Talk:Rolex

Significant events in Rolex history

Chuck Yeager broke the sound barrier in 1947 wearing a Rolex.

http://rolex.watchprosite.com/show-nblog.post/ti-412671/

http://www.rolexforums.com/showthread.php?t=32749

Aldo L (talk) 02:30, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Not posted recently but I intend to change the assertion that Hillary wore a Rolex on Everest as it is simply not the case. Hillary wore a 'Smiths Delux' which is on permanent exhibition at His Sherpa, Tenzing Norgay rather famously wore both a Rolex Oyster(given to him for the failed assault on Everest by Raymond Lambert the previous year and a Smiths given to him for the expedition led by John Hunt of 1953 which, of course, succeeded. As a result of this Smiths went on to produce a watch called the 'Everest' while Rolex renamed the style of Oyster worn by Norgay the 'Explorer'. They have been implying that they were the watch sponsor of the exhibition ever since. They were not, Smiths were. Sadly, Smiths watches ceased to exist in the seventies and so are no longer in a position to defend themselves. —Preceding unsigned comment added by EasyCheese (talk • contribs) 08:18, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Please do so only if you find a reliable source asserting this per our policy of WP:RS. I reverted the edit as uncited and unverified. See also WP:V for verifiability of claims. Dr.K. logos 15:24, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Ok, as I said, the watch resides at the Clockmaker's Company Museum in London. Now, as it stands, you have accepted an unreferenced magazine article as evidence. so I assume that a bulletin board article about visiting said museum complete with a verifying photograph will do for a start: http://www.tz-uk.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=60537&start=0&st=0&sk=t&sd=a I assume you know the difference between a Rolex Oyster and a Smiths Delux and will be able to authenticate this.

Secondly, there is this paragraph from: "The best of time, Rolex wrist watches" by James M. Dowling and Jeffrey P. Hess, Schiffer Publishing Ltd, ISBN 0-7643-0011-3 reproduced here: http://www.xs4all.nl/~rkeulen/watch/explorer.html in which Downling states that:

"While it is true that many of the members of the successful Everest expedition were issued with Rolex watches (see the advertisement on page 243), the embarrassing fact for Rolex was that only one of the two climbers at the top was wearing a Rolex. This watch, worn by Tenzing Norgay, is now in the Rolex Museum in Geneva. Although Rolex was an official supplier to the Everest expedition, so was the English watch company Smith's and Edmund Hilary chose to wear a Smith's watch (see the advertisement below). In the end it was the Rolex publicity machine that triumphed."

I assume that, this is enough evidence, when compared with a magazine article with no citations. Obviously, you can, if you wish, buy the book or visit the museum for hard verification. As it stands, your entry on Everest is demonstrably factually incorrect due to commercially driven revisionism by Rolex SA. I will leave the revision, or not, to you.

It is a pity, that I am reminded why, shortly after starting to contribute, I stopped. Maybe I'll try again in a few years.

From The article: Everest: A Pinnacle of Achievement for Rolex...By John E. Brozek InfoQuest Publishing, Inc., 2004 International Watch Magazine, April 2004 at: [1] and [2]

It’s worth mentioning that some members of the 1953 expedition were pictured wearing two watches—one on each wrist. With that being said, it is possible that Hillary also wore a Rolex on the expedition, but simply wore the Smiths during the summit leg of the climb. Others believe he may have worn both to the summit or that he possibly wore a Rolex while he simply “carried” the Smiths in his pocket. Whatever the case, it has remained a mystery to this day, and it is not likely that we will ever know for certain.

So the situation is unclear. We may have to reflect this in the article. As to your remark regarding retiring, I would advise not to get discouraged. People can communicate. There is no problem most of the time. Take care. Dr.K. logos 23:44, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough. Thank you for making the changes made so far

Here is some more detail. From 1953 onwards, Hillary was retained by Rolex and given a Rolex watch and made public statements such as: 'I count my Rolex watch amongst my most treasured possessions'. Significantly, what he did not say was: I wore a Rolex on the summit. However, as is referenced in this internet site: http://www.qualitytyme.net/pages/rolex_articles/everest.html (again, from the Brozak article, see para seven) he says of the Smiths in aseries of adverts at the time:“I carried your watch to the summit. It worked perfectly.” Given that he was employed by Rolex as an Ambassador, he would have made it clear that he had been wearing a Rolex if he had. He didn't. The claim that Rolex equipped the 1953 Hunt expedition is again revisionism. They did equip the 1952 Lambert expedition in which Lambert and Norgay got to within 200M of the summit. Norgay made a point of showing off his two watches as they were evidence of the fact that he had been the lead Sherpa on both the '52 and 53 expeditions.

So, there is solid evidence that Hillary wore a Smiths. It is in a London museum, there is also evidence that Norgay wore both a Smiths and a Rolex. However, there is no evidence whatsoever that Hillary wore a Rolex until he was given one by Rolex after the event. Had he worn one on Everest he would have stated so while writing publicity material for Rolex; he did not. In leaving the revision as it stands you are surely going well beyond the facts available. You do not state that he may have worn a Seiko because there is no evidence he didn't. Why extend this only to Rolex? —Preceding unsigned comment added by EasyCheese (talk • contribs) 08:39, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

I understand your arguments about what Hillary was wearing at the summit. However we cannot use our own deductions to infer what happened. We have to use the conclusions presented in the magazine article. Using our own logic would be WP:OR (original research) and more specifically WP:SYNTH (synthesis of published material). The threshold of inclusion in Wikipedia is WP:VERIFIABILITY not truth as is explicitly stated in the policy. Dr.K. logos 14:16, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

So, to fulfil these criteria, do I need to prove that he wore a Smiths Delux watch or do I need to prove that he didn't wear a Rolex? (and presumably a Seiko, Cyma, Omega and so on?)

I have found a reference to it in the UK broadsheet newspaper the Independent :

http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/time-bandits-1114883.html

(paragraph 13)

"Edmund Hillary's sidekick, Tenzing Norgay, wore a Rolex Explorer on the summit of Everest (Hillary himself wore a boring old Smith's)."

Carrying on:

The penultimate page of the catalogue of the Clockmaker's museum contains both a photograph of Hillary's Smiths and text describing its use on Everest. Hillary's Smiths in the Exhibition has been photographed by a number of contributor to online watch forums, here:

http://www.rolexforums.com/showthread.php?t=81956

about half way down the thread

and here:

http://www.tz-uk.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=60537&start=0&st=0&sk=t&sd=a

In addition, the watch history and publication of this information on the museum catalogue can be confirmed by contacting:

http://www.clockmakers.org/index_files/page0002.htm

Short of inviting you to go to the museum and check I really don't see what more I can say.

More to the point,returning to the paragraphs that we have referred to already, I am unclear as to why they push you towards the conclusion you reached.

"In fact, the Rolex worn by Tenzing to the summit wasn’t an Explorer at all, but rather a stainless steel Bubbleback on a simple leather strap given to him by his longtime friend and fellow climber Raymond Lambert and currently on display in Geneva at Rolex headquarters. Hillary, on the other hand (no pun intended), apparently wore a watch from the English company Smiths (A.409 15 jewels. 28mm.), which he endorsed in a series of brief advertisements, as follows: “I carried your watch to the summit. It worked perfectly.” It is important to note that Hillary also wrote endorsements for Rolex after the 1952 expedition, including the following: “Its accuracy is all one could desire and it has run continuously without winding ever since I put it on some nine months ago… I count your watch amongst my most treasured possessions.”

Note that the author concedes clearly that Hillary wore a Smiths Delux. He then goes on to hypothesise. The book is about Rolex and he is clearly trying to do nothing more than speculate a case for Hillary also wearing a Rolex. Given that he implies: 'Hillary also wrote endorsements for Rolex after the 1952 expedition' that Hillary wrote his endorsement immediately after the expedition when in fact it was some years later.

"It’s worth mentioning that some members of the 1953 expedition were pictured wearing two watches—one on each wrist. With that being said, it is possible that Hillary also wore a Rolex on the expedition, but simply wore the Smiths during the summit leg of the climb. Others believe he may have worn both to the summit or that he possibly wore a Rolex while he simply “carried” the Smiths in his pocket. Whatever the case, it has remained a mystery to this day, and it is not likely that we will ever know for certain."

So, we have a watch currently in a museum with two independent verifications, with photographs, a published catalogue in which this exhibit is referred to, with a photograph and an e-mail address to confirm that the Smiths Delux worn by Hillary on Everest resides in the Museum. On the other hand we have a Rolex hagiography in which the author concedes that Hillary wore a Smiths in one paragraph, before a highly speculative 'just so story' as to how he may have worn a Rolex in the next.

I am sorry that I am being quite so implacable. I hope that this standard of evidence is now acceptable. Cheers, Matt. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.86.42.113 (talk) 17:53, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

No need to apologise. But I have a few citations of my own:

• New York University Stern School of Business: Sir Edmund Hillary wore a Rolex when he climbed Mt. Everest in 1953. The watch became the key instrument to measure time at sporting events.
• The Rolex exhibit including Hillary's 1953 expedition Rolex,
• The art of digital branding from Google books: Quote: Sir Edmund Hillary took his Rolex to the summit of Mount Everest Page 170 Title The Art of Digital Branding Author Ian Cocoran Edition illustrated Publisher Allworth Communications, Inc., 2007 ISBN 1581154887, ISBN 9781581154887 Length 255 pages.
• National Geographic Gear: Best Adventure Watches Rolex Oyster Perpetual Explorer II The Rolex Oyster Perpetual Explorer II ($3,800; www.rolex.com) is the durable, water-resistant, self-winding sequel to the mountaineering watch originally created for Sir John Hunt, the leader of the 1953 expedition that put Tenzing Norgay and Sir Edmund Hillary on top of Everest.
• Business Montres ENCORE UNE LÉGENDE HORLOGÈRE QUI VACILLE : tous les « bons » journalistes horlogers vont vous le jurer la main sur le cœur : la Rolex Explorer tire son nom du fait qu'elle a été portée au sommet de l'Everest par sir Edmund Hillary, en 1953. Google Translation: "STILL A LEGEND WHO WATCHES Vacille: all the "good" journalists will watch you swear hand on heart, the Rolex Explorer gets its name because it has been brought to the summit of Everest by Sir Edmund Hillary in 1953. Rolex lui avait rendu un hommage ultérieur en lui dédiant cette Explorer. Rolex had delivered a tribute to him later in dedicating this Explorer."

Not to make too fine a point out of this I think there is reasonable doubt that we can as a minimum agree to disagree. And remember, blogs and forums are not considered reliable sources. Cheers. Dr.K. logos 01:36, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure that a newspaper advert for a small jewellers store in the US carries the same weight as an exhibit featured in the catalogue of the guild museum of the oldest watch and clockmaking guild in the world. More to the point, If this jewellers had really had had access to Hillary's Rolex, then where is it now and why is there no reference to it's final resting place

However, I can see that, if all evidence is of equal value, we are indeed deadlocked. Is all evidence of equal value? As for the forum entries, I included them because both had photographs Bold textof the Smiths Delux in the museum. not for the accompanying text.

However, given that this is your decision, I think the very least you can do is reflect the fact that there is a wealth of evidence, including his own words, that Hillary did wear a Smiths Delux on the summit of Everest. This, at least would be a satisfactory compromise that accurately reflects your decision that we 'agreeing to disagree'. What you also say about his putative Rolex is entirely up to you.

At some point, I will visit the museum, buy a catalogue and photograph it for your consideration. I assume that would be satisfactory? —Preceding unsigned comment added by EasyCheese (talk • contribs) 09:15, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

No, please. I never meant to put you to such labour. I don't dispute your well taken points about the Smiths. I just feel that the evidence is not conclusive that he did not have a Rolex with him at the top as well as a Smiths. Therefore I just left it as unclear in the article, just because I accepted your arguments and your evidence. Let me see if this can be rephrased. And please, do visit the museum, but on your own accord and not for evidence purposes :) Thanks again and take care. Tasos (Dr.K. logos 16:27, 3 August 2009 (UTC))

Thanks, I do understand that, once an assertion of this sort has been made, it is hard to disconfirm. However, I just felt it was unfair that Smiths, the very last English watchmakers, should not have what was effectively their swansong recognised. The same problem exists with Omega, Rolex, Bulova and Waltham on the moon. I guess there is just too much at commercial stake not to try and claim such things.

Cheers,

Matt —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.86.42.113 (talk) 19:39, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Thank you as well for your well made arguments. They gave me an opportunity to expand my knowledge about an area of watch history I had very little idea about. I had never heard of Smiths Delux before. It was a very interesting and sad story, since the company no longer exists, and I commend you for pursuing it. I am not aware about the controversy involving Omega, Rolex, Bulova and Waltham. I'll look it up, thanks for the pointer. Take care for now and it was very nice meeting you. Cheers. Tasos (Dr.K. logos 03:04, 4 August 2009 (UTC))

Stores world-wide: List Removal

Rolex does have hundreds of authorized dealers all over the world. I do not understand what the point is in picking random cities to illustrate the point. I think this list should be removed as it serves no purpose. Gentleman wiki (talk) 04:34, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Addition of non-notable websites to Rolex watch articles

I have been removing a number of blogs, auction image galleries and other non-notable commercial/auction/retail websites from articles dealing with high-end watches, including this one. These websites do not, and will not, meet WP:RS, and those that are being used to source "celebrity" sections will never meet the stringent WP:BLP. If there's a website that is a well-known, documented authority on Rolex watches, then please discuss it here, not do not add it to the main article or use it to source content. Flowanda | Talk 05:08, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Celebrity/current trivia

The section of "famous owners" is nothing more than a trivia section detailing unsourced or poorly sourced listings of celebrity owners. Just because there's a mention, photograph, sale or auction connecting a Rolex with a celebrity does not mean the information needs to be listed in this article, especially when the source is a commercial website or a blog. Adding this kind of trivia has been discussed here and elsewhere (see Talk:Omega SA, for instance), and I could find no similar articles with the kind of insignificant lists that are currently infesting Rolex-related articles. Flowanda | Talk 09:09, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Most of the poorly/unsourced information included in the section "Significant events" should also be reviewed and either edited or removed. Flowanda | Talk 09:49, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Notable Owners - Rolex Submariner

There are several notable errors in the entry regarding James Bond's Rolex Submariner. Perhaps they could be corrected or rephrased.

"The Rolex Submariner has appeared in eleven James Bond movies as well as in the original books and was also worn by Bond creator, spy and author Ian Flemming."

James Bond does wear a Submariner in some of the films but in the books it is referred to only as a Rolex. Its type is never identified. The Submariner was not even produced until after the first novel was published. Ian Fleming wore an Explorer I, not a Submariner.

http://www.jamesbondwatches.com/refs/WatchTime2009Feb.pdf —Preceding unsigned comment added by BearAllen (talk • contribs) 03:54, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Personally I think the whole section has to go. I'm not a trivia fan. But to the extent that it remains you are welcome to make the changes yourself. Thank you for the suggestion. Take care. Dr.K.^praxis_logos 03:57, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Actually I agree. It strikes me an encyclopedia isn't the place to discuss the image associated with a commercial product and the article should be limited to the history and nature of the company. The 'facts', as it were. More ethereal elements of the brand's appeal are perhaps better left to forums and fansites.

I've never contributed to Wiki before and didn't feel comfortable arbitrarily altering someone's article. I just got drawn in by reading the rather bizarre exchange above concerning Rolex as a synonym for spam. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.106.28.52 (talk) 11:44, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

I completely agree with your comments above about what should be included in the article. Concerning the editing of the article, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia which can be edited by anyone, so please feel free to edit the article. As far as the discussion about Rolex as a synonym for spam, I can only say that I took part in it and sometimes I just couldn't believe what I was reading during the exchanges. Your characterisation of it as "bizarre" comes close to describing the type of some of the arguments. Nice meeting you and thanks for your well-taken points. Take care. Dr.K.^praxis_logos 16:19, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

I may tinker with some of the details (and punctuation...) when I get a moment, although I don't really know what's considered good form. Should one announce edits first?

Yes, it was an eye-opening exchange. Rather the sort of thing which has people questioning the reliability of Wiki as a reference source, if such people are contributing. I'm sure it's not good form to question the intelligence or mental health of an editor, but some of his comments did make one wonder....

Regards. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.106.28.52 (talk) 16:54, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

No need to announce your edits, at least most of the time. Just go ahead and add your information. If you plan something really major as deleting a whole section then it may be advisable to provide some notice. Otherwise as long as you can supply information supported by citations you should be ok. As for the latter part of your comments you are right insofar as it is not a good idea to comment on contributors but rather on their contributions. It is part of an effort to keep the discussion free from personality issues and focus on content issues. Take care for now. Dr.K.^praxis_logos 20:20, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Many thanks. Although I think the entire section should probably go (strikes me as being just fluff) I restricted myself to removing three demonstrably untrue claims - that Fleming was a spy, that Fleming wore a Submariner, and that the literary character James Bond wore a Submariner - and left the sentence intact. —Preceding unsigned comment added by BearAllen (talk • contribs) 02:12, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Dealing with trivia in Rolex#Notable owners section

Most of the items listed in the "Notable owners" section are unsourced trivial mentions about celebrities and should be removed unless a significant connection can be made and agreeable decent, non-commercial, non-fansite/forum/blog/auction source meeting WP:RS are found. I moved a few items to the top of the list that appear to be more than "sightings", but, in my opinion, everything after the Daniel Craig item should be removed. Other articles (Omega SA, Panerai) have removed similar trivia lists and instead have incorporated discussions of notable owners and pop culture uses into the relevant sections, which makes for a much more interesting article than a bunch of sections listing product types and hype. Flowanda | Talk 03:38, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree completely. Dr.K.^praxis_logos 05:14, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

I quite agree. Simply reeling off lists of random facts (of highly dubious nature) has no place in an encyclopaedia. It turns the aticle into a fanblog. BearAllen (talk) 14:37, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

I (reluctantly) agree with Flowanda that "everything after the Daniel Craig item should be removed", although I hold my hands up that I am a fan of interesting trivia, but feel that it should be remembered that Plácido Domingo and Franco Zeffirelli are both regarded by Rolex as 'Rolex Ambassadors'. Perhaps they should be included in the remaining list... Captainclegg (talk) 15:29, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

When you say that two people "are both regarded by Rolex as 'Rolex Ambassadors'", do you mean that Rolex pays them to advertise its watches, or something else? If you do mean the former, it's not immediately obvious to me why an encyclopedia should list who's paid to advertise what. -- Hoary (talk) 15:55, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

To the best of my knowledge, the relationship between Rolex (and many other watch brands) and their 'ambassadors' is the same as that between Nike and Tiger Woods or Roger Federer - they are paid to wear their kit and appear in marketing material. Unless it's included in an element of the article about their marketing strategy, or their place in the market, I don't see how it's relevant. 91.106.50.24 (talk) 12:21, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

I have removed the entry "Air Force Captain Chris Pappas wears an oyster perpetual datejust." from 'Notable Owners'. It links to an article about Eastenders. It appears to be vandalism. BearAllen (talk) 19:22, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Good call. This is exactly the reason why in such lists we must not allow entries to be added without inline citations. Dr.K.^praxis_logos 20:54, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

I think there are only two sources quoted in the entire section, and they're pretty questionable. I'd be happy to get rid of the whole thing, but I think the previously suggested idea of dumping everything below Daniel Craig would be a good compromise if other people agree? BearAllen (talk) 12:27, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Can I put in a plea that the Steve McQueen watch auction be included? http://www.thetimetv.com/news-steve-mcqueen-vintage-rolex-sells-for-234,000-antiquorum-auction-856-32 It goes to show that a good watch + connection to a bona fide star = a LOT of money. Captainclegg (talk) 12:58, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

That's only about two thirds the price that a used glove can go for. We can interpret this kind of thing in any of various ways; as for me, I waver between (a) "Some people are very rich indeed and are nuts" and (b) "Some people are very rich indeed and have calculated that others who are even richer are nuts." Well, lots of rich people fetishize dead stars and their appurtenances; I don't know what this shows about watches. -- Hoary (talk) 14:02, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

I would suggest that it shows that Rolexs's and certainly Rolex's connected with an A-list star, are highly collectable and sort after! And if I had the money, I would certainly do the same, nuts or not , as I may be! Captainclegg (talk) 18:20, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

I think you're going to have trouble showing the distinction between the appeal of Rolex and the appeal of Steve McQueen. Rolex are noted both for their high second hand values and for the strong vintage market. You may be able to wrap the McQueen bit into a section about that, but otherwise it seems like another random fact. BearAllen (talk) 23:54, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia doesn't allow "original synthesis", but perhaps on some other website somebody who is demonstrably both (i) trained in statistical methods and (ii) disinterested could analyze the prices of

1. used Rolex watches that weren't owned by slebs
2. used Rolex watches that were owned by slebs
3. used non-Rolex watches that weren't owned by slebs
4. used non-Rolex watches that were owned by slebs

and infer something from the results. Till that happens, there's little that can be said in Wikipedia. -- Hoary (talk) 00:36, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Adding trivia will not improve this article, I don't think. Rolex has an interesting history, and a long and fine record of technological innovation. Expanding/improving these areas should be the priority. They are, essentially, the things which should be detailed by an encyclopaedia.

Whilst any article about Rolex (and the same could be said of Rolls Royce, for instance, and perhaps a few other brands) which ignored their associations - luxury, status symbol, etc - would be missing an important aspect, such ethereal things as 'image' need to be dealt with in a more delicate and sophisticated manner than merely inconsistently listing arbitrarily chosen anecdotes about random celebrities who may or may not have once worn a Rolex, and may or may not have been paid to do so.

Even at its best, this method is assuming the reader shares the writer's opinion of the celebrity, and that the information speaks for itself - person X wears/wore a Rolex, person X is ultra chic, ergo Rolex and Rolex wearers associate with that chic. The reader may have little or no opinion of the sleb, quite a different view of them, or may not have heard of them at all. The 'fact' becomes as irrelevant as whether you or I wear one. BearAllen (talk) 13:50, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

I've just now removed the following unsourced trivia:

• Cuban revolutionary Che Guevara wore a stainless steel Rolex GMT Master.
• Cuban President Fidel Castro wears two, a stainless steel Rolex GMT Master and an 18ct gold Rolex Day-Date, on the same wrist.
• Thor Heyerdal, the Norwegian anthropologist, wore a Rolex Submariner during his 1970 Ra II sea expedition.
• Actor Tom Selleck wore a stainless steel Rolex GMT Master (as 'Thomas Magnum') in the eponymous TV show Magnum P.I..
• Actor Daniel Craig, in spite of the Omega product placement in the current Bond movies, continues to wear a vintage Rolex Daytona and a customised Rolex Submariner in real life.
• Musician Eric Clapton has a Rolex Submariner named in his honour: the Rolex Red Submariner.
• Tour de France cyclist Lance Armstrong wears a stainless steel Rolex GMT Master II, as does four-time NASCAR Winston Cup champion and three-time Daytona 500 winning racing driver Jeff Gordon.
• Musician Phil Collins wears a platinum Rolex Yacht-Master.
• Opera singer Plácido Domingo wears an 18ct gold Rolex GMT Master.
• Film director Franco Zeffirelli wears an 18ct gold Rolex Day-Date.
• French President Nicolas Sarkozy wears a Rolex Daytona with a black dial, as does actress Sharon Stone.
• Actor Dustin Hoffman wears a gold and stainless steel Rolex GMT Master II.
• Actor Steve McQueen's Rolex Submariner (ref 5513) was auctioned in 2007 for £146,600 (US$243,000).

I've left the trivia that looks as if its sourced. -- Hoary (talk) 14:40, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

I've removed the following:

• Actor Paul Newman wore a customised version of the Rolex Daytona (known as the Paul Newman Daytona) up until his death in 2008, the wristwatch having been given to him by his wife, Joanne Woodward, when he took up motor racing in 1972.

If you click on the link, you'll read that it is said that this is true. There's a footnote for the assertion that this is said. However, the footnote makes no sense. So we have a meaningless footnote for an assertion that it is said that Paul Newman got such and such a watch from the missus at such and such a time -- no wonder Wikipedia is widely regarded as a joke. -- Hoary (talk) 14:44, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

It's now down to two trivia items. One of them states that model such and such is called "Pussy Galore". No indication who calls it so -- dealers? denizens of message forums? It's linked to some collector's page that baldly states the same thing. No evidence, no reasoning, no argument. But perhaps others among you are impressed by such "sourcing". Comments? -- Hoary (talk) 14:50, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

I'd vote for getting rid of the lot. It now resembles a Bond section.

Also, I've just noticed the 'source' for the pricing section links to a second hand watch dealer. This seems inappropriate (and actually quite ridiculous) when used to establish the price of new watches. BearAllen (talk) 14:56, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

And when does consensus come in on Wikipedia? The discussion that I had been reading (above) seemed to be agreeing that "everything after the Daniel Craig item should be removed", but here we have an editor (Hoary) who has taken it on themselves to just edit the lot regardless. Seems not in the spirit of Wiki. Incidentally, there are many photos of both Che and Castro wearing their aforementioned watches and they are undoubtedly 'notable' persons. Berettagun (talk) 15:03, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Oh yes, they're notable people. If a number of people really believe that Che and Fidel's choice of wristwatch is significant, then this trivia can go back into the article, if evidence for it is cited. I'd be surprised if photos of either leader showed his wristwatch in such detail as to distinguish it from an an Omega or an Oris or a Fortis or a Zenith or a Cyma or a whatever, but if such photos exist then let's have the links to them. -- Hoary (talk) 15:14, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Che's Rolex GMT watch detail (rather first-hand source, excuse the pun!): http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/JFKroderiguez.htm and photo detail: http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_Cv-0TBEhWVE/SSlr9d8pBoI/AAAAAAAAGTE/1ylbSj8QkLI/s400/CheLrg.jpg And the consensus issue...? Berettagun (talk) 15:26, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

That's not detail. It's a sharp rendition of the side of some watch or other. It's certainly unlike the watch I'm wearing now. Maybe it's a Rolex. Who knows? On consensus: well, it's a matter of consensus on interpretation of the policies. Here's a relevant policy. Look, here, by contrast to this hodgepodge on Rolex, is an article that has been occupying me this week. As it happens, the article has only been edited by me so far, so in its current, prevandalized state you see my understanding of Wikipedia. (Of course I hope that others will join in and improve it.) Everything in it is sourced. It also dispenses with trivia: the man's choice of camera is far more important to his achievements than Che's choice of wristwatch was for his; but since I'm quite sure he could have taken much the same photos whichever brand of 35mm camera he used, I didn't bother to look for this information. -- Hoary (talk) 15:46, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

The photo shows a watch and the accompanying article, from the man who stole it from Che's body after cutting his hands off, clearly says that it is a Rolex. But you seem to have become Judge & Jury on this article, so over to you. Debates and consensus I enjoy, but I cannot be bothered to get into a pointless argument about the merits of information versus the different expectations of readers. Berettagun (talk) 15:55, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

If I may interject, from this photo, it is not conclusive at all that the watch is a Rolex. And even if it were this is still a primary source. We need a reliable secondary source to verify this is a Rolex. A simple photo, inconclusive one at that, just won't cut it. Dr.K.^praxis_logos 20:44, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, looking at the photo, I overlooked the article, which clearly says that CG had a Rolex, stolen by the CIA spook. So I've reintroduced this particular tidbit, with source. -- Hoary (talk) 00:10, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Hoary. No problem at all. If we have a WP:RS to cover Che's Rolex we don't have any arguments. Take care. Dr.K.^praxis_logos 00:48, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, as I had originally said... QED. Berettagun (talk) 12:28, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps more important than whether or not we can prove certain people wore a Rolex, is whether or not it's important? I'd like to hear some kind of argument for why it improves people's knowledge of Rolex to be told that Thomas Magnum P.I. and Placido Domingo wore their watches. Without elaboration, what does it tell anyone beyond the fact that people need to know the time? —Preceding unsigned comment added by BearAllen (talk • contribs) 13:47, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Because it goes to show the perceived status of the watch and I submit if you argue that any watch is just to tell the time (or any car is just to get from a to b, or clothes are just to cover your nakedness) then almost the entire encyclopaedia can be reduced to a single line per entry: "Rolex: a Swiss watch used to tell the time". Please don't dismiss peoples interest in items of glamour and their iconic status symbol. Although you may have absolutely no interest in an addendum, this does not mean that everyone else has the same degree of lack of interest. It is up to the reader to dismiss (or otherwise) information. A good encyclopaedia should supply too much info, not too little based on a single editors whim. Captainclegg (talk) 14:26, 6 December 2009 (UTC)