The Dive Watch Connection

Posted: **Tue May 20, 2014 6:44 pm**

foodle wrote:
t20569cald wrote: so if the design is proven and tested in R&D, and the seal is confirmed, what then is fly by night bullshit?
Multiple issues here. First, that the design is shown to be water resistant to a certain pressure is not the same as showing that the instance of that design on my wrist is resistant to that pressure, since there can me manufacturing variations, assembly errors, materials defects, etc. Second, I'm not sure what you mean by "proven" here, especially since in an earlier post, you allude to being "backed up by the math". Mathematical/analytical modeling is just that, modeling. No modeling is ever absolutely accurate as modeling excludes some second/third/fourth/etc. order effects that are deemed insignificant. However, the history of engineering is replete with examples of product failures due to modeling errors where effects deemed insignificant came back to bite the designers. Third, the seal is confirmed at a lower pressure, but that's not necessarily a guarantee that it will be good at a higher pressure. The failures here aren't necessarily binary (e.g., seal fails at 10m or never).

On the other hand, functional test is always more rigorous than manufacturing test. Manufacturing test has to factor in test time, test cost, and how it affects throughput/yield/bottom-line. I suppose it's a good thing that most dive watches shipped won't ever encounter conditions near their rated pressures. So whether it's rated at 200m or 3000m, it'll survive a dip in the pool just fine.
I am shocked you thought everyone did it. Where would one by a 3000M tester? Roxer would be special order I think.
Obviously you have more insight into the industry than I do, and yes, I was naive to think that a watch rated at 2000m had every instance tested at that depth.

Design proven, meaning this design has been tested, and the math also agrees. Of course it agreed before it was tested.
true, you could have issues in manufacturing that one case may not quite be the same as the other 49 it was made with.
And also true, that a seal might function at 10M and may not at 100M, but it is more likely that your watch will have water ingress at 10M than it is at 100M, as there is less pressure squeezing it together on the seals. I have found this very much the case in dive bell seals.

Of course I would like to test each one to 701M, (1000M cases actually) but with all my expenses, and the huge financial set back with the Mhvj movements, it has been hard to put 8k towards a Roxer tester. Instead I chose to buy machines to prototype and test ideas (CNC mill and CNC lathe) and I also am almost ready to produce the CD-1 model, which of course money has been spent. Fricker is looking it over now. So it is coming, but it hardly makes it fly by night.
I do not mind being upfront either.

Posted: **Tue May 20, 2014 6:51 pm**

I think people that have problems with a watch and don't reveal who the manufacture is then they are setting us all up for failure, so fuck those guys.

If anyone thinks a manufacture test every watch that leaves their factory because they said they do then they should stay off the crank. Until it is regulated I don't believe that shit at all.

Oh and Cesar is right Omega should start naming their watches "moley moley moley:

Posted: **Tue May 20, 2014 6:52 pm**

t20569cald wrote: Of course I would like to test each one to 701M, (10000M cases actually) but with all my expenses, and the huge financial set back with the Mhvj movements, it has been hard to put 8k towards a Roxer tester. Instead I chose to buy machines to prototype and test ideas (CNC mill and CNC lathe) and I also am almost ready to produce the CD-1 model, which of course money has been spent. Fricker is looking it over now. So it is coming, but it hardly makes it fly by night.
I do not mind being upfront either.

My "fly by night BS" comment was over the top. I appreciate your insight into the issues with being able to test each instance at depth.

Posted: **Tue May 20, 2014 7:03 pm**

There should probably be two industry wide designations.

Tested to 2000 Meters

and

Rated to 2000 Meters

Posted: **Tue May 20, 2014 7:32 pm**

I see foodles point. I also figured all watches left the factory pressure tested as part of normal QC.

Posted: **Wed May 21, 2014 6:04 am**

foodle wrote:
t20569cald wrote: Of course I would like to test each one to 701M, (10000M cases actually) but with all my expenses, and the huge financial set back with the Mhvj movements, it has been hard to put 8k towards a Roxer tester. Instead I chose to buy machines to prototype and test ideas (CNC mill and CNC lathe) and I also am almost ready to produce the CD-1 model, which of course money has been spent. Fricker is looking it over now. So it is coming, but it hardly makes it fly by night.
I do not mind being upfront either.
My "fly by night BS" comment was over the top. I appreciate your insight into the issues with being able to test each instance at depth.

And that is one of the reasons I said you shit all over this thread. Technical contributions aside, I was feeling compelled to ask you to explain the statement with specific examples. Seeing as how you are basically retracting that, I'll move on. Thanks.

Posted: **Wed May 21, 2014 7:46 am**

I for one have found this thread very interesting reading. I've always believed that big brands like Rolex, Seiko, Omega, and IWC test their watches for two reasons: 1, if any substantial number of Submariners or Aquatimers or SKX007s had ever flooded, the models would have disappeared; and 2, the cost to them to test is both less than the cost to them if there are failures, and it is well within their budgets to afford the testing costs.

I have never believed the stated depth ratings for most micros. Its absurd on the face of it to think the $600 MIC watch they're selling matches the engineering of a Sea Dweller or Aquatimer. Same applies to whatever their so-called "HEV" is. Obviously Helson, a brand I like, was using a testing protocol that did not include each watch when several of theirs did flood.

Two prominent exceptions to this bias are Todd's Aegir watch and UTS. By dint of their backgrounds, I give them a pass - it just doesn't make sense to me that someone capable of becoming a hardhat diver would ever create a dive piece that wasn't overbuilt and undercredited on its WR. Nothing in this thread has changed that view either.

On the original topic - of course no one who is not SAT diving needs a HEV, and its a very inelegant solution when compared to the way Seiko and IWC solve it. On the other hand, many more of us may someday find themselves in an unexpectedly unpressurized airplane cabin, and the HEV will keep our watch crystals from popping off as we auger in to an unscheduled stop...

Posted: **Wed May 21, 2014 9:14 am**

Relevant IG post

Posted: **Wed May 21, 2014 11:42 pm**

Jeep99dad wrote:Relevant IG post

But Brice, that cant be more than 2 inches of water?

Posted: **Wed May 21, 2014 11:43 pm**

Oh, and good info in this thread, but damn am i exhausted.

Posted: **Thu May 22, 2014 12:36 am**

Great thread! And thanks Brice - you saved me the trouble of confirming that Bremont lives up to their motto.

Posted: **Thu May 22, 2014 1:44 am**

I agree, good reading and I especially enjoyed the debate (all that was missing was a plastic pool and some Wesson oil).

Remember, never wear a dive watch in the shower. The pressure from your shower head is far too great. Even if it survives the pressure, the soapy water becomes ninja-like and sneaks into the case.

Posted: **Thu May 22, 2014 7:47 am**

t20569cald wrote:
foodle wrote:
Panerai7 wrote:Cool so there are more then I thought.
I wonder if Omega tests their SMP and PO
Omega's water resistance guide says that each watch is tested to the rated depth. So they are doing it right.

This is the kind of fly by night BS that has me very leery of micros.
I know two certified Rolex repairers who do not have the equipment to test a sub or Sea Dweller.

I find this somewhat hard to believe, since according to my watchmaker he's required to own a depth tester capable of handling a 16600 Sea Dweller in order to be "certified". He's not, on the other hand, required to own the tester for the DSSD.

Posted: **Thu May 22, 2014 8:01 am**

JP Chestnut wrote:
t20569cald wrote:
foodle wrote:
Panerai7 wrote:Cool so there are more then I thought.
I wonder if Omega tests their SMP and PO
Omega's water resistance guide says that each watch is tested to the rated depth. So they are doing it right.

This is the kind of fly by night BS that has me very leery of micros.
I know two certified Rolex repairers who do not have the equipment to test a sub or Sea Dweller.
I find this somewhat hard to believe, since according to my watchmaker he's required to own a depth tester capable of handling a 16600 Sea Dweller in order to be "certified". He's not, on the other hand, required to own the tester for the DSSD.

Don't know what to tell you, but he is a Rolex repairer, and does not have the gear to test to full depth. Perhaps they see it as done in the factory, and not needed again, I don't know what to say.
It seemed semi relevant to the thread however.
If it was me, and I took a 1000m watch in that I paid 6k for, and the they tested to 100m, then I would be ok with that.

Posted: **Thu May 22, 2014 8:10 am**

t20569cald wrote:
JP Chestnut wrote:
t20569cald wrote:
foodle wrote:
Panerai7 wrote:Cool so there are more then I thought.
I wonder if Omega tests their SMP and PO
Omega's water resistance guide says that each watch is tested to the rated depth. So they are doing it right.

This is the kind of fly by night BS that has me very leery of micros.
I know two certified Rolex repairers who do not have the equipment to test a sub or Sea Dweller.
I find this somewhat hard to believe, since according to my watchmaker he's required to own a depth tester capable of handling a 16600 Sea Dweller in order to be "certified". He's not, on the other hand, required to own the tester for the DSSD.
Don't know what to tell you, but he is a Rolex repairer, and does not have the gear to test to full depth. Perhaps they see it as done in the factory, and not needed again, I don't know what to say.
It seemed semi relevant to the thread however.
If it was me, and I took a 1000m watch in that I paid 6k for, and the they tested to 100m, then I would be ok with that.

It could be a country to country difference as well. Every certified guy I've talked to in the USA could test a SD 4000. Perhaps they make allowances for smaller repairers (though Rolex NA is fairly inflexible).

Posted: **Thu May 22, 2014 8:17 am**

aboen wrote:
dukerules wrote:I don't know about you guys, but I find an HEV indispensable.
This, period

Absolutely... 99% of us won't even dive past 50 meters in our lifetime hehe..

Posted: **Thu May 22, 2014 8:20 am**

afc14284 wrote:
aboen wrote:
dukerules wrote:I don't know about you guys, but I find an HEV indispensable.
This, period
Absolutely... 99% of us won't even dive past 50 meters in our lifetime hehe..

I never enjoyed anything past 10m

Posted: **Thu May 22, 2014 8:22 am**

JP Chestnut wrote:
t20569cald wrote:
JP Chestnut wrote:
t20569cald wrote:
foodle wrote:
Panerai7 wrote:Cool so there are more then I thought.
I wonder if Omega tests their SMP and PO
Omega's water resistance guide says that each watch is tested to the rated depth. So they are doing it right.

This is the kind of fly by night BS that has me very leery of micros.
I know two certified Rolex repairers who do not have the equipment to test a sub or Sea Dweller.
I find this somewhat hard to believe, since according to my watchmaker he's required to own a depth tester capable of handling a 16600 Sea Dweller in order to be "certified". He's not, on the other hand, required to own the tester for the DSSD.
Don't know what to tell you, but he is a Rolex repairer, and does not have the gear to test to full depth. Perhaps they see it as done in the factory, and not needed again, I don't know what to say.
It seemed semi relevant to the thread however.
If it was me, and I took a 1000m watch in that I paid 6k for, and the they tested to 100m, then I would be ok with that.
It could be a country to country difference as well. Every certified guy I've talked to in the USA could test a SD 4000. Perhaps they make allowances for smaller repairers (though Rolex NA is fairly inflexible).

I never asked him, and he never told me, I just notice every piece of equipment he has, and have been through his whole workshop.
I feel 100% confident he is not hiding it somewhere, so make my observation based on this. When it comes to tools, I miss nothing!
The other guy the same, but I have not seen everything he has and will actually ask him next time, though I am fairly confident I saw all his gear. For one though, I am 100%
Tell you what else I found interesting. He said the Rolex standard is 30cm, (1 foot) for dust under the dial. If you see it at 1 foot, then it is no good, if you see it by looking up close, with a loup for example, it is in specs. That he did tell me.

Posted: **Thu May 22, 2014 8:27 am**

JP Chestnut wrote:
t20569cald wrote:
JP Chestnut wrote:
t20569cald wrote:
foodle wrote:
Panerai7 wrote:Cool so there are more then I thought.
I wonder if Omega tests their SMP and PO
Omega's water resistance guide says that each watch is tested to the rated depth. So they are doing it right.

This is the kind of fly by night BS that has me very leery of micros.
I know two certified Rolex repairers who do not have the equipment to test a sub or Sea Dweller.
I find this somewhat hard to believe, since according to my watchmaker he's required to own a depth tester capable of handling a 16600 Sea Dweller in order to be "certified". He's not, on the other hand, required to own the tester for the DSSD.
Don't know what to tell you, but he is a Rolex repairer, and does not have the gear to test to full depth. Perhaps they see it as done in the factory, and not needed again, I don't know what to say.
It seemed semi relevant to the thread however.
If it was me, and I took a 1000m watch in that I paid 6k for, and the they tested to 100m, then I would be ok with that.
It could be a country to country difference as well. Every certified guy I've talked to in the USA could test a SD 4000. Perhaps they make allowances for smaller repairers (though Rolex NA is fairly inflexible).

Dom Wieland cannot. Rolex is pressuring him (no pun intended) to buy their gear but so far he has not had to.

Posted: **Thu May 22, 2014 8:28 am**

demer03 wrote:
JP Chestnut wrote:
t20569cald wrote:
JP Chestnut wrote:
t20569cald wrote:
foodle wrote:
Panerai7 wrote:Cool so there are more then I thought.
I wonder if Omega tests their SMP and PO
Omega's water resistance guide says that each watch is tested to the rated depth. So they are doing it right.

This is the kind of fly by night BS that has me very leery of micros.
I know two certified Rolex repairers who do not have the equipment to test a sub or Sea Dweller.
I find this somewhat hard to believe, since according to my watchmaker he's required to own a depth tester capable of handling a 16600 Sea Dweller in order to be "certified". He's not, on the other hand, required to own the tester for the DSSD.
Don't know what to tell you, but he is a Rolex repairer, and does not have the gear to test to full depth. Perhaps they see it as done in the factory, and not needed again, I don't know what to say.
It seemed semi relevant to the thread however.
If it was me, and I took a 1000m watch in that I paid 6k for, and the they tested to 100m, then I would be ok with that.
It could be a country to country difference as well. Every certified guy I've talked to in the USA could test a SD 4000. Perhaps they make allowances for smaller repairers (though Rolex NA is fairly inflexible).
Dom Wieland cannot. Rolex is pressuring him (no pun intended) to buy their gear but so far he has not had to.

But the pun works

Posted: **Thu May 22, 2014 8:30 am**

demer03 wrote:
JP Chestnut wrote:
t20569cald wrote:
JP Chestnut wrote:
t20569cald wrote:
foodle wrote:
Panerai7 wrote:Cool so there are more then I thought.
I wonder if Omega tests their SMP and PO
Omega's water resistance guide says that each watch is tested to the rated depth. So they are doing it right.

This is the kind of fly by night BS that has me very leery of micros.
I know two certified Rolex repairers who do not have the equipment to test a sub or Sea Dweller.
I find this somewhat hard to believe, since according to my watchmaker he's required to own a depth tester capable of handling a 16600 Sea Dweller in order to be "certified". He's not, on the other hand, required to own the tester for the DSSD.
Don't know what to tell you, but he is a Rolex repairer, and does not have the gear to test to full depth. Perhaps they see it as done in the factory, and not needed again, I don't know what to say.
It seemed semi relevant to the thread however.
If it was me, and I took a 1000m watch in that I paid 6k for, and the they tested to 100m, then I would be ok with that.
It could be a country to country difference as well. Every certified guy I've talked to in the USA could test a SD 4000. Perhaps they make allowances for smaller repairers (though Rolex NA is fairly inflexible).
Dom Wieland cannot. Rolex is pressuring him (no pun intended) to buy their gear but so far he has not had to.

That's really weird. Last time I talked to him he specifically told me that he could test the old SD but not the new one. We discussed it last month, though I ended up skipping it due to time constraints.

Off topic: on my last visit to his shop I took a look at some of the watches he recently polished and I was shocked at how good they looked given that he doesn't have a lapping machine. He's extremely talented.

Posted: **Thu May 22, 2014 8:31 am**

demer03 wrote:
JP Chestnut wrote:
t20569cald wrote:
JP Chestnut wrote:
t20569cald wrote:
foodle wrote:
Panerai7 wrote:Cool so there are more then I thought.
I wonder if Omega tests their SMP and PO
Omega's water resistance guide says that each watch is tested to the rated depth. So they are doing it right.

This is the kind of fly by night BS that has me very leery of micros.
I know two certified Rolex repairers who do not have the equipment to test a sub or Sea Dweller.
I find this somewhat hard to believe, since according to my watchmaker he's required to own a depth tester capable of handling a 16600 Sea Dweller in order to be "certified". He's not, on the other hand, required to own the tester for the DSSD.
Don't know what to tell you, but he is a Rolex repairer, and does not have the gear to test to full depth. Perhaps they see it as done in the factory, and not needed again, I don't know what to say.
It seemed semi relevant to the thread however.
If it was me, and I took a 1000m watch in that I paid 6k for, and the they tested to 100m, then I would be ok with that.
It could be a country to country difference as well. Every certified guy I've talked to in the USA could test a SD 4000. Perhaps they make allowances for smaller repairers (though Rolex NA is fairly inflexible).
Dom Wieland cannot. Rolex is pressuring him (no pun intended) to buy their gear but so far he has not had to.

What?
When Dom repaired all my subs I know he pressure tested them.

Posted: **Thu May 22, 2014 8:32 am**

JP Chestnut wrote: Off topic: on my last visit to his shop I took a look at some of the watches he recently polished and I was shocked at how good they looked given that he doesn't have a lapping machine. He's extremely talented.

It is an art in itself

Posted: **Thu May 22, 2014 8:33 am**

t20569cald wrote:
JP Chestnut wrote: Off topic: on my last visit to his shop I took a look at some of the watches he recently polished and I was shocked at how good they looked given that he doesn't have a lapping machine. He's extremely talented.
It is an art in itself

I've always been staunchly of the opinion that a watch with sharp edges should never be polished by hand, but seeing that made me soften my stance (somewhat). This guy trained the polishers at the Rolex Dallas Service Center (though his results are far better than I've seen from that place).

Posted: **Thu May 22, 2014 8:34 am**

BBK357 wrote:
demer03 wrote:
JP Chestnut wrote:
t20569cald wrote:
JP Chestnut wrote:
t20569cald wrote:
foodle wrote:
Panerai7 wrote:Cool so there are more then I thought.
I wonder if Omega tests their SMP and PO
Omega's water resistance guide says that each watch is tested to the rated depth. So they are doing it right.

This is the kind of fly by night BS that has me very leery of micros.
I know two certified Rolex repairers who do not have the equipment to test a sub or Sea Dweller.
I find this somewhat hard to believe, since according to my watchmaker he's required to own a depth tester capable of handling a 16600 Sea Dweller in order to be "certified". He's not, on the other hand, required to own the tester for the DSSD.
Don't know what to tell you, but he is a Rolex repairer, and does not have the gear to test to full depth. Perhaps they see it as done in the factory, and not needed again, I don't know what to say.
It seemed semi relevant to the thread however.
If it was me, and I took a 1000m watch in that I paid 6k for, and the they tested to 100m, then I would be ok with that.
It could be a country to country difference as well. Every certified guy I've talked to in the USA could test a SD 4000. Perhaps they make allowances for smaller repairers (though Rolex NA is fairly inflexible).
Dom Wieland cannot. Rolex is pressuring him (no pun intended) to buy their gear but so far he has not had to.

What?
When Dom repaired all my subs I know he pressure tested them.

Dom can and does pressure test, just not to deeper depths (can't say exactly what the limits are).

I know for a fact it's limited, but for 99% of people it's fine.

The Dive Watch Connection

Non-functional HEV

Re: Non-functional HEV

Re: Non-functional HEV

Re: Non-functional HEV

Re: Non-functional HEV

Re: Non-functional HEV

Re: Non-functional HEV

Re: Non-functional HEV

Re: Non-functional HEV

Re: Non-functional HEV

Re: Non-functional HEV

Re: Non-functional HEV

Non-functional HEV

Re: Non-functional HEV

Re: Non-functional HEV

Re: Non-functional HEV

Re: Non-functional HEV

Re: Non-functional HEV

Re: Non-functional HEV

Re: Non-functional HEV

Re: Non-functional HEV

Re: Non-functional HEV

Re: Non-functional HEV

Re: Non-functional HEV

Re: Non-functional HEV

Re: Non-functional HEV