Reply With QuoteIts just the scratches though isint it.
I dont think anyone doubts the WR or the watches ability but theres few enough of us that dont wince when we scratch a decent watch.
Having just read a very interesting article I thought I'd share it here.
The author has worn his LV Sub on over 250 dives and offers his views on other watches marketed as divers. Of course if you are of the opinion that the Submariner is nothing more than a mass market fashion accessory this article might not be for you.
If diving was my thing I'd have no qualms wearing my Sub having read this.
Enjoy.
Its just the scratches though isint it.
I dont think anyone doubts the WR or the watches ability but theres few enough of us that dont wince when we scratch a decent watch.
Thanks, great article and im glad to see dive watches getting used for their true intention and fully utilized
You could also say that its a mass produced fashion watch that can also be used as a tool diving watch.
I love them, but I am of the opinion most are bought as a statement / fashion / bloody nice watch rather than used for diving.
Yes there can be no doubt the vast majority are not used for diving but the way I see it is that not much has changed that reduces their ability to be worn whilst diving. If Rolex were simply following fashion this purposefulness would have been lost along the way and long time ago.
Last edited by -Ally-; 15th March 2017 at 19:28.
Interesting read from a diver's perspective. There are a few on the forum but most (myself included) I think are restricted to a bit of snorkelling once a year. I tend to wear a diver for that, either Hulk or POC which is less visible being orange - but fine for the swimming pool.
Martyn
I have dived a couple of times with my Sub, but with rocks, debris in the water etc, I'm happy to wear a much cheaper Seiko. Of course they are fit for purpose, but there are very functional and inexpensive alternatives
D
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
If I go diving - and do every year - then my trusty Tag comes out. Then again 30m dives in hot climates is hardly an ordeal :-)
I think the point is that diving isn't your thing, as is the case with the vast majority of sub owners me included. I often think there is something a bit Walter Mitty about wearing a sub with no intention of ever getting wet let alone using it on a dive.Originally Posted by -Ally-
Why should anything change to reduce their ability to be worn while diving?
If anything and considering the advancements in technology they should actually be getting better which in fact they are...
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I don't do any diving, not even 'desk diving', but I wear a ceramic sub daily no matter what im doing, even for work. Im not afraid of picking up any scratches, as the watch is mostly brushed anyway it's pretty resilient. I would definately call it my grab-and-go, tool watch or beater.
That was a good read :)
Walter Mitty, perfect description.
Sent on the run.
"Once is happenstance. Twice is coincidence. The third time it's enemy action."
'Populism, the last refuge of a Tory scoundrel'.
Whilst I agree that a Submariner is perfectly capable of fulfilling its original function as a diving watch there is no way I would use mine for this purpose.
Reason being that there are much less expensive watches that are quite capable in that sphere and I would feel much happier wearing one of these given the propensity of bashing the watch on rocks or even breaking the crystal, clumsy person that I am!
Good read. Very cool that he uses the Hulk, wasn't expecting that.
Yup that's why I shared it, not because I thought the Submariner wasn't up to it, I've never been in any doubt. I suppose it's like taking your Ferrari to the supermarket, pointless but cool.
Possibly. Don't care though.
Last edited by -Ally-; 15th March 2017 at 23:07.
Cool article, very interesting, thanks for sharing
Did he? Where? Looks fine to me. The Rolex in the article is a singular Rolex and therefore he's correct. Also the plural of Rolex can be Rolex so also correct.
Good read by the way OP.
Last edited by TaketheCannoli; 15th March 2017 at 23:12.
I appreciate some of that, but part of me is thinking - do I put on cheap shoes to go for a walk and only wear a more expensive pair when I'm sat at my desk or in a meeting.
It's just a matter of time...
I read that and thought the same. Spend the most money on the things you wear the most. Personally I would take my Rolex on a dive and any marks would be remembered as part of that experience. Otherwise what's the point? But that's me, other opinions are available ;)
Last edited by TaketheCannoli; 15th March 2017 at 23:12.
If you, like me, like to wear a dive watch diving (my SMP for example), you need to be aware of the potential loss and cosmetic damage you can suffer while diving... The more demanding the dive, the more things can go wrong, for babysitting your Rolex underwater...
But, really, dive watches are obsolete. You need a dive computer (and a back up ideally).
That was a good read, many thanks...
I don't think there's anything 'Mitty' about it. Most people buy stuff based on looks and wouldn't care that it was originally designed for diving. I wear Levis but don't live on a ranch, wear trainers when not training, and a North Face jacket when nowhere near a mountain. Call me Walter if you like.
Of course you don't. If you did you'd have most likely flipped your sub like I did. Each to their own.
Last edited by beechcustom; 16th March 2017 at 00:28. Reason: wrong their
I've gone diving in my Rolex GMT so I am sure a Sub is up to the challenge!
I felt he'd decided the Rolex was best and just wrote the article to justify it.
His complaint that fixed length extensions are useless is nonsense as the wet suit will compress, so an extra inch or so is likely to be fine on virtually any long sleeved wetsuit (I do wonder how often someone from Singapore dives in a 7mm long sleeved wetsuit!)
The point on colour is well made, but somewhat academic, in my view. The U1 (which he singles out for criticism in this area) has plenty of white on the hands and no-one would night dive without at least 1 (preferably more!) torches, so lume effectiveness is a moot point.
Personally I wouldn't dive in a Rolex (or any other expensive watch), for the reasons Carvass outlined. Damage to or loss of the watch would be a pain (whether you can 'afford it' or not is irrelevant, unless the reason you wear a Rolex diving is to show off your wealth) and there are plenty of perfectly workable watches that will do what you need of a dive watch, as the article makes clear!
When I dive in the UK, I wear a 300M WR Citizen Eco-Drive, which cost me £130 new (I thought I'd lost it once and ordered up a 200M WR Mares logo'd watch with a Seiko movement for under £90 to replace it!). Abroad, I'll usually dive in my DN Voyager these days, because the GMT feature is handy on long haul trips, and it's a nice legible watch that feels like you could break Great White teeth with!
I guess compared with most Rolex Sub owners, he's a very experienced diver, but his background and experience doesn't mark him out as an 'expert diver' for most who dive regularly, I suspect.
M
Last edited by snowman; 16th March 2017 at 09:48.
Re: I felt he'd decided the Rolex was best and just wrote the article to justify it.
I felt you seem to be having a problem that he chose the Submariiner. As do some others.
Nothing with a ceramic bezel is a "tool watch".
Ive been thinking about this and you are correct, but the wrong way around, when the Sub was introduced it was to fill a need which it did very well, there were very few alternatives at the time, that need was overtaken by tech a long time ago by alternatives, a mechanical dive watch is an anachronism these days ( yeah, I know, a back up etc ) the fact that there are hundreds if not thousands of new mech dive watches made and sold every year is not primarily due to their suitably as dive watches, its their style and form that people like to buy.
I don't care which he chose, just an observation on the article and the arguments for the Rolex (and against the others) that he presented.
I wouldn't choose to dive in any expensive watch, as I said.
Equally, I don't see any problem with choosing to wear a 'diver' style watch if you're not diving. I had no idea that such watches were supposedly 'divers' watches for decades!
I like the style personally and certainly don't restrict myself to wearing them only when I dive!
M.
Last edited by snowman; 16th March 2017 at 10:37.
OTOH, I wear my sub for myself and enjoy being able to do it regardless of the situation, and if that includes diving all the better.
'Against stupidity, the gods themselves struggle in vain' - Schiller.
Posting Permissions
