would firstly have had to have seen the FF, potentially obtained one for a tear down, design a copy that didn't infringe any patents, test the copy, train their staff to assemble the copy and then retool their production lines to manufacture the copy. All this in a few months? No chance. The submariner is an evolved design which can clearly be seen from looking at the Zero through the Turn. Any similarities between the FF and the Sub are coincidental or the product of a then industry wide trend.

You'll be claiming that BP invented the water proof watch next. ;)

Chuckles
 
formby said:
The submariner is an evolved design which can clearly be seen from looking at the Zero through the Turn. Any similarities between the FF and the Sub are coincidental or the product of a then industry wide trend.
Click to expand...
Denial is a hell of a drug.
 
doghouse said:
Denial is a hell of a drug.
Click to expand...

Chuckle:

Lets look at the the info I've provided to you.

Firstly, the historic record from Phillips, one of the worlds pre-eminent auctioneers of watches with access to the worlds leading experts. Don't believe me, get your paws on one of the catalogues they release before an auction. They're collectable in their own right.

Secondly, the manufacturing argument. It is impossible to copy a watch of that complexity in the time scale allowed by the watches respective market entry. This would be difficult to do even now with modern CADCAM and rapid prototyping techniques. Actually, the Sub was released in 53 but had its official unavailing at the then equivalent of Basel in 54.

Whether or not the BP is a better watch than the Rolex is irrelevant and not under discussion. The topic of discussion is whether or not the BP influenced the Rolex and in my considered opinion it didn't.

In my view they were developed concurrently, and again, what similarities there were, may have been down to then industry trends. There may even have been a race to be first to market. That wouldn't surprise me.
 
formby said:
It is impossible to copy a watch of that complexity in the time scale allowed by the watches respective market entry.
Click to expand...

This is the reason you can't see the failing in your argument. This needed not happen.

Rolex just had to take their existing platform and add the features and aesthetics of the Blancpain. It didn't take anything to do. Rolex found out what BP was doing and made a copy to run into the market. This is what happened, there is no controversy around this fact, and the fact you are arguing against it is honestly baffling.

Look at a Turn o Graph, a Sub and a FF. Two of them are alike, one isn't.

In 1952, French special forces commander Captain Bob Maloubier designed a watch for his elite divers, which rival watchmaker Blancpain agreed to build. As well as being suitably water resistant, it had a dial design that was easy to read in low light and a rotating bezel that could be used as a countdown timer. The watch, christened 'Fifty Fathoms', was used not only by Maloubier's team, but also by American, German, Swedish, Norwegian, Danish, Finnish and Israeli special forces too. So why does Rolex's Submariner take all the glory?

Released months after the Fifty Fathoms, the Rolex Submariner did more or less what the Blancpain did. It had a legible dial that glowed in low light, a rotating countdown bezel, water resistance suitable for diving - it was practically the same watch with a different look. But here's where the watches differed. Where Blancpain made its watch for use by special forces, Rolex made the Submariner for everyone.
Click to expand...

Rolex is the prole version though, I'll grant you that.
 
doghouse said:
This is the reason you can't see the failing in your argument. This needed not happen.

Rolex just had to take their existing platform and add the features and aesthetics of the Blancpain. It didn't take anything to do. Rolex found out what BP was doing and made a copy to run into the market. This is what happened, there is no controversy around this fact, and the fact you are arguing against it is honestly baffling.

Look at a Turn o Graph, a Sub and a FF. Two of them are alike, one isn't.



Rolex is the prole version though, I'll grant you that.
Click to expand...

Chuckle...

If you prefer the BP that's fine, if you think its the better watch, that's fine too, if you think that Rolex are for proles that also fine, albeit a bit daft.

But one thing is for sure, it didn't influence the design / look of the Sub. :)
 
formby said:
Chuckle...

If you prefer the BP that's fine, if you think its the better watch, that's fine too, if you think that Rolex are for proles that also fine, albeit a bit daft.

But one thing is for sure, it didn't influence the design / look of the Sub. :)
Click to expand...


I'm glad you've given up your quixotic quest and have admitted I'm correct.
 
doghouse said:
I'm glad you've given up your quixotic quest and have admitted I'm correct.
Click to expand...

Well, it depends on what you mean by correct. I've never said that the Sub, at that time was the better watch. If you think that, then I'm afraid you have been tilting at windmills.

What I've argued is that the BP had no influence on the Sub, that the Sub, is an evolution of existing Rolex designs. So in that sense you are incorrect.

As an aside, I have never read in any of my books, as I recall, and I have several, where it has been suggested that the Sub is a copy of the FF.

Neither the FF or the Sub are the first dedicated divers watches, this should be obvious because less that a decade before was WWII and frogmen needed divers watches for their 'activities'. What the FF and Sub did was to popularise the genre for the general public, Rolex to a greater degree, for better or worse.

The first dedicated dedicated divers watch was a Omega as said (pre WWII). Can't remember the name at the mo.
 
formby said:
What I've argued is that the BP had no influence on the Sub, that the Sub, is an evolution of existing Rolex designs. So in that sense you are incorrect.
Click to expand...

Still given up. Thank you again for admitting I'm correct. You are only making declarative statements at this point and have ceased to try and introduce and factual evidence, because obviously there isn't any. Rolex did evolve their line..... to copy Blancpain. Fin.

Also that Rolex are prole watches. It Hans Wilsdorfs actual mission statement for the company. Again, one of the most settled bits of watch history there is, why you would even argue it is beyond me, unless you are just in an arguing mood, in which case I wholeheartedly approve, as I'm sure you know!
 
doghouse said:
Still given up. Thank you again for admitting I'm correct. You are only making declarative statements at this point and have ceased to try and introduce and factual evidence, because obviously there isn't any. Rolex did evolve their line..... to copy Blancpain. Fin.

Also that Rolex are prole watches. It Hans Wilsdorfs actual mission statement for the company. Again, one of the most settled bits of watch history there is, why you would even argue it is beyond me, unless you are just in an arguing mood, in which case I wholeheartedly approve, as I'm sure you know!
Click to expand...

Chuckle

I've give you the factual evidence from the Phillips website, I've also given you the manufacturing argument that you laughably tried to refute by hijacking your own argument.

Your entire argument has relied on, slurs, non-sequiturs, convoluted logic and more straw men than a turnip field.

You've hit Peak-Bop.

Well done! :)
 
FF developed 1952 & debuted at Basel 1953

Sub at Basel 1954

Someone at Rolex goes "quick turn the Turnograph into a dive watch!"

Don't forget douchy Panerai's first iterations were introduced in 1936 as being built specifically for underwater use (MADE BY ROLEX)

Omega Marine which looks nothing like a dive watch was first made in '32 and over time was tested specifically for water resistance at depth and at pressure.

Neither the Marine or later FF had screwdown crowns because - you guesse it - Rolex had the patent
 
Thruth said:
FF developed 1952 & debuted at Basel 1953

Sub at Basel 1954

Someone at Rolex goes "quick turn the Turnograph into a dive watch!"

Don't forget douchy Panerai's first iterations were introduced in 1936 as being built specifically for underwater use (MADE BY ROLEX)

Omega Marine which looks nothing like a dive watch was first made in '32 and over time was tested specifically for water resistance at depth and at pressure.

Neither the Marine or later FF had screwdown crowns because - you guesse it - Rolex had the patent
Click to expand...

Thruth gets it.
 
Thruth said:
FF developed 1952 & debuted at Basel 1953

Sub at Basel 1954

Someone at Rolex goes "quick turn the Turnograph into a dive watch!"

Don't forget douchy Panerai's first iterations were introduced in 1936 as being built specifically for underwater use (MADE BY ROLEX)

Omega Marine which looks nothing like a dive watch was first made in '32 and over time was tested specifically for water resistance at depth and at pressure.

Neither the Marine or later FF had screwdown crowns because - you guesse it - Rolex had the patent
Click to expand...

There were other dive watches too. As I said, neither the FF or Sub were the first dedicated dive watches, they popularised the genre.
 
doghouse said:
Thruth gets it.
Click to expand...

Hold on, I thought you said the Turn had nothing to do with it, now you're agreeing with his suggestion that it forms the basis for the sub. This is where, in your attempt to to refute my manufacturing point previously, you tripped yourself up.

However, it is merely a suggestion, in my opinion they could not have made a production ready model in the time scale which was months, not years.
 
formby said:
Hold on, I thought you said the Turn had nothing to do with it, now you're agreeing with his suggestion that it forms the basis for the sub. This is where, in your attempt to to refute my manufacturing point previously, you tripped yourself up.

However, it is merely a suggestion, in my opinion they could not have made a production ready model in the time scale which was months, not years, even using the Turn as a base.
Click to expand...

I specifically said they used it for the base actually. Which is why your manufacturing argument was a non starter.
 
doghouse said:
I specifically said they used it for the base actually. Which is why your manufacturing argument was a non starter.
Click to expand...

No, lets look a what you actually said.

You originally said this:

I'm trying not to laugh, really. Rolex had no influence on the Blancpain. The FF was designed from scratch by two special forces leaders and the owner of Blancpain. It's the first true dive watch ever created and Rolex repurposed it with the Sub. Those are the only historic facts. The Blancpain is also a way better watch. And as I've said, the Turn-o-graph doesn't even have anything to do with this conversation and I have no idea why you keep mentioning it especially since the FF came first, s

I am an Omega fan boy, and I can promise you the FF was way out in front.

Then when I give you the manufacturing argument, you conveniently changed to say this:

Rolex just had to take their existing platform and add the features and aesthetics of the Blancpain. It didn't take anything to do. Rolex found out what BP was doing and made a copy to run into the market. This is what happened, there is no controversy around this fact, and the fact you are arguing against it is honestly baffling.

Now which platform is this? Its the Turn obviously.

Now to change the Turn into a divers watch, and make it production ready takes considerable engineering effort. You ain't just changing the dial, and borrowing the aesthetics you're engineering and testing a waterproof case.

The Sub copied nothing from the FF, it didn't need to. It simply came to market a few months later. Also, neither of them can claim to be the first dedicated divers watch anyway.
 
doghouse said:
You mean the one that came a year after the FF? Yep.
Click to expand...

That model is '53, but obviously designed earlier as I pointed out in a previous post.

The Subs DNA is the Turn not the FF. Rolex did not need to copy the FF.

You've repeated the canard that because the FF arrived at market a few months before the Sub, Rolex must of copied the FF. This canard is partly a reaction against Rolex fan boys making the claim that the Sub was the first dedicated divers watch, and partly because they don't know about the first Turns. The funny thing is, neither of them are. It's very likely that that accolade belongs to your favourite brand Omega.

Now that is chuckle worthy. :)
 
Some of the first dive watches, proper tool ones, as opposed to just being water proof are from WWII: the Elgin Dive Canteen watches. There were some others too. Not mass produced, or on sale to the public.

Formby's right, Longines Weem were producing military watches with rotating bezels for the US military by at the latest 1940. Likely before. Of course the precious preening watch aficionados around here wouldn't dream of ever owning such a vulgar and common brand.

This topic has revealed some of the watch brand snobbery that equals any of the precious BS on other sartorial forums.
 
doghouse doghouse excellent trolling (in the original meaning of the word) by making up bullshit about watches (bullshit about bullshit) you have EXPOSED formby formby as a watches anorak. I can never take him seriously again. Well done. Comrade.
 
ConchitaWurst said:
Longines make some handsome pieces, and are a good brand. They've pitched themselves just right I think. They were above Rolex in the 50s and 60s (and well before) and with good reason, fantastic movements and pedigree.
Click to expand...

Longines as much as you may want it, falls into the mid-range, but high quality. A canny buy. And I know diplomats who sport Longines before other ranges. It says you cannot be bought.

So away with your pretence and BS.
 
fxh said:
doghouse doghouse excellent trolling (in the original meaning of the word) by making up bullshit about watches (bullshit about bullshit) you have EXPOSED formby formby as a watches anorak. I can never take him seriously again. Well done. Comrade.
Click to expand...

Since when did you take me serious anyway...?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 3 (members: 0, guests: 3)
Back
Top Bottom