# Sinn UX review



## artec

Having just spent many moneys on buying a Sinn UX, I took some photos and wrote an amateur's review. Then I found there wasn't anywhere to put it (I know, I know, you don't like quartz so you probably have some suggestions as to where I should put it!). Anyway, just in case anyone is interested, I posted it in the Reviews section of the Main Forum.


----------



## gaopa

artec, post it here where your fellow "SINNers" will be sure to see it. Cheers, Bill P.


----------



## clonetrooper

Absolutely....WE love the UX....me anyway..;-)


----------



## artec

You speak and I obey!

Sinn UX, an amateur's review.

I don't claim to be a watch collector&#8230;. In fact I don't want to be a collector, but I seem to have accumulated five. Four of the five, I feel I have to treat gently and carefully, to make sure I scratch and scrape them as little as possible. I value three of the four considerably more than the fourth and do my best to nurse them.

Because I quite often have to crawl about wrecked cars and trucks, sometimes measuring brake push-rod travel on dead or wounded 18-wheelers, I decided that I wanted a really tough watch, one that I could wear regardless of what I was doing, but I wasn't willing to give up on serious accuracy. All this led me to the Sinn UX, which is made of German U-boat steel and the bezel is then further hardened. There is a hardened bracelet, too. It looks the part, as you can see:










But at the same time, it has a certain purposeful elegance, at least to my eye.

Presumably because it's supposed to be depth resistance to 5,000 metres, over 16,400 ft, it has a screw-down crown, shown here:


























And because it's intended for use by divers, the bracelet can be expanded to be worn outside the wet-suit:


























and the back is screwed in, too:










Like most quartz watches, even the best of them, there is some misalignment between the seconds hand and the circumferential markers, but the UX seems to be better than most in this respect and the alignment is usually about like this:










The date is at 3 o'clock and the number is pretty small&#8230;. perhaps because dates are not of much significance when one is diving. Probably because case is oil-filled the edges of the date window are virtually invisible. The filling is some form of Teflon oil (I didn't know there was such a thing), maybe selected to reduce friction and, like all oil, virtually incompressible.










The bracelet is held together with socket-head cap-screws:










It's very easy and convenient to adjust the length. The watch is supplied with a pair of Allen keys plus a spring-bar tool, shown here with the three links I removed from mine for a fit:










and here are the three links with one separated and showing the cap-screws.










Although the watch is a COSC certified chronometer, which means essentially that it should keep time within 25.5 seconds a year, temperatures permitting, there are no rules about how long one should wear it each day. It doesn't have a perpetual calendar and the hour hand isn't independently adjustable. So you must resign yourself to changing the date for the short months, which is easily done, and resetting the watch for daylight saving changes.

While we're on short-comings, I find the lume on the hands and indicators mediocre at best, Considering their size, the lume isn't very bright and doesn't last very long, either. The clasp of the bracelet is a pressing rather than a machined component and seems out of tune with the otherwise excellent quality. In mitigation this may be partly laid at the door of the quick expansion feature. And finally, because of the oil filling, when the battery must be replaced, after seven years, the watch has to go back to Germany and I understand that sending watches there can be a real pain.

On the plus side, because the watch is sold directly, without the middle-man profit component, it is reasonably priced for what you're getting.

Although there is absolutely no pretence at ornamentation or bling, the watch is well made, well and consistently finished. Its design and weight give it an air of invincibility and indestructibility that I hope is not an illusion.


----------



## webvan

Thanks for the review and for the nice pictures (what's your setup?).

Sounds like you're hoping the watch not to get scratched or scraped, had you read comments about that? How has it been doing so far in that respect?


----------



## shorinjikempo

webvan said:


> Thanks for the review and for the nice pictures (what's your setup?).


+1


----------



## TrickTock

Great review! One thing I noticed is that Sinn added some new text on the caseback: "5000 m / 500 bar." That's a recent change, as my UX does not show its depth rating (I bought mine new in 2010). Also it's not there in the current picture of the UX caseback on Sinn's website.


----------



## artec

Thanks for the responses...... To answer, first Webvan. I've only had it just over a week and so far haven't had to expose it to anything nasty. My impression, though, is that it will probably do more damage to anything else than anything will do to it!. Mt camera's a Nikon D 7000 and I was using a 105 mm Micro Nikkor with the watch in a folding diffuser tent. It's the easiest way to get uniform light on a small subject without trouble from highlights..... though they wouldn't be much of a problem with the UX!. I've found that the hardest thing in photographing watches is getting them clean enough so that they don't look as if you could plant corn.
To Tricktock, again, thank you. Although I have no information on the subject, mine is marked as an EZM and a "Hydro" on the dial and there's another model with "GSG 9" on the dial, and the crown at 10 o'clock instead of 4. And there's yet another one with a black bezel, called an SDR. I can't find pictures of their backs so I don't know what claims they're making, if any. Some-one else asked how old mine was because he had heard that UX no longer had screw-down crowns. I have (and had) no manufacturing date on mine but it really seems unlikely that Sinn would drop such a relatively inexpensive feature when they are claiming 5000 metre depth resistance.
I forgot to menthion in the review that mine does exhibit occasional traces of the dreaded "bounce" of the seconds hand. I don't find it in the least offensive or even noticeable unless I look for it...... as demonstrated by my forgetting to put it in the review!


----------



## David Woo

TrickTock said:


> One thing I noticed is that Sinn added some new text on the caseback: "5000 m / 500 bar."


Interesting that Sinn felt the need to add a depth rating: sure beats the Deep Sea's 3900 meters.


----------



## TimeOnTarget

Congrats.

I really like mine too, but I don't know why Sinn can't conquer the lume issue. It is my only complaint about the brand in general....


----------



## gaopa

Nice review and great photos of the UX! I like the looks of that watch! Cheers, Bill P.


----------



## webvan

Diffuser tent and macro lens, need to look into that.

Let us know how the resistance to scratches go. The fact that it's brushed will certainly help, unlike your Chopard !


----------



## Geof3

Hmmm, interesting they are putting 5000m on the caseback. Thats's the operational limit of the movement. The oil filled case is basically impervious. Mine is without the 5000m


----------



## artec

The finish on the Sinn looks as if its bead-blasted rather than brushed because there is no grain at all. As for scratches, I think in a contest between the watch and something trying to scratch it, the watch will win! As you say, very unlike the Chopard.

I'm surprised you remember that Chopard! It was a nice watch but an absolute magnet for everything from fingerprints up. It really needed some form of coating.


----------



## webvan

Yes I'd spotted in a shop back in 2009, probably after you'd posted asking if someone had seen it ;-) Keep us posted on how well it holds up to scratches.


----------



## jel

artec said:


> Thanks for the responses...... To answer, first Webvan. I've only had it just over a week and so far haven't had to expose it to anything nasty. My impression, though, is that it will probably do more damage to anything else than anything will do to it!. Mt camera's a Nikon D 7000 and I was using a 105 mm Micro Nikkor with the watch in a folding diffuser tent. It's the easiest way to get uniform light on a small subject without trouble from highlights..... though they wouldn't be much of a problem with the UX!. I've found that the hardest thing in photographing watches is getting them clean enough so that they don't look as if you could plant corn.........


Thanks for a good review with some great photos. Not much "amateurish" about those! I'll keep your tips on the photo-session in mind hoping to improve my own performance on that area.

I share your evaluations on the watch all the way. Especially I'll emphasize the legibility, a short glance and you know exact time to the second. From any possible angle.

After 10 weeks of permanent wrist-time there no visible scratches anywhere to be seen on mine, which is the equal model to yours. I may not expose it to the same harsh environment as you do, but on the other hand I take no special care.
This one is going to look like it's out of the box for quite some time!


----------



## clonetrooper

Nice review...not to shabby..;-))

As for the lume, I have the 156 UX, U1000 and 857...and I agree that compared to many other watches, especially Zixen and DWatch, the lume isn't great, and it holds through the night. I never had to switch on the light to see when our daughter is crawling in our bed..;-)


----------



## Broleo

that is a great review. IMO, you explained everything well and nice close-up pics as well


----------



## Hadock

Nice watch and nice review. Thanks. It's a pitty that the lume is not as good as it should be for a watch like this. All other things seem perfect. This is the watch I would like to have in a future.


----------



## Bidle

Nice review and stunning photo's; thx for sharing.


----------



## artec

Many thanks for the much appreciated kind words. I've only had it two weeks but so far the time-keeping is very impressive, under 5 spy. I'll keep an eye on it and report at intervals.


----------



## drdoom

Congrats on the purchase and nice review, good to see this model is getting some well deserved attention. I agree about the lume not being the strongest, maybe the oil has something to do with it, I can't say for sure though.



TrickTock said:


> Great review! One thing I noticed is that Sinn added some new text on the caseback: "5000 m / 500 bar." That's a recent change, as my UX does not show its depth rating (I bought mine new in 2010). Also it's not there in the current picture of the UX caseback on Sinn's website.


TrickTock, which styled UX do you have? Your right about the UX and the UX GSG9 backs not showing the "5000 m / 500 bar" text on the Sinn site, mean whole Artec's UX does. The only UX's on the site that show the text are the UX S and UX S GSG9. My UX purchased in Nov. of 2010 does have the text:


----------



## TrickTock

drdoom said:


> TrickTock, which styled UX do you have? Your right about the UX and the UX GSG9 backs not showing the "5000 m / 500 bar" text on the Sinn site, mean whole Artec's UX does. The only UX's on the site that show the text are the UX S and UX S GSG9. My UX purchased in Nov. of 2010 does have the text:


Mine is the UX EZM 2B and it was new in March 2010. So it sounds like they started labeling the depth rating in mid-2010, sometime between mine and yours in November.


----------



## drdoom

OK, I guess they both would be the same internally then.


----------



## rationaltime

I suppose the internal construction has not changed.

I wonder if the labeling changed when the crown was changed
from screw down to non-screw down.

Thanks,
rationaltime


----------



## Watch wrist: g.p.

I believe Artec's watch HAS a screwdown crown.


----------



## drdoom

Dumb question, how do I know if I have a screw down crown or not? I've read that some UX do and others don't.

*Edit* Just checked and I don't have a screw down crown, this watch is getting interesting.

Come to think about it, I clearly remember when I purchased my UX at the Hour Glass in Singapore, as I was leaving with the watch in hand, the salesman insisted I wait a minute, he contacted the other store and arraigned to switch the UX I just purchased with the newer non screw down crown version. According to him this was the "newer" version, same price.


----------



## rationaltime

That's right. In the review he points out the screw down crown.
I guess he didn't buy a new one, though it looks like new in the
photos.

Thanks,
rationaltime


----------



## Watch wrist: g.p.

I am sitting on the fence about the UX (GSG9 specifically) in part because of the screw down crown issue. It seems like a bit of a given that an over engineered piece like the UX would have a screw down crown, considering how infrequently you would be expecting to set the time; twice a year perhaps?


----------



## petethegreek

Nice review! Great watch and the oil filled mechanism is very interesting. I like the non-bling effect.


----------



## Geof3

I wonder if Sinn decided to mark the caseback to avoid any potential false advertising/legal issue or something? (who would test THAT one??) As I said, the movement is only capable of handling depths up to the 5000m mark. The case will go beyond the bottom of the ocean. Perhaps they wanted to state the OPERATIONAL depth of the watch, not just the case integrity depth of the watch. I personally don' think the screw down crown has anything to do with the new numbers, nor do I think it is any kind of an "issue". If Sinn thought for one second a non-screw down crown would lessen the integrity they would not have done it. In fact, it is probably some "new technology" and marketing hype that they can create a watch with such an outrageous depth rating WITHOUT a screw down crown.


----------



## taaiewillem

I guess that the quartz cristal housing in the UX is the limiting factor regarding the maximum depth. As the membrane-like action of the watch's back allows the inside of the watch to attain nearly the same pressure as of the outside medium, the tiny cylindrical housing of the quartz cristall will be subjected to this pressure while inside the quartz housing the pressure is only 1 atmosphere of nitrogen gas or even vacuum, in order to have a sufficient time-accuracy. It also explains why the crown need not be screwed down. The maximal pressure difference between outside and inside of the watch will be a mere few atmospheres.



Geof3 said:


> I wonder if Sinn decided to mark the caseback to avoid any potential false advertising/legal issue or something? (who would test THAT one??) As I said, the movement is only capable of handling depths up to the 5000m mark. The case will go beyond the bottom of the ocean. Perhaps they wanted to state the OPERATIONAL depth of the watch, not just the case integrity depth of the watch. I personally don' think the screw down crown has anything to do with the new numbers, nor do I think it is any kind of an "issue". If Sinn thought for one second a non-screw down crown would lessen the integrity they would not have done it. In fact, it is probably some "new technology" and marketing hype that they can create a watch with such an outrageous depth rating WITHOUT a screw down crown.


----------



## artec

Thank you all for the comments..... I'm glad you enjoyed it. I recently read another, preliminary, review in which it emerged that later versions of the UX no longer have a screw-down crown..... something I find astonishing! Why on earth would Sinn drop a feature whose tooling and manufacturing costs must be long amortized. It's supposed to be good for 5 kilometres water depth, why rely on a couple of o-rings when you've been fitting a screw-down crown for years?


----------



## CMSgt Bo

artec said:


> Thank you all for the comments..... I'm glad you enjoyed it. I recently read another, preliminary, review in which it emerged that later versions of the UX no longer have a screw-down crown..... something I find astonishing! Why on earth would Sinn drop a feature whose tooling and manufacturing costs must be long amortized. It's supposed to be good for 5 kilometres water depth, why rely on a couple of o-rings when you've been fitting a screw-down crown for years?


Sealing the case on a fluid filled watch (with a pressure equalization piston) beyond keeping the fluid from leaking out while it's out of water is pure overkill. Once in the water the pressure inside the watch case matches the pressure outside the case and there is no fluid displacement either outside going in or inside coming out.


----------



## artec

Obviously the whole purpose of the sealing is to prevent any fluid displacement. The pressure inside the watch when it is on the surface is presumably atmospheric.... 14.7 psi. When it is at depth, the internal pressure only matches the pressure of the sea at its wearer's current depth if there is some volumetric reduction.... in other words if the watch gets a bit squashed. Simply being immersed in a pressurized liquid, ie sea-water, doesn't automatically match the pressures. If the internal pressure does not match the external pressure, better sealing of the crown can help prevent fluid flow, so it would still be useful. 

I don't know what you mean by a "pressure equalization piston" and yours is the first reference I've seen to such a thing, despite a search. If such a piston exists, it can only equalize the pressure inside it if the outside is in communication with some external force/pressure. If that's how it's supposed to work, and the external force/pressure comes from the sea depth, how did it work when the crown was a screw-down? And what would be the difference between a "pressure equalization piston" that transmits external pressure to whatever is inside the piston and a case in which the internal pressure of the interior fluid (Sinn's oil) matches the external pressure as the result of very small volume reduction of the case?


----------



## rationaltime

Let me remind you of a couple things.



artec said:


> Obviously the whole purpose of the sealing is to prevent any fluid displacement. The pressure inside the watch when it is on the surface is presumably atmospheric.... 14.7 psi. When it is at depth, the internal pressure only matches the pressure of the sea at its wearer's current depth if there is some volumetric reduction.... in other words if the watch gets a bit squashed. Simply being immersed in a pressurized liquid, ie sea-water, doesn't automatically match the pressures. If the internal pressure does not match the external pressure, better sealing of the crown can help prevent fluid flow, so it would still be useful.


The fluid in the Sinn UX is basically incompressible. Pressure x Volume is not constant.
Applying pressure does not imply "fluid flow" nor any motion at all.



> I don't know what you mean by a "pressure equalization piston" and yours is the first reference I've seen to such a thing, despite a search. If such a piston exists, it can only equalize the pressure inside it if the outside is in communication with some external force/pressure. If that's how it's supposed to work, and the external force/pressure comes from the sea depth, how did it work when the crown was a screw-down? And what would be the difference between a "pressure equalization piston" that transmits external pressure to whatever is inside the piston and a case in which the internal pressure of the interior fluid (Sinn's oil) matches the external pressure as the result of very small volume reduction of the case?


Read this. When the watch is placed in a high pressure environment, The same
pressure present on the case back is also present at the crown seal and internal
to the watch *without a volume change*. There is essentially no pressure
differential across the crown seal. It doesn't matter whether the crown is screw
down, and a screw down crown does not improve the pressure resistance.

I hope this helps. Even if it doesn't I think you can still enjoy your watch.

Thanks,
rationaltime


----------



## artec

I had already read your "this". 
I'm well aware that the oil is essentially incompressible, but even if there no internal volume not filled with oil, the internal pressure cannot be affected unless there is *some* volumetric change inside the case, no matter how small. Unless there is *some* change, the internal pressure will remain as it was on the surface. The flexing of the caseback, tiny though it undoubtedly is, would be enough. 
I spent enough years working with hydraulics to know how tiny volume changes can make significant differences to pressures, and vice versa. I do agree, though, that if the internal pressure is the same as the external pressure, there should be no pressure gradient across the crown seal, so the screwdown crown should be nothing more than braces to add to the belt. 
Even if mine didn't have the screwdown crown I'd still like and enjoy the watch, but mine does have it and even though I agree that it shouldn't be necessary, I still like it!


----------



## hoppes-no9

artec said:


> I don't know what you mean by a "pressure equalization piston"


Almost the entire back of the UX (specifically, the part with the writing on it in the photo above) is a machined piston that moves in/out depending on the external pressure. Apologies if this is not what you're asking about.

This thread is a great read and has a schematic of the UX piston:

Christopher Ward Forum • View topic - Liquid filled watch case: How I modified my Kingfisher C6


----------



## rationaltime

hoppes-no9 said:


> Almost the entire back of the UX (specifically, the part with the writing on it in the photo above) is a machined piston that moves in/out depending on the external pressure. Apologies if this is not what you're asking about.


Of course, the back moves depending on the net force on it,
but there is minimal movement when the external pressure is
changed. The back is designed to accommodate temperature
induced volume changes. So, it seems most accurate to describe
the back as moving in response to internal volume change.

Thanks,
rationaltime


----------



## artec

I read it, too, and found it very enlightening. 
It would be accurate to say that the caseback is a piston (you were right, there is one) and it will move in and out in response to changes in volume of the internal fluid and, minutely, to changes in external pressure. Very intriguing that the apparently screwed in caseback isn't screwed in at all. Thinking about other ways of accomplishing the same objective, if the temperature range is as great as that allowed by the UX and the volume variation is as much a 10%, you couldn't get away with relying solely on some diaphragm behavior of a screwed in caseback. Maybe you could provide a spring-loaded gas-chamber to accommodate the volume variation. 
This whole exchange certainly clarifies the need (or lack of it) of a screw-down crown, doesn't it? There's a lot more to the UX than meets they eye!


----------



## Vern

Oddly enough, my UX suffered from the second hand bounce. I sent it to Sinn for the oil replacement and when it came back, the second had was horribly misaligned. Sent it back again. Not only is the second hand dead on, no bounce. Go figure.


----------



## mkatz

simple question that I tried to "research" online: what is the difference between the UX model reviewed and the U200 model? Case size?


----------



## Geof3

mkatz said:


> simple question that I tried to "research" online: what is the difference between the UX model reviewed and the U200 model? Case size?


Just about everything. Really the similarities are only case material and dial look. The UX is thermocompensated quartz, oil filled with a depth rating of thousands of feet. The U200 is an automatic with a smaller case, in most ways completely different watches. Not sure if the 200 has a teg. bezel or not, the ux does. Hope this helps.


----------



## mkatz

Geof3: This does help. Thanks! I was attracted to the UX for technical reasons (oiled filled, quartz...). I considered the U200 primarily for reasons of case size (37mm) as I have small wrists. Surprisingly, I could not locate information about the UX relating to its case size and assumed that it was of a larger diameter.

While I am online... I have an IWC "pilot" watch that I like for reasons of aesthetics and bracelet comfort. I hate it as it stops frequently, usually in the middle of the night with increasing frequency (now, approximately twice weekly). After 15-20 trips for servicing efforts over the past two decades, it is time for me to move on... as soon as I find a watch that I'd like to wear on a daily basis. If the UX has not a monster case and if its bracelet is comfortable I think I would have a winner. Any thoughts on the case size and bracelet comfort issues?

Thanks!


----------



## vicbastige

42mm. Wears well on smaller wrists due to lug size and shape (imho).


----------



## Geof3

mkatz said:


> Geof3: This does help. Thanks! I was attracted to the UX for technical reasons (oiled filled, quartz...). I considered the U200 primarily for reasons of case size (37mm) as I have small wrists. Surprisingly, I could not locate information about the UX relating to its case size and assumed that it was of a larger diameter.
> 
> While I am online... I have an IWC "pilot" watch that I like for reasons of aesthetics and bracelet comfort. I hate it as it stops frequently, usually in the middle of the night with increasing frequency (now, approximately twice weekly). After 15-20 trips for servicing efforts over the past two decades, it is time for me to move on... as soon as I find a watch that I'd like to wear on a daily basis. If the UX has not a monster case and if its bracelet is comfortable I think I would have a winner. Any thoughts on the case size and bracelet comfort issues?
> 
> Thanks!


How small is small? My wrist is 7.25 and it's perfect, but I have a wide, flat wrist. The combo with the steel band is really comfortable, I personally think Sinn makes one of the best bands in the industry. Very robust. I will say this, the UX is pretty heavy (all of the U series are) just a consideration. I wear mine skiing all the time and don't even notice it though. It flys well on leather too.


----------



## LorenzoL

I just got my new UX from Sinn last week and they switched back to a screw-down crown.


----------



## LH2

How large does the 44mm UX wear? What's the lug-to-lug measurement on this watch? 

Unless it's too large for me, this beauty is on my short list.


----------



## Dan01

It wears very well - smaller than most 44mm watches. Not sure what the lug to lug is but unless you have a very small wrist you would be fine. I have a 7.25 inch wrist.


----------



## Dan01

Wrist shot


----------



## LH2

Looks good. And I'm keeping in mind that close-up wrist shot photos always make the watch appear larger on the wrist than it does in real life. My wrist is 6.75", but it's quite flat. I've worn other 44's, I just like to keep the lug-to-lug under 54mm.


----------



## 41Mets

Vern said:


> Oddly enough, my UX suffered from the second hand bounce. I sent it to Sinn for the oil replacement and when it came back, the second had was horribly misaligned. Sent it back again. Not only is the second hand dead on, no bounce. Go figure.


I'm happen to think the bounce is really cool. Something different with the pushing against the oil.


----------

