# Rolex Deep See vs Sinn U2 Divers



## pugridiron

*Rolex Deep Sea vs Sinn U2 Diver*

Looks like the folks at Rolex just one up'ed the Sinn technology lead in terms of deep sea divers.

The new 43mm by 17 mm Rolex Deep Sea is rated to 3900 meters compared with the 44 mm by 15 mm Sinn U2 at a mere 2000 meters rating. :-d

How will Sinn top that?

Rolex Deep Sea:



















Sinn U2:


----------



## Dieselgeek

*Re: Rolex Deep Sea vs Sinn U2 Diver*

1


> The silicon oil filled Sinn UX is certified to 12,000 meters (39,000 feet)


----------



## craniotes

Just to play along, I'd argue that the U2 more than holds its own against the DeepSea in terms of technology. To wit:

1) The U2 is low-temp resistant by virtue of its special lubricating oil, and unless I'm mistaken, the U2 also features an argon-filled case and copper-sulfate inserts that prevent moisture from building up within the case due to extreme variations in temperature.

2) The U2 features a GMT complication (albeit not a "true" GMT like the Rolex GMT-Master II, but hey, it's still better than nothing, right?).

3) The U2 features a tegimented bezel that resists scratches and scuffs, and "submarine" steel for the case that is non-corrosive and anti-magnetic (though this is offset somewhat by the DeepSea's ceramic bezel and 904L stainless steel case).

4) 3900M vs. 2000M = who cares? At either depth you're gonna get crushed like a watermelon facing off against a steamroller.

5) For the anticipated price of a DeepSea you can probably get about three U2s (probably more like four...).

6) And most importantly, the U2 makes do without any goofy writing on its chapter ring, but instead devotes the space to a larger dial.

Regards,
Adam

PS - Yes, the UX gets props for going waaaaaay deep, but since we're talking about automatic divers here, the comparison doesn't quite fit. Mechanical watches cannot use silicon-filled cases.


----------



## stockae92

i don't see how Sinn can top that

especially the price tag :-d


----------



## Dieselgeek

craniotes said:


> 3) The U2 features a tegimented bezel that resists scratches and scuffs, and "submarine" steel for the case that is non-corrosive and anti-magnetic (though this is offset somewhat by the DeepSea's ceramic bezel and 904L stainless steel case).


The 904L steel that Rolex uses is exclusive to Rolex in the jewelry industry. The only other industries that use this grade of steel are aerospace and medical.316L S.steel has 10-14% nickel content whereas 904L has 23-28% nickel, so it's hardly surprising that it's more corrosion resistant,in sea water


----------



## Nalu

No comparison: Sinn is a diver's watch, a Rolex is a poseur's watch.


----------



## pugridiron

*Re: Rolex Deep Sea vs Sinn U2 Diver*



Dieselgeek said:


> 1
> 
> The silicon oil filled Sinn UX is certified to 12,000 meters (39,000 feet)


Surely you're not comparing the Sinn UX: a quartz watch, with Silicone (now Teflon) oil that reportedly has had several cavitiy leaks under zero atm pressure to the high performance automatics like the Rolex Deep Sea and the Sinn U2? :-s


----------



## pugridiron

craniotes said:


> Just to play along, I'd argue that the U2 more than holds its own against the DeepSea in terms of technology. To wit:
> 
> 1) The U2 is low-temp resistant by virtue of its special lubricating oil, and unless I'm mistaken, the U2 also features an argon-filled case and copper-sulfate inserts that prevent moisture from building up within the case due to extreme variations in temperature.
> 
> 2) The U2 features a GMT complication (albeit not a "true" GMT like the Rolex GMT-Master II, but hey, it's still better than nothing, right?).
> 
> 3) The U2 features a tegimented bezel that resists scratches and scuffs, and "submarine" steel for the case that is non-corrosive and anti-magnetic (though this is offset somewhat by the DeepSea's ceramic bezel and 904L stainless steel case).
> 
> 4) 3900M vs. 2000M = who cares? At either depth you're gonna get crushed like a watermelon facing off against a steamroller.
> 
> 5) For the anticipated price of a DeepSea you can probably get about three U2s (probably more like four...).
> 
> 6) And most importantly, the U2 makes do without any goofy writing on its chapter ring, but instead devotes the space to a larger dial.
> 
> Regards,
> Adam
> 
> PS - Yes, the UX gets props for going waaaaaay deep, but since we're talking about automatic divers here, the comparison doesn't quite fit. Mechanical watches cannot use silicon-filled cases.


And now for the impressive list of new Rolex patented technical features.

ROLEX OYSTER PERPETUAL SEA-DWELLER DEEPSEA 
TECHNICAL FEATURES

CASE ARCHITECTURE AND WATERPROOFNESS 
A watch developed for extreme depths, guaranteed waterproof to 3,900 metres (12,800 feet), the Sea-Dweller DEEPSEA required the design of a case with a unique architecture, the RINGLOCK SYSTEM. This innovation patented by Rolex consists of a combination of three distinctive features:

• The high-performance ring 
Set inside the middle case of the watch between the crystal and the case back, the high-performance nitrogen-alloyed stainless steel ring withstands the pressure exerted by water on the crystal and the case back. 
The middle case is made from 904L steel.

• The sapphire crystal 
To resist pressure, the synthetic sapphire crystal is slightly domed and substantially thicker than the crystals of other Oyster models.

• The case back 
The case back is made of a titanium alloy, an extremely resistant stainless material. It is held in place against the high-performance ring by means of a 904L-steel ring. 
The helium valve is made of high-performance stainless steel. Its size is adapted to the dimensions of the case to achieve optimal waterproofness. The helium valve is a safety feature, which, during the decompression phase, releases the gases that infiltrate into the watch during caisson dives. 
Indeed, between dives at great depths, professional divers use pressurised caissons in which they breathe high-pressure gas mixtures, notably containing helium, a very volatile gas that penetrates into the watch. As the diver resurfaces, the helium valve prevents damage to the watch. 
The Triplock winding crown, equipped with three seals and screwed onto the case, completes this ingenious waterproof system.

DISPLAY AND LEGIBILITY

The bezel 
The Sea-Dweller DEEPSEA is equipped with a unidirectional rotatable bezel with a 
60-minute graduated black CERACHROM disc that allows the diver to precisely track his dive time. 
Engraved in the CERACHROM, the numerals and the graduations are filled with platinum through the use of a PVD technique patented by Rolex. 
The zero marker of the graduated bezel, represented by a triangle, is visible longer at night or in the depths of the ocean thanks to a capsule containing a new luminescent material that emits a blue glow.

The dial 
To enhance legibility, the gold indexes and hands are wider and partially coated with the same new luminescent material and also emit a blue colour.

The movement 
The Sea-Dweller DEEPSEA is equipped with calibre 3135, known for its chronometric precision, its reliability and its robustness; it also features a PARACHROM hairspring with high resistance to shocks and magnetic fields. 
Certified as a chronometer by the Swiss Official Chronometer Testing Institute (COSC), the movement has a 48-hour power reserve.

The bracelet 
Manufactured from solid 904L steel, the Sea-Dweller DEEPSEA bracelet can be adjusted for wear over a diving suit up to 7 mm thick thanks to a double extension system: 
• Fliplock extension links, 
• the new GLIDELOCK clasp, allowing fine adjustments.

A series of rigorous tests 
Because deep-sea diving requires absolute reliability and safety, each Sea-Dweller 
DEEPSEA must pass Rolex's rigorous waterproofness tests. To this end, special equipment has been developed with the help of COMEX (Compagnie Maritime 
d'Expertise), a world-renowned French company specialising in underwater engineering and hyperbaric technologies.

ROLEX OYSTER PERPETUAL SEA-DWELLER DEEPSEA 
FUNCTIONING 
THE UNIDIRECTIONAL ROTATABLE BEZEL 
The Oyster Perpetual Sea-Dweller DEEPSEA allows a diver to safely track his dive time thanks to the unidirectional graduated bezel featured on the watch.

At the beginning of a dive 
Once in the water, before beginning his descent, the diver turns the bezel to align the triangle on the graduated bezel to the minute hand, thus indicating the start time of his dive.

During the dive 
The dive time can be read against the graduated bezel. 
Since the DEEPSEA bezel turns only counterclockwise, any accidental rotation can only have the effect of shortening the dive time.

THE GLIDELOCK CLASP 
The new GLIDELOCK clasp allows for fine adjustments to the bracelet length, up to 18 mm by increments of 1.8 mm, without removing the watch. 
1 Pull up the clasp's safety catch. 
2 Pull up the centre panel of the clasp cover. The teeth located underneath it become visible. 
3 Pull gently on the 12-o'clock side of the bracelet to lengthen it, or slide it into the clasp to shorten it. Adjustments can be made in 1.8 mm increments, up to a total of 18 mm. 
4 Once the bracelet has been adjusted to the desired length, close the centre panel. 
5 Close the safety catch.


----------



## Mark McK

How much does the new Rolex cost? The Sinn U2?;-) Mark


----------



## Timothy Patrick

Well, my U2 has been to hell and back and has survived without nary a microscratch and has performed flawlessly and you know how I have abused it with some extreme rapid temp change tests. 

Throughout all that time, I have never really felt nervous or paused for thought on the appropriateness of what I was doing with this watch. It is a true tool watch. It belongs where I took it and has lived up to the claims of the company that produced it. The stay dry tech alone is essential to where I live and what I do with my watch.

Now, a Rolex, especially a really, really, really expensive and gorgeous watch like this...well, I would not think of taking it where I took my U2. Not saying that it can't handle what the U2 did, but it truly doesn't look like it belongs where I take it. It's just too classy and too sexy and too elegant looking to fit with my ole' beaver fur hat and my carhartt bibs and jack shirt. Not only that, but if I wore a Rolex into the bush, my buds would laugh till the cows came home. Up here, Rolex's are seen as being poser watches. Yeah, they have great tech and have a rich diver history but only the lawyers and councilmen wear them.

This new Rolex, aside from that tacky writing on the inside rim, is pretty impressive but it won't fly where I come from (45 minutes from the edge of civilization). Surely, it's impressive and a nice new offering, albeit at a healthy price but it's just too flashy.

In regards to depth, 2000, 3000, I'm sure very few care, only those who would like to show off their watch and say..."hey, look at this baby, w/r to xxxx depth, pretty cool eh!"

Good on Rolex for this new offering, but to people like me who bash their watch and don't like bling, bling, a U2 will do just fine.

Considering who the U2 is marketed to...guys like me, and considering all of the above, I think they don't need to one-up the new Rolex.

Just my thoughts.
Tim


----------



## PDR

The Sinn U2 is unique, distinctive "tool watch" with an impressive specification.:-!

The Rolex Deep Sea is yet another over rated piece of jewellery for those with deep pockets&#8230;&#8230; and for those with less disposable income a replica will no doubt be available shortly.:roll:

About the only good thing I could say about that particular Rolex is that it at least does not have a hideous Cyclops fitted.<|

I chose to buy and wear a Sinn U2 because of its specification, its looks and the relative rarity value&#8230; I've yet to meet anyone else wearing an U2&#8230;.. yet Rolexes are ten a penny in either real or fake guise&#8230;..:roll:


----------



## Timothy Patrick

$9500.

wow.


----------



## Daddel Virks

Timothy Patrick said:


> $9500.
> 
> wow.




I wouldn't dare to do the dishes with that!!

Cheers,

Daddel.


----------



## Dimitris

Timothy Patrick said:


> $9500.
> 
> wow.


And probably already sold out.

Regards
Dimitris


----------



## ferdinand

pugridiron said:


> THE GLIDELOCK CLASP
> The new GLIDELOCK clasp allows for fine adjustments to the bracelet length, up to 18 mm by increments of 1.8 mm, without removing the watch.
> 1 Pull up the clasp's safety catch.
> 2 Pull up the centre panel of the clasp cover. The teeth located underneath it become visible.
> 3 Pull gently on the 12-o'clock side of the bracelet to lengthen it, or slide it into the clasp to shorten it. Adjustments can be made in 1.8 mm increments, up to a total of 18 mm.
> 4 Once the bracelet has been adjusted to the desired length, close the centre panel.
> 5 Close the safety catch.


Although I am not a Rolex fan at all, Rolex has something here. The system of this new clasp really sounds interesting.

Ironically, I just recently felt quite annoyed about how Sinn bracelets cannot be fine-adjusted anymore without using a tool. This makes them relatively useless to me as I like to have my watches sit firmly on my wrist which needs frequent adjustment as my wristsize will vary during the day according to physical activity.
In the past, in the good old days, Sinn sold a type of bracelet called "Expandro", which was easily adjustable without tools. I always thought that they did not sell this anymore cause they switched to a more solid bracelet type, and that this type of adjustment would not be possible anymore. Appearently it is possible after all.

So this is on my whishlist for Sinn: Make an easily expandable bracelet, so I can wear one again. It can't be so hard after all, and it would make more sense to me than shelling out certain new models ...


----------



## Dieselgeek

Rolex haters are funny. 

Just think if you could raise your prices as much as %20 and no one would flinch. 

Oh wait Sinn Just did that as well.


----------



## pugridiron

Timothy Patrick said:


> $9500.
> 
> wow.


That price estimate was wrong. New information today from Basel is $4000 in the UK that includes a 17% UK tax. So we're are looking at about $7200 to $7500 here in the USA. Which is about right considering the new GMT II ceramic is $6950 and the current SD is $6250.

Also the current model 16600 Sea Dweller is being discontinued.


----------



## ferdinand

Dieselgeek said:


> Rolex haters are funny.


If you think I "hate" Rolex because I said I don't like it, I think you're a little bit funny yourself.


----------



## Dieselgeek

ferdinand said:


> If you think I "hate" Rolex because I said I don't like it, I think you're a little bit funny yourself.


I am funny, and I'm not talking about you.:-!


----------



## ferdinand

Dieselgeek said:


> I am funny, and I'm not talking about you.:-!


Misinterpreted your posting. Sorry!

Anyway, that clasp on the Rolex bracelet is cool. Wish Sinn had something like it.


----------



## Nalu

Dieselgeek said:


> Rolex haters are funny.
> 
> Just think if you could raise your prices as much as %20 and no one would flinch.
> 
> Oh wait Sinn Just did that as well.


And Sinn are still a better watch at less than half the price of a Rolex.


----------



## Tragic

Nalu said:


> No comparison: Sinn is a diver's watch, a Rolex is a poseur's watch.


Who are you exactly to label all owners of Rolex's as "poseurs"?
That's an outrageous statement.
If you don't like a watch, fine, criticize the watch.
To broadly label the OWNERS of any particular brand in a derogative fashion is pure trolling and I'm amazed this post wasn't deleted.


----------



## spogehead

Tragic said:


> Who are you exactly to label all owners of Rolex's as "poseurs"?
> That's an outrageous statement.
> If you don't like a watch, fine, criticize the watch.
> To broadly label the OWNERS of any particular brand in a derogative fashion is pure trolling and I'm amazed this post wasn't deleted.


I don't own a Rolex but I have to agree with Tragic. Crazy statement :roll:


----------



## Timothy Patrick

I still find it ridiculous how people can hate an inanimate object. It might not be up your alley as your preferences differs from the OEM's mission statement but to harbor hatred over it, well, it seems a bit silly.

I prefer to see people post THEIR opinions on the subject of the thread instead of making blanket statements which come across as an absolute statement of fact. People might not like your opinions but if presented respectfully, everyone can get their say.

Based on where you are from and your experiences, the membership can get some insight from your offerings but lets not rile people up by making blanket statements of facts.

I, myself, do not see a need for this new Rolex as I have a U2 which is way overbuilt for my purposes but I also realize that there are people out there who will like this model and can afford to purchase it. I won't trash it or anyone for buying it.

Even at $7000, I still personally feel that's a lot of money for a watch, regardless of which watch it is.


----------



## craniotes

Back to the topic at hand, I still fail to see exactly where Rolex trumps Sinn in terms of horological technology. If I'm understanding things correctly, the DeepSea's main two claims to fame are an unsightly ring of 904L steel that buttresses the case against the extreme pressures exerted by a thoroughly ridiculous 3900M of seawater, and a ratcheting bracelet. Beyond that, what exactly is Rolex is bringing to the table here that would make U2 owners feel insecure. Blue lume, maybe? 

Mind you, I'm far from being a Rolex-basher, and in spite of the less-than-subtle writing on the rehaut, I find myself quite liking this new iteration of the Sea-Dweller. That said, I'm saving my pennies for the black-dialed steel version of the new Submariner.

Regards,
Adam


----------



## obie

I'll stick to my sinns at the moment, the collection is getting bigger. I do know my sgs9 ux can take any kind of abuse I throw at it as well as the u1s.
But I do own rolexes, namely 2 daytonas and a submariner. I don't see there prices as being anything but rolex. A poser? not unless you think wearing a u2 or a sinn ux is being a poser to the guy who only buys a timex. price points are subjective. I don't like the term poser put on anyone who wears a rolex.
That just shows your prejudice towards the people who own a rolex.


----------



## Nalu

Tragic said:


> Who are you exactly to label all owners of Rolex's as "poseurs"?


I didn't. Who are you to label me as a troll? Or crazy?

Rolex marketing translates into an enormous business and thousands of purpose-built* watches being worn by folks who will never use them for anything like their intended purpose. I'd estimate that 90% of the Rolex Subs and SDs I see are worn by people who bought the watch because it says Rolex on the dial and it's attractive. Their decision has little or nothing to do with the history of the brand or model, the design features, the technology, or the utility of the watch. Nor will their watches ever see depth. That's the reality of the watch world outside the very small collector/enthusiast community.

*Objectively, the Sub and the SD are not very good dive watches if you use functional criteria like legibility, ease of use, etc. Having said that, I'm glad to see Rolex finally addressing some of these issues in the DeepSea.

Sinn watches are purpose-designed and built, without regard to style. When was the last time a non-WIS bought a U-1 because it _looks_ flash? They are accurate, legible and tough watches. Sinn continually push the edge of dive watch technology, with those advances being designed to further accuracy, legibility or toughness (durability).

I don't hate any watch, nor have I called all Rolex owners poseurs. I own a 16660 and used to have an LV (until I realised it really wasn't a very good dive watch). My experience has been that the overwhelming majority of Rolex dive watch purchasers don't dive their watches, instead wearing them as 'dress' divers under a cuff. They'll specifically take time to remove their watch from their wrist to go to the gym, work in the yard or jump in the water. OTOH, my experience has been that the majority of Sinn dive watch customers do put them to hard use. It's evident that Sinn make their dive watches for those folks. I can't imagine that Sinn even see themselves in the same dive watch market as Rolex. Ergo, I don't think there is any comparison between the two, nor do Sinn need to do anything to "top" Rolex: they're already there.

Being a poseur has little to do with the price of your watch and everything to do with _why_ you buy your watch. I used to wear a Timex Ironman for training. Did I buy it because it said "Ironman" on it? Hell no, I bought it because it was the best watch for timing multiple splits when I needed such a watch. After my first Ironman died, I wore a ladies Timex Ironman that I found in the surf because it did all the things my old watch did and was even lighter. After that one died, I bought a third because Indiglo had just come out and I was working at night a lot. Since I stopped doing triathlons and left the 160th, I haven't bought an Ironman.

All those claiming that they don't generalise about people by their watch are fooling themselves: WISs are among the worst. In fact, a couple of years ago there was a message floating around the forums about this very thing (generalisations about people by the brand of watch they wear) and the dozens of replies I saw could be best summarised by: "How true!" The human mind must generalise in order to function with all the information it receives on a daily basis - that is a fact of life. The key is how rigidly one holds to those generalisations when presented with a specific case. The fact that some people will deviate from those generalisations is just as real as the source of those generalisations.

Now, for Tragic and Spogehead, who are reaching for the reply button to point out that they didn't call me a troll or crazy, don't bother. I realise that. But I wrote the above hoping to draw your attention to the fact that you (and others) read things into my post which were neither there nor intended. Sometimes, one doesn't have a half hour to type out an entire post and occasionally one has to make a brief comment and go do other things.


----------



## Tragic

If sales of Pilot's watches were limited to pilots and Dive watches to divers etc. etc. there would be exactly 0 companies producing them.
Long live "poseurs".
Hard to read anything into your original comment, other than Rolex owners are poseurs, since thats what you wrote.
I'm just literal like that.


----------



## Daddel Virks

Tragic said:


> If sales of Pilot's watches were limited to pilots and Dive watches to divers etc. etc. there would be exactly 0 companies producing them.
> Long live "poseurs".
> Hard to read anything into your original comment, other than Rolex owners are poseurs, since thats what you wrote.
> I'm just literal like that.


Very true indeed.
And no WUS to make all these statements .
You can like it, or you don't, for me every watch costing that amount of money would be treasured and not worn.
It all depends on taste and the contents of your wallet.

Cheers,

Daddel.


----------



## thodgins

The Glidelock Clasp looks really cool. Here is a press kit pic of the clasp.










Glashutte Original is one up over Rolex because of their bracelet found on the Sport Evolution which has been around for awhile and I like the execution of the GO micro adjustment better. I had a chance to try out the micro adjustment on the GO and it was sweet. All I had to do was press the GO symbol on the clasp and slide it out.


----------



## ferdinand

thodgins said:


> The Glidelock Clasp looks really cool. Here is a press kit pic of the clasp.


Maybe we should try to talk Sinn into producing such a clasp of their own. I'd really like to have a micro-adjustable Sinn bracelet.


----------



## Dieselgeek

Timothy Patrick said:


> I still find it ridiculous how people can hate an inanimate object. It might not be up your alley as your preferences differs from the OEM's mission statement but to harbor hatred over it, well, it seems a bit silly.
> 
> I prefer to see people post THEIR opinions on the subject of the thread instead of making blanket statements which come across as an absolute statement of fact. People might not like your opinions but if presented respectfully, everyone can get their say.
> 
> Based on where you are from and your experiences, the membership can get some insight from your offerings but lets not rile people up by making blanket statements of facts.
> 
> I, myself, do not see a need for this new Rolex as I have a U2 which is way overbuilt for my purposes but I also realize that there are people out there who will like this model and can afford to purchase it. I won't trash it or anyone for buying it.
> 
> Even at $7000, I still personally feel that's a lot of money for a watch, regardless of which watch it is.


Because it's easy to say... *Watch is over priced trash* then to give real reasons. 
Lots of people would flip if they new I wore a $1600 watch as my daily "beater" Let alone the U2 being around $2800. I love my Sinn and love that I can wear it every day and not have to worry about it. When I first bought it I worried, but I enjoyed wearing it so much I just could not take it off.

IMO they sell them for this price BECAUSE THEY FREAKING CAN.... I mean a 2 year wait on a 10k watch. Good for Rolex. It's not like they make crap.

Just my .02.


----------



## Dieselgeek

Tragic said:


> If sales of Pilot's watches were limited to pilots and Dive watches to divers etc. etc. there would be exactly 0 companies producing them.
> Long live "poseurs".
> Hard to read anything into your original comment, other than Rolex owners are poseurs, since thats what you wrote.
> I'm just literal like that.


No joke, I want a Porsche... but wait I'm not a RACECAR DRIVER

OMG spell racecar bakwards .

A.D.D off topic My mother just got back from Italy, Last time she went she brought me back a F1 Ferrari hat. I asked her to get me one from this season this time... They gave her the same one from 2 years ago  50 euros to boot. It was still a great gift and I'm glad to get it as my old one is a lil worn out.


----------



## RPF

Timothy Patrick said:


> Up here, Rolex's are seen as being poser watches. Yeah, they have great tech and have a rich diver history but only the lawyers and councilmen wear them.





Nalu said:


> No comparison: Sinn is a diver's watch, a Rolex is a poseur's watch.


May I ask why one takes offense at the second poster's words and not the mod's?

Granted if you're a Rolex owner but not a lawyer or a councilman...


----------



## Sean779

RPF said:


> May I ask why one takes offense at the second poster's words and not the mod's?
> 
> Granted if you're a Rolex owner but not a lawyer or a councilman...


For one thing, Tim was talking about his town, not talking universally.


----------



## cvc

I'm a bit of a bad boy and so I wear a Doxa 750T all day. However, there is a bit of a poser in me and that's why I've been lusting for a Sinn U1. My apologies if I've offended anyone..lol


----------



## Janne

I sometimes wear a JLC Master Moon. I am getting a Breitling in gold/S/S (a present)). Also an Ebel in gold( another present). Does that make me a poser? Sometimes I wear my U 2. Sometimes some other watch from my humble collection. I do not like the tone of this thread, to be able to afford a watch not everybody can, that should not be ridiculed. We are grown up people, and should behave as such.


----------



## roberev

Dieselgeek said:


> The 904L steel that Rolex uses is exclusive to Rolex in the jewelry industry. The only other industries that use this grade of steel are aerospace and medical.316L S.steel has 10-14% nickel content whereas 904L has 23-28% nickel, so it's hardly surprising that it's more corrosion resistant,in sea water


This is one category that Sinn trumps Rolex for the nickel-allergy WIS. The U-series steel is nickel free.

Rob


----------



## Timothy Patrick

Dieselgeek said:


> Because it's easy to say... *Watch is over priced trash* then to give real reasons.
> Lots of people would flip if they new I wore a $1600 watch as my daily "beater" Let alone the U2 being around $2800. I love my Sinn and love that I can wear it every day and not have to worry about it. When I first bought it I worried, but I enjoyed wearing it so much I just could not take it off.
> 
> IMO they sell them for this price BECAUSE THEY FREAKING CAN.... I mean a 2 year wait on a 10k watch. Good for Rolex. It's not like they make crap.
> 
> Just my .02.


Well, Dieselgeek, it's easy for me, really easy for me, I, Timothy Patrick, to say....it's over priced for me, I, Timothy Patrick and I couldn't give a rat's ass as to what anyone else thinks of this new Rolex or it's price. It's completely irrelevant to me. And I never said it or any other watch from any other manufacturer was trash. Reread my posts in this thread or any other thread.

I bought my Sinn U2 because I need that stupid stay-dry tech for the environmental and climactic conditions that I would be exposing an automatic watch to for extended periods of time. The price was high but it was the only game in town. Why anyone else wears what they wear is also irrelevant to me.

For anyone who cares.....

I don't FREAKIN care if Rolex built the absolute greatest watch in the world which so completely encompasses anything by Sinn or by any other watch company in the planet in every conceivable category that anyone can think of.

I don't FREAKIN care if everyone in the world goes goo goo eyed over this new Rolex and froths at the mouth over this or anything that Rolex or anyone else puts out there.

I don't FREAKIN care what anyone else thinks of the price of this new Rolex or any other watch as I know that price is relative.

I don't FREAKIN care if Rolex sells a million-thousand and nine of them and everyone out there upon looking at this new, gorgeous, yardstick by which all other watches will be measured, for all time, feels like peeing on their silly stupid Sinn watches.

I don't FREAKIN care if Sinn, upon seeing this most amazingly technically advance timepiece, curls up into a fetal position and collectively develops a drinking problem to deal with the fact that after all this time, they are just a small dog wanting to be a big dog only to be stepped on by the bad ass dog of all bad ass dogs....as long as they continue to make parts and will service my stupid U2 for as long as I'm alive because I am so happy with my U2 and feel that it serves my purpose so well that I am not interested in trying to one up it even if given a "better watch" for free. Just service it and keep servicing it and I will be happy.

My time is way too valuable to spend it here or on any other forum debating which ridiculously overbuilt watch is the better one and how expensive is too expensive. You all know now that I feel that $7500 is too much for any watch and that I don't care if you agree or not. I also understand that nobody out there is really interested in my opinions of watches I have never owned or seen so I will refrain for evermore from commenting on them, I will leave it to you guys to slap around.


----------



## Timothy Patrick

RPF said:


> May I ask why one takes offense at the second poster's words and not the mod's?
> 
> Granted if you're a Rolex owner but not a lawyer or a councilman...


I live in a small, irrelevant piece of the world that nobody has ever heard of or even cares about. The people I know are like me, miners and trappers and loggers and stupid average joes. I have seen Rolex's before, many of them, on the hands of rich retired people, rich people, doctors, lawyers and advertizing people and, yes, councilmen. I run across these people from time to time for whatever reason and I see their watches and they are beautiful. I have never seen a Rolex on an average joe's wrist. I'm sure that there are average joe's out there who wear them but I have never seen one, in my stupid irrelevant corner of the world.

I reported on what I see. Up here, the thought process, by us stupid, silly ignorant backwood jerks is that, regardless of the history, the tech and the supreme superiority of Rolex over everything out there in this beautiful green world, they are very expensive and too classy and exquisite to wear out in the bush cutting wood.

Your world may be different.

But, because of the fact that I have insulted you, I will gladly step down as moderator here and as a moderator at large if it is felt by the membership that I should not hold my position as I have most grievously misused my position to jump out and insult all Rolex owner around the world and embarrased myself and all of the watchuseek moderators by my shameful and ugly attack upon all in the world who likes, loves or wears Rolex watches.

In fact, I am reporting myself to the moderators and for Ernie to decide if I should be removed. I urge you to also report my post too.

I am not apologizing for what I wrote. You will have to wait the outcome and attempt to seek justice yourself. I await the verdict and will accept it without a second thought.


----------



## TZAG

Let's get down to the ground and take it easy. Honestly I never saw Tim so upset and I feel sorry for that. His writings are always very clear and he never expressed rivalrous opinions to anything or anyone.
I'd like to make some "silly" questions.
WHY should Sinn be compared with Rolex?? If so, in a way, it's a compliment to me by looking and comparing their prices.
And WHY should Sinn overbeat Rolex'es products?? Sinn has proved already its ability to make GREAT divers until now and tested! |> Read some previous comparison tests first! ;-) 
So is the depth our problem?? Who cares! In current case, technologically I think Rolex made progress and tried to overbeat Sinn!
I believe the only problem is the opinion of people, (hopefully the minority) who thinks to become or be owner of Rolex they conquer what watchindustry can give!
My2Cs


----------



## llyfr

Best thread I've seen for a while. :-!
Looks like everyone has an opinion and we all know what comes next. Looks like this thread has its share of them also. :roll:


----------



## RPF

Tim, I apologize if you've taken my observation the wrong way. 

I wasn't seeking "justice" for Rolex owners, lawyers, councilmen or otherwise. It was merely an observation that two similar sentences, written by two people, generated very different responses. 

I was just surprised that a one-sentence post generated such vehemence, Esp. a pro-Sinn one on the Sinn forum. It is my opinion that people take some posts too literally and I felt this was a perfect example of things taken out of context. 

Unfortunately, my post has done more harm than good in this case.

As your post so clearly explained, a person's background, env. and social circle largely determines his/her perceptions. That's what makes us different. 

Please, there's no need to denigrate your part of the world or your social circle. It pains me to read that. I'm sure it has enough charms for you to call it home as a free man. I sure would love to live next door to nature, as you're so privileged to, just not as freezing cold. 

There is no need to quit over this Tim. I've always liked your posts, and I'm sure many on the Sinn forum respect you for the work you've put in as moderator.

Let me say again. I did not mean to upset anyone. I apologize if I did. It was just a spur of the moment observation on the skewed dynamics that I didn't word properly.


----------



## BeerGuy

Dimitris said:


> And probably already sold out.


Let's not kid ourselves, a particular Rolex never "sells out." Rolex makes watches by the millions each year, and according to the marketing, they sell each and every one of them. Rolex also CHOOSES to make limited numbers of certain watches to create an artificial, but POWERFUL demand.

My local Rolex A.D. CHOOSES to tease people by putting one of the stainless Daytonas they have in their safe out in the display case from time to time. I guess they feel it legitimizes them as a high volume Rolex A.D. The same goes for the Milgauss they currently have in the case. When I stop in and see one of the Daytonas or the Milgauss in the case I pull out my credit card and ask them to wrap it up. They always have the same answer, "Oh, I'm sorry, we can't do that. This watch is on hold for a customer already." If I was that customer I'd have a fit if they didn't take my $7K+ watch out of the darn display case while I waited to pick it up. It's a big game, nothing more, nothing less. I'm in sales, I get it, but I don't condone it.


----------



## Janne

Tim! NO! You are the back bone of this forum! So please forget your "quitting" idea! The WUS would lose a very knowlegable moderator! And a walking, breathing torture-test bench for watches!


----------



## vjb.knife

Nalu said:


> No comparison: Sinn is a diver's watch, a Rolex is a poseur's watch.


Well let's see here, I own each. I have had about five Rolex and still have two; had an EZM1 and have an EZM3 with a U1000S on order. I might even consider getting this new Rolex.

I guess these days I am probably a poseur as I pretty much only snorkel and do very shallow and warm diving. On the other hand I have been to a bit over 650 fsw Saturation diving and done some pretty hairy things during my roughly 16,000 hours working in the water.

So what of it? I say the Submariner is a fine diving watch and so is the EZM3. Everyone has their own opinion and is certainly entitled to it. Just don't make it sound like yours is any more valid than someone else's, I know mine's not.


----------



## Mark McK

Tim, You end your post with "just my thoughts" and that is exactly what these forums are all about. I want to know what others think and it is why I tune in way too much to this forum (according to my wife:roll. I enjoy this Sinn forum and you are a big reason why. You have always given your perspective in a clear intelligent manner and I appreciate that. I also appreciate what you and many others have voiced on this thread. We all have a point of view and we want to share it. We might disagree on our favorites but it does not mean we do not get along. If everyone felt the same way about the same products, why tune in? I think you have done a great job as a moderator and I think this is a great forum! Just my thoughts. Best Regards, Mark:-!


----------



## pugridiron

Timothy Patrick said:


> My time is way too valuable to spend it here or on any other forum debating which ridiculously overbuilt watch is the better one and how expensive is too expensive. You all know now that I feel that $7500 is too much for any watch and that I don't care if you agree or not. I also understand that nobody out there is really interested in my opinions of watches I have never owned or seen so I will refrain for evermore from commenting on them, I will leave it to you guys to slap around.


Debating and expressing ones opinions is the point of all internet forums.

I find it very interesting that Rolex decided to reclaim the "ultimate diver" technology lead. Word is that the new Rolex Deep See automatic watch actually passed a test at *5000 meters* at COMEX. That is a very impressive technological feat.


----------



## vjb.knife

pugridiron said:


> Debating and expressing ones opinions is the point of all internet forums.
> 
> I find it very interesting that Rolex decided to reclaim the "ultimate diver" technology lead. Word is that the new Rolex Deep See automatic watch actually passed a test at *5000 feet* at COMEX. That is a very impressive technological feat.


That is 5000 meters not feet. This is not surprising. All 'Pressure Vessels' are tested to beyond what they are rated. It is common and required engineering practice to test a device to 25% or more of what it is rated to be operated . Depending on the use the static testing is often more than 100% of the dynamic pressure rating. Of course a device such as a Deepsea Seadweller or other watch should take more than the 'nameplate' rating. No watch should burst at the rated pressure on it's dial.


----------



## STEVIE

In my part of the world, Rolex watches are very seldom seen. There are no Rolex AD's here the nearest being a 2 hour drive down to the coast.

I do own a Rolex Sea-Dweller which I bought new last year in Hong Kong. I know a guy in the building trade here and he has a 17 year old Submariner which he has never had serviced. It's his daily beater and he washes it under a tap on the building site when he finishes work to get the brick and cement dust off. I would guess I am the only SD owner in my town. I wear mine every day, but being retired, the watch gets a soft life compared to my friends Sub.:-d

Reason for buying my SD was:

I always wanted one but could never afford one. It was at a price which I would have been foolish to pass on. I am not a rich guy, I worked for 40 years until I could afford to buy my first Swiss automatic watch, an Oris. I then worked up the ladder to Omega and Breitling, before getting into Rolex.

From what I researched about the Rolex Company, its history and the Rolex range of watches and their in-house movements, I made the choice believing them to be very reliable, good looking on the wrist (_does this make me a poseur?:-d) _and if ever I got short of cash, I would be able to sell it without substantial loss.

I am unable to draw personal comparisons between my Rolex and Sinn.
I have recently read a lot about Sinn range of watches and I am fully aware of their toughness and reliability, especially from the excellent writings here by Timothy Patrick. Unfortunately the brand is even less known here than Rolex and there are no known dealers t t b o m k in Eastern Australia. If there was a dealer here, I would not have hesitated in having a look at the Sinn range.

In conclusion, I think comparing these two models in this thread achieves nothing because the models are so different from each other. A comparison of a Sinn Diver to a Bell & Ross or the MTM Extreme Ops Black Seal, all of which are fluid filled, would make a whole lot more interesting reading IMHO and result in less of the grand standing and non-constructive defensive/offensive remarks.

Timothy, please stay in play.

Cheers


----------



## Crusader

vjb.knife said:


> That is 5000 meters not feet. This is not surprising. All 'Pressure Vessels' are tested to beyond what they are rated. It is common and required engineering practice to test a device to 25% or more of what it is rated to be operated .


In fact, the DIN/ISO dive watch norm requires testing at 125% for the 100% to be put on the dial. ;-)


----------



## oyster

I love the new SDDS, it´ll be my EXIT watch !
I saw it at Basel fair and it´s breathtaking :-!

Ordered it very early, so hopefully, it will arrive in fall or winter.


----------



## STEVIE

oyster said:


> I love the new SDDS, it´ll be my EXIT watch !
> I saw it at Basel fair and it´s breathtaking :-!
> 
> Ordered it very early, so hopefully, it will arrive in fall or winter.


<edited by moderator> not respectful towards others. Please consult rule #1.


----------



## Guest

?


----------



## Timothy Patrick

Marcus, it's good to hear from you again. Thanks for stopping by and congrats on your new Deep Sea. 

Hope all is well with you.

All the best,
Tim

p.s. for those who are relatively new here, Oyster has been around this forum for several years and I and others have benefited from his watch ownership experiences and his great pics. It's good to see him here after a significant absence.


----------



## oyster

Hello Tim!

It has been a long time since I have been around here daily!

But things are quite good here, even with my watches.
I went to Baselworld for 3 days and just came back, I had also a close look at the Sinn U1000 and U2 black and I have to say, the chrono is an impressive watch!

But you know my love for Rolex and the new SDDS is a dream come true divers watch to me. So no doubt about it to get one :-!
Hurry Rolex !!!!

So what is you UX doing? Still in good health?
I hope the watch is all right, sending it back might couse massive problems :-d And your company? All right too?!

I hope you are ok too
Take care my friend!
Cheers Marcus
:-!

I´ll send you some pics later ! You still have the same e-mail?


----------



## Timothy Patrick

oyster said:


> Hello Tim!
> 
> It has been a long time since I have been around here daily!
> 
> But things are quite good here, even with my watches.
> I went to Baselworld for 3 days and just came back, I had also a close look at the Sinn U1000 and U2 black and I have to say, the chrono is an impressive watch!
> 
> But you know my love for Rolex and the new SDDS is a dream come true divers watch to me. So no doubt about it to get one :-!
> Hurry Rolex !!!!
> 
> So what is you UX doing? Still in good health?
> I hope the watch is all right, sending it back might couse massive problems :-d And your company? All right too?!
> 
> I hope you are ok too
> Take care my friend!
> Cheers Marcus
> :-!
> 
> I´ll send you some pics later ! You still have the same e-mail?


I'll send you a pm tomorrow if I can find some spare time. Drove taxi tonight and will have to take care of the business part tomorrow.

cheers,
Tim


----------



## oyster

Hello Tim,

here is my desperate attempt to get a raison d´etre in the Sinn area :-d 
Got this nice messanger bag with the press kit. (Watch was not included!)

Cheers Marcus


----------



## feudallordcult

here's what methinks: everyone is entitled to their opinion in cyberspace. 

I bought my U1 in july 2007. It is my daily beater and after 10months of continous abuse, not even a scratch on the watchcase. I feel liberated whenever I wear my U1 cos I know it's tough enough to take on almost anything. I once knocked this baby pretty hard againist an empty glass tank and the latter cracked whilst the U1 kept ticking away. For the price that I paid, this watch is the epitome of "value for money". 

As for my SD, it's just not the same thing. it's the King of Seas & the purported ultimate tool watch but why is it that everytime i wear it, i'm so worried that i'll scratch it? it attracts plenty of attention only cos it's a rolex but to be honest, it's way overpriced. 

If I could turn back time, would I have bought these two watches again? Yes, i definitely would. IMHO, both are dive watches but that's about all the similarity shared between the two. Each watch is in the class of its own.


----------



## Tragic

feudallordcult said:


> here's what methinks: everyone is entitled to their opinion in cyberspace.
> 
> I bought my U1 in july 2007. It is my daily beater and after 10months of continous abuse, not even a scratch on the watchcase. I feel liberated whenever I wear my U1 cos I know it's tough enough to take on almost anything. I once knocked this baby pretty hard againist an empty glass tank and the latter cracked whilst the U1 kept ticking away. For the price that I paid, this watch is the epitome of "value for money".
> 
> As for my SD, it's just not the same thing. it's the King of Seas & the purported ultimate tool watch but why is it that everytime i wear it, i'm so worried that i'll scratch it? it attracts plenty of attention only cos it's a rolex but to be honest, it's way overpriced.
> 
> If I could turn back time, would I have bought these two watches again? Yes, i definitely would. IMHO, both are dive watches but that's about all the similarity shared between the two. Each watch is in the class of its own.


Where do ppl. hang out that their watches get noticed?
I'd like to know, cause no one's ever said a word about any of mine! :-d


----------



## OddE

Tragic said:


> Where do ppl. hang out that their watches get noticed?
> I'd like to know, cause no one's ever said a word about any of mine! :-d


-I wore a Breitling Chrono Shark for close to fifteen years, receiving only one single comment - that was when I was admitted to hospital in San Francisco a few years ago (The receiving MD asked me what time it was, just to see whether I was up and about or not.

When I pulled back my cuff slightly to glance at the watch, he commented 'Nice B, I've got one of those myself.'

Now, my Sinn 656, on the other hand - (Guess this is the appropriate forum to point this out in... 

I've had it for slightly more than a month, 100% wrist-time. So far, I've received five or six comments - a couple at work, one from an airline stewardess ('Gee, I didn't know they made watches like that anymore!'), one from my local Omega AD ('Say, beautiful, unusual piece - where can I get one?')

Also, our vicar apparently is into watches - he must have spotted it when administering Communion, because when I left the church afterwards, he was standing at the exit, bidding his parishioners goodbye. As I approached, he shook my hand and said 'Nice watch you've got there, my son.' (The 656 was not visible on my wrist then, hidden under my cuff.)


----------



## Timothy Patrick

The two watches that I wear that get noticed are my U2 and my Seiko Brown Bullhead chrono which are so huge and bulky that they are immediately noticed by almost everyone else up here who wear more modestly sized watches. It's the size that gets noticed up here. Well, the U2 is just so imposing that it really gets ogled when I'm in meetings with the business and political crowd. I also notice their Rolex's. For a town that's 45 min from the edge of civilization, there certainly are a lot of Rolexs around. Fantastic looking watches, very shiny and classy.


----------



## obie

the new sinn 144 I just got has garnered more coments than any other watch. go figure that one. I would have expected some when wearing the ux.
I did however get a coment from my ad on the polished sinn u1 deployant. He couldn't believe how huge that thing is.


----------



## Dieselgeek

Tragic said:


> Where do ppl. hang out that their watches get noticed?
> I'd like to know, cause no one's ever said a word about any of mine! :-d


I live in Dallas, TX I've had people comment on my Sinn, they wanted to know what it was. I mostly get comments on Airplanes.


----------

