Again, I kinda agree, but on the other hand I don't.
Saying that the Monaco was product placement is, well, technically correct. But, in essence, so is is any kind of sponsorship, like with Jo Siffert, and any other driver that was given a Heuer because the race team was sponsored by them. They may well have been paid to wear them. They may even have not liked them (Hard to believe I know!). Heuers history is deeply entwined with motorsport through product placement. Yes, I know that the early (non-wrist) timers were 'race timing tools', but still, it was used eventually as advertising to sell their wrist watches to jo public.
Why would the case of the Siffert be any different? And this bring us back to the original issue - namely people mis-naming a watch. The Siffert was a particular watch, but there were many 'white dial' versions afterwards, they are accepted to be called Sifferts.

Interestingly, the drivers that we say 'shouldn't' be closely associated (Bellof, Bell, Hill etc etc) actually chose to wear them. Not through sponsorship, not being paid to do so or told to do so. Surely there is something in that, something more honest and respectful? (Same way McQueen chose a Sub 5513) You can't have it both ways.

I think Heuer has a grand history in motorsport, and with the drivers wearing them, why should that be ignored. The thing is.. it's us, the collectors, that have given these watches their names. They are not official, they have no real meaning only amongst us. I saw a Siffert sell on ebay a week or so ago, the vendor clearly wasn't a collector, as he stated in his ad something along the lines of "I believe this is a Siffert although this name isn't on the dial or anywhere on the watch".
I think we should embrace Heuers association with motorsport and the association with these drivers. The importance associated with the name is down to us.

If I'm writing about a particular watch, and I use a drivers name - it helps the reader know exactly which model. ie. "Blah blah blah, Autavia 1163v "Viceroy/Graham Hill" blah blah blah. You know exactly which model I mean, I wouldn't be 'christening' it with this name, but helping a fellow Heuerist know exactly which one I mean. It means nothing to a non Heuerist, and this, I feel is great. The history, the drivers, the sport.. it's all wrapped up in one easy name, and this, I believe should be fully embraced, and we should relax about it.

Stewart
PS. I admit, I don't know of the full story of Siffert & Heuer, so please accept my apologies if there was something deeper about his Heuer sponsorship/association.
And, please inform me!!

: These are all great watches in their own right, I don't understand
: the urge to attribute them to a specific driver. Even where
: there are strong links; I would even question making an
: exception for Jo Siffert, given the confusion that arises over
: watches with Siffert colours but not in the same
: configuration he wore. And yes, McQueen and watch belongs more
: to a Rolex 5512 than it does to a Monaco.

: And why so scattergun as well? Yes, Derek Bell won 5 Le Mans but
: his best F1 season resulted in 22nd - Graham Hill also wore a
: black Autavia, was twice F1 world champion and also found time
: to win Le Mans and the Indy 500, the only driver to do so. A
: different Autavia model possibly, but you get my drift.

: Gilles Villeneuve routinely wore a Chronosplit, much more
: consistently than Bell did an Autavia, but do we call that model
: a Villeneuve? Nope. Bellof's Montreal? Also no. That
: inconsistency is odd.

: Don't get me wrong, I love finding these old photos and seeing the
: racers wearing the watches we hold dear. It's just the naming of
: the watch after the driver that gets my goat a bit, it's open to
: all sorts of confusion and abuse.