BLRO triple lock crown?

[thlax]

Unless I'm seeing spots, my BLRO crown looks like it has 3 dots on it, indicating it's a triple lock crown. What is the technical details around GMT water resitance vs a Sub with triple lock? Maybe how the case back is sealed ?

Thanks!

[alphasports]

All modern GMTs have Triplock crowns and are rated for 100m despite the Sub having the same crown with a rating of 330m or more.

[Alpino]

Originally Posted by alphasports

All modern GMTs have Triplock crowns and are rated for 100m despite the Sub having the same crown with a rating of 330m or more.

Because this rating is not related to the crown ...

Only the case back make the difference between Sub and GMT.

PS: Sub are rated 300m , not 330.

[jsausley]

I believe the GMT Master II is actually rated at 200 meters. It has the same crown as the Submariner and the Seadweller but has a thinner caseback than both.

Even the twinlock crown should be good for many many hundreds of meters. The 300 meter resistance rating on the Submariner isn't derived from the triplock, it's from the caseback. Think of it this way -- the Seadweller is rated at 1000 meters and has the same crown as the Submariner. The Seadweller, though, does have the thicker caseback.

[mulgogy]

The ratings are issued by what testing they are subjected to. I believe non professionals are tested 10% above their rating, so datejusts tested to 110m with a rating for 100m. I believe professionals are tested 25% beyond their advertised rating, so submariners at 300m are tested at Rolex to 375m. A GMT however, is only rated to 100m, but it is tested at Rolex to 125m.

[Dsmith1974]

Could be wrong but I thought the main difference on a triplock crown is the rubber seal you can see when you pull the winder out.

[JacksonStone]

Originally Posted by jsausley

I believe the GMT Master II is actually rated at 200 meters.

Nope. 100 meters. Easily verifiable on the Rolex website.

[tyler1980]

the crown itself it WR rated well beyond 100m... there is a thread on it somewhere.

[JacksonStone]

Originally Posted by tyler1980

the crown itself it WR rated well beyond 100m... there is a thread on it somewhere.

Are all Triplocks rated the same? For instance, does the Triplock on the GMT have just as much WR capability as the Triplock on the DSSD?

[tyler1980]

Originally Posted by JacksonStone

Are all Triplocks rated the same? For instance, does the Triplock on the GMT have just as much WR capability as the Triplock on the DSSD?

if my memory serves me the thread was on a YM crown maybe... Jocke thread?

No idea if they are all the same, but the crown on a triplock isnt the weak spot as far as water.

[thlax]

Thanks ! Just curious. Makes sense.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[grymg]

thinner caseback = it flexes inwards towards the movement more at greater depths, so on the GMT they are derating it for concern if the case back touches the movement.

[Tools]

There are many models with a Triploc Crown. Daytona, Yachtmasters, Subs, GMT's

The Triploc is not the deciding factor in depth rating.. Don't know how that rumor ever got started; even the Sub used to have a Twinloc

[RJRJRJ]

It's all about the caseback in this case. You want more, WR, you get a thicker watch. The triplock will fail long after you or your caseback will.

[Terrakot]

What about the saphire seal? Is it the same as on Submariner?

[padi56]

Originally Posted by tyler1980

the crown itself it WR rated well beyond 100m... there is a thread on it somewhere.

Yes for Subs GMT around 20% overrated,but today how of these watches ever see water other than perhaps a dip in the pool or shower.On watches like the Sub range casebacks are thicker,with watches like the SD, DSSD, there W/R rating depth will be never used in water by man or even superman.

[Andad]

Originally Posted by Tools

There are many models with a Triploc Crown. Daytona, Yachtmasters, Subs, GMT's

The Triploc is not the deciding factor in depth rating.. Don't know how that rumor ever got started; even the Sub used to have a Twinloc

Exactly and I wish members would read the information available on the forum before posting so much misinformation.

[Likestheshiny]

Question: are the casebacks on the sub and GMT compatible? If I'm fine with my sub having only 100m WR, can I swap in a GMT caseback to make it a little thinner?

[tyler1980]

Originally Posted by Likestheshiny

Question: are the casebacks on the sub and GMT compatible? If I'm fine with my sub having only 100m WR, can I swap in a GMT caseback to make it a little thinner?

or you could just sell it and buy a GMT. I dont think that mod would work let alone sourcing a caseback.

[R!$]

3 dots for steel
2 dots for gold
1 dot for platinum

[Likestheshiny]

or you could just sell it and buy a GMT. I dont think that mod would work let alone sourcing a caseback.

I have a GMT, and an extra caseback for it, although that wasn't my question. You're saying that you don't believe the casebacks are cross-compatible?

[RJRJRJ]

Originally Posted by Likestheshiny

I have a GMT, and an extra caseback for it, although that wasn't my question. You're saying that you don't believe the casebacks are cross-compatible?

This topic came up a while back, and IIRC, they do fit. However, I don't believe there was an answer as to whether there was any difference in thread depth. So while it should screw in, it may not be sealed properly.

[GreatScott]

I like them because the crown is bigger, easier to use.

[tyler1980]

Originally Posted by GreatScott

I like them because the crown is bigger, easier to use.

i prefer the twin lock TBH... on my explorer II its easier to pull out to set the time and hack... on my GMT's its considerably harder to get the crown pulled out particularly to position 3

[tyler1980]

Originally Posted by RJRJRJ

This topic came up a while back, and IIRC, they do fit. However, I don't believe there was an answer as to whether there was any difference in thread depth. So while it should screw in, it may not be sealed properly.

thats what i am thinking. If they are slightly different thats a problem, if being exact is the important part to get a seal.

[Likestheshiny]

This topic came up a while back, and IIRC, they do fit. However, I don't believe there was an answer as to whether there was any difference in thread depth. So while it should screw in, it may not be sealed properly.

Ah, thanks. I have a former RSC in my area -- I might drop by and ask them. I like the clean look of a sub, but the "bubblier" back makes it sit not as comfortably on my wrist, and I certainly don't need WR past 100m.

[RTG]

Originally Posted by tyler1980

i prefer the twin lock TBH... on my explorer II its easier to pull out to set the time and hack... on my GMT's its considerably harder to get the crown pulled out particularly to position 3

Great point. I agree. EXPII sets easily, BLNR is a hard pull.

[JacksonStone]

Originally Posted by Likestheshiny

Ah, thanks. I have a former RSC in my area -- I might drop by and ask them. I like the clean look of a sub, but the "bubblier" back makes it sit not as comfortably on my wrist, and I certainly don't need WR past 100m.

I'll be interested in what you find out. My understanding is the mid-case on the Sub is actually slightly thinner than that on the GMT; it's the Sub's caseback that gives the watch greater thickness overall. So if you could successfully fit a GMT caseback onto it, you might end up with a Sub that's thinner than a GMT. However, the fact that their mid-cases are different might well mean the casebacks are not interchangeable. Hopefully you'll get the facts and can enlighten us.

[lecorsaire]

It is 100m but I would guess it actually means 100 since it has the Triplock. It should handle underwater activities much better than a Datejust or other non-crownguard watch.

[brandrea]

Originally Posted by Alpino

Because this rating is not related to the crown ...

Only the case back make the difference between Sub and GMT.

PS: Sub are rated 300m , not 330.

They blew by you my friend