# Why is Orient Mako so popular?



## Krosya (Apr 26, 2011)

I know - good price, nice quality. But Orient makes several diver models that are, IMO, just as good, yet everyone keeps buying Mako/Ray. I think this one would be just as good:



Which to has better bezel than Mako. Sure, its not 200m, but I have many 100m watches that work just fine when it comes to water resistance. At least for all wet activities I use them.


----------



## Clavius (Feb 26, 2013)

The Mako looks sharp, has a quality movement and is dirt cheap. Hard to beat that combination. Now, it ain't perfect. The crystal on mine has scratched far too easily and I dislike the hollow end links. But other than that it's really just a great value for an automatic.


----------



## GunWale (Oct 19, 2007)

Well, you are right and it is all personal preference. That model looks 95% just as good as Mako and, for some, even better. But, to me, the Mako is an iconic 200m diver that earned its stripes from quite a few years of head-to-head comparo's with all variety of SKX Seiko divers. It looks much more expensive than it is, performs with excellence, and is more refined than much of its Seiko competition. My collection would quickly reveal my extreme bias, but even still today I am sure that there is no better value diver than the Mako in its price range. But this is not breaking news -- almost all Orient's are the best in their class. Ultimately, all that matters is which one you feel is best. *sidenote: I remember someone else on another board writing a similar opinion a long time ago which led me to Orients -- and despite having had quite a few brands since then across many price ranges - it is even more true to me now.


----------



## dimman (Feb 10, 2013)

GunWale said:


> Well, you are right and it is all personal preference. That model looks 95% just as good as Mako and, for some, even better. But, to me, the Mako is an iconic 200m diver that earned its stripes from quite a few years of head-to-head comparo's with all variety of SKX Seiko divers. It looks much more expensive than it is, performs with excellence, and is more refined than much of its Seiko competition. My collection would quickly reveal my extreme bias, but even still today I am sure that there is no better value diver than the Mako in its price range. But this is not breaking news -- almost all Orient's are the best in their class. Ultimately, all that matters is which one you feel is best. *sidenote: I remember someone else on another board writing a similar opinion a long time ago which led me to Orients -- and despite having had quite a few brands since then across many price ranges - it is even more true to me now.


Except the Mako isn't a diver.

There is no comparison against a Seiko 2nd gen Orange Monster when it comes to low cost dive watches. Orient's least expensive true diver competition is the M-Force, which is certified.

Basically a Mako is a really, really nice looking Seiko 5 with a better bracelet and 200m WR. That's not to disparage it. It is low cost and ultra reliable. Plus it looks fantastic.

Orient and their sexy, sexy blue dials...


----------



## AutomaticWatch (Jan 14, 2012)

Dimman said:


> There is no comparison against a Seiko 2nd gen Orange Monster when it comes to low cost dive watches. Orient's least expensive true diver competition is the M-Force, which is certified.


I am not really a Seiko expert but isn't the 2nd gen Monster twice the price of a Mako with the same WR?

Do correct if I'm wrong!


----------



## Animated AL (Nov 27, 2013)

AutomaticWatch said:


> I am not really a Seiko expert but isn't the 2nd gen Monster twice the price of a Mako with the same WR?
> 
> Do correct if I'm wrong!


Yeah,I don't understand how the Orient's are so affordable compared to Seiko. They are excellent looking watches. Some of the more expensive Orients even have a Sapphire crystal.


----------



## trekDS (Feb 18, 2012)

Dimman said:


> Except the Mako isn't a diver.
> 
> There is no comparison against a Seiko 2nd gen Orange Monster when it comes to low cost dive watches. Orient's least expensive true diver competition is the M-Force, which is certified.
> 
> ...


An ISO doesn't make a dive watch. Many companies don't bother, even the Submariner doesn't carry the dive watch ISO. The Mako is an excellent dive watch.

In real world diving I'd take the Mako over a Monster everytime. The Monster bezel is way too easy to move by accident...the scalloped design is a flaw IMO.


----------



## dimman (Feb 10, 2013)

GunWale said:


> Well, you are right and it is all personal preference. That model looks 95% just as good as Mako and, for some, even better. But, to me, the Mako is an iconic 200m diver that earned its stripes from quite a few years of head-to-head comparo's with all variety of SKX Seiko divers. It looks much more expensive than it is, performs with excellence, and is more refined than much of its Seiko competition. My collection would quickly reveal my extreme bias, but even still today I am sure that there is no better value diver than the Mako in its price range. But this is not breaking news -- almost all Orient's are the best in their class. Ultimately, all that matters is which one you feel is best. *sidenote: I remember someone else on another board writing a similar opinion a long time ago which led me to Orients -- and despite having had quite a few brands since then across many price ranges - it is even more true to me now.





AutomaticWatch said:


> I am not really a Seiko expert but isn't the 2nd gen Monster twice the price of a Mako with the same WR?
> 
> Do correct if I'm wrong!


It's the stuff that isn't readily apparent. Solid end-link bracelet, sizing pins have collars, wetsuit expansion clasp, the ISO required shock, corrosion and magnetism resistance, the lume requirements, the actual water resistance tested to 25% more than rating, plus the 4R3X movement that hacks and handwinds.

The Mako is a nice piece, but I'm getting a bit sick of people comparing it to genuine dive watches. It's not.

And to the guy talking about it being as capable, just not ISO certified, that is definitely not the case since Orient DOES certify their divers. If the Mako could pass at its price point Orient would put it on the dial and case back.

The M-Force Air Diver is Orient's least expensive certified diver as far as I know. My next Orient choice is between it and a Constellation. I love Orient (I have 4 at the moment) but I don't like the overstated fanboy stuff that the Mako seems to attract.

It is a reliable, affordable, beautiful-dial watch, with a higher WR than anyone will ever need. But please let's not talk it up beyond its true capabilities.

Edit: And price wise I'm seeing ~$140 for the Mako and ~$200 for the Monster on Amazon. Retail is closer to the double figure.


----------



## trekDS (Feb 18, 2012)

Dimman said:


> It's the stuff that isn't readily apparent. Solid end-link bracelet, sizing pins have collars, wetsuit expansion clasp, the ISO required shock, corrosion and magnetism resistance, the lume requirements, the actual water resistance tested to 25% more than rating, plus the 4R3X movement that hacks and handwinds.
> 
> The Mako is a nice piece, but I'm getting a bit sick of people comparing it to genuine dive watches. It's not.
> 
> ...


I've dived with a Mako numerous times. Please, do tell what exactly is beyond it's capabilities?

ISO compliance in dive watches is a joke. Its self-enforced, with no checks on whether a companies claims of compliance are real or not. It costs more for no actual benefit and many dive watch companies don't bother.

Your statement that an extension bracelet is useful for diving indicates you don't use one. At different times in the year I dive a 3mm, or a 5mm, or 5mm with 2mm thermal or an 8mm semi-dry. Sometimes I am using 2mm gloves, 3mm or 5mm. Tell me how a _fixed_ metal dive extension is going to work on those varying thicknesses (from 5mm to 13mm). And if it fits on the surface it will be loose and falling around your wrist at 20m. The only way a dive extension works reliably is if it has a glide-lock style clasp. It easier to use a rubber dive strap.

The big thing though is the bezel...which you ignored. The Monster bezel is a fail. Drag a Monster along your leg and the bezel moves. If you need to time something reliably then you don't want to risk the bezel moving. The Mako's action is better weighted and its edges are smooth enough not to be caught and moved by mistake. A reliable bezel is a far bigger issue in a working dive watch than solid end-links on a bracelet that you leave at home when you dive.


----------



## dimman (Feb 10, 2013)

trekDS said:


> I've dived with a Mako numerous times. Please, do tell what exactly is beyond it's capabilities?
> 
> ISO compliance in dive watches is a joke. Its self-enforced, with no checks on whether a companies claims of compliance are real or not. It costs more for no actual benefit and many dive watch companies don't bother.
> 
> ...


I've never had an issue with the bezel catching and turning on its own (not sure about the 1st gen, but my 2nd gen is semi-shrouded, plus I'm anticipating just single season (summer) diving with 5mm suit.

The point is that whether you find the ISO ratings irrelevant or not, they cost money to implement. It's like saying a Civic is as good as an S2000 because S2000 drivers never drive their cars to the capabilities. Orient themselves seem to feel that it is relevant, hence their certification of the M-Force and Saturation divers.

Calling a Mako equal to any of these watches is hyperbolic.

Call it what it is, a really nice dive-looking watch that is a step up from a Seiko 5. But not an actual dive watch.


----------



## trekDS (Feb 18, 2012)

Dimman said:


> Calling a Mako equal to any of these watches is hyperbolic.
> 
> Call it what it is, a really nice dive-looking watch that is a step up from a Seiko 5. But not an actual dive watch.


You say its not a dive watch without stating how you arrive at that. If its just about claiming ISO compliance and stamping 'Divers' on the dial then the Rolex Submariner and the Omega Ploplof aren't dive watches either.

I'm interested in how you justify your stance. Just re-stating it baldy each time isn't the same as making a case.


----------



## dimman (Feb 10, 2013)

trekDS said:


> You say its not a dive watch without stating how you arrive at that. If its just about claiming ISO compliance and stamping 'Divers' on the dial then the Rolex Submariner and the Omega Ploplof aren't dive watches either.
> 
> I'm interested in how you justify your stance. Just re-stating it baldy each time isn't the same as making a case.


How about reading the Orient manual where it specifically states that the Mako is not suitable for scuba diving? How about the fact that Orient does certify the watches they state are suitable for scuba diving.

This isn't my opinion, it is Orient's classification of their watch. Very simple.


----------



## trekDS (Feb 18, 2012)

Dimman said:


> How about reading the Orient manual where it specifically states that the Mako is not suitable for scuba diving? How about the fact that Orient does certify the watches they state are suitable for scuba diving.
> 
> This isn't my opinion, it is Orient's classification of their watch. Very simple.


Now that is what I call making a case! The manual link is here http://orientwatchusa.com/watch-manuals/K5b.pdf and you are correct.

It indicates that 'skin diving' within the stated WR is fine but one must not breathe air from a tank at the same depths or its all off. Free-diving to 30m is no different for the watch than scuba diving to 30m, so its a strange distinction, and likely a lawyer's perspective rather than an engineer's.

I've done dozens of dives with Mako's and also the new "Ray' and had no problem to date. I sold my Monster specifically because the bezel moves in normal use and it simply was not reliable. Its also hellishly ugly ;-)

Done over by lawyers again.


----------



## dimman (Feb 10, 2013)

trekDS said:


> Now that is what I call making a case! The manual link is here http://orientwatchusa.com/watch-manuals/K5b.pdf and you are correct.
> 
> It indicates that 'skin diving' within the stated WR is fine but one must not breathe air from a tank at the same depths or its all off. Free-diving to 30m is no different for the watch than scuba diving to 30m, so its a strange distinction, and likely a lawyer's perspective rather than an engineer's.
> 
> ...


I bought mine because it IS hellishly ugly. I'll be starting my diving lessons this summer, and the Monster will be on the wrist. Need it to shoo away harbour seals and giant octopus up here.

Heh...

My 200m non dive Orient is the Excursionist model (my sailing watch), and my primary regret is the black dial (I bought second hand).

If I were to do over I would probably get the Mako with the brilliant, radiant blue dial, plus not as clunky.


----------



## linuxtime (Apr 17, 2013)

For me the Mako has a unique face, is quite comfortable on the rubber strap, and keeps excellent time. It has proven itself to be a solid performer even though I wear it as a daily beater. It comes in first and wear it more than any other watch by a longshot. Coming in second would be my Seiko snk military which is also a great watch.


----------



## GunWale (Oct 19, 2007)

Dimman said:


> Except the Mako isn't a diver.
> 
> There is no comparison against a Seiko 2nd gen Orange Monster when it comes to low cost dive watches. Orient's least expensive true diver competition is the M-Force, which is certified.
> 
> ...


Ok, if you don't want to call it a diver, that's fine. But it will pass any pressure test that any Monster can pass or M-Force. The most used divers watch of all in the real world is not ISO compliant or "certified" -- the Casio G-shock. As far as comparing it to a Seiko 5, which ones? It is far better than many Seiko 5's and not as good as other Seiko 5's (which can also be 200m rated). But to just call it a Seiko 5 without even specifying a model is kind of a cheap shot. Most Seiko 5's are great, but the Mako has its own unique style that is completely unlike any Seiko 5.

What is your understanding about how the M-Force, or even say a Seiko Monster, is ISO "certified"? I think you might find that you would be much more accurate to say it is ISO compliant. I'm wearing an M-Force right now - there is no mention of ISO anything on the watch or in the documentation. However, that doesn't mean that it isn't a fully capable diver's watch.


----------



## Mediocre (Oct 27, 2013)

My opinion is that it is probably the best looking Orient on a stock bracelet (excluding the Star/Royal line). I prefer the Mako bezel to the one posted in the OP.


----------



## dimman (Feb 10, 2013)

GunWale said:


> Ok, if you don't want to call it a diver, that's fine. But it will pass any pressure test that any Monster can pass or M-Force. The most used divers watch of all in the real world is not ISO compliant or "certified" -- the Casio G-shock. As far as comparing it to a Seiko 5, which ones? It is far better than many Seiko 5's and not as good as other Seiko 5's (which can also be 200m rated). But to just call it a Seiko 5 without even specifying a model is kind of a cheap shot. Most Seiko 5's are great, but the Mako has its own unique style that is completely unlike any Seiko 5.
> 
> What is your understanding about how the M-Force, or even say a Seiko Monster, is ISO "certified"? I think you might find that you would be much more accurate to say it is ISO compliant. I'm wearing an M-Force right now - there is no mention of ISO anything on the watch or in the documentation. However, that doesn't mean that it isn't a fully capable diver's watch.


If it says 'Divers' or some kind of variation on the dial or caseback, it has been certified. I'm not familiar with the entire M-Force line and believe I specifically mentioned the Air Diver model as Orient's least expensive certified dive watch. As for the WR, the Monster and Air Diver's certified 200m ratings are superior to the Mako's 200m rating because they are subject to, and must pass, a 25% over pressure, where the Mako doesn't.

The Seiko 5 reference being vague is kind of my point. They are great. For the money. I love mine, but not a single one will compare with my SARB or my Monster in the appropriate category. I have some nice Orients to compare as well and even they fall a bit short. But I like my Orient Journeyman world time watch WAY more than my SARB033. (I've got tons of pics of it in the 'What Orient are you wearing today' thread) *But me liking it more, is not the same thing as it being better.*

Reading half of the Mako posts on here, you would think it's a legitimate contender to a Seamaster Professional or Rolex Sub at a tiny percentage of the cost. The hyperbole is off putting.

And that comes down to the diver cert. It's not. Orient themselves say it's not suitable. People are not getting some secret deal on an ultra capable Mako dive watch because other high end companies don't certify their watches. It doesn't work that way. As nice as that would be..

The Mako is great for the price, as are Seiko 5s, and the Mako styling is great (I love the blue dials). No more, no less.


----------



## dimman (Feb 10, 2013)

Also, Gshock Frogmen are certified.


----------



## trekDS (Feb 18, 2012)

Dimman said:


> If it says 'Divers' or some kind of variation on the dial or caseback, it has been certified. I'm not familiar with the entire M-Force line and believe I specifically mentioned the Air Diver model as Orient's least expensive certified dive watch. As for the WR, the Monster and Air Diver's certified 200m ratings are superior to the Mako's 200m rating because they are subject to, and must pass, a 25% over pressure, where the Mako doesn't.
> 
> The Seiko 5 reference being vague is kind of my point. They are great. For the money. I love mine, but not a single one will compare with my SARB or my Monster in the appropriate category. I have some nice Orients to compare as well and even they fall a bit short. But I like my Orient Journeyman world time watch WAY more than my SARB033. (I've got tons of pics of it in the 'What Orient are you wearing today' thread) *But me liking it more, is not the same thing as it being better.*
> 
> ...


You are right...and wrong.

They do say its not for scuba diving...but that its fine for skin diving up to its listed WR of 200m. Can the watch be dived to 200m? Yes it can. So aside from the semantics...its able to cope with more depth than you or I are ever likely to be able to skin or scuba dive. The rest is more about lawyer-speak than the engineering of the watch.

So the Mako doesn't have an engineering problem...but my 2 Monsters did. I have dived Mako's to 30m many, many times and never had any problem. Which was not true of my 2 Monsters which were unable to reliably hold the time set on the bezel...so they were summarily flipped. If a watch doesn't reliably resist water _and_ hold its set time on a dive then its of no use for diving.

On top of all of that, the Mako is better looking and less costly than a Monster. Its a harsh reality that in my direct experience a watch you have pointed out doesn't even claim to be a dive watch has outperformed the Monster in real-world scuba diving.


----------



## Jack19 (Nov 8, 2009)

Simple. One reason.

Because the Mako, and several other Orient watches, mimic Rolex and Omega models, both current and past, for thousands less.

Planet Ocean 2208.50.00 $4950 at Amazon, slightly less at one of the favorite ADs. 









Orient Mako II $147 at LIW


----------



## beeman101 (Nov 16, 2013)

Dont know about the mako 2. But lots of people swear by the mako 1. I say this because sometimes the sequels do not measure up to the original........just my 2 cents!


----------



## AutomaticWatch (Jan 14, 2012)

beeman101 said:


> Dont know about the mako 2. But lots of people swear by the mako 1. I say this because sometimes the sequels do not measure up to the original........just my 2 cents!


Technically the Mako XL was never meant as a sequel to the Mako. OrientWatchUSA has marketed them as such and it has caught on.

Orient just introduced the CEM7500XX as a larger diver watch, that's it.


----------



## dimman (Feb 10, 2013)

trekDS said:


> You are right...and wrong.
> 
> They do say its not for scuba diving...but that its fine for skin diving up to its listed WR of 200m. Can the watch be dived to 200m? Yes it can. So aside from the semantics...its able to cope with more depth than you or I are ever likely to be able to skin or scuba dive. The rest is more about lawyer-speak than the engineering of the watch.
> 
> ...


I'm just not getting the Monster bezel thing. My Monster and Journeyman get the most wrist time out of my watches, with the Monster getting the 'rough' assignments to assess things like the bezel and bracelet. The bezel has never moved on its own. With how crisp and precise it is, and what I've already subject it to, I can't imagine anything less than a very hard impact would move it a click or two, which knocks off a minute on your timing (in the safe direction).

What type of suit/equipment did yours snag on? If it's a specific situation or equipment type/combination, I would like to know, to either avoid or reconsider my watch choice.

And I agree with the depth thing. I won't be doing any technical/mixed gas stuff until later, so won't be going past 30-40m.

As such, it's the reliability, corrosion and visibility testing that outweighs the WR rating. Which a lot of people don't understand. Deeper than 40m is advanced.

The watch is a backup safety instrument. And I am a believer of proper safety equipment and redundancy.

I work in a machine shop, even though my prescription glasses are shatter-proof plastic, I wear full coverage certified safety eyewear over them.

Diving needs that level of safety respect, too.

The Mako for me will make a nice watch for sailing, that I will never have to worry about for water intrusion.


----------



## trekDS (Feb 18, 2012)

Dimman said:


> I'm just not getting the Monster bezel thing. My Monster and Journeyman get the most wrist time out of my watches, with the Monster getting the 'rough' assignments to assess things like the bezel and bracelet. The bezel has never moved on its own. With how crisp and precise it is, and what I've already subject it to, I can't imagine anything less than a very hard impact would move it a click or two, which knocks off a minute on your timing (in the safe direction).
> 
> What type of suit/equipment did yours snag on? If it's a specific situation or equipment type/combination, I would like to know, to either avoid or reconsider my watch choice.
> 
> ...


I had an orange Monster and a black one. They both moved on dives, I have no idea what on.

The black one moved on a walk with my dog one time which was the last straw for me. I noticed it was off-centre, so I put it back on the 12. I went out with the dog, threw the ball for her and went home. I'm back at home and glance at the watch to see how long I'd been out and the bezel had moved again. The action is a bit light but the culprit I believe is the scalloped edges. They allow the bezel to catch on things and the action isn't heavy enough to stop it moving. I'm a Seiko fan but wouldn't have another Monster.


----------



## beeman101 (Nov 16, 2013)

AutomaticWatch said:


> Technically the Mako XL was never meant as a sequel to the Mako. OrientWatchUSA has marketed them as such and it has caught on.
> 
> Orient just introduced the CEM7500XX as a larger diver watch, that's it.


Yes, i know it is different. and you are correct as it is not a sequel since the mako stll exists officially. But the calibers 46943 are the same. So i guess similar dna. Maybe they havent dis-continued the mako because it is still such a popular model. It would be stupid of them to loose that ever present customer base (maybe me too soon). Would i dare call the ray as the correct inheritor of the mako branding? At least case design crown/pushers seem almost similar.


----------



## GunWale (Oct 19, 2007)

Dimman said:


> If it says 'Divers' or some kind of variation on the dial or caseback, it has been certified. I'm not familiar with the entire M-Force line and believe I specifically mentioned the Air Diver model as Orient's least expensive certified dive watch. As for the WR, the Monster and Air Diver's certified 200m ratings are superior to the Mako's 200m rating because they are subject to, and must pass, a 25% over pressure, where the Mako doesn't.
> 
> The Seiko 5 reference being vague is kind of my point. They are great. For the money. I love mine, but not a single one will compare with my SARB or my Monster in the appropriate category. I have some nice Orients to compare as well and even they fall a bit short. But I like my Orient Journeyman world time watch WAY more than my SARB033. (I've got tons of pics of it in the 'What Orient are you wearing today' thread) *But me liking it more, is not the same thing as it being better.*
> 
> ...


But "certified" by who? And how do you know? Just because a watch says "divers" does not mean the ISO had anything to do whatsoever in the testing, production, design, or quality control of the watch. ISO is a voluntary organization only. It is not some international standards police force that monitor all watches produced to ensure there are no "violations" or will go into a watch factory that is putting "divers" on the dial and not testing properly and put all the managers in a concentration camp.

Only a very, very few manufacturers bother to take the time and expense to apply for ISO "certification." Even for the ones that do - it is a shadowy area in terms of exactly how stringent the production and QC monitoring actually really is -- for example is every single watch off the line fully tested equally? In any case, the ones that do go to the time and expense mark their watches accordingly. For example, Marathon clearly states on the caseback "ISO 6425."

The M-Force I was speaking about is an Air Diver's model. It is model #SEL03001BO, hack/handwind, 200 meter. Again, nothing on the watch or docs that mention squat about ISO anything. I also have a OS 300m sat diver -- same situation, no ISO anything on watch or docs.

The reason is because ISO had nothing to do directly with the production, monitoring, testing, or quality control of these watches. No ISO official was anywhere near the factory that produced these watches. Same thing with the Monster. They may be ISO "compliant" b/c they were designed with ISO standards in mind, but Orient and Seiko are doing the QC and also the only ones doing the testing.

There is a giant difference between ISO compliant and ISO "certified."

You are right about the Frogman, but I was only mentioning the G-shock which is not ISO compliant or certified.


----------



## dimman (Feb 10, 2013)

GunWale said:


> But "certified" by who? And how do you know? Just because a watch says "divers" does not mean the ISO had anything to do whatsoever in the testing, production, design, or quality control of the watch. ISO is a voluntary organization only. It is not some international standards police force that monitor all watches produced to ensure there are no "violations" or will go into a watch factory that is putting "divers" on the dial and not testing properly and put all the managers in a concentration camp.
> 
> Only a very, very few manufacturers bother to take the time and expense to apply for ISO "certification." Even for the ones that do - it is a shadowy area in terms of exactly how stringent the production and QC monitoring actually really is -- for example is every single watch off the line fully tested equally? In any case, the ones that do go to the time and expense mark their watches accordingly. For example, Marathon clearly states on the caseback "ISO 6425."
> 
> ...


They are internally certified by their respective, ISO compliant companies. Companies like Seiko, Casio, Citizen and Orient are not little internet wannabe watch companies that may be fudging their marketing labels. They will have the internal engineering, testing and QA to back up and maintain their claims.

As for the label, "Diver's 200m" is part of the ISO labeling. Should be on the caseback of the M-Force, I believe.

Now the whole point is Seiko distinguishes is watches as Diver's or not, so does Orient. Orient says the Mako will NOT meet the reliability standards required for ISO compliance. Period, end of story. There is no way to negotiate this, or explain it away as 'well the ISO isn't looking so it could be'. Because Orient themselves are looking and say 'Nope, won't pass'.


----------



## dimman (Feb 10, 2013)

trekDS said:


> I had an orange Monster and a black one. They both moved on dives, I have no idea what on.
> 
> The black one moved on a walk with my dog one time which was the last straw for me. I noticed it was off-centre, so I put it back on the 12. I went out with the dog, threw the ball for her and went home. I'm back at home and glance at the watch to see how long I'd been out and the bezel had moved again. The action is a bit light but the culprit I believe is the scalloped edges. They allow the bezel to catch on things and the action isn't heavy enough to stop it moving. I'm a Seiko fan but wouldn't have another Monster.


I'll keep an eye on mine. So far it's been perfect, but I will see if I can deliberately reproduce that by dragging on gear and clothes.


----------



## baptiste6 (Aug 23, 2012)

my questions is" Who is really diving to 656.168 feet?" That is a long way down. I think the deepest I've ever been couldn't be more than 5 or 6 meters. And if you were diving to those depths, I would assume you would want a dive watch to handle those pressures. 
I'm not saying the Mako or Monster would would fail but I think there would be a a safer option.


----------



## dimman (Feb 10, 2013)

baptiste6 said:


> my questions is" Who is really diving to 656.168 feet?" That is a long way down. I think the deepest I've ever been couldn't be more than 5 or 6 meters. And if you were diving to those depths, I would assume you would want a dive watch to handle those pressures.
> I'm not saying the Mako or Monster would would fail but I think there would be a a safer option.


Deeper than 40m is one qualifier for 'Technical' diving. Technical diving is the beyond recreational dangerous stuff (wreck, saturation, ice, mixed gas, etc...) that require special certification and experience. This is why I've been pointing out that it is not just the WR that makes a dive watch a dive watch.

The Mako is a beautiful and affordable sports watch with good WR.


----------



## Farmfield (Mar 29, 2014)

This about 200m divers vs WR200, you guy's seem to have a clue
about the ISO certifications and such, but lets talk real life. You do
some diving and you knock your watch on a rock or something other
hard, you'll tenfold the pressure on the case/glass instantly, so the
meter/atm number is like a (theoretical-) 'watch on a string' submerged
to that depth, not about it being 'used' at that depth...

So I friend of mine's a pro UW welder and he's had watches for years
and then killed them by bumping into something slightly. The 300m
'saturation diver' type ones have lasted him longer than watches like
the Citizen Aqualands and alike, but as far as I know, I think he killed
every watch he ever had accept the one he's wearing right now, and
that lives only because he haven't had time to kill it yet, hehe... 

_Oh, and these are all normal watches, not expensive ones like Rolex's
or anything, Seiko, Citizens, I think he's got an Invicta 300m right now,
or at least something like it, cheapish, Submariner-looking..._


----------



## OllieVR (Aug 27, 2013)

Having only been in possession of my 3 Orients since August of last year, I'm unable to wax poetic about their reputedly robust movements or construction. However, with all the many hours I have spent looking at them on my wrist, and even more hours perusing the gorgeous photos and posts of fellow members, I feel I can offer my perspective on their popularity. There's the mystique of the in-house movement, no small thing in the watch world, even if their Japanese competition do as well. They really are reasonably priced, and I believe I would be willing to pay even their retail price if that is what the market would require. Besides their wonderfully beautiful faces and the attention paid in their details, I attribute my love for them to what I would term as the Mazda Factor.

I have 3 of them as well. They are perhaps the smallest Japanese car company. They are not the big sellers but I love them for their spunky, underdog status and their great fun to drive nature. They have always been a little different from their peers and produced some amazingly good cars. I find I get the same "warm fuzzies" from my Orients. Not the biggest in the bunch, but like Mazda, passionate for what they do, and I think it shows in their products. I get the feeling that I have bought something that was made by someone who enjoyed the watch as much as enjoyed the business of making it.

The Mako itself is not my favorite. Its sibling the Ray is much more to my taste. I love everything about it. The Blue of its face, the red tip of its second hand, the detail given to the Orient Crest on its face, the signed crown, and my all time favorite, the screw down day pusher crown. (I have no idea why. Upon first sight I thought it a little low tech actually, but now believe it THE signature feature next to the red tip) My Blue Mako XL is a beautiful watch, deserves a proper name of its own, and I dream of a screw down crown for the day pusher there too. (I really like the "Hogrider" tag that has been applied by another member elsewhere on this forum; I actually made the same mistake he did and thought an OPs name, Hogrider, on a review, was the name of the watch) (sorry I can't seem to find a link to it) The Mako was a sacrifice for it's bracelet to place on the Ray, and although I really don't care for the numerals on the face I do like every other detail about the watch. The list of Orient "wants" is long indeed and I could see myself spending the cost of a Rolex in their acquisition.

To answer the OP of the thread, I think the list of reasons why the "Mako" is so popular are as varied as their owners. Credit must be given to Orient though for how many happy, enthusiastic, "fan boy" owners there seem to be.


----------



## Cobia (Nov 24, 2013)

Jack19 said:


> Simple. One reason.
> 
> Because the Mako, and several other Orient watches, mimic Rolex and Omega models, both current and past, for thousands less.
> 
> ...


I think the orient looks better to be honest, but im not known for my taste 
I never realised they looked so similar.


----------



## tleek (Jul 28, 2013)

I know this thread is pretty long running, but I recently bought a Mako and emailed Orient USA to see what they had to say about this issue. I asked why the watch is only suitable for skin diving if its rated to 200 meters and asked if it had anything to do with impact resistance etc.

here was the reply:

Thank you for your message. The 200m water resistance rating is for static pressure only. The pressure underwater varies, and so the factory advises that the watch be only used for skin diving. We hope this answers your question!

Best,
Orient Watch USA

While I have never been diving, maybe I'll get certified as a college graduation gift to myself, but I purchased this watch to beat up in the woods, the water, and around town. It looks too nice though so I am kind of scared. I am glad some people have practical experience diving with it.


----------



## trekDS (Feb 18, 2012)

tleek said:


> I know this thread is pretty long running, but I recently bought a Mako and emailed Orient USA to see what they had to say about this issue. I asked why the watch is only suitable for skin diving if its rated to 200 meters and asked if it had anything to do with impact resistance etc.
> 
> here was the reply:
> 
> ...


I have dived the Mako and Ray numerous times and they have performed perfectly. The old 'static' vs 'dynamic' pressure is way overblown. At 200m the difference would add less than 3m of depth. And most divers won't ever go beyond 50m anyway.


----------

