![]() |
ROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEX
ROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEX
![]() |
#1 |
Fondly Remembered
Join Date: May 2005
Real Name: JJ
Location: Auckland, NZ
Watch: ALL SOLD!!
Posts: 74,319
|
Logical question!!
Hi guys,
Don't know how many of you would be able to answer this one, but it's a pretty logical and serious question!! ![]() Now we all know that the Subs, YM (only 40 mm) and the Daytona are fitted with TRIPLOCK crowns. So technically speaking, they should all be good to a depth of 300 m/1,000 ft. Right? Right!! So does this also mean that all THREE models mentioned above should also have sapphire crystals of the SAME thickness? ![]() JJ
__________________
Words fail me in expressing my utmost thanks to ALL of you for this wonderful support during my hour of need!! ![]() I firmly believe that my time on planet earth is NOT yet up!! I shall fight this to the very end.......and WIN!! |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#2 |
Guest
Posts: n/a
|
I don't know about crystal thickness, but even though the daytona's crown is a triplock, I don't think (and I may be wrong here) the sub pushers are triplocks, prolly just twinlocks if that. So I would say a Daytona is likely not WP to 300m.
|
![]() |
![]() |
#3 |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: May 2005
Real Name: Sir
Location: Melbourne
Watch: F-series SD
Posts: 8,589
|
Yuh huh, the Daytona's rated to 100m.
I don't know if we're talking about thickness here. Logically, to account for different dial sizes, I would imagine the more valid measure would be the ratio of the crystal's diameter to its thickness.
__________________
You buy a Casio to make sure you're on time; you wear a Rolex because you don't have to be on time. |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests) | |
|
|
*Banners
Of The Month*
This space is provided to horological resources.