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

I agree -- hugely odd, which is what drew me into this morass in the first place! I did provide a link to the Cairelli dive watch that has a *somewhat* similar arrangement at 12 -- which was part of the reason Cairelli got involved in these discussions.

If this were an acrylic repro or did not appear to conform 100% to the shape and contours of the original insert or did not have the look of extreme age or did not have the appearance of factory milling or did not contain radium, I would not be intrigued by this thing. I'm also intrigued by what I know of other watch companies, like Enicar and Bulova, who had to tweak bezels to submit their watches for consideration for lucrative government contracts. I'm also mindful of just how useless the original bezel was which seems like an additional relevant factor.

I will be diving on the wreck of the HMS Invincible in the next few weeks as part of the documentation of that site and will be around many old diving hands. I intend to solicit their thoughts as watches are a frequent topic of conversation in such groups. I have also reached out to a number of other experienced collectors and divers. I'll report back whatever I find.

FWIW, I will also investigate the claim, oft repeated (including in the link to the first gen S.58 that I provided just above) that the entire first gen output went to Cairelli. That would be a hugely important fact in my book in view of what we know of where the AMI chronos ended up. But, as you say, best not to say any more about the name issue....

But, yes, hugely odd that they did not just fill the triangle with radium. However, in view of the extreme professionalism of the construction, I'm sure there is a reason. This is highly speculative, but I will say that by the 1960s many government organizations, especially in the UK, had promulgated strict radiation limits for instruments, including watches. They could not procure things without an exemption that exceeded those limits. It may be that filling the triangle in the usual manner would have exceeded those limits. Some governments had a zero tolerance for radium. If this was a sample bezel, maybe they wanted to give potential buyers a choice between the two pip styles. Again, just speculation, obviously. There are lots of other explanations (including the one that I proffered above at the very beginning of this thread). I'll see what I can dig up!

Best, Hurley

Tony -- This will be my last go around with you. I will not say for (literally) the 8th time that: (a) this was not my main concern; and (b) is only a conjecture. To briefly address (in order) your three points above:

Waterproofing was a very big deal for ALL watches in the 1950s as it was a very significant technical improvement that was becoming ubiquitous at that time. You see references to waterproofing in ads depicting gold dress watches. If you think the original bezel-less S58 was designed to appeal to divers, with respect, you are just plain wrong. That is one area where I actually know what I'm talking about. Was the Explorer a dive watch under your theory? Or was it merely a watch designed to appeal to people who led active lives?

To be clear, I don't think Zenith asked for permission for anything (again this is something that I've said here multiple times). I think they chose a motif for the watch that would evoke a military/aviation association for the reasons that I have outlined.

I know nothing about Marc personally. I CERTAINLY never said that he lied to you (although you keep repeating that). My long experience with all the LVMH companies is that they often (but not always) know ZERO about the true history of the brands that they have acquired. Marc could easily be the exception. However, his story makes no sense at all. The notion that Zenith so prominently celebrated a random year on a watch made for many years -- guaranteeing that it seemed dated by 1959 -- would be the silliest marketing ploy ever. It is also something that s NEVER addressed in their advertising.

I can only imagine how tired the other people on the forum are of hearing about these unimportant issues. I will not waste their time debunking your assertion that government contracts were irrelevant to companies like IWC and Omega who sold huge numbers of watches to governments in the 1950s. I will also not waste their time with lectures about how companies like Jenny, Glycine, Benrus, Timex and others made a fortune selling watches to servicemen in the 50s, 60s and 70s that were carefully and thoughtfully designed to evoke a military ambience. I think many people here are quite savvy and already know that story.

As for what this says about the S.58, If I can establish that, in fact, the first gen S58s went to Cairelli (as many others in the past have posited), that will be enough for me. The Omega forum will be the first to know.

In the meantime, you are obviously welcome to believe that Marc's letter explains everything and the S.58 was just a celebration of 1958 and nothing else. And that the celebration of that storied year continued into the 1960s.

I would only encourage you to take a look at the Zenith website right now. So much of the site currently is aimed at touting the connection between Zenith watches and either aviation or pilot watches. They've even reissued the very watch, the AMI, worn by some S58 pilots in Italy in the 50s and 60s. If you can't see, set against that context, why one might plausibly think that the S.58 was Zenith just doing the precisely the same thing (from a marketing perspective), then I'm baffled. Factor in the company's connection, at that very time, to the S58 aircraft (and, apparently, Sikorsky generally) and, well.....

Anyway, I have never done more here that raise some interesting possibilities -- always couched as conjecture and never conclusions. Godspeed, sir.

All the best, Hurley

PS. Please PM me if you would like too carry on this conversation further out of deference to the others here. (;

FWIW, I have just requested archive extracts for the strange watch I found at Portobello on Saturday, a first gen S.58 and one of my other "standard" bezel-equipped S.58s. I will post the results here and on MWR. Best, Hurley

Ok, I get now that the original S-58 may not have been a diver watch ( although certainly the addition of the bezel would make yours one) I get that it could be an "adventure" watch, which certainly actually supports Tony's 1958 relation amd would make it a very robust " explorer"

But, as per the quote above, if the AMI was the actual model worn by several S-58 pilots.....why would that not be the actual S.58 issue? After all then the military and pilot connection to Sirowski would be direct.

Again, it's like if Omega decided to issue a special Moonwatch edition....and used an Aqua-Terra for it with a NASA inscription.

I have Lived 5 mins from Portobello Road for the last 15 years, and have never once thought about looking at any of the watches...

Maybe I should have paid more attention.....

You're a brave man, Maganator!

You know, I was re-reading the posts, and I'm not sure Tony and I disagree so much.

We both agree that these were not issued watches.

We both agree that this was not the result of a formal collaboration with Sikorsky.

We both agree that Zenith has one of the longest associations with pilot watches and aviation of any manufacture extant.

We disagree about why they called it the S.58.

But I think even Tony, over a beer, might acknowledge that naming products is probably a collaborative business into which lots of subjective factors figure. I bet he might even concede that the idea that the watch was just named after its year of introduction might not be the WHOLE story. Zenith has never done that and I don't know any watch company that has. It guarantees that a product will seem dated almost as soon as it is released. And the 50s was about the future, not nostalgia.

I bet I could even convince him that for a man's watch, at that time period, to be vaguely associated with the military might not have been a bad marketing strategy. I know I could convince him that the original S58 was no more a dive watch than an Air King. (And that the bezel-equipped S.58 was more 6541 than 6538.)



I think the marketing gurus at Zenith had Sikorsky in mind -- just like they have aviation and pilot watches VERY STRONGLY in mind at Zenith today. They probably knew that S58 pilots were already wearing their chronos and the firm apparently had an association with Sikorsky in the past. Tony disagrees with that. But I bet I could convince him that it was at least in the air (no pun intended), especially around the choice of logo. Again, marketing is not cut and dried, but an art that looks as much to ambience as specific associations. Anyway, I apologize for putting words in Tony's mouth.

I think the archive extracts might be interesting. In fact, I am told they WILL be.... We shall see.

If the Cairelli name crops up, can we say you'll buy me a bottle of Margot, Tony? If not, I'll do the same for you.

As for the bezel, I am looking forward to the material analysis. If the material in the odd and standard bezel is identical, I think I know where we stand.

In the meantime, check out the 1910 entry on the Zenith "History" page. So they were still making flight instruments 'til 1960?

All the best, Hurley (currently a bit squinty from looking at blurry pics of helo instrument arrays)

PS. Thanks to all for indulging my ruminations!

Hi NP

Good points, both. First off, as my 6541 allusion attests, a bezel and an oyster case does not a dive watch make!

As for your question about the Tipo (check out the reissue at the Zenith website), it was worn by the pilots of other aircraft, too.

As I have said repeatedly, I think the S.58 was meant to push military style buttons -- just like an F-16 or Mig 23 watch from Zenith might today -- not that it was actually intended to be directly connected to the aircraft. Having said that, if Cairelli did buy all 1200 first gen S.58s as some (not me) have said, then I think they plausibly could have been targeting S58 crews (and helo crews generally) since Cairelly was indisputably supplying Tipo chronos to AMI pilots. But such conjectures must await evidence from the archives.

Best, Hurley

Hi Tony -- I think we are just going round in circles at this point. You know my views on all the points you raised. Good luck, sir!

I'll report back on the archive extracts.

Best, Hurley

You said: 2,000 S58s were built -- and they were anything but obscure. Look in google images.

About 4,000 F16s have been built in all configurations. If Zenith came out with an "F-16" watch, in view of its history, I don't think there would be much doubt about what it was doing from a marketing perspective.

Best, Hurley

You mean a F.16, right? 😉

Tony -- I know I'll regret this, but I can't resist setting the record straight on your reference to the Scafograph 100. While it is true that 200 were made without bezels, a bezel was quickly introduced on all subsequent watches. Also, the Scafograph was, from the outset, in the classic diver mold with a black dial and VERY large radium indices for easy visibility under water. It also had a heavily lumed arrowhead handset for keeping track of dive times. Indeed, the Scafograph, launched around the same time as the S58, is a great example of why the the S58 is decidedly NOT a dive watch. It is Zenith's answer to the Explorer.

Forum members can make top their own minds:

https://monochrome-watches.com/eberhard-scafograf-300-dive-watch-baselworld-2016/

All the best, Hurley

OK. At least now I know you haven't read any of my posts and are just doing this for your own amusement.

Best, Hurley

Exactly!! F.16. LOL!!!

Hey, can I show another cool Zenith that I got over the weekend or will I be accused of changing the subject?

and just to bring the elephant into the room: