I spent the morning reading old posts in this forum full of bitter animosity. This animosity stems from comparisons of TF Broadarrow divers vs. equivalent CWC watches. Sorry for stirring up this topic again. Although I am not a watch savant, I can read. Obviously, TF and CWC both sell watches with a common heritage. Obviously, Broadarrows are built to a higher specification than equivalent CWC models, and at a lower price. There seems to be a consensus on that, at least in this forum.
Why is it then that CWC offers a 3-year warranty on their watches, whereas Time Factors only 1 year? Are CWC more confident in their product? Is it a marketing gimmick? Does the higher price of CWC watches afford them a lengthier warranty period?
I think this is just a business choice. By the way: giving a warranty of 3 years is not realistic with a dive-watch: they have to be checked more often than that. At least: I would certainly advise everybody to do so when using a watch while diving.Originally Posted by kanenas
Where's all this bitter animosity you refer to?
Eddie
Whole chunks of my life come under the heading "it seemed like a good idea at the time".
I think the assumption of kanenas is banenas
I wont be filed, stamped, indexed, briefed, debriefed, I am not a number, I am a free man, my life is my own!!!
Be seeing you
Toodle pip
Griff.
Here are clips from posts of 2003 (identities omitted). Plenty of name-calling. If this is not bitterness, then I don't know what is:
From 29 Sept. 2003:
From 18-20 April 2003:
[...]
THE BRAODARROW IS A CHEAP IMITATION, IT IS A COPY OF THE CWC WATCH AND IS
NOT BUILT TO MILITARY SPECIFICATION. THE CWC IS BUILT TO FULL MILITARY
SPECIFICATION AND IS THE ONLY WATCH TO BE ISSUED TO THE BRITISH MILITARY
SPECIAL FORCES. NONE OF THE CHEAP IMITATION WATCHES ARE ANYTHING UP TO THE
BUILD STANDARD AND QUALITY OF THE CWC.
[...]
If somebody needs the real thing, he has to buy a CWC, but of course made in the correct year, not made today with the specs of yesterday.
[...]
If anyone wants to be negative about my views on these watches, go ahead. I haven't sent a solicitor's letter in ages
[...]
That this deliberately false and potentially damaging statement should come from **** at ***********. I gave him a lot of help and advice building his business when it was still in its infancy, he obviously thinks that this is appropriate repayment.
[...]
No idea why this cutomer was asking and trying to get statements from ***** or ****. Maybe he wanted to get a CWC for the price of a Broadarrow or maybe he is only evil
[...]
Is supposed to be a $20 movement in the PRS-3. I really don't know if that's correct but it won't be far out. The ETA movement in the CWC is a $12 movement and is fitted with a mineral crystal. The black PVD PRS-3 case costs just over £2 more than the steel case yet CWC charge £49 more than the steel case for the black case. The new automatic diver (which is not an issue watch) is £350 for the non-date and £399 for the date. Why should this be? The movement is the same, they just don't punch a hole in the dial of the non-date. It makes the date window pretty expensive at £49.
I don't even know what a "git" is. A lot of this has been amicably settled since then, no doubt. My point is, there was animosity, because two watchmakers were perceived as competing for the same market with similar products. I can read English, so that I can see that the Broadarrow clearly has superior specs and lower price. Is then my question unreasonable, why 1 year of warranty versus 3?
[...]
bloody snobs only promote what the large ad agencies tell them to. What a bunch of lemmings
[...]
JUST WHO DO THEY THINK THEY ARE
[...]
As Kenneth Williams said "Critics are like eunuchs in a harem. They are there every night. They see it done every night, but they can't do it their selves"
[...]
What a bunch of ill informed, tight arsed, pompous gits. I hope TZ-UK never gets like that.
[...]
have they ever heard of democracy? A disenting viewpoint even if unfounded can only serve to reinforce ones viewpoint. To not allow open dialogue or rebuttle of misinformation is tantamount to dictatorship.
[...]
I'm quite happy to give you a 3 year warranty for CWC prices.
Eddie
Whole chunks of my life come under the heading "it seemed like a good idea at the time".
What do you want to hear? That the CWC is three times the watch the PRS is?
Do you expect PRS-owners to hit their forehead with their fists, sell their PRS cheap and create a big run on CWC watches, driving up their price even further? :P :roll: :wink:
The length of warranty is an integral part of the marketing, and expected costs as the result of the warranty are figured into the sale price. If they are not, someone didn't do their homework.
'Nuff said.
Cheers,
Martin ("Crusader")
If I double my selling price to match the price of CWC, my profit increases enormously. I can afford to offer a minimum 3 year warranty for the expected additional 5% of claims under warranty. It certainly works for me. :D
Eddie
Whole chunks of my life come under the heading "it seemed like a good idea at the time".
One does not dare ask a question. I do not want to hear anything, and I do not expect anything. I asked a question that I thought is fair after reading a spirited discussion in this forum.
Eddie suggests that the premium for the lengthier period of warranty is built into the price. What if a few watches fail, they can afford to replace them. I am happy with the answer.
When I bought a Submariner from an AD I noticed that the warranty was 12 months & just mentioned (rather tongue-in-cheek) that 'that didn't seem very long'.
The reply was 'It's a dive watch, if you have it serviced after 12 months you get another 12 months warranty' - which makes good sense - for them anyway!!!!!
Ignorance breeds Fear. Fear breeds Hatred. Hatred breeds Ignorance. Break the chain.
Servicing a divers watch every 12 months is sheer nonsense.
However, I dive with my Seamaster Pro and I have it checked for water resistancy every 2 years. That's not the same as a service, though.
A service every 5/6 years will do, as far as I'm concerned.
I think water-resistance testing is not enough for a dive watch ... the gaskets should be replaced on a regular basis, and short of every five years, I think.
A WR test tells you only that the gaskets haven't failed, it cannot tell you how close the gaskets are to failing. After all, they are susceptible to the effects of ageing and all sorts of environmental influences.
Consider a tire: a day before it blows, it may very well pass a pressure test. You are a lot safer on the road with a recnet set of tires, than with very old ones even if they can keep the air inside.
If I were inclined to diving, I think I would want new gaskets every two to three years.
Cheers,
Martin ("Crusader")
The PRS3 has a 10 year battery, so knickers to the CWC :D :twisted:
I wont be filed, stamped, indexed, briefed, debriefed, I am not a number, I am a free man, my life is my own!!!
Be seeing you
Toodle pip
Griff.
I should have been more clear: I go to the dealer every two years to have the gaskets replaced, then WR-tested.
I have to disagree on that. Test pressure must be higher than the working pressure, to ensure that the item under test can be in serv¡ce till the next service. If something goes wrong, then the time intervals between tests should be reviewed.
You are certainly right for an industrial-grade pressure test.I have to disagree on that. Test pressure must be higher than the working pressure, to ensure that the item under test can be in serv¡ce till the next service. If something goes wrong, then the time intervals between tests should be reviewed.
But I was more thinking along the lines of "test" in the sense of driving to the gas station and checking the pressure in one's car's tires.
But the analogy is still valid, as I doubt that the many 1000 and 2000 meter dive watches are all tested to 100 or 200 bar when they are being checked at the beginning of the dive season. One is lucky if a watchmaker can test to 20 bar ... most will test only to 5 or 6.
Sinn can test to beyond 200 bar with an awe-inspiring home-engineered machine ... tellingly, it is the only watch-testing machine in Germany that can do that. :shock:
Against this background, I find the regular replacement of the gaskets, in conjunction with as much pressure as the tester will put on the watch, a reasonably safe precaution.
Cheers,
Martin ("Crusader")
That's the attitude! :lol:
I often smile when the topic of caring for dive watches is discussed.
A diver will, by force of training and habit; look after all his dive kit and have it checked regularly.
A typical dive watch purchaser however is buying buying a chunky, tough looking watch that they expect to cope with everything their daily life throws at it.
So that could be a trip to the gym. Lets start with 30 minutes on the running machine, that's ok, should give it a good wind up, followed by a swim - that chlorine stings today! Then 10 minutes in the sauna or steam room, It's hot in here but it's ok, it's a dive watch, it's rated to 300 mtrs!
Don't forget the cold shower or plunge pool after the sauna and before the jacuzzi, lots more nice chemicals. Then the lovely hot power shower and lots and lots of soap and bubbles.
It's ok; my watch doesn't need servicing all that often, I'm only a desk diver :twisted: :roll:
I'll admit my guilt to all the above abusesbut I do like to compensate the subjects with a little TLC from time to time. :wink:
I don't wear my diver in the sauna, I do wear it when sporting. So, that's acids. Afterwards I usually rinse it with fresh water. Same thing after diving in the sea: wash the watch with lots of water, especially to avoid salt/sand blocking the bezel.I often smile when the topic of caring for dive watches is discussed.
A diver will, by force of training and habit; look after all his dive kit and have it checked regularly.
A typical dive watch purchaser however is buying buying a chunky, tough looking watch that they expect to cope with everything their daily life throws at it.
So that could be a trip to the gym. Lets start with 30 minutes on the running machine, that's ok, should give it a good wind up, followed by a swim - that chlorine stings today! Then 10 minutes in the sauna or steam room, It's hot in here but it's ok, it's a dive watch, it's rated to 300 mtrs!
Don't forget the cold shower or plunge pool after the sauna and before the jacuzzi, lots more nice chemicals. Then the lovely hot power shower and lots and lots of soap and bubbles.
It's ok; my watch doesn't need servicing all that often, I'm only a desk diver :twisted: :roll:
I'll admit my guilt to all the above abuses
Well, in that case, if is impossible to reach the required pressure, I have to agree that preventive maintenance is the way to go.You are certainly right for an industrial-grade pressure test.I have to disagree on that. Test pressure must be higher than the working pressure, to ensure that the item under test can be in serv¡ce till the next service. If something goes wrong, then the time intervals between tests should be reviewed.
But I was more thinking along the lines of "test" in the sense of driving to the gas station and checking the pressure in one's car's tires.
But the analogy is still valid, as I doubt that the many 1000 and 2000 meter dive watches are all tested to 100 or 200 bar when they are being checked at the beginning of the dive season. One is lucky if a watchmaker can test to 20 bar ... most will test only to 5 or 6.
Sinn can test to beyond 200 bar with an awe-inspiring home-engineered machine ... tellingly, it is the only watch-testing machine in Germany that can do that. :shock:
Against this background, I find the regular replacement of the gaskets, in conjunction with as much pressure as the tester will put on the watch, a reasonably safe precaution.
I thought that watch-testing machines were in accordance to the watches. A little naive from my part I´m afraid
They are: if you go to the factory!
Well, in that case, if is impossible to reach the required pressure, I have to agree that preventive maintenance is the way to go.
I thought that watch-testing machines were in accordance to the watches. A little naive from my part I´m afraid
So: Omega has a testing facility up to 1000m at least for the 1000 m models.
I've heard that the larger service centers for Rolex have equipment to test to 1220 meters (SD-depth).
These machines cost a mint, so the local jeweller won't have one!
Hi Geoff
Well, I had to admit to smiling at the thought of divers looking after their kit! :D
Yes of course many do, but it seems to be those of us of a certain age ("old'uns") who take the time & care. I've noticed a growing trend amongst the newer/younger divers to subscibe to what I call the 'cheque book' approach to kit; buy it, use it for a brief period (typically 1-2 years) & then replace it with something new.
The concept of 'service it & keep' seems to be somewhat passe nowadays; no doubt fueled by the marketing ploy of 'this is the latest/newest/bestest; if you don't have it you're just not a proper diver'.
Ignorance breeds Fear. Fear breeds Hatred. Hatred breeds Ignorance. Break the chain.
Not quite sure if i see the point of the original post. Both Eddies and CWC are excelent watches. Re the warranty surely you pay your money and take your choice?
I am going to try out scuba diving on holiday and want to use my Traser 6502 or a CWC quartz out for "real" The Traser are rated to 200m and the CWC to 300mtrs. In real terms what does this mean as I gather the depest scuba go to is aprox 40mtrs. I cant see me going much deeper then 10 to 15 mtrs when learning but how are the ratings graded. Surely at 300m we are talking of submarine depth? As you gather I know nothing re this subject and would like to know more.
Many thanks
Regards
Peter (Nimrod)
The point was that there was a heated discussion in this forum about the two brands, largely emotional rather than rational. I tried to inject a rational argument, that the extended warranty is certainly a rational feature of a watch that may sway a buyer this way or another. On the other hand, as some posters have noted, the extended warranty mandates a premium that ultimately must be paid by the buyer in the form of higher purchase price.
The depths are nominal, i.e. they reflect the maximum hydrostatic pressure that can be applied to a watch under static conditions, rather than during a physical activity. How useful is this rating in practice, beats me.
You make it sound like you were doing gallant service trying to calm things down. From my perspective it looks like you were trying to reheat things. You offered no argument in your original post, rational or otherwise. Instead you posed some questions. The cost of the longer warranty wasn't argued for as a reason for not offering it, just given as one of some possible reasons. As a reminder, here is your initial post.The point was that there was a heated discussion in this forum about the two brands, largely emotional rather than rational. I tried to inject a rational argument, that the extended warranty is certainly a rational feature of a watch that may sway a buyer this way or another. On the other hand, as some posters have noted, the extended warranty mandates a premium that ultimately must be paid by the buyer in the form of higher purchase price.
I don't see an argument there. I see some possible premises. But, I don't see the conclusion. Perhaps others are better at extracting arguments from text like this and can see the conclusion.
When asked about the animosity, you quoted some snippets from what appears to be a pretty heated debate, one that took place in late 2003, some 4 years ago. Not that I've bothered to read the original.
Pretty dodgy, if you ask me. What it looked like to me, being suspicious, cynical, and inclined to mixed metaphors is like an attempted reheating that didn't take off or that went sour. Or, perhaps a trolling that didn't catch the early bird.
Best wishes,
Bob
perhaps a trolling that didn't catch the early bird
Correctamundo.
Hi Peter
Scuba divers can go a lot deeper than 40m, but it's fair to say that most sport divers will only go down to 30m, occasionally as deep as 40m. Any deeper is the province of 'technical' diving, as you are now into the realms of breathing mixed gases, not air.
Well, the world record for the deepest scuba dive is currently held by Nuno Gomes, who acheived 318.25m at Dahab in June 2005. (Coincidentally, I was there - but at a rather more modest 60m!)Surely at 300m we are talking of submarine depth?
If you are just having a 'try dive' whilst on your holiday you will be limited to a shallow depth. If however you are undertaking scuba training you will be taken down to 30m, this is to allow you to experience under supervision the effects of nitrogen narcosis ('narks'). :wink:
Ignorance breeds Fear. Fear breeds Hatred. Hatred breeds Ignorance. Break the chain.
Best wishes, hardly... I thought that the only requirement to participate in this forum is to be able to tell the time. Apparently, I was wrong. According to some, I have to agree with the majority.
For some, there is no room even for simple questions, much less for dissenting opinions. This is equivalent to intellectual interbreeding. I see my posts are not welcome, so I will move to another sandbox to play. I am sure I won't be missed.
PS
As far as CWC, Cabot Watch Company... Cabot is French slang for dog. Nobody got the joke, because it requires a rudimentary sense of humor...
OOH! GET HER!!!
Oh, actually, best wishes. I truly do want the very best for you. I want you to flourish. Of course, I don't think that flourishing means that you get what you want (i.e., I don't adopt a preference satisfaction view of flourishing). Instead, it might not be too far wrong to say that I adopt a more Aristotelian view about flourishing. So, what's best for you, on this view, is to be virtuous, roughly. Consequently, when I wish the best for you, I wish that you remain/become (cross out as appropriate) virtuous.
Best wishes,
Bob
Is it possible to win an argument with a philosopher? :D :wink:
I can understand you premise of your question and that you came across the evidence for the debate between the two watches you were yourself concerned about, that is, you had questions about them and the qualities you pointed out. The argument was a contextualising debate.
That said, it is probably better to introduce the simple question and refer to the evidence and argument latterly rather than as a formative part of the questioning. It's a matter of structure, and this structure would be less contrevertial to your good question. No matter, to reflect and remember perhaps for the next time.
Best wishes also,
AP :)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote