highoeyazmuhudee Posted January 24, 2009 Report Share Posted January 24, 2009 I just read in WatchTime magazine, that although Bonds' model watch was never formally mentioned a close friend of Flemings has come out to say that Flemmings intention was for it be an Explorer I. not sure if you guys figured that out yet or not. but the magazine also mentioned the clues left by Flemming in the novels. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TeeJay Posted January 25, 2009 Report Share Posted January 25, 2009 I just read in WatchTime magazine, that although Bonds' model watch was never formally mentioned a close friend of Flemings has come out to say that Flemmings intention was for it be an Explorer I. not sure if you guys figured that out yet or not. but the magazine also mentioned the clues left by Flemming in the novels. I would disagree with that friend's interperetation. In the novelisation of OHMSS, Fleming described Bond's watch as a 'Rolex Oyster Perpetual', with 'Large, luminous numerals'. Now, while that description could apply to the Explorer I, I disagree, for this reason: Fleming went into great detail describing Bond's passions. His cigarettes with the gold stripes, the Red Stripes he drank with Scaramanga in Jamaica, the car he not only drove, but also customized, voiding the manufacturer's warranty (I forget the model at the moment) so bearing that tendency in mind, if he had wanted to say Bond wore an Explorer I, I think he would have simply said, "James Bond looked down at the Rolex Explorer, the large, luminous numerals letting him know-" Now, before the Submariner was actually called the Submariner, there was a 'pre-Submariner', which was not identified thus on the dial. The dial did not have the currently recognized 'dots and sticks', but luminous numerals, and, the only printing on the dial, was 'Rolex Oyster Perpetual'. The Explorers of the era, were already branded as Explorers. It's an interesting theory. It might well have been that Fleming's first intention was for it to be an Explorer, but he simply changed his mind while writing. As above, given his attention to detail of other things, I don't believe that he would miss the opportunity to do likewise with another thing, and I believe that the pre-Submariner fits the written description better, than the Explorers of the day Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Justasgood Posted January 25, 2009 Report Share Posted January 25, 2009 Whoa.....game, set, match Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TeeJay Posted January 25, 2009 Report Share Posted January 25, 2009 Just to illustrate the point, here're the two watches in question: As mentioned above, in OHMSS, Fleming at one point, wrote "Rolex oyster perpetual", and another, "Large, luminous numerals". Now, someone might argue that he was describing the watch in terms of it's brand, case and movement. However, as I mentioned above, Fleming was a chronic 'brand-name dropper'. Every minute aspect of James Bond's tastes, was always described in 'brand-name' terms. Thus, I do not believe that the above quote is a description, but a brand identification. One of those watches, has, "Rolex Oyster Perpetual" on the dial, and nothing else, ergo, it is, a Rolex Oyster Perpetual, not, a Rolex Submariner. When that watch was made, there was no such thing as a 'Rolex Submariner'... Again, that's just my own personal theory, and people are free to agree or disagree with me, but I believe that the evidence is there to support it. As above, it may have been that Fleming initially planned to have Bond wear an Explorer I, but simply changed his mind while writing, to give Bond a watch more in keeping with his naval experiences, and, for someone who drops brand names on all other aspects of Bond's tastes, it would be inconsistent to simply describe something, when it is branded, and identifiable by that brand name... That's not to say the friend is wrong, as that might have been all he had originally been told, so from his perspective, that would have been true to him... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
miquel Posted January 25, 2009 Report Share Posted January 25, 2009 (edited) This is a great discussion.... Having just finished reading On Her Majesty's Secret Service, this is what Fleming writes just previous to Bond leaving for Switzerland, doubling as Sir Hilary Bray... "'Yes,' said Bond dully. 'I've fixed all that. And I've two new suits with cuffs and double vents at the back and four buttons down the front. Also a gold watch and chain with the Bray seal." Is the gold watch mentioned the same as used in his escape from Piz Gloria? "and, finally, Gillette through his fingers of the left hand and the Rolex transferred to his right"..."the Rolex disintegrated against the man's jaw" Fleming doesn't give any clues as to what was actually worn. But, because OHMSS was wrote during the filming of Dr. No, I would be lead to believe that he wanted Bond in a Submariner, just like his on screen persona, Sean Connery. In Live and Let Die, Fleming mentions a Rolex while Bond is making his way towards Mr. Big's hideout. "He looked at the Rolex watch on his wrist" LALD was published in 1954. The plot thickens.... Edited January 25, 2009 by miquel Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TeeJay Posted January 25, 2009 Report Share Posted January 25, 2009 This is a great discussion.... Having just finished reading On Her Majesty's Secret Service, this is what Fleming writes just previous to Bond leaving for Switzerland, doubling as Sir Hilary Bray... "'Yes,' said Bond dully. 'I've fixed all that. And I've two new suits with cuffs and double vents at the back and four buttons down the front. Also a gold watch and chain with the Bray seal." Is the gold watch mentioned the same as used in his escape from Piz Gloria? "and, finally, Gillette through his fingers of the left hand and the Rolex transferred to his right"..."the Rolex disintegrated against the man's jaw" Fleming doesn't give any clues as to what was actually worn. But, because OHMSS was wrote during the filming of Dr. No, I would be lead to believe that he wanted Bond in a Submariner, just like his on screen persona, Sean Connery. In Live and Let Die, Fleming mentions a Rolex while Bond is making his way towards Mr. Big's hideout. "He looked at the Rolex watch on his wrist" LALD was published in 1954. The plot thickens.... Miguel, I haven't seen you posting in ages, welcome back, amigo, I hope life has been treating you well With regards the highlighted text, if you look back a bit, to where Bond is planning his escape in his room, he assesses the tools at his disposal, and I am sure the watch is described as a 'Rolex Oyster Perpetual on an expanding steel bracelet'. I haven't got a copy of the novel I can lay my hands on, but I am convinced that that is the description given of the watch, and at another point, is the comment about the 'large, luminous numerals'... I don't have a perfect eidetic memory, but some things, I do remember very precisely, and I'm sure that those descriptions are in OHMSS rather than one of the other novels Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
miquel Posted January 25, 2009 Report Share Posted January 25, 2009 Thanks TeeJay! I've been hanging out at RepGeek. The quote from OHMSS... "Bond surveyed his weapons. They were only his hands and feet, Gillette razor and his wristwatch, a heavy Rolex Oyster Perpetual on an expanding metal bracelet. Used properly, these could be turned into most effective knuckledusters." After Bond escapes and debriefs with M at Quarterdeck (M's house)... "Bond lifted his right wrist. Remembered that he no longer had a watch. That he would certainly be allowed on expenses."..."Another Rolex? Probably. They were on the heavy side, but they worked. And at least you could see in the dark with those big phosphorus numerals.". This had better be his watch... In my opinion, why wouldn't Bond be wearing a Submariner, he was trained in the Navy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TeeJay Posted January 25, 2009 Report Share Posted January 25, 2009 Thanks TeeJay! I've been hanging out at RepGeek. The quote from OHMSS... "Bond surveyed his weapons. They were only his hands and feet, Gillette razor and his wristwatch, a heavy Rolex Oyster Perpetual on an expanding metal bracelet. Used properly, these could be turned into most effective knuckledusters." After Bond escapes and debriefs with M at Quarterdeck (M's house)... "Bond lifted his right wrist. Remembered that he no longer had a watch. That he would certainly be allowed on expenses."..."Another Rolex? Probably. They were on the heavy side, but they worked. And at least you could see in the dark with those big phosphorus numerals.". This had better be his watch... In my opinion, why wouldn't Bond be wearing a Submariner, he was trained in the Navy. No problem, amigo, good to see you back here Thanks for finding the quotes, I was positive they were in OHMSS I believe that this would have been the watch in question. The 1954 Pre-Submariner. As mentioned above, the only print on the dial is "Rolex Oyster Perpetual", and indeed, "Big phosphorus numerals" (rather than 'large, luminous numerals' as I mis-remembered it ) As above, I feel that had Fleming been refering to any other model of Rolex, he would have named it, rather than going with what could be admitedly be mistaken as a simple description of the watch, but which I believe to be, based on the history of the Submariner's evolution, a specific identification of a specific model of watch As you say, Bond was naval trained, so a diver's watch would make sense Of course, only the man himself will know the true answer, but that doesn't take away from the fun of discussing the subject Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
miquel Posted January 25, 2009 Report Share Posted January 25, 2009 Of course, only the man himself will know the true answer, but that doesn't take away from the fun of discussing the subject I agree 100%. The other thing to remember, is Bond was a product of the mid-50's. What was happening at that time? Scuba diving was becoming more and more popular. Fleming, living in Jamaica, enjoyed scuba diving. He even discussed in interviews his friendship with Jacques Cousteau. Rolex was reworking their watch line-up with the popular sports models. Sure, Fleming wore an Explorer, but why wouldn't his alter-ego wear something a little more sophisticated and cutting edge... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TeeJay Posted January 25, 2009 Report Share Posted January 25, 2009 I agree 100%. The other thing to remember, is Bond was a product of the mid-50's. What was happening at that time? Scuba diving was becoming more and more popular. Fleming, living in Jamaica, enjoyed scuba diving. He even discussed in interviews his friendship with Jacques Cousteau. Rolex was reworking their watch line-up with the popular sports models. Sure, Fleming wore an Explorer, but why wouldn't his alter-ego wear something a little more sophisticated and cutting edge... Precisely The Explorer is a land-based watch, the emerging Submariner, water-based. I don't deny that Fleming most likely considered the Explorer initially, but I suspect he then changed his mind while writing, for the pre-Submariner, and simply never told his friend. And of course, if his friend wasn't a watch enthusiast, the minor detail of the dial printing would probably never have occurred to them I just think the description is too close to the pre-Submariner to have been refering to the Explorer, as with everything else, when Fleming intended to 'brand-name drop', he did. So I think Fleming had intended it to have been a specific naming of the watch and, as the only name/print on the pre-Submariner is 'Rolex Oyster Perpetual', that's precisely what he wrote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
miquel Posted January 25, 2009 Report Share Posted January 25, 2009 My thoughts exactly and I couldn't agree more. That was why when I bought my MBK 6538, I wanted it with the 3-6-9 dial. I've always thought the literary Bond wore an early sub like that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stephane Posted January 25, 2009 Report Share Posted January 25, 2009 I really want one of theseones .... What a beauty !!! Is anybody selling one ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TeeJay Posted January 25, 2009 Report Share Posted January 25, 2009 My thoughts exactly and I couldn't agree more. That was why when I bought my MBK 6538, I wanted it with the 3-6-9 dial. I've always thought the literary Bond wore an early sub like that. Absolutely, definitely an early Sub. My hunch is the 1954 pre-Sub, simply because it was not named as a Sub, and I think if it had been named a Sub, I believe that's what Fleming would have written. I had asked for a 3-6-9 dial when Silix did the run on vintage Subs, but wound up with the dateless 'baton marker' dial instead Oh well, maybe for a future project or purchase That's an awesome watch, by the way, I trust it gets plenty of wrist time Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
miquel Posted January 25, 2009 Report Share Posted January 25, 2009 Thanks for the kind comments on my watch....I never take it off. I got mine from TTK, I imagine Chris would be able to get it as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TeeJay Posted January 25, 2009 Report Share Posted January 25, 2009 Thanks for the kind comments on my watch....I never take it off. I got mine from TTK, I imagine Chris would be able to get it as well. I wondered if it might've been a daily beater I think if I was going to get one, I'd definitely want the pre-Submariner dial. Maybe one day... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TeeJay Posted January 25, 2009 Report Share Posted January 25, 2009 "Bond lifted his right wrist. Remembered that he no longer had a watch. I just realized, that specifies Bond wearing his watch on his right wrist, rather than his left, as has always been the portrayal in the movies Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
miquel Posted January 25, 2009 Report Share Posted January 25, 2009 And it's one that I "fiddle" with the most. I keep trying to make it look older, more vintage, more used. Bond lifted his right wrist. Hmmm, I never noticed that...nice catch. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TeeJay Posted January 25, 2009 Report Share Posted January 25, 2009 And it's one that I "fiddle" with the most. I keep trying to make it look older, more vintage, more used. Hmmm, I never noticed that...nice catch. I'm sure you'll get the right look in the end I haven't tried a vintaging project yet, but I hope to get round to one one day Thanks, and thanks for posting the quotes, it certainly helped clarify my theory Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
miquel Posted January 25, 2009 Report Share Posted January 25, 2009 No problem. I had the books handy. OHMSS is my favorite book. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
freddy333 Posted January 25, 2009 Report Share Posted January 25, 2009 I think you have to consider the context in which Fleming wrote those early Bond novels. For 1 thing, Fleming, himself, wore an Explorer & as is still the case today, most gen owners no little about Rolex watches beyond what they see on their own wrist. So having Fleming make note of the luminescent glow & 'Oyster Perpetual' markings on Bond's Rolex would seem quite reasonable when describing a character wearing an Explorer. After all, Fleming would need only to look down at his own wrist for inspiration. Secondly, if Bond's watch had been a Sub, I find it difficult to believe that he would mention the dial's inscriptions & luminescent glow without noting the bezel's rotating nature, which, at the time the early Bond novels were written, (1950s) was a very unique & notable feature on a wrist watch. It is just very difficult to believe that Fleming would describe Bond wearing 1 of the then-new Subs without mentioning the watch's unique bezel, especially in view of how it would have required 007 to reset it (back to null) after having used the watch as a knuckleduster. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
miquel Posted January 25, 2009 Report Share Posted January 25, 2009 I think you make a good point, Freddy. Fleming was very explicit in his writings, so it would seem odd to not have any mention of a rotatable bezel. In 1962, Fleming wrote a description of James Bond for Playboy magazine. Under "Apparel", he writes "Wears Rolex Oyster Perpetual watch". Also, some notes on the wrist in which he wears it, Fleming replies to a reader in 1958... "...points out that the Rolex Oyster Perpetual weighs about six ounces and would appreciably slow up the use of his left hand in combat.". I think the reference in OHMSS when Bond notices his right hand is in reference to the hand in which he used the watch as a knuckleduster. I think the only certainty is that Bond indeed wears a Rolex Oyster Perpetual. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
highoeyazmuhudee Posted January 25, 2009 Author Report Share Posted January 25, 2009 (edited) I personally DO love the submariner more, I'm just posting what I read in the reputable watchtime magazine. They showed an illustration from a bond novel and depicted was a rolex with Arabic numerals, and even a photo of Fleming at his desk wearing an explorer I. Hmm, either way I still prefer the subby Edited January 25, 2009 by highoeyazmuhudee Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TeeJay Posted January 26, 2009 Report Share Posted January 26, 2009 No problem. I had the books handy. OHMSS is my favorite book. My favorite book is From Russia with Love, but OHMSS is my favorite of the movies. I didn't think Lazenby was so bad in the role, and hell, anything with Diana Rigg in it will always get a thumbs up from me I think you have to consider the context in which Fleming wrote those early Bond novels. For 1 thing, Fleming, himself, wore an Explorer & as is still the case today, most gen owners no little about Rolex watches beyond what they see on their own wrist. So having Fleming make note of the luminescent glow & 'Oyster Perpetual' markings on Bond's Rolex would seem quite reasonable when describing a character wearing an Explorer. After all, Fleming would need only to look down at his own wrist for inspiration. Secondly, if Bond's watch had been a Sub, I find it difficult to believe that he would mention the dial's inscriptions & luminescent glow without noting the bezel's rotating nature, which, at the time the early Bond novels were written, (1950s) was a very unique & notable feature on a wrist watch. It is just very difficult to believe that Fleming would describe Bond wearing 1 of the then-new Subs without mentioning the watch's unique bezel, especially in view of how it would have required 007 to reset it (back to null) after having used the watch as a knuckleduster. There's certainly some interesting points there, but there are some things which prevent me from agreeing with them with regards to the Bond watch... First off, I would quite agree with you when you say that most gen owners have little to no idea about the watches, and yes, Fleming likely did look to his own wrist as inspiration. However, as I mentioned before, Fleming frequently went into detail with his brand-name dropping, and I think that had he meant Rolex Explorer, he would have written "Rolex Explorer", rather than "Rolex Oyster Perpetual". To me, it's easier to 'think backwards', and think that rather than simply describing the watch, he was in fact identifying it, even though that identification sounds like a description, because of Rolex branding... I say that, because it is more 'in keeping' with Fleming's writing to believe that that was an identification rather than a description, rather than believe that he put in a description rather than a brand-name drop, when in all the other instances, he would brand-name drop... Secondly, while I would agree that the bezel would have been a very unique feature, and most definitely would have been mentioned if it was plot relevant, but, it would not really have been a relevant detail at that point in the story... Bond was not using his watch as a timer (when it certainly would have made sense to mention the rotating bezel) but was using it purely as a weapon... I forget if Bond pocketed the watch after taking out the guard, or if he ditched it, (Miguel, could you check that out please ) but, given the crystal disintegrated, I doubt he put it back on his wrist for time-keeping Infact, the line Miguel posted, about how Bond went to check his watch at the debrief, forgetting he was not wearing one, and realized he would have to get a replacement, (on expenses, of course ) lends support to the theory that he simply discarded it after using it as a weapon, so no real need to reset the bezel under those circumstances... Thirdly, having written a bit myself, I know how much a final manuscript can change from original intentions and notes, and sometimes quite dramatically. As mentioned, Fleming might have initially said to his friend that he was going to write Bond having an Explorer, or that he was thinking about writing Bond having an Explorer, when discussing his plans for the novel, but possibly changed his mind during the writing process... I acknowledge that that's something we'll never know for sure, but, as I mentioned with the Obi-Wan quote: A person's point of view (as to what they knew or were told) could still make the comment true to them, even if the facts themselves, unbeknownst to them, had altered after the original conversation. Thanks for the interesting points to consider though, at the end of the day, it's certainly a fun topic to mull over Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TeeJay Posted January 26, 2009 Report Share Posted January 26, 2009 I think you make a good point, Freddy. Fleming was very explicit in his writings, so it would seem odd to not have any mention of a rotatable bezel. In 1962, Fleming wrote a description of James Bond for Playboy magazine. Under "Apparel", he writes "Wears Rolex Oyster Perpetual watch". Also, some notes on the wrist in which he wears it, Fleming replies to a reader in 1958... "...points out that the Rolex Oyster Perpetual weighs about six ounces and would appreciably slow up the use of his left hand in combat.". I think the reference in OHMSS when Bond notices his right hand is in reference to the hand in which he used the watch as a knuckleduster. I think the only certainty is that Bond indeed wears a Rolex Oyster Perpetual. And the only Rolex which can only be described thus, is the 1954 pre-Submariner As before, given Fleming's use of brand names, I find it hard to see why he would choose to not use the Explorer name for the watch, if that was indeed what he intended. From a purely lazy point, it would save typing two words each time As I mentioned to Freddy, I think Fleming would have made mention of the bezel, if it was a more crucial plot point, but, in that instance, it would simply have slowed the pace, and had he written "the crystal disintegrated against the guard's face, and the rotating bezel flew off the watch into the darkness of the corridor." it would have added an unnecessary element of comedy... I would not view the omission of mention of the bezel as an indicator of it being an Explorer, for the above reason of brand-name dropping I personally DO love the submariner more, I'm just posting what I read in the reputable watchtime magazine. They showed an illustration from a bond novel and depicted was a rolex with Arabic numerals, and even a photo of Fleming at his desk wearing an explorer I. Hmm, either way I still prefer the subby As before, I don't doubt the source or the friend's account, I simply wonder if it could have been an issue which, as Obi-Wan said, depends on one's point of view... I just think, personally, that there is more evidence to support it having been written as a pre-Submariner, rather than an Explorer, even if the Explorer was Fleming's original intent, which may or may not have changed during the writing process Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
miquel Posted January 26, 2009 Report Share Posted January 26, 2009 So, you want to know the fate after "the Rolex disintegrated against the man's jaw"? After that, there is no mention of it. I think the reader can make up his/her own mind on which Oyster Perpetual Bond is actually wearing. OP to me (in reference to Bond) will always be the 6538. You Only Live Twice and The Man With the Golden Gun are the last two Fleming novels. I don't have them, nor have read them (yet). Does Fleming make any other Rolex references in those? ps. TeeJay, I rank OHMSS in my top 5 Bond movies. Thunderball is number 1. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now