Ulysse Nardin

Good day to all. Was just trawling through Ulysse Nardin's website recently, and if one clicks on the marine line, a whole lot of Marine Torpilleur pop up. I actually quite like the Marine Torpilleur line, and am still hoping that the thread on a special ... 

I don’t do a lot of diving…but I do have a boat and jet skis. I suspect anything under 15 atm is not entirely waterproof. Ok for the shower but not swimming or snorkeling. I don’t care about situation specific things like diving but I want at least one de... 

Which, as mentioned by kesharoo later, I would think that Marine watches should have at least 10ATM / 100m water resistance, especially at that price point, I guess.

This is good for swimming, ocean, water activities. As far as diving. I don't do, so no clue.

It's pointless otherwise for use. 2 examples come to mind, the Speedmaster alinghi with 50m water resistance and the earlier IWC yacht chrono with 60m resistance now upgraded to 100m. I am sure there are others.

I agree with you. So, it does make me wonder why UN would peg a Marine at 5ATM/50m. I am pretty sure it would sell better too with 10ATM water resistance.

If it says 50m it has been tested to 50m so you can swim or even dive with the watch. The "it has to be at least 100m for water activities" is nonsense to me. Either the seals are broken, and then the stated rating is irrelevant, or they work as intended.... 

You are right in that if it is rated 50m and good enough to do the activities intended at that mark, no need to be a 100m. I guess I should have been clearer with my question - the Torpilleur being touted as a marine affiliated watch and marketed with ass... 

30m, 50m, or 1000m - it doesn't matter. To me "marine" is more about design than function. As in inspired by marine chronometers which were certainly not water resistant. Of course the further you go, the harder it gets in terms of engineering. So you can... 

... the issue is simple: Only complicated and very elegant and delicate watches are rated to 30 or 50 meters, all others at least to 100 meters, all watches of the Marine collection 200 and 300 meters. But then, all sportive watches also had luminous elem... 

...thanks for sharing your experience with UN as well. Time have changed, I guess. As als1678 wrote, pretty much each to his own in terms of interpreting the usefulness of something being rated to a pressure depth that one may not normally encounter.

If I’m going to wear it near water and I’m pushed into the water or fall in in the water will my watch be destroyed? Will my first concern be my watch and not my safety? Can I wear this on holiday in the pool? Can I accidentally wear my watch into the sho... 

Reminding myself of one disadvantage of its claimed 200M water resistance -- an awkwardly difficult crown to operate as the seals on the stem are pretty tight. (ok, it might be the fact that it's just before 6 am and my coordination could be faulty). Anot...  

My 1993 G-P ref 7750 is a strange watch with regard to water resistance. Only 488 of this 34mm case reference were manufactured in all steel and steel with YG and RG unidirectional bezels, all with WR of only 30 metres. Yet they all had screw-down crowns!... 

In hindsight, I guess I should have been more precise with my question - it should have read "Does water resistance matter in relation to the UN Marine Torpilleur?", and the reason I asked the question is, as Marcus has astutely pointed out earlier, the U... 

... a "torpilleur" does so ABOVE, so no water tightness adapted to more contact than hand washing is necessary. The same goes for luminous elements. Marcus