The Breitling Watch Source Forums

Not normally being a Rolex fan, I can't help but compare these two watches, and wonder how Breitling gets less of a water resistance than the Rolex, and yet has a bigger case. Here is a comparison of the two:

Diameter: Rolex 43mm Breitling 45.40mm
Thickness: Rolex 17.5mm Breitling 18.5mm
Water Res: Rolex 3900m/12,800ft Breitling 3000m/10,000ft

Breitling brags about it being a technical feat to have attained a water resistence of 10,000 feet, yet it would appear that Rolex have attained a greater technical feat.

Don't get me wrong, and I am not a diver, so the water resistence is really not a big issue for me, other than bragging rights. I proudly wear a Steelfish, which will never see a depth greater than the average wash basin. I always thought that the Seawolf had the greatest water resistence of any watch, and am a little embarrassed to admit that I feel a bit pissed off that Rolex has this beat! Especially since I am seriously considering getting a Seawolf. I have not yet looked at a price for the Rolex, I can only assume it is much higher than the Seawolf. Aesthetically, I find the Seawolf more pleasing.
What I really want to hear, from all you fellow Breitling lovers, who are probably more aware of the technical aspects of these watches than I, are comments that will make me realize that the Breitling really is the superior of the two watches.

Cheers,
Carl

_________________
'63 Omega Seamaster, 2014 Omega Speedmaster MarkII

"Those who possess a sense of entitlement are seldom satisfied"

Before the Rolex was re-designed (this year) the Seawolf was king. Most probably, in the near future (do I hear BasilWorld) the Seawolf will once again regain that title.

You can probably buy 4 Seawolfs for the price of 1 DeapSea !

Isnt there a Bell & Ross that can go 10,000m?

Anyway, you never know, maybe the Seawold can go 3900m, but they would rather put a more easily attainable number on it, whereas Rolex may be pushing its limits..I dont know.. Either way, if you added a few grand to the price of the seawolf, I dont think Breitling would have any trouble attaining 3900m.

I see from Authenticwatches.com, that the regular price of a Sea Dweller is over 9 grand! Even if I was a deep sea diver, and had gobs of money, I would have a hard time justifying that. It really is a beautiful watch, and my favourite Rolex, but when I could get a Bentley 6.75 for that price, need I say more. Actually, the whole thing really is not about price anyway. I love the Sea Dweller. I love the Blacksteel that I have. But my favourite is still the Steelfish, which is the least expensive of the three. Like you say, the Sea Dweller may be pushing the limits. It is a relatively new model, so at some point there will likely be a comparison of newer diving watches, including the Seawolf, so that will be the real test.
Cheers,
Carl

_________________
'63 Omega Seamaster, 2014 Omega Speedmaster MarkII

"Those who possess a sense of entitlement are seldom satisfied"

I wonder how they compare when it comes to coping with rough handling.
Isnt there some write up on the Rolex that is extra shockprotected etc?

_________________
Blue Baton Super Avenger
Black Avenger Seawolf

Bell and Ross has a watch that is water resistant to 11,100 M. But it this extreme depth rating comes from an oil filled case to help equalize pressure. A quartz movement because at extreme depths an automatic movement will fail before this watches's case.

But check out this MTM for even further extremes.
http://www.watchreport.com/2007/09/review-of-the-m.html

The difference between these two and Rolex and Breitling is that the latter are auto movements and do not use any oil in there cases to offset external pressure on the case.

talk about over kill

_________________
Collin
SuperOcean- Coral/Diver Strap

In terms of technical attributes, (and as much as it kills me to say it ) I think it's probably fair to say that the Rolex is currently the peak of the "traditionally made" diver's watch art. By "traditionally made", I mean watches made in a conventional way - i.e. avoiding the likes of the Sinn, MTM and Bell & Ross oil filled models.

The Rolex case is amazing in terms of it's technical ability to resist pressure, although it has led to the opinion-dividing engraved ring under the crystal. The caseback is also a blend of steel and titanium parts, probebly to keep the weight down, but again just showcases Rolex's great technical efforts on this watch. Also, the bracelet and clasp are fine improvements over the old "bent tin-foil" affair that Rolex's used to be afflicted with. In fact the find adjustment on the Deepsea clasp is probably the best on the market at the moment.

However, and while it is without doubt my favourite Rolex ever, I still wouldn't have one. Firstly, it doesn't "move me" enough to warrant the price. And it IS A LOT of money for a watch with a non-complicated movement. If it was £3000 I might consider it, but at £5000? No thank you. Also, at 43mm it's still not big enough for my liking, and additionally the bracelet could do with being thicker at both the clasp and the lugs IMHO. For me that all adds up to a non-purchase.

_________________
Driver8

Site Moderator

The Deepsea is a great piece but it does cost 2.5 times more than the Seawolf...as for water resistance...my AD was at the Breitling Factory a few months ago and saw a SS SeaWolf undergoing a pressure test..it was tested to 10,000 meters(yes.... METERS) of water pressure and it did not leak...crystal was intact and the watch functioned properly. Only the lugs bent slightly...same test was also carried out on the previous Ti Seawolf. That goes to show how over-engineered these pieces are.

I really have to agree with you on the bracelet size. I find that also with the Omegas. I think Breitling really has got it right, with the bracelet size/case size ratio. That is one reason, I am really partial to the Steelfish. The diameter is 44mm and the lug size is 22mm. The Seawolf case is slightly larger, but I saw one with the 22mm stainless bracelet, and it really looks incredible.

I suppose, when I rethink the whole thing, that Breitling has really got a good thing in the Seawolf, without over-engineering the whole thing. The Seawolf, does the waterproof thing with only 2 gaskets, where the Rolex has 3. Also, that ring thing under the crystal that Driver8 mentioned: I admit that I don't understand all the technicalities, but the simplicity of the slightly larger and heavier Breitling case over all the extra engineering in the Rolex simply appeals to me more.

Cheers,
Carl

_________________
'63 Omega Seamaster, 2014 Omega Speedmaster MarkII

"Those who possess a sense of entitlement are seldom satisfied"

Seriously?!? Holy smoke! 10,000m for a traditionally manufactured case?

I have a renewed respect for the Seawolf now!

_________________
Driver8

Site Moderator

That certainly settles any doubts that I may have had!
Cheers,
Carl

_________________
'63 Omega Seamaster, 2014 Omega Speedmaster MarkII

"Those who possess a sense of entitlement are seldom satisfied"

As I've said before, a friend recently bought a Rolex "Deep Sea"
and let me wear it for a short while (about an hour before he
demanded it back ). I agree with what Driver8 said about
the clasp and links -- they really should be thicker and wider
for a watch this massive -- even so, they seemed quite sturdy.
As to the wording on the inner bezel ring, it was hardly noticeable
and didn't detract at all from the beauty of the piece.

And the price? Too high? Well, if your rich enough to afford one,
then I guess the price is fine. But for the rest of us, with the same
money we could buy a Seawolf and have enough left over for one hell of a
vacation.

Steve

I've checked one out at the AD and thought it was cool but not OMG I have to have it! As for the water resistance it's really irrelevant after a certain point. I used to teach some technical diving and the deepest I've ever been was 334 ft... well below the limits of any of these pieces.

Cool factor aside the configuration of equipment I dive with won't really accommodate a watch as both of my wrists are taken

_________________