Bond’s watch in the Thunderball novel
osris
Posts: 558MI6 Agent
Having read the various online articles about Bond’s watch being a Rolex Explorer 1016 in the last three Bond novels, this leaves open the possibility that in the previous ten novels he didn’t wear an Explorer, which would make it’s claim as being “the definitive James Bond watch” slightly overstated.
In the Thunderball novel, Bond is mentioned as wearing a water resistant watch on his dive to examine the underside of The Disco Volante. As the novel was published in 1961, and completed probably up to a year before that, this would make the watch unlikely to be the Explorer 1016, as that only came into production in 1963.
If the watch mentioned in Thunderball was an earlier model of the Explorer, then its depth rating would have only been 50m, as the increase to 100m only came with later models of the Explorer, starting with the 1016 in 1963. If Bond’s watch in Thunderball had been one of these earlier models of the Explorer (necessarily, it would have to be a model earlier than the 6610, as in Thunderball Bond’s watch is described by Felix Leiter as being an old one, and as the 6610 came into production only in 1959 it could hardly be described as old at the time Leiter made the observation) then it would be foolhardy of him to take it on a dive. True, the dive did not extend to a depth more than 50m but for someone like Bond who was aware that diving played a part in his job, a watch that only went 50m would have been an unlikely choice for him to wear on a daily basis given his profession.
By the way, I’m aware of past controversies on this forum regarding the Rolex Explorer, and my intention is not to add to them.
In the Thunderball novel, Bond is mentioned as wearing a water resistant watch on his dive to examine the underside of The Disco Volante. As the novel was published in 1961, and completed probably up to a year before that, this would make the watch unlikely to be the Explorer 1016, as that only came into production in 1963.
If the watch mentioned in Thunderball was an earlier model of the Explorer, then its depth rating would have only been 50m, as the increase to 100m only came with later models of the Explorer, starting with the 1016 in 1963. If Bond’s watch in Thunderball had been one of these earlier models of the Explorer (necessarily, it would have to be a model earlier than the 6610, as in Thunderball Bond’s watch is described by Felix Leiter as being an old one, and as the 6610 came into production only in 1959 it could hardly be described as old at the time Leiter made the observation) then it would be foolhardy of him to take it on a dive. True, the dive did not extend to a depth more than 50m but for someone like Bond who was aware that diving played a part in his job, a watch that only went 50m would have been an unlikely choice for him to wear on a daily basis given his profession.
By the way, I’m aware of past controversies on this forum regarding the Rolex Explorer, and my intention is not to add to them.
Comments
you should not believe everything, that is written on the internet:
1016 Explorer: It is a continuity error in various webpages stating that the 1016 was introduced 1963. Infact, it has been presented in 1959.
literaric James Bond watch: There is no bulletproof evidence, that Ian Fleming had the 1016 Explorer in mind, when he wrote about Bond's watch.
It is true, that Ian Fleming usually outfitted Bond with products of his personal preference but in the case of Bond's Rolex he's vague. If IF meant the Explorer to be Bonds watch, he may have mentioned it. He was very precise to the smallest detail on other Bond products. He was not on the watch, maybe by purpose. Nobody knows.
IF owned a 1016 Explorer, which has been displayed first in London and out of this, our so-called researcher inflated the story and drew the line to Bond's literaric watch. He may be right - but he may be wrong. Nobody knows exactly.
With all the detail available (especially in the books LALD and OHMSS), Bond's watch could also be a 6538 or 6538A Submariner. This watch has been presented in 1956 and was rated waterresistand 200 meters. The 6538 also came with arabic numerals on the dials and would also fit to IF's decription of Bond's watch - probably better than the overhyped 1016...
Dalton - the weak and weepy Bond!
I stand corrected on the 1963 date for the Explorer 1016.
I agree with you. I think the Submariner could just as likely have been Bond’s watch as the Explorer is thought to have been. Indeed, I think it is more likely that the Submariner was his watch, given his navy background and the various diving requirements he has been required to do on secret service missions. He would have certainly thought it more suitable for underwater purposes than an Explorer would be, seeing as all the models of Explorer up till 1959 could only go to 50m underwater. And we know from Leiter’s statement about Bond’s watch being old that it certainly can’t have been the Explorer 1016, which, as you say, came out in 1959, the same year as Thunderball was being written. Leiter would hardly have described it as an old watch if it was the recently produced Explorer 1016.
As you say, the evidence for his watch being an Explorer is largely conjecture, given that the Submariner can also be described in the same way as an Explorer is--as having the 3, 6 and 9 numerals. It is this type of Submariner that I think Fleming was referring to when he described Bond’s watch, at least in the Thunderball novel.
The problem with the so called expert is that he tries to make big leaps in identification when the evidence does not go that far. I would find him far more credible if he would present his evidnence and let the reader draw his own conclusions. Instead we get these "Discovered" articles. A far more credible way of going about it would have been "Has XYZ Been Discovered?" When I wrote about the James Bond Submariners, I simply presented the evidence to the reader, particularly about the big crown Submariners. I did not say the watch Connery wore could only be the 6538 as had been written so many times before. Real research does not make big leaps in identification unless it's bullet proof. Research or hyperbole, you be the judge.
Nevertheless here is a shot of an early 6200 Big Crowned Submariner. Please note that it only says "Oyster Perpetual", has an "Explorer" type dial and does not say "Submariner" anywhere on the dial. Is this what Fleming was describing? Who knows, but it's certainly food for thought.
"People sleep peacefully in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf." Richard Grenier after George Orwell, Washington Times 1993.
Another aspect, which speaks for the Submariner is, that it's heavier and more edgy, so, it'll be much better capable to be the mentioned knuckleduster.
But please don't get me wrong: There is no 100% evidence for 007s Rolex and to me, it's a good thing. Most of the magic of the novels happens in your imagination, in your head. It does not happen on the paper.
So, we can fantasize and that's highly individual!
What I don't like are people claiming to have the truth in their hands but if you leave the air out, nothing remains
Dalton - the weak and weepy Bond!
Well observed. That does open up the debate considerably, and is something that Dell Deaton's article fails to point out.
Lol
I agree. That's the beauty of literature.
Very well stated!
DG
"People sleep peacefully in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf." Richard Grenier after George Orwell, Washington Times 1993.
I disagree in one point:
If I am calling myself a "researcher", I have to give replies.
Asking questions in the headline is a common method in journalism - but I dislike it, if it's done in a rainbow-press style. That means: Putting something into question-marks just to get a headline and attention.
Example: "Beckham and Posh - Divorce ?"
The very causual reader gets caught and the following article will have almost zero substance.
Journalists are there to provide informations by asking questions. Correct! But if asking questions is their only intention to catch attention, they are rubbish!
And from a "researcher", I expect replies! Period!
Unfortunately, Mr. Deaton went the yellow-press way long time ago and he's very proud for "his background in marketing". Giving out informations is not his goal. It's just to get a maximum of attention (which is a solely personal thing).
Dalton - the weak and weepy Bond!
Fleming got considerable grief over the handguns he mentioned in the books, we know that Geoffery Boothroyd after being appointed "Bond's Armourer" was assigned the task of replying to letters Fleming recieved regards firearms.
Could it be that Fleming was deliberately vague about Bond's watch? Maybe he did not want to point to a single model, just to avoid a spate of letters advising that Bond should have had a diffferent model or that the model mentioned was somehow "wrong". All we really know is that Bond's watch had big phosphorus numerals, and was a Rolex.
As pointed out the Bond watch could be a couple of different models.
It seems that the movie watch is what prompts the most interest. I have read the stories about the watch possibly being taken from Broccoli's wrist, and other conjecture but feel the real answer may still be available.
We know that Connery was taken to tailors, told to sleep in his suits, got just the right haircut, shirts etc. His cigarette lighter and case were speciality items. It would seem that the same attention was no doubt given to his watch, but by whom?
Much credit is given to Terrence Young for the Connery makeover. But it doesn't seem likely that he personally went to Dunhill and purchased Bond's lighter and case. It would be logical that Young didn't supply EON with a personally owned, very expensive watch for the movie either. Since the Rolex is on prominent display in Dr. No it does not seem likely that the production compnay had only one watch - it is pretty standard in the film industry the have back-up props in case a critical prop fails. Since Connery wears the Rolex throughout the exciting climax of Dr.No seems silly that EON would not have had a spare!
EON/Young could have consulted Fleming on the watch/lighter/cigerette case, but the items chosen don't seem to reflect IF's choices. Certainly the film company would not have waited to get on location to pick the hero's watch - then grab it off the wrist of one of the producers! The watch was no doubt chosen before the film crew left the UK.
The best place to hunt for the facts surrounding the film watch must be in EON's records - if they still exist. Tax laws being what they are, deductions would be made for the purchase and depreciation of props .... somewhere there must be/have been a line item in the EON budget for the Rolex(s).
I believe that our speculations will one day be answered. Until definative proof is found all we can do is what our Donald Grant has done and list out possible answers.
I would also like to point out that Fleming was not always 100% on his descriptions - so even what "The Master" wrote must often be taken with a grain of salt.
Bond’s Beretta
The Handguns of Ian Fleming's James Bond
That seems a reasonable possibility.
very plausible given the "debate" over the weapons bond favoured and was "given"
but also likely is the fact that briish special services were given these watches
as "equipment" - one reason being that when in the field they made idea "barter"
if the locals wouldn't take the good old pound sterling
or more likely if bond ran out...
To my knowledge different watches were issued... (asp/dg/BT is this correct?)
and IF would know that ... So to favour any one watch might have initiated
the same style of authenticity debate as with the weapons...
He probably kept it vague to allow the imagination to express
the approrpriate "preference"
Of course nowadays everyone accepts American express
Agreed.
Also if we take Fleming at his literal word, then the Rolex as written did not exist. Rolex watches of the time period surounding Fleming had dials with numerals made out of "radium", not "phosphorus". So the Rolex Oyster Perpetual with "big phosphorus numerals" never existed for real. Of course the description of the Rolex Oyster Perpetual with "big radium numerals" does not sound that good. I think Fleming described it just right if not accurately. The difference between art and excruciating scientific accuracy.
DG
"People sleep peacefully in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf." Richard Grenier after George Orwell, Washington Times 1993.
Sorry, but I can't comment on this. But maybe our british-forces-nuts hermit can say something....
As a general remark, I find more information about the literaric Rolex in this little thread than in any of the publications from our "befriended expert".
Dalton - the weak and weepy Bond!
Looking for the literary Rolex is like trying to find a Smith & Wesson Centennial with a 3 1/2" or 5" barrel, or for the matter of that a .25 Beretta with the front sight on the "tip" of the barrel. Those items were never produced! Fleming wrote fiction and not essays about watches, jam, bath products, motor cars or pistols. We lovers of all things Bondian are just a bit "nutty" and are compelled to find every possible way to connect with the exciting world Fleming concocted. It's a tribute to IF's genius that anybody even cares what kind of watch was on Bond's wrist.
I'll wager someday, someone will get to EON and find out the story behind that Connery Submariner. That for my money is the best looking wrist watch ever made!
Bond’s Beretta
The Handguns of Ian Fleming's James Bond
Good point.
I'm surprised no one has done this already. It can't be all that difficult these days.
I agree.
Kudos to Asp9mm for this time!
Dalton - the weak and weepy Bond!
Yes, there are pictures of Fleming wearing watches other than the 1016, and Yes, the PPK was borrowed.
With respect to the cars, you are absolutely right. I don't think Fleming ever owned a Bentley although he was pictured in a borrowed one on the cover of Life Magazine. I think one of his favorite cars was in actuality a Ford Thunderbird convertible that his wife Ann was not particularly fond of. Bond never owned a Ford Thunderbird.
The idea that Fleming was Bond, was a notion I had as a very young man. After I read Pearson's biography of Fleming early on, I was pretty much disabused of that notion. Fleming did give Bond many of his own tastes and womanizing traits, but he also gave Bond characteristics of daring and toughness that Fleming never had.
DG
"People sleep peacefully in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf." Richard Grenier after George Orwell, Washington Times 1993.
well time's up for that theory...
thx asp...knew you'd know....
read the bold text again, please 8-)
Dalton - the weak and weepy Bond!
I think a lay person who read Bond and had no knowledge of SCUBA might pick a Rolex Explorer. However, a diver be they recreational, commercial or Navy would probably pick the Submariner. Why? Simple, a diver is very concerned with "bottom time" and greatest depth so that they can determine decompression stops. The Submariner has the facility to track elapsed time via the timing bezel, the Explorer does not. The Bond of the novels goes SCUBA diving on more than one occasion.
That's not to say that Fleming was a SCUBA diver. I think, if memory serves, he was more of a snorkler or skin diver. So I'm not trying to say that dive timing was part of his thinking when he wrote about Bond diving. Just some additional food for thought about how different readers might percieve Bond's world differently based on the limited information provided.
DG
"People sleep peacefully in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf." Richard Grenier after George Orwell, Washington Times 1993.