Strange Zenith S.58 today at Portobello (for short money)

Ay caramba, how did I miss this glorious thread? So much passion, knowledge and vitriol in such a short span!

For the record, as I wrote four years ago in this forum, my favorite conjecture is the double entendre: that "S.58" did in fact stand for super-waterproof and the geophysical year, and that the allusion to the Sikorsky S-58... a helicopter designed to be a submarine hunter/killer... was a conscious tweak of a major competitor.
Spoiler alert: the Subs won.

Posting the extract would be a nice gesture.

Thank you for a fascinating and informative thread – compelling to me as both a Zenith fan and as a (non-watch) scholar. I hope to see the promised follow up from Hurley, this thread's curious Socrates to its Thrasymachus.

Oh, Thrasymachus, your thumos continues to shine quite brightly. Cling fast to your idea that you have no fault here, and you will safely learn nothing.

So, still nothing new about the Sikorsky connection hypothesis?

I'm quite interested in the history of the model, as I happen to own an S.58 that used to belong to my grandfather. He died in 1976, and I was given the watch by my grandmother in 2007. My grandfather was a technician and entrepreneur working with tricot knitting machines, and he certainly put the S.58 through it's paces. Here's a pic of the S.58 when I got it: https://farm2.staticflickr.com/1876/43763757795_7104ca95f0_o.jpg. I'm not sure how long he used it for, but he did buy a Seiko 6138-3000 chronograph in 1972 (which I also now have), so it's possible that the S.58 was in service until then.

There are couple of points I'd like to make about the claimed history of the S.58:

1. My watch is the early cal. 120 version without a bezel, and it was bought in Finland in early 1959 from a local Zenith reseller (which was established in 1958). I think this somewhat debunks the theory that all early models went to Cairelli.

2. Evidence A, i.e. the advert with the fish; the watch in the advert doesn't look like any S.58 that I have seen. Why is that? Seems weird to advertise a watch with a picture that doesn't look like the actual product.


Current condition of my S.58. The face was left unrestored, and you can still see the rusty marks on it where the hands had rested for at least 30 years.

You can buy the actual watch made famous by this post. It’s in the latest WOK auction.

I was trying to be sarcastic.


Yes, I know this isn't evidence of no Cairelli connection. It's just that I see a lot of claims that all of the early ones were bought by Cairelli.


Ok, didn't know that about advertising during that time. Hence the question.

BTW, my grandfather always refered to the S.58 as a diver's watch. I'm guessing it was sold to him as such.

This has been a most engaging read!
As someone who has been in the US Navy EOD/Dive community, I have seen first hand how marketing and products can change and their associations with a specific group can affect the narrative.
I was sent 6 copies of a low mu titanium dive knife to test on our det by the manufactuer (wont say name, cause they suck) and on our first dive 4 of the six of us came up with no knives!!! The knife had its own issues but it was the sheath that was the problem....well guess what, with a low mu knife in dark water, your not going to find that sucker....we didnt pay for them and was doing the company a favor by field testing them. When I informed the company what had happened, they accused us of stealing their piece of shit knives!
Long story short, 6 months later I see an ad in a knife magazine advertising how the SEALS had approved the knife for EOD use!!! (That is absolutely NOT how procuremnt of our gear works and due to the in service rivalry was a decided "shot across the bow"....I DID however note that the sheath was a completely different design!
Why say all this? Because 60 years from now some forum will have some experts arguing back and forth about how this crappy knife was the darling of the SEALS and EOD groups all the back and forth will be hogsnot.
I think Hurley is on to something,based on 2 factors, the guy from Zenith probably is not the repository for all the happenings 60 years back, he most asuredly wasnt a watch collector/historian in 1958.
Second, if you have shopped in the PX for any length of time, you will see all manner of products made specifically to appeal to members of certain units, that come from known manufacturers that have NOTHING to do with said units or missions.
Look up the Benchmade EOD knife, it has ZERO features that make it mission oriented to EOD, but they slapped a new color on it, CALL IT AN EOD KNIFE (didnt even bother to engrave crab on it, which is completely lazy marketing) and some doofus army eod pogue will spend his hard earned money on it, guarenteed.
This watch perhaps has some of those same characteristics involved with its history.
I for one would love to hear from Hurley more on the subject if any proof were found or not....
And also, just because he didnt come back to the fight doesnt mean Tony scared him of with the Claymore of Truth, but maybe he has a real life and it was more important than arguing on a forum board....done it myself....
Oh and I love my Zenith too....😀

Someone just listed a Zenith catalogue on eBay. Can’t see a precise year but it includes a listing of the S58. It does seem to mention a 100th anniversary so could that make it from 1965 ? Anyway, thought it’d be nice to record it here.

https://www.ebay.com/itm/Vintage-ze...60s/133346352651?_trksid=p2485497.m4902.l9144