While it seems clear that Bruce wore a 6139, there are some aspects of the timeline presented that I have some concerns with.
There is the claim that the first image of Bruce wearing the 6139 is at the US National Karate championships on May 10th 1969. This seems essentially impossible as the 6139 had not even been released at that point, the 6139 was released in Japan on May 21st 1969.
In the second observation there is the statement "
with his mother possibly gifting the 6139 to him upon her previous mid-1969 visit to Los Angeles." On the timeline referenced it states Bruce's mother did not arrive until the 30th of May, so even if the watch had been available she could not have gifted Bruce the watch he was wearing on the 10th, and the logic behind the statement does not make sense.
There are a couple of possibilities regarding the photo with Joseph Hayes, either Bruce is not wearing a 6139 in the photo, which is possible as it is hard to clearly identify the watch in the image, or the photo was not taken at the 1969 championships on May 10th.
I think it is much more likely that Bruce picked up the watch during his visit to Hong Kong in early 1970 where he notes that his mother had purchased numerous gifts for him.
The above certainly makes a lot of sense to me.
It would be interesting to see the evidence re-presented without the frankly groundless claims that (a) there is a photo of Bruce Lee wearing a 6139 on May 10th 1969; and that (b) maybe his mother brought it over from Hong Kong for him.
Would the conclusions still be the same?
There are three observations presented that seek to establish which variant is the "true Bruce Lee".
The second observation is, as Anthony highlights above, self-contradictory, and does not fit the timeline of the commercial release of the watch. It can be dismissed without further analysis.
The third observation is a sequence of non-sequiturs, presented as "evidence".
First the claim is made - "Through a combination of internet research and aforementioned Bruce Lee timeline, the earliest dated picture of Bruce wearing his 6139 we could find was 10 May 1969, attending the National Karate Championships (NKC) in Washington DC." This, again - based on the *factual* timeline of the production and release of the 6139 - is not remotely provable. I am not aware of anyone other than the OP who is prepared to stake their reputation on identifying the watch shown on Bruce Lee's wrist.
This is a classic example of manufacturing or manipulating evidence to support a conclusion that has already been made.
"Seiko 6139 case backs have surfaced dating the watch's first production to January 1969, but some of these may have been prototypes."
"...may have been prototypes" Based on what evidence? Everybody who has spent even just a few hours researching any Seiko watch will very quickly discover that production commences typically months in advance of a watch being launched to the public. Whilst 6139's are certainly not remotely within my area of expertise, I have spent countless hours researching vintage Grand Seikos, and could real off examples of pretty much every single reference where production dates can be *proven* to be 6 months to a year prior to the actual public launch of the watch.
"May have been prototypes" is a complete red-herring. The only possible reason to include the phrase would be to indirectly infer that somehow Mr Lee (or his mother) got their hands on a "prototype" watch prior to its commercial release.
The fact the watch was in production from January 1969 does not in any way lend any support to the claim that a photograph of Mr Lee supposedly dated May 10th 1969 shows him wearing a 6139.
"While some assert it wasn't possible to purchase the 6139 before it was sold internationally in June 1969,"
There is no "assertion" by "some" with regards to the timeline of production and release of the 6139. It is a matter of recorded fact, confirmed by Seiko as a company, and - to the best of my knowledge - also from interviews with people who were actually involved with the creation of the reference.
"we assess there enough evidence - and Lee was a rather well-known star by this time, with strong connections to Asia - that play of a month or two before this June date is well within feasibility."
Then let's see that evidence, because there is none presented in the article. And why would Mr Lee being a "well known star", with "strong connections to Asia", be relevant at all?
"Finally, of important note, per excellent previous research, advertisements for the Hong Kong version of the Seiko 6139-6010 appeared around the time Lee was first photographed wearing the watch, namely, mid-1969."
The claim is made that the photograph shows Bruce Lee wearing the watch on May 10th 1969. What are the dates for the advertisements? Why is no link provided to this "excellent previous research"? There can't be any copyright issues - fair use would more than cover them being shared in the article. So let's see them. Not that they would prove anything at all though, so perhaps not waste any time on that.
Why is the photograph purporting to show Bruce Lee wearing a 6139, in the company of his mother and son, stated in the article as being dated "late May/June 1969", when Getty describe it as "LOS ANGELES - CIRCA 1970: Bruce Lee along with his mother and son Brandon pose for a family snapshot circa 1970 in Los Angeles California. (Photo by Michael Ochs Archive/Getty Images)"?
Why does the article state "Importantly, Bruce wasn't known for possessing more than a handful of watches, and the stainless-steel rally bracelet can be easily discerned in both 1969 pictures, as well as a quite similar hour indice lume pattern; its quite unlikely he had more than one watch - his black-dialed 6139 - with the same bracelet."?
I'm really struggling with this. Yes, the bracelet is discernable in the 1969 and 1970 (if we are to believe Getty) photos. The watch most certainly is not though.
And the bracelet shown on what is claimed to be the same watch in 1972 is totally different.
There is absolutely no evidence presented to prove the watch that is clearly identifiable in the 1972 Singapore photo is the same watch as that in the two earlier photos. None.
So what are we left with?
The second and third presented "observations" can be completely dismissed. They provide zero corroborative evidence that Mr Lee was wearing a specific watch in the 1969 and 1970 photos presented in the article.
That leaves us with the first "observation".
"Based on below attached photographs, as well as some in the excellent thread on this topic over on The Watch Site, it becomes quickly evident Bruce’s 6139..."
Odd isn't it. The first "observation" is actually the conclusion. As I highlighted above - the conclusion has been reached prior to any evidence to support it, and then evidence is concocted to support the conclusion.
"Based on the below attached photographs" - actually, nothing can be concluded at all.
