The Breitling Watch Source Forums

I'm on the "I don't see what the big deal is" train as well. It's just more of the same, where is the innovation?

I thought you'd like my example Jackson

I do agree with one thing you say in particular, great technology aside, if the 'watch' can never be worn on the wrist, then I'm not sure why they made it out to be a 'watch' (if that indeed was their intention) and not e.g. a clock or something else.

_________________
Happines is Good Health and a Bad Memory.
"Ingrid Bergman"

Because Rolex makes wristwatches. If they'd made it a clock, they wouldn't be able to claim they made another kick-ass, groundbreaking watch, which is what lends prestige to the brand. We talk all time about Rolex's masterful advertising and PR creating the mystique of the brand; here's that machine in action. It's clear this was simply a chance for Rolex to grab some PR and be able to claim yet again (a la the Explorer, et al) that "Rolex was there" at another significant moment in human exploration.

That also makes me wonder if that's why there's no helium valve - not because the watch was built so solidly as to be impervious to helium, but because it was never intended to be used in a helium-rich environment. The Challenge may be built like a tank to withstand the water pressure at the Mariana Trench, but if it was only ever intended to be strapped to the outside of the submersible, helium would not have been a concern.

For all the talk about what a technical marvel the DS Challenge is, I have yet to hear anyone mention that Rolex already achieved this feat over 50 years ago. On the last manned dive to the Mariana Trench in 1960, Rolex strapped the third incarnation of the Deep Sea Special to the Trieste, which dove 10,916 meters - 18 meters deeper than Cameron's dive. The watch returned from the dive in perfect working order. Given that, it would seem Justin hit the nail on the head: the Challenge is more of the same - just with an updated look.

Kinda like that post then

Show me another post in this thread where it has been mentioned that Rolex accomplished the same feat 52 years ago.

I was referring to your sentiments about the watch, which have been expressed once or twice in this thread.

My sentiments aside, the fact that Rolex is simply repeating a success they achieved 52 years ago was not previously mentioned in this thread, and I think it adds a different dimension to the discussion.