"Dell Deaton identified watch March 13, 2012, via fleeting post on Amsterdam Omega Dealer website"
How on earth can he say Dell Deaton identified. I saw that forum post (I think it was ACE Jewellers leaked the info from advanced Omega price list) if my memory serves correct and it was clear that this was the watch in Skyfall, there was no identification from Dell necessary - I might as well claim I identified it as I saw the forum post from ACE too!
The first scenes shot in Dr. No were actually on location in Jamaica with the Rolex Submariner. The gold watch although appearing first on screen were actually shot much later in the studio.
DG
So, what sharp little eyes you've got...wait till you get to my teeth.
"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- around 5 years before he 'discovered' the Tag Heuer from TLD, he asked me in an email what the watch was.
I've told him that I think that it was a Tag Heuer and years later....
Same with The Moonraker Seiko where he claims still today that it has been a M354-5019 while his reference at Seiko UK confirms that it can equally be a 5010.
President of the 'Misty Eyes Club'.
Dalton - the weak and weepy Bond!
Here is what ACE leaked, ironically I nicked this from Dells site. I guess he is crediting himself for discovering the watch by reading a post thousands also read.
"Dell Deaton identified watch March 13, 2012, via fleeting post on Amsterdam Omega Dealer website"
How on earth can he say Dell Deaton identified. I saw that forum post (I think it was ACE Jewellers leaked the info from advanced Omega price list) if my memory serves correct and it was clear that this was the watch in Skyfall, there was no identification from Dell necessary - I might as well claim I identified it as I saw the forum post from ACE too!
That's a real shocker that one!
In addition, I'd like to add that Connery wore M&S undercrackers in DAF. I can confirm that I held in my hand a photograph that depicted Sean wearing them.
Can anyone please point me to the page where he 'identifies' the watch being a Gruen watch?
I misspoke. He does not actually give any proof to what the watch is. I'm sorry I brought up that guy and his article. I retract that part of what I wrote. It was simply the only thing I found on that watch I have long wondered about. I will continue to wonder what the watch is, but my opinions on how and why Connery often wears it as opposed to a Submariner stay the same and have nothing to do with the other guy (with whom I have never corresponded and have no affiliations with). I feel like I am being attacked over a misunderstanding.
Yes, Matt, you are entitled to your own opinion. However, it may be influenced by how "you" think a man should dress. Perhaps that is why you found the gold watch apparently on your own. I have no problem with that whatsoever. Nevertheless, you also must be cognizant of the time frame in which the pictures were made, and that the producers wanted Bond associated with Rolex. That's if your looking for the truth and not merely trying to justify the way you believe things should be.
DG
The way I think a man should dress is largely based on things I learned from the way Connery dressed in his Bond films, which is one reason why I think the gold watch is relevant. I don't disagree that the producers wanted Bond to be associated with Rolex, which is why it is used in all close-ups (except for the Breitling). But because Connery wears the gold watch much more than the Rolex with his tailored clothing, I don't think it is fair to ignore the gold watch. To the original discussion of the NATO strap, it's only the context of Connery wearing it with his white dinner jacket that is the reason for it. That's why Connery never wears the Rolex with evening wear on any other occasion. However, it is only my opinion that the context of what Bond wears matters just as much as what he wears.
"Dell Deaton identified watch March 13, 2012, via fleeting post on Amsterdam Omega Dealer website"
How on earth can he say Dell Deaton identified. I saw that forum post (I think it was ACE Jewellers leaked the info from advanced Omega price list) if my memory serves correct and it was clear that this was the watch in Skyfall, there was no identification from Dell necessary - I might as well claim I identified it as I saw the forum post from ACE too!
Hey Welshie - open your own webpage, deactivate comments and you can write every bullcrap that you want
President of the 'Misty Eyes Club'.
Dalton - the weak and weepy Bond!
I misspoke. He does not actually give any proof to what the watch is. I'm sorry I brought up that guy and his article. I retract that part of what I wrote. It was simply the only thing I found on that watch I have long wondered about. I will continue to wonder what the watch is, but my opinions on how and why Connery often wears it as opposed to a Submariner stay the same and have nothing to do with the other guy (with whom I have never corresponded and have no affiliations with). I feel like I am being attacked over a misunderstanding.
Yes, Matt, you are entitled to your own opinion. However, it may be influenced by how "you" think a man should dress. Perhaps that is why you found the gold watch apparently on your own. I have no problem with that whatsoever. Nevertheless, you also must be cognizant of the time frame in which the pictures were made, and that the producers wanted Bond associated with Rolex. That's if your looking for the truth and not merely trying to justify the way you believe things should be.
DG
The way I think a man should dress is largely based on things I learned from the way Connery dressed in his Bond films, which is one reason why I think the gold watch is relevant. I don't disagree that the producers wanted Bond to be associated with Rolex, which is why it is used in all close-ups (except for the Breitling). But because Connery wears the gold watch much more than the Rolex with his tailored clothing, I don't think it is fair to ignore the gold watch. To the original discussion of the NATO strap, it's only the context of Connery wearing it with his white dinner jacket that is the reason for it. That's why Connery never wears the Rolex with evening wear on any other occasion. However, it is only my opinion that the context of what Bond wears matters just as much as what he wears.
That's fine. You are entitled to your opinion. I happen to think you are wrong, but that's my opinion.
DG
So, what sharp little eyes you've got...wait till you get to my teeth.
"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've done my share of peering over Connery's watches, and other than Dr. No never noted any appearance of the "gold watch". Seems to me that what "counts" are the numerous close ups of the Rolex. As noted in an earlier post, in the 1960's close up shots of props were somewhat rare. If the director chose to shoot a close up of a watch, then it must have been purposeful. He might have wanted to show that it was 10 o'clock, but in the case of the Bond's Rolex clearly this was done to associate Bond with a particular timepiece.
Director Young may have been behind this since it is mostly in his films that the Rolex is so featured. If so, Young must not have been as concerned with Bond's handgun, even though it is the subject of an early scene in first film. How do we know that it was not an assistant director that did the watch close ups, or if the wrist on which the watch appears was Big Tam's or that of Richard Simmons? Maybe the repeat presence of the Rolex(s) is due to the diligence of a dedicated prop man?
In scenes where a watch appears on Connery's wrist, but only a sliver of metal is shown seem to me to be completely irrelevant to Bond's character, or the plot of the film. Is the mystery watch silver or gold? Who can tell for sure since the movie lights used to film the scene may have given the watch a particular cast.
Someday an intrepid fan will gain access to EON's records. If they are detailed enough, the source of these watches and their exact source and descriptions will be revealed. All this reminds me of the debates over the "NATO" strap, which is the original subject of this thread. At one time it was assumed the colors of said strap were black and grey, these days it's accepted that it was black, green and red ... speculation may be good fun, but it will never be definitive.
I've done my share of peering over Connery's watches, and other than Dr. No never noted any appearance of the "gold watch". Seems to me that what "counts" are the numerous close ups of the Rolex. As noted in an earlier post, in the 1960's close up shots of props were somewhat rare. If the director chose to shoot a close up of a watch, then it must have been purposeful. He might have wanted to show that it was 10 o'clock, but in the case of the Bond's Rolex clearly this was done to associate Bond with a particular timepiece.
Director Young may have been behind this since it is mostly in his films that the Rolex is so featured. If so, Young must not have been as concerned with Bond's handgun, even though it is the subject of an early scene in first film. How do we know that it was not an assistant director that did the watch close ups, or if the wrist on which the watch appears was Big Tam's or that of Richard Simmons? Maybe the repeat presence of the Rolex(s) is due to the diligence of a dedicated prop man?
In scenes where a watch appears on Connery's wrist, but only a sliver of metal is shown seem to me to be completely irrelevant to Bond's character, or the plot of the film. Is the mystery watch silver or gold? Who can tell for sure since the movie lights used to film the scene may have given the watch a particular cast.
The gold watch is indeed irrelevant to the plot of the film (unlike the Rolex), though perhaps it's telling that the character often likes to wear an elegant dress watch with his suits. He only wears the Rolex with a suit or black tie when the tool is necessary (like when he needs the luminous dial in Dr. No, a shock-proof watch in From Russia with Love (when setting off the bomb at the embassy) and a diving watch in Goldfinger). That's the way I see it.
I've done my share of peering over Connery's watches, and other than Dr. No never noted any appearance of the "gold watch". Seems to me that what "counts" are the numerous close ups of the Rolex. As noted in an earlier post, in the 1960's close up shots of props were somewhat rare. If the director chose to shoot a close up of a watch, then it must have been purposeful. He might have wanted to show that it was 10 o'clock, but in the case of the Bond's Rolex clearly this was done to associate Bond with a particular timepiece.
Director Young may have been behind this since it is mostly in his films that the Rolex is so featured. If so, Young must not have been as concerned with Bond's handgun, even though it is the subject of an early scene in first film. How do we know that it was not an assistant director that did the watch close ups, or if the wrist on which the watch appears was Big Tam's or that of Richard Simmons? Maybe the repeat presence of the Rolex(s) is due to the diligence of a dedicated prop man?
In scenes where a watch appears on Connery's wrist, but only a sliver of metal is shown seem to me to be completely irrelevant to Bond's character, or the plot of the film. Is the mystery watch silver or gold? Who can tell for sure since the movie lights used to film the scene may have given the watch a particular cast.
The gold watch is indeed irrelevant to the plot of the film (unlike the Rolex), though perhaps it's telling that the character often likes to wear an elegant dress watch with his suits. He only wears the Rolex with a suit or black tie when the tool is necessary (like when he needs the luminous dial in Dr. No, a shock-proof watch in From Russia with Love (when setting off the bomb at the embassy) and a diving watch in Goldfinger). That's the way I see it.
The literary Bond does not change his watch with his mode of dress. Most men of that era had one watch which was worn with everything. You are trying to project a modern day affectation, perhaps informed by tomes written by the likes of Allen Flusser, on 50's/60's era spy.
DG
So, what sharp little eyes you've got...wait till you get to my teeth.
"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've done my share of peering over Connery's watches, and other than Dr. No never noted any appearance of the "gold watch". Seems to me that what "counts" are the numerous close ups of the Rolex. As noted in an earlier post, in the 1960's close up shots of props were somewhat rare. If the director chose to shoot a close up of a watch, then it must have been purposeful. He might have wanted to show that it was 10 o'clock, but in the case of the Bond's Rolex clearly this was done to associate Bond with a particular timepiece.
Director Young may have been behind this since it is mostly in his films that the Rolex is so featured. If so, Young must not have been as concerned with Bond's handgun, even though it is the subject of an early scene in first film. How do we know that it was not an assistant director that did the watch close ups, or if the wrist on which the watch appears was Big Tam's or that of Richard Simmons? Maybe the repeat presence of the Rolex(s) is due to the diligence of a dedicated prop man?
In scenes where a watch appears on Connery's wrist, but only a sliver of metal is shown seem to me to be completely irrelevant to Bond's character, or the plot of the film. Is the mystery watch silver or gold? Who can tell for sure since the movie lights used to film the scene may have given the watch a particular cast.
The gold watch is indeed irrelevant to the plot of the film (unlike the Rolex), though perhaps it's telling that the character often likes to wear an elegant dress watch with his suits. He only wears the Rolex with a suit or black tie when the tool is necessary (like when he needs the luminous dial in Dr. No, a shock-proof watch in From Russia with Love (when setting off the bomb at the embassy) and a diving watch in Goldfinger). That's the way I see it.
The literary Bond does not change his watch with his mode of dress. Most men of that era had one watch which was worn with everything. You are trying to project a modern day affectation, perhaps informed by tomes written by the likes of Allen Flusser, on 50's/60's era spy.
DG
But Connery's Bond often did change his watch with his mode of dress. It's evident in Goldfinger (amongst other examples) when he wears the Rolex with the black outfit on the laser table and switches to the dress watch when he changes into his grey glen check suit. He wears the dress watch with that suit and the two suits that follow it in the film. That is what this is informed by.
The gold watch is indeed irrelevant to the plot of the film (unlike the Rolex), though perhaps it's telling that the character often likes to wear an elegant dress watch with his suits. He only wears the Rolex with a suit or black tie when the tool is necessary (like when he needs the luminous dial in Dr. No, a shock-proof watch in From Russia with Love (when setting off the bomb at the embassy) and a diving watch in Goldfinger). That's the way I see it.
The literary Bond does not change his watch with his mode of dress. Most men of that era had one watch which was worn with everything. You are trying to project a modern day affectation, perhaps informed by tomes written by the likes of Allen Flusser, on 50's/60's era spy.
DG
But Connery's Bond often did change his watch with his mode of dress. It's evident in Goldfinger (amongst other examples) when he wears the Rolex with the black outfit on the laser table and switches to the dress watch when he changes into his grey glen check suit. He wears the dress watch with that suit and the two suits that follow it in the film. That is what this is informed by.
Yes, but you don't notice it unless, like you, you are specifically looking for it to prove your belief about how a man should dress. You are attributing the gold watch to modes of dress. When the more accurate reason probably had to do with the fact that the Rolex was not specifically needed for the scene and Cubby got his watch back. See the difference?
DG
So, what sharp little eyes you've got...wait till you get to my teeth.
"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 believe that it has been common practice in the film industry to have back up props for everything. It seems quite ridiculous to me that Cubby Broccoli would loan his personal and expensive watch to the production crew. Bond films were never made on the cheap, at least not so much so that they couldn't afford to buy or rent a couple of Rolex watches. The logistics of using someones personal watch would not be worth the time or trouble.
If this "watch loan" were true, it should be easily verified, by lots of folks who worked on the films.
"I own several nice watches so why should I rent for 15% (from retail) several watches with my own money when I can hand over my personal watch to the fella for free when we need it for a closeup shot"...
President of the 'Misty Eyes Club'.
Dalton - the weak and weepy Bond!
The literary Bond does not change his watch with his mode of dress. Most men of that era had one watch which was worn with everything. You are trying to project a modern day affectation, perhaps informed by tomes written by the likes of Allen Flusser, on 50's/60's era spy.
DG
But Connery's Bond often did change his watch with his mode of dress. It's evident in Goldfinger (amongst other examples) when he wears the Rolex with the black outfit on the laser table and switches to the dress watch when he changes into his grey glen check suit. He wears the dress watch with that suit and the two suits that follow it in the film. That is what this is informed by.
Yes, but you don't notice it unless, like you, you are specifically looking for it to prove your belief about how a man should dress. You are attributing the gold watch to modes of dress. When the more accurate reason probably had to do with the fact that the Rolex was not specifically needed for the scene and Cubby got his watch back. See the difference?
DG
Why don't subtle things in the films count? I don't buy that excuse. There are a lot of things the average viewer doesn't notice in Bond films that have meaning. Is there any proof that this watch is simply an oversight and isn't meant to be there? The watch is there and I don't understand why it must be ignored. You're basically saying I should think of it as a stand-in?
"I own several nice watches so why should I rent for 15% (from retail) several watches with my own money when I can hand over my personal watch to the fella for free when we need it for a closeup shot"...
Comments
"Dell Deaton identified watch March 13, 2012, via fleeting post on Amsterdam Omega Dealer website"
How on earth can he say Dell Deaton identified. I saw that forum post (I think it was ACE Jewellers leaked the info from advanced Omega price list) if my memory serves correct and it was clear that this was the watch in Skyfall, there was no identification from Dell necessary - I might as well claim I identified it as I saw the forum post from ACE too!
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've told him that I think that it was a Tag Heuer and years later....
Same with The Moonraker Seiko where he claims still today that it has been a M354-5019 while his reference at Seiko UK confirms that it can equally be a 5010.
Dalton - the weak and weepy Bond!
Dalton - the weak and weepy Bond!
That's a real shocker that one!
In addition, I'd like to add that Connery wore M&S undercrackers in DAF. I can confirm that I held in my hand a photograph that depicted Sean wearing them.
Ha - just noticed he is taking credit for that one!
All this is very entertaining and interesting. -{
The way I think a man should dress is largely based on things I learned from the way Connery dressed in his Bond films, which is one reason why I think the gold watch is relevant. I don't disagree that the producers wanted Bond to be associated with Rolex, which is why it is used in all close-ups (except for the Breitling). But because Connery wears the gold watch much more than the Rolex with his tailored clothing, I don't think it is fair to ignore the gold watch. To the original discussion of the NATO strap, it's only the context of Connery wearing it with his white dinner jacket that is the reason for it. That's why Connery never wears the Rolex with evening wear on any other occasion. However, it is only my opinion that the context of what Bond wears matters just as much as what he wears.
Hey Welshie - open your own webpage, deactivate comments and you can write every bullcrap that you want
Dalton - the weak and weepy Bond!
Dalton - the weak and weepy Bond!
Dalton - the weak and weepy Bond!
Dalton - the weak and weepy Bond!
That's fine. You are entitled to your opinion. I happen to think you are wrong, but that's my opinion.
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've done my share of peering over Connery's watches, and other than Dr. No never noted any appearance of the "gold watch". Seems to me that what "counts" are the numerous close ups of the Rolex. As noted in an earlier post, in the 1960's close up shots of props were somewhat rare. If the director chose to shoot a close up of a watch, then it must have been purposeful. He might have wanted to show that it was 10 o'clock, but in the case of the Bond's Rolex clearly this was done to associate Bond with a particular timepiece.
Director Young may have been behind this since it is mostly in his films that the Rolex is so featured. If so, Young must not have been as concerned with Bond's handgun, even though it is the subject of an early scene in first film. How do we know that it was not an assistant director that did the watch close ups, or if the wrist on which the watch appears was Big Tam's or that of Richard Simmons? Maybe the repeat presence of the Rolex(s) is due to the diligence of a dedicated prop man?
In scenes where a watch appears on Connery's wrist, but only a sliver of metal is shown seem to me to be completely irrelevant to Bond's character, or the plot of the film. Is the mystery watch silver or gold? Who can tell for sure since the movie lights used to film the scene may have given the watch a particular cast.
Someday an intrepid fan will gain access to EON's records. If they are detailed enough, the source of these watches and their exact source and descriptions will be revealed. All this reminds me of the debates over the "NATO" strap, which is the original subject of this thread. At one time it was assumed the colors of said strap were black and grey, these days it's accepted that it was black, green and red ... speculation may be good fun, but it will never be definitive.
Bond’s Beretta
The Handguns of Ian Fleming's James Bond
The gold watch is indeed irrelevant to the plot of the film (unlike the Rolex), though perhaps it's telling that the character often likes to wear an elegant dress watch with his suits. He only wears the Rolex with a suit or black tie when the tool is necessary (like when he needs the luminous dial in Dr. No, a shock-proof watch in From Russia with Love (when setting off the bomb at the embassy) and a diving watch in Goldfinger). That's the way I see it.
I thought that the Rolex WAS Young's personal watch. I thought I read or watched that somewhere.
The story is that it was Cubby's watch, hence why it was also in Goldfinger.
The literary Bond does not change his watch with his mode of dress. Most men of that era had one watch which was worn with everything. You are trying to project a modern day affectation, perhaps informed by tomes written by the likes of Allen Flusser, on 50's/60's era spy.
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.
But Connery's Bond often did change his watch with his mode of dress. It's evident in Goldfinger (amongst other examples) when he wears the Rolex with the black outfit on the laser table and switches to the dress watch when he changes into his grey glen check suit. He wears the dress watch with that suit and the two suits that follow it in the film. That is what this is informed by.
Yes, but you don't notice it unless, like you, you are specifically looking for it to prove your belief about how a man should dress. You are attributing the gold watch to modes of dress. When the more accurate reason probably had to do with the fact that the Rolex was not specifically needed for the scene and Cubby got his watch back. See the difference?
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.
If this "watch loan" were true, it should be easily verified, by lots of folks who worked on the films.
Bond’s Beretta
The Handguns of Ian Fleming's James Bond
"I own several nice watches so why should I rent for 15% (from retail) several watches with my own money when I can hand over my personal watch to the fella for free when we need it for a closeup shot"...
Dalton - the weak and weepy Bond!
Why don't subtle things in the films count? I don't buy that excuse. There are a lot of things the average viewer doesn't notice in Bond films that have meaning. Is there any proof that this watch is simply an oversight and isn't meant to be there? The watch is there and I don't understand why it must be ignored. You're basically saying I should think of it as a stand-in?
This makes perfect sense.