I wonder

[Mitch105]

Why is the GMT rated at only 100m just like the more delicate DJ and yet the sub at 300m yet both have the same robust case and heavy duty triple screw down crown?

[GradyPhilpott]

Rolex after many years put the Trip-Lock crown on the GMT for aesthetic reasons.

The case of the GMT, and probably the crystal, too, is not as robust as the Submariner.

The Submariner is a dive watch and the GMT is not.

There is nothing delicate about any watch in the Oyster line, including the DJ.

[schoolboy]

Good question.

I think it might also have to do with the caseback. If I’m not mistaken, the case back on the GMT 2 is slimmer than the one on the sub.

Let’s see if anyone has another answer.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Tools]

Originally Posted by Mitch105

Why is the GMT rated at only 100m just like the more delicate DJ and yet the sub at 300m yet both have the same robust case and heavy duty triple screw down crown?

They don't have the same case. The GMT back is recessed into the case further and half as thick - it will collapse under the Sub pressure.

It is not the crown seals that determines depth and pressure ratings of a watch; it is the construction of the watch and the other seals as well. The previous GMT Twinlock could likely withstand the same depth as the Sub.

[schoolboy]

I’d just like to add, since we are comparing a gmt and a dive watch depth rates...

If I’m not mistaken, the new Tudor GMT is waterproof to 200m, which I think is the minimum depth rating of a divers watch.

So that’s pretty cool!

But then again, it looks like some people have mentioned that the watch is a little on the thick side. Where the Rolex gmt 2 is thinner.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk