# Thinnest legit dive watch



## JakeJD (Jan 19, 2011)

I'm on a thin watch kick. Recently bought a vintage handwind Longines and it upended my whole view of watch thinness as THE spec for me.

But it's tough with a dive watch, obvs.

So, what are the thinnest legit dive watches (and by legit, I mean at least 300m -- Edit: okay, fine, *200M*, see below) WR)?

Some other ground rules (although this is really meant as more of a pile-on list thread, not a recommendations thread):

1. Automatic (obviously)
2. Current or recent production
3. Assume price is no object, just for fun ;-)
4. No limits on provenance -- Asian, Japanese, Swiss, British, Italian, whatever
5. To re-iterate, 300m WR minimum (more is obviously better).

Here are some starters - can we beat them?

*1. Longines HydroConquest - 39mm*

Some sources put the 39mm version of the HydroConquest at 11.85mm, which is pretty darn thin. But it's not a current model and I can't find an official spec, so I'm a little skeptical.









*2. Sinn EZM3*

500m WR, and only 12.3mm










*3. Hamilton Khaki Frogman - 42mm*

According to Amazon, anyway, the new 42mm Frogman gets down to an even 12mm. Hamilton doesn't seem to publish the spec, and we all know how reliable Amazon spec sheets can be for watches. It looks pretty chunky in general, so again, I'm skeptical.










*4. Crepas Cayman 3000*

Just kidding.  (17mm plus crystal, baby!)










What else we got?


----------



## heebs (Nov 9, 2008)

The NTH subs from Janis trading are an engineering masterpiece at 300m and only 11.5mm thick.


----------



## nyonya (Jun 23, 2015)

Not sure why 200m is not enough WR (enough for any actual dive), if you're willing to step down to that level the Citizen NY0040 is 12mm thick.


----------



## dmjonez (Jul 14, 2013)

NTH and older Omega's are both really thin (I know, Omega's not an affordable, but you can get the older ones for less than $1500 in great shape). The newer Omegas have gotten a little thicker. 12mm seems to me to be to my "thin cutoff".

I prefer thin watches, because I wear them ALL to work. I know I'm breaking some sort of "dress watch code", but I prefer divers. I need to be able to see them at night, because I'm frequently working at 3am, and the lume is incredibly useful. I also spend a lot of time in the water, so divers work well for me. Every single one of my watches has been at least 10 feet under water (sorry, none of them made 300m), and NONE have ever leaked...


----------



## SHANE 1000 (Mar 28, 2006)

Apart from silicon filled there are old vintage watches that were very thin compared to today's watches, like Trafalgar, Titus, Doyle, Baylor, Mordaine, Kingston, Royce, Tressi, Margi, Wagner, Mirarmar, Exactus, Cauny, Damas, Orvin, and so on, the list is gargantuan, problem with THIN is the material thickness used might hinder getting one at 300m or more, not impossible to find a modern diver of course but the super thin could limit you to what you might find and availability, same with Vintage really, they are there but it is researching them and finding them.

GOOD LUCK IN YOUR SEARCH, hope you find that perfect watch that fits the bill.


----------



## Dre (Feb 29, 2008)

nyonya said:


> Not sure why 200m is not enough WR (enough for any actual dive), if you're willing to step down to that level the Citizen NY0040 is 12mm thick.


At the 200M level the Glycine Combat Sub comes into play as well. That one is barely over 10mm thick.


----------



## JakeJD (Jan 19, 2011)

Re: 300m vs 200m -- just an arbitrary number! I wanted to set the bar high enough to rule out the abundant 100m "round watch with external rotating bezel" that some might call a "dive watch." And this being F74, I guess that I have a preconceived idea that the crowd generally favors a higher spec as required for a "true" or "legit" dive watch.

I don't have a personal desire for a 300m vs a 200m watch. Like I said, I'm not looking for recommendations as much as I'm interested in hearing about what's out there, as my WIS-dom isn't as strong in the dive watch space.

So if you think a 200m watch should be mentioned, say so. 

Case in point: Zenith Elite Diver - 200m WR, only 9mm thick.

(photo courtesy @huntershooter)


----------



## JakeJD (Jan 19, 2011)

My previous post notwithstanding (I'm not looking to buy, at least not any time soon), I guess I goofed by not putting NTH on the list, seeing as I own a Santa Cruz. For the record: 300m, 11.5mm thick.


----------



## Casanova Jr. (Oct 6, 2010)

HELSON SD 40MM 500mt 12mm


----------



## uvalaw2005 (May 27, 2009)

I think I measured my 41mm HydroConquest right at 12mm, my Oris Aquis Date 40mm at 12.2mm, and the Aquis Date 43mm at 12.6mm. Omega SMPc is right around there as well, as was the prior SMP model with the 2500 movement. Like @dmjonez said, I think the pre-2500 SMP came in under 12mm. NTH is the thinnest 300m diver I've owned.

Pictures make every thread better:


----------



## Deity42 (Jan 7, 2016)

If I wanted really thin on a diver I would go quartz.


----------



## smatrixt (Aug 7, 2014)

JakeJD said:


> Re: 300m vs 200m -- just an arbitrary number! I wanted to set the bar high enough to rule out the abundant 100m "round watch with external rotating bezel" that some might call a "dive watch." And this being F74, I guess that I have a preconceived idea that the crowd generally favors a higher spec as required for a "true" or "legit" dive watch.
> 
> I don't have a personal desire for a 300m vs a 200m watch. Like I said, I'm not looking for recommendations as much as I'm interested in hearing about what's out there, as my WIS-dom isn't as strong in the dive watch space.
> 
> ...


One of my grail's!


----------



## BigBluefish (Aug 13, 2009)

My old Tag 1500 midsize must be about 36mm diameter x 8mm thick, but it's 200m, and quartz. They pop up on the used market occasionally, and a minty one shouldn't cost you much over, what...maybe $250? But the lume will likely be pretty much dead by now. I know mine is.


----------



## dmjonez (Jul 14, 2013)

Dre said:


> At the 200M level the Glycine Combat Sub comes into play as well. That one is barely over 10mm thick.





JakeJD said:


> Re: 300m vs 200m -- just an arbitrary number! I wanted to set the bar high enough to rule out the abundant 100m "round watch with external rotating bezel" that some might call a "dive watch." And this being F74, I guess that I have a preconceived idea that the crowd generally favors a higher spec as required for a "true" or "legit" dive watch.
> 
> I don't have a personal desire for a 300m vs a 200m watch. Like I said, I'm not looking for recommendations as much as I'm interested in hearing about what's out there, as my WIS-dom isn't as strong in the dive watch space.
> 
> ...


 I forgot about Glycine. Have the Combat Sub, and love it. And now I need to find one of those Zeniths. Damn.


----------



## hwa (Feb 18, 2013)

I have the Omega 2531 and an NTH. Much to Doc's chagrine, the margin of error in my digital caliper (provenance: china) is greater than the apparent size difference of the two. Either way, they're both under 12mm, and both are 300M.

What else is that thin? Not the OWC, not the Rolex. Not the Black Bay... And so on. 

That Zenith is quite the looker, @jakejd, but those endlinks aren't doing it for me. I like 'em squeaky tight. That looks like a poor fitting aftermarket!


----------



## troyr1 (Sep 16, 2016)

The Aquaracer is pretty thin. Especially the wan2111.


----------



## pdoherty (Jul 12, 2010)

Omega 2254.50 Seamaster Pro 300M - 11.5mm thin and one of the most gorgeous watches ever made:


----------



## diver1954 (Feb 22, 2015)

pdoherty said:


> Omega 2254.50 Seamaster Pro 300M - 11.5mm thin and one of the most gorgeous watches ever made:
> 
> View attachment 10578442
> 
> ...


We have a winner. 'Class Act'


----------



## Achtungz (Jul 18, 2015)

How do you like the Amphion? Quality wise what would rate it against? I'm thinking of picking one up but I don't see any reviews of them around.



uvalaw2005 said:


> I think I measured my 41mm HydroConquest right at 12mm, my Oris Aquis Date 40mm at 12.2mm, and the Aquis Date 43mm at 12.6mm. Omega SMPc is right around there as well, as was the prior SMP model with the 2500 movement. Like @dmjonez said, I think the pre-2500 SMP came in under 12mm. NTH is the thinnest 300m diver I've owned.
> 
> Pictures make every thread better:


----------



## E8ArmyDiver (Aug 7, 2009)

Casanova Jr. said:


> HELSON SD 40MM 500mt 12mm


+1...40mm SharkDiver on 7.5"wrist...


----------



## Dec1968 (Jan 24, 2014)

pdoherty said:


> Omega 2254.50 Seamaster Pro 300M - 11.5mm thin and one of the most gorgeous watches ever made:
> 
> View attachment 10578442
> 
> ...


Absolutely agree

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## rpm1974 (Feb 18, 2013)

I thought the 2254.50 was 12mm. Still - that's a sleek profile!


----------



## kamonjj (Dec 26, 2012)

Tudor 79190 .... I think is 10mm thin. Somewhat recent, mine is a 97. But they are readily available. I love how thin it is.










Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Toh (Sep 15, 2013)

Mido Ocean Star Captain V titanium is around 11mm 









Sent from my H1 using Tapatalk


----------



## JLS36 (Feb 5, 2016)

Nomos Ahoi, not your typical diver but it's sharp and it's 10.54mm 








Pic taken from the web not mine

Sent from my Nexus 6P using Tapatalk


----------



## wielingab (Feb 16, 2006)

And if you want even more "low profile" you can opt for the 75090 version, only 36mm


----------



## Stellite (Aug 3, 2011)

CASE THICKNESS = 11 mm "winner winner, chicken dinner" :-d


----------



## hwa (Feb 18, 2013)

Is that 11 with crystal? Thats skinny!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## JakeJD (Jan 19, 2011)

Toh said:


> Mido Ocean Star Captain V titanium is around 11mm
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 The OC Cap V Titanium is already on my short list. Sweet, sweet watch. Although, to be accurate, it's 11.75mm (still not a fatty!) and 200m.


----------



## JakeJD (Jan 19, 2011)

JLS36 said:


> Nomos Ahoi, not your typical diver but it's sharp and it's 10.54mm
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 Holy crap, 200m! I never would have guessed it. Nice post!


----------



## westywatch (May 21, 2016)

Omega automatic 200M pre-Bond Seamaster. 8.85 mm in the full size; 8.7 mm in the mid-size.

A few decades back when I acquired mine, the hallmark of a high quality watch (even a dive watch) was that it was thin.

While a dive watch doesn't need to be any thicker than 9 mm, some people prefer it if the knobs go up to 11. Hence the corpulent Omega Planet Oceans at 14-18 mm thick.


----------



## Eyeonmalta (Oct 18, 2011)

That Sinn tho...


----------



## Eyeonmalta (Oct 18, 2011)

westywatch said:


> Omega automatic 200M pre-Bond Seamaster. 8.85 mm in the full size; 8.7 mm in the mid-size.
> 
> A few decades back when I acquired mine, the hallmark of a high quality watch (even a dive watch) was that it was thin.
> 
> While a dive watch doesn't need to be any thicker than 9 mm, some people prefer it if the knobs go up to 11. Hence the corpulent Omega Planet Oceans at 14-18 mm thick.


Agreed, the first time I saw this in person I was amazed at the slim profile. At the time I had no idea it was an automatic due to the thinness. +1


----------



## rpm1974 (Feb 18, 2013)

westywatch said:


> Omega automatic 200M pre-Bond Seamaster. 8.85 mm in the full size; 8.7 mm in the mid-size.


I'd love to see a few pics of that movement. It must be insanely thin.


----------



## westywatch (May 21, 2016)

https://ambwatches.com/2013/10/22/omega-seamaster-pre-bond-caliber-1111-eta-2892-2/

I don't think the movement is anything all that special. Based on the ETA 2892.

I don't think the thickness of dive watches is driven by the movement. It comes from bubble backs, dome crystals, chunky bezels etc. etc. My Seamaster is thin because it has a flat crystal, low profile bezel and a perfectly flat case back.


----------



## pinkybrain (Oct 26, 2011)

This one is 11mm: https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/168840784/refined-titanium-scuba-watches


----------



## Stelyos (Jun 23, 2015)

JLS36 said:


> Nomos Ahoi, not your typical diver but it's sharp and it's 10.54mm
> 
> Sent from my Nexus 6P using Tapatalk


Not a diver in any sense... missing bezel, no second hand with tail, hour hand and minute hand are identical, can't tell orientation of the markers, just to name a few missing characteristics

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## JLS36 (Feb 5, 2016)

Stelyos said:


> Not a diver in any sense... missing bezel, no second hand with tail, hour hand and minute hand are identical, can't tell orientation of the markers, just to name a few missing characteristics
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


https://www.hodinkee.com/articles/h...new-dive-watch-from-germany-live-pics-pricing

Sent from my Nexus 6P using Tapatalk


----------



## JakeJD (Jan 19, 2011)

pinkybrain said:


> This one is 11mm: https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/168840784/refined-titanium-scuba-watches


9015, Titanium, 40mm, 200M WR -- not a bad feature set. Hideous (eye of the beholder, and all that), and a really, really dreadful name, but packs a lot into a fairly inexpensive package.


----------



## pinkybrain (Oct 26, 2011)

Agreed. I also think it's a little ugly. Too bad, because at only 40mm wide, 40 grams and titanium it has the characteristics I prefer in a diver.

I own an Ahoi. Not a true diver, but a great sport watch with 200m WR that looks good in both a suit and sandals. On the included perlon it can fit under any cuff.



JakeJD said:


> 9015, Titanium, 40mm, 200M WR -- not a bad feature set. Hideous (eye of the beholder, and all that), and a really, really dreadful name, but packs a lot into a fairly inexpensive package.


----------



## hwa (Feb 18, 2013)

westywatch said:


> https://ambwatches.com/2013/10/22/omega-seamaster-pre-bond-caliber-1111-eta-2892-2/
> 
> I don't think the movement is anything all that special. Based on the ETA 2892.
> 
> I don't think the thickness of dive watches is driven by the movement. It comes from bubble backs, dome crystals, chunky bezels etc. etc. My Seamaster is thin because it has a flat crystal, low profile bezel and a perfectly flat case back.


I'd love to see that! Holy moly, 8.85 from caseback to top of crystal? That's razor thin...


----------



## westywatch (May 21, 2016)

"I own an Ahoi. Not a true diver, but a great sport watch with 200m WR that looks good in both a suit and sandals. On the included perlon it can fit under any cuff." Not a diver. But proof that you can easily make a 200M automatic that is under 11 mm. And putting a dive bezel onto the case doesn't need to make it any thicker. NTH's subs are 11.5 mm and 300 M, while their super compressor type divers are 12 mm and 200M.


----------



## yankeexpress (Apr 7, 2013)

200m WR, 12.4mm thickness including domed sapphire crystal, a sailor's watch with screwdown crown, a diver without a timing bezel


----------



## Stellite (Aug 3, 2011)

hwa said:


> Is that 11 with crystal? Thats skinny!
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Of course. It is the thinnest diver with rotating bezel I have. I do not consider a watch with no timing bezel a diver.


----------



## westywatch (May 21, 2016)

"Id love to see that! Holy moly, 8.85 from caseback to top of crystal? That's razor thin..." 

HWA -- click on that link. The watch pictured is the model I have. 8.7mm in the midsize.


----------



## Stelyos (Jun 23, 2015)

JLS36 said:


> https://www.hodinkee.com/articles/h...new-dive-watch-from-germany-live-pics-pricing


you really want to argue with me???

Besides water resistance standards to a minimum of 100 metres (330 ft) depth rating ISO 6425 also provides minimum requirements for mechanical diver's watches (quartz and digital watches have slightly differing readability requirements) such as:[SUP][4][/SUP]


The presence of a time-preselecting device, for example a unidirectional rotating bezel or a digital display. Such a device shall be protected against inadvertent rotation or wrong manipulation. If it is a rotating bezel, it shall have a minute scale going up to 60 min. The markings indicating every 5 min shall be clearly indicated. The markings on the dial, if existing, shall be coordinated with those of the preselecting device and shall be clearly visible. If the preselecting device is a digital display, it shall be clearly visible.
The following items of the watch shall be legible at a distance of 25 cm (9.8 in) in the dark:
time (the minute hand shall be clearly distinguishable from the hour hand);
set time of the time-preselecting device;
indication that the watch is running (This is usually indicated by a running second hand with a luminous tip or tail.);
in the case of battery-powered watches, a battery end-of-life indication.

The presence of an indication that the watch is running in total darkness. This is usually indicated by a running second hand with a luminous tip or tail.
Magnetic resistance. This is tested by 3 expositions to a direct current magnetic field of 4 800 A/m. The watch must keep its accuracy to ±30 seconds/day as measured before the test despite the magnetic field.
Shock resistance. This is tested by two shocks (one on the 9 o'clock side, and one to the crystal and perpendicular to the face). The shock is usually delivered by a hard plastic hammer mounted as a pendulum, so as to deliver a measured amount of energy, specifically, a 3 kg hammer with an impact velocity of 4.43 m/s. The change in rate allowed is ±60 seconds/day.
Resistance to salty water. The watches under test shall be put in a 30 g/l NaCl (sodium chloride) solution and kept there for 24 hours at 18 to 25 °C. This test water solution has salinity comparable to normal seawater. After this test, the case and accessories shall be examined for any possible changes. Moving parts, particularly the rotating bezel, shall be checked for correct functioning.
Resistance of attachments to an external force (strap/band solidity). This is tested by applying a force of 200 N (45 lb[SUB]f[/SUB]) to each springbar (or attaching point) in opposite directions with no damage to the watch of attachment point. The bracelet of the watch being tested shall be closed.
Marking. Watches conforming to ISO 6425 are marked with the word *DIVER'S WATCH xxx M* or *DIVER'S xxx M* to distinguish diving watches from look a like watches that are not suitable for actual scuba diving. The letters _xxx_ are replaced by the diving depth, in metres, guaranteed by the manufacturer.


----------



## janiboi (Apr 18, 2014)

Limes Endurance GMT3 is pretty impressive too, since it's 12,6mm thick with a 100atm water resistance:


----------



## Stellite (Aug 3, 2011)

westywatch said:


> "Id love to see that! Holy moly, 8.85 from caseback to top of crystal? That's razor thin..."
> 
> HWA -- click on that link. The watch pictured is the model I have. 8.7mm in the midsize.


Funny, I use to own the mid size version 36mm and it was 10mm thick. Which is thin. I have a hard time believing that the larger version was thinner. Also, I only remember there being two sizes 36mm and 38.5mm without crown. But who knows maybe there was 3 and maybe the wider one was thinner. The crystal was domed if I remember correctly.


----------



## JLS36 (Feb 5, 2016)

Stelyos said:


> you really want to argue with me???
> 
> Besides water resistance standards to a minimum of 100 metres (330 ft) depth rating ISO 6425 also provides minimum requirements for mechanical diver's watches (quartz and digital watches have slightly differing readability requirements) such as:[SUP][4][/SUP]
> 
> ...


I don't want to argue I have neither the disposition nor horological expertise to do so. I simply adhere to a more simplistic standard for the term dive watch, seeing that most of this forum buys watches for pleasure and daily wear and not diving,i see no reason to contain the idea of a dive watch to such exacting standards.

Sent from my Nexus 6P using Tapatalk


----------



## hwa (Feb 18, 2013)

JLS36 said:


> I don't want to argue I have neither the disposition nor horological expertise to do so. I simply adhere to a more simplistic standard for the term dive watch, seeing that most of this forum buys watches for pleasure and daily wear and not diving,i see no reason to contain the idea of a dive watch to such exacting standards.
> 
> Sent from my Nexus 6P using Tapatalk


If its 300M, its a dive watch. Hell, if its 200M, its a dive watch. Arguably, same is true of anything over swimming pool depths.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## westywatch (May 21, 2016)

"Funny, I use to own the mid size version 36mm and it was 10mm thick. Which is thin. I have a hard time believing that the larger version was thinner. Also, I only remember there being two sizes 36mm and 38.5mm without crown. But who knows maybe there was 3 and maybe the wider one was thinner. The crystal was domed if I remember correctly."

There were only two sizes. But I'm sure there were a few differing variations of those two sizes over the years. My circa 1991 midsize auto is definitely under 9 mm. The measurements I posted come from the link below.

"Case sizes

The Seamaster 200 was available in a full size version (40 mm w/o crown) official size 8.85 x 38.5 x 43.5 and a midsize (38mm w/o crown) official size 8.7 x 36 x 41."

https://www.watchuseek.com/f45/fair...ega-seamaster-200-pre-bond-series-316149.html


----------



## rhaykal (Feb 10, 2014)

@200m, the Obris Morgan Aegis fits the bill for being a thin diver at 11.5mm thick (including the caseback). It's easily the thinnest of my dive watches


----------



## JakeJD (Jan 19, 2011)

pdoherty said:


> Omega 2254.50 Seamaster Pro 300M - 11.5mm thin and one of the most gorgeous watches ever made:
> 
> View attachment 10578442
> 
> ...


pdoherty, is that your watch? Do you have a caliper? Looking at this watch used, and every source I can find says 12mm.


----------



## valuewatchguy (Jun 16, 2012)

Stelyos said:


> Not a diver in any sense... missing bezel, no second hand with tail, hour hand and minute hand are identical, can't tell orientation of the markers, just to name a few missing characteristics
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


I think you would get some disagreement about the bezel defining a dive watch from these guys










Sent from my SM-N920P using Tapatalk


----------



## pdoherty (Jul 12, 2010)

JakeJD said:


> pdoherty, is that your watch? Do you have a caliper? Looking at this watch used, and every source I can find says 12mm.


I own one but those aren't pics of mine, just pics of the same model I found online. I don't have calipers or else I'd measure it. There are several references to 11.5mm and 12mm online so I'm not sure which is correct. Like this one that says 11.5mm:

TimeZone: Omega: A review of the Planet Ocean and Seamaster Professional (Modem Burner!)


----------



## dfirefly (Jul 22, 2011)

JakeJD said:


> pdoherty, is that your watch? Do you have a caliper? Looking at this watch used, and every source I can find says 12mm.


Just measured mine and can confirm its 12mm.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD


----------



## JakeJD (Jan 19, 2011)

Okay, let's summarize the current leaders. I want to stick to the criteria of current or recent production, so that means a few cuts (the 2254.50 and pre-Bond Seamasters, the Tudor Submariners, and unfortunately the Zenith Rainbow Elite). I also think the Kontiki and Ahoi don't belong on this list, as lovely as they are as sport watches. No timing bezel means not a diver. My thread, my rules, lol.

I'm putting an asterisk next to that Tag model @Stellite posted. I can't figure out which one it is, but it's not the current Caliber 5 -- which comes in at 12mm/300m.

I'm also putting an asterisk next to that Scuro from Kickstarter. That hasn't delivered yet, so let's see what happens.

At 200M I'm adding the Mido Ocean Star Captain IV, which is thinner than the Captain V at only 11.5mm

1. 200M

*Super Ugly Scuro Titanium -d) - 11mm*
Mido Ocean Star Captain IV - 11.5mm
Obris Morgan Aegis - 11.5mm
Recent, not current, Glycine Combat Sub - 10.5mm

2. 300M

NTH Subs - 11.5mm
*Tag Aquaracer (recent production, unknown model) - 11mm*

3. 500M

Helson Shark Diver 40mm - 12mm
Sinn EZM-3 - 12.3mm

4. 1000M

Limes Endurance - 12.6mm

I have my doubts that there's anything out there that's thinner at the 300, 500, and 1000 points. But surely there's something thinner at 200M, right?


----------



## Bradjhomes (Jun 18, 2011)

Sinn 809. 200m. 9.5mm.


----------



## valuewatchguy (Jun 16, 2012)

Longines hydroconquest

Sent from my SM-N920P using Tapatalk


----------



## JakeJD (Jan 19, 2011)

valuewatchguy said:


> Longines hydroconquest
> 
> Sent from my SM-N920P using Tapatalk


First post. ;-)


----------



## JakeJD (Jan 19, 2011)

Bradjhomes said:


> Sinn 809. 200m. 9.5mm.


Are those still in production, Brad?


----------



## Bradjhomes (Jun 18, 2011)

JakeJD said:


> Are those still in production, Brad?


No, but I'm counting recent as the last 30 years.


----------



## valuewatchguy (Jun 16, 2012)

JakeJD said:


> First post. ;-)


Sorry should have read closer.

I think a legit contender from a wearability stanpoint is the Oris Diver Sixty Five 42. It is only 100m WR but it is ISO certified so there is legitimacy in that rating and it wasn't simply pressure tested in-house. Secondly it measures 13.5mm thick BUT 2mm of that is the domes crystal. Finally the mid-case of this diver is very thin profile and helps it to wear low. This is NOT a tool watch by any means but an excellent daily wearer that fits under any shirt sleeve that I own. But it doesn't have the depth rating these other contenders are showing.


----------



## JakeJD (Jan 19, 2011)

Bradjhomes said:


> No, but I'm counting recent as the last 30 years.


Lol, I was thinking "last few years," but I suppose it's a subjective measurement.


----------



## rpm1974 (Feb 18, 2013)

No matter that it doesn't fit the criteria of the OP, that is one sexy profile... Add a .5mm chamfer on those lugs... /drool



valuewatchguy said:


> Sorry should have read closer.
> 
> I think a legit contender from a wearability stanpoint is the Oris Diver Sixty Five 42. It is only 100m WR but it is ISO certified so there is legitimacy in that rating and it wasn't simply pressure tested in-house. Secondly it measures 13.5mm thick BUT 2mm of that is the domes crystal. Finally the mid-case of this diver is very thin profile and helps it to wear low. This is NOT a tool watch by any means but an excellent daily wearer that fits under any shirt sleeve that I own. But it doesn't have the depth rating these other contenders are showing.


----------



## Econoline (Aug 20, 2011)

JakeJD said:


> Okay, let's summarize the current leaders.
> 
> 1. 200M
> 
> ...


I just bought a Combat Sub and it is 10.5mm. Is there a newer model that is thicker? 
I think the Combat Sub is a winner at 200M, I love mine.


----------



## JakeJD (Jan 19, 2011)

Econoline said:


> I just bought a Combat Sub and it is 10.5mm. Is there a newer model that is thicker?
> I think the Combat Sub is a winner at 200M, I love mine.


According to Glycine, the current models are 12.4mm. I think the version you have is quite recent, just not current generation.

I've always admired the Combat Sub. Not sure why I've never got around to trying one...


----------



## Econoline (Aug 20, 2011)

Not in current production, but still recent is the Citizen Eco-Drive Diver's 300M, BN0000-04H, monocoque case, 11.55mm.


----------



## Kharkfum (Dec 10, 2013)

janiboi said:


> Limes Endurance GMT3 is pretty impressive too, since it's 12,6mm thick with a 100atm water resistance:
> 
> View attachment 10590658
> 
> ...


Damn, why doesn't Limes make this one anymore?!


----------



## adnjoo (Dec 7, 2015)

This just came in: only 10.7mm thick, Bathyscaphe 38mm
https://www.hodinkee.com/articles/blancpain-fifty-fathoms-bathyscaphe-38mm-introducing


----------



## Aututto (May 29, 2012)

adnjoo said:


> This just came in: only 10.7mm thick, Bathyscaphe 38mm
> https://www.hodinkee.com/articles/blancpain-fifty-fathoms-bathyscaphe-38mm-introducing
> 
> View attachment 10679562


I just found out about this awhile ago. I'm very excited for this new size!!!!! The 43 was just too big for me.


----------



## kamonjj (Dec 26, 2012)

adnjoo said:


> This just came in: only 10.7mm thick, Bathyscaphe 38mm
> https://www.hodinkee.com/articles/blancpain-fifty-fathoms-bathyscaphe-38mm-introducing
> 
> View attachment 10679562


Drool ..... wish I could afford it

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Econoline (Aug 20, 2011)

kcarvell said:


> I just found out about this awhile ago. I'm very excited for this new size!!!!!


Me too, until I checked the price.


----------



## JakeJD (Jan 19, 2011)

Whew, 10.77mm and 300M WR. Hat tip, Blancpain. Pretty _and _impressive.


----------



## skimilk44 (Apr 2, 2017)

adnjoo said:


> This just came in: only 10.7mm thick, Bathyscaphe 38mm
> https://www.hodinkee.com/articles/blancpain-fifty-fathoms-bathyscaphe-38mm-introducing


Drool.


----------



## ssmith6 (Jan 4, 2018)

that sinn 809 is sharp. I didn't know that was offered as thinner is always better imo


----------



## KJRye (Jul 28, 2014)

Since this thread was dug up from the depths, why not throw a new one in the mix:

Orion Calamity. 300m WR, 10.5mm at it's thinnest.

Not sure how it falls into the mix being that it has a curved caseback, meaning while it is 10.5mm at the centre, the outer edges of the caseback end up at 11.3mm thick.


----------



## janiboi (Apr 18, 2014)

This is the thinnest 100 atm watch around.
It's incredibly only 12,6 mm thick.


























Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## SISL (Jan 6, 2018)

I've found that what makes a watch glide seamlessly under shirt cuffs is not only the height but also the case profile. A watch that presents a "vertical cliff" will be less cuff-friendly than one that presents a series of rounded steps. Also, the more aggressive bezels are less cuff friendly (unfortunately aggressive bezels are best underwater.)


----------



## rwbenjey (Mar 26, 2011)

Ole Mathiesen 1919 Navy Diver




















WR: 12bar (120m)
Diameter: 40mm
Height:10mm
Lug: 21mm
Length: 48mm
Movement: ETA 2892
Price: ~$2700
https://olemathiesen.dk/product/om10dlc-40-a/

I kind of want one...


----------



## ds760476 (Nov 7, 2011)

I always liked the old B & R Hydromax.


----------



## GROL (Nov 26, 2018)

Let me up this topic
Mido ocean star commander 200 m


----------



## JP (Europe) (Jan 17, 2007)

GROL said:


> Let me up this topic
> Mido ocean star commander 200 m
> 
> View attachment 13670713
> ...


Nice. RW is under 12 mm too. A Moment on the Wrist: The Raymond Weil Freelancer Diver |


----------



## s4tch (Sep 29, 2018)

Long time lurker here, and this thread came very handy for me. Yesterday I received my Scurfa Diver One, bought used on ebay. Thanks to everyone for their input.


----------



## WatchTheSecondHand (May 25, 2018)

Honestly this is a great thread. Anyone have more modern thin dive watches to add to this?


----------



## CRAwriter (Jul 1, 2014)

s4tch said:


> Long time lurker here, and this thread came very handy for me. Yesterday I received my Scurfa Diver One, bought used on ebay. Thanks to everyone for their input.


Great choice! Love the color blue they went with.


----------



## cde137 (Jul 28, 2018)

The Baltic Aquascaphe is 12mm, 200WR I believe. 

The Christopher Ward C65 vintage diver (41mm case) is under 12mm but isn't automatic and just 150WR. I'm not sure why they haven't figured out that they only need to stick a divers bezel onto their 38mm C65 Vintage model and they'd have a huge hit. They released the C65 vintage diver with a hand winding movement specifically to make it thin like vintage skin divers, using their 38mm case seems like a natural next step to me.


----------



## WatchTheSecondHand (May 25, 2018)

cde137 said:


> The Baltic Aquascaphe is 12mm, 200WR I believe.
> 
> The Christopher Ward C65 vintage diver (41mm case) is under 12mm but isn't automatic and just 150WR. I'm not sure why they haven't figured out that they only need to stick a divers bezel onto their 38mm C65 Vintage model and they'd have a huge hit. They released the C65 vintage diver with a hand winding movement specifically to make it thin like vintage skin divers, using their 38mm case seems like a natural next step to me.


Oh god don't remind me of that. Their 38mm C65 vintage model with a diver's bezel (especially with a flat sapphire one) would be killer.


----------



## babeliak (Mar 13, 2019)

Revue Thommen Diver (Ref. 17571.2), 42.5 x 12mm, automatic ETA2824, stainless steel, sapphire crystal
https://www.revue-thommen.com/diver


----------



## chronopher (Jun 27, 2019)

Didn't see it mentioned (or did I miss?); my first automatic watch that I got as a birthday gift back in 1994 - Breitling Colt (ref. A17035) discontinued 1998 - 300m WR, 38mm diameter and 11.7mm thickness (with caveat).

The 0, 15, 30 and 45 minute markers on the bezel are raised above the flat crystal. Without these, the thickness of the case is just about 11mm (10.97 measured with calipers).

Probably one of the smaller and thinner 300s.


----------



## almostready (Nov 14, 2018)

Nove Trident. 200m depth. 46mm x 6.8mm. Not sure how useful it actually is, as it has lume on the hands only, but it is definitely thin. Price is decent also, imho. 
View attachment 14378567








https://nove.com/products/nove-trident-swiss-made-stainless-steel-watch


----------



## Wandering_Watcher10 (Sep 30, 2016)

JP (Europe) said:


> GROL said:
> 
> 
> > Let me up this topic
> ...


I second this as I actually own the RW. It's one of my favorites!


----------



## warsh (May 22, 2017)

***** said:


> The NTH subs from Janis trading are an engineering masterpiece at 300m and only 11.5mm thick.


+1 on this. These are great value pieces that come in a wide variety of styles. Chris figured out how to get 300m water resistance in a nice thin case. Can't go wrong w these....


----------



## fatherbowie (Dec 26, 2016)

Not the thinnest, but perhaps the thinnest 2000m+ dive watch, the IWC/Porsche Design Ocean 2000. Comes in at less than 11.5mm with the domed crystal. The IWC/Porsche Design Ocean 500 is about 8.5mm thick with the domed crystal, perhaps the thinnest automatic dive watch. It's ostensibly rated to 500m.


----------



## tweaked2 (Nov 23, 2018)

This one is going to the top of my list! Very nice!



JakeJD said:


> The OC Cap V Titanium is already on my short list. Sweet, sweet watch. Although, to be accurate, it's 11.75mm (still not a fatty!) and 200m.


----------



## Karriope (Dec 31, 2017)

fatherbowie said:


> Not the thinnest, but perhaps the thinnest 2000m+ dive watch, the IWC/Porsche Design Ocean 2000. Comes in at less than 11.5mm with the domed crystal. The IWC/Porsche Design Ocean 500 is about 8.5mm thick with the domed crystal, perhaps the thinnest automatic dive watch. It's ostensibly rated to 500m.


I always get confused as to why the dive timers usually get less detailed the deeper the watch is rated for, along with the lume...

But wow. 11.5mm for a 2,000m rating is pretty impressive. Even if it's a super-thin quartz movement, that's still remarkable.


----------



## tweaked2 (Nov 23, 2018)

Thought the thread was about automatics. Very cool piece nonetheless.



almostready said:


> Nove Trident. 200m depth. 46mm x 6.8mm. Not sure how useful it actually is, as it has lume on the hands only, but it is definitely thin. Price is decent also, imho.
> View attachment 14378567
> View attachment 14378571
> 
> ...


----------



## yankeexpress (Apr 7, 2013)

These are 10.5mm automatics



Flat crystal helps. If it had a 2892 movement, it could be a bit thinner







Very nice case shape as well, a wrist hugger







Excellent under a cuff


----------



## Ed.YANG (Jun 8, 2011)

JLS36 said:


> Nomos Ahoi, not your typical diver but it's sharp and it's 10.54mm
> 
> 
> 
> ...










...and all the while i thought LONGINES score that trophy of being Thin and Slim and does more than Swim...​


----------



## ds760476 (Nov 7, 2011)

I always liked the old Bell & Ross Hydromax.


----------



## Elliottp (Jun 3, 2020)

Move Trident, a 200 meters water-resistant diver's watch with a case thickness of just 6.8mm!


----------



## TheGanzman (Jan 12, 2010)

Elliottp said:


> View attachment 15367812
> 
> 
> And NO sweep second hand! Just TRY to find a "real diver" that would use THAT on a dive!
> ...


----------



## Moonshine Runner (Sep 29, 2016)

As far as I know, the thinnest ever built dive watch with an automatic movement ist the
*Eterna Matic 1856 KonTiki Professional Diver Chronometer*
This watch has a case diameter of 39mm and a thickness of 8mm, is waterproof up to a pressure of 20bar and has a unidirectional rotating bezel.



















The Eterna Matic KonTiki is another millimeter thinner than the Zenith Rainbow Elite Diver 670, which is also very thin.


----------



## TheK33 (Aug 12, 2020)

westywatch said:


> Omega automatic 200M pre-Bond Seamaster. 8.85 mm in the full size; 8.7 mm in the mid-size.
> 
> A few decades back when I acquired mine, the hallmark of a high quality watch (even a dive watch) was that it was thin.
> 
> While a dive watch doesn't need to be any thicker than 9 mm, some people prefer it if the knobs go up to 11. Hence the corpulent Omega Planet Oceans at 14-18 mm thick.


A great watch, very under-appreciated.

200m
Chronometer
Automatic
Date Complication
Stainless Steel
Integrated bracelet
Great brand.
"Thinness is luxury", Jean Claude Biver. In which case the Omega automatic 200M pre-Bond Seamaster is the dressiest diver ever.


----------



## @marruciic (Oct 20, 2021)

+ for thin;
- for 44m
[ "chunky" are ok to be on a larger side, but this design looks like a pressed / smashed ]
=
pancake?




Elliottp said:


> View attachment 15367812
> 
> 
> Move Trident, a 200 meters water-resistant diver's watch with a case thickness of just 6.8mm!


----------

