Maybe this is the answer. Is it a forest watch?
Sent from my SM-G920F using TZ-UK mobile app
Yes. The first type has been worn by divers, both civilians and military for almost 70 years. The second has an ISO certification created by a man behind a desk. In his defence he may have been a diver. Or at the very least dreamed of being one.Originally Posted by Der Amf
'Against stupidity, the gods themselves struggle in vain' - Schiller.
Mmmm, a Rolex Dairylea...what's not to love?
I'm not sure if this has an ISO cert or not..............
https://muff.co.uk/brazilian-muff.html
Has it been lumberjack or elf tested?
Sent from my A0001 using Tapatalk
I'm going to offer my testing services.... Email sent.
Sent from my A0001 using Tapatalk
I'm going to offer my testing services.... Email sent.
Sent from my A0001 using Tapatalk
You will be required to perform the tests in multiple positions and to hold your breath for several minutes during any one test. There are several different ISO standards which are applied due to size and age.
I'll test each one exhaustively, have no concerns.
Sent from my A0001 using Tapatalk
Sorry for wasting your time, I was just pointing out that the enthusiastic pedantry wasn't getting as far as getting the apostrophe in the right place:
How much diving have you done in order to form that opinion?
RThank you for your thoughts but my question was not directed at you but to paskinner. Hopefully he will answer it.
R
Ignorance breeds Fear. Fear breeds Hatred. Hatred breeds Ignorance. Break the chain.
But they do test their watches, and quite thoroughly. You had insinuated earlier that Rolex only does batch sampling instead of individual pressure testing, when they're in fact one of the extremely few companies out there that does testing beyond the full pressure rating on every watch, and that their diver's models only undergo a "simple dunking test", which is again false.
I think I see the problem. You seem to be making the faulty assumption that one recent and arbitrary nerd definition of what constitutes a "true" diver's watch is the only way a watch can be suitable for diving use. It isn't.
Seiko's fine, but using some kind of autist's logic to say they make real diving watches and Rolex doesn't, while dismissing the expert opinions of actual professional divers without having any expertise of your own, is pretty weak. :P
Last edited by Belligero; 25th July 2017 at 16:14.
I hadn't spotted that at all. Could it be that they don't undergo this individual certification Mitch is on about, and count on their spelling to diffuse Mr Iso's fury in court?Sorry for wasting your time, I was just pointing out that the enthusiastic pedantry wasn't getting as far as getting the apostrophe in the right place:
'Against stupidity, the gods themselves struggle in vain' - Schiller.
Too defensive.
If Rolex carry out all the tests that would pass it as a Divers' watch why don't they get them certified? Their site only states they dunk their dive watches to 125% of stated WR. This is only one of a mryiad of tests that is required to be certified as a divers' watch.
Rolex, of all brands, seem to love certification, they plaster it all over their dials.
Why do they spend all this money on it and then keep the fact right in customers faces?
According to some here, these tests count for nothing, prove nothing, are just some bureaucrats invention who knows nothing about watches in the real world. Perhaps they should write to Rolex and say they are wasting tens of millions a year on pointless accreditation. Perhaps Rolex will reward them for their amazing insight.
All their customers want apparently is for Rolex to assure them that their watches are good time keepers. They could have their own test. 'We can assure you this watch will keep good time, Rolex's always have and everybody knows it. Our dive watches are great for diving, always have been and everybody knows it."
They can call it the 'everybody knows it' test.
No, I don't think that only 'Divers' are good for diving. Many watches will be perfectly fine just as the Rolex is. You can dive quite happily in a cheap G Shock, indeed I reckon this is probably the most worn watch when diving these days.
When Nuno Gomez was setting all those world records for Scuba diving he wore a G Shock and an old one at that. Mind you that was an actual divers' watch.
Perhaps Rolex are missing a trick. They should get their watches certified and then call them 'Superlative Divers'', then loads on here will be able to claim superiority over mere 'Divers'!
Mitch
I reckon Rolex are doing just fine without any such guff.
Quite simply, the chronometer label is a long standing horological certification. It made perfect sense for Rolex to get its watches certified as many of its competitors would not pass muster.
Then came the divers (men, not watches). The Italians had theirs, then the military and civilians divers picked from the existing catalogue or designed their own (Bob Maloubier for the French Combat Divers and the 50 Fathoms). The Sub and SD have earned their stripes in these circumstances.
Then came someone who decided their should be a 'proper' certification. It is no coincidence if that someone will remain forever anonymous, as I am not aware of any incident where a so called diver watch (pre-ISO) failed with dramatic circumstances to prompt the need for certification.
So divers the world over will continue to use their non certified watches because they don't want to go through the cost implied since it has absolutely no public recognition.
And those that do get the satisfaction of writing 'Divers' on their dial, with or without apostrophe.
'Against stupidity, the gods themselves struggle in vain' - Schiller.
Re:
If Rolex carry out all the tests that would pass it as a Divers' watch why don't they get them certified? Their site only states they dunk their dive watches to 125% of stated WR. This is only one of a mryiad of tests that is required to be certified as a divers' watch.
AFAIK, there is no ISO certification. There is an ISO standard and watches that conform to the ISO standard can use
Diver's watch badging. If you look at the ISO standard and the actual testing that Rolex watches undergo as seen on their website, it is clear Rolex does everything and more. Not just dunking as you falsely imply.
It is Rolex's choice not to use that badge.
Don't believe all the myth's spread by Seiko fanbois.
Can I ask why a singular "diver's" watch is incorrect? Surely, a watch is used by one diver and not a group of divers. We would refer to a fireman's helmet and not to a firemen's helmet wouldn't we? Or am I being monumentally thick?
Sent from my XT1572 using TZ-UK mobile app
I think part of the reason for spouting the crap he is coming out with comes from a lack of understanding of what ISO is and how the accreditation process is drawn up.
Still coming out with your defensive nonsense.
What exactly is crap?
To be certified as a divers' watch each and every watch has to be individually tested against the criteria. ISO set the standard. ISO is the organisation which sets international standards and was set up after WW2.
COSC was set up in the 70s and their accreditation, which is just for just Swiss watches, is just an application of the actual ISO standard 3159 for chronometer certification.
If a watch is tested to ISO 3159 standard it can be declared a chronometer, doesn't need any COSC certificate.
Mitch
And they've been doing so for long before certification was even a gleam in a marketeer's eye.
;-)
R
Ignorance breeds Fear. Fear breeds Hatred. Hatred breeds Ignorance. Break the chain.
As much as participating in this discussion is getting ridiculous, let's look at the standard.
I wonder which of these anyone thinks the Sub might fail?The standards and features for diver's watches are regulated by the International Organization for Standardization in the ISO 6425 standard; German Industrial Norm DIN 8306 is an equivalent standard. Besides water resistance standards to a minimum of 100 m depth rating ISO 6425 also provides minimum requirements for mechanical diver's watches (quartz and digital watches have slightly differing readability requirements) such as:
- The presence of a unidirectional bezel with at least at every 5 minutes elapsed minute markings and a pre-select marker to mark a specific minute marking.
- The presence of clearly distinguishable minute markings on the watch face.
- Adequate readability/visibility at 25 cm (9.8 in) in total darkness.
- The presence of an indication that the watch is running in total darkness. This is usually indicated by a running second hand with a luminous tip or tail.
- 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/s. 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 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 (45 lbf) to each spring bar (or attaching point) in opposite directions with no damage to the watch or attachment point.
Because it's 'diver's 200m' which means nothing. it may be a diver's watch but on the dial you can write 'diver' or 'divers' but no possessive. This of course from a non native speaker so a fairly large pinch of salt may be needed.
'Against stupidity, the gods themselves struggle in vain' - Schiller.
Said to the owner of the GS that this thread is about without a hint of irony.
Anyway, I'm wondering how long did it take for the OP to take the plunge?
Fas est ab hoste doceri
I don't own a GS, I have no interest in them. They are superbly finished and polished but they do not set the world alight with their designs.
They have some extremely accurate HAQ movements but citizen do better and the spring drive movement is an unnecessary hybrid, you get the fragility and service expense of a mechanical movement with even more complication and parts just to produce an accuracy that cannot match a true quartz. All that to produce a smooth moving second hand, something that can be achieved by a quartz anyway.
I intervened in this thread due to the abuse given to another poster who having owned both had the temerity to suggest that the GS might be a bit better when used for diving than the Rolex.
Mitch
em.. what ISO certification process?
Re: I intervened in this thread due to the abuse given to another poster who having owned both had the temerity to suggest that the GS might be a bit better when used for diving than the Rolex.
Who? The one who has to pay $800 to fix a GS due to corroding markers for no reason?:-)
Back on topic slightly, the watch looks great on the rubber strap but I can't not see the power reserve. I've always been fond of the spring drive but I don't think I could live with that.
Defending what? I'm the one who owns the GS ISO certified dive watch. What troubles me in all this is you have been spouting crap about ISO standards and you have no idea what an ISO standard is, or how or why the criteria is set out.
Find out a little bit more on the subject of any ISO number and get back to me.
Not wanting to get in the way of a pointless argument but this thread did get me to do a bit of reading up on what IOS 6425 is and what it requires.
For the life of me I can't see any reason why in the event that Rolex wanted to get their watches certified they couldn't; as far as my little knowledge goes they meet the criteria. In addition both Wikipedia pages (first port of call for all rapid lunchtime research) that define what the ISO standard is, have pictures of Rolex watches (Submariner and Seadweller) as examples of the features a ISO rated watch requires.
Now if a watch does not have ISO 6425 accreditation but has both EN250 and EN14143 certification for diver safety equipment does this mean it is not a diver's' (sic) watch?
I will put my tin hat on and wait a battering :-)
That word again.
So who is accrediting the Seiko diver's watches? Who does it?
Escalated quickly lol. Kinda glad I missed it really
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Pray inform me from your self declared vast knowledge of ISO standards and get back to me with how it differs from what I have posted. I have posted information, you have just posted that things are crap, which is no information at all.
Mitch
OK - let's stick with Seiko - who certifies Seiko's watches?
Whoosh!
You need to do some more homework on what the standards mean, how and why they are set up before you can start banding them about, perhaps ask in class when you go from the summer break.
Another information and fact free post.
I thought you would be able to spout it out of the top of your head.
Mitch
Group hug? Relax guys
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Back on topic. Looks great. Yeah, residuals might not be great, but if you buy second hand why worry. 200m WR. I think that should suffice.
If it was a little smaller it would be on my list. Love to see a GS diver in at the 40mm range.
Sent from my HTC One_M8 using Tapatalk
I recall a few years ago that someone claimed that Seiko watches WERE NOT ISO compliant as the luminous blob was in the other end of the second hand.
No idea if this is true, maybe Mitch or someone else with diving knowledge I respect (Mike, Ralphy) could comment?
EDIT just seen it said 'luminous tip or tail'. Shame this wasn't pointed out all those years ago.
Last edited by thenikjones; 25th July 2017 at 22:02.
It's quite an open and shut case, of a little bit of knowledge being dangerous.
I never said Seiko did, I said a watch.
My post was tonge in cheek. I was trying to highlight the absurdity of the argument.
I can not answer if all Sieko Divers watches are tested and accredited. Only they meet what is required for the standard, (it's pretty limited) as do Rolex or most other divers watches in my very limited experience / opinion.
I have read somewhere (can't remember where) that Seiko helped ISO develop the standard for divers watches.
You could look at it a different way. The ISO standard follows the architecture of the archetype divers watch.
So we end up in a bit of a chicken and egg situation.
If Rolex were one of the first companies to develop a 'divers' watch and that format has been copied by numerous companies to produce 'divers' watches, one of which go out and get a bit of paper to say it produces Diver's watches, surely Rolex or any other company that produces a watch along the lines of the original format should be able to gain the same bit of paper. Therefore what is the benefit of gaining that accreditation...
To say that a Rolex or any other watch that has all the characteristics required of the ISO standard but does not have the bit of paper is not a divers watch is ludicrous in my opinion.
Well you have finally convinced me ....................... you definitely are not going to post anything that could be described as factual, informative or useful.
Mitch
In it's 'current' guise COSC was established in 1973, but it did exist previously for many many years hence the number of 1960's and prior chronometer watches.
I think it's fair to say that lots of brands manufacture high quality, highly water resistant and very accurate watches (accept Seiko are very hit and miss on time keeping until you have a new GS).
It's just a matter of time...
It diifers. I have just been through yet another ISO audit, and have experienced many over the years. Essentially they audit the processes that exist, to ensure that they meet the particular standard. Slightly different to physical testing. In essence I think it would be potentially possible to have all the perfect processes in place, and if you were crazy just ignore them and still pass an ISO audit, although I wouldn't like to put this theory to the test.
It's just a matter of time...
Well let's look at the facts, so far you have managed to copy and paste some information you found from a Google search. The fact that you don't understand anything about what an ISO rating is or how it's set out or adhered to is another matter.
And still no facts at all. You're not a politician are you?
Mitch
Mitch, just step back now and realise what a complete plonker you are starting to look.
S
Is that wit or sarcasm? I must be blinded by the blazing excellence of it as your point escapes me.
Just becomes your words appear on a page don't fool yourself that they represent anything other than print.
Mitch
Night, night. You are quite clearly beyond help.
Last edited by Skyman; 25th July 2017 at 23:52.
Thus spoke Zarathustra. Or are you more Jungian?
Mitch
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
