WatchProSite|Market|Digest

Horological Meandering

Speaking of dive watches...

 

I'd like to purvey the board's opinion on two questions that's been bothering me.

1. Are modern high-end mechanical dive watches jewelry first and engineered wonders second? I've read with interest the various pressure tests conducted by watch magazines reporting catastrophic failure of the crystal on several high-priced divers, among them an IWC and Breitling before the spec-ed depth is reached. I can accept gasket leaks (and other modes of qc related failure) but a shattered crystal points to poor engineering or a deliberate attempt to inflate performance figures for additional tool-cool points. Are they even tested to said depths if samples submitted for high-profile tests fail in that manner?

2. I don't understand the one-upism of 1000m WR yesterday and 3900m today. It's a brainless exercise to increase dimensions for ever-increasing depths. After all, the one difference between a low pressure pipe and and high-pressure one is wall thickness. Costs more and weighs a ton but there're no secrets, and certainly no need for patented "ring lock". I'll be impressed if one can keep to the same form factor with increased WR. That's engineering. To my mind, anything more than 300m is just marketing.

  login to reply