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.
.
Update September 20, 2023
According to an interview with Rolex Director and passionate scuba diver René-Paul Jeanneret published in the Europa Star No. 26 (2-1964) from 1964, the first Rolex Submariner prototype was created in 1951 and Jeanneret himself tested the watch to a depth of 165 ft/50 m.
“La première montre Rolex “Submariner” fut créée en 1951. Je fus d’ailleurs le premier à l’expérimenter en plongée en descendant jusqu’a 50 mètres.”
Translation: The first Rolex “Submariner” watch was created in 1951. I was also the first to test it by diving down to 50 meters.
Link: Europa Star No. 26, 2-1964 (watchlibrary.org)
Launched in 1955, not 1953!
Blancpain claims the Fifty Fathoms was launched in 1953, one year before the Rolex Submariner. A launch is commonly understood to be the debut of a new product and making that product generally available for purchase. To be clear, there is no evidence to back up Blancpain’s claim. If we dig into old Swiss Horological Journal editions, there was no mention of a dive watch made by Blancpain, or Rayville S.A., as the company was officially called at the time, in 1953. And neither was there in 1954. A revolutionary modern dive watch would definitely have been discussed in horological journals. The first time Rayville S.A. was listed was in 1955, when they had a small corner display at the Basel Watch Fair which took place between April 16 and April 26, 1955. There was no mention of any watches presented by them but if we look at the display, we can see it had an aquatic theme with fishes and as a background, the famous picture of Rayville S.A. director Jean-Jacques Fiechter in scuba diving gear in midst of hundreds of amphoras found at the bottom of the Aegean Sea.
Source: Journal Suisse d’Horlogerie No. 5-6, May-June 1955 (watchlibrary.org)
Obviously, this was the launch of the Fifty Fathoms which took place in 1955, NOT in 1953 as falsely claimed. What is interesting is that the watch was not mentioned anywhere as there was nothing innovative about it. It was one of many me-too products that followed the presentation of the Submariner in May 1954. The Submariner, on the other hand, was mentioned in horological journals around the globe. The image below is an exerpt from the May 1954 edition of the British Horological Journal in which the new Submariner was described in great detail. Presented in 1954 were the Explorer, the Turn-o-Graph and the Submariner.
Other journals: Journal Suisse d’Horlogerie No. 5-6, May–June 1954 (watchlibrary.org)
Other journals: Europa Star Asia – No. 24, 1954 (watchlibrary.org)
At this point, Blancpain’s claim is already debunked but let’s look at a series of documents that were presented by the brand to prove their point. Disclaimer: None of the documents is actually from 1953! Let’s start with the now famous patent.
Patent from Mid 1954
Jean-Jacques Fiechter, co-director of Rayville S.A., and case maker Jean G. Pauli filed the patent application for some of the Fifty Fathoms’ features on June 19, 1954, one month after the Rolex Submariner had been presented in Basel. Wait what? Yes, and this is how Blancpain tries to gaslight the watch community about this obvious discrepancy:
As he [Jean-Jacques Fiechter] explains, at the time, patent applications were filed once the product was commercialised, so his first patent application was filed early in 1954.
For anyone who knows a thing or two about patents, this does not make any sense! Patent applications are filed to protect an invention and this needs to occur as soon as possible in order to stay ahead of the game. Rolex, for instance, filed the patent application for their rotating bezel construction as early as February 5, 1953, more than a year before Fiechter. The patent for a newly developed crown named ‘Twinlock’ which kept water out even when the crown was pulled to the time-setting position, on April 18, 1953. The ‘Twinlock’ crown is an important detail which will be discussed later on. Following Blancpain’s nonsensical explanation, Rolex would have commercialised the Submariner in 1952 but that was not the case, was it?
Link to patent: CH322328 – Uhrengehäuse (worldwide.espacenet.com)
Link to U.S. patent: US2909893A – Watch Case (patents.google.com)
Another important thing to consider related to the patent is that even the earliest Fifty Fathoms examples supposedly made in 1953 have patent ‘Patents + Pending’ markings. ‘Patent pending’ is a designation whose usage is only legal once a patent application has been submitted. It becomes evident that all of the mentioned watches claimed to be from 1953 are actually from 1954 or later, certainly from a time after the patent application was filed.
Trademark Registration
A similar situation can be found with the ‘Fifty Fathoms’ trademark registration which was filed on June 11, 1954 in Switzerland. This fascinating document was unearthed by the great Nick Gould (IG: @niccoloy).
More interesting than the registration date is the date of first use in commerce which is noted as August 30, 1954. This was probably the first time a Fifty Fathoms was sold in public. How does this square with the claim, the Fifty Fathoms was launched in 1953?
Letter from the French Navy
Another important document put forth by Blancpain is a letter from February 5, 1955 written by Lieutenant Claude Riffaud and addressed to the director of Spirotechnique, supplier of diving equipment to the Navy. Now, to understand the significance of this letter, it is crucial to know what role the French Navy played in regard of the Fifty Fathoms. In the old days, it was common knowledge among collectors that the Fifty Fathoms had been designed by the French Navy and that Blancpain (Rayville S.A.) just produced the watches according to the specifications. The main driving force behind the project were Captain Bob Maloubier, a highly decorated WW2 hero, and Lieutenant Claude Riffaud. Together they established the first dedicated French underwater unit known as ‘Nageurs de Combat’. Maloubier explained on several occasions how they designed the watch, then proposed it to a French watch company who declined to make it and later finally met with Blancpain who agreed to produce the watch for them. In his book ‘Plonge dans l’or noir, espion!’ from 1986, Maloubier wrote on page 120:
“A la longue, une petite société d’horlogerie, Blancpain, accepte de réaliser notre projet qui se caractérise par un cadran noir frappé de gros chiffres et de repères nets: triangles, cercles, carrés. Une couronne extérieure mobile répète les divisions du cadran. On la règle au départ sur la grande aiguille et on y lit le temps écoulé depuis la mise à l’eau. Chaque point brille autant que l’étoile du Berger.”
Translation: In the long run, a small watchmaking company, Blancpain, agreed to carry out our project which is characterized by a black dial with large numbers and clear markings: triangles, circles, squares. A movable outer crown [rotating bezel] repeats the divisions of the dial. Aligned with the large [minute] hand at the start of the dive, the elapsed time can be read once in the water. Each marker shines as bright as the Shepherd’s star.
This is a very interesting statement by Maloubier as it mentions “clear markings in the form of triangles, circles, squares”, all of which cannot be found on what is typically seen as the earliest Fifty Fathoms dial with 3-6-9-12 markers. Some of the ealiest watches, however, do indeed feature a dial with “clear indexes in the form of triangles, circles and squares” as described by Maloubier.
Now, what does this dial remind you of? Of course, it is a copy of the Rolex Submariner dial. As said, some of the earliest known case numbers feature this dial type which poses the question, was this the first iteration of the Fifty Fathoms? Note also the triangle on the bezel. Later versions had a rhombus instead. Was it changed because it was too obvious it had been copied from the Rolex Submariner?
Knowing that since September 1953 ex naval officer Jacques Cousteau was wearing a Rolex Submariner, is it far-fetched to think that Maloubier saw the Submariner on the famous explorer’s wrist? I do not think so as these guys were all in contact with each other. In December 1953 for instance, Cousteau was part of the crew of the French Navy’s bathyscaphe F.N.R.S. 3, originally designed by Auguste Piccard, and descended to a depth of 4000 ft/1220 m as reported in The National Geographic Magazine from July 1954. Anyway, here is a more recent quote from Maloubier seen in The Fifty Fathoms History “documentary” directed and written by Jeff Kingston for Blancpain.
“So, we got a ruling pen, some compasses, some graph paper and we tried to design our dream watch, the ideal watch for diving which featured everything we wanted, meaning of course luminous letters, not to many numbers, a rotating bezel, etc., etc. We drew up everything we had in mind. We proposed it to the watch company [French] which laughed in our face: ‘diving watches have no future’. Through the intermediary of Spirotechnique, now Aqua Lung, we got in touch with Blancpain, the oldest Swiss watch brand. They, on the other hand, agreed to make our watch and so they made it for us. It was the Fifty Fathoms.”
Today, Blancpain is claiming the Fifty Fathoms was already in production and that the French Navy’s only contribution was the antimagnetic cover. In his lecture. Mr. Kingston said:
“Maloubier never met Fiechter but Claude Riffaud did. And the Fifty Fathoms was in existence at that point. There was only one change which the French asked to be made and that was to put in protection against magnetism. That was the French addition to the Fifty Fathoms that otherwise had been fully completed and was in production at that point.”
Coming back to the letter, there are two sentences of importance that help us understand in what time frame all of this happened.
.
1 – Je vous accuse reception de la montre “Blancpain” Numéro 166 Marine Nationale
2 – J’ai l’honneur de vous informer que je suis trés satisfait de ce type de montre que nous utilisons depuis un an pour nos exercices de plongée
Translation: 1 – I acknowledge receipt of the “Blancpain” watch number 166 Marine Nationale
2 – I have the honour to inform you that I am very satisfied of this type of watch that we have been using for a year for our diving exercises.
Riffaud was replying to a letter from Spirotechnique dated February 3, 1955 which probably accompanied a Fifty Fathoms with number 166 delivered that day. Given the dates in question, it becomes clear that the Navy started testing and using these watches only in 1954 and by February 1955, Blancpain had produced just 166 pieces of the Fifty Fathoms. If the watch was lauched and commercialized in 1953 as claimed, why did it take so long for Blancpain (Rayville S.A.) to file the patent application and register the ‘Fifty Fathoms’ trademark? This whole story makes no sense, even by the low logical standards the modern Blancpain brand is applying.
Key Features of the Original Fifty Fathoms
Rotating Bezel
The most important feature of the modern dive watch was the rotating bezel, indispensable for accurately measuring the duration of dives (elapsed time) and more importantly, vital decompression stops. Diving with compressed air was a complicated form of diving that required proper planning ahead of the dive and strict decompression routines to avoid the bends (decompression sickness). Invented by Philip Van Horn Weems (US2008734), time-recording rotating bezels for timepieces were known since the late 1920s. Famous are the aviator watches from Longines, Omega and others made for the Royal Air Force in the 1930s.
In 1942, Captain Maloubier became part of the British SOE (Special Operations Executive) that waged a secret war against the Germans. Maloubier was secretly dropped into France on two occasions. It was probably during these flights that Maloubier came in contact with Longines Weems watches featuring their signature rotating bezel on the wrist of the pilots. Interestinlgy, Rolex developed their own version of the ‘Weems’ watch, the so-called Zerographe, in the early 1940s.
Familiar with this type of device and how useful it would be for elapsed time measurements underwater, Rolex filed two patent applications for the Submariner bezel construction as early as February 5, 1953.
Link to patent: CH305177 – Montre (worldwide.espacenet.com)
Link to patent: CH312285 – Montre (worldwide.espacenet.com)
The Fifty Fathoms bezel construction was part the patent filed on June 19, 1954. As you can see, Rolex was way ahead of the game. Another important thing to note is the false claim that persists in the watch community that the Fifty Fathoms had a unidirectional bezel. That is not true! The bezel had to be pushed down to be moved but it turned in both directions. Anybody who has held an early Fifty Fathoms in their hands knows how easy it is to turn the bezel even without pushing down.
Crown
In his lecture at the Horological Society of New York, Jeff Kingston pointed out the Fifty Fathoms had a special crown construction, a very basic crown actually with a rubber gasket on the outside of the crown tube which kept water from getting into the watch even when pulled to time-setting position. He aknowledged there were water tight screw-down crowns (obviously Rolex) and why Fiechter refrained from using them as they were only thight when screwed down. The real reason Fiechter did not adopt the screw-down crown is of course because the patent for this invention belonged to Rolex. Conveniently, Mr. Kingston, who seems to know a thing or two about Rolex, also failed to mention that Rolex had developed a new crown known as ‘Twinlock’ and filed a patent application for it on April 18, 1953, more than a year before Blancpain. The ‘Twinlock’ crown had two rubber gaskets to prevent any water intrusion independently from the crown position.
Link to patent: Remontoir étanche pour pièce d’horlogerie (worldwide.espacenet.com)
As mentioned earlier, since September 1953, Captain Jacques Cousteau was testing the Submariner but underwater photographer Dimitri Rebikoff, who was also the Vice President of the Institute of Marine Research in Cannes, received his Submariner already in May/June 1953 for rigorous tests under real life conditions. The picture below found by eagle eye Nick Gould (IG: @niccoloy) shows Rebikoff during the testing process.
Rebikoff conducted a series of very specific tests and wrote down the results in a report from October 26, 1953.
Of particular interest is point no. 7:
“7. Similarly, no trace of humidity could be found in the watch. Several dives were carried out with the winding-crown pulled out, in the position for hand-setting.”
As all of this evidence shows, Rolex was way ahead of the game. There is zero evidence to support Blancpain’s nonsensical claims to have to produced the world’s first modern dive watch.
Rene-Paul Jeanneret
In his lecture, Kingston talked about how Rolex Director René-Paul Jeanneret and Jean-Jacques Fiechter used to dive together in the South of France. There is indeed a photo showing the two together on boat with corals and two amphoras brought up from the bottom.
If this picture is indeed from 1953 as claimed, chances are Jeanneret was already wearing a Submariner prototype on his wrist. It is impossible to say for sure but even if it was a regular Oyster, it would have been good for diving. In a recent article I wrote about an Italian underwater expedition to the Red Sea which took place between late 1952 and autumn 1953, it became clear that regular Rolex Oyster watches were used by divers long before the Submariner came out. In his lecture, Kingston makes it seem like there were no watches capable of deep submersion before the Fifty Fathoms.
Read more: Pre-Submariner Scuba Diving with Rolex Oyster Watches
As I mentioned earlier, I can tell Mr. Kingston knows a thing or two about Rolex but he conveniently leaves out important information like for instance that Rolex was producing dedicated underwater watches like the Special Oyster Ref. 2533 made for the underwater units of Italian Navy since 1936.
In 1951, Rolex tested a prototype watch to a depth of 165 ft/50 m. This effort resulted in the creation of the Submariner from 1953 but also of the so-called ‘Bathyscaphe’ watches, one of which went down to a record depth of 10,334 ft/3,150 m in the Mediterranean near Capri, Italy on September 30, 1953. In early 1960, an improved version reached the deepest point of the ocean, Challenger Deep in the Mariana Trench.
Thoughts
Here is what I think happend. It is possible Maloubier and Riffaud designed the watch in late 1953 but it was not until 1954 that the first examples were produced and tested. In May 1954, Rolex presented the Submariner in Basel which led Jean-Jacques Fiechter to realize the commercial potential of the Fifty Fathoms. Subsequently he applied for the trademark and the patent. Starting in late August 1954, he began to sell the first watches to the public. Then in April 1955, the Fifty Fathoms was presented to a larger audience at the Basel Watch Fair.
The history of the Rolex Submariner is quite well documented. There are no unsubstantiated claims or accusations that another brand stole intellectual property. The Crown is the Crown after all. The patents for bezel and ‘Twinlock’ crown were filed in February 1953 and April 1953 respectively. The first Submariner batch was produced in the second quarter of 1953 (casebacks marked 2.53) right after the invention of the ‘Twinlock’ crown. The production took place between April and June 1953.
In May/June 1953, a Submariner watch was given to Dimitri Rebikoff for testing purposes. Jacques Cousteau received his watch in September 1953. Thoroughly tested, the Submariner was finally presented to the world at the Basel Watch Fair in May 1954.
The Blancpain Fifty Fathoms story, on the other hand, is inconsistent, illogical and shrouded in contradictions. It is all claims, no proof. The patent was filed in June 1954 and the explanation that back then patent applications were filed once the product was commercialized is nonsensical. Following this rule, the Submariner would have been commercialized in 1952. Also, all known early watches bear ‘Patent Pending’ markings, making clear they were made after June 1954. Finally, according to the trademark registration, the first commercial use of the name ‘Fifty Fathoms’ occured on August 30, 1954 and as we have learned, the watch was only presented to the public in May 1955. My man Gary Getz made a good point. The absence of evidence is not evidence of absence but it sure does not look good for Blancpain’s bold claim. I think this article has clearly established the Fifty Fathoms was not launched in 1953 and that there is hard proof that the Rolex Submariner was already in production in the second quarter of 1953. The Fifty Fathoms was a great and proven design that did not need to be supercharged with hot air. Marc Hayek, CEO of Blancpain, did a great disservice to his brand by trying to push the false narrative that the Fifty Fathoms was the first modern dive watch in history when it clearly it was not.
As usual, all of the mainstream watch media outlets, my friend Gregory Pons of Businessmontres.com likes to call them “the parrot media”, repeated Blancpain’s nonsense unreflected in order to cater to the mighy Swatch Group. Furthermore, it is truly sad to see guys like Jeff Kingston trying fool watch enthusiasts with made-up stories.
Oh, one more thing. Just as with vintage Omega Speedmasters, the Swatch Group has been rigging auctions for early Blancpain Fifty Fathoms as well. The prices achieved at auction have to be taken with a grain of salt. If you found yourself in a bidding war over a Fifty Fathoms, chances are you were bidding against someone at Swatch Group who was using multiple accounts to make the watch appear more popular than it actually was.
Thank you for your interest.
Related Articles & Videos
- Pre-Submariner Scuba Diving with Rolex Oyster Watches
- The Realities of the Rolex Deep Sea Special No. 1 at Christie’s Geneva
Vintage Rolex and other iconic timepieces under the loupe at Perezcope 
Incredible work as always, Jose. Thank you for your research and for producing great reads for the rest of us. Keep it up and hope you’re keeping well.
LikeLike
Again, an excellent article where facts prevail over myths.
LikeLike
I was greeted today by a hundred-long queue at the local Swatch boutique. Guess what was released 😀
LikeLike
When I walked in front of the local Swatch boutique today, there was a hundred-long queue. Guess the Swatchpain Fifty Fathoms is out 😀
LikeLike
I admire your work throughout. In my opinion the best at all. Not only the single facts, but the whole. I love the storys. Best background, best investigations, best Layout (last but not least). No bullshit. I just bought a railmaster from 64′, but never ever would show it to you. you would bust my dreams. you are the levelendboss of watchcollecting. this is not a joke, just fact.
LikeLike
1. Blancpain never claimed to commercially offer the first dive watch. They claim it was the first created and initially was offered only to the military. Launching to the public at a watch fair in 1955 doesn’t change that timeline and, actually makes sense if Blancpain’s claims are true.
2. The 1954 patent also aligns with Blancpain’s claims. At that time, patents were assigned on a “first to invent” basis rather than “first to file”. There was also likely a year grace period between public use and filing requirements. So a 1954 filing date very well could correspond to a 1953 invention date.
3. Trademarks indicate a source of a good or service in commerce. Blancpain didn’t need trademark registrations until the Fifty Fathoms was offered to the public (as opposed privately to the military), so the later trademark applications aren’t evidence contrary to Blancpain’s claims either.
LikeLike
No, Blancpain claims the watch was already in production when the Navy came knocking. As for the rest of your points, I made my view crystal clear in the article.
LikeLike
negative, I’ve never read anywhere , that’s the BP FF was commercially available in 1953. it was designed with the French Navy. this is a fact. it was then offered to the general public for sale. Many of your data points are accurate but when it comes to being commercially available I have never read anywhere that BP released it to the general public in 1953.
LikeLike
LikeLike
so because one guy makes a verbal statement you take that for the gospel? i’m very surprised sir. For somebody that is a smart as you are should recognize when somebody is talking out of their ass and it’s obvious that he is talking out of his ass and there’s not an official BP statement! again please show me where in writing from blank time with a assert that the Watch was available for commercial cell in 1953. It doesn’t exist. this is one man making a bullshit statement. there’s a lot of bullshit statements made out there and you know that. this is just one of them. he obviously has no idea what he’s talking about. I will agree on that point.
LikeLike
Jeffrey Kingston spoke in his official capacity as author and lecturer of Blancpain Watches. Kingston was also the director and writer of the Blancpain Fifty Fathoms documentary produced by Blancpain.
LikeLike
Blancpain has never claimed the Fifty Fathoms was commercially available in 1953. You are confusing the fact that the watch was in production with being commercially available. Jeffery Kingston is correct in the clip below – the watch was being produced, likely in small numbers. This does not mean it was also being sold to the public at that time.
LikeLike
Blancpain claims the watch was “launched” in 1953 which is commonly understood as debut of a new product to the market and making it generally available for purchase. As for the watch being produced in 1953, likely in small numbers, that’s just an assumption of yours. There is no evidence for that.
LikeLike
Great bit of sleuting again resulting in fascinating historic facts proofing the “heritage” departments still have a lot of work!
Chez ” Blancpain ” they might have to edit their history book a bit:
Fifty Fathoms, The Dive and Watch History 1953-2013
LikeLike
Another great bit of sleuthing resulting in fascinating historical facts, it looks like the “heritage” departments still have a lot of work. Maybe then can begin by adding an erratum to their reference book:
Fifty Fathoms, The Dive and Watch History 1953-2013
LikeLike
Swatch were actually winning all these FFs that they were bidding on, or were they always the underbidders ? If they’re underbidding they can only push as high as a single private buyer was willing to pay, and if they’re doing this effectively it would require auction house collusion.
LikeLike
Jose, you are a rock star! I’ve had four early FFs and the water resistance is poor at best. I wouldn’t wash my hands with one. The Rolex screw-down crown was the single invention that made a true water-resistant watch possible. Where the FF excels is style. They can justifiably take credit for making the first large dive watch (42mm) with a moveable bezel, and the first with lumed numbers on the bezel. They should be satisfied with these firsts. I also owned a 5508 Sub, and boy are they tiny in comparison (37mm).
LikeLike
What about the Zodiac Seawolf?
LikeLike
Great article but you just gave us the proof that the birth of the fifty fathoms is 1953. Thanks
LikeLike
And the Submarines 1951.
LikeLike
Rolex is the Crown, end of story. Thanks Jose for an article full of facts and of course the truth.
LikeLike
The patent application date and the horological journal mentions are not conclusive evidence of the actual production and distribution dates of the watches.
Compelling case but a more balanced presentation and conclusive evidence is required. My own thoughts have developed to believe that most watch companies were involved in false claims at the time. Just look at Rolex and their Everest claims.
LikeLike
I think therein lay the problem…there is a lack of conclusive evidence. Of they evidence available, Rolex comes out first. That’s my take on this at least.
LikeLike
Perezcope is simply the best. The truth above all!
LikeLike
Superb read as always! Thank you for your work Jose 🙏🏻
LikeLike
This was an enjoyable read, but the substantive argument could be written in one sentence: There is no evidence that Blancpain commercially released the Fifty Fathoms in 1953.
LikeLike
Again a wonderful story. Thank you
LikeLike
50FF were offered to the Military in the 1950’s. Not issued. The later Tornek -Rayville and German Bund models ( with different cases and Bezel constructions) were the exception. We bought/sold/serviced close to 200 vintage BP’s in the 1990’s. All models. I’m not aware of anti-magnetic Properties regarding the inner movement cover. Wouldn’t make sense anyway; 1950’s dials were brass . All the sensational news in the early 1950’s were necessary, because 8 years after the end of WW2 the Watches were not big business and many companies struggled to stay in business. Even a small contract could secure the future. So, exaggeration was part of survival. (Watchyouwant)
LikeLike
Thanks for your insights Joachim. Can you confirm that all of the vintage 50FF that you serviced had the “patent pending” label, as asserted by Jose here? I am just curious to see if there is any copy of the first generation 50FF (or pre-50FF BP dive watches) that do not have the “patent pending” label.
LikeLike
That is a tricky one …. Nearly 30 years ago …. not the internet age …. film photos taken long gone … But, yes, as far as I remember all inner movement covers had that on the bottom engraved. Actually is is plural ” Patents+Pending” . These came with the very, very thick Rubber seal, 3 colours coded.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Like always thank for the work done , and all the pressuse information
LikeLike
I don’t understand those who view this as “drama” I see it as another FACT that I now know.
LikeLike
I’d like to receive email alerts to any new posts and articles that you create. I’ve really enjoyed your Blancpain FF article. I’m now planning to read all your past articles over the next few weeks.
Many thanks!
LikeLike
Hi! I enjoyed very much your paper. It turns some things around. But I would like to be for a moment a Devil’s advocate…
Well, first things first, the first divers watch was not the Fifty Fathoms, neither the Rolex Submariner, but the Omega Marine, in 1932, and capable of 135mts depth.
Now, the problem I find: Yo say at the beginning that the Blancpain was presented in 1955. But your own documents show that it was supplied to the Marine Nationale since February 1954…, which is in fact before the Submariner. Also, you state that only 166 had been made in February 1955, but the document says 166 Marine Nationale. That doesn’t indicate that the Fifty Fathoms hadn’t been produced for a larger public at the same time, or even before, just that the Marine Nationale had bought up to that moment 166 pieces, which were Marine Nationale’s specifications.
I don’t know of any false statement by Blancpain, but I do know of many by Rolex, like saying they produced the first divers watch in 1954, 22 years after the Omega and 19 after a Panerai, saying they invented the GMT, which was done by Longines since the 1920s, saying they invented the rotating bezel with the Submariner and then with the Zerograph, to increase the myth (which you eloquently show is false implicitly in this paper), etc…
So, I believe the Blancpain could have been previous to the Rolex. The patent is posterior to what the Marine Nationale states…
LikeLike
Bonjour,
Merci José pour tous vos articles. Vous lire est un vrai plaisir pour tous les passionnés d’horlogerie qui préfèrent les faits au marketing.👍👍👍
L’étanchéité et la capacité de submersion des montres bracelet sont factuellement la primeur de Rolex. Le boitier Oyster utilisé le 7 octobre 1927 par Mercedes Gleitze pour traverser la Manche témoigne de la première place prise par Rolex, bien avant l’Omega Marine de 1932.
A noter toutefois que l’étanchéité de l’Oyster a été rendue possible grâce à l’utilisation d’un brevet dont Hans Wildorf n’est pas l’inventeur mais le propriétaire suite à un rachat.
“L’étanchéité de l’Oyster de Rolex était assurée par une lunette et un couvercle, tous deux vissés à l’avant et à l’arrière du boitier. Le dispositif était complété par une couronne vissée à la manière d’une écoutille de sous marin qui provenait d’un brevet que Wilsdorf avait acheté à deux suisses : Paul Perregaux et George Pelleot. Plus tard en 1930, pour éviter l’usure prématurée de cette couronne qui représentait un risque pour l’étanchéité de la montre, Rolex inventera le remontage automatique dit ‘perpétual’ ”
source : https://moonphase.fr/la-sirene-et-lhuitre-mercedes-gleitze-et-lhistoire-du-boitier-oyster-de-rolex/
La compétence sous-marine de Rolex a été confortée pendant la seconde guerre mondiale avec l’utilisation des Panerai par la Royale Marine Italienne, puisque les Panerai de l’époque étaient des montres conçues et produites par Rolex pour lesquelles Giuseppe Panerai n’opérait qu’un changement de cadran en utilisant les cadrans sandwich au radium.
Omega est second sur le podium.
“Ainsi, en concevant ce nouveau boîtier de montre, le défi auquel Louis Alix a été confronté était de breveter un design pour l’Omega Marine, en particulier en rendant la tige de remontage étanche, sans enfreindre le brevet Rolex existant. ”
source : https://montrespubliques.com/new-1minute-reads/a-deep-dive-into-the-omega-marine
LikeLike
Très bien dit, Thomas
LikeLike
Thank you for this, much needed dose of truth.
Could you please also debunk Omega’s claim about beating out other brands to become the NASA watch.
LikeLike
“Oh, yes, of course, I forgot, it was not an Omega Speedmaster that was worn first on the Moon” is the outlandish and silly sentence you want to hear? *smh*
LikeLike
I think it says that the Omega watch had trouble keeping time in testing. But the other models of other watches, no.
LikeLike
Interesting article, one question:
Is there a picture or document that proves that Jacques-Yves Cousteau wore a Rolex? Can this be shown? I don’t know one so far. Or the only picture I know is so bad that you can see, that Cousteau is wearing a watch, but only with a lot of imagination what brand it is. And by that I mean a picture of Jacques-Yves Cousteau and not someone from his environment.
Thank you
Schorsch
LikeLike
That Cousteau tested the Submariner from September 1953 onwards is an established fact backed by the Rolex archives. Just google “Cousteau Rolex Submariner” and you’ll a number of great pictures. Since I cannot establish when those pictures were taken, I didn’t include them in the article.
LikeLike
Jacques-Yves Cousteau tested many diving watches, take a look at the movie “The Silent World” and see him wearing toolwatches from Blancpain, Doxa to Omega and Rolex !
LikeLike
In The Silent World, Cousteau can only be seen wearing a Rolex Submariner.
LikeLike
Great article – very interesting stuff!
However, I’d like to play devil’s advocate for a moment. Knowing some patent law, I know that some countries (like the US, for example) operate a ‘grace period’ system whereby the proprietor of the invention is afforded 12 months, from first public disclosure, to subsequently file a patent application. Whilst I do not know whether Switzerland operated this ‘grace period’ in the 1950’s, it certainly is possible. The rationale for having such a ‘grace period’ is to allow the proprietor of the invention (in this case, Blancpain) to determine the commercial viability of the invention (I.e. by disclosing it to the public to assess commercial interest) before having to invest further costs in a patent application. This would also limit the likelihood of the patent office being inundated with patent filings made by proprietors who, after marketing the product, then realise the product has no commercial value and request withdrawal of the application. This ‘market first – file later’ is quite common today. Perhaps Blancpain did release the first version in 1953 and, after Rolex showed the submariner at Basel in 1954, knew the cost of filing the patent would be worthwhile…
Regarding the US trade mark filing, whilst it does refer to ‘first use’, this could well be first use within the US as opposed to use elsewhere (e.g. Switzerland). Even if this wasn’t the case, the brand name (I.e. Fifth Fathoms) and its date of first use doesn’t really say anything about the watch itself and when that was first produced – in theory, it’s possible the watch was initially publicly disclosed without using the name ‘Fifty Fathoms’, particularly if only a handful of units were disclosed in 1953.
LikeLike
Sea Wolf of Zodiac 1953 Baselworld
LikeLike
Unfortunately not true. The Zodiac Sea Wolf was presented at the Basel Watch Fair in 1958.
LikeLike
Fantastic piece of research! The other very real question Is what are the consequences in various jurisdictions when it has now been found that Blancpain has engaged in false advertising? What recourse do buyers have who bought a Fifty Fathoms based on the idea that they are buying a great piece of horological history because the Fifty Fathoms is advertised as the first dive watch I history?
LikeLike
I would appreciate it if you could write an article regarding your statement that „Swatch Group has been rigging auctions for early Blancpain Fifty Fathoms“. I think this could be beneficial for the public.
LikeLike
As a buyer of the new titanium FF Bathyscaphe that I bought new from my AD Zurich and in consideration of the outstanding quality and movement finishing of the watch (better than what I have seen in the sub-50k CHF range at Patek or Vacheron) AS WELL AS the Fifty Fathoms being advertised as the first modern diving watch and having preceded Rolex in doing so, I now feel like a fool because – in all honesty – I would not have considered any Blancpain watch for purchase otherwise. The whole story about the brand having been in existence since 1735 was already borderline wrong and misleading, especially since Jean-Claude Biver himself stated in an appearance in Asia a few years ago that before he was involved in resurrecting Blancpain there were neither any machines nor any employees and he made it absolutely clear that only the brand name existed and nothing else. I was willing to give Blancpain a pass for this because I considered the Fifty Fathoms an important milestone in horology. However, that has now been called into question. As a result, the initial reason for which I bought the watch, will now have fallen away if the allegations in the Perezcope article are true. Also, your observations regarding Jeffrey Kingston are correct. As per his LinkedIn, he has been an employee of Blancpain for the past 20+ years (Author of Lettres du Brassus) and also at Breguet (as author for the past 13+ years).
LikeLike
It seems like there’s a lot of information that doesn’t add up.
If we go for the simplest explanation, is it because the developers of the FF in the French Navy, want to create a new watch, when the Submariner is already in testing, or if the tests were conducted in 1954, in the shops, why didn’t the French Navy use the Submariner?
We are talking about a world of diving that is emerging, so it’s a small group of people who have common friends (like Cousteau…) and the French Navy surely was in contact with the others who were involved in diving and the latest developments.
Did no one talk about or see or inquire about a watch or the tests for it when there was no watch specifically for diving? And a watch in production with the same specifications as what they want to make.
Why are the two watches so similar? Identical dial and a movable bezel with a counter. Did both developer groups come up with the same solution and design at the same time?
LikeLike
This article did not address the fact that the Rolex Submariner failed the US Navy testing in 1958 for a dive watch. It failed because of leaking and a bad bezel (would stick if any mud got into it). The Blancpain Fifty Fathoms passed. So according to US Navy, Blancpain beat Rolex with a modern functional dive watch. It really doesn’t matter who filed a patent first.
LikeLike
And why would we care about what the US Navy thought about these watches 5 years after the relevant years in question? I swear some of these commenters don’t even read the article.
LikeLike
To paraphrase, “and of course [Rolex Director and passionate scuba diver René-Paul Jeanneret] 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”. Could this also be, while not a certainty, a possibility?
LikeLike
At the end of the day it’s a battle of claims but Rolex has the evidence to back it up, at least some of of it.
LikeLike
Stan Czubernat included strong evidence in his article on Medium. It’s worth a look. He included the Navy documentation in ’58. Who carries more weight with you, the Institute of Submarine Research or the USN? At the very least, Blancpain (the original company) has as much of a claim, as any other watch company.
source: Rolex FAILS United States Navy Waterproof Wristwatch Tests, Depollier’s Waterproof Watch PASSED | by Stan Czubernat | Medium
LikeLike
The 1958 test has nothing to do with the question of who came first but since you’re mentioning it, that test was not very meaningful as only one watch of each brand was tested. If you want to have a reliable test, you need to have at least 10 pieces of each brand to exclude any manufacturing defects. Obviously the Rolex that was tested was a Monday watch.
LikeLike
Great article, thank you! But I think the FF is prettier than the Sub.
LikeLike