I would not mind reading Mr. Deaton's article, but it doesn't sound like there is anything new in it....
It sounds like you haven't read the article, so I suppose I could simply refer you to that for what is "new" in it.
That said, here are two examples specific to the watch itself.
1. My WatchTime article gives the case number for the Ian Fleming Rolex Explorer in question. So far as I know, no one has claimed to have known or disclosed that before my work was published. Equally important, making that disclosure opens the article to both accountability and debate.
Pretty respectful and engaging of those who are interested, I think.
2. My WatchTime article provides the bracelet number as well. Again, new and exclusive. Additionally, it speak to the whole "what does the 'expanding' reference to it mean in On Her Majesty's Secret Service?" I mean, as I say, Fleming's Rolex Explorer does not have springs in the links, so what's up with that?
My article suggests looking at Thunderball* for clues. Might additionally want to take at look at "From a View to a Kill."
__________________
*Given much of the tone of this Thread, I wonder if there isn't some fascination w/ The Battle for Bond. That would be where author Robert Sellers goes on expansively about all the ways in which Ian Fleming's credit for creating the literary James Bond should be reduced. For the record, it's a weak case and I don't buy it.
This is like trying to decipher the riddle of the Sphynx. So, we are waiting to hear about the "top secret documentation" which so far has not been produced and of course the $64,000 question, was m4tt's info on literary Bond's Rolex appropriated by Mr D. Is this where we stand, correct?
The Explorer that is on display at the IWM is a mid Sixties model. Fleming must of had it in the last years of his life and certainly after the books were published describing the watch. The best bet is still the Speedking, we know Fleming had one of these at the time and it has the numerals described. Problem is though, Fleming may not be describing his watch at all, but another he had seen. We'll never know.
See my Post above regarding the case number, Jonathan.
I've seen no evidence of a Speedking, nor has anyone referenced one to me. What I have heard is that Fleming only owned one Rolex; that was stated directly to me.
As far as making a "best bet," that makes for some really exciting James Bond plotlines. But it's not how I'd approach research nor statements about watches. But folks already know that about me.
I would not mind reading Mr. Deaton's article, but it doesn't sound like there is anything new in it....
It sounds like you haven't read the article, so I suppose I could simply refer you to that for what is "new" in it.
That said, here are two examples specific to the watch itself.
1. My WatchTime article gives the case number for the Ian Fleming Rolex Explorer in question. So far as I know, no one has claimed to have known or disclosed that before my work was published. Equally important, making that disclosure opens the article to both accountability and debate.
Pretty respectful and engaging of those who are interested, I think.
2. My WatchTime article provides the bracelet number as well. Again, new and exclusive. Additionally, it speak to the whole "what does the 'expanding' reference to it mean in On Her Majesty's Secret Service?" I mean, as I say, Fleming's Rolex Explorer does not have springs in the links, so what's up with that?
My article suggests looking at Thunderball* for clues. Might additionally want to take at look at "From a View to a Kill."
__________________
*Given much of the tone of this Thread, I wonder if there isn't some fascination w/ The Battle for Bond. That would be where author Robert Sellers goes on expansively about all the ways in which Ian Fleming's credit for creating the literary James Bond should be reduced. For the record, it's a weak case and I don't buy it.
Again, no answer to a direct question!
The other stuff about watch serial numbers could easily be gleaned from the IWM.
Now give us the truth! It's your soap box. Tell us how we are all wrong about you.
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.
As the exhibition is now almost over, I feel it's probably ok to post this....
this is the watch in question...
Anyone who hasn't seen it yet, get there before it closes...
Wow! These are some of the nicest visitor shots I've seen of the display. Irrespective of this Thread, I think they are great in terms of preserving a record of the Imperial War Museum display.
By all means, for anyone who is in the UK, I highly recommend visiting the exhibit before it closes next month.
As the exhibition is now almost over, I feel it's probably ok to post this....
this is the watch in question...
Anyone who hasn't seen it yet, get there before it closes...
Wow! These are some of the nicest visitor shots I've seen of the display. Irrespective of this Thread, I think they are great in terms of preserving a record of the Imperial War Museum display.
By all means, for anyone who is in the UK, I highly recommend visiting the exhibit before it closes next month.
{[]
Again, no answer to a direct question. We're all waiting with baited breath.
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.
When we saw this last year Paul, didn't we think that the display was generic and might not be Flemings personal belongings but items related to Fleming, Bond and the books ? Looking at the display again, it seems very much like that.
Why do you make Posts like this, Jonathan? It would have been so simple for you to have confirmed the source of the watch w/ the IWM. Yet you insist on making statements as if they are fact simply because you Post them, eg, that Daniel Craig was certainly going to wear the new black Omega Seamaster in Quantum of Solace because everyone knew your girlfriend Samantha worked for Omega.
And then, well--.
Then, ironically, you use my name in a Post, saying you know how I feel. Clearly what you meant to do in that was associate yourself w/ my credibility. Bit of a switch here.
When we saw this last year Paul, didn't we think that the display was generic and might not be Flemings personal belongings but items related to Fleming, Bond and the books ? Looking at the display again, it seems very much like that.
Why do you make Posts like this, Jonathan? It would have been so simple for you to have confirmed the source of the watch w/ the IWM. Yet you insist on making statements as if they are fact simply because you Post them, eg, that Daniel Craig was certainly going to wear the new black Omega Seamaster in Quantum of Solace because everyone knew your girlfriend Samantha worked for Omega.
And then, well--.
Then, ironically, you use my name in a Post, saying you know how I feel. Clearly what you meant to do in that was associate yourself w/ my credibility. Bit of a switch here.
Again, no response to a direct question. I think we are pretty much done here.
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.
Rick, please flag this Post (as I'm confident you will) and help me out w/ the details. To be frank, while I'm interested in setting the record straight, it's kinda lazy to Post a LINK to something w/ numerous other Posts and say, "Eureka! It's in there!).
However, as you've seen from above, I am responding specifically to each question or charge - correcting errors, wild assumptions, and jealous slander as I plow through them!
Blimey, is seems like subterfuge and plagiarism are hard at work in the watch publishing World. Not to mention the obviously false report on documentation. Rolex would never release this to a unrelated third party. Plus Rolex' records pre 1970 are sparse and unreliable to say the least.
It will be interesting to see what transpires futher.
Although a lack of having read the article doesn't seem to have slowed you down from jumping in to support Rick's unsubstantiated claims here, Jonathan, documentation is clearly cited in my WatchTime article. See page 93, where I write about the assessment of Fleming's watch by the Rolex service center on February 13, 2008. In addition to providing details beyond the case number (see previous Post), it talks about the condition of the watch at present.
M4tt would have missed that as well. Like you, he jumped in to criticize what I wrote w/out reading the article.
Rick, please flag this Post (as I'm confident you will) and help me out w/ the details. To be frank, while I'm interested in setting the record straight, it's kinda lazy to Post a LINK to something w/ numerous other Posts and say, "Eureka! It's in there!).
However, as you've seen from above, I am responding specifically to each question or charge - correcting errors, wild assumptions, and jealous slander as I plow through them!
Mr. Deaton, I don't know how to ask it any plainer than I have. The question is simple, direct, and to the point. It should not be difficult to answer.
I'll ask it again, however, because I'm feeling indulgent today. Did you appropriate the information that M4tt discovered about the literary Bond's Rolex and pass it off as your own for your Watchtime article?
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.
Blimey, is seems like subterfuge and plagiarism are hard at work in the watch publishing World....
Now that you say it....
Marcus, I don't think you have to join Watchuseek to read it, but here is a cut and paste. The originator of the idea of the literary Bond owning a Rolex Explorer is responding to a post by Deaton about what watch Bond should wear....
It's also my understanding that one does not have to be Registered w/ WUS in order to read Posts there.
Rick, as I said earlier, if you have some point to make here, make it. For a guy who whines and whines that his one literary effort was supposedly used w/out his permission, it seems you could do well to simply ask a question and let it be answered. Then ask another question, if you must.
But I think it's clear that "understanding" is not your intention here.
You're right: I largely ignore your Posts. It's not that maybe you don't own one or more nice James Bond vintage watches. Nor is it that you haven't read a lot and maybe have something to say about the subject. You served in the merchant marines, I believe you've said; that would be of interest in particular as it relates to the subject at hand. I don't mind "debates," and I often have great online discussions w/ folks where we will passionately disagree without being disagreeable.
But that's not you (or M4tt, which may explain why you've "found" each other on this topic where you can come together and indulge your mutual anger at a common demonized target).
I recall very well getting along w/ you here initially. You were in the process of writing your Bond-Rolex article, and it was delayed for whatever reason (as your current follow-up to it appears to be now). Then Simon published my four-part piece on the Bond-Omega (back then, just one!). That seemed to outrage you. You followed my Posts w/ a passion that I must be "wrong" and you must be "right."
It wouldn't be hard to pull up eMails even now from Jonathan and Marcus dating to 2006 which echoed this assessment.
But you know what, Rick? I'm here. It's not gonna last (a relief to both sides, no doubt). But if you want a dialogue, here it is. You see from however many Post I've made so far how I've approached this subject.
Donald, I can't ipen the mentioned discussion....Now that you say it....
Marcus, I don't think you have to join Watchuseek to read it, but here is a cut and paste. The originator of the idea of the literary Bond owning a Rolex Explorer is responding to a post by Deaton about what watch Bond should wear....
It's also my understanding that one does not have to be Registered w/ WUS in order to read Posts there.
Rick, as I said earlier, if you have some point to make here, make it. For a guy who whines and whines that his one literary effort was supposedly used w/out his permission, it seems you could do well to simply ask a question and let it be answered. Then ask another question, if you must.
But I think it's clear that "understanding" is not your intention here.
You're right: I largely ignore your Posts. It's not that maybe you don't own one or more nice James Bond vintage watches. Nor is it that you haven't read a lot and maybe have something to say about the subject. You served in the merchant marines, I believe you've said; that would be of interest in particular as it relates to the subject at hand. I don't mind "debates," and I often have great online discussions w/ folks where we will passionately disagree without being disagreeable.
But that's not you (or M4tt, which may explain why you've "found" each other on this topic where you can come together and indulge your mutual anger at a common demonized target).
I recall very well getting along w/ you here initially. You were in the process of writing your Bond-Rolex article, and it was delayed for whatever reason (as your current follow-up to it appears to be now). Then Simon published my four-part piece on the Bond-Omega (back then, just one!). That seemed to outrage you. You followed my Posts w/ a passion that I must be "wrong" and you must be "right."
It wouldn't be hard to pull up eMails even now from Jonathan and Marcus dating to 2006 which echoed this assessment.
But you know what, Rick? I'm here. It's not gonna last (a relief to both sides, no doubt). But if you want a dialogue, here it is. You see from however many Post I've made so far how I've approached this subject.
So quit trying to play gotcha.
Again no answer to a direct question.
Subject is evasive in answering direct questions. Often answers questions with questions or avoids them completely giving answers to questions that were not asked. Subject has dialated pupils, is fidgety, and sweats profusely in an airconditioned room.
Subject is hiding something.
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.
It wouldn't be hard to pull up eMails even now from Jonathan and Marcus dating to 2006 which echoed this assessment.
wait a minute!
You have any permission from me to post my private meails here, but only complete. Not that I have to hide something here.
And just for the record: It is nice, that you know our real names, but this is a public forum and the user names have a reason.
Calling others by their real name is simply bad behaviour on an internet board.
I know from a situation here on the forum, where someone got into professional trouble as you Dell have been mentioning his real name. That's somthing, you should'nt be proud for Dell.
And by the way, it is MarKus....
President of the 'Misty Eyes Club'.
Dalton - the weak and weepy Bond!
That is really bad. I used to defend DD here, but he's obviously gone over the edge on his obsessions with Bonds watch to the point where he's gone nuts. He's not gonna recover from this episode, and his Owellian purges are beginning to creep over other forums. Anyway, we posted the Explorer info here early last year. Old news, move along
This strikes me as an appropriate Post w/ which to wrap up the first page of this Thread, Jonathan.
(Popcorn views, forgive me if I take a break for a bit after this point. But I'll be back for what I guess is further entertainment to some.)
Even two years later now, it strikes me as funny how you portray things. You neither stepped in to "defend" me, nor did I need your defense. I do recall the eMails from you and Marcus after I left. You wanted me to come back, you'd "gotten _006_ kicked off" the Forum. The other day I came across a Post from that period where Rick dos Santos, er, "Donald Grant," was more than sheepish w/ concerns that I'd left due to something he'd said.
To be honest, it had more to do w/ you and Marcus. Look at your own Posts and so many of them are simply "why don't you and him fight" prompts. Or the incredible bluffs about what you know about Terence Young or your inside contacts at Omega. Too bad you don't run a Blog where someone could actually track back all your "trust me, you'll see" comments to note how many were out and out wrong.
And isn't the six months up yet where you can share w/ Rick how widely read his Rolex article was and how that had something to do w/ the Daniel Craig Goldfinger Rolex? The poor guy shopped that over at The Rolex Forums to any and all who would listen. I'd hate to be around when you have to burst that balloon and take his Christmas candy away from him when reality finally comes down.
Okay, I get it: You don't like that I was published in WatchTime. Maybe you feel it should have been you, that you were so much more qualified. Or someone else.
But, ironically, the first couple of Posts to this Thread actually seem to get it. A new and complete look at the literary James Bond has taken place in what is still The Ian Fleming Centenary year. And while everyone was running around making pitches to the watch magazines to run features on the Quantum of Solace watch or Omega, I brought attention and recognition to something different. The next time you see the Fleming watch displayed, I doubt it will be among a collection of various artifacts. It now has the recognition it deserves.
You've wasted a great opportunity here, Jonathan. And why? It won't impact me much (beyond the time I've decided to spend here to address this). But it shows you for what you are. Petty. Small. Someone who, like M4tt and Rick and Marcus, are more interested in distracting or derailing a discussion if you can't own it.
Maybe you'll succeed w/ that on AJB.
On the other hand, I'm willing to bet there are a lot of folks out there who see you for what you are and resent that all this is coming to miss the opportunity to discuss a really great wristwatch find.
Left your LINKs in place here, Rick (wouldn't want you to think I was avoiding anything). But, same as before, let's not do this the lazy way. By now perhaps you've Posted some particulars - but I'm still on Page 2 of this thing.
Does anyone recall what my Post Count was when I left? Maybe I'll get back up to that here.
It's also quite amusing that being the gent you are DG, you were actually very nice about him and his (well, not his really) article. At least you can take that back now :007)
Well, I called him slimey with respect to him trying to pawn off the gold Connery watch as the watch given by Broccoli to Connery for the production of Dr. No. I hadn't changed my mind about his charachter, however, I did think the article was well done. Too bad it was done by someone else.
DG
Yeah, I guess that Sylvia Trench watch is a real bee in your bonnet. Wasn't that the topic that got you Banned from The Rolex Forums? LINK
As that just an oversight, or do you apply one set of rules to yourself when making references to other sites, but another just for me?
By the way: You did that one all on your own. Although you seem to think I have some great power over your life, you started and ended your own demise there; I was off-line.
Or, recalling that great watch-gadget featured in From Russia with Love you were done in by your own misguided attempt to attack others.
DG thanks. Do you have an idea, where one can find the mentioned Villiers paining with IF wearing the 34 mm Explorer.
The original Villiers oil was on long-term loan to the National Portrait Gallery in London. I recently (w/in the last month) got word from one of their curators that that is due to change, but I don't know when.
By way of clarification: He is wearing the Rolex Explorer 1016 referenced in my WatchTime article. Who in their right mind would claim to differentiate a 34mm from a 36mm case size based on an Internet Post of a stealth photograph of a painting?
Some of us recall the (respectful) debates we had here trying to ID the size of the first Casino Royale Omega Planet Ocean. That's gotta bring both perspective and a laugh at M4tt's claim here.
Or do you just like his theory because it disagrees w/ my research?
Is that how you verify the watches you sell on Bond Toys as well?
DG thanks. Do you have an idea, where one can find the mentioned Villiers paining with IF wearing the 34 mm Explorer.
The original Villiers oil was on long-term loan to the National Portrait Gallery in London. I recently (w/in the last month) got word from one of their curators that that is due to change, but I don't know when.
By way of clarification: He is wearing the Rolex Explorer 1016 referenced in my WatchTime article. Who in their right mind would claim to differentiate a 34mm from a 36mm case size based on an Internet Post of a stealth photograph of a painting?
Some of us recall the (respectful) debates we had here trying to ID the size of the first Casino Royale Omega Planet Ocean. That's gotta bring both perspective and a laugh at M4tt's claim here.
Or do you just like his theory because it disagrees w/ my research?
Is that how you verify the watches you sell on Bond Toys as well?
Dell, by all understanding, that you are trying to id the demons: But aren't you running a bit out of control or should I better say amok??
I used to defend DD here, but he's obviously gone over the edge on his obsessions with Bonds watch to the point where he's gone nuts.
I am sorry, but after reading parts of your tirade here with half-truths and out-of context quotes, I have to agree.
Didn't I ask you to take your pills today? )
I have been simply asking, where the Villiers painting with the mentioned 34 mm watch can be seen. Nothing more and nothing less.
This request did not implement, that I was agreeing with the size choice at that point of time like you try to imply.
But after having seen the pic I totally agree with everyone here, that the watch on the Villiers painting can't be a 36 mm watch, if the artist knew his job.
And I am verifying my watches on Bondtoys by best evidence and not by polls like others....
President of the 'Misty Eyes Club'.
Dalton - the weak and weepy Bond!
DG thanks. Do you have an idea, where one can find the mentioned Villiers paining with IF wearing the 34 mm Explorer.
I thought it was in the Imperial War Museum as part of the Centinary exhibit....
It is....
Do you do any research at all before you make your Posts?
Does it concern you at all that folks might actually be interested in accurate information on such things? (I'm not talking about lurking about like Rick does in hopes of finding a dead link, or looking for ways to correct punctuation a'la M4tt: I'm talking about Posting information you seem to have quite literally pulled straight from your hat.)
Here's information from the National Portrait Gallery, where the painting appears to still be on display. LINK
The title you are looking for is "Ian Lancaster Fleming, by Charles Amherst Villiers, Maronger's medium on canvas, 1962" reference NPG L233. It was lent in 2003 by Janie Villiers, listed as the artist's daughter.
Note that this is one of six portraits in their collection, but the only one for which a preview image is not available. LINK
I thought it was in the Imperial War Museum as part of the Centinary exhibit....
It is....
Do you do any research at all before you make your Posts?
Does it concern you at all that folks might actually be interested in accurate information on such things? (I'm not talking about lurking about like Rick does in hopes of finding a dead link, or looking for ways to correct punctuation a'la M4tt: I'm talking about Posting information you seem to have quite literally pulled straight from your hat.)
Here's information from the National Portrait Gallery, where the painting appears to still be on display. LINK
The title you are looking for is "Ian Lancaster Fleming, by Charles Amherst Villiers, Maronger's medium on canvas, 1962" reference NPG L233. It was lent in 2003 by Janie Villiers, listed as the artist's daughter.
Note that this is one of six portraits in their collection, but the only one for which a preview image is not available. LINK
You know what Dell, I was giving you the benefit of the doubt, but watching you fail to respond to direct questions about appropriation is informative.
Here are two facts which you have ignored:
1) The Villiers painting was painted in 1962.
2) The 1016 Explorer was launched in 1963.
Thus, the Explorer that was clearly on Fleming's wrist in the 1962 painting could not have been a 1016 as the 1016 simply did not exist at that point in time.
It follows that the explorer on Fleming's wrist in 1962 was a different Explorer to the one that is currently in the Imperial war museum.
So, not only did you publish three months after reading my article, you also made a glaring error concerning the 1016. Ooops
The sad thing is that I really wouldn't mind you taking inspiration from my work. It was your attempt to kill it off followed by your complete lack of accreditation that upset me. A simple apology would be nice.
I'm afraid your conjecture concerning my state of mind is wrong. I find this hugely entertaining. While I freely admit that I feel a moral obligation to stand up to intellectual bullying, I do enjoy the site of Mr Deaton in a very deep hole and still digging.
"By way of clarification: He is wearing the Rolex Explorer 1016 referenced in my WatchTime article. Who in their right mind would claim to differentiate a 34mm from a 36mm case size based on an Internet Post of a stealth photograph of a painting?
Some of us recall the (respectful) debates we had here trying to ID the size of the first Casino Royale Omega Planet Ocean. That's gotta bring both perspective and a laugh at M4tt's claim here."
Well, if you go back to the relevent thread, you will find that the way I did it was to take photographs of watches from 30mm upwards while they were on the wrist and then compared them on that basis. The difference between 36mm and 34mm is really rather pronounced. However, once again you go for the easy questions.
Here's the hard one: how was Fleming wearing a watch that didn't exist in 1962? Your claim is a bit like saying you had found the receipts for his ipod.
Sorry I had to step away for a bit to do some real work. My goodness we are testy today.
Lest we forget, I asked a simple direct question that still has not been answered.
As for what happened at the Rolex Forums, I can't read it from this terminal becausse TRF blocked it. When it happened the whole thread dissapeared. More Orwellian purging at the behest of Mr. Deaton I suppose. Nevertheless, I'm a man and I have no shame in what I said.
Now back on topic, answer the question. I'll repeat it if necessary.
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.
Holy resurrection, Batman!
First of all, apologies if this is ancient history, but: I was reading Dr No the other day and came upon something interesting:
In the beginning of the chapter Dagon Spoor, it is stated: " Bond glanced at his watch. It had stopped at three o'clock."
Now this would very mutch indicate either manual wind, or not water resistant, neither of which is usually associated with Rolex Explorer.
Anybody have a comment on this?
Sorry to be a bit brief, am writing on PS3 and it's giving me fits!
"I mean, she almost kills bond...with her ass."
-Mr Arlington Beech
Holy resurrection, Batman!
First of all, apologies if this is ancient history, but: I was reading Dr No the other day and came upon something interesting:
In the beginning of the chapter Dagon Spoor, it is stated: " Bond glanced at his watch. It had stopped at three o'clock."
Now this would very mutch indicate either manual wind, or not water resistant, neither of which is usually associated with Rolex Explorer.
Anybody have a comment on this?
Sorry to be a bit brief, am writing on PS3 and it's giving me fits!
It is not necessarily so that the watch Bond wears in the novel Dr. No was a manual wind or not water resistant. Even the best watches fail, even Rolex. I had a vintage Rolex Submariner fail. It flooded. You have to service them regularly to replace gaskets. Also the oils have a tendency to dry out and cause wear which can cause a watch to stop.
Being close to a watchmaker has taught me that watches (Rolex) can fail for many reasons. One of the most common errors is not screwing down the crown completely. If you do that and go swimming or bombing around in a swamp your watch can become flooded.
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.
Comments
It sounds like you haven't read the article, so I suppose I could simply refer you to that for what is "new" in it.
That said, here are two examples specific to the watch itself.
1. My WatchTime article gives the case number for the Ian Fleming Rolex Explorer in question. So far as I know, no one has claimed to have known or disclosed that before my work was published. Equally important, making that disclosure opens the article to both accountability and debate.
Pretty respectful and engaging of those who are interested, I think.
2. My WatchTime article provides the bracelet number as well. Again, new and exclusive. Additionally, it speak to the whole "what does the 'expanding' reference to it mean in On Her Majesty's Secret Service?" I mean, as I say, Fleming's Rolex Explorer does not have springs in the links, so what's up with that?
My article suggests looking at Thunderball* for clues. Might additionally want to take at look at "From a View to a Kill."
__________________
*Given much of the tone of this Thread, I wonder if there isn't some fascination w/ The Battle for Bond. That would be where author Robert Sellers goes on expansively about all the ways in which Ian Fleming's credit for creating the literary James Bond should be reduced. For the record, it's a weak case and I don't buy it.
Agreed.
See my Post above regarding the case number, Jonathan.
I've seen no evidence of a Speedking, nor has anyone referenced one to me. What I have heard is that Fleming only owned one Rolex; that was stated directly to me.
As far as making a "best bet," that makes for some really exciting James Bond plotlines. But it's not how I'd approach research nor statements about watches. But folks already know that about me.
Again, no answer to a direct question!
The other stuff about watch serial numbers could easily be gleaned from the IWM.
Now give us the truth! It's your soap box. Tell us how we are all wrong about you.
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.
Wow! These are some of the nicest visitor shots I've seen of the display. Irrespective of this Thread, I think they are great in terms of preserving a record of the Imperial War Museum display.
By all means, for anyone who is in the UK, I highly recommend visiting the exhibit before it closes next month.
{[]
Again, no answer to a direct question. We're all waiting with baited breath.
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.
Why do you make Posts like this, Jonathan? It would have been so simple for you to have confirmed the source of the watch w/ the IWM. Yet you insist on making statements as if they are fact simply because you Post them, eg, that Daniel Craig was certainly going to wear the new black Omega Seamaster in Quantum of Solace because everyone knew your girlfriend Samantha worked for Omega.
And then, well--.
Then, ironically, you use my name in a Post, saying you know how I feel. Clearly what you meant to do in that was associate yourself w/ my credibility. Bit of a switch here.
Again, no response to a direct question. I think we are pretty much done here.
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.
Rick, please flag this Post (as I'm confident you will) and help me out w/ the details. To be frank, while I'm interested in setting the record straight, it's kinda lazy to Post a LINK to something w/ numerous other Posts and say, "Eureka! It's in there!).
However, as you've seen from above, I am responding specifically to each question or charge - correcting errors, wild assumptions, and jealous slander as I plow through them!
Although a lack of having read the article doesn't seem to have slowed you down from jumping in to support Rick's unsubstantiated claims here, Jonathan, documentation is clearly cited in my WatchTime article. See page 93, where I write about the assessment of Fleming's watch by the Rolex service center on February 13, 2008. In addition to providing details beyond the case number (see previous Post), it talks about the condition of the watch at present.
M4tt would have missed that as well. Like you, he jumped in to criticize what I wrote w/out reading the article.
Seems to be a lot of that going around.
Mr. Deaton, I don't know how to ask it any plainer than I have. The question is simple, direct, and to the point. It should not be difficult to answer.
I'll ask it again, however, because I'm feeling indulgent today. Did you appropriate the information that M4tt discovered about the literary Bond's Rolex and pass it off as your own for your Watchtime article?
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.
It's also my understanding that one does not have to be Registered w/ WUS in order to read Posts there.
Rick, as I said earlier, if you have some point to make here, make it. For a guy who whines and whines that his one literary effort was supposedly used w/out his permission, it seems you could do well to simply ask a question and let it be answered. Then ask another question, if you must.
But I think it's clear that "understanding" is not your intention here.
You're right: I largely ignore your Posts. It's not that maybe you don't own one or more nice James Bond vintage watches. Nor is it that you haven't read a lot and maybe have something to say about the subject. You served in the merchant marines, I believe you've said; that would be of interest in particular as it relates to the subject at hand. I don't mind "debates," and I often have great online discussions w/ folks where we will passionately disagree without being disagreeable.
But that's not you (or M4tt, which may explain why you've "found" each other on this topic where you can come together and indulge your mutual anger at a common demonized target).
I recall very well getting along w/ you here initially. You were in the process of writing your Bond-Rolex article, and it was delayed for whatever reason (as your current follow-up to it appears to be now). Then Simon published my four-part piece on the Bond-Omega (back then, just one!). That seemed to outrage you. You followed my Posts w/ a passion that I must be "wrong" and you must be "right."
It wouldn't be hard to pull up eMails even now from Jonathan and Marcus dating to 2006 which echoed this assessment.
But you know what, Rick? I'm here. It's not gonna last (a relief to both sides, no doubt). But if you want a dialogue, here it is. You see from however many Post I've made so far how I've approached this subject.
So quit trying to play gotcha.
Again no answer to a direct question.
Subject is evasive in answering direct questions. Often answers questions with questions or avoids them completely giving answers to questions that were not asked. Subject has dialated pupils, is fidgety, and sweats profusely in an airconditioned room.
Subject is hiding something.
"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.
wait a minute!
You have any permission from me to post my private meails here, but only complete. Not that I have to hide something here.
And just for the record: It is nice, that you know our real names, but this is a public forum and the user names have a reason.
Calling others by their real name is simply bad behaviour on an internet board.
I know from a situation here on the forum, where someone got into professional trouble as you Dell have been mentioning his real name. That's somthing, you should'nt be proud for Dell.
And by the way, it is MarKus....
Dalton - the weak and weepy Bond!
This strikes me as an appropriate Post w/ which to wrap up the first page of this Thread, Jonathan.
(Popcorn views, forgive me if I take a break for a bit after this point. But I'll be back for what I guess is further entertainment to some.)
Even two years later now, it strikes me as funny how you portray things. You neither stepped in to "defend" me, nor did I need your defense. I do recall the eMails from you and Marcus after I left. You wanted me to come back, you'd "gotten _006_ kicked off" the Forum. The other day I came across a Post from that period where Rick dos Santos, er, "Donald Grant," was more than sheepish w/ concerns that I'd left due to something he'd said.
To be honest, it had more to do w/ you and Marcus. Look at your own Posts and so many of them are simply "why don't you and him fight" prompts. Or the incredible bluffs about what you know about Terence Young or your inside contacts at Omega. Too bad you don't run a Blog where someone could actually track back all your "trust me, you'll see" comments to note how many were out and out wrong.
And isn't the six months up yet where you can share w/ Rick how widely read his Rolex article was and how that had something to do w/ the Daniel Craig Goldfinger Rolex? The poor guy shopped that over at The Rolex Forums to any and all who would listen. I'd hate to be around when you have to burst that balloon and take his Christmas candy away from him when reality finally comes down.
Okay, I get it: You don't like that I was published in WatchTime. Maybe you feel it should have been you, that you were so much more qualified. Or someone else.
But, ironically, the first couple of Posts to this Thread actually seem to get it. A new and complete look at the literary James Bond has taken place in what is still The Ian Fleming Centenary year. And while everyone was running around making pitches to the watch magazines to run features on the Quantum of Solace watch or Omega, I brought attention and recognition to something different. The next time you see the Fleming watch displayed, I doubt it will be among a collection of various artifacts. It now has the recognition it deserves.
You've wasted a great opportunity here, Jonathan. And why? It won't impact me much (beyond the time I've decided to spend here to address this). But it shows you for what you are. Petty. Small. Someone who, like M4tt and Rick and Marcus, are more interested in distracting or derailing a discussion if you can't own it.
Maybe you'll succeed w/ that on AJB.
On the other hand, I'm willing to bet there are a lot of folks out there who see you for what you are and resent that all this is coming to miss the opportunity to discuss a really great wristwatch find.
Final word: I used to defend you, too, Jonathan.
Left your LINKs in place here, Rick (wouldn't want you to think I was avoiding anything). But, same as before, let's not do this the lazy way. By now perhaps you've Posted some particulars - but I'm still on Page 2 of this thing.
Does anyone recall what my Post Count was when I left? Maybe I'll get back up to that here.
{[]
Yeah, I guess that Sylvia Trench watch is a real bee in your bonnet. Wasn't that the topic that got you Banned from The Rolex Forums? LINK
As that just an oversight, or do you apply one set of rules to yourself when making references to other sites, but another just for me?
By the way: You did that one all on your own. Although you seem to think I have some great power over your life, you started and ended your own demise there; I was off-line.
Or, recalling that great watch-gadget featured in From Russia with Love you were done in by your own misguided attempt to attack others.
The original Villiers oil was on long-term loan to the National Portrait Gallery in London. I recently (w/in the last month) got word from one of their curators that that is due to change, but I don't know when.
By way of clarification: He is wearing the Rolex Explorer 1016 referenced in my WatchTime article. Who in their right mind would claim to differentiate a 34mm from a 36mm case size based on an Internet Post of a stealth photograph of a painting?
Some of us recall the (respectful) debates we had here trying to ID the size of the first Casino Royale Omega Planet Ocean. That's gotta bring both perspective and a laugh at M4tt's claim here.
Or do you just like his theory because it disagrees w/ my research?
Is that how you verify the watches you sell on Bond Toys as well?
Why would you have thought this?
Dell, by all understanding, that you are trying to id the demons: But aren't you running a bit out of control or should I better say amok??
I am sorry, but after reading parts of your tirade here with half-truths and out-of context quotes, I have to agree.
Didn't I ask you to take your pills today?
I have been simply asking, where the Villiers painting with the mentioned 34 mm watch can be seen. Nothing more and nothing less.
This request did not implement, that I was agreeing with the size choice at that point of time like you try to imply.
But after having seen the pic I totally agree with everyone here, that the watch on the Villiers painting can't be a 36 mm watch, if the artist knew his job.
And I am verifying my watches on Bondtoys by best evidence and not by polls like others....
Dalton - the weak and weepy Bond!
Do you do any research at all before you make your Posts?
Does it concern you at all that folks might actually be interested in accurate information on such things? (I'm not talking about lurking about like Rick does in hopes of finding a dead link, or looking for ways to correct punctuation a'la M4tt: I'm talking about Posting information you seem to have quite literally pulled straight from your hat.)
Here's information from the National Portrait Gallery, where the painting appears to still be on display. LINK
The title you are looking for is "Ian Lancaster Fleming, by Charles Amherst Villiers, Maronger's medium on canvas, 1962" reference NPG L233. It was lent in 2003 by Janie Villiers, listed as the artist's daughter.
Note that this is one of six portraits in their collection, but the only one for which a preview image is not available. LINK
can't see the pic with your links here Dell.
A precise reply to my question has been:
http://picasaweb.google.com/charlesvilliers/IANFLEMINGPORTRAITBYAMHERSTVILLIERS#5189873318949900418
and that's all I needed....
Dalton - the weak and weepy Bond!
Here are two facts which you have ignored:
1) The Villiers painting was painted in 1962.
2) The 1016 Explorer was launched in 1963.
Thus, the Explorer that was clearly on Fleming's wrist in the 1962 painting could not have been a 1016 as the 1016 simply did not exist at that point in time.
It follows that the explorer on Fleming's wrist in 1962 was a different Explorer to the one that is currently in the Imperial war museum.
So, not only did you publish three months after reading my article, you also made a glaring error concerning the 1016. Ooops
The sad thing is that I really wouldn't mind you taking inspiration from my work. It was your attempt to kill it off followed by your complete lack of accreditation that upset me. A simple apology would be nice.
I'm afraid your conjecture concerning my state of mind is wrong. I find this hugely entertaining. While I freely admit that I feel a moral obligation to stand up to intellectual bullying, I do enjoy the site of Mr Deaton in a very deep hole and still digging.
"By way of clarification: He is wearing the Rolex Explorer 1016 referenced in my WatchTime article. Who in their right mind would claim to differentiate a 34mm from a 36mm case size based on an Internet Post of a stealth photograph of a painting?
Some of us recall the (respectful) debates we had here trying to ID the size of the first Casino Royale Omega Planet Ocean. That's gotta bring both perspective and a laugh at M4tt's claim here."
Well, if you go back to the relevent thread, you will find that the way I did it was to take photographs of watches from 30mm upwards while they were on the wrist and then compared them on that basis. The difference between 36mm and 34mm is really rather pronounced. However, once again you go for the easy questions.
Here's the hard one: how was Fleming wearing a watch that didn't exist in 1962? Your claim is a bit like saying you had found the receipts for his ipod.
Lest we forget, I asked a simple direct question that still has not been answered.
As for what happened at the Rolex Forums, I can't read it from this terminal becausse TRF blocked it. When it happened the whole thread dissapeared. More Orwellian purging at the behest of Mr. Deaton I suppose. Nevertheless, I'm a man and I have no shame in what I said.
Now back on topic, answer the question. I'll repeat it if necessary.
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 have found another oops from Mr Deaton...
He states that:
"Fleming's Rolex Explorer does not have springs in the links, so what's up with that?"
I'm afraid that your apparent ignorance of vintage Rolex is catching up with you Mr Deaton:
Here is exactly the strap on Fleming's watch:
And here it is stretching:
So you know what number it is, but you didn't know that it was elasticated. That sums it up for me.
I don't need to correct any punctuation here; a picture is worth a thousand words!
@merseytart
First of all, apologies if this is ancient history, but: I was reading Dr No the other day and came upon something interesting:
In the beginning of the chapter Dagon Spoor, it is stated: " Bond glanced at his watch. It had stopped at three o'clock."
Now this would very mutch indicate either manual wind, or not water resistant, neither of which is usually associated with Rolex Explorer.
Anybody have a comment on this?
Sorry to be a bit brief, am writing on PS3 and it's giving me fits!
-Mr Arlington Beech
It is not necessarily so that the watch Bond wears in the novel Dr. No was a manual wind or not water resistant. Even the best watches fail, even Rolex. I had a vintage Rolex Submariner fail. It flooded. You have to service them regularly to replace gaskets. Also the oils have a tendency to dry out and cause wear which can cause a watch to stop.
Being close to a watchmaker has taught me that watches (Rolex) can fail for many reasons. One of the most common errors is not screwing down the crown completely. If you do that and go swimming or bombing around in a swamp your watch can become flooded.
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.