- Posts
- 108
- Likes
- 102
Hurley
·You raise solid points, DD.
However, I posted the ads for the 30s Rolex and lady datejust that tout the same virtues with precisely the same iconography. No one would call them dive watches. However, in the end, the watch's water-tightness per se is largely irrelevant to my suggestion that there must be more to the name than a mere reference to 1958. If the watch's dive capabilities were its chief marketing feature, you might think that, like virtually every other company, Zenith would have put something about that (like a depth rating AT LEAST) on the dial or casebook -- instead of a reference (allegedly) to the year it was introduced. They couldn't be sure every potential customer would see the clownfish ad.... So, I throw it right back at you: it is super odd that if diving was what the watch was about, why did they waste all the real estate on the watch talking about 1958 and not about the suitability of the watch for diving? I am starting to think there is a bit of mass hypnosis here. Does what you are saying really make sense to you? "The watch is all about diving. One random ad proves that. But the watch doesn't have one reference of any kind, on the dial or casebook (which both bear the S58 logo) about watertightness or anything else." Seriously, does that make sense? There is something odd about this watch that is not explained by 1958 and one advert with a fish. I have conjectured one possibility based on the opinion of the most widely acknowledged expert on Zenith watches AND a bit of common sense. I have explicitly said that all further conjecture must await archive info. However, my guess is that there is more to this story than a decade long celebration of 1958. And I do think Cairelli was involved. But we will see.
Best, Hurley
However, I posted the ads for the 30s Rolex and lady datejust that tout the same virtues with precisely the same iconography. No one would call them dive watches. However, in the end, the watch's water-tightness per se is largely irrelevant to my suggestion that there must be more to the name than a mere reference to 1958. If the watch's dive capabilities were its chief marketing feature, you might think that, like virtually every other company, Zenith would have put something about that (like a depth rating AT LEAST) on the dial or casebook -- instead of a reference (allegedly) to the year it was introduced. They couldn't be sure every potential customer would see the clownfish ad.... So, I throw it right back at you: it is super odd that if diving was what the watch was about, why did they waste all the real estate on the watch talking about 1958 and not about the suitability of the watch for diving? I am starting to think there is a bit of mass hypnosis here. Does what you are saying really make sense to you? "The watch is all about diving. One random ad proves that. But the watch doesn't have one reference of any kind, on the dial or casebook (which both bear the S58 logo) about watertightness or anything else." Seriously, does that make sense? There is something odd about this watch that is not explained by 1958 and one advert with a fish. I have conjectured one possibility based on the opinion of the most widely acknowledged expert on Zenith watches AND a bit of common sense. I have explicitly said that all further conjecture must await archive info. However, my guess is that there is more to this story than a decade long celebration of 1958. And I do think Cairelli was involved. But we will see.
Best, Hurley
Bona fide dive watch or not, the period ad explicitly states that the watch is capable of diving. It would be odd to mention such a capability if the watch was not designed with the intention of exploiting it. The ad also uses the phrase "super-étanche" to describe the case. As far as I know, this is not standard terminology. Roethlisberger's claim about the meaning of the "S" would seem to be somewhat supported by the usage of such a phrase.
Edited:
