My 2021 article debunking the false claims made by super scholars like Auro Montanari and Eric Tortella, relating to the famous ‘bathyscaphe watch’, the Rolex ‘Deep Sea Special’ No. 1, did not get the traction an in-depth research piece of its magnitude deserved. But then again, that was before the Speedmaster Gate and we live in a different world now. Ol’ Montanari, I hear, has yet to come to terms with this new reality. Although the amount of evidence was staggering, a picture showing the actual height of the crystal, hence refuting the low crystal nonsense perpetuated by the usual suspects was missing. Until now! Besides finding more articles from 1954 showing the actual 1953 record watch, a report published in February 1962 in the ‘Journal Suisse d’Horlogerie’ vindicates my work to 100%. In a sane world, this definitive evidence would put the false story to rest, once and for all. As we all know, however, the world of watches has its own reality and we will see whether Hodinkee and co will set the record straight in their articles, where they, mindlessly as usual, perpetuated nothing but fairy tales.

---

To get the full historical picture of the bathyscaphe ‘Trieste’ and the quirky Rolex watches that went down with it, please click here to read my previous article on the matter.

On March 14, 2024, Aurel Bacs’ lawyer emailed me a cease and desist letter in response to this article. See my response.

On April 3, 2024, I received yet another lawyer’s letter for my ever growing collection. This time from a law firm representing collector Reza Rashidian. See my response.

The watch of the abyss, 1962

A contemporary account found on watchlibrary.org which once again proves to be a real treasure trove of horological information confirms my research is an article named ‘La montre des abysses’ (The watch of the abyss), published in the February 1962 edition of the ‘Journal Suisse d’Horlogerie’ (Swiss horology journal, pages 91 – 95). The author L. Defossez recounts the story of the Rolex Deep Sea Special and how it was developed to reach the ocean floor strapped to the outside of Auguste Piccard’s Bathyscaphe ‘Trieste’ submersible.

Source: La montre des abysses (watchlibrary.org)

On page 94 it says:

Le 30 septembre 1953, après quelques essais, eut lieu la première des grandes plongées du bathyscaphe «Trieste» au large de l’île Ponza dans le mer Tyrrhénienne. La profondeur atteinte par le professeur Auguste Piccard et son fils Jacques fut de 3150 m. A l’extérieur du bathyscaphe fut attachée la montre-bracelet Rolex définitivement exécutée (fig 6 et 7) et essayée à la pression de 600 atm. La montre subit l’épreuve avec succès et le 8 octobre 1953, la maison Rolex recevait du professeur Piccard le télégramme suivant: «Votre montre a prfaitement résisté à 3150 m».

Translation: On September 30, 1953, after a few tests, the first of the big dives of the bathyscaphe “Trieste” took place off the island of Ponza in the Tyrrhenian Sea. The depth reached by Professor Auguste Piccard and his son Jacques was 3150 m. Attached to the exterior of the bathyscaphe was the definitive version of the Rolex wristwatch (figs 6 and 7) and tested at a pressure of 600 atm. The watch successfully passed the test and on October 8, 1953, Rolex received the following telegram from Professor Piccard: “Your watch withstood 3150 m perfectly”.

If we look at the pictures 6 and 7 mentioned in the article, the watch depicted is clearly not the twice auctioned Rolex ‘Deep Sea Special’ No. 1. It is exaclty the watch, which I said was the real 1953 record watch.

Source: La montre des abysses, page 95 (watchlibrary.org)

What also becomes evident, and this is important, is that the 1953 record watch had a tall crystal. Based on the distortion of the dial, I had already pointed out that was most certainly the case but now it is an established fact.

A comparison with the ‘Deep Sea Special’ No. 1 confirms the 1953 record watch is smaller in size but more importantly, that the low crystal narrative is complete and utter nonsense.

So here we clearly have another made-up story. The Rolex ‘Deep Sea Special’ No. 1 was first auctioned in November 2005 for CHF 322,400 by record chasing auctioneer Aurel Bacs, at the time Co-Head of Christie’s watch department, stating that “according to its owner, the present watch participated at one of Picccard’s diving trials with the bathyscaph ‘Trieste’ in the Mediterranean Sea”.

Update March 17, 2024
Following a cease and desist letter from Aurel Bacs’ lawyer (sent by email and ended up in my junk folder), unlawfully attempting to intimidate me by threatening legal action, both civilly and criminally (which is not even in the canon of law), and in all relevant jurisdictions, I took the opportunity to elaborate further and rephrase parts of this article. The supreme irony is the article became more factual and therefore even stronger in its message. Truth is a complete defense to all defamation claims.

A special thank you to the many watch-collecting lawyers around the globe for their continued support.

According to Bacs’ lawyer Nicolas Capt of Quinze Cours des Bastions Avocats Sàrl in Geneva, Bacs never claimed the Rolex ‘Deep Sea Special’ No. 1 was the watch of the abyss:

“In your article you question Christie’s identification in 2021 of the Rolex Deep Sea Special No. 1 (‘the Watch’) as the particluar watch which in September 30, 1953 descended to 3,150 meters on the Piccard bathyscpahe : ‘Trieste’ (colloquially known as ‘the watch of the abyss’). Our client has no comment to make on your analysis or findings in relation to the watch.

Our client however strongly objects to the many statements about him falsely suggesting that he was somehow involved in the 2021 Christie’s identification and sale of the Watch [SIC] as the watch of the abyss. As you well know he was not.

The only time our client was associated with this Watch [SIC] when, in 2005, it was sold at Christie’s Geneva. At the time he was Co-Head of the Watches & Wristwatches Department. The 2005 catalogue entry did no assert that the watch was the watch of the abyss. Indeed, it stated only that the watch ‘participated at Piccard’s diving trials’. It also made it clear that even this general association was ‘according to its owner‘. These carefully chosen words made it clear that the connection with the Piccard diving trials could not been [SIC] verified by the auction house. Our client did not in 2005 claim nor has he since then claimed that the watch in question was the watch of the abyss.”

First of all, I never said Bacs was involved in the 2021 Christie’s identification and sale. Secondly, how is this “according to its owner…” nonsense a winning argument? They could not verify the story but printed it anyway, fully aware it could be a lie? As an auctioneer, Aurel Bacs owes a duty of care. Disseminating an unverified story, which now turned out to be a complete fabrication, could be considered negligent. Carefully chosen words? Certainly, but for what purpose? To trick, or perhaps the lawyer would prefer the word ‘manipulate’ people into believing unverifiable stories? No, this is not a winning argument at all. Are lawyers not supposed to keep their clients out of trouble instead of helping them dig a bigger whole for themselves, especially in the mighty court of public opinion?

Anyway, let us go into more detail about the 2005 lot description. If we look at other passages of the essay, it certainly appears that whoever wrote the essay was well-aware of certain details published in contemporary literature in which the actual 1953 record watch was depicted.

“Since the early 1920s, Rolex had worked on the development of waterproof watches, the famous Oyster models. To put their watches on a trial on which no other watch had ever been, they contacted Professor Piccard to test watches during his diving experiments. Piccard accepted and Rolex engineers developed a watch fitted with a special case and a domed crystal in order to hold up to extreme pressure.

Its resistance was successfully tested at the ETH in Zurich and on 30 September 1953, the Trieste and the watch fixed to its outside made their first dive to a record depth of 3150 meter. During this dive in the Tyrrhenian Sea off the island of Ponza, both Auguste and Jacques Piccard were on board of the bathyscaph. On 8 October Rolex received Piccard’s memorable telegram confirming the success of the experiment with the words ‘Your watch perfectly resisted to 3150 meters’.”

Auction link: Lot 346 – Rolex Deep Sea Special No. 1 (christies.com, 2005)

Everything, from the fact that Rolex contacted Piccard, to especially the test at the ETH in Zurich, to the record depth achieved on September 30, 1953, was recounted in one particular article from 1962 named ‘La montre des abysses’ (The watch of the abyss) which is linked above. I am not aware of any other publication where these details were published. Did Christie’s have this very article at hand when they wrote the lot description? Below you can see the excerpt from the article again, where the 1953 record watch was depicted, not only in frontal view but also in profile view clearly featuring a tall crystal. If this was the case, how was it not noticed that they were different watches?

In addition, Rolex supplied only one watch to Auguste Piccard in 1953. By implication, the statement that “according to its owner, the present watch participated at one of Picccard’s diving trials with the bathyscaph ‘Trieste’ in the Mediterranean Sea”, strongly suggested to prospective buyers that the watch was indeed the record watch from 1953, especially since it was also affirmed that the watch was manufactured in 1953, which is incorrect, and the record feat to a depth of 10,334 ft/3,150 m was explicitly mentioned in the lot description. Add the fact that the watch is engraved with ‘No. 1’ and the picture becomes complete.

The ultimate red flag for the auction house should have been the fact that the watch features the American import code ‘ROW’ on the balance cock of its movement. Why would a watch that was personally handed over to Auguste Piccard at Castellamare in Italy and was used exclusively in the Mediterranean Sea feature an American import code? An indication for the presence of the import code can be found in the 2005 Christie’s lot essay:

In 1958, the Trieste was acquired by the U.S. Navy and equipped with a new cabin to enable it to reach deep ocean trenches; two years later, in 1960, Jacques Piccard and Navy Lieutenant Donald Walsh descended in the Trieste to the deepest known point on Earth – the Challenger Deep in the Mariana Trench in the Pacific Ocean.

From mid 1958 onwards, the bathyscaphe ‘Trieste’ resided in the United States and was being readied for the ultimate deep dive in the Mariana Trench. For this feat, Rolex developed a new model, larger in size and able to withstand double the pressure than the previous model. It is all explained in the 1962 article ‘La montre des abysses’ (The watch of the abyss). This new series of watches was imported to the United States through the American Rolex Watch Corporation in New York, which explains the American import code. Now, the record watch from 1960, the Rolex ‘Deep Sea Special’ No. 3, is of course in the Smithsonian Institution in Washington D.C. The Rolex ‘Deep Sea Special’ No. 1, on the other hand, was probably just used for exhibition purposes, or as a paperweight somewhere on a desk. In my opinion, it should have been easy for the auction house to connect the dots since they obviously had all the necessary information at hand.

If auction houses are unable to verify the history of a watch, they need to explicitly state so, or even better, do without an unverifiable story altogether. By the way, Aurel Bacs is same individual who in November 2021 auctioned the world famous Frankenstein Omega Speedmaster 2915-1 featuring fake movement parts which fetched the insane sum of 3.4 million dollars. How a watch with so many red flags could pass the sniff test still blows my mind to this day. We were all made to believe the watch was bought by a Chinese collector but as it turned out, the real buyer was actually Omega. Right after the hammer fell, in reply to Bacs’ question whether it could be disclosed where the watch was going to, the watch specialist who had the winning bidder (the Omega Museum Director) on the phone, implied publicly the buyer was a Chinese collector (“From China with love”). I truly hope the Swiss authorities will get to the very bottom of this incredible story and bring ALL involved individuals to justice.

Read more: Omega says ex-employees responsible for $3 million fake Speedmaster watch (cnn.com)

Anyway, the Rolex ‘Deep Sea Special’ No. 1 was auctioned again by Christie’s in November 2021, this time of course without Bacs’ involvement but nonetheless with the false narrative attached to it. Christie’s went one step further and remarked in their catalogue:

“Understood to be the watch fixed to the outside of professor Jacques Piccard’s bathyscaphe ‘Trieste’ in September – October 1953”

In a press release Christie’s stated:

“This is the No. 1 – A watch that made history on 30 September 1953, and will make it once again on 8 November 2021.”

Supercharged with all this nonsense, and accompanied by a study done by ex-convict Eric Tortella, the watch fetched CHF 1,890,000.

I heard from reliable sources that the consignor of the watch, a British collector with Iranian roots named Reza Rashidian who owned the piece between 2005 and 2021, had received offers over several million dollars in the past but turned them all down. Accordingly, he and Christie’s were expecting a much higher sum but my article published four days prior to the auction may have opened the eyes of prospective buyers just in time.

In a Hodinkee ‘Talking Watches’ episode from September 2019 featuring Rashidian, a visibly bedazzled and overzealous to portray himself as knowledgeable Ben Clymer not only claimed Mr. Rashidian’s watch was “the very first experimental dive watch from Rolex” but also “the very first prototype Rolex Deep Sea Special”.

‘Social’ Clymer was once again the useful idiot, parroting other people’s unverified stories. As of September 2019, Reza Rashidian’s entire Rolex dive watch collection was with Phillips auction house in London as he was trying to unload it in order to focus on other things (see New York Times article linked further down). Some of the watches he even gave to a mutual friend of ours to try and sell for him after he removed them all from said auction house. I assume because he was not happy with their previous performances. Looking at the location where the ‘Talking Watches’ episode was filmed, it could very well be a meeting room in the upper floors of the Phillips building at 30 Berkeley Square in London. The sales pitch started with a book – a sales catalogue really – named ‘A Journey Into The Deep’ by John Goldberger and Daniel Bourne which showcased Rashidian’s extensive Rolex dive watch collection. It came out in late 2018, just prior to a Phillips auction in which two of Rashidian’s watches were sold to test the waters. In March 2019, a dedicated article published in The New York Times about Rashidian and his watch collection, possibly orchestrated by auctioneer Aurel Bacs who was dying to sell the collection, made the following statement:

“And few watches can rival the story of the Rolex Deep Sea Special Number One: In 1953, the watch, which has a signature bubble-shaped crystal, was strapped to the outside of the Trieste bathyscaph before the research vessel went two miles deep in the waters off Italy’s Ponza Island, withstanding pressure of 8,820 pounds per square inch.”

Link: Reza Rashidian Has Rules for Watch Collecting (nytimes.com)

In addition to the false 1953 record claim, the record depth reached on September 30, 1953, was not equivalent to 8,820 pounds per square inch (psi) as stated in the article. At a depth of 10,334 ft/3,150 m, the pressure amounts to 4,475 psi. 8,820 psi is equivalent to a depth of 19,685 ft/6,000 m which was the maximum pressure the watch was subjected to in a pressure chamber prior to the dive (600 atm/m²). It boggles the mind that such mistakes can happen at The New York Times, but then again, the initial information came from unreliable sources and of course, the article was written for the less serious lifestyle/fashion section of the newspaper.

In the world of mainstream watch blogs, this kind unreflected and bare of any proper research reporting is unfortunately common practice. If we look what the wannabe journalists at Hodinkee wrote, it is the same misinformation over and over again:

“Look, I know that reference numbers and such can be confusing, but “No.1” should be pretty clear, no? In a sale taking place on November 8th, 2021 in Geneva, Christie’s is offering the first example of the Deep Sea Special and it’s a watch that accompanied the Trieste on the 1,080- and 3,150-meter dives in 1953. Like, the actual watch.”

The actual watch, James Stacey? Is that right? The following passage is also quite funny now that we know the 1953 record watch had a tall crystal:

“Later examples – the MKII – benefited from what Rolex learned during the early dives and had been modified with a much thicker crystal (dubbed “high glass”) to deal with all of that pressure.”

Link: A Tale of Two Rolex Deep Sea Specials (hodinkee.com)

It is all just unreflected, made-up, complete and utter nonsense, more often than not merely a copy-paste job. Watch journalists, you gotta love ’em! All of this baloney has its origins in the false narrative propagated in 2005 that was later amplified by the monsignor of horological skulduggery, Fraudo Monetari a.k.a. John Goldburglar. Is it not beautifully fitting that Montanari lives in Bologna, the very place the word baloney originates from? His book ‘A Journey Into the Deep’, which is available in the Hodinkee Shop for USD 800 (lol), claims on page 23 the ‘Deep Sea Special ‘ No. 1 went down to 3,150 m in 1953:

“Deep Sea Special Mk1 with case back engravings “No. 1” and “No. 2” were, between 1953 and 1956 used to depths of 3150 m and 3700 m. They feature a lower domed glass and different ring/crown to the later Mk2 models with case back engravings “No. 3” and “No. 5″, which were modified to withstand the increased pressure at greater depth.”

To be clear, nobody has ever seen or heard of No. 2. To speak about No. 2 is pure fiction. Besides the lower glass nonsense, they also talk about the ring/crown being different but a comparison between No. 1 and No. 3 (Mariana Trench record watch) shows the basic construction is identical.

What is certain is that the crown of the real 1953 record watch is considerably different than the one found on No. 1, No. 3 and No. 5.

On page 24 of ‘A Journey Into the Deep’ we can find the following statements and boy is there a lot to unpack:

.

“Stage 1 – Circa 1950 by Rolex in a high pressure chamber within their laboratory in Geneva, …”

The developement of the bathyscaphe watch began only after Prof. Auguste Piccard agreed to the project on February 29, 1952, not in 1950 as claimed. Early prototypes were first tested at the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology in Zurich (ETH) and later at a specialized company named Amsler in Schaffhausen. Rolex was not equipped for this type of high pressure tests.
.

“Stage 2 – Circa 1953 with Deep Sea Special No. 1 and/or No. 2 attached to the exterior of the Trieste, during the dives conducted by Walsh and Piccard to 3150 m off the coast of Italy. Piccard reported to Rolex Geneva via telegram “Wwatch performed perfectly. Depth 3150 metres Piccard”, …”

During the record-dive on September 30, 1953, the “Trieste” was manned by Prof. Auguste Piccard and his son Jacques. The first time Don Walsh dove for with the bathyscaphe ‘Trieste’ was in December 1958. The U.S. Navy acquired the submersible in mid 1958 and had a new pressure sphere built at Friedrich Krupp AG in Germany, able to withstand the incredible pressure at theoretical 50,000 ft/15,240 m. The goal was to explore the Mariana Trench and see if it would be feasible to dump radioactive waste down there.
.

“Stage 3 – Circa 1956 with Deep Sea Special No. 1 and /or No. 2 attached to the exterior of the Trieste, during the dives conducted by Walsh and Piccard to 3700 m…”

The 1956 dive to 12,139 ft/3,700 m took place on October 17, 1956 and the crew consisted of Jacques Piccard and Italian geologist Prof. Alfredo Pollini. Again, Walsh was not part of the crew and came only into the picture in 1959. In addition, at the top left of page 24 is a picture captioned “Jacques Piccard and Donald Walsh”. The man to the left of Jacques Piccard is not Don Walsh but Dr. Andreas Rechnitzer, an Oceanographer who was in charge of ‘Project Nekton’ in 1960, during which the bathyscaphe ‘Trieste’ descended to the ocean’s deepest point in the Mariana Trench.

Image source: Andreas Rechnitzer and Jacques Piccard on the Trieste (gettyimages.com)

The above statements from ‘A Journey Into The Deep’ are not only completely made-up but contain also grave errors. Is this the quality you would expect from “a true horological scholar” (Ben Clymer) like John Goldberger for USD 800? Remember, this is the same guy who authenticated a completely fake vintage Cartier London Crash for a major auction house only to weeks later announce his new book about Cartier London. And who could forget his 6 million dollar Frankenstein ‘Unicorn’ Daytona? How much money went to the children charity again? I studied a number of his books and besides being mostly mere picture books, when something is written there are often grave errors due to a lack of research and knowledge.

Buy anyway? John Goldberger – A Journey Into The Deep (Hoodwinkee-Shop)

Goldberger has been pushing the false 1953 ‘Deep Sea Special’ No. 1 narrative for many years as you can see in this Instagram post from 2015.

View this post on Instagram

A post shared by goldberger (@goldberger)

Coming back to collector Reza Rashidian, according to Hodinkee he is “the greatest dive watch collector in the world” and a “Rolex dive-watch super collector”.

Update April 6, 2024
The other day, I found yet another lawyer’s letter in my email junk folder, this time from the Swiss office of the global law firm Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan representing the collector and ex owner of the Rolex ‘Deep Sea Special’ No. 1, Reza Rashidian. Interestingly, Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan has represented Phillips in the past. It is further interesting to note that a physical copy of the letter was sent to my address in Malaysia, an address – notabene – which was only known to Phillips. Breach of data protection anyone? Anyhow, I have a tendency of cutting long stories short for the sake a better readability but it seems Rashidian’s lawyer Remo Decurtins is asking me to elaborate further which of course will make this article even more interesting.

A special thank you to the many watch-collecting lawyers around the globe for their continued support.

According to Rashidian’s lawyer, his client was severly damaged by the failed Christie’s auction which did not even fetch the low estimate of CHF 2 million:

“In fact, our Client was severly damaged by Christie’s failed auction of his Rolex Deep Sea Special No. 1 (the Watch) in November 2021. Naturally, our Client himself was thus not «involved» in any «scheme» or «concerted effort» in relation to the Watch, as your Article falsly insinuates. If anything, our Client as a collector of the Watch was and is a victim if any such «scheme» or «concerted efforts» amongst auction houses, dealers and/or experts existed or exist.”

Severly damaged, meaning the watch should have sold for a much higher amount of money? I hate to break it to you but knowing what we know now, I doubt the watch will ever perform as well as it did in late 2021. The lawyer continues:

“Our Client has been a passionate watch collector for 30 years, focusing on Rolex sports and dive watches. Admittedly, however, he is not an expert in horological forensics. Therefore, when entrusting Christie’s with the sale of his Watch in 2021, he explicitly instructed Christie’s to engage experts to do the necessary searches and investigations into the Watch’s provenance. Later, Christie’s publicly came out with the narrative you detail in your Article (which stunningly differs from Christie’s own nanative for the 2005 auction of the same Watch).”

Well, the narrative Christie’s came out with is identical to what was published in the book ‘ A Journey Into the Deep’ and parroted by Ben Clymer in the October 2019 ‘Talking Watches’ episode with Rashidian. I wonder who briefed Clymer on the story prior to the filming. The letter goes on:

“In any event, Christie’s marketing of the Watch ahead of the November 2021 auction was «confused» (Hodinkee, 14 November 2021). Not least, this also triggered the article «THE REALITIES OF THE ROLEX DEEP SEA SPECIAL NO. 1 AT CHRISTIE’S GENEVA» published by you on 4 November 2021 on https://perezcope.com, i.e., days before the auction (to this day our Client can only speculate what your motivation for publishing said article was – not least given that previously you yourself had promoted the Watch and sold posters depicting the Watch as the one that reached a then record depth of 10,350 ft/3,150m).”

Your client does not need to speculate any further. The reason I published the story four days prior to the auction is because I researched the watch in-depth instead of relying on what established “super scholars” said in the past, which was the reason I erroneously depicted the ‘Deep Sea Special’ No. 1 as the 1953 record watch on my Sea-Dweller timeline, and after learning the truth about the watch, I needed to protect prospective buyers from making bad investment decisions. Next:

“As a result of all of this, the auction failed. The Watch sold for only CHF 1,890,000. This was even below the low estimate of CHF 2,000,000 and by far lower than the offers of several million dollars which our Client indeed had received (our Client does wonder, though, who your «reliable sources» of this non-public information are).”

You say the auction failed but knowing what we know now, and lots of it was already known four days prior to the auction thanks to my first article, the watch fetched an incredible amount of money. Not sure why Rashidian insists his ex-watch is worth much more, when the story that made it so valuable in the first place, has been utterly debunked, the low crystal which was the main feature of this watch is not original and the watch was probably just a paperweight. As for my reliable sources, perhaps your client boasted to too many people about it. Was “don’t reveal your hand” not one of his strategies, as per NYT article?

“These failures by Christie’s to act in a client’s best interest thus resulted in a severe damage to our Client. Further, Christie’s actions and inactions are not what one could expect from an auction house which takes its role as trusted and credible «gatekeeper» of information in the market seriously. In this respect, we agree with the following statement of yours in the Article: «If auction houses are unable to verify the history of a watch, they need to explicitly state so, or even better, do without an unverifiable story altogether».”

Great! Go on:

“Despite the fact that our Client is the victim here and you cannot show any evidence to the contrary, your Article (again, for reasons our Client can only speculate) insinuates that our Client was somehow «involved» in a «scheme» and «concerted effort» in relation to the Watch. Not only is such insinuation totally false as rather the opposite is true (as shown above), such emphasis of the Article on our Client is also unwarranted and unfair. We note that particularly unwarranted and unfair is the defamatory questioning of our Client’s character and integrity in the Article (in particular: «Well, don’t get me started about Rashidian»), while you have never even met our Client and it remains speculative what the basis for any of your alleged knowledge about our Client is, and the defamatory labelling of our Client as «Dullector».”

After all, our Client is a longstanding collector and enthusiast of fine watches, which we are sure you will respect and appreciate. Moreover, as a collector our Client is bound to trust auction houses and experts on their opinions on the Watch. Thereby, unfortunately, it is not always apparent whether such experts truly are independent and not simply «hired guns».

It was never my intention to question your client’s character and integrity and it would be impossible for me to do so anyway as I, as you perfectly stated, never even met him. The purpose of saying “Well, don’t get me started…” was a way to avoid expressing the opinions I have developed about him as a collector and expert of Rolex dive watches over time. After watching his ‘Talking Watches’ episode for the first time in October 2019, my perception of Rashidian was that of a very knowlegeable collector. It was only later, after analyzing some of his watches in-depth, that I started to doubt his knowledge. His lawyer now confirms these impressions by stating that his client is the victim in this whole story, a collector bound to trust auction houses and experts on their opinions. It seems Mr. Rashidian was just repeating what dealers and scholars told him. I could have elaborated on this from the very beginning but chose not to, so as to protect the image he has portrayed of himself as a world leading authority of Rolex dive watches.

---

Realistic Production Date of No. 1

Besides a batch of around 50 commemorative pieces made after 1960 for the purpose of showcasing the feat by authorized dealers and museums, a total of three watches have surfaced so far which are said to have participated in actual deep dives. These three watches have cases with identical dimensions and casebacks engraved with ‘Rolex Oyster Deep Sea Special’ and the corresponding number, namely No. 1, No. 3 and No. 5. The most important one being No. 3, which was presented on September 8, 1960 to the Smithsonian Institution in Washington, D.C., United States, by Rene P. Dentan, chief executive of the American Rolex Watch Corporation, and is said to have been attached to the outside of the bathyscaphe ‘Trieste’ when it descended to the deepest point in the world’s oceans on January 23, 1960. No. 5 was auctioned in the year 2000 by Christie’s, also boldly claiming it was made for the 1953 record dive in the Mediterranean.

Goldberger and other Praetorians of the status quo claim the ‘Deep Sea Special’ No. 1 was made in 1953 but given what we know now, that claim can be put to rest. Sure, the clasps of all three watches seen above are marked with the production date stamp ‘4 53’ which translates to the fourth quarter of 1953. That would be between October and December 1953.

According to some of the articles from 1954 mentioned above, a member of the Rolex staff handed the record watch to Professor Piccard at Castellamare in Italy shortly before the ‘Trieste’ was due to commence diving operations. That took place in early August 1953, probably during the christening of the bathyscaphe ‘Trieste’ which took place on Swiss National Day, August 1, 1953. Here we can already see that a clasp with a production date in the fourth quarter of 1953 does not fit the picture as August is within the third quarter of 1953 and of course, the watch was made earlier anyway. How Goldberger and co conveniently ignored this fact is pretty telling.

The clasp or bracelet production date is one thing, the real production date of a watch another. Back in the day, and to a large extent even today, all parts of a watch were made by specialized companies. It could take months or even years before a watch was fully assembled with pre-fabricated parts. According to Rolex, the very same watch that reached the record depth of 10,334 ft/3,150 m on September 30, 1953, participated also in the 1956 dive to 12,139 ft/3,700 m. It can be assumed the three watches seen above, namely No. 1, No. 2 and No. 3, were not yet built by October 1956, despite the late 1953 production date on the clasp. Rolex simply used older bracelets when they assembled these watches. The cases are considerably more massive than the 1953 record watch (diameter 43 mm vs. 39 mm). There is no doubt in my mind that these three watches, including No. 1, were specifically made for the Mariana Trench dive. But where No. 3 shows clear signs of having spent many hours in deep ocean water (see comparison below), No. 1 is in absolutely pristine condition which leads me to believe, the latter looks rather like a display watch.

Keep in mind, the ‘Deep Sea Special’ No. 3 was also used for record-breaking test dives off Guam (near the Mariana Trench) in preparation for the main dive. These dives took place on November 15, 1959 to 18,150 ft/5,532 m (Piccard and Rechnitzer) and on January 8, 1960 to 24,000 ft/7,315 m (Piccard and Walsh). By examining and comparing the details of these two watches, it stands to reason that the ‘Deep Sea Special’ No. 1 probably never got wet.

Coming back to the production timeline, according to René-Paul Jeanneret, Director of Rolex and marketing genius responsible for most of the Rolex sport watches developed in the early 1950s, the ‘Deep Sea Special’ model that reached the deepest spot on the planet was only developed after hearing the ‘Trieste’ would attempt the ultimate record dive.

“So, when we heard that Professor Piccard was planning to attempt a new descent into the trench of the Mariana Islands in the Pacific, we tried out the experience again, with the same success, with a new model which we called the ‘Abyss watch’.”

Source: The Watch Industry Owes The Conquest of the Ocean Depths to Rolex (watchlibrary.org)

The Marina Trench dive became only a thing after the U.S. Navy acquired the ‘Trieste’ in July 1958. If we take a closer look at the movement of the Rolex ‘Deep Sea Special’ No. 1, we can find a Rolex-specific American import code ‘ROW’ on the balance cock. It becomes evident, this watch was specifically made to be imported to the United States.

Although having a theoretical crush depth of 10 miles, the original Italian-made pressure sphere (Terni) was replaced by a German-made cabin (Krupp) with much thicker walls (3.54 in/90 mm vs. 5 in/127 mm), as the former did not have the required safety margin to attempt the deepest possible dive. The first test dive of the newly assembled ‘Trieste’ took place in late 1958 off San Diego, United States. If we dig into the newspaper archives, the deployment of the bathyscaphe ‘Trieste’ to Guam was first openly reported in early October 1959. Given these dates and Jeanneret’s statement from 1964, it can be assumed the final iteration of the so-called bathyscaphe watch was made between mid 1958 and mid 1959.

---

One More Thing…

Looking at the ‘Deep Sea Special’ No. 1 in detail, one cannot but notice the damaged first link of the spring-loaded rivet Oyster bracelet at 6 o’clock. Not only are the inner link elements consisting of folded metal sheets squashed but also the side cover on the left-hand side has a distinctive nick. This damage makes the bracelet of No. 1 absolutely unique among the three known watches. 

The position and intricacies of the damage can be considered unique as a finger print. During the research for this article, I came across a beautifully illustrated article named ‘La Montre des Abysses‘ published in a 1964 edition of the Europa Star Europe magazine which is basically an interview with Rolex director and marketing genius René-Paul Jeanneret. In it, Jeanneret recounted the development of the dive watch, including the Oyster watches Rolex made for the Italian Navy (Panerai) and the first Submariner prototype from 1951 which he, a passionate diver himself, took down to 165 ft/50 m in an act of great bravery. Of course he also talked about the bathyscaphe watches and how Rolex made two different models, one for the 1953 endavour in the Mediterranean Sea and a new model for the Mariana Trench record dive in 1960. On page 76/77 they published the following picture of one of the bathyscaphe watches.

Source: Abyss Watch, page 76 (watchlibrary.org)

Clearly the watch is one of the later pieces made between 1957 and 1960, but do you notice something else? Look closer… Yes, the first link of the bracelet. It sure looks dented, and in the same place as the one on the ‘Deep Sea Special’ No. 1 too. Let’s compare the damage, shall we? In the following zoom, the dent seems indeed identical. The link is completely messed up, even at the back where the metal sheet is sticking out. Can you see it? It is there as well in the 1964 picture but parts of it appears to have been cut out (a) when the background of the photo was removed by the graphic designer in order to place the watch over the illustration.

Could this be the same watch? But look at the crystal! It is tall as one would expect.

According to contemporary accounts, the crystals of these watches were made of glass (mineral glass?) as plexiglass had proven weak in early prototypes. Looking at the low crystal of the ‘Deep Sea Special’ No. 1 and how beaten up it is with all its scratches, dents and nicks, I am not so sure it is glass. So the question is, was the original glass crystal shortened or was it replaced with a plexiglass crystal?

In contrast, no such dents can be found on the glass crystal of the ‘Deep Sea Special’ No. 3 in the Smithsonian Institute.

If the current crystal of the ‘Deep Sea Special’ No. 1 is indeed plexi, it is almost certainly fake. In the following picture, it sure looks like the domed crystal is not even perfectly rounded. What a hack job!

In 2005, it was apparently stated the ‘Deep Sea Special’ No. 1 was consigned by an old lady whose husband had received the watch from none other than Rolex founder Hans Wilsdorf himself. Yes, the famous old lady, a recurring theme in the sheer inexhaustible repertoire of colourful watch tales. It is the same old lady used car dealers always lie about to make-believe their cars were treated with great care and never pushed to the limit.

“According to a previous owner, this Deep Sea Special was given directly by Hans Wilsdorf to her husband”

Now, Hans Wilsdorf passed away on July 6, 1960, but the article in which the watch was last depicted is from 1964. It looks like thanks to this watch we can now be sure people can indeed rise from the dead. I understand this is not conclusive evidence but it sure is pretty damning.

---

Further Accounts From Early 1954

Watchlibrary.org proved once again to be a real treasure trove when it comes to horological history. I was able to find more comptemporary articles about the real bathyscaphe watch that set the depth record in 1953 and as you will see with your own eyes, it is not the ‘Deep Sea Special’ No. 1.

• Une montre Rolex plonge à 3150 mètres, Journal Suisse d’Horlogerie 1954 (watchlibrary.org)
• A Watch on the Sea Bed, Europa Star Asia, 1954 (watchlibrary.org)

---

Thoughts

The ‘Deep Sea Special’ No. 1 is definitely NOT the 1953 record watch. That is an established fact. It obviously belongs to a later batch made between mid 1958 and mid 1959 with the Mariana Trench dive in mind. But while the other two known watches from said batch feature a tall crystal, No. 1 has a crystal that was either shortened or replaced with a badly made plexi crystal to create, in my opinion, the false 1953 record narrative. The question is, who altered the watch? Interestingly, thanks to the low crystal, the watch became kinda wearable.

It will be interesting to see if the watch blogs that wrote about this watch, actually promoted it, will update their articles following this new revelation. The world of watches is suffering from incredibly unprofessional journalists who, for some reason, never correct their old work. There are dozens of totally outdated articles out there that have never been updated with new findings. For this reason, old myths keep being perpetuated, over and over again. In any other job, this kind of attitude would be totally unacceptable, unthinkable even. Watch journalism needs to grow up if it wants to be taken serious. We cannot continue to make two steps forward and three backwards.

Thank you for your interest. If you like this content, please share it with your fellow watch enthusiasts. If we all work together, we can make away with false myths and bring sanity back to this hobby. It would also be great if you could comment on the linked articles from mainstream watch blogs in order to apply pressure on them to update their content.

---

Disclaimer: All information herein are my own personal views and opinions. I do not accept any responsability for any potential loss suffered due to my said opinions.

---

Related article: ‘Tropical’ Speedmaster 2915-1 – A Record-Breaking OmeGaGa at Phillips