or Connect
Styleforum › Forums › Men's Style › Classic Menswear › The Watch Appreciation Thread
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

The Watch Appreciation Thread - Page 2179

post #32671 of 34719
Quote:
Originally Posted by Imyouricecreamman View Post

Why wouldnt you swim with it?The owners manual saus you can. I have tested the two speedys ive had for waterresistance and both were more stable at a long 10atm test than my planet ocean. The one i have now havent had anything dine with it other than a movement service sinne 2003 and still passed the test last week.

Did you actually wear your Speedy Pro underwater at 10atm?  I was under the impression, granted I haven't looked at them in a long time, but that they were only pressure proof to 3 atm.  

post #32672 of 34719

I like hearing people use their watches as intended (or at least not afraid to push their limits a little). I take my Shogun (200m rated ISO diver) into the jacuzzi and sauna all the time and watch forumites gives me flack for it, but my personal theory is that titanium watches are better for hot/humid immersion because the thermal coefficient of expansion for titanium is about half of steel or less, meaning that you run way less risk of the steel expanding faster than the gaskets and creating a gap.

 

Cant say I would take a speedy pro into such an environment, and Seiko is notoriously over-engineered, but it warms my heart to see people ocean kayaking and swimming with their watches. Thats the kind of stuff that bonds you to a watch, makes you hang on to it, wear it, and fascinates your kids enough to pass it on to them.

 

For what is worth, BostonHedonist, the Speedmaster DayDate and Broad Arrow models are rated to 100m

post #32673 of 34719
Quote:
Originally Posted by DerangedGoose View Post

 

The problem with the Submariner nowadays is that it was never meant to be a luxury watch. It was supposed to be a high quality, robust working tool that a working person could afford and rely on. Not cheap, but not luxury. Put simply, there is absolutely nothing in the modern submariner that makes it worth 7000 dollars. Neither the engineering nor the materials nor the COSC certification (easily acheived by watches orders of magnitude cheaper and home tinkerers everywhere). By that reasoning, I might as well go for a Daytona at 11k, since at least that offers a chronograph. The Submariner is by all means a quality piece, but you can achieve the same quality or better from any number of other brands making steel divers. What you are paying for with Rolex is the aggressive marketing, the purposeful display of conspicuous consumption, and essentially downpaying for increased resale prices down the road.

 

I will stand by my statement that titanium is superior to steel. People who argue about "heft" are missing the point -- anyone can build a thick and/or heavy watch. To create something that is thinner, more streamlined, and from a superior material is what takes skill. "Heft" is a scam and is about pulling wool over people's eyes. If you have ever dived with a steel diver on a steel bracelet, it gets annoying. It becomes anchor/ballast tied to your wrist. A titanium watch disappears by comparison.

 

I strongly encourage you to handle one of Seiko's Brightz/Diashield hardened titanium watches. The look is indistinguishable from steel and the mirror finish is diamond hard. You will never see swirls or hairlines in it. It is in every way the most superlative material for a functionality oriented timepiece. I wish Tudor had used a similar material but my goal in this enterprise is to find a clean, robust daily wear watch that will transition into any activity or scenario I want. To me, that is how you bond with a watch. 

 

Sorry, while it was meant to be a tool watch it was quite expensive, even decades ago.  Its not as though your average plumber or electrician were wearing them.  Doctors, lawyers, engineers, and professional divers wore them, but average people could not afford them even when they were only a few hundred dollars.  The difference was people's incomes were substantially less.  

 

As for the the Sub not being worth $7,000, most watches are overpriced.  When I see what the competition offers, be it IWC, Breitling, Omega, Cartier, Blancpain, etc. $7,500 isn't unreasonable.  Hell, many of IWCs diving watches don't even have shoulders to protect the crown.  Years, ago I was speaking with someone that actually did deep sea diving as part of his engineering job, and he said he'd never buy a dive watch without shoulders.  He said, bang the crown against part of a bridge or a rig underwater and now you have a nice entrance for water to get into the watch.  As for the materials not being worth the cost, they have continued to improve the watch and the materials used, be it ceramic bezels, the blue parachrom hair springs, and completely new bracelets and glide lock clasps.   As for the certified chronometer, so what? Omega and others do that too.  I don't think its important these days, but it doesn't detract from the watch, and its not like its 30% of the watch's cost.

 

Yes, there is aggressive marketing has helped them, but realistically, they are the standard by which all others are measured.  Most companies' dive watches look like modified Submariner designs so as not to look like blatant copies.  You also stated "Other big houses, even mainstream ones like Omega, are pushing innovation while Rolex rests on laurels earned decades ago. It may last them another 50 years but it wont be forever. As Rolex has pushed the Submariner ever market, it deserves ever more stringent scrutiny against upmarket standards, and it simply doesnt measure up." Yet you ignore that the Submariner has been revised numerous times over its +60 year life span.  There are so many changes over the decades that one can actually see where the R&D has gone over the years.  Deeper depths, the original was good for 100m, then 200m, now 300 meters.  Shoulders to protect the crowns, ratcheting bezels that move in one direction, sapphire synthetic crystals, different movements, new cases, new bezel materials, new bracelets and clasps, etc.  Many of the things I listed, today we take for granted, but they were used on Rolex before many other brands adopted them.  I just don't see any of their competitors offering a substantially better product for less money. I think their competitors do offer some good products, but I don't think I've seen something better for less money.  I like the Blancpain 50 Fathoms and that you can get in Ti, but IIRC, that's about the price of 2 Submariners.  Furthermore, I'm uncertain what these amazing innovations are that Omega and others have pushed while Rolex as you say sat on their laurels. 

  

As for Rolex designs, its funny but detractors dump on them saying they still have the same designs they have 50 + years ago, but someone brings up a Patek Calatrava , and well that's a classic design.  That's a watch that went from having an MSRP of $9,600 in the late 1990s (and being available at a 35% discount from ADs so you could pick them up for about $6K or just under) and now they are $30K?  They enlarged their cases a few millimeters s, but where is the R&D in that watch?  So I supposed if its Patek they get a pass for making something about the same for 80 years with little R&D, and jacking up the price, because they are Patek.  Beyond, that one of my biggest issues with Omegas's Seamaster their lack of evolution or a coherent collection (until recently).  Omega used to changed up models all the time and many are incredibly dated... just look at Seamasters of the 1960s, the 1970s, the 1980s, the 1990s.  You can basically tell the decades just by looking at the watches.  Some are retro cool, some are just sad looking.   

 

Maybe some people like a disposable design, that gets tossed out the window every 5 years like the latest Nissan.  However, I like designs that evolve and stand the test of time.  I like that the JLC Reverso is available in a design quite similar to the original from 80s years ago, and  that Omega offers a Speedy Pro in a form similar to their original model (although most collectors prefer the original movement over the new) , or that AP and PP offer designs similar to their original RO and Nautilus.  

 

While its clear you are not a Rolex fan (nobody' perfect ;)), I think you have over simplified various issues in your discussion about Rolex and their competitors. 

 

As for Titanium, its interesting, its strong, its light, and it tough.  As you said it doesn't show swirls.  The converse of that is that because its so difficult to work with and solid, if you get a deep scratch or ding, its nearly impossible to polish it out.  Also, it makes many watches look far more casual and less versatile than their SS siblings.  I might get a Ti watch someday just to have something different from what I have, but I've never truly needed or wanted a watch in Ti. 

post #32674 of 34719
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dino944 View Post

Did you actually wear your Speedy Pro underwater at 10atm?  I was under the impression, granted I haven't looked at them in a long time, but that they were only pressure proof to 3 atm.  

I would say no because you'd be dead. Who's wearing a watch at 10atm? That's over 90m deep… only serious nitrox diving pros go that deep.
post #32675 of 34719
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kid Nickels View Post

I would say no because you'd be dead. Who's wearing a watch at 10atm? That's over 90m deep… only serious nitrox diving pros go that deep.

You caught me. What I should have asked was how this was tested, and has it been submerged in water since being tested to 10ATMs. 10ATM is well beyond the Speedy Pro's pressure proof rating. I was asking in part if he wore it as part of his testing, because I wondered if the 10ATMs he suggested it was tested to was an error... as it's so far beyond the Speedy's pressure proof rating.
post #32676 of 34719
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dino944 View Post

You caught me. What I should have asked was how this was tested, and has it been submerged in water since being tested to 10ATMs. 10ATM is well beyond the Speedy Pro's pressure proof rating. I was asking in part if he wore it as part of his testing, because I wondered if the 10ATMs he suggested it was tested to was an error... as it's so far beyond the Speedy's pressure proof rating.

Ah, they probably underrate it like they should be doing. 10 bar is not all that much force when you have a small convex object like most round watches. Legitimate companies tend to do this to err on the safe side with their ratings; an Austrian magazine has been known to test watches independently to their full rated pressure keep them honest. One company got a bit embarrassed with their 2000-m model once...

You can do a dry pressure test with just air to find leakage. I'm not surprised that a Speedy beats a PO at this lower-pressure test, because those are anybody's game when it comes to slow leaks instead of component failure. The extra metal of a diver's model doesn't help in this scenario; it's all up to the soft seals at only 10 bar unless the case or crystal is almost literally paper-thin. If it doesn't pass, no big deal; it's just air so there's no harm if there's no effective pressure barrier. Ok, enough shop talk — this is starting to remind me of my job. :P




Hey... is it just me, or is it starting to smell a bit WUSsy in here lately? All this discussion of noob topics and recycling of old wives' tales reminds me of the sponsor-friendly bread and butter of a sponsored site.
post #32677 of 34719
Quote:
Originally Posted by Belligero View Post


Ah, they probably underrate it like they should be doing. 10 bar is not all that much force when you have a small convex object like most round watches. Legitimate companies tend to do this to err on the safe side with their ratings; an Austrian magazine has been known to test watches independently to their full rated pressure keep them honest. One company got a bit embarrassed with their 2000-m model once...

You can do a dry pressure test with just air to find leakage. I'm not surprised that a Speedy beats a PO at this lower-pressure test, because those are anybody's game when it comes to slow leaks instead of component failure. The extra metal of a diver's model doesn't help in this scenario; it's all up to the soft seals at only 10 bar unless the case or crystal is almost literally paper-thin. If it doesn't pass, no big deal; it's just air so there's no harm if there's no effective pressure barrier. Ok, enough shop talk — this is starting to remind me of my job. :P




Hey... is it just me, or is it starting to smell a bit WUSsy in here lately? All this discussion of noob topics and recycling of old wives' tales reminds me of the sponsor-friendly bread and butter of a sponsored site.

 

WUS is so slow that I have resorted to being blunt and contrarian just to get some activity going. It seems like every thread is THUMBS UP WEAR IT IN GOOD HEALTH and then it dies after three posts.

post #32678 of 34719
FWIW I got my Pelagos new in HK for around $3000 and see them regularly new at watch shops for around $3500
post #32679 of 34719
@dino944 Both watches were tested in a pressure chamber, first at -0,8 bar vaccum and then at 10 bar pressure. Both watches passed with flying colors. The great thing is if the machine notices that the watch is faulty,it stops the test to prevent damage.(i have experienced the whole bezel containing the cryystal coming of a Certina though) in my experience the speedy pro is one of the overengineered watches when you compare its construction to its specifications.
post #32680 of 34719

I do rather fancy this model. 150 meters would be plenty for me. 

 

post #32681 of 34719
^^ The thing I like the most about that is the lack of a large GMT hour hand.
post #32682 of 34719

I like that very much, kind of a best of both of the current AT and Seamaster models.

post #32683 of 34719
Is that a chronograph? The left subdial is your second time zone, right? The right subdial looks like it has 2 hands stacked in that pic. Chrono? I think I see blurry pushers as well...
post #32684 of 34719

Yes. Nice in grey, too. 

post #32685 of 34719
I guess the GMT subdial is a double edged sword. You "need" another subdial to balance out the dial, unless you put it at 6 o'clock. I wouldn't want or need a chrono on that, so maybe a running seconds subdial at 3 o'clock would have been cool.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Classic Menswear
Styleforum › Forums › Men's Style › Classic Menswear › The Watch Appreciation Thread