Ian Fleming’s 1016 Explorer Movement and SN? Quandary? (v2)

[jedly1]

Note from Moderator. It is likely I who inadvertently deleted (or at least provoked the deletion of) the original thread by my block insertion of the Pledge 2012 reminders in every section. Here is the reconstruction thread, all significant info retained.

Post 1 - Originally by CAVEDIVER

Ian Fleming’s 1016 Explorer Movement?

Dell Deaton was kind enough to post information on Ian Fleming’s 1016 Explorer.
Facts Provided:
Case Number: 596851
Movement Caliber: 1560
Bracelet: 7206
Bracelet end pieces: 58

Here is the quandary:
1) The serial number lists found vary slightly, but most lists put this number no later than 1960.
2) Reference material states the 1016 was released in 1963. Was Ian’s watch pre-release years earlier? There is even more quandary.
3) Reference material provided to Rolex Watchmakers in training classes state that the movement 1560 was not produced until 1965.
In 2002, Steve Maddox President, NAWCC Chapter #62 North Little Rock, Arkansas published that the 1560 entered production in 1965. He was provided this information from Rolex Bienne.

I have seen this information used to authenticate watches including movements for a specific circa. So, what does Ian’s watch tell us about the reference information? What is off, Ian’s watch or the reference material?


References:
http://www.rolexforums.com/showthrea...highlight=1560
http://www.timeandgems.com/Rolex-Ser...uide_b_19.html

http://mb.nawcc.org/showthread.php?t=774
http://rolex.watchprosite.com/show-n...ost/ti-558176/
http://www.secondtimeround.com/explorer%20history.html
http://www.qualitytyme.net/pages/numbers.html

[CaveDiver]

Post 2 - Originally by Jedly1

the serial puts it at 60 IMHO, and there plenty of 1016's from around that period of introduction, the 1560 was in existence at that point and was used in that and other non sports models also.. i vaguely remember discussions over the chart/parts book you refer to and i think one possibility for it strangely claiming 65 was a reworking of the movement and something to do with the micro stella and rotor.. so techincally it was sort of introudced in 65.

quick google search...

http://www.mwrforum.net/forums/showthread.php?t=30964
http://robertmaron.com/product.php?p...65&page=1&sold
http://www.chrono24.com/en/dealer/wa...CH_ADTYPE_ID=U

the problem with a lot of the reference material especially online is that it's often built on misconceptions in the first place, or is just rehashing of urban myths read elsewhere., half the serial number charts you see out there are so far off its unbelieveable, but for 15 years people used them, and took dates from them, and hence articles were written as a starting point with wrong dates etc...the explorer artciles you'll see are msotly edits from dowling & hess book, which is a great intro but is off on quite a few points though it was forward thinking when it came out, it also sites the 6610 as 59, though that was 56/7. its only really the last five years and the net explosion that has allowed collective researching and bringing together various bit of information in things like the VRF serial number project which forms the basis of most of the up to date charting and undertanding. 3/4 of what people said ten years ago is utter nonsense.

so 1960 1016, 1560 movt, (with a chapter ring dial) not a problem.

[jedly1]

Post 3 - Originally by Jedly1

I was never sure why that article citing bonds watch as an explorer just ignored the 'live and let die watch 'from a decade earlier, other than trying to argue it wasn't his personal watch and was merely issued equipment .. ehh ??? was the aston his ? or the lotus ??..

And can anyone tell me If the on her majesty book actually says it's an explorer ??, it doesnt, it just makes reference to big numerals which the author of the article takes to mean the the explorer.

the explorer is hardly a heavy oyster and wasn't overly supplied on expanding, it could equally be a 6200 369 or the just released in 1962/3 5512/3 with 369 dial, or imho equally possible, fleming was aware of the actual watches used by the royal navy divers and special forces through that period.. in 1962 it would have been a big crown sub or a 5512 millitary submariner fitted with a reprinted dial made by the burford dial company for the MOD, the 369 milsub...

jed1.jpg
jed2.jpg

there is no doubt what Flemings watch was but I stick with a sub.for bond. and yes I own a gilt exp1)

[CaveDiver]

Post 4 - Originally by Delldeaton

Good discussion (again)
There are actually two articles on this subject. Taken together, I believe you'll find that they complete answer everything asked here.

"Discovered: James Bond's Rolex," WatchTime magazine, February 2009
"How I Found the Original James Bond Watch," NAWCC Bulletin (Journal of the National Association of Watch & Clock Collectors, June 2009

Here is a photo of the watch from before it was ever shown publicly, anywhere. To keep things in what I felt was an important, proper perspective, I printed it onto an envelope to mail from celebrations I was attending in conjunction with the Ian Fleming Centenary.

dell1.jpg

[azguy]

Post 5 - Originally by Jedly1

yep, always a good one this
hi dell, thanks, yes ive read both the articles before, and understand completely your thoughts, and of course there is no arguemnt over ian flemings watch ,


as for the James bond watch , well as it' a fictional character and the author is passed away, interpretation becomes the name of the game which is going to involve a lot of if but and maybes, and so therefore is subjective i guess, if we treat it as two real books that reference the Rolex, then i guess im one of those that still struggle to dismisss the first instance of a Rolex in L&LD, and to be honest im pretty sure you agree its a Rolex sub.

To dismiss it because it is ONLY issued by Q for a mission rather than bought by the character himself seems very bizarre to me, it is the first mention regardless, and surely half the good stuff he has is Q issued. For me at least it makes the OHMSS discussion interesting but a bit moot.


On the second book OHMSS, there is a leap based on little but the description of the 369 numerals.

in favour of an explorer is:

a) that is the watch IF had himself.
b) that it has 369 numerals... on to which a lot of weight is put.

in favour of a 369 sub is the fact that

a) he'd obviosuly used one before in L&LD even if only issued.
b) thats what the Royal navy were issuing ( and incedentally) naval officers were buying for themselves - and as you point out IF was a thorough and complete reseacrher.
c) that it is a noticeably HEAVY oyster
d ) as you say IF was a stickler for detail and let the dr No watch stand as a submariner, so equally this is an indication it was broadly in line with his thinking.
e) importantly, there ARE examples with only the wording Rolex oyster perpetual and no model name.


take your pick of the below that could all equally fit the description... yet if you really want a watch that fits, how about the first one, supplied on bracelet, 369 numerals, radium, and MOST importantly only has the wording Rolex oyster perpetual ... no model name...

the 6200

jed1.jpg

the A6538 royal navy submariner

jed 2.jpg

the 5510 naval submariner



the 5510 369

jed3.jpg

the 5512 naval submariner

jed4.jpg

the 5512 369

jed5.jpg

the 5513 369 (one of the early ones and one of 5 variants predominatly marketed heavily in the UK, in and around 62/3)


another

jed7.jpg


so again for me, if you choose to ignore the first book l&LD , its an unanswerable question and we are back to fun speculation, the 369 detail gives us no answers so it mostly goes back to guessing.

IMHO if you want to be like james bond firstly buy a series of cheap expendable watches, or get someone else to pay for your watch, or get a grip he aint real :)

[jedly1]

Post 14 - Originally by Jedly1

a bit more food for thought ...


Ian fleming describes in his letter a Rolex too heavy at 6oz...(170g)

in ohmss bond refers to the rolex as a bit heavy

my explorer is in europe and my big crown is at service so photos courtesy of a very helpful dutchman,

a nice fat 1016 gilt on 7206 : less than half the weight of what Ian fleming describes as heavy.

1.jpg

a polished 6538 .. 20% heavier

2.jpg

the thicker guaged a6538 or 6200, or later 5512/3 would be heavier still...

[CaveDiver]

Post 16 - Originally by Delldeaton

It continues to impress me how much, um, "excitement" my articles in WatchTime, Chronos, and the NAWCC Bulletin continue to generate on this subject.

In addition to what I read on the various Forums (which, admittedly, I can't visit as often as I'd like due to my responsibilities in preparing the upcoming "Bond Watches" exhibit at the National Watch & Clock Museum), WatchTime continues to leverage its position as the place where this information first broke.

1.jpg

It isn't always possible for me to respond anymore to everything here, plus the eMails and letters I'm increasingly getting from the 100,000+ readers of my published work. Many of these discussions are really thoughtful, respectful, and based on impressive study of both Ian Fleming and period Rolex models.

So I just wanted to weigh in quickly here to thank everyone on TRF for all the support and encouragement. Keep up the good talk!

[Haywood_Milton]

Originally Posted by jedly1

a bit more food for thought ...


Ian fleming describes in his letter a Rolex too heavy at 6oz...(170g)

in ohmss bond refers to the rolex as a bit heavy

my explorer is in europe and my big crown is at service so photos courtesy of a very helpful dutchman,

a nice fat 1016 gilt on 7206 : less than half the weight of what Ian fleming describes as heavy.

Attachment 259796

a polished 6538 .. 20% heavier

Attachment 259797

the thicker guaged a6538 or 6200, or later 5512/3 would be heavier still...

Try weighing the Subs on a nylon strap though, rather than a bracelet !

BTW, has anyone seen both the photograph and the painting of Fleming wearing his 1016 in the book of his correspondence, published recently by his nephew? I'm just on it now, but the photo is especially pleasing.

Haywood

[TimeToGo]

Post 6 - Originally Cavediver

Hi Jedly,
Thanks for the information. I do recall reading something about micro stella and rotor however not being a watchmaker, I was not sure what that means other than maybe something to do with the balance wheel. A couple of your links got me scratching my head though. The first link has a photo of a nato type strap with some words on an explorer. Given your information though, does that mean we need to throw out the rest of the chart?

The various "15 series" movements were produced as follows:

1520 -- 1963-1980
1525 -- 1965-1980
1530 -- 1957-1964
1535 -- 1957-1967
1555 -- 1959-1967
1556 -- 1965-1978
1560 -- 1965-1967
1565 -- 1959-1967
1565GMT -- 1962-1967
1570 -- 1965-1979
1575 -- 1965-1979
1575GMT -- 1965-1979
1580 -- 1963-1979
Reference: http://mb.nawcc.org/showthread.php?t=774

BTW, that Bond info is priceless. The four months I have been killing myself trying figure out this mess I have, I have never seen a sub like that. That is an amazing watch. Would that be considered a fake dial (no disrespect meant)?
Thanks again

[mike]

Post 7 - Originally Cavediver

This is an amazing watch. What can you tell us about the watch and dial?

[mike]

Post 7 - Originally Jedly1

charts, shouldbnt be thrown away just not taken as gospel there will always be something that bucks the trend a bit, usually earlier introduction or a couple years use up leftovers.

the 6200 is a nice example made by Rolex and certainly isnt a fake, and that one is currenlty available for sale, but there are a few in collections.

[HL65]

Post 8 - Originally Cavediver

As for the fake, I was referring to the mils sub shown here (again, no offence):

cave1.jpg

cave2.jpg

[CaveDiver]

Post 9 - Originally by Jedly1

grey area, made for the MOD, and printed OVER the original rolex dial, (a friend has one with water damge and under you can make out the red depth 6538 dial) and apparently done with the blessing of Rolex,

They have been accepted by Rolex who have serviced watches with them on, in my experience everyone interprets them differently, some see them as super rare rolex , some as millitaria, most somewhere in between. if it was done with Rolex blessing then in some way its not any different than any of their dials produced by subcontractors.

[cruvon]

Post 10 - Originally Jedley1

sorry dell, just realised id deleted a pragraph by accident.

just for a moment taking aside what watch Ian Fleming owned personally, my question was,

is there anything in the OHMSS book quotes relating to the watch that are applicable to an explorer ONLY rather than a 369 sub, that allow for the 369 sub to be dismissed ?


and just to be uber clear, im not really bothered either way, i'm just not sure how a definitve conclusion rather than a subjective conclusion has been reached.

'The literary, or original, watch of personal choice for the James Bond character is a Rolex 1016 Explorer. Details related to my making this first definitive identification were published in the February 2009 issue of WatchTime magazine.'

this is what has confused me since first reading the article, and maybe im missing something obvious ??

[cruvon]

Post 11 - Originally Jedly1

Originally Posted by jedly1
sorry dell, just realised id deleted a pragraph by accident.

just for a moment taking aside what watch Ian Fleming owned personally, my question was,

is there anything in the OHMSS book quotes relating to the watch that are applicable to an explorer ONLY rather than a 369 sub, that allow for the 369 sub to be dismissed ?


and just to be uber clear, im not really bothered either way, i'm just not sure how a definitve conclusion rather than a subjective conclusion has been reached.

'The literary, or original, watch of personal choice for the James Bond character is a Rolex 1016 Explorer. Details related to my making this first definitive identification were published in the February 2009 issue of WatchTime magazine.'

this is what has confused me since first reading the article, and maybe im missing something obvious ??

i'll take that as a 'NO, there ist.' then ...:)

[CaveDiver]

Post 12 - Originally by LOL-x

That's interesting indeed. I didn't consider the 1016 to be a 'heavy' watch compared to a Submariner. That one always escaped me on the 1016.

[cruvon]

Post 13 - Originally by Jedly1

no me either steve, maybe in comparison to other timepieces of the era, such as cheap disposable types, but within the Rolex range certainly not overly so.

I still find it odd that dell doesnt seem to have considered the actual watches that were being used by the MOD and naval officers at the time and presented an argument to discount them ,I know these watches are a bit less known by some and require some specialised knowledge but they seem equally plausible expecially as they also meet the few clues that the books give us - right down to the actual wording used on the dial matching the references made in the case of the 6200 and being notably heavy - for most Rolex nuts, the 369 doesnt mean anything other than a style of dial, it most certainly doesn't suggest explorer only.

If Ian Fleming was as thorough as Dell suggests, and such a stickler for detail i find it peculiar that he would simply look down at his wrist and use the example in front of him rather than reseaching what was actually being bought and used by the ministry of defense and in fact what they were buying themsleves, and if he did so, why he let it slide in the films.

until someone shows me something other i still see it as a jump to a conclusion... might be right, might not..... i just think it should be presented as speculation not certainty.

[Eitan92]

On of my favs!

Originally Posted by cruvon

no me either steve, maybe in comparison to other timepieces of the era, such as cheap disposable types, but within the Rolex range certainly not overly so.

I still find it odd that dell doesnt seem to have considered the actual watches that were being used by the MOD and naval officers at the time and presented an argument to discount them ,I know these watches are a bit less known by some and require some specialised knowledge but they seem equally plausible expecially as they also meet the few clues that the books give us - right down to the actual wording used on the dial matching the references made in the case of the 6200 and being notably heavy - for most Rolex nuts, the 369 doesnt mean anything other than a style of dial, it most certainly doesn't suggest explorer only.

If Ian Fleming was as thorough as Dell suggests, and such a stickler for detail i find it peculiar that he would simply look down at his wrist and use the example in front of him rather than reseaching what was actually being bought and used by the ministry of defense and in fact what they were buying themsleves, and if he did so, why he let it slide in the films.

until someone shows me something other i still see it as a jump to a conclusion... might be right, might not..... i just think it should be presented as speculation not certainty.

[cruvon]

Post 15 - Originally by Cavediver

Here is another Rolex automatic movement list. The layout is nice and it has links to photos of some of the movements. However, no end date of production for the movements is given. How accurate is this table? Notice the 1560 states 1959 for start of production. Also, notice it does not include the 5512 for that movement. On another area of the site, it does however list 1560 for the 5512.

http://www.oysterworld.de/1/index.htm

[padi56]

Post 17 - Originally by Jedly1

thats because it was probably a sub
regardless of some giant leaps that miss out other possibilties...


so for example if ian fleming was half the researcher we know he was...and he picked up any 'current' literature in the early 60's this is what he would find to be the kind of model promoted as the watch used by the admiralty...

not an explorer ....and it fits any description hints given as well, if not better, than an explorer...

1.jpg




edit. Note for me. http://webcache.googleusercontent.co...&ct=clnk&gl=us

[qingwei]

wonderful

[qingwei]

all right

[FremStar]

Gears are spinning in my mind, there are some serious thought provoking material here!

[bubble collector]

isn't the thought that the 6538 was the original bond sub?

[bnmmchao]

the explorer is hardly a heavy oyster and wasn't overly supplied on expandingI think that's a good price for that - great dial, pcg...

[eeh100773]

Love that 5513.

[jellyalexxxy1]

hi
you share very good info , thanks for sharing , but i want to tell you , fore more info i think you have to go google .
--------------
Java Tutorial

[jellyalexxxy1]

hi
you share very good info , thanks for sharing , but i want to tell you , fore more info i think you have to go google . thanks for sharing thanks for sharing thanks for sharing thanks for sharing
--------------
Java Tutorial

[jonathanwittlaw]

pretty amazing watch. thanks for sharing

[Pete26]

The facts are known to anyone who has read the original series, Fleming never identified the Rolexes by model. In Thunderball he references a solid gold Rolex. In L&LD the watch was identified as a Rolex. We don't know what model. It's set too early to be a Sub. It's pure conjecture that Fleming referenced his own watch which appears to have been manufactured in 1963. He died in August 64 so it's unlikely he referenced his own Explorer in any of the novels. It's more likely he got the watch after his research.

Sent from my SM-J120ZN using Tapatalk