Interesting test results 1968

wolffram · Post by **wolffram** » Thu Aug 13, 2015 5:23 am

http://www.watchtime.com/featured/dive- ... 15c25643aa

Came across this article and test results paper. Well I thought it was interesting anyway...

Even then Rolex were the go to dive watch. 100% reliable and 100% good timekeeping. Of the 9 tested 8 didn't leak, and the 1 that did was satisfactorily repaired. Eat it Omega!

dukerules · Post by **dukerules** » Thu Aug 13, 2015 5:37 am

Interesting to see Rolex and Seiko doing so well. I'd love to know which models were used in the testing.

Henryj · Post by **Henryj** » Thu Aug 13, 2015 6:03 am

Very impressed by Seiko, more so than Rolex. The difference between 0 and 1 is, to me anyway, more significant than between 1 and 2.

I would like to know what the timekeeping standards were. Rolex did better there.

Ryeguy · Post by **Ryeguy** » Thu Aug 13, 2015 6:33 am

Also interesting to note the average Rolex price in 1968 was 60GBP versus 27GBP for the Seiko, so the "value" ratio was present even then.

If I wanted to get picky, I'd want to normalize the results in table #1 against the number of dives listed in table #2. Zodiac had nearly 2000 dives listed and is an outlier on the curve. I would assume with twice the number of dives comes twice the probability of leaking -or maybe an increased probability of leakage as time goes on.

gwells · Post by **gwells** » Thu Aug 13, 2015 7:01 am

it's interesting, but there's a lot of info missing. like what was the overall time of the testing (from when to when)? were any of these watches serviced/pressure tested? were any of the failed watches not serviced/pressure tested when necessary/recommended? were the failures all manufacturer failures or were any of them user failures (we all know that guy who didn't screw the crown down properly)?

so it's interesting, but even with 7000+ dives across 93 watches, it's still pretty anecdotal.

AtomicTom · Post by **AtomicTom** » Thu Aug 13, 2015 10:51 am

Neat stuff Tony !

Interesting to see brands on there that are still around, but also some that
aren't any more also. ..THX very much for finding this !

carlodwc · Post by **carlodwc** » Thu Aug 13, 2015 11:59 am

Definitely info missing. How can a watch be reliable if it leaks? Or keep good time with water in it?

Back then the leak factor should have been very important too...

wolffram · Post by **wolffram** » Thu Aug 13, 2015 2:55 pm

From my understanding in '68 people half expected failure, whereas today you don't. We've come a long way, that's for sure.

From my understanding a big part of the satisfaction factor was if a watch leaked, could it be readily repaired? From the table, the one Rolex that did leak was satisfactorily repaired, leading to a 100% satisfaction rating, whereas the leaking Omegas weren't repaired, leading to the dissatisfaction rating.

jeckyll · Post by **jeckyll** » Thu Aug 13, 2015 3:01 pm

Impressed by Seiko.

Edit: given that these are based on a _survey_ and not standardized testing, there's a lot of room for interpretation.
Maybe there are characteristics that Seiko owners have that made them ensure the crown was properly secured, for instance. Or maybe that one Rolex owner used his watch in the shower and the soap made the o-rings all slippery and allowed the water through

wolffram · Post by **wolffram** » Thu Aug 13, 2015 3:50 pm

jeckyll wrote:Impressed by Seiko.

Edit: given that these are based on a _survey_ and not standardized testing, there's a lot of room for interpretation.
Maybe there are characteristics that Seiko owners have that made them ensure the crown was properly secured, for instance. Or maybe that one Rolex owner used his watch in the shower and the soap made the o-rings all slippery and allowed the water through

Lol re the shower. (Constant hot topic over at the Rolex forum

)

I agree with your obs re Seiko. Overall, and taking price into it as well, you would have to say that Seiko came out in front. BTW, I own 2 Seiko mech divers. My first has seen action scuba diving since 1990, and is still going strong. The second I bought in 2012 and leaked within 12 months, and that was only used snorkelling! So, a 50% fail rate for me from personal experience.

jeckyll · Post by **jeckyll** » Thu Aug 13, 2015 3:54 pm

What Seiko model did you buy in 2012?

Post by **River Rat** » Thu Aug 13, 2015 5:15 pm

60 pounds for a Rolex sub those were the days

wolffram · Post by **wolffram** » Thu Aug 13, 2015 5:18 pm

'What Seiko model did you buy in 2012?"

I bought the SKX 171. I love the style. Still got me buggered how water got in. After a day of snorkelling, that night after showered and dressed I noticed moisture under the crystal, and the rest was history...

hoppyjr · Post by **hoppyjr** » Thu Aug 13, 2015 5:25 pm

River Rat wrote:60 pounds for a Rolex sub those were the days

No kidding and only the price of two Seiko's!

marchone · Post by **marchone** » Thu Aug 13, 2015 5:41 pm

wolffram wrote:I bought the SKX 171. I love the style. Still got me buggered how water got in. After a day of snorkelling, that night after showered and dressed I noticed moisture under the crystal, and the rest was history...

Sounds unusual. As in I've never heard of one doing that. Unlike some much more expensive brands. Could the crown not have been tightened down?

wolffram · Post by **wolffram** » Thu Aug 13, 2015 6:04 pm

marchone wrote:
wolffram wrote:I bought the SKX 171. I love the style. Still got me buggered how water got in. After a day of snorkelling, that night after showered and dressed I noticed moisture under the crystal, and the rest was history...
Sounds unusual. As in I've never heard of one doing that. Unlike some much more expensive brands. Could the crown not have been tightened down?

I think I just scored a dud that's all. I've never (touch wood) left a crown unscrewed, so that wasn't it. I've got many Seiko (and other) watches, and this is the one and only failure. Makes a nice paperweight though

bedlam · Post by **bedlam** » Thu Aug 13, 2015 7:15 pm

Apparently the cost of adjusting movements has gone up a lot for Rolex...cos there isn't anything else the Sub has to make it worth the premium over an MM300

jeckyll · Post by **jeckyll** » Fri Aug 14, 2015 7:51 am

wolffram wrote:
marchone wrote:
wolffram wrote:I bought the SKX 171. I love the style. Still got me buggered how water got in. After a day of snorkelling, that night after showered and dressed I noticed moisture under the crystal, and the rest was history...
Sounds unusual. As in I've never heard of one doing that. Unlike some much more expensive brands. Could the crown not have been tightened down?
I think I just scored a dud that's all. I've never (touch wood) left a crown unscrewed, so that wasn't it. I've got many Seiko (and other) watches, and this is the one and only failure. Makes a nice paperweight though

Thanks for the extra info. Sucks that it happened. One of the reasons why I dive with inexpensive watches is that it's risky. Though the ones I've wrecked were due to being dropped in the parking lot

The Dive Watch Connection

Interesting test results 1968

Interesting test results 1968

Re: Interesting test results 1968

Re: Interesting test results 1968

Re: Interesting test results 1968

Re: Interesting test results 1968

Re: Interesting test results 1968

Re: Interesting test results 1968

Re: Interesting test results 1968

Re: Interesting test results 1968

Re: Interesting test results 1968

Re: Interesting test results 1968

Re: Interesting test results 1968

Re: Interesting test results 1968

Re: Interesting test results 1968

Re: Interesting test results 1968

Re: Interesting test results 1968

Re: Interesting test results 1968

Re: Interesting test results 1968

Who is online