I am curious about whether the divers watches really are more shock-resistant, or is the sturdiness just a perception?
Alternatively, is there any automatic watch which can handle a bit of "beating" ?
Many thanks :-)
In the last couple of years a smaller number of German watch manufacturers has agreed on the DIN 8330 standard. Sinn, among others, have three models which conforms to the standard. Before that, they used the TESTAF standard which was also pritty rigid. Whether it matters at all for those of us who belongs to the desk diver/aviator category is another matter.
Last edited by Leif; 3rd December 2016 at 15:38.
Since the movement inside a Datejust is identical to that inside a Submariner for example, I'd suggest that apart from the water resistance one is no 'tougher' than the other. You might argue that the bezel of the Sub is more easily damaged than a smooth DJ bezel, and as the crown projects beyond the crown guards on every Submariner I don't really see what extra protection they offer in practical terms. So I guess a divers watch is water resistant to a greater depth ( although the 100m offered by a Datejust is good enough for most of us) - sort from that the 'toughness' is identical. I'm sure my fully tegimented Sinn U1T is 'tougher' than most divers as far as the case is harder, but if you dropped the U1, a Rolex Submariner and a datejust about 3 feet onto a concrete floor they'd all be equally broken. On the flip side a £50 casio dw5600 would simply bounce, in all likelihood be totally unmarked. However, the Submariner looks cooler - and the casio looks like an 11 year olds first watch. An 11 year old needs a tough watch, most of us adults with fancy watches probably don't?!
Sent from my HTC One_M8 using Tapatalk
I think when they're being worn, apart from knocks likely to shatter the crystal, they'll survive trauma for longer than the arm wearing them.
No auto is going to respond well to being chucked from a height since any big impact risks dislodging mechanical parts but that doesn't mean they're not sturdy, I suppose the reason people think that divers watches offer an extra level of protection is because the wr is higher and in some cases crystals and cases are thicker to accommodate the WR which gives the (possible) illusion of being more resistant to the apocalypse.
Stay cheerful though, you'd die before a dssd would ;)
I do recall reading that the standard for which one can call a watch a 'Divers' watch does have a shock resistance specification, so the original question is a valid & interesting one. Don't ask me about which standard I'm talking about though! I know that there are far more knowledgeable people on here regarding these issues than me! I also recall Seiko owners manuals mentioning that their Diver's watches have enhanced shock resistance.Originally Posted by verv
As far as I`m aware shock resistance has nothing to do with dive watches or perceived sturdiness, it's simply a measure of how well the movement resists shock. Take an Omega SMP for example, the movement's surrounded by more metal than a similar movement in a Constellation, but that doesn`t improve shock resistance........how can it?
Over the years some manufacturers have attempted to use rubber mountings inside cases to supposedly improve shock resistance (Omega did this on some 70s Seamasters) but the idea seems to have died out.
Paul
Where does DIN 8330 fit into this? (that's partly about shock isn't it?)
Edit: opps - missed someone above had asked about this (which reminds me...where's my SIN103 Ti IFR)
Last edited by Alansmithee; 3rd December 2016 at 22:50.
Ball makes a shock resistance claim for its Engineer Hydrocarbon range.
Not sure what the technical claims for this are, but interesting to see it on the dial. A homage to the early Submariners.
image hosting no account
RobDad - right you are with your last remark. The reason I was asking about the resistance is that let's say one would like to explore some (exotic) locations off the beaten track (in style :-D ). Thus a diver can handle a bit swimming as well makes more sense than a tourbillon on a leather strap. After all from historic point of view, they were used by military. In my eyes they are meant for a bit of an adventure rather then being fancy with a suit.
However, I understand that is exactly what they become.
Explorer I and II are shock resistant, not dive watches by definition but you can swim and dive with it.
Grand Seiko Spring Drive divers are indestructible too.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Indeed. I love and own good mechanical watches but actually a Casio 5610 (the one with solar charging and atomic clock connection) provide us with as much sheer ruggedness, reliability, precision, features and bang for the buck as anybody could wish for. It sure isn't pretty - but if I were to do an extended expedition to, say, the Amazonas, it would be the one I'd wear (and they are so cheap that I would likely bring one or two spares). Now, for health reasons, I'll never go to the Amazonas or such places, but I do wear mine when working in the garden or the like. When it's not on my arm, it serves as a very accurate time reference for my mechanical watches.
Don't know where yours are, but mine is arriving from Sinn in a week or two. :-).
As said, I'm neither a globetrotter nor an athlete, but nevertheless I happen to use the chronongraph functions in my watches on a daily basis (ever done "temperature surfing" with a Rancilio Silvia espresso machine?) and I miss them when wearing a watch without them. With the 103, I expect the chronograph together with the rotating bezel to come in handy when having both a pot on the stove and bread in the oven. Of course, realistically, DIN 8330 is way out overkill for that - but it's a nice watch, isn't it?
OK, that was a bit OT ....... over and out.
Last edited by Leif; 4th December 2016 at 12:18.
Although i own both a Rolex 216570 with the newer movement and a Casio 5600 i know which one i would prefer to drop however much Rolex tell me it got better shock protection.
Paraflex is a shock absorber developed and patented by Rolex that claims to increase shock absorption by 50% over other industry standard shock systems such as KIF or Incablock. Rolex introduced Paraflex in the updated Rolex Day-Date II / President five years ago. Like the Parachrom hairspring whereby Rolex relied upon outside manufacturers to produce, Rolex is moving away from KIF shock systems used in its watches for the last 20 years such that it is not dependent upon other companies in the supply chain. The 3187 movement is slightly larger in diameter than the 3186 movement, and slightly thicker and one of the reasons why the Explorer II 216570 comes in at a slightly larger 42mm case over the standard 40mm cases seen in Rolex sport watches. The updated shock system, combined with the other updates (Parachrom, Chromalight, larger Twinlock crown) makes the Rolex Explorer II 216570 one of the most modern Rolex watch.
Some of the Cellini range have paraflex also. But I'd still reach for a g shock or an older sub.
Snag is, its words, and its hard to quantify what's meant by shock resistance. In principle is straightforward with water resistance - you can test it! What does 'increase shock absorption by 50%' actually mean? It may offer a high level compared to some other autos but how does that compare to standard quartz, let alone a G-shock? And is one shock the same as another sort of shock? Dropping something from 10m onto a concrete floor (as Victorinox did recently) is impressive, but not relevant to wearing it (as opposed to dropping it, which is something different altogether!).
As a kid, I was playing squash with a friend and as an 'experiment' we served our G shocks at the wall to see if they'd survive. This was the late 80's so they must have been from the very early screwback series if memory serves correctly. Anyhow, we got bored after a few goes, put them back on and continued the game. I'm pretty certain any mechanical watch would be destroyed - with the rubber band curving around the back of the watch when off the wrist, and the recessed crystal with no hands to drop off or moving parts, it's not really a fair comparison. In day to day life most mechanicals are rugged enough, surprisingly so when you consider all the little wheels and gears - put you can actively try and break a g shock and have no luck, which I've always thought is pretty cool even though they're fugly!
Sent from my HTC One_M8 using Tapatalk
They tell me that every two weeks...
I'm having a "deja vu" from when my 756 was send for service a couple of years ago. We'll see. It will arrive one of these days. To be fair, their service price was very reasonable compared with the big names like IWC and Omega who charges about the double.
Hard to be sure, but I work on the assumption that mechanical watches are not very tough. And I doubt that 'sports' watches are any tougher than other designs. Or to give an example, I suspect my Cellini is as shock resisant as a submariner. Both have near identical movements. And both have cases which will dent and scratch.
So, for real rough stuff, Take them off.
Sage advice no doubt, but the question still remains what is 'real' rough stuff, that a mechanical can't take and what is OK?? Some people casually give their mechanical watches stick that many wouldn't contemplate, with no obvious ill effects, whilst others are terrified of giving their watches the slightest movement!
I have played squash wearing Omega and Rolex and no noticeable ill effect. Biggest risk is hitting your wrist into the wall.
Only thing I won't wear a mechanical watch for is gardening. I did some heavy clearance a few years back and soil gets under the bezel and makes it gritty. Using a maul whilst wearing a PRS 17C jolted the hands out of sync so since then a G-Shock is used for this.
Bet they didn't bounce very well though!
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote