# Conjuction of High End and Tool watch?



## GrouchoM (Jul 11, 2013)

I've always been a form follows function watch guy. Due to this, and my preference for very durable and accurate chronographs, my only high end piece is the BP Bathyscaphe Chronograph. I know there are a other HE tool watches but not many (aside from R.Mille's $$$ pieces). What are some others?

Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk


----------



## dbostedo (Feb 26, 2014)

GrouchoM said:


> I've always been a form follows function watch guy. Due to this, and my preference for very durable and accurate chronographs, my only high end piece is the BP Bathyscaphe Chronograph. I know there are a other HE tool watches but not many (aside from R.Mille's $$$ pieces). What are some others?
> 
> Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk


Wouldn't "tool watch" encompass any pilots watch, chronograph, or diver? If so, there're tons of high-end ones.


----------



## GrouchoM (Jul 11, 2013)

Yes and no. If the watch is built to really be used for the function, yes. If it just looks the part, no. The JLC Deep Sea Chrono I used to own wasn't that rugged and was only built for 100m. OTOH, I know JLC makes some serious tool to watches, too.


----------



## Mediocre (Oct 27, 2013)

GP Sea Hawk comes to mind. Bulky case with WR to back it up


----------



## Tohono Rat (Apr 23, 2018)

GO SeaQ Panorama Date? Plenty of WR (300m), excellent lume for actual diving, a unique design based upon its utilitarian predecessor. Other options that might meet your criteria? Breguet Type XXI, a modernized version that they produced for the French air corps in the 1950s. JLC Palaris Mariner? Maybe the UN Diver Chronometer?

I am interested in you consider the Bathy to meet your criteria, as it is not at all useful as a dive watch given that its minuscule illuminated indices makes it nearly illegible under water.

I do think that there tends to be an issue, however, in thinking of "high end" going with "tool watch." To whit, the things that in most people's view makes a watch "high end" often run antithetical to utility. For example, hand-finishing of a movement or use of precious metals in the case actually run counter to the utilitarian form of a "tool watch." Moreover, complex movement architecture and/or complications (e.g., the tourbillon) are fragile and rarely make sense in an actual tool watch. Some elements shared by most "tool watches" include:

Accuracy
Durability/reliability
Legibility in specific situations (e.g., under water or while piloting a plane)
Situation-specific design/complications (e.g., unidirectional rotating bezel or tachymeter chrono)
Some elements shared by most "high end" watches (as I understand it from this forum):

High degree of finishing, especially by hand
Complex movement design and/or complications (e.g., resonance, perpetual calendar, tourbillon)
Use of precious metals (although not always)
The elements of these lists often run counter to one another (although not always). Complex movement design and/or complications often leads to less durability/reliability. Hand finishing adds nothing to accuracy, durability. Precious metals are often softer and more prone to damage than stainless steel, titanium, etc. Indeed, much of what makes a high end watch "high end" actually makes it less of a tool.

It is for this reason that I prefer to evaluate watches based upon the criteria of *design coherence.* That is, does the form of the watch - its aesthetic design, material choices, movement design, etc. - match the purported function of the watch? Based upon this criteria you can evaluate any watch at any price point.

Past a certain price-point, a watch's function ceases to be primarily utilitarian. Therefore, design coherence becomes about redefining our understanding of "function." For example, there is almost no practical benefit of a tourbillon in a wrist watch; it was developed to counteract the forces of gravity for timepieces that spent most of their lives in a single position. So, do we say that there no watch with a tourbillon can have a coherent design? I think not. Rather, the function of such a watch is to show the technical and artistic prowess of the watchmaker(s). High end watches must be evaluated as wearable, kinetic art (or, for those who do not appreciate horology, as symbols of economic status), whereas tool watches are just that.... tools. Each have a place. The two, however, rarely overlap. There are places where they do - you rightly point to RM. But these are the exceptions rather than the rule.


----------



## mykii (Oct 22, 2010)

Most "sports" watches that also fall into the high-end category are usually unlikely to be called "tool" watches by virtue of the degree of delicate hand finishing on the case/bracelet of said watches. IMO, if you want a true tool watch to use, beat up, and get dirty in the field, you're probably better off looking a tier or two below and pick yourself up a Rolex and call it a day.


----------



## fellini212 (Aug 20, 2020)

explorer


----------



## ar7iste (Sep 24, 2016)

Well, an interesting topic as I also love to have a watch with which I don't need to worry if I was to go on an adventure with (meaning vacation including snorkeling, expeditions in jungle, hiking in mountains, skiing, trail running, etc.).

I have found that it is indeed difficult, but it's easier when you define what you need to qualify for a tool watch. For me, it was: some sort of shock resistance in the movement, a case in either scratch resistant ceramic, lightweight titanium or carbon, or just stainless steel, and 50m minimum of water resistance (by well regarded brands, 50m is enough to actually go to depths of 30 to 50m max, and I am not a professional diver).

This search led to:

blancpain FF range (including bathshscaphe);
linde werdelin with all their range meeting the criteria, but arguably borderline high end (even though I think the spidospeed and octopus models have enough movement work and case work to justify the label);
Hublot Big Bang meca 10 and unico 42/45 (in black or white ceramic, or the Sorai limited edition which I think is fire);
Moser Pioneer;
Sarpaneva K0 range;
Girard Perregaux Laureato Absolute Rock edition;
AP RO Offshore diver forged carbon;
Some Ulysse Nardin, like the Regatta;
MB&F Aquapod (I had to put it as I love it);
then many borderline high end brands or lower like Rebellion, BRM, Grand Seiko, IWC, Panerai, Breitling, JLC, Zenith, Omega and Ralph Lauren Safari collection.

I ended up getting a Linde Werdelin and a Panerai for those activities, and the LW is absolutely insanely fun and comfortable to wear. Love the thing to pieces. But I have not given up on finding maybe a higher end alternative, and if I do I could trade the Pam to get it.


----------



## kritameth (Oct 11, 2015)

fellini212 said:


> explorer


Not HE.


----------



## Zhanming057 (Jun 17, 2019)

GrouchoM said:


> Yes and no. If the watch is built to really be used for the function, yes. If it just looks the part, no. The JLC Deep Sea Chrono I used to own wasn't that rugged and was only built for 100m. OTOH, I know JLC makes some serious tool to watches, too.


It's called the "deep sea chrono". How much more WR do you need? As far as i know, JLC does the same level of individual testing as Omega, meaning that your watch, if maintained and pressure tested according to schedule, can be taken down to 100m. That's also more WR than many early true divers.


----------



## fellini212 (Aug 20, 2020)

kritameth said:


> Not HE.


Absolutely true.

I was extending the post directly above mine. Should've hit 'reply.'


----------



## Terry M. (Apr 15, 2007)

Love love love this topic as I have an affinity for the crossover HE/tool watch also. Will follow with great interest. As I see it, in my limitEd experiences, the BlancPain Fifty Fathoms is right in the sweet spot of both categories; tough enough to be considered a tool but elegant and with beautiful finishing. I actually regret selling mine and may remedy that someday. Also the Breguet Type xx has sufficient water resistance (100m) and definitely is a tool watch. I would argue the finishing is of fantastic quality also. 









I've also owned the GO SEAQ panoramic date and think it falls into both categories nicely










Look forward to more discussion on this topic.


----------



## GrouchoM (Jul 11, 2013)

Zhanming057 said:


> It's called the "deep sea chrono". How much more WR do you need? As far as i know, JLC does the same level of individual testing as Omega, meaning that your watch, if maintained and pressure tested according to schedule, can be taken down to 100m. That's also more WR than many early true divers.


As I recall, JLC even stated in the packaging that it shouldn't be treated roughly. I recall contacting them to discuss its lack of toughness.

Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk


----------



## dbostedo (Feb 26, 2014)

GrouchoM said:


> As I recall, JLC even stated in the packaging that it shouldn't be treated roughly. I recall contacting them to discuss its lack of toughness.
> 
> Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk


OK... but is that "this is a mechanical watch and shouldn't be treated roughly" type of warning meant more for folks that don't know watches? Or do you really think it's a warning that the watch is somehow weaker than other JLC or that it would appear as a dive watch? What did they actually say when you talked to them? That watch is ISO diver certified I believe, so it is built to some standard.

You _could _say that any mechanical watch is "fragile", depending on what your comparison points are. But almost all modern mechanical watches have good shock absorption, and are similarly produced from a material standpoint. I'd hazard that unless it's a particularly thin movement, it's probably as robust as any other. (Though I could see how some chrono's may be less robust I guess given the complexity.)


----------



## fairfax (Dec 30, 2010)

I went through the same search not too long ago and have managed to acquire these 3 that fulfill the criteria personally (on my 6.75" wrist):

1) BP x Hodinkee Milspec 2020
-300m WR, robust, but simple 3 handed









2) BP Leman GMT Alarm
-100m WR, amazing for travel, great complications, but unsure about movement shock resistance (get the one w/ titanium + bracelet since the alarm is much louder and indices are more legible on this version)








3) De Bethune DB28GS diver
-105m WR, amazing shock resistance, super high end finishing, but pricey


----------



## dbostedo (Feb 26, 2014)

fairfax said:


> I went through the same search not too long ago and have managed to acquire these 3 that fulfill the criteria personally (on my 6.75" wrist):
> 
> 1) BP x Hodinkee Milspec 2020
> -300m WR, robust, but simple 3 handed
> ...


That DeBethune is wild, and awesome!


----------



## GrouchoM (Jul 11, 2013)

Without seeing them in person, RM and your (awesome) De Bethune seem to lack the legibility that (my interpretation of) a tool watch would have. 

Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk


----------



## fairfax (Dec 30, 2010)

GrouchoM said:


> Without seeing them in person, RM and your (awesome) De Bethune seem to lack the legibility that (my interpretation of) a tool watch would have.
> 
> Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk


That's a valid concern. In fact, one of the things holding me back was legibility. But once I saw it the flesh, I was committed. The blue hands really stand out on the busy dial. The seconds hand is another matter. Still nothing like the contrast of the BP FF, but I can read it quickly on my wrist. If you have an opportunity, I'd recommend seeing it in person.

Most RMs aren't quick reading for me, especially the complicated ones.


----------



## Mediocre (Oct 27, 2013)

Personally when I think high end tool watch my mind wanders from traditional "high end" toward what I consider to be the higher end of purpose built tool watches.....all of which are German. They are not "high end" names, but I do not actually care if my movement is hand decorated in a tool watch. High end is also about technology and being best-in-class. I would prefer it be robust movement surrounded by an iron cage for high resistance to magnetism. 

Are you seeking an actual offroad vehicle or an SUV that rides like a Mercedes and has a form-over-function offroad setting?

Watches from Tutima, Muhle, and Damasko (especially their in-house pieces) come to mind. They may not be $10k, but specifically Tutima and Muhle have both proven themselves with in-house, high end quality watches in their portfolios.


----------



## ar7iste (Sep 24, 2016)

fairfax said:


> That's a valid concern. In fact, one of the things holding me back was legibility. But once I saw it the flesh, I was committed. The blue hands really stand out on the busy dial. The seconds hand is another matter. Still nothing like the contrast of the BP FF, but I can read it quickly on my wrist. If you have an opportunity, I'd recommend seeing it in person.
> 
> Most RMs aren't quick reading for me, especially the complicated ones.


And the best part of the De Bethune compared to a RM is also that it doesn't have a date! A high end tool watch is already hard to find, but one without a date is even harder. Just an incredible piece!
Now for the price, well, not quite as awesome as I would like it to be ?


----------



## Sam K (May 7, 2015)

Overseas? 

Unlike the Naut and RO, the Overseas actually come with decent WR and is anti-magnetic to boot. Brushed steel, decent WR, anti magnetic and true high end finishing, it seems like a pretty good entry in the high end tool watch, especially if you go for the chrono or dual time.


----------



## Cayenne06 (Aug 16, 2018)

Just replaced my Bathyscaphe with this and couldn't be happier. Quick change strap system makes it even better.


----------



## Rbq (Mar 26, 2018)

I think there’s a few that fit the bill. Of course most if not all wristwatches have been obsoleted by superior digital instruments, but as long as they are designed and can be effectively used for their intended purpose, I think they could still be called “tools”, regardless of their perceived/actual value.

Breguet Type XX - solid Lemania-based caliber (cousin of the utilitarian 5100, but much better decorated), flyback, 100m WR.

Blancpain Fifty Fathoms - highly regarded F Piguet movement (cal 1151), 300m WR.

AP/UN regatta timers - these are purpose-built timekeepers with good WR.

Stretching the definition a bit, here’s a few more that might be considered:

JLC reverso - when you need to tell the time whilst riding a horse trying to hit a wooden ball with a long mallet

Patek/VC/AP pulsation chronos - when you need to check your heart rate, as long as you’re not doing anything too extreme that might break your watch

Cartier Santos/Patek pilot (5522) - when you find yourself needing to fly a WW1 era plane, I guess


----------



## ar7iste (Sep 24, 2016)

You said you had a JLC deep sea vintage chronograph, but the Cermet JLC Deep Sea might fit the bill too. It's a watch that can actually go down to 100m if needed. And the material combination makes it very light.


----------



## Stchambe (Jun 1, 2009)

The modern Overseas is a pretty robust design. 
The three hand Moser Streamliner (steamliner?) seems like a solid design as well, but I haven’t had my hands on one to really know for sure.


----------



## vkalia (Oct 26, 2014)

GrouchoM said:


> I've always been a form follows function watch guy. Due to this, and my preference for very durable and accurate chronographs, my only high end piece is the BP Bathyscaphe Chronograph. I know there are a other HE tool watches but not many (aside from R.Mille's $$$ pieces). What are some others?


Would some of the ROO qualify? Especially on a strap? Also, among the trinity, the Overseas probably - it is the one watch that is most suited for use as a daily wearer. I'd also add Hublot to the wrist but i dont know how robust they are.

(Good point about the paucity. I am guessing by the time one is spending $10k+ plus for a watch, the need to "justify" it by talking about tool functionality is well past - it's unabashed wrist jewellery).


----------



## WTSP (May 6, 2012)

Take your pick.




























There are modern Defy tourbillions too, but without dive bezels and also lacking that early 2000s panache.


----------



## GrouchoM (Jul 11, 2013)

WTSP said:


> Take your pick.
> 
> View attachment 15963499
> 
> ...


These timepieces provide very little space to display the time... that's definitely not a function (reading the time) first approach. Also, tourbillons aren't used for any reason these days aside from exercising the horological craft.

Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk


----------



## WTSP (May 6, 2012)

True, there are all sorts of absurd yet intentional design features that prevent accurate time reading (would you rather have minute markers or be reminded that the watch is "For Xtreme Condition Use" instead). The old Defy Classic Elite models put function a little ahead of form, but those are more of mid-tier rather than high end offering. I think that may be the approach when one gets to a certain price level. Form tends to override function when the product is so far into the realm of "luxury".

Another option for you, the IWC Aquatimer Perpetual Calendar.


----------



## manofrolex (Jul 9, 2012)




----------



## dberg (Jan 7, 2014)

I'm beginning to view this differently. For example, while I really like the GO Sea Q, I'm not sure I want to swim/bike/run in a $10K watch. Got me thinking. While I had always thought the UN designs to be polarizing, I actually like the Marine Torpilleurs. They are selling them now on nylon, rubber and bracelets. To me, this has more personality than a lot of GADA watches. I'm looking at you Rolex Explorer, and while I love IWC's pilots -- the three-hands are typically restrained. With the UN, I could then add a moderately priced upscale beater, like a Farer diver or a Bremont S300 and just leave it on the rubber for grab and go sport time. Thoughts?


----------



## ar7iste (Sep 24, 2016)

dberg said:


> I'm beginning to view this differently. For example, while I really like the GO Sea Q, I'm not sure I want to swim/bike/run in a $10K watch. Got me thinking. While I had always thought the UN designs to be polarizing, I actually like the Marine Torpilleurs. They are selling them now on nylon, rubber and bracelets. To me, this has more personality than a lot of GADA watches. I'm looking at you Rolex Explorer, and while I love IWC's pilots -- the three-hands are typically restrained. With the UN, I could then add a moderately priced upscale beater, like a Farer diver or a Bremont S300 and just leave it on the rubber for grab and go sport time. Thoughts?


Why not do it with the UN?
I am facing kind of a similar conundrum. I would love a time only watch with no date for sports, so it's easy to let it sit and just wear it on activities and trips that involve water/running/etc. But at the same time I don't want to compromise on fit and finish. I think the UN would deliver.
I am contemplating letting go of my Linde Werdelin which is currently doing this job to get a time only no date watch on rubber, but I can't find one at least as nice as the LW and thinner with a full balance bridge to help against shocks. The hunt continues...


----------



## dberg (Jan 7, 2014)

I may. It is a bit more classic than I was headed. But, I like that it pairs well with nylon, rubber and steel. And, you can get all OEM. Would prefer lume on the dial. Despite the roman numerals, I definitely think it is sportier than the Classic Portugieser Chrono or automatic 3 hand. GO has the Senator Excellence with arabic numerals. Sort of has a pilot look. But, it is a little plain. The same thing with all of the IWC pilots. Great looking, but a little stark.


----------



## GrouchoM (Jul 11, 2013)

ar7iste said:


> Why not do it with the UN?
> I am facing kind of a similar conundrum. I would love a time only watch with no date for sports, so it's easy to let it sit and just wear it on activities and trips that involve water/running/etc. But at the same time I don't want to compromise on fit and finish. I think the UN would deliver.
> I am contemplating letting go of my Linde Werdelin which is currently doing this job to get a time only no date watch on rubber, but I can't find one at least as nice as the LW and thinner with a full balance bridge to help against shocks. The hunt continues...


While not for me, I LOVE your LW watch(es).

Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk


----------



## ar7iste (Sep 24, 2016)

GrouchoM said:


> While not for me, I LOVE your LW watch(es).
> 
> Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk


Thank you, it is what I have found to be the closest to the "high end tool watch" that I have found so far.
As was highlighted by this thread, it's difficult to find a watch that embodies high-end finishing and refinement while allowing for daily abuse and extreme activities (thin, light and robust). It's much easier to find mid-tier watches to fit that bill.


----------



## zztopops (Aug 4, 2021)

I hope to tool around this some day


----------



## Toolwatchmd (Sep 6, 2020)

The Moser Pioneer, which was suggested earlier, seems to fit this well.

What about one of the high end iterations of a Speedmaster? A platinum or gold Speedmaster seems to define the idea of superfluous luxury mixed with a purpose built tool watch.


----------



## zztopops (Aug 4, 2021)

How about these little utilitarian puppies?


----------



## zztopops (Aug 4, 2021)

GrouchoM said:


> De Bethune seem to lack the legibility that (my interpretation of) a tool watch would have


They come standard with LEDs to address legibility concerns


----------



## WTSP (May 6, 2012)

zztopops said:


> How about these little utilitarian puppies?
> 
> View attachment 16131146


Wow, I thought these were some sort of terrible replica watches, but they're real! That approach to finishing looks so terribly dated. Perhaps they're nicer in person... I think it goes to show that certain types of movement finishing have gone out of style. It might also be that non-geometric minute hand detailing just doesn't fit the aesthetics of a sport watch. You're better off with some mirror polish, beveling, mat sand blasting and geometric patterns.


----------



## dbostedo (Feb 26, 2014)

WTSP said:


> That approach to finishing looks so terribly dated.


Well they were made in the late 90s to commemorate the 50th anniversary of the model... so I guess they're intentionally dated? I don't really know. Here's a good article on them with a bunch of closer up pics:









New & Noteworthy: The Omega Seamaster Skeleton 50th Anniversary - THE COLLECTIVE


So you've never seen an Omega Seamaster Skeleton? We don't blame you. Follow along as we dive into these rare anniversary pieces.



www.europeanwatch.com





Personally, I don't think they look very good.


----------



## φευ (Jul 12, 2021)

There were news (arguably unsurprising) this morning...


----------



## dbostedo (Feb 26, 2014)

φευ said:


> There were news (arguably unsurprising) this morning...


What was the news?


----------



## φευ (Jul 12, 2021)

dbostedo said:


> What was the news?




Look at Hodinkee, or watchesbysjx (where do you get your news from?)


----------



## NardinNut (Sep 22, 2008)

dbostedo said:


> What was the news?


VC Everest. Badass. I'm going to try to get the dual time


----------



## dbostedo (Feb 26, 2014)

φευ said:


> Look at Hodinkee (better writeup), or watchesbysjx (where do you get your news from?)


Ha... I quickly (and randomly) checked Monochrome and didn't see anything. It was just as likely I would have picked one of the others you mentioned, but I didn't.


----------



## dbostedo (Feb 26, 2014)

NardinNut said:


> I'm going to try to get the dual time


The dual time is awesome... my favorite Overseas in general, and the Everest looks like a great variant.


----------



## φευ (Jul 12, 2021)

Any ideas why they made it a limited release? I mean, you know the thing will sell - why not make it a standard reference?


----------



## AnonPi (Aug 19, 2020)

φευ said:


> Any ideas why they made it a limited release? I mean, you know the think will sell - why not make it a standard reference?


The only reason I can think of is not wanting to work in Titanium long term, but I'm sure they could sell as many of these as they could make for the foreseeable future without affecting sales of their existing references at all.


----------



## Doug(Phoenix) (Dec 8, 2008)

I voted with my wallet. Love this model in 18k


----------



## WTSP (May 6, 2012)

dbostedo said:


> Well they were made in the late 90s to commemorate the 50th anniversary of the model... so I guess they're intentionally dated? I don't really know. Here's a good article on them with a bunch of closer up pics:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Thanks for that link. I think the close-ups speak for themselves. I guess that's still how things were done at the time. It looks like an Alexander Shorokhoff or custom pocket watch marriage watch from eBay.










I think that brands are better off using less labour intensive machine finishing rather than less than excellent hand decoration, even if it costs less.










This type of flowery hand engraving can be okay when it's done at the highest level, but anything less tends to looks dated or cheap IMO. Also, it doesn't fit the dive/tool watch esthetic of the Seamaster.


----------



## itsjay (Sep 2, 2021)

I'd say the BP Fifty Fathoms, specifically in Titanium, should be considered. The case being brushed and the gold rotor being blacked out all add to the tool appeal and functionality (the rotor less so but cool factoid nonetheless). The size and machining of the crown to have deep channels for grip is the most robust and functional I've ever seen. Of course the screw down and gasketing is great for 300m WR. The bezel action and edge grip make it great if using gloves underwater. I do dive with my dive watches, so those factors end up having consideration. The titanium makes it incredibly light on the wrist. Swapping it for a single piece (e.g. NATO) strap allows for redundancy in the event of spring bar failure. The illuminated sapphire bezel and thick applied markers give it excellent legibility. 

I love mine and absolutely consider the titanium ref one of the best tool watches out there.


----------



## φευ (Jul 12, 2021)

AnonPi said:


> ...without affecting sales of their existing references at all.


Ha! Probably this is the reason; I do not know how anybody can be sure that cannibalization of existing-reference-sales will not occur...

@Rdenney once said that his tongue got cleaved to his palate once he got to examine the 2nd generation Vacheron chrono; wonder what he thinks about this one.


----------



## GrouchoM (Jul 11, 2013)

zztopops said:


> They come standard with LEDs to address legibility concerns


That light might help me read at night but doesn't help with dial legibility.

Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk


----------



## Mediocre (Oct 27, 2013)

Doug(Phoenix) said:


> View attachment 16132262
> 
> 
> I voted with my wallet. Love this model in 18k


Very nice watch, no doubt about that. Nothing in a metal as soft as Au is a tool watch though


----------



## NardinNut (Sep 22, 2008)

These two for me:
















Love both of these BP. In general I think BP makes some of the best high end tool watches out there


----------



## AnonPi (Aug 19, 2020)

φευ said:


> Ha! Probably this is the reason; I do not know how anybody can be sure that cannibalization of existing-reference-sales will not occur...


Well, it's also possible that VC feel it is a bit too "sporty" for their image, so they are only releasing these as a "gift" to their most loyal customers, and don't really want it around as a regular offering.


----------



## MZhammer (Feb 27, 2009)

GrouchoM said:


> Yes and no. If the watch is built to really be used for the function, yes. If it just looks the part, no. The JLC Deep Sea Chrono I used to own wasn't that rugged and was only built for 100m. OTOH, I know JLC makes some serious tool to watches, too.


Yea, not sure I agree here. I mean, as a recreational diver you never go deeper than what, 90 feet? And a Deep Diver cert gives you clearance up to 130 feet after which you will need mixed gas to go significantly deeper. A 100M dive watch will give you 330ft of water resistence, well beyond the need for anything but a saturation diver. They aren't ISO certified, but that doesn't mean they can't perform everything a casual wearer would need them to.

Also, a GMT Master II is only 100M WR but I definitely would consider that a tool watch.


----------



## itsjay (Sep 2, 2021)

MZhammer said:


> Yea, not sure I agree here. I mean, as a recreational diver you never go deeper than what, 90 feet? And a Deep Diver cert gives you clearance up to 130 feet after which you will need mixed gas to go significantly deeper. A 100M dive watch will give you 330ft of water resistence, well beyond the need for anything but a saturation diver. They aren't ISO certified, but that doesn't mean they can't perform everything a casual wearer would need them to.


I assume those depth ratings are under ideal conditions. With actual movement through the water and general knocking about, they will fail at those rated depths. That's not the say that JLC won't still be fine with the extra overhead at typical rec depths above 100ft, but you do need a safety factor from the rated depth. Those are more marketing numbers IMHO.


----------



## dbostedo (Feb 26, 2014)

itsjay said:


> I assume those depth ratings are under ideal conditions. With actual movement through the water and general knocking about, they will fail at those rated depths. That's not the say that JLC won't still be fine with the extra overhead at typical rec depths above 100ft, but you do need a safety factor from the rated depth. Those are more marketing numbers IMHO.


I very much disagree with this. And this is something that will be forever debated on this site. But from what I can tell, if you have it checked out regularly, there's no reason it wouldn't actually be able to go to 100m. Movement through the water is pretty much meaningless compared to the pressure.

And they are certainly not marketing numbers - though brand's guidance to customers on the usage of watches with various ratings doesn't do this topic any favors; Since they tend to be super conservative knowing that most people don't maintain their watches and get them checked often with regard to WR.


----------



## MZhammer (Feb 27, 2009)

itsjay said:


> I assume those depth ratings are under ideal conditions. With actual movement through the water and general knocking about, they will fail at those rated depths. That's not the say that JLC won't still be fine with the extra overhead at typical rec depths above 100ft, but you do need a safety factor from the rated depth. Those are more marketing numbers IMHO.


You assume wrong, this has been disproven a million times around here.

[Read First] Myth busting water resistance
Can I dive with a 30m WR watch? An empirical experience
Can I dive with a 30m WR watch? An empirical experience (Part II)
Wait: you REALLY want to dive with a 30m WR watch? (Part III)
Another fun, empirical WR test (Can I dive with a 30M...


----------



## usmc_k9_vet (Jan 8, 2020)

I would surmise, and please correct me if I’m wrong, that most of these watches would go beyond their advertised depth rating, as long as the seals are good and the watch is well-maintained. Why would it be the other way around?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## MZhammer (Feb 27, 2009)

usmc_k9_vet said:


> I would surmise, and please correct me if I'm wrong, that most of these watches would go beyond their advertised depth rating, as long as the seals are good and the watch is well-maintained. Why would it be the other way around?
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


This is exactly correct. Almost all manufacturers have to overtest to ensure all wathes meet or exceed their stated tests. Rolex, IIRC always tests 125% above stated ratings and the whole idea of dynamic pressure is hoey for watches.


----------



## itsjay (Sep 2, 2021)

Why are watches rated to 30m only considered to be splash proof?


----------



## dbostedo (Feb 26, 2014)

itsjay said:


> Why are watches rated to 30m only considered to be splash proof?


My take, as I posted above, is that many manufacturers get super, super conservative with their recommendations because they assume people won't maintain their watches and have them pressure tested.

Though JLC, in particular, has this on their website:

_"Their water resistance is guaranteed for two years from the date of purchase, provided that the glass, the bezel, the back, the middle part and the crown have not been damaged. It is nevertheless essential to have the water resistance of your watch checked at least once every two years, and in any event, prior to any period of intensive use, either by an authorized Jaeger‑LeCoultre retailer or by a Jaeger‑LeCoultre Boutique or authorized Jaeger‑LeCoultre service center (for further information please see your user manual)."_

That seems to me that they have taken the stance that the water resistance is as stated, and part of the warranty if properly maintained. Good for them!


----------



## jo2hab (Jun 14, 2021)

dbostedo said:


> Well they were made in the late 90s to commemorate the 50th anniversary of the model... so I guess they're intentionally dated? I don't really know. Here's a good article on them with a bunch of closer up pics:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I love floral/arabesque engraving and I wish it were on more watches, but paired with that case it does not look good.


----------



## ajw45 (Apr 24, 2019)

JLC extreme lab 2









GMT + Chrono in a super tough hi vanadium content titanium (tougher than grade 5) case within a case design with ceramic and rubber for the high wear areas and the beefiest oem strap ever secured with dual spring bars at each lug. Chrono pushers are shielded by pivoting rubber topped levers, crown is ceramic and doesn't pull out to maintain water wr.


----------



## Tohono Rat (Apr 23, 2018)

ajw45 said:


> JLC extreme lab 2
> View attachment 16144413
> 
> 
> GMT + Chrono in a super tough hi vanadium content titanium (tougher than grade 5) case within a case design with ceramic and rubber for the high wear areas and the beefiest oem strap ever secured with dual spring bars at each lug. Chrono pushers are shielded by pivoting rubber topped levers, crown is ceramic and doesn't pull out to maintain water wr.


It quite literally took me about 20 seconds to find the minute hand; I am still not 100% sure I did (at the 6?). Seriously, if a watch is virtually illegible, I do not think it qualifies as a "tool" watch. High end? Yes. Durable? As much as any mechanical watch and way more than most. Haute horologie? Indubitably. But tool? I think not.


----------



## ndrs63 (Dec 30, 2017)

Rbq said:


> I think there’s a few that fit the bill. Of course most if not all wristwatches have been obsoleted by superior digital instruments, but as long as they are designed and can be effectively used for their intended purpose, I think they could still be called “tools”, regardless of their perceived/actual value.
> 
> Breguet Type XX - solid Lemania-based caliber (cousin of the utilitarian 5100, but much better decorated), flyback, 100m WR.
> 
> ...


Reverso will break before you hop on the horse


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## ajw45 (Apr 24, 2019)

Tohono Rat said:


> It quite literally took me about 20 seconds to find the minute hand; I am still not 100% sure I did (at the 6?). Seriously, if a watch is virtually illegible, I do not think it qualifies as a "tool" watch. High end? Yes. Durable? As much as any mechanical watch and way more than most. Haute horologie? Indubitably. But tool? I think not.


Totally, some legibility was sacrificed for style. Pictures tend to flatten out things so I see what you mean. That was my first reaction too seeing pics but IRL it is actually quite legible and your brain learns to pick up the white lumed hands quickly. It's like driving a new car, at first you don't know where anything is but after you sort it out it becomes second nature. Here's a pic without the seconds hand partially obscuring the minutes hand.

















The date is actually harder to read irl but it has maybe the easiest to read chrono and power reserve on the market. Even the hour and minute hands have little windows aligned exactly to see through to the digital minutes counter so that the chrono isn't obscured by the time hands.


----------



## ar7iste (Sep 24, 2016)

ajw45 said:


> JLC extreme lab 2
> View attachment 16144413
> 
> 
> GMT + Chrono in a super tough hi vanadium content titanium (tougher than grade 5) case within a case design with ceramic and rubber for the high wear areas and the beefiest oem strap ever secured with dual spring bars at each lug. Chrono pushers are shielded by pivoting rubber topped levers, crown is ceramic and doesn't pull out to maintain water wr.


That is so cool! Exactly what I would need for my sporting activities, and the readability of the chrono would make it a fantastic piece for my long distance triathlons.


----------



## mnf67 (Jan 30, 2018)

What about the Breguet Marine? Machine Guilloche dial, beautiful finish on the movement, but 100 m wr so you can dive with it:


----------



## GrouchoM (Jul 11, 2013)

mnf67 said:


> What about the Breguet Marine? Machine Guilloche dial, beautiful finish on the movement, but 100 m wr so you can dive with it:
> View attachment 16156059


While you could dive in it, it isn't a diving tool watch. The lume isn't adequate and it hasn't a timing bezel. 

Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk


----------



## mnf67 (Jan 30, 2018)

GrouchoM said:


> While you could dive in it, it isn't a diving tool watch. The lume isn't adequate and it hasn't a timing bezel.
> 
> Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk


Understood, but you could certainly take it to 40 feet with your dive computer as your primary.


----------



## AnonPi (Aug 19, 2020)

The movement finishing may be a bit minimal for high end, but this Ulysse Nardin Marine Regatta is, I think, in the spirit of this thread.



















The implementation of the ten minute "regatta timer" is quite interesting (and perhaps unique?). The chronograph seconds actually run backwards as it counts down to the race start, then, when it hits zero, the chronograph seconds immediately reverses and the chronograph begins counting up for the race time (up to 12 hours, which, if you've ever done a race on Long Island Sound in the middle of the summer, seems barely adequate when the wind inevitably dies).


----------



## SinCity (Oct 27, 2020)




----------



## MasterOfGears (Jul 28, 2021)

I like Bell & Ross..











I guess a much less expensive nautilus.


----------



## brandon\ (Aug 23, 2010)

???

“The MRG-G1000HT-1A has a special textured finishing on the bezel and center band created by a hammering technique known as Tsu-i-ki. Tsuiki is a traditional Japanese crafting technique that creates unique hammer tone relief patterns. As each finish is applied by hand, each watch is completely unique. The design is a collaboration with master metal craftsman Bihou Asano from Kyoto. The production is limited to 300 units worldwide. The watch also has Oboro-gin and Akagane highlights which are traditional Japanese crafting materials. Oboro-gin is a dark silver hue while Akagane is a copper alloy with 3-5% gold. The Akagane-colored accents include the front facing screws, buttons, crown, and elements of the display. The MR-G1000HT is manufactured at the Premium Production Line at Yamagata Casio. List price is $6,200.”


----------



## Toolwatchmd (Sep 6, 2020)

I’m going to throw in a random one here: The Glashutte Original Senator Excellence…black dial variant. It’s not really a sports watch, but has sporty elements. It is stainless steel, highly legible, excellent lume, and from what I can tell has a robust and nicely decorated movement. The biggest knock against its tool watch credibility will be its water resistance. It’s only 5 bar water resistance, but there are plenty of other well known tool watches that have only 5 bar water resistance.


----------



## ar7iste (Sep 24, 2016)

Hey guys, so instead of creating a new thread, I would like some opinion on this tool watch / high-end dilemma.
What would be your suggestions for a high-end tool watch with a slim profile, maximum 42mm diameter, with integrated rubber bracelet or OEM rubber of good quality, and ideally no date and a rotating bezel. Bonus points if the case material is ceramic or titanium.
I love my Linde Werdelin in carbon and would like something similar with a comfortable bracelet and lightweight case, but with a slimmer profile and ideally a bezel and no date. Under $20k too if possible.

I put my trust in you...


----------



## usmc_k9_vet (Jan 8, 2020)

ar7iste said:


> Hey guys, so instead of creating a new thread, I would like some opinion on this tool watch / high-end dilemma.
> What would be your suggestions for a high-end tool watch with a slim profile, maximum 42mm diameter, with integrated rubber bracelet or OEM rubber of good quality, and ideally no date and a rotating bezel. Bonus points if the case material is ceramic or titanium.
> I love my Linde Werdelin in carbon and would like something similar with a comfortable bracelet and lightweight case, but with a slimmer profile and ideally a bezel and no date. Under $20k too if possible.
> 
> I put my trust in you...


I think an AP Diver checks some of those boxes. It does have a date though. $20k might be pushing it too, especially for the all ceramic version and they’re even more on the secondhand market. I would love one!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Toolwatchmd (Sep 6, 2020)

ar7iste said:


> Hey guys, so instead of creating a new thread, I would like some opinion on this tool watch / high-end dilemma.
> What would be your suggestions for a high-end tool watch with a slim profile, maximum 42mm diameter, with integrated rubber bracelet or OEM rubber of good quality, and ideally no date and a rotating bezel. Bonus points if the case material is ceramic or titanium.
> I love my Linde Werdelin in carbon and would like something similar with a comfortable bracelet and lightweight case, but with a slimmer profile and ideally a bezel and no date. Under $20k too if possible.
> 
> I put my trust in you...


Blancpain Fifty Fathoms or Bathyscaphe. I think the FF has a titanium model and the Bathyscaphe has both titanium and ceramic models.

Breguet Type XXI comes in multiple titanium variants. I really like the latest version with titanium case and orange or green numerals. 

G.O. SeaQ panodate. The variant with gray dial and rose gold accents is a good looking watch, in my opinion.

There is a Moser Pioneer variant that has a rotating bezel. It pops up on preowned market from time to time.

Those are off the top of my head. Most have dates except for the Moser.


----------



## GrouchoM (Jul 11, 2013)

Breguet XX (no magic material but...)?

Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk


----------



## ar7iste (Sep 24, 2016)

GrouchoM said:


> Breguet XX (no magic material but...)?
> 
> Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk


The Breguet is fairly thick though, and because the size is restrained, the 15.5mm of thickness with no steps make it look like a hockey puck on the wrist unfortunately.


----------



## GrouchoM (Jul 11, 2013)

It's steel but the JLC Polaris comes in a no date. Stainless Steel&#32Men&#32Watch&#32Automatic, self-winding&#32Polaris Automatic 9008170 | Jaeger-LeCoultre

Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk


----------



## ar7iste (Sep 24, 2016)

I am curious as to what people on this forum think of JLC. Would you say the Polaris is “high end”?
While I think they make great movements and watches, I am mostly a fan of their very technical or highly artistic watches, not so much the regular collections. The extreme lab 2 is arguably one of the coolest watches of its generation, but the reverso and this Polaris for instance are fairly boring to me. Am I being too snobbish?

At this price point the no date omega seamaster ceramic case seems more fun and superior in terms of roughness (Metas certified, coaxial escapement, 300m WR, antimagnetic, ceramic case). Probably the most borderline-high-end Omega at the moment with the “Side of the moon” collection.


----------



## Toolwatchmd (Sep 6, 2020)

ar7iste said:


> I am curious as to what people on this forum think of JLC. Would you say the Polaris is “high end”?
> While I think they make great movements and watches, I am mostly a fan of their very technical or highly artistic watches, not so much the regular collections. The extreme lab 2 is arguably one of the coolest watches of its generation, but the reverso and this Polaris for instance are fairly boring to me. Am I being too snobbish?
> 
> At this price point the no date omega seamaster ceramic case seems more fun and superior in terms of roughness (Metas certified, coaxial escapement, 300m WR, antimagnetic, ceramic case). Probably the most borderline-high-end Omega at the moment with the “Side of the moon” collection.
> ...


I agree. I think Omega is at its best when they are trying something different…whether that be with materials or designs. Omega gets a lot of criticism for having so many “editions,” but to look at it another way, they are taking a winning formula like the Seamaster and Speedmaster and making it more interesting in some way. Most of JLC’s current lineup seem very “safe” to me. You can’t go wrong with JLC, but you’ll probably be bored quickly. I wish JLC would make some of the quirky watches they were known for in the early 2000s.


----------



## GrouchoM (Jul 11, 2013)

I agree about JLC. Is the Omega svelte enough? 

Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk


----------



## ar7iste (Sep 24, 2016)

GrouchoM said:


> I agree about JLC. Is the Omega svelte enough?
> 
> Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk


Nope, it felt more cumbersome on the wrist than my LW. By far. Not because of the thickness (14.8mm-ish) but because of the diameter and lug to lug dimensions I suspect.


----------



## GrouchoM (Jul 11, 2013)

Another quirky and likely too thick non-HE watches are the Bell&Ross ceramic divers - Bell & Ross

Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk


----------



## zztopops (Aug 4, 2021)

Diver


----------



## Snapping Twig (Apr 23, 2021)




----------



## VicLeChic (Jul 24, 2013)

No HH toolwatch for me. Rolex Sub/SD/YM is as high as I'll go when it comes to a luxury toolwatch. It's silly enough as is. In a dress watch, it's a different story to me.


----------



## ar7iste (Sep 24, 2016)

Anyone with a Fifty fathoms 5015 takes it on adventures? It has a soft iron cage around the movement (for the steel one), and even though the balance bridge is not full, it is supposedly very resistant to shocks.

And yes, it looks super good whether in blue or black, titanium or steel.


----------



## usmc_k9_vet (Jan 8, 2020)

ar7iste said:


> Anyone with a Fifty fathoms 5015 takes it on adventures? It has a soft iron cage around the movement (for the steel one), and even though the balance bridge is not full, it is supposedly very resistant to shocks.
> 
> And yes, it looks super good whether in blue or black, titanium or steel.
> 
> ...


That second picture is a really awesome shot!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## ajw45 (Apr 24, 2019)

ar7iste said:


> Anyone with a Fifty fathoms 5015 takes it on adventures? It has a soft iron cage around the movement (for the steel one), and even though the balance bridge is not full, it is supposedly very resistant to shocks.
> 
> And yes, it looks super good whether in blue or black, titanium or steel.
> 
> ...


Yes! The 1315 movement is awesome! Every bit as tough as a Rolex, more accurate, longer pr, more lume, and a beautiful movement with better finishing than an AP at a fraction of the price. Shooting, skiing, cycling, never had a problem with a FF and that beefy curved non ar coated sapphire on top makes them pretty scratch resistant. The only thing to be aware of is the bezel click mechanism kinda sucks but it's serviceable.


----------



## SISL (Jan 6, 2018)

ajw45 said:


> View attachment 16177586


I love that one, the "Nageurs de Combat" version.


----------



## 3leggedpony (Oct 11, 2013)

Just today joined the FF club.
I’ve had a Bathyscaphe previously and although the bracelet was a work of art I never found it that comfortable. I’d never actually tried the FF itself as the 45mm on the spec sheet always sounded too big. Anyway, eventually tried one on last week and fell in love. I find it actually wears smaller than the 43mm bathyscaphe and the titanium version on my wrist is hugely more comfortable. I love it. 








Btw, not sure it’s been posted anywhere but the dealer did show me that a new titanium bathyscaphe is coming out in December on a silver sail cloth strap/nato or an all new titanium bracelet..


----------



## ajw45 (Apr 24, 2019)

3leggedpony said:


> Just today joined the FF club.
> I’ve had a Bathyscaphe previously and although the bracelet was a work of art I never found it that comfortable. I’d never actually tried the FF itself as the 45mm on the spec sheet always sounded too big. Anyway, eventually tried one on last week and fell in love. I find it actually wears smaller than the 43mm bathyscaphe and the titanium version on my wrist is hugely more comfortable. I love it.
> View attachment 16178132
> 
> Btw, not sure it’s been posted anywhere but the dealer did show me that a new titanium bathyscaphe is coming out in December on a silver sail cloth strap/nato or an all new titanium bracelet..


So awesome on the ti bracelet!


----------



## zztopops (Aug 4, 2021)

Yummy


----------



## zztopops (Aug 4, 2021)

Another one from Greubel - Titanium with _*curved synthetic sapphire*_ crystal


----------



## zztopops (Aug 4, 2021)

Sigh these use to sell for $20ish just a few years ago


----------



## ajw45 (Apr 24, 2019)

zztopops said:


> View attachment 16254852
> 
> 
> Sigh these use to sell for $20ish just a few years ago


Because collectors realized that with 30m wr FPJ was making sport watches in appearance only, not substance. The hype has brought in buyers that don't care, FPJ still doesn't make a decent sport watch. Even the Greubel Forsey with a manual wind non screw down crown is 100m water resistant.


----------



## zztopops (Aug 4, 2021)

Hmmm 30m is pretty lame for FPJ, that’s some important info to be aware of.


----------



## ajw45 (Apr 24, 2019)

zztopops said:


> Hmmm 30m is pretty lame for FPJ, that’s some important info to be aware of.


Right. They made it in ti with a bracelet, put a ceramic bezel on it, added rubber bumpers, and used bright colors on the dial so it looks sporty but then they drop in the same movement from their other watches, no extra shock protection, robustness, or wr. Even when De Bethune did a sports watch it got a 100m wr and a screw down crown.


----------



## Zhanming057 (Jun 17, 2019)

ajw45 said:


> Right. They made it in ti with a bracelet, put a ceramic bezel on it, added rubber bumpers, and used bright colors on the dial so it looks sporty but then they drop in the same movement from their other watches, no extra shock protection, robustness, or wr. Even when De Bethune did a sports watch it got a 100m wr and a screw down crown.


Do you take your sports watches down to 30m? If not, why does WR matter?


----------



## AnonPi (Aug 19, 2020)

Zhanming057 said:


> Do you take your sports watches down to 30m? If not, why does WR matter?


It matters because >=100m WR is the de facto standard for sports watches these days. So if it doesn't have that, it's a sign that the watchmaker doesn't really care, they're just trying to cash in with as little effort as possible, which raises red flags about the watch's suitability for purpose in every other area. As mentioned, "they drop in the same movement from their other watches, no extra shock protection, robustness, or wr." WR in a sports watch is as much a statement of the seriousness of its maker as it is anything else. That's why, for example, the Nautilus, Overseas, Odysseus have >100m WR and why the Royal Oak with its 50m of WR is not a serious sports watch these days, but, heck, AP have the Offshore for that.


----------



## ajw45 (Apr 24, 2019)

Zhanming057 said:


> Do you take your sports watches down to 30m? If not, why does WR matter?


That you don't understand wr decreases over time or that the 30m rating is a static rating vs the dynamic pressure created from actually moving in the water is why FPJ can sell >$30k watches like this as sports watches. As mentioned above, 100m is an industry standard.


----------



## GrouchoM (Jul 11, 2013)

ajw45 said:


> That you don't understand wr decreases over time or that the 30m rating is a static rating vs the dynamic pressure created from actually moving in the water is why FPJ can sell >$30k watches like this as sports watches. As mentioned above, 100m is an industry standard.


Given how slowly humans move below the surface of water, static and dynamic water pressures aren't that different. 

Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk


----------



## dbostedo (Feb 26, 2014)

ajw45 said:


> That you don't understand wr decreases over time or that the 30m rating is a static rating vs the dynamic pressure created from actually moving in the water


I don't think either of those things are correct. WR doesn't slowly lessen over time in a regular way, and movement in the water essentially doesn't matter.


----------



## SISL (Jan 6, 2018)

Dynamic water pressure can get plenty high when doing free stroke swimming, jumping in a pool, etc.


----------



## dbostedo (Feb 26, 2014)

jdelage said:


> Dynamic water pressure can get plenty high when doing free stroke swimming, jumping in a pool, etc.


Yeah, maybe. But now I'm thinking perhaps this should be taken to one of these threads, and leave this one to listing high-end tool watches...









The Water Resistance Myth Vs The Reality!


The Water Resistance Myth VS The Reality! Very long Post hope you have the strenght to read it all!:-d First we need to conclude what is water resistance in the watch world? In the watch world a watch need to get a IP code rating in order for the mark Water Resistant to appear anywhere on the...




www.watchuseek.com












Water Resistance


Sure this has been covered several times before, but always worth a discussion. I believe there are many misconceptions regarding this topic, so let's get things straight. I felt it necessary to start this thread because I watch many YouTube videos, and get frustrated by people who have a total...




www.watchuseek.com


----------



## Zhanming057 (Jun 17, 2019)

AnonPi said:


> It matters because >=100m WR is the de facto standard for sports watches these days. So if it doesn't have that, it's a sign that the watchmaker doesn't really care, they're just trying to cash in with as little effort as possible, which raises red flags about the watch's suitability for purpose in every other area. As mentioned, "they drop in the same movement from their other watches, no extra shock protection, robustness, or wr." WR in a sports watch is as much a statement of the seriousness of its maker as it is anything else. That's why, for example, the Nautilus, Overseas, Odysseus have >100m WR and why the Royal Oak with its 50m of WR is not a serious sports watch these days, but, heck, AP have the Offshore for that.


WR comes at the cost of weight and thickness. The modern journe linesport watches have lightened movements that are not found in their dress watches, although I cannot speak to shock protection.

If the RO isn't a serious sports watch, most haute horology sports watches won't pass your standard. Maybe that's just where the industry is at, but I tend to think that any definition of sports watch that excludes arguably the most famous product line is flawed. 



ajw45 said:


> That you don't understand wr decreases over time or that the 30m rating is a static rating vs the dynamic pressure created from actually moving in the water is why FPJ can sell >$30k watches like this as sports watches. As mentioned above, 100m is an industry standard.


Dynamic pressure is a myth. Any individually tested and rated watch can be taken to its rated depth.

And if I have a $40k sports watch, you bet I'll follow the service schedule to the letter precisely, and do regular pressure checkups, to prevent WR from degrading over time.


----------



## Zhanming057 (Jun 17, 2019)

dbostedo said:


> I don't think either of those things are correct. WR doesn't slowly lessen over time in a regular way, and movement in the water essentially doesn't matter.


WR can definitely reduce over time, but not in a linear way. The advice that I have received for lower WR watches is that if it's 10 years out from last service, to send it in before taking it out in the rain. But those are 1-3 bar watches to begin with.

In either case, I think it's crazy that anyone owning a Journe or APRO would go 10, or even 5 years without a service trip. Even if the watch ran flawlessly, I'd send it in for cleaning and new gaskets.


----------



## GrouchoM (Jul 11, 2013)

The meaning of X meters is up to the brands to define. For instance, Omega states that their label means exactly what it implies.... the watch can be used to a depth of X meters. Other brands state other interpretations. 

Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk


----------



## AnonPi (Aug 19, 2020)

Zhanming057 said:


> If the RO isn't a serious sports watch, most haute horology sports watches won't pass your standard. Maybe that's just where the industry is at, but I tend to think that any definition of sports watch that excludes arguably the most famous product line is flawed.


I gave examples of sports watches from PP, VC & ALS that have >100m WR, and also mentioned the ROO from AP, so I don't think it's the case that, "most haute horology sports watches won't pass your standard." But, as far as the RO goes, AP has just been resting on its laurels in this regard while the industry has moved on, so it shouldn't be surprising that it no longer meets the de facto standard for these things. I mean, should everyone just lower their expectations because the RO no longer meets them? And, frankly, I'm not even sure AP really views the RO as a sports watch any longer.

But, as mentioned, I think the higher WR ratings are important because it signals that the watchmaker is serious, that they care about fitness for purpose, that their watch(es) really can stand up to what owners expect them to stand up to.


----------



## GrouchoM (Jul 11, 2013)

AnonPi said:


> I gave examples of sports watches from PP, VC & ALS that have >100m WR, and also mentioned the ROO from AP, so I don't think it's the case that, "most haute horology sports watches won't pass your standard." But, as far as the RO goes, AP has just been resting on its laurels in this regard while the industry has moved on, so it shouldn't be surprising that it no longer meets the de facto standard for these things. I mean, should everyone just lower their expectations because the RO no longer meets them? And, frankly, I'm not even sure AP really views the RO as a sports watch any longer.
> 
> But, as mentioned, I think the higher WR ratings are important because it signals that the watchmaker is serious, that they care about fitness for purpose, that their watch(es) really can stand up to what owners expect them to stand up to.


A large part of the WR has to do with the case design and leads to thicker pieces. It's not laziness but a design choice. 

Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk


----------



## ajw45 (Apr 24, 2019)

GrouchoM said:


> A large part of the WR has to do with the case design and leads to thicker pieces. It's not laziness but a design choice.


Sure, if it is a 600m watch. 100m is table stakes. The Bulgari octo in steel is 100m wr and less than 7mm thick.

I do agree though, FPJ chose not to implement standard sports watch wr. Make of that what you will.


----------



## zztopops (Aug 4, 2021)

Zhanming057 said:


> WR comes at the cost of weight and thickness.













Circa 1980s, *2,000 meter* WR 10.5mm thick


----------



## AnonPi (Aug 19, 2020)

GrouchoM said:


> The meaning of X meters is up to the brands to define. For instance, Omega states that their label means exactly what it implies.... the watch can be used to a depth of X meters. Other brands state other interpretations.


Even Omega is somewhat ambiguous about this and sends mixed messages. Somewhere on their website they have a chart explaining what each level of WR can be used for. For 30m & 50m the chart says surface swimming but not snorkeling. Well, just how deep do most people go when snorkeling? 

But, yes, the fact that different brands offer different interpretations of what _n _meters means is clearly problematic. I think it's also problematic that they don't state the duration the watch can survive _n _meters — 1 minute, 30 minutes, ...?


----------



## Rodentman (Jul 24, 2013)

I like this Breguet...


----------



## GrouchoM (Jul 11, 2013)

AnonPi said:


> Even Omega is somewhat ambiguous about this and sends mixed messages. Somewhere on their website they have a chart explaining what each level of WR can be used for. For 30m & 50m the chart says surface swimming but not snorkeling. Well, just how deep do most people go when snorkeling?
> 
> But, yes, the fact that different brands offer different interpretations of what _n _meters means is clearly problematic. I think it's also problematic that they don't state the duration the watch can survive _n _meters — 1 minute, 30 minutes, ...?


See this linked pdf from Omega's FAQ- https://www.omegawatches.com/fileadmin/Customer_Service/omega_water_resistance_chart.pdf










Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk


----------



## AnonPi (Aug 19, 2020)

GrouchoM said:


> See this linked pdf from Omega's FAQ- https://www.omegawatches.com/fileadmin/Customer_Service/omega_water_resistance_chart.pdf
> 
> 
> 
> ...


That's not the chart I was referring to, but I'm sure we've all seen the one I mean at some point in one WR thread or another. But that's exactly the point, that they're sending mixed messages, which doesn't really contribute to confidence in their ratings. And, even this chart is somewhat confusing. The top group is supposedly good, "up to the specified depth," while the bottom group is, "suitable for underwater usage." So, are the specified depths in the top group not considered "underwater"? What does it mean for a watch to be water resistant to 200m, but apparently (by implication) not suitable for underwater usage?

And, by the way, what's the duration a watch of each of these rating can survive at the specified depth? Do they all survive for the same time? Varying times? Does the bottom group have a longer survival duration than the top at the specified depth?


----------



## GrouchoM (Jul 11, 2013)

All that VC says is that it was tested (wet or dry? ) to the given pressure. 


> Water-resistance
> The water-resistance of the watch has been tested at a pressure
> of 15 bar.


Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk


----------



## GrouchoM (Jul 11, 2013)

Up to reasonable(multiple days), the duration doesn't matter. The additional text has to do with some of their timepieces having chrono buttons that can be used at depth. Also, some have the helium release valve for those specific environmental usages.

Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk


----------



## AnonPi (Aug 19, 2020)

GrouchoM said:


> All that VC says is that it was tested (wet or dry? ) to the given pressure.


I agree, very ambiguous. I certainly don't think that Omega is the only company with an ambiguity problem. If anything, Omega is, I think, trying to be more informative than most. I think it's an industry problem. But I think that's also exactly why people demand higher WR ratings, with the idea that since it's unclear exactly what they mean the more the better, and 100m seems to have become a de facto standard that many (most?) people are looking for for their own peace of mind.


----------



## AnonPi (Aug 19, 2020)

GrouchoM said:


> Up to reasonable(multiple days), the duration doesn't matter.


I mean the duration of a single submersion. For example, an iPhone 12 is rated IP68, which doesn't really tell you much, but Apple further states that it will survive to a depth of 6m for 30 minutes. I don't see any watchmakers telling people how long their 30-50m watches will survive at those depths. Will it survive being taken to that depth and then back to the surface immediately? Can it stay at that depth for 30 minutes, an hour, a day, indefinitely?


----------



## GrouchoM (Jul 11, 2013)

AnonPi said:


> I agree, very ambiguous. I certainly don't think that Omega is the only company with an ambiguity problem. If anything, Omega is, I think, trying to be more informative than most. I think it's an industry problem. But I think that's also exactly why people demand higher WR ratings, with the idea that since it's unclear exactly what they mean the more the better, and 100m seems to have become a de facto standard that many (most?) people are looking for for their own peace of mind.


Omega isn't ambiguous. Provided the seals are in good condition (this is why WR should be tested periodically) you can use the watch to the stated depth. For example, the 50m Speedy can be used to 50 meters but, as it's not fitted with special buttons, the buttons can't be used under water.

Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk


----------



## Zhanming057 (Jun 17, 2019)

zztopops said:


> View attachment 16264397
> 
> 
> 
> Circa 1980s, *2,000 meter* WR 10.5mm thick


And does that watch have a large display back or weights less, with bracelet, than most titanium watch heads?

Try 200 bars with this caseback.


----------



## zztopops (Aug 4, 2021)

Zhanming057 said:


> And does that watch have a large display back or weights less, with bracelet, than most titanium watch heads?


It's a $4k watch with a modified cheap ass ETA movement vs the $42k FPJ.

I'm sure they can figure some additional ways to fill the gaps you listed above and maintain a 2k WR with an additional $38k per watch manufacturing budget.....


----------



## Zhanming057 (Jun 17, 2019)

AnonPi said:


> I gave examples of sports watches from PP, VC & ALS that have >100m WR, and also mentioned the ROO from AP, so I don't think it's the case that, "most haute horology sports watches won't pass your standard." But, as far as the RO goes, AP has just been resting on its laurels in this regard while the industry has moved on, so it shouldn't be surprising that it no longer meets the de facto standard for these things. I mean, should everyone just lower their expectations because the RO no longer meets them? And, frankly, I'm not even sure AP really views the RO as a sports watch any longer.
> 
> But, as mentioned, I think the higher WR ratings are important because it signals that the watchmaker is serious, that they care about fitness for purpose, that their watch(es) really can stand up to what owners expect them to stand up to.


That purpose made more sense when sports watches, even high end pieces, were worn daily and taken on actual dives. These days you'd just wear a dive computer rated to 200m. 

If you want to take sports watches to that hypothetical task, I'm fine with that. But I just don't see how WR beyond even 1bar is relevant to a modern haute horology piece regardless of what the original design intent is - and if it's between WR and nice features such as weight savings, I'll take the lighter watch any day of the week.


----------



## Zhanming057 (Jun 17, 2019)

zztopops said:


> It's a $4k watch with a modified cheap ass ETA movement vs the $42k FPJ.
> 
> I'm sure they can figure some additional ways to fill the gaps you listed above and maintain a 2k WR with an additional $38k per watch manufacturing budget.....


Your argument makes more sense if there is such a hypothetical watch. 

But every piece that has more WR with a bracelet weights something like twice as much as the Octo. The Automatique is _60 grams_ on a bracelet. My Ressence Type 1S is smaller and also made in titanium, and it's 68g on a single layer calf strap.


----------



## zztopops (Aug 4, 2021)

Zhanming057 said:


> If you want to take sports watches to that hypothetical task, I'm fine with that. But I just don't see how WR beyond even 1bar is relevant to a modern haute horology piece regardless of what the original design intent is - and if it's between WR and nice features such as weight savings, I'll take the lighter watch any day of the week.


The whole point of HH is to make crazy irrational specs beyond what the plebs can afford or imagine....


----------



## zztopops (Aug 4, 2021)

Zhanming057 said:


> My Ressence Type 1S is smaller and also made in titanium, and it's 68g on a single layer calf strap.


The IWC comes with a OEM nato strap option if you're on a weight weenie goal. And will still be a fraction of your Ressence and FPJ cost and still smoke their WR. Seriously you're just grabbing straws in a losing argument.


----------



## Zhanming057 (Jun 17, 2019)

zztopops said:


> The IWC comes with a OEM nato strap option if you're on a weight weenie goal. And will still be a fraction of your Ressence and FPJ cost and still smoke their WR


That's a 80+ gram watch head. Not really comparable as far light watches go. And that nato strap may actually weigh more than the FPJ's_ bracelet. _

As for WR, I could care less. Sport watch or not, I don't pretend that I want my watches to get beaten around and submerge. I have a smartwatch for that.


----------



## GrouchoM (Jul 11, 2013)

zztopops said:


> It's a $4k watch with a modified cheap ass ETA movement vs the $42k FPJ.
> 
> I'm sure they can figure some additional ways to fill the gaps you listed above and maintain a 2k WR with an additional $38k per watch manufacturing budget.....


If it's so easy, why don't you do it and put 'em out of business? They allocate their resources to other attributes which they feel will sell their watches more than being able to go to uncharted depths.

Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk


----------



## GrouchoM (Jul 11, 2013)

zztopops said:


> The whole point of HH is to make crazy irrational specs beyond what the plebs can afford or imagine....


No, it isn't. 

Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk


----------



## zztopops (Aug 4, 2021)

GrouchoM said:


> If it's so easy, why don't you do it and put 'em out of business? They allocate their resources to other attributes which they feel will sell their watches more than being able to go to uncharted depths.


Cause I'm not in the watch trade... and IWC does not profess to play in the FPJ leagues.


----------



## GrouchoM (Jul 11, 2013)

zztopops said:


> Cause I'm not in the watch trade... and IWC does not profess to play in the FPJ leagues.


HH isn't directly about heavy engineering into the limits of timekeeping and durability. That's what a company like Sinn (definitely not HH), Omega (not HH but have 1-2 on the cusp) and Richard Mille (probably HH but not all agree) excel at. HH is about art for art sake but still satisfying impressive horological needs. 

Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk


----------



## zztopops (Aug 4, 2021)

GrouchoM said:


> HH isn't directly about heavy engineering into the limits of timekeeping and durability.


Yes I agree with this statement and incorrectly introduced engineering prowess into the debate on WR. My point is a watch with paltry manufacturing budget compared to FPJ can accomplish a WR well in excess of 30m. If I'm paying for an expensive HH sporty watch. I certainly want it to exceed a dress watch's paltry WR even if I don't plan to beat it around. Do you think those Bugatti owners are even going to get anywhere close to the potential of its 1000+bhp engine? High end is all about showing off, let not kid ourselves here.

I want my cake and eat it and clearly it's an option available in the market. As IWC has illustrated (in an actual watch & almost 40yrs ago) WR prowess does not require beaucoup bucks. 100m is chump change from an engineering standpoint... you can go to macy's and pick up a seiko for $300 with that WR. I'm sure a watch at $40k can achieve that at a minimum.

FPJ makes a fun sporty watch and I'm not knocking that aspect of it. However I do think they're being lazy with their engineering specs for a piece marketed as their sporty option. It's like Rolls Royce introducing their first Ferrari competitor with a 10second 0-60mph time; but hey you still get the hand built coach, engine, starry roof and 2inch plush carpets . It's not one that I will look to when I'm in the market for a HH sports watch. I love their dress watches and could care less if it was water resistant. Everyone's taste and requirements are different. However I do appreciate being made aware of FPJs lackluster sports watch engineering specs which I was not previously aware of.


----------



## JimBianchi (Sep 18, 2019)

For a great tool watch that is all well respected and higher end, try looking at the Tudor north flag.


----------



## GrouchoM (Jul 11, 2013)

High end and Haute Horologie aren't one and the same. Rolex and Omega and IWC are in the first category but not (for most of their timepieces) in the latter. You want technical capabilities, buy a G shock. Why not question why IWC can't make their watches meet a $100 Gshock's durability at 100 times the price? 

Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk


----------



## GrouchoM (Jul 11, 2013)

Zhanming057 said:


> That purpose made more sense when sports watches, even high end pieces, were worn daily and taken on actual dives. These days you'd just wear a dive computer rated to 200m.
> 
> If you want to take sports watches to that hypothetical task, I'm fine with that. But I just don't see how WR beyond even 1bar is relevant to a modern haute horology piece regardless of what the original design intent is - and if it's between WR and nice features such as weight savings, I'll take the lighter watch any day of the week.


If a manufacturer means that it can be used to 10 m of depth when they state that it has one bar of water resistance, I think most people shouldn't have an issue. They can still be used for swimming, going as deep as most peoples swimming pools, and daily activities like showering. Of course, not all manufacturers mean this.

Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk


----------



## ajw45 (Apr 24, 2019)

Some of the thinnest (e.g. Bulgari Octo SS) and lightest (e.g. Omega Aqua Terra Ultralight) watches in the industry come with 100m+ water resistance and display backs. If you don't care about any of that, great, but let's not create fake news that FPJ couldn't provide those without making the watches thicker or heavier or less beautiful.

I'm not even sure what the issue is. This is a high end TOOL WATCH thread. It's like going to a high end SPORTS CAR thread and saying no one needs more than 300hp. Maybe, but when minivans have more than 300hp, a 300hp sports car doesn't seem very high end does it? Having a high water resistance and water sports ability is a pretty basic functional feature in watches today, 100m wr is practically an industry standard, why are you guys trying to die on this hill that no one needs 100m wr or that it is somehow impossible to do without massive compromise?

Going back to the original thread, "high end" is a relative term of course and relative to a common rating of 100m+ seen in some of the lightest and thinnest watches on the market, 30m wr sucks.


----------



## AnonPi (Aug 19, 2020)

GrouchoM said:


> Omega isn't ambiguous.


Sending mixed messages necessarily makes one’s messaging ambiguous. In addition to the chart you posted, Omega, as mentioned earlier in this thread, has another, more graphical chart saying that 30-50m is for surface swimming, not snorkeling. (This latter chart has been posted in virtually every thread on WR posted in the Public forum for the past year, and probably going back longer.) Omega is, by having two charts with different messages, sending, by definition, mixed messages. Omega, therefore, is in fact ambiguous on the topic of WR. Whether they mean to be or not.


----------



## GrouchoM (Jul 11, 2013)

AnonPi said:


> Sending mixed messages necessarily makes one’s messaging ambiguous. In addition to the chart you posted, Omega, as mentioned earlier in this thread, has another, more graphical chart saying that 30-50m is for surface swimming, not snorkeling. (This latter chart has been posted in virtually every thread on WR posted in the Public forum for the past year, and probably going back longer.) Omega is, by having two charts with different messages, sending, by definition, mixed messages. Omega, therefore, is in fact ambiguous on the topic of WR. Whether they mean to be or not.


The vagueness of the chart that gives (qualitative) activities (I'm not familiar with it) seems poorly written. What differentiate snorkeling from surface swimming? I think it's just a mask and a tube....I don't think one goes any deeper. I'm not sure who it's written for. The PDF I linked to from their FAQ is quite quantitative and doesn't distinguish whether you're snorkeling, swimming, or drowning (ya gotta consider all possibilities ).

Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk


----------



## GrouchoM (Jul 11, 2013)

ajw45 said:


> Some of the thinnest (e.g. Bulgari Octo SS) and lightest (e.g. Omega Aqua Terra Ultralight) watches in the industry come with 100m+ water resistance and display backs. If you don't care about any of that, great, but let's not create fake news that FPJ couldn't provide those without making the watches thicker or heavier or less beautiful.
> 
> I'm not even sure what the issue is. This is a high end TOOL WATCH thread. It's like going to a high end SPORTS CAR thread and saying no one needs more than 300hp. Maybe, but when minivans have more than 300hp, a 300hp sports car doesn't seem very high end does it? Having a high water resistance and water sports ability is a pretty basic functional feature in watches today, 100m wr is practically an industry standard, why are you guys trying to die on this hill that no one needs 100m wr or that it is somehow impossible to do without massive compromise?
> 
> Going back to the original thread, "high end" is a relative term of course and relative to a common rating of 100m+ seen in some of the lightest and thinnest watches on the market, 30m wr sucks.


Who defined 100m as the standard? Speedy is a 50m WR watch that's been widely accepted as a legit sports watch. 

Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk


----------



## GrouchoM (Jul 11, 2013)

GrouchoM said:


> Who defined 100m as the standard? Speedy is a 50m WR watch that's been widely accepted as a legit sports watch.
> 
> Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk


Also, how do you suggest FPJ accomplish what you imply should trivial... go up to a guaranteed 100m without sacrificing looks, increasing dimensions, increasing weight, nor significantly increasing price? 

Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk


----------



## AnonPi (Aug 19, 2020)

GrouchoM said:


> The vagueness of the chart that gives (qualitative) activities (I'm not familiar with it) seems poorly written. What differentiate snorkeling from surface swimming? I think it's just a mask and a tube....I don't think one goes any deeper. I'm not sure who it's written for. The PDF I linked to from their FAQ is quite quantitative and doesn't distinguish whether you're snorkeling, swimming, or drowning (ya gotta consider all possibilities ).


Here, I dug out the chart:










So, the chart shows a person swimming at the surface, which the 3 & 5 bar watches are good for, then the next column is snorkeling, which they are not. So, if that's not ambiguity, I don't know what is. Then there's the fact of dueling charts, one of which says one thing and the other another thing. More ambiguity.

And, to return to the point, Omega is one of the best in stating what their WR ratings actually mean, so is it any wonder that 100m has become the de facto standard that most people are looking for in a sports watch?


----------



## AnonPi (Aug 19, 2020)

GrouchoM said:


> Who defined 100m as the standard? Speedy is a 50m WR watch that's been widely accepted as a legit sports watch.


I think the answer to your question is, "The market." 

The Speedy is also widely criticized for having only 50m WR, and I've seen many threads here on WUS where people won't buy it because it only has 50m WR. And, frankly, Omega has the financial and engineering resources to give it 100m WR w/o making it thicker. Some will say they shouldn't change it because it's always been like that (and my favorite, "50m was good enough to go to the Moon," as though astronauts planned to go swimming there.) but they've already changed so many things — the size, the movement, sapphire crystal, display back, ... — that it's kind of ridiculous to give that as a reason. And the same criticisms and rationales also apply to the RO.


----------



## AnonPi (Aug 19, 2020)

GrouchoM said:


> Also, how do you suggest FPJ accomplish what you imply should trivial... go up to a guaranteed 100m without sacrificing looks, increasing dimensions, increasing weight, nor significantly increasing price?


Well, that's an engineering problem for them to solve, but it's also one that has already been solved by others, so I don't think it's beyond them. I would also point out that given the price, the additional cost of increasing WR would end up adding a small percentage to it, much smaller than the costs of adding it to watches that cost much less but have already done it.


----------



## zztopops (Aug 4, 2021)

GrouchoM said:


> You want technical capabilities, buy a G shock. Why not question why IWC can't make their watches meet a $100 Gshock's durability at 100 times the price?


If this is your basis for defense, why not question ANY watch in your collection costing more than $7.99 for the most rudimentary function of telling time?


----------



## AnonPi (Aug 19, 2020)

zztopops said:


> If this is your basis for defense, why not question ANY watch in your collection costing more that $7.99 for the most rudimentary function of telling time?
> 
> View attachment 16265254


I'm a bit surprised this one doesn't have a Subscribe & Save option.


----------



## zztopops (Aug 4, 2021)

😂


----------



## Copterguy (Aug 8, 2021)

Snapping Twig said:


>


I've never seen this one until now! Absolutely beautiful. If I weren't smacking my watch against everything, this would be my "Tool" watch. Since it has the day and date in big windows. However, I couldn't see having an A. Lange as a daily, I'd worry about putting a scratch on it within a week...... What model is this?.... Update, Odysseus. Now on my dream list.


----------



## AnonPi (Aug 19, 2020)

Copterguy said:


> I've never seen this one until now! Absolutely beautiful. If I weren't smacking my watch against everything, this would be my "Tool" watch. Since it has the day and date in big windows. However, I couldn't see having an A. Lange as a daily, I'd worry about putting a scratch on it within a week...... What model is this?


Odysseus: ODYSSEUS | A. Lange & Söhne


----------



## GrouchoM (Jul 11, 2013)

Yeah....I guess Omega dropped the ball on the Speedy. They need to either ensure it can go to 100m or continue to have it be unsellable..... oh, I forgot, it sells VERY well. 

Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk


----------



## GrouchoM (Jul 11, 2013)

I've wondered why ALS doesn't make the Datograph at least 50m (or 100m or 200m). As you said about Omega (or was that FPJ) but now applied to ALS:



AnonPi said:


> Well, that's an engineering problem for them to solve, but it's also one that has already been solved by others, so I don't think it's beyond them. I would also point out that given the price, the additional cost of increasing WR would end up adding a small percentage to it, much smaller than the costs of adding it to watches that cost much less but have already done it.





Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk


----------



## AnonPi (Aug 19, 2020)

GrouchoM said:


> Yeah....I guess Omega dropped the ball on the Speedy. They need to either ensure it can go to 100m or continue to have it be unsellable..... oh, I forgot, it sells VERY well.


I think you've just agreed with my point. Omega hasn't upgraded the Speedy to current sports watch standards because it's selling and they don't want to put any more effort into than they have to. That and the Speedy cult who insist it is perfect in all ways no matter what Omega does with it. Imagine if they all woke from the cult tomorrow and demanded higher WR; Omega would likely have a new Speedy, no thicker than the current, in no time at all.


----------



## AnonPi (Aug 19, 2020)

GrouchoM said:


> I've wondered why ALS doesn't make the Datograph at least 50m (or 100m or 200m). As you said about Omega (or was that FPJ) but now applied to ALS:


Well, they don't market the Datograph as a sports watch do they? But, as highlighted by SJX, there are several differences between the Odysseus movement and other, "standard" ALS movements:



> Visually it’s similar to most other Lange movements, though upon closer examination, several details stand out. ...
> 
> Having been designed for a sporty watch, the movement has technical details catered to that purpose, executed in a technically-oriented manner that’s the norm at Lange.
> 
> ...


So, not only did ALS give it significantly better, sports watch standard, WR, they also made several other changes associated with increasing its fitness for purpose. This is exactly what I said earlier: that the higher WR is a sign of the watchmaker's commitment to making a purpose fit watch. It's not just throwing an existing movement into a sporty looking watch as FPJ has done.


----------



## GrouchoM (Jul 11, 2013)

For some reason, everyone thinks that all sports involve water. Not only that, but all sports involve water deeper than 50m. Most, if not all, of the Odysseus changes described above were geared towards robustness, not WR.

Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk


----------



## AnonPi (Aug 19, 2020)

GrouchoM said:


> Most, if not all, of the Odysseus changes described above were geared towards robustness, not WR.


Yes, I thought that was clear. And that WR was one of the changes geared toward robustness.



GrouchoM said:


> For some reason, everyone thinks that all sports involve water. Not only that, but all sports involve water deeper than 50m.


I think it's more that some of us don't understand the concept of, ok is good enough, mediocre is fine, why bother to make it better.


----------



## jo2hab (Jun 14, 2021)

To a certain degree I think high-end and tool watch are mutually exclusive. Many of a features of a high end watch, like movement architecture and dial finishing are inherently delicate; it's like trying to find a supercar that's also capable off road. As someone who greatly appreciates the work that goes into a high end watch, I think this is why I find the vast majority of tool/sports watches unappealing.


----------



## GrouchoM (Jul 11, 2013)

jo2hab said:


> To a certain degree I think high-end and tool watch are mutually exclusive. Many of a features of a high end watch, like movement architecture and dial finishing are inherently delicate; it's like trying to find a supercar that's also capable off road. As someone who greatly appreciates the work that goes into a high end watch, I think this is why I find the vast majority of tool/sports watches unappealing.


That's why I posed this question. Somewhere on the scale from pure HH that's made entirely in the pursuit of the best of arts&crafts and the pursuit of purely tool (basic Gshock, not their upper end), I'd like to find where you find the best compromise.

Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk


----------



## GrouchoM (Jul 11, 2013)

AnonPi said:


> Yes, I thought that was clear. And that WR was one of the changes geared toward robustness.


Nowhere in the blurb do they address the addition of increased WR... like how they accomplish it. Is the Datograph capable of higher WR but not shock resistant enough for being a sport piece so they label it as so low in WR? I know Omega tests its watches to over the stated value (I think 50% over but I can't recall) but VC only states that it tests to the reported value. 



> I think it's more that some of us don't understand the concept of, ok is good enough, mediocre is fine, why bother to make it better.


So, why is 100m good enough for the Daytona? Why is 300m enough for the Sub/Seamaster? Why is 600 enough for the Planet Ocean? What/ who sets the bar at mediocrity? I think it's the piece's sellable status... which each of these pieces, and the Speedy, have proven in spades. 

Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk


----------



## GrouchoM (Jul 11, 2013)

In knocking the Speedy's 50m WR, don't forget that it's a manual wind; it's crown can't screw down/in without impeding operation. Also, each time it's wound, there's wear&tear on the gasket around the crown. Hence there's a high need to check the gaskets are ok more frequently than a three handed auto.
What manual wind watches are 100m?

Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk


----------



## jo2hab (Jun 14, 2021)

GrouchoM said:


> That's why I posed this question. Somewhere on the scale from pure HH that's made entirely in the pursuit of the best of arts&crafts and the pursuit of purely tool (basic Gshock, not their upper end), I'd like to find where you find the best compromise.
> 
> Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk


This is actually quite a fascinating question that requires some thought. My initial take was, as has already been mentioned, simply a sports watch executed to HH standards like the Nautilus or Overseas. While I don't disagree with this, I think it is first important to distinguish between 'core' tool watch definition and 'toolish' styling.

Theoretically, a tool watch is considered to be a watch that is designed to fulfill some certain task. A dive watch is specially made to be capable underwater, a chronograph must be able to time things well, etc.. This definition is a yes/no: a Rolex Submariner and a Breguet Marine both count as tool watches.

However, what most people practically define as a tool watch is 'toolish' styling cues. Why is a Nautilus a sports watch while a Calatrava a dress watch? If Patek made a Calatrava in steel with some lume and increased WR, it would check the same boxes as the Nautilus, but I'd bet that most people would still call it a dress watch. There are plenty of high end watches out there that incorporate 'toolish' cues, like RM, Linde Werdelin, etc..

In a strict sense if we were to take tool watches as "watches built to fulfill a task *without any frills*", then that is a more challenging proposition. Many people think of tool watches as something purpose-built, without excess. This runs contrary to most HH principles as HH is all about the pursuit of (unnecessary) art and craft. However, I think if there were to be a use case that _required_ HH techniques, then you could have an interesting conjunction of the two categories. In other words, it would be a watch where aspects of HH like fine finishing, decoration, etc. are used in pursuit of some practical goal. I don't have a good example of this, my closest would be the VC&A Planetarium, which you could say is purpose built to track the motion of the planets. There are probably other examples out there, though.


----------



## ajw45 (Apr 24, 2019)

GrouchoM said:


> In knocking the Speedy's 50m WR, don't forget that it's a manual wind; it's crown can't screw down/in without impeding operation. Also, each time it's wound, there's wear&tear on the gasket around the crown. Hence there's a high need to check the gaskets are ok more frequently than a three handed auto.
> What manual wind watches are 100m?
> 
> Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk


At least 3 already mentioned in this thread, the GF Balancer S/S2 (100m), De Bethune DB28GS (105m), and Omega AT ultra light (150m), all manual wind, all display caseback, all with sporting intent and decent wr.

Obviously, Omega, DB, and GF thought it was important that their sporting watches have at least 100m wr. ALS too thought it was important with the Odysseus, Bulgari with the Octo, VC with the Offshore, even AP with the diver and ROO. You can live in a world where wr doesn't matter if you like, but the industry and customers have moved on to a world where sports watches come with 100m wr.


----------



## GrouchoM (Jul 11, 2013)

How does the price of the basic Speedy compare to the 3 manuals you cited? What defines the water resistance requirements for a given watch? I think the industry and customers would call the Speedy a sport watch and, with "just" 50m of WR, it sells well.

Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk


----------



## ajw45 (Apr 24, 2019)

GrouchoM said:


> How does the price of the basic Speedy compare to the 3 manuals you cited? What defines the water resistance requirements for a given watch? I think the industry and customers would call the Speedy a sport watch and, with "just" 50m of WR, it sells well.
> 
> Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk


This is the high end tool watch thread in the high end watches sub. I think the cheapest best value tool watch thread is in a different sub.


----------



## GrouchoM (Jul 11, 2013)

I view the Richard Mille Johan Blake as an example of a sport watch that's certainly a tool watch (designed first & foremost for a specific athletic task). I doubt the budget was a concern. What's the WR? 50m. I guess RM just accepts mediocre engineering. 

Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk


----------



## GrouchoM (Jul 11, 2013)

If a tool watch is designed for, say, car/motorcycle racing, target shooting, or tennis, why should also have to be able to dive to 100m? Does a woodsaw need to also drive nails? 

Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk


----------



## immerschnell (Sep 5, 2020)

I'm a relative novice at this point in this world of collecting but allow me to offer my more limited views and maybe some grounding ideas. I am having a lot of difficulty understanding why there is such a conflict about the very specific aspect of water resistance when we are speaking about "sports watches." Now, I am not saying that water resistance is not something to be included in the package, but my concern has to do with the notion that a sports watch should have extreme water resistance. I agree that a sports watch should have a better than basic amount for sure. But the idea that it should be at the maximum allowable pressure limits seems unrealistic. Is a sports watch not something that is to have higher endurance and performance tolerances under the majority of sports activities? Such as higher shock ratings, perhaps higher external components for better wear (steel vs gold) against damage. How many sports involve the water and how many sports involve being in the water to depths that require 120 meters WR labeling? At least in my case, I have never worn a watch in the water but that doesn't mean one shouldn't. At this exact moment in time, I don't know the answer but I would wager that there are substantially more people doing sports activities above ground than in a pool of water or the ocean. Can't hazard a guess but maybe 100:1 easily or more. Isn't that why there are "dive watches" specifically labeled as such? I don't think an FPJ or Lange or whatever is not a sports watch just because it doesn't have 120 m WR, but has higher build tolerances under the majority of sports circumstances. Where am I wrong about this?


----------



## AnonPi (Aug 19, 2020)

GrouchoM said:


> Nowhere in the blurb do they address the addition of increased WR... like how they accomplish it. Is the Datograph capable of higher WR but not shock resistant enough for being a sport piece so they label it as so low in WR? I know Omega tests its watches to over the stated value (I think 50% over but I can't recall) but VC only states that it tests to the reported value.


I suppose you could have found the article on SJX, even though I didn't include a link, but here:



> The construction of the case is notably complex for something relatively simple in shape, with some notable details. Most prominent are the screw-down crown and screw-down case back, both common enough features on sports watches. Also interesting is the bezel that’s secured to the case middle by screws, for better water-resistance. The result is a case rated to 120m.





GrouchoM said:


> So, why is 100m good enough for the Daytona? Why is 300m enough for the Sub/Seamaster? Why is 600 enough for the Planet Ocean? What/ who sets the bar at mediocrity? I think it's the piece's sellable status... which each of these pieces, and the Speedy, have proven in spades.


So, your argument is that popular = good? The best "thing" always sells the best? So, we should simply define good as being popular? Like, Toyota makes the best cars because they sell the most?

Getting back to FPJ, which is where this discussion started, how would you apply this to the brand? It doesn't sell anywhere near the quantities of the other brands you mention, particularly not the sport line, so they must really suck, right? And everyone who said they did earlier was right (just for the wrong reason)?


----------



## AnonPi (Aug 19, 2020)

immerschnell said:


> ... Now, I am not saying that water resistance is not something to be included in the package, but my concern has to do with the notion that a sports watch should have extreme water resistance. I agree that a sports watch should have a better than basic amount for sure. But the idea that it should be at the maximum allowable pressure limits seems unrealistic. Is a sports watch not something that is to have higher endurance and performance tolerances under the majority of sports activities? ...


I think the answer to this has already been pretty much covered in the discussion so far, but to rehash... 

Yes, it should have "higher endurance and performance tolerances", and one of those tolerances is WR. But, no one is saying that it needs to have "the maximum allowable pressure limits" — whatever that is; a Sinn U1 has 1000m so lets say for the sake of argument that that is the "maximum" for a mechanical. Rather, that *100m WR is trivial to achieve today* w/o necessarily ending up with a thicker watch* and is the de facto standard for sports watches in the 2020s (I mean, it's not 1960 anymore). If a watchmaker can't be bothered to update their WR performance for a watch to keep up with what has become the industry standard, what else are they not updating (and apparently, in the case of FPJ quite a lot), or do they just not really view their watch as a "sports watch" that needs to have "the package", so neither should we?


* I think a lot of the thickness we see in watches, with or without higher WR ratings is, just like diameter, more related to achieving "wrist presence" than WR in many watches. As there have been several examples of relatively thin watches with higher WR, I think we can permanently put to rest the notion that higher WR necessarily leads to a thick watch.


----------



## ar7iste (Sep 24, 2016)

I think we are getting at a point where the line between what watch companies market as "athleisure watch", sports watch, and tool watches needs to be defined. Here is how I see it.

A tool watch is designed to accomplish a specific purpose in a specific condition, like a dive watch, or a pilot watch. But a pilot watch will not necessarily be helping you if you are diving, and vice versa.

A "sports" watch is a watch that can be worn while playing sports. If you want to go golfing with a watch, you need a set of very specific and appropriate characteristics for your watch to be able to withstand the shocks, but the watch isn't necessarily going to help you in the activity. All you want is to be able to keep your watch on you while you exercise/practice. Many watches will be unsuitable for certain sports, but there are still a lot of high-end watches that should be able to accompany you for your day to day workouts as long as you are not an extreme athlete and don't regularly dive below 600m or get in a centrifuge on a daily basis. I am being a little sarcastic but I think most sports watches are fine with 99% of what people do in their daily lives.

Then you have those "athleisure" watches, designed to be worn from the boardroom to the beach, but don't necessarily have all the protections a "sports" watch will offer. That is where it becomes more tricky to evaluate, because I believe this is the category that is currently growing very fast and selling to the public. And in my view, this category includes watches that could be very capable sports watches, as well as watches that have an aggressive design but are still engineered like dress watches with little interest in engineering a sporty/resistant product.

Here are examples of each in my subjective opinion:

Tool watch: Blancpain X Fathoms
Sports watch: Richard Mille RM 27-04
Athleisure watch: AP Royal Oak 15202st


----------



## AnonPi (Aug 19, 2020)

ar7iste said:


> I think we are getting at a point where the line between what watch companies market as "athleisure watch", sports watch, and tool watches needs to be defined. Here is how I see it.
> 
> A tool watch...
> 
> ...


This is probably a good distinction to make, although, I'm not sure the FPJ Sport line would really fall into the athleisure category either. It's really more of a dress watch with simply a sporty appearance, fine in the boardroom, perhaps not so much at the beach; so maybe boardroom to yacht club, as along as you don't go out on the dock


----------



## Toolwatchmd (Sep 6, 2020)

AnonPi said:


> This is probably a good distinction to make, although, I'm not sure the FPJ Sport line would really fall into the athleisure category either. It's really more of a dress watch with simply a sporty appearance, fine in the boardroom, perhaps not so much at the beach; so maybe boardroom to yacht club, as along as you don't go out on the dock


You can’t walk on a dock with a 30m WR watch? Is the air too humid or are you worried about falling in?


----------



## AnonPi (Aug 19, 2020)

Toolwatchmd said:


> You can’t walk on a dock with a 30m WR watch? [...] are you worried about falling in?


Well, it has been known to happen.  

Not to me personally, I will add.


----------



## dbostedo (Feb 26, 2014)

ar7iste said:


> I think we are getting at a point where the line between what watch companies market as "athleisure watch", sports watch, and tool watches needs to be defined. Here is how I see it.
> 
> A tool watch is designed to accomplish a specific purpose in a specific condition, like a dive watch, or a pilot watch. But a pilot watch will not necessarily be helping you if you are diving, and vice versa.
> 
> ...


Under those definitions, there aren't all that many sports watches out there. Most of the watches people call sports watches don't have anything done to improve shock as far as I know. And "standard" shock absorption is pretty good.


----------



## AnonPi (Aug 19, 2020)

dbostedo said:


> Under those definitions, there aren't all that many sports watches out there. Most of the watches people call sports watches don't have anything done to improve shock as far as I know. And "standard" shock absorption is pretty good.


Well, I doubt many watchmakers will embrace the Athleisure label either.


----------



## jo2hab (Jun 14, 2021)

dbostedo said:


> Under those definitions, there aren't all that many sports watches out there. Most of the watches people call sports watches don't have anything done to improve shock as far as I know. And "standard" shock absorption is pretty good.


That's because there _aren't_ that many watches actually designed for sports these days, with AFAIK RM being the only high-end manufacturer that focuses on this. What most people call sports watches are not in mechanical terms different from dress watches, and the categories are mostly in terms of style rather than function; this is why the Reverso is now thought of as a dress watch even though it was literally designed as a sports watch. Generally speaking, pretty much any modern watch out there is perfectly suitable for the vast majority of activities.


----------



## GrouchoM (Jul 11, 2013)

Looking at sport watches that are quartz/smart, what's a necessary wr? G shock does 200m, Garmin and ProTrek do 100m, Apple does 50m. Each satisfy their audience. 
I'd say FPJ is content on their sales numbers or they'd make updates. Are these FPJs sitting on dealer shelves and being discounted? 

Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk


----------



## Skeptical (Sep 14, 2012)

Most Garmins are only 50m WR, including those specifically marketed toward triathletes doing open water swimming (currently the Forerunner 745).


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## AnonPi (Aug 19, 2020)

GrouchoM said:


> I'd say FPJ is content on their sales numbers or they'd make updates. Are these FPJs sitting on dealer shelves and being discounted?


Isn't this sort of like admitting, "Yeah, it should be better, but why should they bother?"


----------



## ajw45 (Apr 24, 2019)

GrouchoM said:


> I'd say FPJ is content on their sales numbers or they'd make updates. Are these FPJs sitting on dealer shelves and being discounted?


Amazing, we've come full circle, back to the beginning where I stated the reason why FPJ sport watches have gone up in price is, "The hype has brought in buyers that don't care" about the actual sporting ability of their "sports" watches. Glad we agree, I knew you'd get there eventually.


----------



## ar7iste (Sep 24, 2016)

jo2hab said:


> That's because there _aren't_ that many watches actually designed for sports these days, with AFAIK RM being the only high-end manufacturer that focuses on this. What most people call sports watches are not in mechanical terms different from dress watches, and the categories are mostly in terms of style rather than function; this is why the Reverso is now thought of as a dress watch even though it was literally designed as a sports watch. Generally speaking, pretty much any modern watch out there is perfectly suitable for the vast majority of activities.


Exactly that, you phrased what I meant to say in a much better way.
Even Phil Mickelson (golfer who won like 40 PGA events) was golfing with a Rolex Cellini Danos, clearly seen today as a dress watch. It was all fine and never had an issue with it during the many years wearing it. Most watches are meant to be worn daily.


----------



## GrouchoM (Jul 11, 2013)

ajw45 said:


> Amazing, we've come full circle, back to the beginning where I stated the reason why FPJ sport watches have gone up in price is, "The hype has brought in buyers that don't care" about the actual sporting ability of their "sports" watches. Glad we agree, I knew you'd get there eventually.


If raising the WR will increase sales numbers but will cost more to produce, either the watch has to cost more or they lose money. Which direction should they go? In not proclaiming that their watch fits my definition of a sports watch. I'm just questioning the allegation that 100m is the bar which a sport watch must clear. Why is the Tudor BB only 200m while the Sub is 300m and the Pelagos is 500m? Couldn't they all attain 500m?

Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk


----------



## AnonPi (Aug 19, 2020)

GrouchoM said:


> If raising the WR will increase sales numbers but will cost more to produce, either the watch has to cost more or they lose money. Which direction should they go? In not proclaiming that their watch fits my definition of a sports watch. I'm just questioning the allegation that 100m is the bar which a sport watch must clear. Why is the Tudor BB only 200m while the Sub is 300m and the Pelagos is 500m? Couldn't they all attain 500m?
> 
> Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk


Or the Sinn U1 at 1000m. Obviously, given the price of an FPJ, adding 100m WR isn't going to significantly affect the price since the U1 has 10x greater WR at a small fraction of the price. I mean, suppose it even added as much as the MSRP of a U1 to the cost of an FPJ, is that really that significant?

I think ultimately the cost argument shares the same fate as thickness.


----------



## GrouchoM (Jul 11, 2013)

If Sinn can make a 1000m diving watch, does that make Omega's Seamaster (300) and PO (600) mediocre? How about Rolex and Tudor?

Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk


----------



## GrouchoM (Jul 11, 2013)

ajw45 said:


> Amazing, we've come full circle, back to the beginning where I stated the reason why FPJ sport watches have gone up in price is, "The hype has brought in buyers that don't care" about the actual sporting ability of their "sports" watches. Glad we agree, I knew you'd get there eventually.


Would you use an ALS Odysseus in a tough mudder?

Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk


----------



## GrouchoM (Jul 11, 2013)

ar7iste said:


> Here are examples of each in my subjective opinion:
> 
> Tool watch: Blancpain X Fathoms
> Sports watch: Richard Mille RM 27-04
> Athleisure watch: AP Royal Oak 15202st


But that RM is only 50m WR... those slackers.

Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk


----------



## AnonPi (Aug 19, 2020)

GrouchoM said:


> Would you use an ALS Odysseus in a tough mudder?
> 
> Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk


Speaking of mud, I think you're using an argument technique called, "muddying the waters".


----------



## ajw45 (Apr 24, 2019)

GrouchoM said:


> Would you use an ALS Odysseus in a tough mudder?


Only if my De Bethune was out for service, I was in a Lange boutique, and the SA put a gun to my head and told me to pick the most over-hyped watch in the store.


----------



## GrouchoM (Jul 11, 2013)

AnonPi said:


> Speaking of mud, I think you're using an argument technique called, "muddying the waters".


I'm sorry. I'm kind of responding to several sub-threads within this thread. That particular response wasn't meant for you. It was for ajw45.

Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk


----------



## GrouchoM (Jul 11, 2013)

I just don't know why a few here feel that, if a watch is referred to as a sports watch (by the public, ADs, pseudojournalists, or the manufacturer? ), it's a sign of resting on one laurels if it has only 98m WR BUT is clearly a valid example of a sports watch if it's 100m WR.

Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk


----------



## dbostedo (Feb 26, 2014)

GrouchoM said:


> I just don't know why a few here feel that, if a watch is referred to as a sports watch (by the public, ADs, pseudojournalists, or the manufacturer? ), it's a sign of resting on one laurels if it has only 98m WR BUT is clearly a valid example of a sports watch if it's 100m WR.
> 
> Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk


I agree that 100m is arbitrary as any kind of metric for what a sports watch is. However I do think there's a rationale.

100m seems to be the most common WR rating where most companies are willing to publish that it's OK to swim with the watch. It's not clear and it's not perfect, as companies are kind of all over the place. But there's nothing magic about 100m. People _could_ choose to say all sports watches should be 200m, because that seems to be easy to achieve and that way you can dive with it. But some consensus seems to have settled on 100m - likely because of the activity tables, specious though they may potentially be.

(Personally, for WR, I think if the watch is well maintained the WR depth is literally that... i.e. a well maintained reputable 5m watch is fine for up to 5m deep. And that companies that publish things counter to that are just trying to stay very far away from warranty claims and bad publicity, including those from people that don't maintain their watches.)


----------



## GrouchoM (Jul 11, 2013)

According to Archer, he sees way more Seamasters (300m) with water intrusion than Speedys. Obviously, people are more likely to use a Seamaster in water than a Speedy, but the issue is that most ignore their gaskets on diver's. It's like how people think their SUV can drive well on icy roads.... and end up in the snow drifts on the side of the road. Manufacturers aren't trying to avoid their responsibilities by stating that the WR needs regular testing... it's the truth. 

Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk


----------



## AnonPi (Aug 19, 2020)

dbostedo said:


> (Personally, for WR, I think if the watch is well maintained the WR depth is literally that... i.e. a well maintained reputable 5m watch is fine for up to 5m deep. And that companies that publish things counter to that are just trying to stay very far away from warranty claims and bad publicity, including those from people that don't maintain their watches.)


The only thing is, we aren't talking about divers here, which have much more stringent WR standards, we're just talking about "regular" watches. So, maybe there is something about this in the WR standard they do meet, assuming the rating is based on some standard at all for a particular watch, but it's not clear to me that, for example, all 50m ratings are created equal. For one thing, they only test a certain percentage of watches, not all of them. Another issue is what's the duration of submersion they can withstand, and does this vary from watch to watch, brand to brand?

So, while your 5m watch may be fine at 5 meters, how long can it stay there? And presumably it could stay longer at 2 meters? Is this one reason that even though a watch is specified for 30-50 meters, it's still recommended for surface swimming only, because it can't actually withstand prolonged submersion? I don't believe the that the submersion period these non-diver watches can withstand is "indefinite", but no one appears to be saying what the duration of submersion they can withstand is.


----------



## Toolwatchmd (Sep 6, 2020)

AnonPi said:


> The only thing is, we aren't talking about divers here, which have much more stringent WR standards, we're just talking about "regular" watches. So, maybe there is something about this in the WR standard they do meet, assuming the rating is based on some standard at all for a particular watch, but it's not clear to me that, for example, all 50m ratings are created equal. For one thing, they only test a certain percentage of watches, not all of them. Another issue is what's the duration of submersion they can withstand, and does this vary from watch to watch, brand to brand?
> 
> So, while your 5m watch may be fine at 5 meters, how long can it stay there? And presumably it could stay longer at 2 meters? Is this one reason that even though a watch is specified for 30-50 meters, it's still recommended for surface swimming only, because it can't actually withstand prolonged submersion? I don't believe the that the submersion period these non-diver watches can withstand is "indefinite", but no one appears to be saying what the duration of submersion they can withstand is.


Well this is just a problem with the watch industry as a whole then. The standards are ambiguous. It’s not much different than when a watch says “Swiss Made,” but the watch is assembled in Switzerland with Chinese parts. There should be a standard across the industry of what different water resistance numbers actually mean. This would mean that watch companies would have to subject their watches to tests before claiming any water resistance. Omega at least gives you some piece of mind because all cased up watches are subjected to the METAS testing before being sold. They actually submerge the watch in water and apply pressure. When Omega says 50m, they actually mean 50m.


----------



## Toolwatchmd (Sep 6, 2020)

AnonPi said:


> Or the Sinn U1 at 1000m. Obviously, given the price of an FPJ, adding 100m WR isn't going to significantly affect the price since the U1 has 10x greater WR at a small fraction of the price. I mean, suppose it even added as much as the MSRP of a U1 to the cost of an FPJ, is that really that significant?
> 
> I think ultimately the cost argument shares the same fate as thickness.


A Sinn U1 with an open caseback and a high-end, hand-finished movement would be my idea of watch perfection.


----------



## AnonPi (Aug 19, 2020)

Toolwatchmd said:


> Well this is just a problem with the watch industry as a whole then. The standards are ambiguous. It’s not much different than when a watch says “Swiss Made,” but the watch is assembled in Switzerland with Chinese parts. There should be a standard across the industry of what different water resistance numbers actually mean. This would mean that watch companies would have to subject their watches to tests before claiming any water resistance. Omega at least gives you some piece of mind because all cased up watches are subjected to the METAS testing before being sold. They actually submerge the watch in water and apply pressure. When Omega says 50m, they actually mean 50m.


Yes, but 50m for how long? Does that vary with water temperature? And, does METAS include WR testing, or is that a totally separate protocol? And, if not, then are they applying different protocols to different watches — one for divers like the SMP 300m, another for non-divers like the Speedy? So, yes, it is an industry issue with different standards, and test protocols that may or may not reflect real world use.

And, here's something I learned recently, which probably applies to at least some watches: water coming out of your tap has a pressure of ~3atm, which is why many 30m watches say "hand washing". As well, some 50m watches are proscribed from "diving" (into the water) by their manufacturers because the pressure when they hit the water may exceed 5atm.

So, everyone, is it really that hard to understand why people would want a minimum of 100m WR in a sports watch?


----------



## Toolwatchmd (Sep 6, 2020)

AnonPi said:


> Yes, but 50m for how long? Does that vary with water temperature? And, does METAS include WR testing, or is that a totally separate protocol? And, if not, then are they applying different protocols to different watches — one for divers like the SMP 300m, another for non-divers like the Speedy? So, yes, it is an industry issue with different standards, and test protocols that may or may not reflect real world use.
> 
> And, here's something I learned recently, which probably applies to at least some watches: water coming out of your tap has a pressure of ~3atm, which is why many 30m watches say "hand washing". As well, some 50m watches are proscribed from "diving" (into the water) by their manufacturers because the pressure when they hit the water may exceed 5atm.
> 
> So, everyone, is it really that hard to understand why people would want a minimum of 100m WR in a sports watch?











The Master Chronometer Certification | OMEGA®


Discover the advantages of an OMEGA Master Chronometer and see how the revolutionary watchmaking and certification can give you the industry’s highest standard.




www.omegawatches.com





Water resistance testing is part of the METAS testing. They submerge the watch in water and apply the appropriate amount of pressure for 2 hours. They then heat the watch to 50 degrees Celsius and place a drop of cold water on the case and look for signs of condensation inside the watch. The only difference Omega does for divers is they test the watch to 25% beyond the stated water resistance to give you some margin of safety with watches that are purpose-built for aquatic use.


----------



## AnonPi (Aug 19, 2020)

Toolwatchmd said:


> The Master Chronometer Certification | OMEGA®
> 
> 
> Discover the advantages of an OMEGA Master Chronometer and see how the revolutionary watchmaking and certification can give you the industry’s highest standard.
> ...


So, that sounds great for Omega, and I applaud them for their transparency, but all the questions raised are still unanswered for most other watchmakers.


----------



## AndyCouey (Jan 9, 2021)

Personally enjoy the Navitimers, not sure if they are fictional, and high-end enough for OP...

Certainly they aren't divers.

Sent from my SM-G975U using Tapatalk


----------



## GrouchoM (Jul 11, 2013)

From the Omega subforum, Excellent Response From OMEGA HQ..., an interesting response regarding the wr implications on their watches. 

Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk


----------



## Zhanming057 (Jun 17, 2019)

AnonPi said:


> And, here's something I learned recently, which probably applies to at least some watches: water coming out of your tap has a pressure of ~3atm, which is why many 30m watches say "hand washing". As well, some 50m watches are proscribed from "diving" (into the water) by their manufacturers because the pressure when they hit the water may exceed 5atm.


This is factually false. Dynamic pressure isn't comparable to static pressure in this way, period. At human movement speeds, dynamic pressure is indistinguishable from zero. See this Hodinkee article for a run down:









Sunday Rewind: Dive Watch Myths You Shouldn't Be Repeating


Feelings aren't facts.




www.hodinkee.com





30m is 30m. I rinse my 10m watches under the tap all the time - and yes, this is specifically stated to be safe by the manufacturer. But I also send them off for new gaskets when they recommend it. If you have a $30,000 watch and you don't do that, that's on you.

Quote from the hodinkee article:



> you’d have to be moving your arm 32 miles per hour in order to raise the pressure by one atmosphere (the equivalent of an additional 33 feet or 10 meters of depth) and that’s only if the pressure hits the gasket at a right angle, which it doesn’t.


If you're hitting the water at +4ATM of dynamic pressure, your watch is the least of your concerns.


----------



## ar7iste (Sep 24, 2016)

Zhanming057 said:


> This is factually false. Dynamic pressure isn't comparable to static pressure in this way, period. At human movement speeds, dynamic pressure is indistinguishable from zero. See this Hodinkee article for a run down:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


That's interesting for the tap, because I have a good friend who works for JLC (industrial engineer), who was explaining that the tap water test is actually one of the most difficult to pass for a watch because it doesn't have uniform pressure around it. You are right, dynamic pressure is completely different to static pressure. A watch that is immobile underwater has consistent pressure around it. The tap water test on the other hand exposes some parts of the watches in a non-uniform way making it more stringent.

Bottom line was: even a 30m WR watch like a reverso can be worn swimming as long as it's maintained.


----------



## AnonPi (Aug 19, 2020)

Zhanming057 said:


> This is factually false. Dynamic pressure isn't comparable to static pressure in this way, period. At human movement speeds, dynamic pressure is indistinguishable from zero.


Well, except that water coming out of a tap isn't moving at human movement speeds, is it? According to your theory of dynamic pressure and watches, there is no difference between tap water, water coming from a firehose, water from a pressure washer, the pressure if your watch hits the water while you are falling at terminal velocity, ... You can't generalize from one specific example of dynamic pressure — i.e., from one's arm moving underwater while swimming — to all examples of dynamic pressure.


----------



## AnonPi (Aug 19, 2020)

ar7iste said:


> Bottom line was: even a 30m WR watch like a reverso can be worn swimming as long as it's maintained.


Assumes that a 30m WR rating is the same for all watches regardless of manufacture. The only thing that possibly saves this is the phrase, "like a Reverso," which, intentionally or not, effectively restricts the statement to that watch.

This is just like arguing that Omega's WR ratings are the real thing, that when they say 30m they mean 30 meters and then some, and extrapolating from that to all watches.


----------



## AnonPi (Aug 19, 2020)

My point is simply that while it may sometimes (often?) be fine to interpret the WR ratings literally, in some cases that may lead to trouble. It's better to go by the manufacturer's most conservative statement of what they actually mean. So if, for example, Patek says that 30m means hand washing, you should probably not go swimming with it. Likewise, if Omega presents conflicting information but the most conservative information says that 50m is not for snorkeling, the prudent thing to do is not to go snorkeling with it, or engage in snorkeling-like activities, unless you just don't care what happens to it.

I don't really get why people argue against what the manufacturer says it means, or why, given what many manufacturers say their ratings mean, people somehow think 100m WR is extravagant, excessive or unreasonable.

(I also don't understand why Omega gives such conflicting information, although, maybe it's just because they haven't really cleaned up their website in a long time and there's a lot of outdated cruft laying around. But, who really knows?)


----------



## dbostedo (Feb 26, 2014)

Zhanming057 said:


> See this Hodinkee article for a run down:
> 
> https://www.hodinkee.com/articles/dive-watch-myths-you-shouldnt-be-repeating


Neat.. A Hodinkee article that links to a Hodinkee article, that links to a Watchuseek thread!

(This one is referenced : Sigh, Myth Busting.... again)


----------



## GrouchoM (Jul 11, 2013)

The water coming out of a home faucet has a cross section of what... about 1 square inch? How many pounds of pressure do you feel when you put your hand under your tap? In my kitchen, not even a pound. So, <1 pound/in². JLC has issues with this? I'm glad I sold my Deep Sea Chrono.

Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk


----------



## Toolwatchmd (Sep 6, 2020)

I think people are just looking for excuses to not wash their hands.


----------



## GrouchoM (Jul 11, 2013)

Here's a good post by Archer regarding Omega's WR-








Excellent Response From OMEGA HQ...


Unfortunately Omega does not specify the activities anywhere. Yes they do.




www.watchuseek.com





Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk


----------



## Caesar95 (Jan 11, 2019)

GrouchoM said:


> Here's a good post by Archer regarding Omega's WR-
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Excellent. Thanks for the share


----------



## Dorado0359 (Dec 9, 2021)

View attachment 16298419


----------

