Diving watches

[M-Cameron]

My question then is whether a 3000 foot rated watch is less likely to leak at 100 feet than a submariner rated to 1000?

im no watchmaker......but im going to assume under standard diving conditions......no, they both should be able to stand up to 100ft with absolutely 0 issues.

im thinking that would be similar to asking whether a Honda civic is more likely to break down than a Sherman tank if both are driving at 20 mph on asphalt....both should handle it just fine.

but under "non-standard conditions".....say driving over boulders, in 150 degree heat, without regular service......the honda civic is going to fail long before the sherman tank.

i dont know what the diving equivalent of that would be?......fighting a shark?.....smacking your watch into a boulder?.....dropping it in a hydrothermal vent?....... im thinking the watch with the higher depth rating would be able to handle abuse better at shallower depths.

 

[rx7diver]

As I recall, the depth limit for NDL diving is still 130 feet.

No, I don't think this is correct. Used to be that the (YMCA and NAUI) training limit for recreational scuba is 130 feet. Not the certification limit. Not the NDL limit. Not anything else. At least, this is what I was taught in the mid-1980's.

rx7diver

 

[Dody]

Yes, my watches are investment quality. That's why I buy them. All of them no matter the cost, are always bad at telling time. All that bs about Rolex being certified chronometers is bunk. A $20 Casio is a more accurate horological instrument. No, I don't worry about their current value. And no, I don't take them diving. Buying a Submariner as a diving watch is an egotistic pointless exercise. Investment and daily wrist usage - sure. My daily use? Apple watch. I just realized the connection between "horological and horlosie". And I'm a watch nut!

Here is the world's most hideous watch.

Hublot Masterpiece MP-05 LaFerrari 50 Days Power Reserve Men's Watch | eBay

We agree on one thing. Rolex or any other mechanical watch suck in accuracy compared to cheap quartz. I am a time freak. Always on time at the second. That’s why I have Tag Heuer and Breitling and no Rolex. Why can’t the Swiss make mechanical watches that you don’t have to set every morning (€@*$£)?
But on the other hand, buying a watch and not wearing it or being concerned I will scratch it (WTF? At x000 $?) does not make no sense to me. And I know that everyday use even diving will not damage your expensive watch beyond reasonable repair.

 

[Dody]

for watches, the depth rating is a static depth.....so your watch will survive to 1000 ft if just sitting in a basket being lowered down.

if you add motion, like from swimming.....that adds pressure to the watch case.....

thats why watches rated for 100m are really only recommended for surface swimming.......and "divers" are almost always rated at 200m+

Rolex watches are actually tested at least 30% deeper than the poster depth.

 

[tridacna]

We agree on one thing. Rolex or any other mechanical watch suck in accuracy compared to cheap quartz. I am a time freak. Always on time at the second. That’s why I have Tag Heuer and Breitling and no Rolex. Why can’t the Swiss make mechanical watches that you don’t have to set every morning (€@*$£)?
But on the other hand, buying a watch and not wearing it or being concerned I will scratch it (WTF? At x000 $?) does not make no sense to me. And I know that everyday use even diving will not damage your expensive watch beyond reasonable repair.

None of my watches are perfect timekeepers especially Breitling. Apple Watch is great for that. My watches increase in value in inverse proportion to the number of times they’re worn.

BTW I love Amstelveen. I had a friend there and visited many times! Close to Schipol and Amsterdam.

 

[Efka76]

Fully agree regarding Rolex accuracy. My golden Rolex with diamond dial can not compare to Seiko Astron, which is appr. 20x cheaper and in substance is an atomic watch. Unfortunately I am not wearing my Rolex almost one year as due to lockdown I am working from home and do not have opportunity to go to work or any events.

Also, watches as investment are very risky. Yes, now Rolex is on the wave but who knows what will happen in the future when all this hype ends. For diving I am using cheap Cressi Newton as do not see sense in buying Perdix (I do not dive with trimix and very rarely doing deco dives).

 

[M-Cameron]

Fully agree regarding Rolex accuracy. My golden Rolex with diamond dial can not compare to Seiko Astron, which is appr. 20x cheaper and in substance is an atomic watch.

Personally i feel people are a little overly preoccupied with accuracy.....ive heard people calling a watch
"garbage" because it was fast by +10sec/day.

none of us are doing anything that requires us to be accurate to within 10 seconds.......and even if we compound that out to a month.....thats still only 5 minutes a month....

considering what an engineering marvel mechanical wrist watches are.....we have dozens of tiny gears....being subjected to non-trivial forces.....and with very little maintenance.....that fact that we can get watches that are +10 seconds a day...for $100 is truly incredible.

and the fact that we have watches that can do +2 seconds a day at all is utterly amazing from an engineering perspective.

 

[Doctorfish]

Most Rolex watches are not an investment. They depreciate and value also varies with wear and tear. Vintage Submariners and Daytonas might be an exception but do not expect a new Submariner to appreciate over time. There are just too many of them.

A Rolex is purely a vanity item. Wearing one says "I am prepared to throw away good money for something that is antiquated and does not keep good time".

 

[jadairiii]

Most Rolex watches are not an investment. They depreciate and value also varies with wear and tear. Vintage Submariners and Daytonas might be an exception but do not expect a new Submariner to appreciate over time. There are just too many of them.

A Rolex is purely a vanity item. Wearing one says "I am prepared to throw away good money for something that is antiquated and does not keep good time".

That was the thought about Rolex 40 years ago and more too. What you forget is that Rolex watches, for the most part, were high end utility watches. When I bought my sub in 1983, there was no thought that it would appreciate in value, I was buying a "tool" for diving, a very good tool. Same thoughts went into the GMT's, Sea Dwellers and like.

Save this post, 45 years from now, find out what the 2021 Submariner will be valued at?

On a side note, when I purchased my Sub in '83, it was the first year with the Sapphire crystal, next to it was a year old NOS Sea Dweller, "single red". The jeweler talked me out of the Sea Dweller because (in reality) I didnt need the helium valve....it had a plastic crystal.......and it was about the same price or less than the Sub.....who knew. After years in the tropics, my bezel is almost gray, the face has faded a bit, the markers dont glow (but still pretty white) and it still regularly gets salty.

 

[Bigbella]

Best tool for the job though is a dive computer - and you can get a good one for not much more than the cost of the cheap watch. Follow its instruction and it will keep you safer than the watch while allowing longer dives (allows you to dive nearer NDL/ easier for multi-level dives).

Agreed, for the most part; though, over the years, I have had serial failures with dive computers, since their inception; but, I have also always carried analogue diving watches and gauges -- and have yet to call a dive, or have an issue with either . . .