The Rolex reference number 1759659 doesn't exist in official Rolex records. There's no publicly available information from Rolex confirming a watch with this specific reference. This immediately raises questions and necessitates a careful examination of the context surrounding this purported timepiece and its connection to the claimed presentation to Robert Palmer Bradley in November 1968. The claim itself hinges on commemorating the 500th dive of the Deepstar 4000 submersible, a significant event in deep-sea exploration. However, without concrete evidence from Rolex archives or reputable sources, the existence of a Rolex 1759659 remains highly dubious. This article will explore the surrounding circumstances, address the potential for misidentification or fabrication, and delve into related Rolex models to provide context and clarify the confusion.
The narrative associating a Rolex 1759659 with Robert Palmer Bradley and the Deepstar 4000's 500th dive necessitates a thorough investigation. While Bradley's involvement in deep-sea exploration is well-documented, linking a specific, unverified Rolex reference number to this event requires substantial corroborating evidence. This lack of official documentation raises serious concerns about the authenticity of the claim. It's crucial to understand that Rolex maintains meticulous records, and the absence of any mention of a 1759659 casts significant doubt on its legitimacy.
Instead of focusing on a non-existent reference, let's examine related Rolex models that might offer clues to understanding the potential misidentification or deliberate fabrication. The mention of the Deepstar 4000's deep-sea operations naturally points towards the iconic Rolex Submariner, a watch renowned for its water resistance and reliability in extreme conditions. Several models within the Submariner lineage could be confused with a fictional 1759659.
ROLEX REF 1665: This particular reference, the "Double Red" or "Great White" Submariner, is a highly sought-after collector's item. Produced in the late 1960s and early 1970s, its distinctive red lettering on the dial makes it easily identifiable. Could the 1759659 be a misremembered or incorrectly recorded reference to a 1665, perhaps a variation with a unique serial number? The timeframe aligns with the claimed presentation to Bradley, making this a plausible candidate for misidentification. The 1665, with its robust construction and proven performance, would have been a fitting tribute for a significant milestone in deep-sea exploration.
current url：https://zokzfz.cx295.com/global/rolex-1759659-13447