New official Rolex History of Submariner book.

[Funkle]

Well, while we are complaining, I don't believe the term "quality control" quite applies to literature, unless some pages fell out when you "flipped to."

[TickTockChuck]

I really want this as I consider the Submariner the most iconic Rolex.

[TickTockChuck]

Originally Posted by harvey

ffs quit your moaning and let people enjoy their purchase…

I would have to agree.

[Scholar]

Originally Posted by harvey

ffs quit your moaning and let people enjoy their purchase…

Embarrassing. It’s a history book. Missing the facts defeats the purpose. I own the book myself. Should I be happy about getting a book that fails at its purpose?

Originally Posted by Funkle

Well, while we are complaining, I don't believe the term "quality control" quite applies to literature, unless some pages fell out when you "flipped to."

I’m an editor. Fact-checking is absolutely a quality control process.

[David16610LV]

Originally Posted by Scholar

Finally started flipping through the official Submariner book today and there has been a major mistake on every page I’ve flipped to. And I’m not by any means an expert like Padi or others.

It even gets basic things wrong that actual Rolex print ads got right. How did this thing pass quality control?

Perhaps I should sell this to some super fan because this book is basically useless. Not sure what the appeal is besides the Rolex imprimatur.

There are certainly some editorial errors that I've noticed, for example the correct people listed/talked about in the text and then a photo meant to be of them but incorrectly labelled with the wrong names, and of course the claim that the Oyster Perpetual was the first waterproof watch (although that is only in the label to one photo and in a schematic showing the Sub evolution, and is not stated in the text itself by the author).

Beyond that, could you please give some examples of the 'major mistakes' and factual inaccuracies that you refer to. I would appreciate this as it will help me learn. Thanks.

[drrd]

I’ve enjoyed Nick’s cigar review/chat uploads on YouTube. Shame he seems to have stopped those now.

Perhaps this book should have been similarly light hearted in tone and maybe not aimed to be a definitive guide?

Still, with the backing of Rolex it seems it could have been better.

[diracpoint]

Another review of the book here (not sure if already posted): https://perezcope.com/2024/09/30/rev...erproof-watch/

[Scholar]

Originally Posted by drrd

I’ve enjoyed Nick’s cigar review/chat uploads on YouTube. Shame he seems to have stopped those now.

Perhaps this book should have been similarly light hearted in tone and maybe not aimed to be a definitive guide?

Still, with the backing of Rolex it seems it could have been better.

If it were like that, I would have liked it. I don't dislike Foulkes; we even share a tailor! (Of course, not that that guarantees amity; one guy I met through the watch collecting world who is also a customer of said tailor funded his lifestyle by embezzling billions out of a poor third-world country...)

When the book gets things like basic dates, which Rolex ads got right, it's really damning. Or as the Perezcope review points out, getting the whole helium escape valve wrong.