Ulysse Nardin

To be honest: I am disappointed, because this watch appears to be a quickshot without investing too much energy into original solutions, which normally would mark a core competence of Ulysse Nardin.

First of all, the designer(s) seem to have secretly rummaged through IWC's trash, coming out with an "Ingenieur's" hands and an "Aquatimer's" diving bezel rim. Replacing the common luminous dot with a "0" is certainly not a design revolution; at least it is filled with Superluminova, according to UN. So it is functional, as it should be on a dive watch.

My major pet peeve, though, is the use of a non-certified movement in a watch called "Chronometer". This designation, however, is only on the paper, since it is found nowhere on the watch. UN confirmed that - unlike the 1846 chronometers or the Marine Torpilleur - the movements used in the Diver are not COSC certified. Technically, I have no problem with that, since the UN movements are certainly good enough to meet the COSC requirements without the specific test routines at the COSC. A company like UN, however, that has a history so tightly connected to the term "chronometer", should not play such (foul) tricks. It is not the first time this happens: many years ago, UN released a new Diver, marked "Chronometer" on the dial, but without certified movements. They claimed their in-house testing routines would be stricter than those of the COSC, anyway. It caused the only open dispute I ever had with Rolf Schnyder. Apparently, I had not been the only one, since the use of "chronometer" was then discontinued on these Divers.

Especially since the competition widely argues with the accuracy of their dive watches and often backs this claim with official COSC chronometer certificated, this move by Ulysse Nardin is dangerous and will certainly draw critical reactions from other manufacturers.

What do you think?

Marcus

More posts: TAG Heuer Connected

  login to reply