No one suggested the 4000 didn't have good visibility. I simply pointed out that the GS is even better. Neither did I suggest that the 4000 isn't excellent underwater. I simply suggested, that, on balance ,overall, the GS is a slightly better dive watch, in my opinion. That's all.Originally Posted by RAJEN
Dissent is not a crime. And people who disagree are not 'fools'. They are fellow watch enthusiasts with another view. They are not 'crap'. They are not 'idiotic.'
It is just a matter of basic manners . They are just watches, for goodness sake.
Last edited by paskinner; 24th July 2017 at 21:26.
Lovely watch. I've never had the chance to try the Ti 031 but I did manage to pick up the S/S 029 version and I love this watch. Granted it's slightly bigger/heavier than I would have liked and the clasp is a bit inelegant but there's something just special about this piece. Whether it's better or worse than any other black faced diver is pretty irrelevant to me as it's the watch that I've picked to fill this bit of my small collection having tried a fair few different models along the way. If I had the funds then I'm sure there would be a Rolex diver in here somewhere as well (rather partial to the non date SubC I must admit). Oh and I'd like a white dialled GS quartz diver too!
That wasn't really the case though when you were telling the resident diver that you had actual experience and there was nothing like knowing what you're talking about because you've switched the lights out in a room containing a GS and a SD though was it?.
How much diving have you done in order to form that opinion?
R
Last edited by ralphy; 25th July 2017 at 08:22. Reason: spelink
Ignorance breeds Fear. Fear breeds Hatred. Hatred breeds Ignorance. Break the chain.
Standing at the back of the room with the lights off is the same thing Ralphy, don't you know.
As pointed out above the Seiko is the only one that has been fully tested and certified to be suitable for diving.
Now it may be that the Rolex would pass the tests as well, we don't know.
Why don't Rolex do that and then be able to declare it as a true Divers' watch?
Either they have a feeling there might be somewhat of a failure rate or, worse, it is a matter of 'Badges? We're Rolex, We don't need no stinkeen badges!'
Mitch
I'm guessing that you didn't bother looking it up, then. :|
I guess you have not read the thread properly. Again, this is what 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."
That does not prove a watch is suitable for diving, not by a long chalk.
A bloke on WUS bought a cheap plastic Casio (not a G Shock), for about a tenner it had a stated 100m WR, and he tested it to 400m and it was fine. He continued to about 800m and the LCD cracked along the way but the watch still worked and showed the correct time.
Doesn't prove the thing was a diver though.
Mitch
This happens alot with GS. Someone makes a silly comment like "the finishing on my GS is better than my Lange/AP/PP", and others who may generally like or respect GS feel compelled to rebut, and things get ugly, with poor GS getting caught in the crossfire. There are plenty of GS models that can stand up to their equivalents from other brands, but the GS diver isn't really one of them. It's let down by lack of ceramic, which most people will expect at this price, and a frankly unforgivable clasp that is the same used on Seikos at a third of the price.
As I've already said.
Rolex subs predate the iso standard.
The dsc has been to the bottom of the Mariana Trench.
And here you are declaring that they're not a dive watch.
Right oh.
Daft thing is, the owner will likely never go eat enough water to be bothered about the point being made.
The defensive attitude on here is amazing and I suspect it is just because of a certain name.
This Rolex is not a Divers' watch and is not allowed to say so anywhere on the watch and that is a fact. What another watch did years ago is not relevant.
I could make a watch that could go to the bottom of the Mariana Trench, it wouldn't cost that much. Making it so it could be certified as a Divers' watch would be a totally different thing though.
Mitch
That watch is the relatively new quartz diver but it's already been discontinued. There was a lot of criticism of the bezel numerals on here when it was first introduced and I can only presume, based upon its very early discontinuation, that it hasn't sold well.
I suspect that if Seiko had used more conventional bezel numerals then, who knows, it might still be in production.
Re: The(this) Rolex is not a Divers' watch.
Let us see how many here are willing to go along with such delusional crap.
Apparently being being a Seiko fanboi is not good for one's mental health.
I don't think it's defensive, it's factual. You could make a cheap watch capable of great depth, but it would probably be quartz.
Rolex obviously don't feel the need to market a 'Divers' watch, when their generally acceptable for diving watches are selling well enough thank you. The fact my Sea-Dwellers were suitable for commercial divers is good enough for me.
Im sure some Seiko watches, and other (possibly not the Omega Planet Ocean) are just as capable without leaking.
Buy whichever you prefer the looks of, or the one you think will meet your specific requirements. Surely today's Dive watches are dive computers, or whichever watch you want to wear when you are diving.
It's just a matter of time...
I don't know where you are coming from. The Rolex is not a Diver's watch, that is a fact not an opinion.
If Rolex put 'Divers' anywhere on the watch they would be liable for prosecution for misleading and false information.
Are you denying this? Are you saying Rolex could state 'Divers' on it as the Seiko does?
I could dive with any G Shock but most of them aren't divers' and can't say so.
Mitch
Yeah yeah. Course you could.
I understand that you've found some semantics that you can happily play with until your hearts content but if you can dive with it, if divers dive with it, it's still a dive watch, whether it says divers or dairylea on the dial.
Alternatively it's a shame that GS have been beaten at their own diving game by watches that aren't even dive watches. Shame for them.
I find myself in the position of being a big fan of Rolex. And being really interested in trying a GS diver.
You remind me that the diver also comes with a selection of bells which is a shame because the watch is probably quite decent.
If you think ISO certification is the only thing that makes a watch a divers' watch, then it is a pointless debate.
Submariners and Seadwellers are capable dive watches. End of story.
.. and more conventional hands ;)
PS I just realised that I do not like any hands in the line up above apart of SD
Last edited by VDG; 25th July 2017 at 00:07.
Fas est ab hoste doceri
This particular argument is one of semantics, isn't it.
The phrase "diver's watch" is defined differently by different people: Some adhere to the international standard, others observe the practice and ignore the standard. We all know that Rolex Subs, SDs and DSs are great for diving and it would be absurd to pretend otherwise but, ironically, according to the international standard that defines what is a "diver's watch", they are still not divers' watches (even though they can be and are used for that very purpose).
It's all about semantics and preferred definitions.
It is possible to (correctly and legitimately) say that Rolex Subs/SDs/DSs are not divers' watches according to the international standard whilst also fully accepting that they are excellent divers' watches in reality. And yeah, Seiko make pretty good divers' watches too. ;-)
All this bickering is pointless, it really is.
If Rolex put 'Divers' anywhere on the watch they would be liable for prosecution for misleading and false information.
Are you denying this? Are you saying Rolex could state 'Divers' on it as the Seiko does?
Would they? Surely they simply can't state ISO6425, or ISO6425 compliant or whatever.
It's just a matter of time...
What is "conventional"? That hand design is far from new, isn't it, and has a large lume area.
And no, I'm not going to compare it to Rolex's Mercedes hour hands and straight minute hands. ;-)
JLC has Navy Seal on the back of their diver, everybody knows Seals never get deployant without one.
Fas est ab hoste doceri
It's just an observation. All I'm saying is that at this particular moment in time, or 'phase', I do not fancy any quirky hands' shapes, even if they' been around for ages. That's probably why Tudor always left me cold, I just cannot see past that square hour and second hands monstrosity. Now, I've said it.
Last edited by VDG; 25th July 2017 at 08:55.
Fas est ab hoste doceri
Absolutely. I'm also pretty sure that those who are choosing "the practice" definition know full well where the "international standard" side are coming from yet are choosing to argue the toss.
Re: This particular argument is one of semantics, isn't it.
Certainly and I am not the one making it.
Subs and SDs are extremely competent dive watches.
Rest is BS.
Those who need an ISO hand holding to decide a Watch's capability shouldn't venture near water.
Exactly! As are many a Seiko used by many a commercial diver over the years. There is so much anecdotal evidence that the argument to say it's not a divers is absurd. By ISO standards perhaps not, but by real world standards i.e. true pros, not desk divers, absolutely.
What about this guy then? Not a real divers watch I suppose:
• http://diving-watch.net/
• https://archives.makedostudio.com/seiko-divers/
Last edited by stix; 25th July 2017 at 00:37.
someone should tell the Comex, they've been doing it wrong all this time.
'Against stupidity, the gods themselves struggle in vain' - Schiller.
"At*a*depth of 15,000 metres, the load exerted on the crystal is 17 tonnes and on the case back nearly 23 tonnes; the equivalent of about 10 SUVs piled on the watch."
Sent from my A0001 using Tapatalk
So why do Rolex get their watches COSC certified? Why is it not good enough that people are just aware that their watches are decent timekeepers just like people are generally aware that some are good for diving?
This 'We are Rolex and don't need no stinkeen badges' seems to break down when it come to timekeeping. Why would that be? They go to great lengths to emphasise this particular 'badge'. Spend quite a bit of money on it as well. They must think that having a watch's "capabilities" certified is of value.
Obviously you don't.
Or do you in the case of a watch's capability to keep time? But not apparently in the case of a 'dive' watch's ability to dive!
Would Rolex base their 'badge' decisions on their confidence in their watch's ability to pass the tests? Surely not!
Mitch
Last edited by Mitch; 25th July 2017 at 01:51.
This is utterly ridiculous, have you even dived?
I have nowhere near the diving experience of others on here (who have decades of Professional dive experience), but with 150+ dives I think I am in a good enough position to call Subs/SDs dive watches. Certainly my SD seems to do a good enough job on the dozens of dives I have taken it with me.
one fine watch...I would say and please don't try to convince anyone but yourself before paying
Given the history of Rolex dive watches, I find it incredible that anyone could say that they're not.
Should they fail the ISO certification process then that's more an indication of the failure of the pen pushers in creating the accreditation rather than the watch that was designed for and in conjunction with commercial divers. A watch that has been on the wrists of probably more commercial dives than any other watch in the last fifty years.
The GS could be a better dive watch, perhaps they should give them to commercial divers with real dive experience to form an opinion.
Well said. Exploring our different perspectives is interesting but shouting down the views of others is not.
Sent from my XT1580 using Tapatalk
To be honest proby this whole thread is utterly ridiculous...
Simon
I handled the GS diver and MM300 at Seiko Amsterdam a few years ago. The GS for sure has been finished to superior standards. However I found it's overall design to look more like the other brand watch being discussed here. In the end I went for the MM300. It has a few quirks but it still puts a smile on my face every time I wear it.
A GS remains on the wish list but likely not a diver.
Excellent.
Can I ask that you stop pissing over my thread with this nonsense. The Submariner has been universally accepted as a dive watch for 50 odd years, try telling the RN or Jacques Cousteau that it's not a dive watch.
Mind boggling. I dare to think how much it in old Prius."At*a*depth of 15,000 metres, the load exerted on the crystal is 17 tonnes and on the case back nearly 23 tonnes; the equivalent of about 10 SUVs piled on the watch."
Sent from my A0001 using Tapatalk
Fas est ab hoste doceri
More extraordinary defensive behaviour, I think driven by a certain name.
Someone, who had owned both, just happened to comment not that he thought the GS was actually the better watch but that it functioned slightly better as a dive watch. This drew abusive type comments as to his competence to comment. In his defense I just pointed out that in fact the GS is the only one that is a tested, true Divers' watch and that also drew the most amazing posts, none of which alter the fact that the Rolex is not a true Divers' watch.
You can use it when diving, of course you can, but that applies to numerous other non Divers' watches as well.
If I had said you can dive with any G Shock but they mainly aren't Divers' watches I guarantee there would have been no comments whatsoever. Indeed, if today a professional diver did bother to have a watch on when working, I reckon it is more likely to be a cheap G Shock than a £6000 Rolex.
So just keep telling yourself, the Rolex is a fully COSC certified 'chronometer' as they tell you on every watch, but is not a true Divers' watch but people have dived with them without any problems.
Nice and straightforward and factual.
Mitch
If you dive in divers watch which doesn't say diver watch anywhere, are you a lesser diver than diver who dives in a divers watch? Discuss.
Fas est ab hoste doceri
Tiny and Sarky, this is the real trolling. Watch and learn.
I have a Tissot Sea-Touch, which has a "DIVE" mode, which tracks your depth and rate of descent/ascent and stores it for later perusal, as well as the usual timer modes, water temperature etc. The rubber strap has a deployment clasp with a wetsuit extension. The watch senses when it is in water and activates the dive modes and pushers as the touch screen doesn't work below a certain depth. Pretty obvious the intent of the designers, you would think.
The first two pages of the manual are given over to text stating "This is not a diver's watch. Do not dive with this watch. This watch is not for diving. No diving should be attempted while wearing this watch. Not a diving watch. No diving."
I guess, to cover themselves in the event it breaks underwater. I've dived with it to around 15-18m for however long two tanks last, and it's been fine.
According to Larsen et al, it is generally accepted that if it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck, we have at least to consider the possibility that we have a small aquatic bird of the family anatidae on our hands.
What's the WR rating on the dial/back?
Sent from my A0001 using Tapatalk
To most people a 'dive' watch is just a style of watch. The 'best' doesn't have to be the best for diving.
A real world test of luminosity would (as suggested earlier) be visibility in a darkened room.
Agree with the bickering comment - why do people get so agitated when someone 'disses' their favourite watch? Someone prefers something different (and even thinks it's better), does it matter?
Is there a technical difference between a "Diver's" watch and a "true Divers' watch"?
I had the steel SBGA029 and I loved much about it. The case was beautifully finished, the timekeeping superb and the power reserve really good. I also really liked the overall aesthetic - the 031 is even better looking to my eye.
Also so liked that it was so "under the radar" No non- WIS believes a Seiko would cost as much.
However, the pin and collar bracelet including the clunky clasp was not of the quality you ought to get at the price point.
i bought mine off the SC at a pretty reasonable price and still lost a good few quid (as I expected I might on purchasing) come flip time.
Objectively the Seiko, is probably a better watch than a Rolex sub or SD, but I'm not selling my SD.
Be it Rolex marketing / brand snobbery or whatever, the comparative residuals is just one reason Rolex will sell more SD's and Subs.
Last edited by andy tims; 25th July 2017 at 11:29.
Andy
Wanted - Damasko DC57
This is indeed ridiculous. Everyone has their own view on these matters, and that's all it is, a view. What is worrying is the abusive tone adopted by a few people.
All these watches are really bought for the great pleasure of owning them. They ceased to have a meaningful 'professional' role years ago. And all of them will cope with hugely tough conditions. So you buy what you fancy. And you accept that other people will do the same. Variety of watch, and opinion, is surely a good thing.
Btw: I agree that GS bracelets are a slight disappointment. They ought to do better (an opinion.}
Last edited by paskinner; 25th July 2017 at 11:25.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
