Rolex Deep Sea Special Prototype versus Display Model......

[AndreasS]

Sehr interessant. Danke, Philipp.

[WUM]

spectacular


Gruss


Wum

[JohnRBlade]

First-class report, great information... Thank you

[promnight]

Confirmed my purchase of the 116660...

[ehemaliges mitglied]

Sehr interessant. Danke.

[Döskopp]

Was macht denn dieser Kaffeefahrten-Moderator mit dabei?

[philipp]

Was macht denn dieser Kaffeefahrten-Moderator mit dabei?

Wenn ich mich gut erinnere, ist das der US Rolex marketing Chef

Display Krone & glass, also auch auf deren 50 Jahre Unterwasser Geschichte eine spätere Display DSS, wahrscheinlich no 20 oder 22 ...

[Döskopp]

Ach so. Trotzdem wollte ich von dem nichts kaufen.

[MG964]

Toller Bericht, Philipp

Die Jagd nach den Extremen ist immer wieder faszinierend.

[philipp]

danke EUCH Herzlichst!!

[Prof. Rolex]

Dear Philipp,
many thanks for your nearly scientific report, which I really enjoyed to read. You brought not only light but floodlight into the history of the DSS.

But please allow me to ask one more question: Was the DSS fitted to the Trieste 1953 (diving depth 3150 m) of the same design as the DSS fitted to the diving capsule of 1960 (diving depth 10916 m)? I assume: yes. This would mean, that Rolex designed the DSS already 1953 for withstanding a diving depth of nearly 11000 m, even if the Trieste 1953 “only” went down to 3150 m and there was no bathyscaph available for going down to the Challenger-Deep at that time. Consequently the project Challenger-Deep was then already in their minds beginning of the 50ies.

One remark beside the DSS:
As commonly known, the diving capsule underneath the Trieste was made by the german Fried. Krupp GmbH in Essen. There is a humorous story about the personal inspection of the capsule by Berthold Beitz, who was the general manager of Krupp at that time (today he is 98 and still holding all the power within ThyssenKrupp as president of the main shareholder “Alfried Krupp von Bohlen und Halbach Stiftung” comparable to the “Hans Wilsdorf Stiftung”). When Beitz was inside the capsule one of the Krupp-directors said loudly: “And now close the door, let it sink down and we will see him never again”. But Beitz heard the remark, came out of the capsule, loughed and answered “Wishfull thinking”. You have to know that Beitz was a very modern manager at that time and the old fashioned Krupp-directors found him really “shocking”. Beitz tells this story still today. In my files I have photo of Beitz during the capsule inspection (when I remember it right together with Piccard), which I can scan in case of interest.

Once again many thanks for your remarkable work, Philipp.

Regards
Matthias

[philipp]

Dear Philipp,
many thanks for your nearly scientific report, which I really enjoyed to read. You brought not only light but floodlight into the history of the DSS.

But please allow me to ask one more question: Was the DSS fitted to the Trieste 1953 (diving depth 3150 m) of the same design as the DSS fitted to the diving capsule of 1960 (diving depth 10916 m)? I assume: yes. This would mean, that Rolex designed the DSS already 1953 for withstanding a diving depth of nearly 11000 m, even if the Trieste 1953 “only” went down to 3150 m and there was no bathyscaph available for going down to the Challenger-Deep at that time. Consequently the project Challenger-Deep was then already in their minds beginning of the 50ies.

One remark beside the DSS:
As commonly known, the diving capsule underneath the Trieste was made by the german Fried. Krupp GmbH in Essen. There is a humorous story about the personal inspection of the capsule by Berthold Beitz, who was the general manager of Krupp at that time (today he is 98 and still holding all the power within ThyssenKrupp as president of the main shareholder “Alfried Krupp von Bohlen und Halbach Stiftung” comparable to the “Hans Wilsdorf Stiftung”). When Beitz was inside the capsule one of the Krupp-directors said loudly: “And now close the door, let it sink down and we will see him never again”. But Beitz heard the remark, came out of the capsule, loughed and answered “Wishfull thinking”. You have to know that Beitz was a very modern manager at that time and the old fashioned Krupp-directors found him really “shocking”. Beitz tells this story still today. In my files I have photo of Beitz during the capsule inspection (when I remember it right together with Piccard), which I can scan in case of interest.

Once again many thanks for your remarkable work, Philipp.

Regards
Matthias

MAny Thanks Matthias!!

Was the DSS fitted to the Trieste 1953 (diving depth 3150 m) of the same design as the DSS fitted to the diving capsule of 1960 (diving depth 10916 m)? I assume: yes.

Personally, I don't think so as when we read the first Rolex description we know now that they did test 2 DSS in several test finally waterproof to 600 atmosphere ( Which mean 6000 meter ) and not to 11.000 meter the 1960 dive with Piccard & Walsh was at Challenger Deep.

We see also that AFTER 1953, the Trieste got a new bathyscaphe, capable to 16km, 1.5 times more then the necessary 11km. We also see that the first DSS Proto got a less high glass as the later ones so there's a grey area between the development Rolex did BEFORE 1953 and the final 7 miles down waterproof from 1960 but logically the first DSS that handled 3150 meter is NOT the same as the one that got to 11.000 meter. Soon I'll report more about the changed Rolex design that finally made it to deepest place on earth. As always i'm waiting for responses ( from Smithsonian Institute ) to come to a logic conclusion.



Don Walsh der mir mein 7 Miles Down Buch von Piccard signiert hatt, lätstest JAhr als ich die lebende Legende in Genf begegnete.



gr.Philipp

[Prof. Rolex]

MAny Thanks Matthias!!

Was the DSS fitted to the Trieste 1953 (diving depth 3150 m) of the same design as the DSS fitted to the diving capsule of 1960 (diving depth 10916 m)? I assume: yes.

Personally, I don't think so as when we read the first Rolex description we know now that they did test 2 DSS in several test finally waterproof to 600 atmosphere ( Which mean 6000 meter ) and not to 11.000 meter the 1960 dive with Piccard & Walsh was at Challenger Deep.

We see also that AFTER 1953, the Trieste got a new bathyscaphe, capable to 16km, 1.5 times more then the necessary 11km. We also see that the first DSS Proto got a less high glass as the later ones so there's a grey area between the development Rolex did BEFORE 1953 and the final 7 miles down waterproof from 1960 but logically the first DSS that handled 3150 meter is NOT the same as the one that got to 11.000 meter. Soon I'll report more about the changed Rolex design that finally made it to deepest place on earth. As always i'm waiting for responses ( from Smithsonian Institute ) to come to a logic conclusion.

Very interesting, Philipp. Hopefully you will inform us here at RLX, if you get some more information from the Smithsonian Institute.

In addition please find following a photo from the “Krupp Historical Archive” showing Auguste and Jacques Piccard at the Krupp-Pavillon on the Hannover Fair 1960 together with a special cutted display model of the diving capsule:


(Source: Historisches Archiv Krupp)

And following the side remark in my yesterdays post regarding the capsule inspection by Krupp general manager Berthold Beitz: photo dated April 1959 showing Beitz entering the capsule in the Krupp-factory in Essen:


(Source: Historisches Archiv Krupp)

Regards
Matthias

[philipp]

Just to inform you here properly, i've found another puzzle in the DeepSea Saga as I just received a email from the Curator of Maritime History, National Museum of American History, Smithsonian Institution. My logic question for my research to Mr. Paul F. Johnston was, which number had been engraved on the case back of their White dialed Rolex DeepSea Special Prototype version thats on display in Washington and we see below.

"Dear Mr. Stahl,

The engraving on the back of our Rolex:

ROLEX OYSTER / NO. 3 / DEEP SEA SPECIAL

I'd be grateful for any information you could provide as to the significance of this, and how it fits into the bigger picture of deep sea Rolex watches.

Best wishes,

Paul F. Johnston, Ph.D. Curator of Maritime History, National Museum of American History, Smithsonian Institution. "


I explained that their Rolex DDS is a Prototype, much more rare & important in general then the later, after 1960, made Display version of the DSS. Besides that, we only know of 3 early prototypes of which the Smithsonian is the only one having the experimental white dial.

Rgrds.Philipp

[philipp]

Another discovery I made today as I found a picture of the case back from the, imho, earliest Rolex Display Version that already where engraved with 10908 Meter & 35789 Feet dated 23.1.1960 with No. 9. So logically we know now that maximum of 8 Proto DSS have been made as with No 9, the Displays started!



rg.Philipp

[philipp]

Since we know there are only 2 X Proto DSS prepared by Rolex for the 1953 to 3.150 meter dive by comparing the hight of the glasses of No 1, No 3 and No 5 we can now come to the conclusion that DSS No 1 (+ No 2) was made for the 1953 dive with a much LOWER glass, lets call it the DSS mk1, then from the DSS No 3 and No 5, that logically got updated by Rolex engineers AFTER 1953 with the much HIGHER glass to withstand the new challenge for 1960, to a depth of 10.908 meters. This last Proto DSS or MK2 became the example to replicate for the later DSS Displays, that started with No 9.



Conclusion: The DSS No 1 has been to 3.150 meter in 1953 and not to 10.908 meter in 1960 & From DSS No 3 it's possible to withstand the extreme pressure of Challenger Deep Piccard & Walsh managed in '60.

[Prof. Rolex]

Dear Philipp,
thanks for your once again excellent information.

If the only difference between the 1953-DSS and the 1960-DSS is the design of the glass, then the case of the 1953-DSS was already able to withstand the 1960 dive depth. Or were there also some changes on the case design (on your photos I don´t see any case differences) or may be the material for the case was different in 1960 (e.g. alloy specification with higher yield strength)?

A really very interesting and exciting topic.....

Regards
Matthias

[WUM]

...one question...how is the glas fixed ??? standart as any with the outer ring??


Gruss


Wum

[adriano22]

Hallo Wum ! Auf der Seite www.rolexblog.blogspot.com sah ich einmal eine technische Zeichnung dieser Uhr. Diese Zeichnung würde deine Frage umgehend beantworten ! Aber ich finde sie nicht mehr, suche weiter.........

Adriano22

[siebensieben]

Boah, super Bericht, vielen Dank!!!