What sense does it make that current GMT's have the same W/R rating as 20 years ago?

[Rashid.bk]

Originally Posted by mangoseed

Yes, that is exactly my point! They added a triplock crown and much beefier case but the water resistance is supposedly the same as a coke from the 1990's (when it was new).

The case has no performance factor to it. It did not create a better waterproof advantage over the old case. It is merely aesthetics, it looks bigger, yet performs the same. The only upgrade was the crown, but that wasn't implemented for water resistance.

The twin lock crown screwed in can also surely support 300 meters...so again, the biggest factor is the case back and crystal. The crystal is also the same.
I fail to understand why you would think the water resistance would go up just because...
If Rolex wanted a 300 m GMT 2 all they need to do is slap on the Subs case back, and then what....
It would serve no purpose. Sounds like we want Rolex to pull an Omega, just cross contaminate the models with features.

Rolex makes a specific watch for a specific purpose. I like the product placement.

Why hasn't waterproofing improved...because Rolex perfected it way back in the 60s, everything after has been generally speaking better materials(ceramics, white gold markers and hands), design(bracelet/clasp) and aesthetics (super case/maxi dials).

[Too Old]

Originally Posted by betterwatchit

Well, I’m from the UK and always use metric for everything. So much more logical and it’s what I learned at school. Why imperial measures are still used mystifies me ...

Yup confusing, go to the timber merchants and lots of people will ask for 3 metres of 2 x 4!

[superstarmar]

Originally Posted by mangoseed

Yes, that is exactly my point! They added a triplock crown and much beefier case but the water resistance is supposedly the same as a coke from the 1990's (when it was new).

It's a GMT , essentially a pilots watch ?
So maybe altitude is more important than diving ?
You might Think ?

[Swearengen]

Doesn't the Tudor GMT go to 200m?

[mangoseed]

Originally Posted by betterwatchit

Well, I’m from the UK and always use metric for everything. So much more logical and it’s what I learned at school. Why imperial measures are still used mystifies me ...

You are one of very few people in Britain who exclusively use metric, especially considering speed limits are imperial here.

[jlovda]

My explorer II only has a TwinLok crown and is rated to 100m/330ft. I am not afraid to go swimming with it. Maybe that watch was only designed to go up, not down. LOL

[pickettt]

Originally Posted by superstarmar

It's a GMT , essentially a pilots watch ?
So maybe altitude is more important than diving ?
You might Think ?

I suppose a better depth rating would be good for really bad intercontinental pilots.

[pickettt]

Originally Posted by Too Old

Yup confusing, go to the timber merchants and lots of people will ask for 3 metres of 2 x 4!

.....which are really neither 2 nor 4 inches. Don’t get me started on board feet.

[superstarmar]

Originally Posted by pickettt

I suppose a better depth rating would be good for really bad intercontinental pilots.

[Submarinerman1971]

As a recreational diver none of us should be below any of the ratings for any Rolex oyster case. If you are below any of the ratings I would rely on my dive computer and the backup on my console, not my watch. I only wear my dive watches on dives because I am a watch enthusiast. I do not rely on them for the dive although I often play with them at my safety stop.
Just my 2 cents.
Joe

[Speedbird-1]

Originally Posted by Exiztence

Err no, pretty sure it's only UK.

....and the small matter of the USA!!!!

[Speedbird-1]

Originally Posted by 037

It also doesn't make sense that Rolex dive models list feet first when the whole world is on metric.

Oddly enough, Tudor gets it right.

A lot of divers go feet first!

[Tools]

Originally Posted by mangoseed

What sense does it make the the current generation of GMT's have the same water resistant rating as ones from 20 years ago despite the implementation of the triplock crown, the same crown as on the Submariner?. . .

Perhaps if the Trip-loc crown was the deciding factor then both the GMT and the Daytona would have Sub ratings.

But, too many folks decided that they liked the bulky look of the Trip-loc, and so one was stuck on the anemically, water-nervous, pretty-boy models. They didn't look at the unintended consequences.

They did learn a lesson though, and so the newest Explorer II has a large crown to please those who only care about the aesthetics, but it still has the Twin-loc markings. This way we don't get everybody trying to turn their Exp II's into dive watches.

[Soultime]

Originally Posted by Lt Virgil Hilts

A lot of divers go feet first!

I always wondered why divers roll backwards into the water from the side of the boat.

Then someone pointed out that if they went forward, they would still be in the boat.

[betterwatchit]

Originally Posted by mangoseed

You are one of very few people in Britain who exclusively use metric, especially considering speed limits are imperial here.

Fair enough, you’re right. But I might drive 5 miles to the swimming pool to swim 1500 metres in a 25m length pool!

[JadeRaven]

The official brochures for each both talk about the same triplock winding crown system, oyster monoblock middle case and screw-down caseback. The submariner brochure specifically touts the oyster case whereas the GMT glosses over it and essentially leaves it to the spec sheet.

The obvious assumption that Rolex leaves you with is that it's a marketing decision and not a particular physical difference between the two watches.

Otherwise the Sub is simply a GMT/insert-model-here less the GMT function and a different bezel.

They want each model to be special and an easy way to do that is give the dive watch a deeper dive rating.

That's not to say there isn't an unspoken difference, but based upon the Rolex marketing material (which is all I really have to go on), I would not be surprised if both the GMT and sub could withstand similar pressures.

[R!$]

I never understood why the crown on GMT's were traditionally smaller?

[superstarmar]

Originally Posted by R!$

I never understood why the crown on GMT's were traditionally smaller?

Because they were not intended for diving?
Though I will admit it was a personal turn off
for me on older pre-ceramic GMT’s...

Whether or not it’s intended for diving or not
I like the larger crown period ...

[mangoseed]

Originally Posted by betterwatchit

Fair enough, you’re right. But I might drive 5 miles to the swimming pool to swim 1500 metres in a 25m length pool!

Right, which is why I always say that Britain uses a mixed system.

[jeffnnj]

Originally Posted by sillo38

Most people don't go anywhere near the 100m rating anyway. That's plenty for 99% of the people that would wear one.

99.99999% You have to be pretty advanced to dive over 100ft let alone meters.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[padi56]

Originally Posted by jeffnnj

99.99999% You have to be pretty advanced to dive over 100ft let alone meters.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Truth be told more men have gone to the moon that descend to 300m on scuba gear the ratings on some dive watches will never be used by man or even superman in water. Bought today by some IMHO mainly for the brag factor mine is bigger than yours.