I know I've not had this for very long but what I can say is that it's my firm belief that this titanium version of the GS diver is the best dive watch I've owned. Yes it's larger than most of the mainstream offerings in this price bracket, yes the resale value is not great from new, yes the WR is only 200M, yes it will eventually need to go back to Japan for a service but there are a few things it has in it's favour. The dial and overall finish is of a high standard, the bezel looks great and well proportioned and due the the larger dial it has allowed for the date window and font to be slightly larger, the bracelet and clasp are great with plenty of fine adjustment even on the fly if need be and the spring drive movement is the cherry on top.
Now I've had dive watches that would include, Rolex Sub and SD, various Omegas and Breitlings and a couple from IWC and a vintage Tudor Sub along with some others but for something with a real wrist presence without being too tall or heavy I would say that you will not feel short changed if you can find one of these.
Stunning!
I think I agree, it's up there as one of the best lookers, but as most of us don't ever dive and we buy and wear watches for their aesthetics, I wonder how long before the looks die off and get replaced for tradition and long term comfort in daily use.
Can I ask is the clasp bulky?
I don't find the clasp bulky, it is a couple of mm thicker than say a Sub or a PO, but it is a fair bit shorter as well.Originally Posted by sarky
I know as I haven't seen one, I need to reserve judgement until then, but in photos alone, I've always dislike the PR indicator on the dial. I don't know about the gold text but could live with that. I'm also not a fan of the butt end of the hands... they look very cut out/machine stamped.
I know now it doesn't sound like it, but I do like the watch, just I find a few aesthetic details don't appeal to me that's all. Like it's trying too hard, but still ends up looking like a sea-dweller at a glance anyway.
That's fair enough, the PR doesn't bother me at all but it's fair to say that while the hands would not be my first choice I have started to warm to them enough.
I think these can be serviced in the UK now for around £350. It was on another thread somewhere.
That's to know. I'd like to try something like this one day to see if my current feelings would change. Opposite to what others at think, I'm not a brand snob and love Seiko. What's the lug to lug length?
As someone who used to own a GS diver watch...the quartz 117....I think they are more 'workmanlike' than much of the competition. They are at the top of a giant range of Seiko designs, and embody a very sturdy and utilitarian view of what such a watch should do. Stuff like the '200' metre WR is highly deceptive. These watches are probably tougher than a Rolex, and I have owned a SD4000 at the same time as the 117.
Take underwater visibility.....the 'clumsy' hands of the GS are just easier to read. They would be visible when the SD4000 has gone from view. The 'price' you pay is perhaps a slightly cruder overall design.
I don't see them as direct competitors . The bracelet is a weakness, bulky and clumsy. GS should start again on the bracelets for the whole GS range. But Grand Seiko do offer a different, and very fine set of choices. And we welcome choice!
i'll preface this by saying i signed up for an account here back in 2009, and have been lurking since.
this post is not meant to disparage anyone, and if i were wealthier (or less rational), i would have owned this years ago.
...
i am envious of anyone who is a current owner - including the OP.
i've tried to rationalize buying the 031, but found a few points that made it difficult for me to take the plunge...
the tolerance of the bracelet seems a bit too low for the price of entry - primarily the end links and buckle.
the price of a regular SD service (costs involved with shipping this to the japan aside) seems rather (very) high.
seiko has had experience making ceramic bezels well before 2012 - i felt this should have been included at their RRP.
the clasp is of a very, very old design (90s if not earlier). i've handled the steel SBGA029 and not found them suitably finished.
the pointy clasp bits still gouged into my wrist, just like the 90s scubamaster and 2000s sbdx001 and 2015 sbdx012 i had/have.
i could refinish the clasp myself (i've done this many times before, including two MM300 buckles added to my sbdc003 and sbdc007)...
i could live with bezel insert wear, gap between the insert crystal, gaps in the end links, the buckle discomfort and and pin/collar bracelet...
but the added cost of the GS tax on the price of an SD service seems extortionate, and polishing (marketing aside) is at an added cost - even if it's just a quick lap of the bracelet (no zaratsu magic there!!!).
genuinely i've wanted the 031 (and more than a few other GS) since it was released, but ultimately i don't think i can afford to upkeep any modern GS...
in the mean while, i'll keep waiting for a titanium version of the SBGX117 to be released... and hope servicing costs will come down in future (nice dream).
What a complete crock of crap.
i think i will add: the proportions are great. my wrist is 8" and it wears wonderfully.
the finishing on the head is wonderful when i viewed them at the AD.
the date window is contemprarily and correctly aligned to the right.
the hands are easy on the eyes, as are the hour markers. lumibright - what's to hate?
bezel action is lovely. i can only imagine the titanium version will seat perfectly on my wrist.
I would agree with this, as much as I'm happy to have this over the Seadweller I would not pretend to think that it would be more robust in any challenge, still it just shows that there is more than just the one opinion.
.
I have exactly the same model GS Titanium diver as well as several other divers including Submariners and SeaDwellers.
Great watch but there are two points that I would disagree with.
1. I find the bracelet adjusting clunky and in particular when taking the watch off the way the mechanism works, the fine adjustment mechanism is often altered by the main clasp. By comparison, the latest Submariner and SeaDweller mechanism is not prone to this issue. The fine adjustment mechanism also feels much less robust and substantial when compared to the Rolex one.
2. The clasp is large and clunky and does protrude more than the clasp on a Submariner.
Daft question: What's the rubber strap in the third picture?
Say what you mean, don't hide behind innuendo 😆😆
Sent from my SM-G920F using TZ-UK mobile app
No mincing of words there:-)
While the comparison is unnecessary, I guess it is inevitable.
I do have a couple of minor quibbles with the GS Diver but I absolutely love the watch.
I do agree with paskinner that thequartz diver while nice IS a little crude in execution.
Not the GS auto diver.
Well done,OP
A fine acquisition.
I think they are great watches Raj, but his crap about WR and hands fading from view is just........crap.
mike
This looks to me to be a decent well-made diver, but I can't say I think it looks anything special. Also, there are two things that kill it for me - the power meter and the truly awful design of the hands (that 'modern take on a Mercedes' hour hand is just dreadful to my eyes, I'm afraid).
Sorry, not for me.
Good grief - I've just seen a price for this (the SBGA231?) from Jura Watches of £6,500.00! Seriously?!
Simon
I thought it was around £4K. Good lord, give me a Seamaster/PO or Rolex diver over it any day.
Like all Grand Seiko's, and most Seiko's in general, far cheaper if you import it yourself. Even allowing for vat etc.
Really , and you speak from experience...you have owned both a GS and a Rolex diver?
Granted the clasp is a little thicker than the new Rolex Sub\SD design but it is shorter in length and has not caused me any issues.
In terms of activating the divers extension it should only be possible activate and use it if the flip lock if it's lifted and then moved up back on it's self towards the watch head with slight pressure.
I don't see how you see that as a Mercedes hand at all?
Have you ever actually gone diving? ;)
Quite right - Mercedes hands have the three segments the other way round, of course. What was I thinking. Still hate it though...
Simon
It is if you import it yourself.
The clasp is awful, and not a patch on the current Omega, Rolex or Tudor clasp.
In fact even some micros have a far better clasp. The clasp is short and bulky, the underlying fold that lies on the wrist is far far too long, and the divers extension slips out even when not activated to do so.
The watch head is lovely, but the bracelet and clasp are nowhere its price.
If you don't like the clasp then fair enough, but it has perhaps like many ideas the Japs have in that if anything the clasp has been over engineered. I've explained earlier how the diver extension operates and if used correctly there are no issues unless the one you have seen was faulty.
It is useful to be able to compare GS with, say, Rolex, on the basis of actual experience. So here are my GS and Rolex divers. Perhaps the gent who talks of 'crap' will be kind enough to show his. Then at least we will be on the same page....
And let's start with visibility. Put these two watches in a dark room, walk away until only one still has visible hands.
Nothing like knowing what you are talking about.
Sent from my iPad using TZ-UK mobile app
I could be wrong, but I think it's the Aero Classic from Breitling
I'd also like to know that!
Having seen the photos of paskinner's GS and Rolex, I'm going to add another negative aspect to my opinion of the GS - the numerals on the bezel are far too big and thus out-of-proportion - on the Rolex they're handled in a far more subtle, balanced way.
As you say, paskinner, it's helpful to have a direct comparison (even if it does the GS no favours...). So thank you for posting.
Simon
Yes to experience, no to owning a GS, and another yes for diving with both to 125 m murky water in the gulf of Thailand so I reiterate........you are talking crap.
mike
Well in the Seiko's favour it is a true 'Divers' watch and the Rolex isn't.
The Seiko will have been tested individually against all the requirements to be able to bear the term 'Diver's' and the Rolex will not have been.
The testing, to be certified as a Diver's watch, is way more rigorous than the batch testing for a particualar WR meaning the vast majority of watches have never actually been tested. It includes inter alia stiffer thermal shock testing as well as actual shock resistance, corrosion resistance and magnetic resistance testing.
When you wear the Seiko you know that that watch has individually passed those tests, with the Rolex you don't.
Mitch
As Jim Diamond once said, "I should have known better."
These things will continue to go round and round for evermore. My point is that imo, and to my surprise the fact is that for what I need it to do and how it looks and wears on my wrist I'm happier with the GS.
And yes the rubber strap is the Breitling Aero Classic.
I think it's the best diver GS do. The provocative element is conparison to other brands. Let it stand on its own two feet and you have a winner.
Where did you get that BS information from?
Rolex most certainly does perform individual wet testing on their diver's watches, as even the most perfunctory search will confirm.
125 meters? Scuba diving?
No.
Damn this thread - I'm missing my GS diver now.
I'd have to see and handle the springdrive version to decide whether it was too big, but it does look very nice in the op's pics.
Interesting to see the comparisons with the SD4000 - probably the watch I covet over all others - my benchmark (not that I'm likely to own one now)
Rolex state ....................................
"All Oyster Perpetual models are equipped with the Oyster case, providing the movement with optimal protection against water, dust and shocks. Before being shipped, every Oyster watch is immersed in water and subjected to a pressure 10 percent greater than that found at the depth to which it is guaranteed – 25 percent more in the case of divers’ watches."
To be certified as a 'Diver's' watch it needs to be ..................
"Immersion of the watch in 30 cm of water for 50 hours.
Immersion of the watch in water under 125% of the rated pressure with a force of 5 N perpendicular to the crown and pusher buttons (if any) for 10 minutes.
Immersion of the watch in 30 cm of water at the following temperatures for 5 minutes each, 40°C (104F), 5°C(41F) and 40°C(104F) again, with the transition between temperatures not to exceed 1 minute. No evidence of water intrusion or condensation is allowed.
Immersion of the watch in a suitable pressure vessel and subjecting it to 125% of the rated pressure for 2 hours. The pressure must be applied within 1 minute. Subsequently the overpressure shall be reduced to 0.3 bar(negative pressure) within 1 minute and maintained at this pressure for 1 hour. No evidence of water intrusion or condensation is allowed.
For mixed gas diving the watch has to be immersed in a suitable pressure vessel and subjecting it to 125% of the rated pressure for 15 days in a (helium enriched) breathing gas mix. Subsequently the overpressure shall be reduced to normal pressure within 3 minutes. No evidence of water intrusion, condensation or problems caused by internal overpressure are allowed.
An optional test originating from the ISO 2281 tests (but not required for obtaining ISO 6425 approval) is exposing the watch to an overpressure of 2 bar, no more than 50µg/min of air is allowed to get inside the case.
Except the thermal shock resistance test all further ISO 6425 testing should be conducted at 18(64.4F) to 25°C(77F) temperature. The required 125% test pressure provides a safety margin against dynamic pressure increase events, water density variations (seawater is 2 to 5% denser than freshwater) and degradation of the seals.
Additional requirements for mechanical watches are:
Besides water resistance standards to a minimum of 100 meter (330 ft) depth rating ISO 6425 also provides minimum requirements for mechanical diver's watches (quartz and digital watches have slightly differing readability requirements) such as: .......................................
...................................... Magnetic resistance. This is tested by 3 expositions to a direct current magnetic field of 4,800 A/m. The watch must keep its accuracy to +/- 30 seconds/day as measured before the test despite the magnetic field.
Shock resistance. This is tested by two shocks (one on the 9 o'clock side, and one to the crystal and perpendicular to the face). The shock is usually delivered by a hard plastic hammer mounted as a pendulum, so as to deliver a measured amount of energy, specifically, a 3 kg hammer with an impact velocity of 4.43 m/sec. The change in rate allowed is +/- 60 seconds/day.
Chemical resistance. This is tested by immersion in a 30 g/l NaCl solution for 24 hours to test its rust or corrosion resistance. This test water solution has a salinity comparable to normal seawater.
Strap/band solidity. This is tested by applying a force of 200 N to each springbar (or attaching point) in opposite directions with no damage to the watch of attachment point.
So where does it say Rolex do anything like this? They seem to be guaranteeing a simple dunking test.
Mitch
I own the steel version of the GS Diver, bought here from SC. Here are some comparison pics with some other dive watches. The GS is a good watch and gets plenty of wrist time, is it as good as my Rolex SD4000? No but it cost me less than half the price of the Rolex, which was bought at RRP.
Funny for me the watch in that impressive line up which stands out is the Tudor. If only the SD had a similarly matte ceramic bezel, shows ceramic doesn't have to be glossy.
Judging by the date, you must like the SDc, then Seiko, Tudor third, while the Omega is a distant fourth! Great collection btw!
I also have the steel version and love it in equal measure along with my other divers models, Rolex DSSD Blue edition and Omega Titanium Liquid Metal Planet Ocean Chronograph.
Subs and fathoms have been diving since before ISO 6425 existed.
They don't need to satisfy "the standard" and to have "diver" on the dial because they've been tried and tested for decades.
When GS goes to the bottom of the Mariana Trench I'm sure we'll be hearing about it.
The gs is a nice watch. I keep considering it as an alternative but never quite get there.
Well spotted, to be fair to the Omega PO, I have been away on holiday, normally I would of worn it but don't like to move the date on too many days as the hour hand has to be jumped through 24 hours to advance the date one day.
The watch had to go back to Omega for repair under warranty as the hour hand went out of alignment, quite irrational I know but once bitten.
The Pelagos bezel also has lume which is very nice.
The GS is a truly stunning watch to behold. One really needs to have it to appreciate it. I had the same model and whilst I agree that Rolex's Glidelock clasp is superior, the rest of the watch is easily on par with my SD and the gliding needle like second hand on the GS is easily smoother and more refined than the Rolex counterpart. Having owned both I decided to keep the SDc because of it's size but seeing the GS makes me want one again......
GS Auto diver is a great,great watch let down in this thread by an absolutely unwarranted comparison with Rolex and rather idiotic defense in the same vein by some.
If Mike says Rolex has good visibility under water and capability at depth, only a fool will question him.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
