Patek, which one?

[subtona]

Originally Posted by ec10020

Actually, its because the watches I own are not accessible by the riff raff such as yourself.

For example, I purchased a piece at ONLYWATCH in Monaco this year.

Thus I could be outed, were I to post my collection.

i just threw up, a little bit in my mouth....only a Poser would write something like this

[Welshwatchman]

Originally Posted by ec10020

Actually, its because the watches I own are not accessible by the riff raff such as yourself.

I wonder what colour the sky is in his world.

[McLovin]

Originally Posted by ec10020

Actually, its because the watches I own are not accessible by the riff raff such as yourself.

For example, I purchased a piece at ONLYWATCH in Monaco this year.

Thus I could be outed, were I to post my collection.

Sorry for outing you, but I've seen this attitude before:

[capote]

Originally Posted by ec10020

Actually, its because the watches I own are not accessible by the riff raff such as yourself.

For example, I purchased a piece at ONLYWATCH in Monaco this year.

Thus I could be outed, were I to post my collection.

Understandable, we certainly don't want to out you. But maybe you have something less exclusive to show us. Maybe a mass produced grand complication Patek. Or is that only for the attention seeking riff raff posting on online forums?

[Mar122]

Originally Posted by ec10020

Actually, its because the watches I own are not accessible by the riff raff such as yourself.

For example, I purchased a piece at ONLYWATCH in Monaco this year.

Thus I could be outed, were I to post my collection.

Believing for just one second that you did purchase a watch at ONLYWATCH, you are not overly concerned about being outed because you freely say you did.

You sound like nothing but a loudmouth who only wants to hear himself talk. I bet you were on this forum before but comments like these got you banned and now you're back under a new guise and trying to stir controversy again.

And as the saying goes... PICS OR IT DID NOT HAPPEN regarding your collection as a whole. That is again, assuming that you have one and are not just some troll with a lot of time on his hands.

[cgjane]

I'm a big boy, I can take a hit. But the way he did critic our choices condescendingly was what ticked me off...now I just feel sorry for the guy. He obviously is living in his own world...

Sorry OP, but I already chose the Aquanaut! I just went to a Patek AD here in Houston and saw it with a bracelet and I love it on a bracelet too...will order one when I get the 5167a back from the spa. Haven't sent it out yet...I can't live without it for extended periods. Lol

[HL65]

Originally Posted by Welshwatchman

I wonder what colour the sky is in his world.

Not the same as in ours Paul!

[Gretsch]

Originally Posted by ec10020

Actually, its because the watches I own are not accessible by the riff raff such as yourself.

For example, I purchased a piece at ONLYWATCH in Monaco this year.

Thus I could be outed, were I to post my collection.

Oh my god I just p!Ssed myself laughing

OK, this has got to be joke. Who's the wise guy that set up a fake account just to take the p!ss out of us?

[BKKJake]

Originally Posted by ec10020

I like the consistent theme of SS sports watches.

1. sea dweller is a semi legit pick. if you have dived below 100m with a seadweller, that would be the ultimate authenticity to me (the opposite of a poseur) but lets say youre a desk diver and wouldnt even wash your hands with the sea dweller on. Are you a poser?

I actually think this is a case where its ok, because the submariner/dweller are so ubiquitous and the design so iconic that no would could actually accuse a sea dweller wearer of trying to pass himself off as a navy seal deep sea combat diver or national geographic underwater photographer. Of course, if you ARE actually a national geographic underwater deep sea photographer, then you are legitimately and authentically cool, and I would have sex with you, if I were a girl, which I am not.

2 AP RO Panda is the watch of rich european trust fund discotech club kids. Are you this person? I think they wear these watches so they can identify each other inside the said discotechs, where its dark, smoky, and loud.

3. GMT DLC - Many WIS do not approve of messing with a watch in any way. However, I approve of the black out. Customization, when tasteful and well done, is authentically cool. That is, unless you blacked out your watch because some hip hop star you saw on TV had one. Then you are a poseur.

4. aquanaut - the less said about this watch, the better.

Brilliant! lmao. I love the Panda but this man is funny

[ROLEXELOR]

Originally Posted by cgjane

I'm a big boy, I can take a hit. But the way he did critic our choices condescendingly was what ticked me off...now I just feel sorry for the guy. He obviously is living in his own world...

Sorry OP, but I already chose the Aquanaut! I just went to a Patek AD here in Houston and saw it with a bracelet and I love it on a bracelet too...will order one when I get the 5167a back from the spa. Haven't sent it out yet...I can't live without it for extended periods. Lol

What happend with your 5167a? why to the Spa? I hope they will give you your 5167a and your bracelet soon

[RolexWatcher]

Originally Posted by ec10020

Actually, its because the watches I own are not accessible by the riff raff such as yourself.

For example, I purchased a piece at ONLYWATCH in Monaco this year.

Thus I could be outed, were I to post my collection.

ec10020, be careful of BS MAN!!

http://www.rolexforums.com/showthread.php?t=207988

Sorry OP, hijacked your thread again but this is so funny and links into this thing quite well (I like English humour)! haha

[ROLEXELOR]

Originally Posted by RolexWatcher

ec10020, be careful of BS MAN!!

http://www.rolexforums.com/showthread.php?t=207988

Sorry OP, hijacked your thread again but this is so funny and links into this thing quite well (I like English humour)! haha

No need to say sorry, I'm enjoying with the thread

Very funny the video :)!

[ec10020]

I am here to discuss watches, not to post a million pictures like a 16 year old high school girl who just signed up for facebook.

I understand that facebook is very popular so I have no issue with people who want to post wristshots/collection shots, but the last time I checked, this was still a discussion forum and not exclusively a watch facebook picture sharing social networking site.

That said, perhaps I am a bit candid with my opinions. The fact of the matter is, I believe it is very easy to make expensive mistakes in this hobby. Some examples are the 3k raymond weils or basically any tag heuer (except maybe monaco) luring in sucker after sucker.

Its dangerous to think that once you move up in price, you are suddenly safe from making mistakes. In fact, the mistakes at the high end are many times more expensive, I have my franck muller master banker havana to remind me of this. As any AD will tell you, every brand, including PP, AP, VC, JLC, makes some duds that flop in the market and end up selling on the grey market for 40% or more off retail.

Maybe some of you believe in the "buy it if you like it" approach and find it distasteful to over analyze watch purchases. Those people do not need to seek validation for their watch purchases on an internet forum, so what the heck are you doing reading this post?

Back on point, the Nautilus was not always a big success, and Patek even stopped making it in the 90s. It is not the Patek that I would pick if I were in the market for my first and only Patek.

As for the Aquanaut, Patek is trying to generate interest, even releasing a new version with a useful dual time complication but the interest at SIHH was, lets say, muted, and thats being generous.

[dalip]

You're opinions are all fine ...it's the patronizing comments about others here that are causing issue. Members here enjoy posting pictures of their watches. That doesnt make them "16 year old schoolgirls". You have made several such swipes alteady. If you continue to make derogatory remarks about any members and their choices you'll find yourself unwelcome. State your opinions with respect from now on.

[ec10020]

Originally Posted by cgjane

PICS or IT DID NOT HAPPEN.

It was a commentary on comments like the above. There is no forum policy that states I am required to share photos; therefore "swipes" like the above also merit a warning from the moderators.

[DD GT3 RD]

to ec10020

I am curious as to what you have against or why you think the Nautilus isn't a good Patek?

It holds its value extremely well better than some other Patek models.

I also posted this earlier not sure if you saw it and I am no watch expert but it does have history. Seems like it has a place in watch history

"Also not sure how the Nautilus is a poser watch. Being designed by Gerald Genta and being released in 1974, 4 years after the release of the AP Royal Oak which he also designed. He was highly respected in the watch world. So the watch actually has history, especially if you get the classic Jumbo nautilus which I believe shared the same movement as the AP 15202 Royal Oak Jumbo which is know as one of the best and has history"

[ec10020]

Originally Posted by DD GT3 RD

to ec10020

I am curious as to what you have against or why you think the Nautilus isn't a good Patek?

It holds its value extremely well better than some other Patek models.

I also posted this earlier not sure if you saw it and I am no watch expert but it does have history. Seems like it has a place in watch history

"Also not sure how the Nautilus is a poser watch. Being designed by Gerald Genta and being released in 1974, 4 years after the release of the AP Royal Oak which he also designed. He was highly respected in the watch world. So the watch actually has history, especially if you get the classic Jumbo nautilus which I believe shared the same movement as the AP 15202 Royal Oak Jumbo which is know as one of the best and has history"

The nautilus does hold its value well. But my opinion is that this is more because of low production, its relatively low price point, and the fact that it is the most user friendly (WR 120m and SS durability) Patek, than because of its horological merit.

Gerald has said in numerous interviews that the Royal Oak was his favorite and best design, and that the Nautilus was more or less an afterthought. It is known that Genta sketched the Nautilus on a cocktail napkin after Stern noted the success of the AP RO and asked him to come up with something for Patek. At first, Stern didnt like the nautilus design and sat on it for a few years until 1976, when the Nautilus was unveiled at Basel. And as you say in your post, the nautilus shared the RO Jumbo's JLC based movement. What does that tell you about how much thought or Patek's vaunted horological talent H. Stern put into the Nautilus? So the history of the Nautilus is a bit checkered compared to say, the Royal Oak.

But then again, look at the milgauss and newman daytona, which have a similar dynamic. relatively unloved on their horological merits, but now in demand because of low supply due to low initial demand.

If you have interest in Patek, there are many academic quality works on Patek history, including interesting stories like the above. However, many of these tomes are available only through european publishers or in european languages. These books are expensive, but they contain research that isnt always available via google and the cost is small compared to the price of a Patek.

[ROLEXELOR]

Let me ask you something ec10020.

Which watch do you think I should buy as the only couple of my 14060 in my small collection. Should be enough WR to take shower and to go the swimming pool with out problems. Not more big than 42mm and not smaller than 40mm.

A watch with history in his back! a piece of art in my wrist that everytime I look at it, I can't take my eyes off.

The price around the price of the Nautilus.

And of course, give me an explanation that why I should choose this watch.

Thanks

[ec10020]

Originally Posted by ROLEXELOR

Should be enough WR to take shower and to go the swimming pool with out problems. Not more big than 42mm and not smaller than 40mm.

A watch with history in his back! a piece of art in my wrist that everytime I look at it, I can't take my eyes off.

You just described your Rolex Submariner 14060M. However, if you want a luxury sports watch, then its the AP RO 15300ST, RO Jumbo, or even AP ROO Diver.

When the AP RO was unveiled at basel in 1972, the watch world said things like "it cost 10 times as much as a rolex submariner"

Why did they say that? because the submariner was the reference point for the functionality of the AP RO, a luxury sport watch for the country club golfer/tennis player cum habor club yachtsman.

Unless your swimming pool is 51m deep, you will have no issues swimming with an AP RO 15300ST.

If you MUST get a patek, and believe me, I understand siren song allure of Patek in the watch world, look at the 5296 white gold with sector dial. It has a lot of Patek Calatrava DNA. You can wear it as your daily and strap on the submariner for the pool. Dont worry about the 38mm size, it wears bigger because of the thin bezel.

[ROLEXELOR]

Originally Posted by ec10020

You just described your Rolex Submariner 14060M. However, if you want a luxury sports watch, then its the AP RO 15300ST, RO Jumbo, or even AP ROO Diver.

When the AP RO was unveiled at basel in 1972, the watch world said things like "it cost 10 times as much as a rolex submariner"

Why did they say that? because the submariner was the reference point for the functionality of the AP RO, a luxury sport watch for the country club golfer/tennis player cum habor club yachtsman.

Unless your swimming pool is 51m deep, you will have no issues swimming with an AP RO 15300ST.

If you MUST get a patek, look at the 5296 white gold with sector dial. It has a lot of Patek Calatrava DNA. You can wear it as your daily and strap on the submariner for the pool. Dont worry about the 38mm size, it wears bigger because of the thin bezel.

Thanks for your answer. Only clarify something. When they say 50WR, doesn't mean you can dive to 50 meters... maybe at 25 meters, if you start moving the arm where the watch is, you can make a big pressure in the watch, even the same pressure that the watch will feel at 50meters

Regards :)

[ec10020]

Originally Posted by ROLEXELOR

When they say 50WR, doesn't mean you can dive to 50 meters... maybe at 25 meters, if you start moving the arm where the watch is, you can make a big pressure in the watch, even the same pressure that the watch will feel at 50meters

this myth has been debunked many times, please dont spread misinformation like this. when youre down 25 meters, you have the weight of all the water 25m above you exerting pressure on you and your watch. That is a huge number.

In order for your arm to generate enough force to add to the weight of the water above you in terms of pressure exerted on your watch, your arm would have to be moving faster than superman.


And this isnt even counting for the fact that watch manufacturers add up to a +25% margin of safety for their WR ratings, i.e. your submariner is good for 375m.

[Fiery]

While I don't agree with certain parts of his posts, I like ec10020's point of view on the Nautilus. It came after the RO, it featured the same movement, and if it weren't made by Patek, I'm sure it would be nowhere near as successful today as it is. The RO has a more original, more exciting, more interesting design, and today with the 15300ST it has a more modern movement as well. The 15300ST has a more roboust and thicker case, bracelet and clasp than the 5711, which makes it a more "genuine" sports watch. On the other hand, the 5711 has a deeper WR, and has a much higher price tag that some people may equate to higher quality...

But the main reason I went for the 15300ST instead of the 5711 a few months ago was simpler than technical specifications: when I tried on the 5711, I felt nothing. It's a beautiful, elegant sporty watch (I wouldn't call it a sports watch), but it has no soul IMHO. The 15300ST on the other hand pushed certain buttons everytime I tried it on, no matter if it were black or white dial version. For several weeks I was torn between them, but then I gave in and followed my instincts, and got me the 15300ST. Never looked back since then. Of course I still crave after a Patek, but it will be something dressy, probably a 5127J or a 5146J.

[ROLEXELOR]

Originally Posted by ec10020

this myth has been debunked many times, please dont spread misinformation like this. when youre down 25 meters, you have the weight of all the water 25m above you exerting pressure on you and your watch. That is a huge number.

In order for your arm to generate enough force to add to the weight of the water above you in terms of pressure exerted on your watch, your arm would have to be moving faster than superman.


And this isnt even counting for the fact that watch manufacturers add up to a +25% margin of safety for their WR ratings, i.e. your submariner is good for 375m.

First time that I heard this

[RolexWatcher]

This thread is pretty funny. It's like having our own personal Watch Snob in TRF

His comments on watches and especially the diving ones are hilarious haha

To OP, you are right, WR50 does NOT mean you can take it diving to 50m

[cgjane]

ec10020, you seem to be very knowledgeable about your watch history.

But some of your comments are "poser" like.

You say you have the watches, but wont post pics of them.

You say you bought a watch at onlywatch, but do not want to be outed, yet you mentioned it.

You don't have to prove anything, you might really own all theses watches.

But your attitude towards other's choices reveal who you are...you are that person no one wants to talk to in watch meets.

TRF is one giant watch gathering, and frankly:

I cant take you seriously.

[ec10020]

Originally Posted by RolexWatcher

To OP, you are right, WR50 does NOT mean you can take it diving to 50m

No. stop spreading this misinformation. The below is reposted with thanks to Mr. Agren.

What About Dynamic Pressure?

This perhaps is the biggest myth and urban legend of all. It was mostly created by the watch industry and then spread trough watch retailers and watch brochures and manuals then also trough word of mouth of course. It was not so widespread in the 80's but by the late 90's and early 2000 it had spread alot.

Why they spread that myth to begin with probably have to do with weakening the warranty terms and the fact that they want to encourage people to be carefull with their watches.But also primarly due to marketing reasons that enables them to charge a extra premium for higher rated watches.

Anyway the myth is about movement in water. Apparently as you move around in the water especially your arms an extra pressure gets applied to the watch and the deeper in the water you go the higher this extra presssure will get due to the movement. I have read statements that these movements can add several Bars/ATM/PSI of pressure to a watch. Therefor it is not safe to take your watch anywhere near its stated deepth rating. I have read statements that you should not go any deeper then maximum 30 meter(100') with a 100 m rated watch or 60-70 meter (200-230') with a 200 m rated watch. 30-50 m rated watches should not be submersed at all.

Whats the major problem here?

First let me state that I was a firm believer of this "Dynamic Pressure" myth up untill just a few months ago. This whole journey into this topic for me was the presentation of the Suunto Core on Suuntos website prior to its actual release. I thought it looked fantastic and almost imediatly feel in love with it especially in combination with its seemingly superior feature set compared to the competion. Prior to the Core I pretty muched ruled out Suunto out of the realm of my interest frame when it came to ABC watches, not because of their active functions which in fact many times where even better then for instance the PathFinders/ProTrek of the Casio line up, but because I saw them as fragile crap due to their poor 30 M water resistance rating(the Observer with 100 m rating was an exception but did not appeal to me for other reasons). But when the Core was presented on Suuntos website it seem to have it all including a 100 meter rating.

But when it was closer to the Core's release I suddenly noticed that the specs had changed on Suuntos website now it was suddenly rated to 30 M just like its predeccesor the Vector so I was very dissapointed and descided to mail Suunto to get it clarified. Apparently they did a misstake before and that 30 m was the correct fact. But by that time I had already worked up enough interest for the model so that I contemplated buying it anyway, all that I demanded from it was that I could do some surface swimming with it then I would be happy. So I mailed Suunto and asked again if i could use it when swimming. And the answer was yes!

This confused me because what I knew prior to this told me that 30 m and 50 m watches should not be used for submersive water activitys such as swimming, what confused me even further was the fact that the Core came equipped with specially designed stinger buttons called UW(Under water buttons by Suunto) also the demo on the website showed it was also equipped with a cool depth gauge down to 10 meters which further suggested this was a watch that could be used under water.

At first this lead me to believe that Suunto since it is a special company that has a very scientific image that pride themself with preciscion instruments for professionals was more honest with their rating and therefor took Dynamic pressure into account for their rating and gave their watches a more honest rating then the rest for the watch industry so therefor a 30 M Suunto was the equvivalent to a 100 Meter watch from other manufacturers.

But this turned out to be a wrong assumption, I later found out that they just test their watches according to the standard ISO 2281 just like the rest of them.

So because I was a believer of the dynamic pressure theory all I was left with was a big mystery, how come a 30 m rated watch was seemingly adapted for underwater use?

This mystery lead me to seek out the answer and learn more about water resistance and the effects of dynamic pressure specifically. I did found some important pieces to the puzzle here in this forum from older forum posts but also from Wikipedia and also some Swedish scientists that I had enquired about this mather.

What I did found out shattered the dynamic pressure theory to pieces. It simply was nothing more then a lie turned into an urban legend and myth.

Apparently pressure can only be applied to an object as the result of added mass/weight that is applied to the object(in this case added depth with an increased weight of the water pillar above you) in question, or as a result of expansion or due to electro magnetism, another possible source of pressure is some external forcing preventing expansion or inversion. Another source is gravitational pull due to accceleration or decceleration but that reason is somewhat tied in to reason number one the one about added mass.

So what kind of forces can a swimmer/diver apply to his/hers watch? first we have the depth ofcourse. If we use a watch similar in size to a Raysman. Lets say we are at 100 meter depth. The size of the watch is about 5cmX5cm thats 25cm2 in surface area. 1m is 100 cm so 100m is 10.000cm 10.000X25= 250.000 Cm2 of water above the watch that is pressuring against it. The weight of that water is 1000.000/250.000= 250Kg(550 ibs) of pressure against the watch at that deptht. This is known as the hydrostatic pressure.

The diver(staying at the same depth) can only change that pressure against his watch in 2 ways either by moving his arms up or down but the maximum reach of ones arms is very limited usually not more then perhaps 120cm(4') or so.... that is only a change in pressure of 0.12 bars or 3Kg(6.7ibs) of pressure, very little difference not much more then 1% compared to the rest of the pressure at that given depth.

Second way to increase pressure at the watch is trough speed/acceleration. Either by swimming or by moving our arms up and down. The maximum speed we can move our arms in free air is often not more then 3-6 feet per second and it moves even slower under water. And when it comes to Swim speed even an Olympic swimmer usually cant swim any faster then 6-7 feet per second. If we add the maximum output of that we get up to 10 feet or 3 meters of acceleration per second which is the equvivalant of about 10Km/h or 6.25 mph. That aint very much force/pressure in water. Someone smart here at the forum(CycloneFever) calculated this and I quote:

"Without repeating all the calculations here (they involve denominators and the greek alphabet and are PITA to type out), at a depth of 330ft(100 m) and moving your arm at 3 ft/sec, the dynamic pressure is in the order of magnitude of 0.14 feet of head or 0.04% of the depth. Even assuming you could move your arm at 20 ft/sec (14 mph!) the dynamic pressure is only about 6.2 feet of additional depth (<2%)."

So with this we can conclude that the Dynamic pressure is normaly a small force for a diver and do not limit your watch capacity very much. It only reduces it whit a couple of meters at most.

So what can we conclude:

The Standardisation does not indicate a watch maximum capacity.
The rating is given by the manufacturer mostly due to marketing reasons and often the maximum capacity of a watch is seldom tested.
The difference between different watches with the same rating can be huge....
Dynamic Pressure is mostly just fear mongering and a myth

[ROLEXELOR]

Originally Posted by RolexWatcher

This thread is pretty funny. It's like having our own personal Watch Snob in TRF

His comments on watches and especially the diving ones are hilarious haha

To OP, you are right, WR50 does NOT mean you can take it diving to 50m

Well, that was my idea always. But after the watch guru told me that I was wrong, made me think about it...

[ROLEXELOR]

Originally Posted by ec10020

No. stop spreading this misinformation. The below is reposted with thanks to Mr. Agren.

What About Dynamic Pressure?

This perhaps is the biggest myth and urban legend of all. It was mostly created by the watch industry and then spread trough watch retailers and watch brochures and manuals then also trough word of mouth of course. It was not so widespread in the 80's but by the late 90's and early 2000 it had spread alot.

Why they spread that myth to begin with probably have to do with weakening the warranty terms and the fact that they want to encourage people to be carefull with their watches.But also primarly due to marketing reasons that enables them to charge a extra premium for higher rated watches.

Anyway the myth is about movement in water. Apparently as you move around in the water especially your arms an extra pressure gets applied to the watch and the deeper in the water you go the higher this extra presssure will get due to the movement. I have read statements that these movements can add several Bars/ATM/PSI of pressure to a watch. Therefor it is not safe to take your watch anywhere near its stated deepth rating. I have read statements that you should not go any deeper then maximum 30 meter(100') with a 100 m rated watch or 60-70 meter (200-230') with a 200 m rated watch. 30-50 m rated watches should not be submersed at all.

Whats the major problem here?

First let me state that I was a firm believer of this "Dynamic Pressure" myth up untill just a few months ago. This whole journey into this topic for me was the presentation of the Suunto Core on Suuntos website prior to its actual release. I thought it looked fantastic and almost imediatly feel in love with it especially in combination with its seemingly superior feature set compared to the competion. Prior to the Core I pretty muched ruled out Suunto out of the realm of my interest frame when it came to ABC watches, not because of their active functions which in fact many times where even better then for instance the PathFinders/ProTrek of the Casio line up, but because I saw them as fragile crap due to their poor 30 M water resistance rating(the Observer with 100 m rating was an exception but did not appeal to me for other reasons). But when the Core was presented on Suuntos website it seem to have it all including a 100 meter rating.

But when it was closer to the Core's release I suddenly noticed that the specs had changed on Suuntos website now it was suddenly rated to 30 M just like its predeccesor the Vector so I was very dissapointed and descided to mail Suunto to get it clarified. Apparently they did a misstake before and that 30 m was the correct fact. But by that time I had already worked up enough interest for the model so that I contemplated buying it anyway, all that I demanded from it was that I could do some surface swimming with it then I would be happy. So I mailed Suunto and asked again if i could use it when swimming. And the answer was yes!

This confused me because what I knew prior to this told me that 30 m and 50 m watches should not be used for submersive water activitys such as swimming, what confused me even further was the fact that the Core came equipped with specially designed stinger buttons called UW(Under water buttons by Suunto) also the demo on the website showed it was also equipped with a cool depth gauge down to 10 meters which further suggested this was a watch that could be used under water.

At first this lead me to believe that Suunto since it is a special company that has a very scientific image that pride themself with preciscion instruments for professionals was more honest with their rating and therefor took Dynamic pressure into account for their rating and gave their watches a more honest rating then the rest for the watch industry so therefor a 30 M Suunto was the equvivalent to a 100 Meter watch from other manufacturers.

But this turned out to be a wrong assumption, I later found out that they just test their watches according to the standard ISO 2281 just like the rest of them.

So because I was a believer of the dynamic pressure theory all I was left with was a big mystery, how come a 30 m rated watch was seemingly adapted for underwater use?

This mystery lead me to seek out the answer and learn more about water resistance and the effects of dynamic pressure specifically. I did found some important pieces to the puzzle here in this forum from older forum posts but also from Wikipedia and also some Swedish scientists that I had enquired about this mather.

What I did found out shattered the dynamic pressure theory to pieces. It simply was nothing more then a lie turned into an urban legend and myth.

Apparently pressure can only be applied to an object as the result of added mass/weight that is applied to the object(in this case added depth with an increased weight of the water pillar above you) in question, or as a result of expansion or due to electro magnetism, another possible source of pressure is some external forcing preventing expansion or inversion. Another source is gravitational pull due to accceleration or decceleration but that reason is somewhat tied in to reason number one the one about added mass.

So what kind of forces can a swimmer/diver apply to his/hers watch? first we have the depth ofcourse. If we use a watch similar in size to a Raysman. Lets say we are at 100 meter depth. The size of the watch is about 5cmX5cm thats 25cm2 in surface area. 1m is 100 cm so 100m is 10.000cm 10.000X25= 250.000 Cm2 of water above the watch that is pressuring against it. The weight of that water is 1000.000/250.000= 250Kg(550 ibs) of pressure against the watch at that deptht. This is known as the hydrostatic pressure.

The diver(staying at the same depth) can only change that pressure against his watch in 2 ways either by moving his arms up or down but the maximum reach of ones arms is very limited usually not more then perhaps 120cm(4') or so.... that is only a change in pressure of 0.12 bars or 3Kg(6.7ibs) of pressure, very little difference not much more then 1% compared to the rest of the pressure at that given depth.

Second way to increase pressure at the watch is trough speed/acceleration. Either by swimming or by moving our arms up and down. The maximum speed we can move our arms in free air is often not more then 3-6 feet per second and it moves even slower under water. And when it comes to Swim speed even an Olympic swimmer usually cant swim any faster then 6-7 feet per second. If we add the maximum output of that we get up to 10 feet or 3 meters of acceleration per second which is the equvivalant of about 10Km/h or 6.25 mph. That aint very much force/pressure in water. Someone smart here at the forum(CycloneFever) calculated this and I quote:

"Without repeating all the calculations here (they involve denominators and the greek alphabet and are PITA to type out), at a depth of 330ft(100 m) and moving your arm at 3 ft/sec, the dynamic pressure is in the order of magnitude of 0.14 feet of head or 0.04% of the depth. Even assuming you could move your arm at 20 ft/sec (14 mph!) the dynamic pressure is only about 6.2 feet of additional depth (<2%)."

So with this we can conclude that the Dynamic pressure is normaly a small force for a diver and do not limit your watch capacity very much. It only reduces it whit a couple of meters at most.

So what can we conclude:

The Standardisation does not indicate a watch maximum capacity.
The rating is given by the manufacturer mostly due to marketing reasons and often the maximum capacity of a watch is seldom tested.
The difference between different watches with the same rating can be huge....
Dynamic Pressure is mostly just fear mongering and a myth

Well, as I said, after you told me that I was wrong, I'm looking in internet for all the info. But I'm still thinking that I'm not wrong... Many people told me that since I start to collect watches, it's hard to belive that I'm wrong after years.

Regards

[RolexWatcher]

This is hilarious.

Sure the watch was rated to WR50 but I am so sure that it can dive much deeper since the watch manufacturer couldn't be bothered with getting a deeper rating and so I don't care and gonna go diving with it until it fails.

By all means!

It's like the car manufacturer telling you the maximum speed for the engine, but the watch/car guru saying you never know how fast that engine can go, you should keep going (until you really test the engine's capacity and it blows)!!

[ec10020]

Originally Posted by ROLEXELOR

Well, as I said, after you told me that I was wrong, I'm looking in internet for all the info. But I'm still thinking that I'm not wrong... Many people told me that since I start to collect watches, it's hard to belive that I'm wrong after years.

Regards

I posted the information for you so you can stop looking. You dont have to believe it. There are people out there who dont believe in DNA and evolution.

There are many threads in watch forums with pictures of pateks and richard mille's in the deep end of swimming pools, probably the most famous are the 5980 chrono being activated under water and one guy swimming with his 5130J.

People post pics of their watch disasters all the time, I have seen a shattered ceramic PAM317 and rolexes after motorcycle accidents, etc. What I have never seen in any forum is a waterlogged 50m watch. Now that Ive said that, someone is sure to post one, but thats ok because Id like to see it.