http://wornandwound.com/making-a-tool-w ... 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).
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?