# Diving watches.



## Franko (Nov 11, 2007)

Seeing Cap'n Rons' post about scuba diving reminded me to ask about them and I didn't want to subvert his thread.
Yes I know there's a million pages in 'Watches' over in Fashion Forum but my eyes are bleeding and I would like to narrow the conversation.

I guess my question is what's good and also good value ?
Can you get a good enough dive watch for a hundred bucks, or less ?

I'm very curious to know if, since 75% of the 'dress' type watches in the Rolex/Omega catalogue have those ring thingies around the watch face whether they are actually usable as dive/diving 'instruments' ? though I am sure few people actually try.

I would love to know what people think of a brand like Oris (as a for instance) for value and especially if anyone has used TRAZER the watches that use tritium gas for visibility in pitch black circumstances. 

Your knowledge and opinions please chaps.
F.


----------



## Capt Ron (Dec 28, 2007)

Franko said:


> Seeing Cap'n Rons' post about scuba diving reminded me to ask about them and I didn't want to subvert his thread.
> Yes I know there's a million pages in 'Watches' over in Fashion Forum but my eyes are bleeding and I would like to narrow the conversation.
> 
> I guess my question is what's good and also good value ?
> ...


Franko,
My Citizen titanium dive watch ($250) pictured below is only worn for sentimental value a gift from my beloved. Although I do don it on ever dive, I always wear two Oceanic dive computers as well, much too large to be fashionable with any attire.

All dive watches are pretty much the same, useless for diving. Buy one that looks good to you.

$100 bucks if you shop around should get you one that might actually not flood. Maybe a used one of better quality for that price. Why buy new???, it's only gonna get scratched up.
Reasonably $200 would be a better price range to start at. Check ebay...in fact you just inspired me to do so myself!

I always ask a person wearing a dive watch if they dive, rarely is the answer yes. The only reason I wear a big bulky dive watch is because it was a gift and I have come to like it.

Maybe next year I'll win the Rolex dive watch from Divers Alert Network for instructor of the year. It still wouldnt mean as much to me as my Citizen...


----------



## mikeber (May 5, 2004)

Franko said:


> Seeing Cap'n Rons' post about scuba diving reminded me to ask about them and I didn't want to subvert his thread.
> Yes I know there's a million pages in 'Watches' over in Fashion Forum but my eyes are bleeding and I would like to narrow the conversation.
> 
> I guess my question is what's good and also good value ?
> ...


1) What do you mean by good value? 
2) A pro diver I know, uses a specialized instrument on his wrist for diving. He doesn't own a dive watch. The same with pilot watches. 
3) People do indeed dive with Rolexes, mostly for fun (not pro divers). These are robust watches and score well under water. 
4) Oris makes very good mechanical watches, on the cheaper side of Omega, but not in the $100 range. First, decide if you are interested in mechanical watches or quartz. 
5) It is Traser, not Trazer, but I am not familiar with those.


----------



## Beresford (Mar 30, 2006)

The best value for your money is an automatic Seiko diver. Indestructible, and because it's automatic, you don't have to compromise its water-resistance by replacing a battery (every quartz dive watch I had leaked and was useless after I replaced the battery, even when it was supposedly "pressure tested"). Don't know what they go for now, maybe $200. Have had mine for 15+ years and never had a problem; still keeps great time although I've never had it serviced. The luminescence on mine is still pretty good and you can read it throughout the night.

The other alternative is a G-Shock, preferably solar recharged, again because you don't have to replace batteries, although frankly I doubt the solar charging panel lasts forever despite the claims of the company. Water resistant to 200 meters so you can go diving with it. They have either digital or analogue models now. What most divers around here wear. You can get good ones at Costco on sale for 40 or 50 bucks. I wear a G Shock when I'm going to be doing something where I wouldn't want to smash my Seiko, I really can't get attached to a digital watch so don't care if it gets broken.

Generally, people have dive computers now but a watch is a good backup. The advantage of analogue watches with the elapsed time "ring" is that you can tell instantly where you're at with your air. Problem is that with many "dive" watches, they are more decoration than really being legible in poor water /light conditions. Basically, if you're really diving you want a watch with a big minute hand and conspicuous markings on your elapsed time ring, also with a good luminescent marker at the arrow indicator.

A cult dive watch is the orange-dialed Doxa diver, becaus of its association with Dirk Pitt of the Clive Cussler novels. Nice watch, but you get the same performance out of the much cheaper Seiko.


----------



## Franko (Nov 11, 2007)

*Great responses.*

Thank you gentlemen.

For taking the time and trouble to respond, probably not easy to cover a wide ranging topic, potentially full of 'if's & buts' and keep it succint.

Your responses were comprehensive, courteous and above all, very kind.
I am now better informed.
Sincere thanks and very best regards.
F.

PS, you're correct Mike, it is an S not a Z.


----------



## rip (Jul 13, 2005)

One of the better values in a dive watch I've found is the Croton Pro-Diver, with a WR of 500M (that's approx. 1650ft), although I do forward the caveat about quartz watches. The way around that problem, of course, is to have a watchmaker who (A.) understands dive watches and (B.) has a pressure tester capable of measuring WR to the factory level of your watch.

The watch is regularly available on Ebay for approx. $80.










For a bit more money, but arguably the best value in a dive watch is the Invicta Pro Swiss Diver, model 4469. 1000ft WR, classic styling, Swiss ETA automatic movement and less than $400 on Ebay (a Rolex at 1/10th the price).


----------



## Capt Ron (Dec 28, 2007)

*hat about the second hand.............*



rip said:


> One of the better values in a dive watch I've found is the Croton Pro-Diver, with a WR of 500M (that's approx. 1650ft), although I do forward the caveat about quartz watches. The way around that problem, of course, is to have a watchmaker who (A.) understands dive watches and (B.) has a pressure tester capable of measuring WR to the factory level of your watch.
> 
> The watch is regularly available on Ebay for approx. $80.
> 
> ...


Gentlemen,

I'm not sure of the proper terminology, but does the second hand move fluidly around the face like a Rolex or is it a tick, tick, tick tick tick...
I'm looking for a fluid motion second hand dive watch.


----------



## Mark from Plano (Jan 29, 2007)

Capt Ron said:


> Gentlemen,
> 
> I'm not sure of the proper terminology, but does the second hand move fluidly around the face like a Rolex or is it a tick, tick, tick tick tick...
> I'm looking for a fluid motion second hand dive watch.


The difference is the movement. Fluid motion=mechanical movement, usually in dive watches, this means an automatic. Tick,tick (motion, not sound)=quartz movement.


----------



## Franko (Nov 11, 2007)

*Re Invicta*

Thanks for the info on Invicta rip, you are probably aware of this site/forum for Invicta fans, but here for the other gents ;
https://watchtalkforums.info/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=5

This thread (bottom of page) was interesting for two reasons,
1) the OP bought an 8926 (40mm) for $100 against MRP $265, looks nice.
not certain it is brand new, but it came in a box.

2) He makes a refernce to the luminocity(sp) of only 15 mins, compared to a Tag H Aquaracer, but adds "not bad for a $100 watch".

https://watchtalkforums.info/forums/showthread.php?t=2593

F.


----------



## Northeastern (Feb 11, 2007)

Friend of mine is a Master Diver and Master Instructor. He wears a fairly inexpensive Seiko on recreational dives but has a specialized clock thing (i don't really get it) when he does advanced or deep water stuff. He says that the Seiko is fine for most stuff he does but he likes to justify the cost of his fancy thing by using it more often.


----------



## JibranK (May 28, 2007)

rip said:


> For a bit more money, but arguably the best value in a dive watch is the Invicta Pro Swiss Diver, model 4469. 1000ft WR, classic styling, Swiss ETA automatic movement and less than $400 on Ebay (a Rolex at 1/10th the price).


I would be too embarassed to ever wear that watch. It is, quite visibly and unabashedly a rip-off of the Rolex Sub-mariner. It would be obvious to anyone that saw it that I was wearing a fake Rolex. It has all of the major design elements minus the little nice touches (compare the hour hands) - if Invicta couldn't come up with their own design, what's to say that they can make a good diving watch.

Better to get an authentic Seiko than a fake Rolex.


----------



## yachtie (May 11, 2006)

I have a 200M Seiko kinetic that works fine for me. No batteries is a real plus.


----------



## super k (Feb 12, 2004)

Seiko Monster, in orange or black, is a lot of "bang for the buck" About $180-220 on Amazon


----------



## super k (Feb 12, 2004)

Seiko Monster, in orange or black, is a lot of "bang for the buck" About $180-220 on Amazon

ps its an automatic


----------



## Franko (Nov 11, 2007)

JibranK said:


> I would be too embarassed to ever wear that watch. It is, quite visibly and unabashedly a rip-off of the Rolex Sub-mariner. It would be obvious to anyone that saw it that I was wearing a fake Rolex.
> 
> Better to get an authentic Seiko than a fake Rolex.


 But if the watch is only for getting wet with ?

You may be right J, K & Y, but what I like about the Invicta is it nicked the cyclops date viewer from its' daddy, not many watches have a magnifier, AFAIK.
F.


----------



## JibranK (May 28, 2007)

I wouldn't wear a knock-off in any circumstance. Seiko makes an excellent dive watch already referred to above, the Monster.


----------



## android (Dec 8, 2004)

In the good old days, a dive watch was the only way to know how long you were submerged. Now it's strictly backup. I do still set my bezel, but have a computer and bottom timer as main info sources.


----------



## rip (Jul 13, 2005)

JibranK said:


> I would be too embarassed to ever wear that watch. It is, quite visibly and unabashedly a rip-off of the Rolex Sub-mariner. It would be obvious to anyone that saw it that I was wearing a fake Rolex. It has all of the major design elements minus the little nice touches (compare the hour hands) - if Invicta couldn't come up with their own design, what's to say that they can make a good diving watch.
> 
> Better to get an authentic Seiko than a fake Rolex.


I'm unsure just what the ability to come up with a good design has to do with being able to make a good diving watch. I know a number of sports divers who regularly dive with their Invictas with no particular problems. They are well constructed pieces, and if the Rolex resonance bothers you so much, they make quite a number of other designs. If you'll check the Seiko lineup, you'll see that they, also, do a Rolex ripoff,







as does virtually every other watch company in the world, and they all owe that basic design of a rotating black enamel bezel with either white or silver numerals to Blancpain's early (pre-Rolex Submariner)1950s _50 Fathom_ dive watch (actually, I believe Seiko were the very first to imitate Rolex with their 2-tone fluted bezel model). I, personally find the Invicta to be a better constructed watch than the Seiko; at 300m WR, it has a somewhat tighter case than the 200m Seiko, and I prefer the Swiss movement. Of course, as has been mentioned several times in this thread, no really serious diving is done with a watch anymore.


----------



## JibranK (May 28, 2007)

Yes, but Seiko has come up with many designs of their own. Near-every Invicta that I've seen is a rip-off of some Rolex or other - right down to the blue and gold color scheme!


----------



## pt4u67 (Apr 27, 2006)

If you're looking for a serious diving watch then look at the Suunto Stinger. The price point is north of what you're looking for however it is a diving instrument rather than just a watch. Given its features it is an excellent value.


----------



## rip (Jul 13, 2005)

JibranK said:


> Yes, but Seiko has come up with many designs of their own. Near-every Invicta that I've seen is a rip-off of some Rolex or other - right down to the blue and gold color scheme!


You're only demonstrating an ignorance of the Invicta line. Please tell me which of the following current Invicta offerings are copies of which Rolex:




















































And this is by no means an exhaustive listing; I just got tired of looking at the countless non-Rolex type Invictas.

All this said, however, so what? You have an issue, albeit I think misplaced, with Invicta copying some Rolexes, just as Seiko has done. It seems to bother you more that Invicta did this than Seiko, and I'm not exactly sure what that is about. Truth be told, neither Invicta nor Seiko make the definitive dive watch.

Apart from a true dive computer, the Bell & Ross Hydromax is probably it. Water resistant to 11,100m (that's almost 34,000 feet)! IIRC, that's approximately the depth of the Challenger Trench, the deepest place in the ocean.

Amazingly, it sells for less than $2500, less than half the cost of a Rolex Sea-Dweller. Sadly, you would almost certainly never wear one, since it is a very close copy of a Seiko copy of a Rolex (note the 4 o'clock position of the crown).


----------



## JibranK (May 28, 2007)

Thank you for sharing those Invicta photos. I'm glad to see that there are non-copy models and I'll check them out. My experience with Invicta was browsing through the selection on a few online stores; I suppose they were stocked because they sell better. 

I've heard that they make good watches so I may well buy one now that I've seen their other designs. As a high school student on a limited budget, I've been considering Seiko, Hamilton and now Invicta.
My dream watch is a sixties Sub but that's obviously unlikely given my budget.


----------



## rip (Jul 13, 2005)

JibranK said:


> Thank you for sharing those Invicta photos. I'm glad to see that there are non-copy models and I'll check them out. My experience with Invicta was browsing through the selection on a few online stores; I suppose they were stocked because they sell better.
> 
> I've heard that they make good watches so I may well buy one now that I've seen their other designs. As a high school student on a limited budget, I've been considering Seiko, Hamilton and now Incicta.
> My dream watch is a sixties Sub but that's obviously unlikely given my budget.


I own 5 Invictas, both quartz and automatic. All are, in one way or another, Rolex copies, chosen not because they are Rolex copies, although that's something that doesn't bother me (I am only offput by the Rolex copies that say Rolex on the dial), but because they had certain features I desired on a watch or were a style I particularly like but wouldn't pay the rather obscene cost of a Rolex. I find them to be extremely well made watches with very tough cases and strong crystals. All the ones I have are rated at 200 meters water resistance, which is just about the minimum I would have for a sports watch. I'm around the water a lot, in it just about as often and do some shallow-water diving (serious diving I do with a dive computer), and even at 50 feet, the arm movement of swimming will create a pressure of 5 or so atmospheres against the watch, which translates to about 150 feet of water resistance required. The Invictas have stood up well to this. Probably no better than a Seiko monster, but at least as well, and to my way of thinking, the Invictas, Rolex copy or no, are a better looking watch.


----------



## JibranK (May 28, 2007)

Well-said. What Invicta models would recommend to someone looking for a day-to-day (not necessarily diving) watch?


----------



## DukeGrad (Dec 28, 2003)

*Dive watches*

Gentlemen

The Bell and Ross is great and expensive. MTM make a dive watch the hit around 14,000 feet.
Who here wants to dive to this depth except commercial divers who contract the oil rigs or the research types as well.
Not as expensive as the Bell and Ross either.
Kobold, is in a nice price range, with most widely used depths. I think the seiko, invicta are what the majority of fun divers who may hit 50 feet say.
Again, not many divers here going thst depth, so IMO, Bell and Ross, MTM, and Kobold are for divers, who work those depths.

I own a crappy seiko, looks like a rolex, and still clicking!

Nice day


----------



## Capt Ron (Dec 28, 2007)

*Rolex, the GLF factor.........*



JibranK said:


> Yes, but Seiko has come up with many designs of their own. Near-every Invicta that I've seen is a rip-off of some Rolex or other - right down to the blue and gold color scheme!


IMHO.
ROLEX has to me the most over priced watch for the quality and warranty received

I know of at least a dozen people who bought a genuine Rolex and could not afford to have it repaired after the limited warranty expired. I believe average repair is around $400.00 and I believe the warranty is only one year. They now wear a genuine broken Rolex, just dont ask them what time it is.

But,
I believe they do make very attractive watches. I would like a dive Rolex myself, but only as a gift. I'd be embarrassed to say I actually bought it for myself due to it's quality to cost ratio.

I'm sure there are many firends of Andy out there who have had their Rolex's for years and they run perfectly as new. Unfortunately, this is not the Rolex experience I know.

Rolex does spend more on advertising than any other high-end brand.

The general public will be more impressed with your _Rolex _replica or genuine _Rolex_ than if you were wearing a $100,000 _Patek Philippe._

People only know what they are told through advertising.


----------



## JibranK (May 28, 2007)

I agree. An Omega is about the same quality of watch for roughly a third of the price. However, from what I've heard (I own neither), a Rolex will retain its resale price, so in that sense it is a better value.

Me, I'm in high school, hoping that I'll discover a Rolex Sea Dweller, Omega Planet Ocean or Rolex Sub Mariner upon my graduation from a rich relative. I somehow doubt it though haha Apparently, my grandfather had a Rolex pocketwatch back in the 1930s but it's long lost - however, my grandmother said that she'd give it to me if it was ever found.


----------



## Capt Ron (Dec 28, 2007)

JibranK said:


> I agree. An Omega is about the same quality of watch for roughly a third of the price. However, from what I've heard (I own neither), a Rolex will retain its resale price, so in that sense it is a better value.
> 
> Me, I'm in high school, hoping that I'll discover a Rolex Sea Dweller, Omega Planet Ocean or Rolex Sub Mariner upon my graduation from a rich relative. I somehow doubt it though haha Apparently, my grandfather had a Rolex pocketwatch back in the 1930s but it's long lost - however, my grandmother said that she'd give it to me if it was ever found.


My money says granny knows exactly where the watch is and perhaps upon your college graduation she'll find it so you can be at your new job on time.


----------



## Mark from Plano (Jan 29, 2007)

Capt Ron said:


> IMHO.
> ROLEX has to me the most over priced watch for the quality and warranty received
> 
> I know of at least a dozen people who bought a genuine Rolex and could not afford to have it repaired after the limited warranty expired. I believe average repair is around $400.00 and I believe the warranty is only one year. They now wear a genuine broken Rolex, just dont ask them what time it is.
> ...


Although I'm not particular fan of Rolex, the issue with them that you cite is common to ALL high-end watch brands. Mechanical watches are just that...mechanical. Mechanical things do one thing better than all other things: they break (from time to time) and must be repaired. Non-warranty repairs on high-end watches are expensive. $400 is about what it costs. I know lots of folks that wear their Rolex's for years with virtually problem free use.

However, prior to purchasing ANY high-end watch one must consider the cost of keeping it in good repair and that is that you'll need to have it serviced every few years and that service is likely to be expensive. It shouldn't happen frequently, but it will happen.


----------



## Dhaller (Jan 20, 2008)

All I can say is I've been very happy with my Rolex Sea-Dweller... I've been wearing it into some pretty harsh environments and banging it against things for almost 15 years, and it's good as new.

Omega is nice as well - my father has been wearing the same Omega for 45 years or so.

The best thing I can say about my Rolex is that it cured my addiction to timepieces - I used to buy new watches all the time, but with the Sea-Dweller there is just no incentive to get any more. It's perfectly satisfactory, and doesn't ever look "dated" the way, say, my Cartier Panther watch does now.

The only downside to the Rolex is that my wife doesn't like me wearing it on dressy occasions, and I will say it doesn't cooperate with a tight French cuff. Minor quibble, though!

DCH


----------



## JibranK (May 28, 2007)

Capt Ron said:


> My money says granny knows exactly where the watch is and perhaps upon your college graduation she'll find it so you can be at your new job on time.


I certainly hope so


----------



## waterson (Feb 25, 2008)

*Sinn U1*


----------



## JibranK (May 28, 2007)

Beautiful.


----------



## haruki (Dec 28, 2007)

At first, I didn't like the U1 hands. They've certainly grown on me.
Beautiful photo.


----------



## waterson (Feb 25, 2008)

I have had the U1 for a couple of weeks and am a big fan of the whole U range. The U1 has not left my wrist the whole time.

With a U1 you are getting a professional tool watch, for what I consider to be a very fair price.

-----------------------

*In the watch drawer:*

IWC Flieger Mk XV
Rolex Turn-O-Graph
Glycine Incursor
Sinn 356 Special Edition
Limes Integral
Limes Nightflight
Oris BC1
Fortis Flieger Automatic
Citizen Promaster WR 200

* On the wrist:*

Sinn U1

* On the way:*


----------



## Martinis at 8 (Apr 14, 2006)

Franko said:


> I guess my question is what's good and also good value ?


_ Good_ and _good value_ should equate to the same in my opinion.


> Can you get a good enough dive watch for a hundred bucks, or less ?


 For most dives of less than 100 feet I would opine that many dive watches priced at less than $100 will do for recreational divers. Most folks are using dive computers nowadays anyways. Professional diving is another matter for which I would defer to *Capt Ron* for advice on that.


> I'm very curious to know if, since 75% of the 'dress' type watches in the Rolex/Omega catalogue have those ring thingies around the watch face whether they are actually usable as dive/diving 'instruments' ?


 Yes of course. The rotating bezel was designed with diving in mind. Those so called 'dress' watches were originally 'tool' watches. Look at the Rolex Sumbariner in stainless steel. That is a utility watch, not a dress watch. It is the watch I wear around the world in remote work environments like offshore West Africa, SE Asia, etc. It is a common watch among offshore oilfield engineers and it's not because we dress up out there.



Capt Ron said:


> IMHO. ROLEX has to me the most over priced watch for the quality and warranty received


 Here is fact: Every Rolex watch that is made sells. In fact there is often a backlog for some models. The price simply reflects the demand. Market forces.


> I know of at least a dozen people who bought a genuine Rolex and could not afford to have it repaired after the limited warranty expired. I believe average repair is around $400.00 and I believe the warranty is only one year.


 That doesn't compute. My Sumbariner was just short of $6,000 with tax. A $400 dollar repair bill would be a drop in the bucket for someone who buys a watch of that cost. It's like saying someone buys a Ferrari but can't afford the maintenance.


> But, I believe they do make very attractive watches.


 I disagree. My Sumbariner is ugly. I bought it as a utility watch. Most Rolex watches are ugly, however, the Rolex Cellini watches are attractive as dress watches. For dressing up I wear a very thin, no date, gold-faced Seiko quartz. $125 value. Looks nice with a suit.


> I'm sure there are many friends of Andy out there who have had their Rolexes for years and they run perfectly as new. Unfortunately, this is not the Rolex experience I know.


 My Rolex has been in for repair (de-magnetized). All mechanical machines need repair. However, MTBF (Mean Time Between Failure) for Rolex watches is well documented as being one of the best in the mechanical line of watches.



JibranK said:


> I agree. An Omega is about the same quality of watch for roughly a third of the price. However, from what I've heard (I own neither), a Rolex will retain its resale price, so in that sense it is a better value.


 Omega is good watch, I would not say it is of the same quality in terms of MTBF. Rolex is a standalone watch company, and one of the few left. Omega is not, it is a Swatch. As for advertising, Omega had to pay for it in the latest 007 movie. Rolex got the advertising for free, as Rolex continues to be the standard that many watch companies seek to obtain.

My criticism of Rolex: I will say they have lost their way a bit. The adornment of utility watches is a bit laughable. So when I see the Submariner dressed up with gold and colors, I do have to chuckle a bit. Just what statement is the wearer trying to make? Or perhaps none at all. Go through customs in Nigeria/Angola/Chad with a highly adorned Rolex. Good luck.

M8


----------

