The Breitling Watch Source Forums
https://www.breitlingsource.com/phpBB2/

The Reality of Dive Watches
https://www.breitlingsource.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=50323		 Page 1 of 1
Author:  Drtymrtini [ Wed Oct 16, 2013 6:34 pm ]
Post subject:  The Reality of Dive Watches
I would consider myself a watch enthusiast. Admittedly, I don't know the intricacies and ins and outs of in-house movements and technical aspects as many of you on this forum; however, I am always amused by those who seek a "dive watch." 99.9% of people who buy a Breitling or Rolex or Panerai or Omega are not buying the watch to "dive." The majority of people who scuba as a hobby or a living don't buy mechanical watches to monitor their activity.

Can we just admit it's about the capabilities of the watch and not a reflection of our fantasies of grandeur?

I take my Omega on my beach vacations. I rarely go more than 33 meters below sea level. Does anyone here actually dive below 100 meters on a regular basis?
Author:  Roffensian [ Thu Oct 17, 2013 2:52 am ]
Post subject:  Re: The Reality of Dive Watches
I think that's true of most watch functions - even chronographs are rarely (if ever) used by most owners. granted those functions can be used more easily than 3,000m water resistance, but it's really all about image and technical capability. Same is true in other industries as well - how many car owners get their car close to its top speed?

When it comes to dive watches in particular I do think that the industry needs to adopt the new ISO standard (which they are supposed to be doing) that states that the depth rating should actually reflect the usable depth rather than the maximum static water pressure, and my pet peeve, Breitling should stop calling their watches dive watches if they don't have a bezel pearl!
Author:  Driver8 [ Thu Oct 17, 2013 5:58 am ]
Post subject:  Re: The Reality of Dive Watches
Roffensian wrote:
I think that's true of most watch functions - even chronographs are rarely (if ever) used by most owners. granted those functions can be used more easily than 3,000m water resistance, but it's really all about image and technical capability. Same is true in other industries as well - how many car owners get their car close to its top speed?

When it comes to dive watches in particular I do think that the industry needs to adopt the new ISO standard (which they are supposed to be doing) that states that the depth rating should actually reflect the usable depth rather than the maximum static water pressure, and my pet peeve, Breitling should stop calling their watches dive watches if they don't have a bezel pearl!

Agreed on all counts.

The ISO standard would be a real step forward IMO as well, as it relates to the real world. If the Navi was rated under ISO rules, it would be rated as Zero which would instantly do away with the, "can I wear my Navi while I'm washing the dishes" kind of confusion. That's why I like my G-Shock Frogman - ISO rated to 200m, which means it's fully useable at that depth. No messing round with symantics.

That said, I'm the perfect definition of a desk diver! A bit of swimming, and a bit of snorkeling on holiday and that's about it! But then if I was a "proper" diver I a) wouldn't be trusting my life to a mechanical watch (I'd be using a dive computer), and b) I wouldn't be risking my £4 or 5k watch in that kind of environment when a cheapo G-Shock would do the job just as well.

To me, great depth rating on watches is about appreciating the capability and the technical achievement. It's like anything else to do with watches : how many people need a tourbillon? No one, but people appreciate the achievement. How many people need a perpetual calendar? Again, no one. Taking it to it's extreme, how many people even need a mechanical watch in this day and age?

For me, everything about this hobby (including the dive watches) is about the technical achievement rather than the need to have something that will be used to the limit of it's capability every day.
Author:  gbuergisser [ Thu Oct 17, 2013 7:14 am ]
Post subject:  Re: The Reality of Dive Watches
I think a mechanical watch is a good complement to a dive computer. Not so sure which one is more error prone...
But I'd certainly like to hear the opinion of somebody who's diving for a living.
Author:  boogiebot [ Thu Oct 17, 2013 8:27 am ]
Post subject:  Re: The Reality of Dive Watches
Drtymrtini wrote:
I would consider myself a watch enthusiast. Admittedly, I don't know the intricacies and ins and outs of in-house movements and technical aspects as many of you on this forum; however, I am always amused by those who seek a "dive watch." 99.9% of people who buy a Breitling or Rolex or Panerai or Omega are not buying the watch to "dive." The majority of people who scuba as a hobby or a living don't buy mechanical watches to monitor their activity.

Can we just admit it's about the capabilities of the watch and not a reflection of our fantasies of grandeur?

I take my Omega on my beach vacations. I rarely go more than 33 meters below sea level. Does anyone here actually dive below 100 meters on a regular basis?



the only reason i bought a "dive" watch is that i like the layout. seconds, minutes, hours and maybe a date. plus a rotating bezel. to me its perfection.

honestly i will never even come close to testing the water rating. The most water my sub has seen is the swimming pool or the shower :lol: :lol: :lol:
Author:  Scott [ Thu Oct 17, 2013 8:32 am ]
Post subject:  Re: The Reality of Dive Watches
Years ago, I used to make a habit of finding some place where I could at least once, without traffic around, with a straight stretch of road and unobstructed view, drive my car to its full top (or governed) speed. Can't tell you why except to fully understand what it could do and how it performed under such conditions. Never had to do anything like that otherwise, but understanding what you had if you needed it, for some reason, was meaningful at the time. Such places to do it are harder and harder to find, but if the opportunity presents, I still have once or twice.

I presently own three, what I would call "dress divers". I like the look and the utility of the rotating bezel as a quick timer or an improvised GMT function. Also, I appreciate the simple fact that though I don't think I'll end up reaching into that water for something on an emergency basis, or diving or falling in that pool or that lake or river sometime, if I did, no big deal, the watch can take it.

What I lose with that, unfortunately, is some of the simple lovely sound of the machine at work. You can still hear something with the divers, but not what you hear with, for example, a classic dress watch. I'll eventually add or move something around in the collection to get that again.
Author:  Kodiak [ Thu Oct 17, 2013 11:40 am ]
Post subject:  Re: The Reality of Dive Watches
To me the 'dive' watch, as has been mentioned is a simple three hand dial, with date function, and a rotating timing bezel. It's the style and readability (usually larger/bolder hands and indices) that I like. I don't have to have 500+ M water rating or in-house movement. Besides, anything over 500M is usually too thick for my comfort level.

With that said, I do like to be able to wear it in the water, not to dive, but to snorkel and swim.

More overall style and readability for me :) .
Author:  TomP [ Thu Oct 17, 2013 2:15 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: The Reality of Dive Watches
I've got a couple of divers, one of them rated to 1500m, but even if it starts to drizzle I instinctively pull my cuff over them... Pure aesthetics for me.

Completely agree with Roff's and subsequent sentiments: depth rating should mean that, not static water pressure, would like to see some industry regulation on that. Though I suppose they must fear retrospective confusion.
Author:  mrcheatle [ Thu Oct 17, 2013 4:51 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: The Reality of Dive Watches
I personally do not diver nor plan on diving ever. I always like the look of the diver watches, plus the extra assurance that it will indeed be ok in water, to the extreme. My BB is not a "diver watch" but the 1000' WR makes it rugged enough for my liking.
Page 1 of 1 All times are UTC - 8 hours
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group
https://www.phpbb.com/