The first digital LED wristwatch

[dot matrix]

I will be abstaining from this poll.

In spite of the fact that I run this forum, I don't really know the details, but here is my take on it:

I believe that Roger Riehl was the first person to come up with the idea of a digital watch using an electronic light-based display. I believe he had the first working design, and the first working watch. If you were to go back in time to 1969, there would be only one electronic digital watch on the planet: It would be an early verson of the Synchronar and it would be on Roger's wrist.

But I think that Pulsar publicly announced a product first, came to market first, was in the public eye first, and was mass-producing a saleable working watch first.

There is much evidence and discussion either way - be sure to check out the other threads in this "Debate" subforum and in the Synchronar and Pulsar forums before voting.

[The Time Computer]

As the owner and webmaster of oldpulsars.com, with respect to Dot Matrix, I will also refrain from voting.

I have stated many times elsewhere that I have researched this very subject, in detail, for many years. I found all evidence leads to the Hamilton prototype Led watch (that later became known as the Pulsar) to be the first. All historical documents and testimonies as well as every respected publication in both the science and technology fields give credit to the Hamilton. None of these entities consider any prior dates for any research and development by any persons contributing to the Hamilton project as fact for the record. Also many patents may make claim to different pieces of the pie but the first completed documented LED Digital watch was built at the Hamilton Watch Co. plant in Lancaster, PA. I base this on documented factual information, not on personal conversation with any of the inventors or R&D personal. The only watch that can ?Legally? make a claim to this is the Hamilton. Back in time, every manufacture of LED watches in the world paid royalties to Hamilton, this may be the most significant proof there is!

As the claim made for the Synchronar is based on the inventor?s statements that he was working on his prototype before the May 6th 1970 release date for the Hamilton, no consideration was given to anyone on the R&D team for the Hamilton. It would be inconceivable to think the Hamilton watch was created over night!

[Synchroserious]

Wrong again sir. It is based on live humans accounts that were there long before you had any desire to do any real research. If you had it your way people would think the Synchronar first happened in "74" and there is no proof of his early work.Sorry If this is misconstrued as me being argumentitive, I am only defending the truth.If you or anyone really wanted to do any research on early led stuff, you would have done something like contacting my father and now I am here with my # listed and PM here at the forum works to. I also can be contacted at riehl_synchronar_2100@yahoo.com Have nice day.

[collector]

In the old days of Dodge City (old western cowboy town) the issue of who was right (oops I meant first) would have been fast settled with a pair of six shooters. The loser would have been buried in Cemetery Hill with their boots (oops I meant LED watch) on and no more would have been said.

Only way this debate will really be ended!!!!

[Lordpulsar]

Common sense would say that it was "highly probable" both inventors (Reihl & Electro Data) were working on prototypes at similar times.. I want to ask this?. Howard, did your father ever pay royalties to Hamilton for his LED watches ?? If not, why didn?t they go after him for copyright?? If he didn?t pay, it seems strange that Hamilton didn?t pursue him over this!

[your_man_in_Hamburg]

I would go one step further. There were probably at least half a dozen electronic digital watches trashing about on different workbenches here and there in the US. Only a select few of the originators took the hobby project one step further and made a product out of it.

[dot matrix]

Common sense would say that it was "highly probable" both inventors (Reihl & Electro Data) were working on prototypes at similar times..

Probably, but I suspect it was something Roger had been working on for a much longer time.

I want to ask this?. Howard, did your father ever pay royalties to Hamilton for his LED watches ?? If not, why didn?t they go after him for copyright?? If he didn?t pay, it seems strange that Hamilton didn?t pursue him over this!

I would think it's the other way around. Hamilton should have been paying Roger Riehl for their use of designs taken from his patent.

[Synchroserious]

A completely SOLID STATE ELECTRONIC WRISTWATCH has always been the development dream of every electronically oriented person


the above is on page 1 and is the second sentence of the 1970 Riehl Electronics annual report. You may have to squint your eyes a bit ,but it is there at the photos from the Riehl private collection that Fronz posted a while back.
So atleast we can all realize that there were certainly others thinking and or dreaming of the possibility and we know that,s not patentable.There probably was people giving it it a shot,but never succeeded with working prototypes and gave up.[/b]

[Lordpulsar]

I would think it's the other way around. Hamilton should have been paying Roger Riehl for their use of designs taken from his patent.

Well that's as maybe, but it wasn't it said in a previous post that Hamilton received royalties from all other manufacturers..

Back in time, every manufacture of LED watches in the world paid royalties to Hamilton, this may be the most significant proof there is!

If Roger didn't pay and he wasn't chased... .....Then there must have been a reason why Hamilton didn't go after him ! Thats assuming the royalties thing is accurate.... Something I doubt very much ..

[collector]

Back to my Dodge City analogy - it seems to me forum members now have formed the LED equivalants of the "Wyatt Earp Gang" and the "Clanton Gang". (For those who are not familar with my attempt at "Humor" rent the video "High Noon" with Gary Cooper.)

Mabe the person (Little1Up) who is attemting to be the impartial "Marshal" with his factual patent research can end the "feud" but I doubt it.

As a bystander, all these posts provide interesting reading. But, as a collector of LED and other watches, I REALLY DON'T CARE WHO WAS "FIRST". Important thing was that they were invented and we can collect and wear them.

[Lordpulsar]

As long as it remains interesting reading... Thats good....

Truth is, we'll never know who was first ! Some people are more concerned about this than others.... My position should be 150 % behind the Pulsars because I dont even own a Synchronar ! However, I am interesed in the debate and the possibility that Roger did have the first prototype ..... BUT , I am sure, the ED guys in Texas had something working at a similar time ........ Unfortunately for Mr Reihl (Roger).. He wasn't the first to register his work and that's the argument pretty much wrapped up as far as documentary legend goes, but we all know, what happens on paper to what happens in reality can be something totally different and this is where my main interest lies... Unlike (some) others.... I am prepared to listen to the story from the "other side's" view... I think this is only fair .

With regards to whether it matters or not, thats a matter of opinion.... If (like me) you have invested a lot of money into these watches, I would like to know the historical truth and the evidence behind it...

[retroleds]

...the factual proof will be very elusive. I liked dragonfly2's take on it, where he pointed out that all of these people needed integrated circuit chips from E.D. to move their ideas along :? - and as Simon points out, a lot of people may have had it worked out on paper, but never got a worker together. I suspect Roger Reihl did NOT have to pay royalties(or did he?), because he avoided the design features that Hamilton had patented. If Hamilton had to pay royalties to Reihl, I would think that would be very common knowledge, as it would have been a tremendous feather in the cap for Reihl, to say that one of the world's largest watch companies had licensed his patented technology.

If I have tried to "marshall" anything, it would be the egos of all parties [highly]concerned, mine included. I'm afraid some are determined to declare an absolute "winner".....me, I'd rather inject some interesting smoke about the people who had dreamed up the digital watch before ANY had been built, so people not locked into a particular position on this debate, will stop and consider that just the smallest turn of events could have made either the Pulsar or the Synchronar appear to be the first LED watch. To declare EITHER the clear winner in such a close photo-finish contest, does the second place "contestant" an injustice, IMO.

[dot matrix]

To declare EITHER the clear winner in such a close photo-finish contest, does the second place "contestant" an injustice, IMO.

Interesting that of all the options in the poll, only "Both" has received no votes at all.

[CompuChron]

This subject has been sleeping for too long!

I have a question which should be possible to answer.
Who launch the first LED watch on the market?
I think it's the only interesting question because the Hamilton prototype wasn't ready at all when presented to the press , they had to change the batteries every few hours (Did I read this somewhere)

So when exactly was the P1 lauch and available to the public?
When exactly was the synchronar available to the public ?

[bruce wegmann]

The P1 was initially offered to the public [and the first sales took place] on April 4, 1972. There is no such definitive date connected with the Synchronar. Even if an ad for the Synchronar was found that pre-dated the P1 [which, to my knowledge, has not happened], it would still not indicate, unambigously, that watches were actually being sold [it was not, and still is not, uncommon business practice to advertise a product before actual availability, in order to test public response]. All patent research favors the pre-eminence of the P1. There is no debate as to which was the more successful product; Time Computer was the company that put the concept of digital timekeeping firmly in the public consiousness. It seems likely that something near half a million Pulsars were produced; Synchronar's numbers were probably less than a tenth of that. Considering the amount of labor required for the assembly [no automated, robotic assembly lines back in the early 70s!], both companies' accomplishments are remarkable.

[CompuChron]

Ok April 4th 1972 for the Pulsar.Just a few weeks before my birth.
Maybe howard has kept a record of the first sales?Maybe even the name of the first customer for warranty purposes?

[bruce wegmann]

One would hope so, but I suspect that, like Time Computer, records of that era are fragmentary, at best; it is easy to forget that we are a third of a century [and counting], down the road from the original events... The Synchronar still stands as the first solar-powered watch, without question.

[Synchroserious]

There is no debating that the Synchronar was a more successful product.It remained in production for 36 years and counting.30+ years longer than the Pulsar .The Pulsar was however more advertised from 1972-1977 in it's short existance and was therefore more prominently known.Unfortunately there are still folks fooled into thinking it all started with them

The voting has changed since the last forum owner took much of the Synchronar evidence i posted with him.

The whole question "The first Digital LED wristwatch" does not specify first to market or first to make prototype? Roger Riehl had earlier prototypes and was ahead on developing an Electronic solid state watch. The Pulsar still stands as the first to market by less than 90 days.

[clockace]

howard, earlier this year you sent me an email copy of a newspaper article with a picture of the earliest synchronr on someones wrist. i think the wrist may have even been your fathers, because the article was about his developement of the synchronar. i printed the email, but i cannot find it right now. did this article have a date of issue on it? the watch was very basic and did not look exactly like the ones that went to market, but i remember the article stating that if anyone desired one they were $1795.00. if it had a date that could perhaps establish a beginning. peter

[Planet-LED]

Synchroserious wrote:
There is no debating that the Synchronar was a more successful product.It remained in production for 36 years and counting.30+ years longer than the Pulsar

I guess that depends on how you would define "successful". While the Synchronar has been in production much longer, I doubt they made anywhere near the number of watches Pulsar produced during their six year run. That being said, it is also unlikely that they generated as much revenue as Pulsar.

While it is true that Synchronar has been in production 36 years, how many watches have actually been produced each year since 1990? My guess is, from a business standpoint, that number would be considered a trickle.

Without opening the module, which was not designed to be opened, it is unlikely that there would be very many Synchronar's made during the 70's that are still running. There are still a lot of Pulsars in service 30+ years later.

[Synchroserious]

I agree it is a matter of opinion about successful.Most of the Pulsars in service you mention were serviced like just about any other watch and had their batteries changed atleast 20 times if the person had actually wore it al these years.Synchronars can still be serviced no problem i rebuild them.Some Synchronars still work with original batteries made before John Bergey bailed and got into heart monitors in the 70,s.Once again Hamilton/Pusar/Time Computer did enjoy a larger limelight for a short while no doubt about that.Meanwile the Synchronar went on to compete in a field of LCD only watches from all over the World and actually enjoyed it's highest years of production into the 80,s.After 1985 it was just a very small group of owners who continued getting their watches serviced or replaced and or bought one for a friend.No advertising was needed but word of mouth from the happy customers and that is success my friend.

The Synchronar Prototype I have from 1969 is much smaller than the Electro Data(pre Pulsar) prototype i saw at ebay.

[charger105]

Hi Howard.
Any chance of some detailed pictures of the prototype ?
I'm sure we'd all love to see it.

Rgds,
Andrew.