Call me the last to know Rolex not certified as a diver

[DJ2020]

I was watching a program on dive watches and there certifications. In that, Omega certifies ALL it's dive watches to all 3 ISO standards. According to ISO this is voluntary and allows the manufacturer to call there watch a Diver or professional watch and labeled as such on the dial.

The Rolex Submariner states neither on the watch. They are allowed to advertise the watch as a diver ( style) but not on the watch itself unless it is certified.

It is also noted that Rolex does not publish technical facts about there watches which would then be subject to comparisons from more capable time pieces. Like magnetic resistance in a actual value for instance.

It's very interesting that there capabilities are not published and threw image and marketing has customers assuming that there beloved Rolex is up to ISO standards. And very well MAY be, but by keeping a lot of technical specifics under wraps is suspicious. Almost a don't ask, don't tell policy.

Not published, therefore can't be judged tactic that seems to work in there favor as Rolex fans rivil in conjecture. No one really knows, no one dares to test it these days. I.E. desk diver and safe queens making every precaution not to scratch there watch.

One would think paying twice as much for a Rolex as opposed to a Omega ( much less gray prices), they would at least "prove" that they are as capable and flaunt there findings on there dial. Advertise there magnetic resistance and ability to take a beating and stay together while still keeping time.

But Rolex don't. I think it's very interesting subject to ponder on. Has anyone ever thought about this?, the lack of certification and published specifications? What does it say to you.

[creators.inc]

I think ISO standards would have come after the fact. Rolex released submariner in 1950s. From there on, It has been used for countless missions etc, today’s situation is albeit different. It’s a luxury watch brand and the marketing and advertising faces are prominent celebrities. Omega has a mix of both celebrities and professionals who use its equipment.

However, the bezel on the SMP 300 is slightly difficult to operate, Is there a certification required for easy operability of such bezel? I believe no. That’s exactly my point, having or not having certification has zero bearing on the positioning of these watches in market and peoples mentality about buying them.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[gnuyork]

Even though I am a certified diver, I am not likely to test the depths of any of these dive watches, but to your point, I think Rolex has become less of a tool and more of flashy jewelry. Nothing wrong with that if it floats your boat...but I prefer the earlier models with aluminum bezels and all brushed cases... not that I have any Rolex divers right now.

I do have the fantastic Planet Ocean and a couple ISO rated Seiko divers though.
My current crush is a Doxa Sub. Really want one of these.

[DJ2020]

I have also recently discovered Doxa, one of my friends is a big fan and has several. I like them. Very interesting style.

[1William]

Interesting points. I am not really that concerned with what Rolex does or does not do with its diver. By not advertising certain specs of the watch are they saying that it is not as capable as others or is it that the watches are advertised for the customer base. I am sure some professional, full time divers can speak to this and the Rolex capacity in dive situations. I own several of each brand and have looked at it for years as not an either/or for the watches but what do I like about each brand. I have also watched/read numerous reviews comparing the brands divers and depending on how you value the categories of review you can have different opinions. For me, Rolex is King on most levels of review but I do really like Omega and it holds a lot of slots in my collection and I have a great time wearing them.

[Mac-427]

Very interesting post. In my opinion this is an example of Rolex's egotism as compared to Omega's constant striving to improve.

[Tomas Eriksson]

My trusty ceramic AP diver is nihs 92-11 and iso 6425 certified. In a life or death situation I would most likely rather rely on one of my submariners

[Oyster Perp]

Ive yet to see a 'true' divers watch where the date was required.

[DJ2020]

Originally Posted by 1William

Interesting points. I am not really that concerned with what Rolex does or does not do with its diver. By not advertising certain specs of the watch are they saying that it is not as capable as others or is it that the watches are advertised for the customer base. I am sure some professional, full time divers can speak to this and the Rolex capacity in dive situations. I own several of each brand and have looked at it for years as not an either/or for the watches but what do I like about each brand. I have also watched/read numerous reviews comparing the brands divers and depending on how you value the categories of review you can have different opinions. For me, Rolex is King on most levels of review but I do really like Omega and it holds a lot of slots in my collection and I have a great time wearing them.

I'm am quite sure a Submariner is a capable watch indeed. Very much so. Not trying to say there not. Omega FAR exceeds any ISO standards. Which in my opinion are not that high of a standard with these watches. Both of these brands build there watches to standards that 99% of the time FAR exceeds any need for the users. We hear the term " over engineered " often when both brands are discussed. That's Luxury by definition.

I just find it interesting of the completely opposite marketing between the brands. Fact vs suggestive. If you will. I find it very interesting instigated on purpose or not the power of suggestion. No real data mentioned and fans will fill in the blanks. Making assumptions as to what the REAL data is. Rolex doesn't defend this as it's working miracles for them now..

But IF, and this is a big IF, new customer base starts comparing actual figures on a watches capability to make a informed decision on there next purchase instead of reputation of long ago. Will they be able to match competitors? Will they have to play catch up if the secret is out? I'm sure Rolex is pondering this right now. I think it's coming.

[1William]

Originally Posted by DJ2020

I'm am quite sure a Submariner is a capable watch indeed. Very much so. Not trying to say there not. Omega FAR exceeds any ISO standards. Which in my opinion are not that high of a standard with these watches. Both of these brands build there watches to standards that 99% of the time FAR exceeds any need for the users. We hear the term " over engineered " often when both brands are discussed. That's Luxury by definition.

I just find it interesting of the completely opposite marketing between the brands. Fact vs suggestive. If you will. I find it very interesting instigated on purpose or not the power of suggestion. No real data mentioned and fans will fill in the blanks. Making assumptions as to what the REAL data is. Rolex doesn't defend this as it's working miracles for them now..

But IF, and this is a big IF, new customer base starts comparing actual figures on a watches capability to make a informed decision on there next purchase instead of reputation of long ago. Will they be able to match competitors? Will they have to play catch up if the secret is out? I'm sure Rolex is pondering this right now. I think it's coming.

Good points. I think it is difficult to understand buyers as each of us place value on different points and while I think the technical aspects of watch ownership is there for some, for others it is about brand. I wear my three Speedmaster's about 10x the amount that I wear my two SS Daytona-C's. Why, good question, but for right now the Speedmaster is my Chrono of choice and the strap and bracelet options are very nice. I also don't have as much money tied up in them and am more cavalier about the wear. Right now, if I had to do it, I would own my Omega Speedmaster 3861, Rolex SS Submariner-C ND and my YG DD. A cool three watch collection that would cover a lot of bases. I would also have a couple of Seiko watches and go on with it. One day, maybe.

[zengineer]

They're gonna have real trouble selling any Submariners now that this is out.

Sent from my SM-T830 using Tapatalk

[DJ2020]

Originally Posted by zengineer

They're gonna have real trouble selling any Submariners now that this is out.

Sent from my SM-T830 using Tapatalk

Nah, I'm sure they will sell as many as they can make.

[Dyim]

The questions that I have are:

Do you think Rolex will pass the certifications if it decides to do it?

What is the real reason Rolex didn't bother with doing it?
Too elitist to bother with it?
They know it won't pass?
Don't want to reveal its technical specs?

[Tools]

ISO develops standards for a watch company to test against and meet to be considered a "Dive Watch".

ISO does not certify them.

Omega chooses to placard theirs, and toot their own horn, Rolex does not..

[DJ2020]

Originally Posted by Dyim

The questions that I have are:

Do you think Rolex will pass the certifications if it decides to do it?

What is the real reason Rolex didn't bother with doing it?
Too elitist to bother with it?
They know it won't pass?
Don't want to reveal its technical specs?

I think they would indeed pass. Except the shock test maybe. Maybe they are of the mindset that there beyond the ISO levels.
The point I find interesting is that they don't post any specifications. Leaves a lot of room for assumptions. Doing so would make it easier to determine which has more capabilities when comparing one brand to another when researching watches before a purchase. Doesn't matter really as no one depends on watches for diving anymore.

[Rashid.bk]

Do we really need another line of text on a Rolex diver though. It’s honestly an irrelevant data point and beside the fact that Rolex does test to most if not all the ISO requirements in-house. It’s much like the “chronometer” rating vs the METAS and Rolex’s own superlative standard.
Other manufacturers do the same. Patek foregoes the Geneva seal and created it’s own Patek “PP” seal which is supposedly to a higher standard.

There are a lot of regulatory standardizations out there I’m sure, timing, waterproofing, hand made levels, for the metals, for quality, etc etc. I would imagine companies like Rolex, Omega, Blancpain and Doxa who pioneered dive watches have used every metric available to bench mark “The Dive Watch” in the early decades of design, engineering and production, plus in those days it was a literal tool, there was nothing else. Today they all have moved upmarket into the luxury goods dept some more than others and I would expect that most traditional standards are upheld, and I know Rolex in its marketing has touted the testing beyond the stated depth on the dial of plus 25% and even on the standard 100m watches for which every Rolex possesses. In itself I think that’s quite remarkable that every Rolex watch is at least 100m wr, don’t think any other brand is this water friendly across such a varying portfolio.

Does it matter, buyers have spoken with their wallets, doesn’t seem to matter. I didn’t know specifically of this standard and as an enthusiast wis, I can honestly say I don’t care and would even say that I personally have more faith in a Rolex Submariner dive watch to use as such than most watches that are ISO rated and even costs a fifth of the price. Maybe it’s brainwashing or “the marketing worked” but I rather say it comes from experience of the dozens of watches I’ve owned over the years, and would happily chose an Omega too. Nice thread material for sure.

[Rashid.bk]

Originally Posted by DJ2020

I think they would indeed pass. Except the shock test maybe. Maybe they are of the mindset that there beyond the ISO levels.
The point I find interesting is that they don't post any specifications. Leaves a lot of room for assumptions. Doing so would make it easier to determine which has more capabilities when comparing one brand to another when researching watches before a purchase. Doesn't matter really as no one depends on watches for diving anymore.

I’m sure they consider the shock test and the divers, GMTs and Explorers would pass, except I’m not sure how the Deepsea and SD43 would fair, lots of mass especially on the Deepsea. Rolex invested into the paraflex shock system for the Explorers which if I’m not mistaken is now spread across the divers and GMTs.

The one test which would be a challenge would probably be the spring bar test, which is why most ISO certified watches have rubber or non metal bracelets, less mass on the spring bar.

With these items becoming obsolete in their origin of use within the industry, most of this boils down to marketing and it’s not a requisite for founding brands of the industry. We all expect Omega or Doxa will produce a capable watch without saying “it’s ISO rated” but it’s kind of important for an upstart brand to say it’s ISO rated and also to protect consumers(I would assume with a defined standard of a dive watch).

For the big players it’s like Larry said, some may want to just toot their horn.

[Pinchy]

The ISO standards are self-certification anyway. Ultimately if a company is advertising a dive watch, it still comes down to that company, that watch, as to wether or not it will survive a given condition.

I don't think any other watch company has as much experience as Rolex in making a modern professional dive watch for professional divers. Advertising it beats relatively mediocre ISO standards would only serve to give the impression that other watches are "just as good". They likely perform tests that are not in the ISO standard and revealing it would reveal weaknesses competitors could rectify without the decades of actual dive experience that made such tests necessary.

I do applaud Omega's moves to create third party certifications. But... that isn't going to get it more kudos than the submariner or sea-dweller.

But.... ultimately like you said... who really cares? The era of the mechanical watch being a primary mission critical piece of equipment for professional divers is long since over.

[Rashid.bk]

Originally Posted by Pinchy

The ISO standards are self-certification anyway. Ultimately if a company is advertising a dive watch, it still comes down to that company, that watch, as to wether or not it will survive a given condition.

I don't think any other watch company has as much experience as Rolex in making a modern professional dive watch for professional divers. Advertising it beats relatively mediocre ISO standards would only serve to give the impression that other watches are "just as good". They likely perform tests that are not in the ISO standard and revealing it would reveal weaknesses competitors could rectify without the decades of actual dive experience that made such tests necessary.

I do applaud Omega's moves to create third party certifications. But... that isn't going to get it more kudos than the submariner or sea-dweller.

But.... ultimately like you said... who really cares? The era of the mechanical watch being a primary mission critical piece of equipment for professional divers is long since over.

Very great points that have more validity I think than anything else mentioned. Excellent insight.