Just curious

User avatar
Hawk
ASSHAT
Posts: 10237
Joined: October 8th 2010, 10:00pm
Facebook ID: 0
Location: Orlando, FL
Contact:

Re: Just curious

Post by Hawk » September 26th 2011, 5:17am

Though the OP was addressed to WIS that preferred dive style watches Internet protocol demands I chime in despite status as a WIS-in-training and not all that enamored of dive watch styling.

I'd guess about 1/3 of my small collection is of the dive type but several were in spite of, rather than because of, the dive features - dive watches are everywhere and unless one actively dislikes the things one will wind up with several because they'll have other features one likes. Better choices are available for timing boiled eggs but they suffice.

The ratings are, however, pretty funny.

The Japanese got it mostly right in that everything past 200 meters is pretty much marketing masturbation. There's some small degree of sense in 300 meters but, in a rare moment of Wikipedia snark, it would make you pretty special.

Ultra-deep diving
Amongst technical divers, there are certain elite divers who participate in ultra-deep diving on SCUBA (using closed circuit rebreathers and heliox) below 660 feet (200 m). Ultra-deep diving requires extraordinarily high levels of training, experience, fitness and surface support. Only eight (or possibly nine) persons are known to have ever dived below a depth of 800 feet (240 m) on self contained breathing apparatus recreationally. That is fewer than the number of people who have walked on the surface of the moon.

Bold mine.

As far as non-recreational, the situation is hardly less grim, consisting of a couple Comex records.

There are valid reasons why most of Oceanic's dive computers max out at 200 meters or less none of which pertain to available technology.

The inescapable conclusion is that undergoing the cost of ISO testing and third party evaluation of any watch past 200 meters is marketing directly to a demographic that numbers less than that subset of astronauts that have walked on the moon and indirectly to those that feel that a watch built to those standards is worthwhile including the cost associated with the testing - let's say 500.00 unless the redundant portions of ISO are circumvented.

At 1,000 meters the watch is obviously marketed to those who have walked on the surface of Venus. At 3,000 meters the marketers have clearly put the "magic" back in mushrooms.

200 meters ISO / JSI / DIN is like putting "Y" rated tires on a Fiesta. Overkill but harmless. 3000 meters is like putting tires claiming a rating of 20,000 mph on a Fiesta - somebody would want JPL or CERN to certify the claim - and perhaps rightly so - they are expensive after all.

The more rocks I turn over the less I give I flip about ISO, a pressure test would be nice but it'd be all I need to believe the claim had merit. On a tangential note, a helium escape valve is nothing more nor less than an unnecessary blemish on the watch.

eddiea
Founding Member & Master of Time
Posts: 10648
Joined: December 25th 2009, 11:00pm

Re: Just curious

Post by eddiea » October 22nd 2011, 6:57am

foghorn wrote:T
Would be happy wearing a "diver style watch" that does not meet ISO requirements by a long shot?

Revisiting this topic and taking an educated guess, I would think, most well made micro-brands do meet ISO guidelines, suspecting some even exceeding their requirements , most however are not ISO certified...most likely, due to the extra expense.
User avatar
RaiderFan

Re: Just curious

Post by RaiderFan » October 22nd 2011, 3:43pm

Chanse503 wrote:300m is the money for a dive watch IMO.

Anymore than that they start getting to bulky for my tastes.


Have you ever checked out a Breitling Steelfish or Steelfish XL? I went with the XL because it's just a tad larger at 44mm. It wears about true to it's size, but has a small dial opening. It's got a little weight, but not bad and it's rated at 2,000 meters.

I'm not a fanatic for ISO, but it does help to signify universal fit of parts and better build quality. There will come a time that it'll get very tough to sell something without an ISO rating or something like it. It sets pretty high minimum standards of quality, and they are beyond strict about forcing you to adhere to them if you want to stay current on your rating.
I haven't used my diving gear in years, probably ought to sell it. Even so, I like watches rated for increased depth. I have a Deep Blue Master 2,000 III that I really like. Right now it's my daily wear watch. I guess it's the extra durability and solidity of the more highly rated divers that I like. They are just more "there" than watches rated 200 meters or less. I wouldn't completely rule a 100 meter one out, but it would require some very interesting qualities.
User avatar
AlbertaTime
Master of Time
Posts: 4003
Joined: October 13th 2010, 10:00pm
Facebook ID: 0
Location: Peace River, Alberta
Contact:

Re: Just curious

Post by AlbertaTime » October 22nd 2011, 11:13pm

fatman wrote:Not too worried about WR rating but the first thing I look for in any watch is whether it has a screw down crown.


Automatics or quartz, OK.

Mechanicals...nope, don't want screw-down. :-)
Curator: Alberta Museum of Chinese Horology in Peace River

"That stone buddha deserves all the birdshit it gets. I wave my skinny arms like a tall flower in the wind." Ikkyu
User avatar
AlbertaTime
Master of Time
Posts: 4003
Joined: October 13th 2010, 10:00pm
Facebook ID: 0
Location: Peace River, Alberta
Contact:

Re: Just curious

Post by AlbertaTime » October 23rd 2011, 12:07am

bigedsurf wrote:Please enlighten me Ron.........why not mechanicals?


Mechanicals need to be wound every day or so, and I think that puts the threads on a screw-down crown in constant harm's way, at least with me doing the job :-)

That's all.
Curator: Alberta Museum of Chinese Horology in Peace River

"That stone buddha deserves all the birdshit it gets. I wave my skinny arms like a tall flower in the wind." Ikkyu
User avatar
RaiderFan

Re: Just curious

Post by RaiderFan » October 23rd 2011, 5:03am

I guess that's why most of the mechanicals I've owned have not had screw down crowns. Never really thought about it before. Makes perfect sense.
User avatar
jason_recliner
ASSHAT
Posts: 7291
Joined: September 17th 2011, 10:00pm
Contact:

Re: Just curious

Post by jason_recliner » October 23rd 2011, 12:53pm

A genuine 100 m WR is plenty. That said, I don't want a dive styled watch. I want a dive watch.

One of the reasons I like Seiko divers so much is that each individual watch is tested to 125% of the rated WR. Think about that for a second. Your US$150 monster has been pressure tested and passed. That blows my small mind. That is why most Seiko divers are rated to 'only' 200 m. They can go much deeper but testing gets exponentially more expensive.

I realise all that is kind of off topic. I have only dived a few times, max depth of 17 m, and I took a Seiko (BFK) because I knew that it would pass easily.
Copyright Reclinervision 2020 Productions. All rights reserved.

If it thinks, it stinks
JtN©
Senior Member & WIS
Posts: 842
Joined: June 14th 2010, 10:00pm
Contact:

Re: Just curious

Post by JtN© » October 24th 2011, 4:07am

What is the difference between a screw down crown on an automatic and a mechanical ... both watches needs to be wound.

Not all people own and keep there automatic watches on a winder and if they dont wear it for 2 or 3 days the watch will have to be wound and set and you have to enscrew and screw the crown, just as you would with a mechanical.

Personally thinking that when a watch connisure steps up to the big boy plate and gets an actual horological quality automatic, not the garbage crap sold on the television but an actual quality mechanical they have no need for that watch to be a dive watch and no need for screw down water resistancy like an Invicta.

A screw down crown is a sales gimmick for most of the watches out there today.
Post Reply

Return to “The Watchlord Archives - The early years”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest