Rolex Forums - Rolex Watch Forum - View Single Post

johnswatch · 20 December 2011, 04:31 AM

This thread started going down hill but has corrected itself. I especially like the point about water resistance. I'm surprised people think that marketing depts lie to them......of course they'll lie about water resistance to position a premium model higher than one of the lower ones.
I'm especially happy to see the WR myth being tackled. IWC recently did a proper divers watch with depth guage that was only rated to I think 50m or 100m.

The Royal Oak was designed as a waterproof watch that could be worn in the pool but now we're being told that 50m is not sufficient. Did the original royal oak's all flood? No!

I'm not anti massive watches, I own and love an Oris 1000m titanium diver but I recognize it's over the top and totally unnecessary.

20 December 2011, 04:31 AM	#160
johnswatch "TRF" Member Join Date: Jul 2008 Location: in a dream world Posts: 488	This thread started going down hill but has corrected itself. I especially like the point about water resistance. I'm surprised people think that marketing depts lie to them......of course they'll lie about water resistance to position a premium model higher than one of the lower ones. I'm especially happy to see the WR myth being tackled. IWC recently did a proper divers watch with depth guage that was only rated to I think 50m or 100m. The Royal Oak was designed as a waterproof watch that could be worn in the pool but now we're being told that 50m is not sufficient. Did the original royal oak's all flood? No! I'm not anti massive watches, I own and love an Oris 1000m titanium diver but I recognize it's over the top and totally unnecessary. __________________ 18k GMTIIc, II,16013 DJ, PAM 112, Patek ref 96J, Helson Bronze, Elgin Trench, Gruen Curvex, Omega F300 and a few others......