The Dive Watch Connection

streetracer101 wrote:I actually like the dial of this watch. I understand the height is probably more to make a statement, but if it was about 14mm shorter it probably would've been a hit w/the micro brand world.

If this thread did one thing, it got me looking more closely at the brand. Sure, I don't get this model, or the name for that matter, but I do think this model has potential:

The Bull is actually a pretty cool watch. I reviewed the prototype a few months back

Well. Bless it's heart.

Appreciate the thorough review and nice pics.

I'm also curious as to the purpose of making it so tall. I can only assuming it was to help make it kind of outrageous and appeal for those looking for something funky.

Glad you like it.

matt.wu wrote:Appreciate the review - I was just thinking that I should write a couple more, I do enjoy doing write ups on my thoughts on watches as well.

However, putting a numeric scale is trying to make objective that which is not. It meaningless. I'd definitely omit that. I also stopped reading as soon as I saw that fit/wearability got a 9/10.

If you want to rate things, I would rate it in comparison to other well known watches. This gives people a sense of the watch even if they haven't held the object of review in hand. While still subjective, it is at least within a frame of reference that people can start to grasp.

Very valid suggestions. The numeric rating obviously caused a ruckus. Problem with comparing to other brands is that I would discount any watch under 42mm as a women's watch so once again I don't know how valid the comparisons would be. It all comes down to the reviewers taste. I've always believed that reviews are meant to be a source of info that readers can use to help make decisions. Appreciate the comments and no doubt would simply go with comments in the future. Although, then I would miss all the comedic posts

Don, that bullet watch is actually pretty cool.

SCM64 wrote:Appreciate the thorough review and nice pics.

I'm also curious as to the purpose of making it so tall. I can only assuming it was to help make it kind of outrageous and appeal for those looking for something funky.

Glad you like it.

My guess you hit the nail on the head! The only other thing that adds to the height is the depth of the dial.

goaliechris wrote:Well. Bless it's heart.

This made me lol

Just silly.
Didn't read the review after browsing the Pixs and reading the wearability rating
But th all a for the effort.

justsellbrgs wrote:

Heuerville wrote:Absurdity 10/10

stop your moaning and start making straps for this model Stewart.

SCM64 wrote: I'm also curious as to the purpose of making it so tall.

Perhaps they left a couple of zero's off the depth rating? This is 1000m and the thickness of two U1's.

Aesthetics aside, there's a bit of crud on the top edge of the date window.

dnslater wrote:

SCM64 wrote: I'm also curious as to the purpose of making it so tall.

Perhaps they left a couple of zero's off the depth rating? This is 1000m and the thickness of two U1's.

Idk why the need. My girly T2 has double the depth rating at 1/2 the size.

sinner wrote:Any benefit from being constructed of grade 2 Ti?

Cost. I read that on WUS. Grade 5 would have made this watch too expensive. Considering how much metal is needed to make this beast I can understand that. Just this one watch has enough material for 2 reg watches.

Danny_T wrote:

sinner wrote:Any benefit from being constructed of grade 2 Ti?

Cost. I read that on WUS. Grade 5 would have made this watch too expensive. Considering how much metal is needed to make this beast I can understand that. Just this one watch has enough material for 2 reg watches.

I guess Grade 5 would change the matte dark look of the watch since it's brighter? And the cost of course.

This thread is a solid 5/7

I appreciate the effort you put into the review....but...

it is one gawd awful ugly watch and the height is absurd. Your mileage may vary.

Thanks for the review. It is such an outrageous piece, that alone is good enough to buy! I liked these the first time they were announced. My view on them, like their website says,it totally polarised. It's so mad you got to love it.
As for straps, I am sure someone can come up with a version that loops around the slots only and not passes through. That'll shave oooh, microns off the height!

< 42mm is a ladies watch...really?

goaliechris wrote:Well. Bless it's heart.

as someone hailing from the southeast, this tickled me

andrema wrote:< 42mm is a ladies watch...really?

Liz?

tattoo chef wrote:

streetracer101 wrote:I actually like the dial of this watch. I understand the height is probably more to make a statement, but if it was about 14mm shorter it probably would've been a hit w/the micro brand world.

If this thread did one thing, it got me looking more closely at the brand. Sure, I don't get this model, or the name for that matter, but I do think this model has potential:

The Bull is actually a pretty cool watch. I reviewed the prototype a few months back

ImageUploadedByTapatalk1452569332.126933.jpg

ImageUploadedByTapatalk1452569340.477466.jpg

I like that one Don

Danny_T wrote:Just this one watch has enough material for 2 reg watches.

True, this watch is pretty irregular. I'm also offended by the repeated typo of adding the "T" in the brand name.

toxicavenger wrote:

andrema wrote:< 42mm is a ladies watch...really?

Liz?

She's a he.

JDC222 wrote:

toxicavenger wrote:

andrema wrote:< 42mm is a ladies watch...really?

Liz?

She's a he.

CONGRATS!

blueradish wrote:

matt.wu wrote:Appreciate the review - I was just thinking that I should write a couple more, I do enjoy doing write ups on my thoughts on watches as well.

However, putting a numeric scale is trying to make objective that which is not. It meaningless. I'd definitely omit that. I also stopped reading as soon as I saw that fit/wearability got a 9/10.

If you want to rate things, I would rate it in comparison to other well known watches. This gives people a sense of the watch even if they haven't held the object of review in hand. While still subjective, it is at least within a frame of reference that people can start to grasp.

Very valid suggestions. The numeric rating obviously caused a ruckus. Problem with comparing to other brands is that I would discount any watch under 42mm as a women's watch so once again I don't know how valid the comparisons would be. It all comes down to the reviewers taste. I've always believed that reviews are meant to be a source of info that readers can use to help make decisions. Appreciate the comments and no doubt would simply go with comments in the future. Although, then I would miss all the comedic posts

Thank you for spending the time and review this, take pictures etc. This shows clearly that a review is mostly a subjective thing even if one uses numbers. You like this watch obviously and find it wearable. Other people think it is too tall and think it is not wearable. Who decides what is wearable or not? The person wearing the watch and therefore his/her rating/judgement is his/her own. There is no way to be fully objective because each person has different wrist shape, wrist size and taste.

Even comparing the watch to another watch or watches would be the same thing since it still a personal opinion of whatever watch one compares it to.

There are of course certain points that one could cover like sharp edges, weight, shape, etc. which would give an indication of a possible agreement in wearability but then again it would still be influenced by a personal factor, at least to a certain degree.

It seems that it is comfortable to wear for you, that is really all that counts.