Worn & Wound story on ISO compliance isn't ISO compliant :-)

[bedlam]

Worn & Wound talking about ISO and DIN compliance when making tool watches. All good, until they quote the old dive watch ISO instead of the current one.

http://wornandwound.com/making-a-too...try-standards/

I posted a critical comment suggesting they correct the error and giving them the current ISO requirements. They deleted the comment as I expected, but haven't updated the story. I guess they don't want to bite the hand that feeds them. Not the best 'journalism' though is it (I say journalism very tongue in cheek).

Oh well.

My deleted comment:

Why have you misquoted the ISO 6425 for dive watches?

The current ISO says "The presence of a time-preselecting device, for example a unidirectional rotating bezel or a digital display. Such a device shall be protected against inadvertent rotation or wrong manipulation. If it is a rotating bezel, IT SHALL HAVE A MINUTE SCALE GOING UP TO 60 MIN. The markings indicating every 5 min shall be clearly indicated..."

Many watches described as dive watches only have the minute scale going to 15-20 mins and the 5 min markers clearly indicated. This makes sense in a Submariner as it is an iconic design that long predates the ISO, but there is no excuse for recent watch designs. Micro watch makers often copy the Submariner bezel rather than the Sea Dweller's ISO compliant design. I assume mistakes in ISO compliance in dive watches are mostly ignorance of the ISO requirements, but I'm not sure why W&W would fall into the same mistake.

Did you not read the current ISO before writing the article?

[reggie747]

I appreciate you've discovered the mistake they've made but perhaps not such a pointy reply would have seen them correct it.
I'm hardly surprised they deleted your comment.

[bedlam]

I appreciate you've discovered the mistake they've made but perhaps not such a pointy reply would have seen them correct it.
I'm hardly surprised they deleted your comment.

I do agree. When I read it back it was pretty pointy and I assumed it would not be approved. The error remains in the story though, which is what concerns me more. A story on standards compliance should at least get the standard correct.

[learningtofly]

Why on earth did you adopt such an aggressive tone? No wonder they deleted your comment.

[bedlam]

Why on earth did you adopt such an aggressive tone? No wonder they deleted your comment.

Fair point.

Its an issue that comes up at points and I have addressed it many times in dive watch discussions. Seeing W&W perpetuating the error, rather than being on point annoyed me. As said above, I expected the comment would moderated and I see that as fair given my tone. It's the story not being corrected that leads me to post.

[walkerwek1958]

The opening sentence is certain to annoy the recipient. If they’re mistaken there’s a better way to point it out. Having said that, they ought to correct the error.

I ‘m not a fan of jounalists, often they get things wrong because they’re too lazy to fet things right, but genuine mistakes do get made.

Always pays to read something back to yourself before sending.

Paul

[phil h]

Reading the bit you have quoted, it doesn’t mention markers at minute increments, just clear markings at 5 minute increments up to 60. Perhaps I’m reading your comment incorrectly, were you saying all compliant dive watches should have a 60 minute scale with minute markers on other bezel?

[Kingstepper]

Fuss about nothing.

Why should it be ok for Rolex not to be compliant because it’s an ‘iconic design’ whereas micro brands should comply?

Plenty of iterations of the watches and opportunity to comply. Kind of illustrates that it’s a fashion watch.

[bedlam]

Fuss about nothing.

Why should it be ok for Rolex not to be compliant because it’s an ‘iconic design’ whereas micro brands should comply?

Plenty of iterations of the watches and opportunity to comply. Kind of illustrates that it’s a fashion watch.

The Sub is iconic and Rolex also has the Sea Dweller that is more up to date (note the SD bezel now). If a micro is designing a dive watch today why copy the old Sub bezel design rather than the SD, especially given the ISO dive watch requirements?

[Kingstepper]

They’re copying an iconic design.

If important Rolex would comply too.

[bedlam]

They’re copying an iconic design.

If important Rolex would comply too.

Cos Rolex decides what's important in diving. Mmm, sure.

Regardless, Rolex did change the bezel on the SD towards ISO compliance. So I'm not sure what point you are trying to make?

[Kingstepper]

Cos Rolex decides what's important in diving. Mmm, sure.

Regardless, Rolex did change the bezel on the SD towards ISO compliance. So I'm not sure what point you are trying to make?

To many people the Submariner is 'The' dive-watch. Why did you single them out? If it was important Rolex would have changed the bezel on that watch (iconic or not).

I've hardly claimed they decide what's important - even mentioned it being a fashion watch - whereas you've claimed it is the dive watch being copied.

[bedlam]

To many people the Submariner is 'The' dive-watch. Why did you single them out? If it was important Rolex would have changed the bezel on that watch (iconic or not).

I've hardly claimed they decide what's important - even mentioned it being a fashion watch - whereas you've claimed it is the dive watch being copied.

I can't work out if you know what your own point is.

You agree the Sub is an iconic design, then ask me why I focused on it. What the?

Effectively the Sea Dweller is the updated Submariner. If you want the Submariner style in a more ISO compliant watch you buy the SD.

[Kingstepper]

I can't work out if you know what your own point is.

You agree the Sub is an iconic design, then ask me why I focused on it. What the?

Effectively the Sea Dweller is the updated Submariner. If you want the Submariner style in a more ISO compliant watch you buy the SD.

My point is you saying that smaller brands aren't ISO compliant - so what - Rolex aren't in all of their 'dive' watches? That the Seadweller is, is no excuse, they have had chance to update new Submariners. At the end of the day buyers want a nice-looking 'dive' watch and will never go diving. Seems looks are more important than this standard and the smaller brands want this 'look' too (and why shouldn't they?).

TBH I had no idea about this when buying watches but have just checked and think I have 3, possibly 4 such watches (and no Rolex)!

[Carl.1]

I believe I brought the Sea Dweler into the fray.

Rolex do not seek an ISO certification. They do not need to with the Sea Dweller as it surpasses the industry standard. Lesser makes do need to demonstrate their worth.

Rolex do not have a cert because it is an 'iconic design' I believe they do not have it because their watch is to such a high standard they do not need to prove its worth. I suspect their sales are such they do not worry about it either.

For me the Sub Mariner is not 'the' dive watch. It can not be as the bezel is poorly marked. When I dive the watch is a back up, I need a full marked bezel, I need to easily read and see time passed.

Hence the Tag Aquagraph!

[Carl.1]

But, and this bit is crucial. To buy a dive watch that you use diving you must have 100 per cent confidence in the product which Rolex gives me, and my Tag but not a number of non certified micro brands.

[Kingstepper]

But, and this bit is crucial. To buy a dive watch that you use diving you must have 100 per cent confidence in the product which Rolex gives me, and my Tag but not a number of non certified micro brands.

Never been diving but I've got an Aquagraph, also a Super Professional (presumably also certified?). Very underrated watches!

[Carl.1]

And let us be honest. Who needs to dive to have a dive watch, they have a bezel, it turns, it just makes watches more fun!

I always wanted one of the super professionals after seeing a new one in a shop window in the lanes years ago, full kit box spare strap etc, it made really want one. Was skint though so it never happened.