Patek, which one?

[ec10020]

this is what walt odets has to say about the AP RO case and water resistance in his review "making a case for the royal oak" the actual review has some great photos, so its worth a google.

" Because the rubber ring seals against the inside of the case back and underside of the bezel, the moisture sealing is remarkably thorough."

"It is the eight white gold screws and nuts that hold this steel and rubber sandwich together. The bezel, rubber ring, and case are compressed by the screws into a perfect waterproof design."

"The crystal is sealed against the top surface of the rubber ring by the pressure of the bezel, and it is this seal that provides movement protection. The design is remarkably waterproof and is entirely without reliance on the thin, fragile O-rings that most water-resistant watches utilize."

"There is no doubt that the Royal Oak qualifies as an extremely rugged, do-anything watch."

[ROLEXELOR]

Originally Posted by ec10020

this is what walt odets has to say about the AP RO case and water resistance in his review "making a case for the royal oak" the actual review has some great photos, so its worth a google.

" Because the rubber ring seals against the inside of the case back and underside of the bezel, the moisture sealing is remarkably thorough."

"It is the eight white gold screws and nuts that hold this steel and rubber sandwich together. The bezel, rubber ring, and case are compressed by the screws into a perfect waterproof design."

"The crystal is sealed against the top surface of the rubber ring by the pressure of the bezel, and it is this seal that provides movement protection. The design is remarkably waterproof and is entirely without reliance on the thin, fragile O-rings that most water-resistant watches utilize."

"There is no doubt that the Royal Oak qualifies as an extremely rugged, do-anything watch."

Thanks for the info. I like the last point

[Tony-GB]

Originally Posted by Dingoo93

So sorry for saying this, some people are going to hate me.. I have tryed on many pateks, I think the nautilus lacks in quality. The bracelet clasp area feels so "tinny" and cheap... Sorry

Originally Posted by Gretsch

This thread is hilarious.

I'll add to the hilarity.

Before I became aware of the forums and of how mad the watch obsession can get I used to go out and buy a watch because I liked it. Simple.

One day I was buying a 5711R. Not because it was a Patek, but because I liked it. I didn't know/understand that patek was in the "big three". I had the 5711R in one hand and my credit card in the other. Then an elderly guy in the boutique asks me if I like Patek. I said that I liked the one I'm about to buy, but I will keep my Yacht-Master for every day. This guy asks me if I've heard of Audemars Piguet. I said "...who...?" This guy asks the staff to get me a selection, The staff were fawning over him.

This elderly chap told me that Audemars Piguet are better value for money than any Patek. The design is purer and not a facsimile of an original. We shook hands and I thanked him for his time.

I asked the staff who this guy was and they said his name was Gerald Genta.

At the time the name meant nothing, but now...

.
So since then I have always favoured Audemars Piguet. Because I have heard it from the man himself.

[Fiery]

Originally Posted by Tony-GB

I'll add to the hilarity.

Before I became aware of the forums and of how mad the watch obsession can get I used to go out and buy a watch because I liked it. Simple.

One day I was buying a 5711R. Not because it was a Patek, but because I liked it. I didn't know/understand that patek was in the "big three". I had the 5711R in one hand and my credit card in the other. Then an elderly guy in the boutique asks me if I like Patek. I said that I liked the one I'm about to buy, but I will keep my Yacht-Master for every day. This guy asks me if I've heard of Audemars Piguet. I said "...who...?" This guy asks the staff to get me a selection, The staff were fawning over him.

This elderly chap told me that Audemars Piguet are better value for money than any Patek. The design is purer and not a facsimile of an original. We shook hands and I thanked him for his time.

I asked the staff who this guy was and they said his name was Gerald Genta.

At the time the name meant nothing, but now...

.
So since then I have always favoured Audemars Piguet. Because I have heard it from the man himself.

I love that story. It's a bit hard to believe one had the privilege to meet Mr.Genta and briefly discuss the age old question of RO vs. Nautilus with himself, but what he said makes a lot of sense of course. Unfortunately "better value for money" means almost nothing about luxury goods. In most cases one luxury item costing more than another automatically means it has a higher prestige. Sad but true. But of course he's right about that too, for example my 15300ST cost less than half of how much I could have had a 5711/1A for. And what's even more amazing: even though at its launch in 1972 the original RO cost 11 times more than a steel Submariner back then, now the difference is less than 2 times. Either Rolex watches cost "too much" lately, or the RO has become a "bargain"

[Tony-GB]

Originally Posted by Fiery

I love that story. It's a bit hard to believe one had the privilege to meet Mr.Genta and briefly discuss the age old question of RO vs. Nautilus with himself, but what he said makes a lot of sense of course. Unfortunately "better value for money" means almost nothing about luxury goods. In most cases one luxury item costing more than another automatically means it has a higher prestige. Sad but true. But of course he's right about that too, for example my 15300ST cost less than half of how much I could have had a 5711/1A for. And what's even more amazing: even though at its launch in 1972 the original RO cost 11 times more than a steel Submariner back then, now the difference is less than 2 times. Either Rolex watches cost "too much" lately, or the RO has become a "bargain"

The thing is, if it was now I would plague him with questions (if he were alive) but at that time I simply liked watches, had no idea about being a WIS and he was getting in the way of my purchase! And he offered the information, I didn't have a clue who he was or what his standing within the industry was/is.

But at the end of the day, it's all about passion and I still like and appreciate the 5711 and 5711R very much. But will always prefer the Oak range. Mr Genta never once mentioned the Offshore range. Of course I would ask him his thoughts on the Offsore. But now I will never know...

[Fiery]

Originally Posted by Tony-GB

Mr Genta never once mentioned the Offshore range. Of course I would ask him his thoughts on the Offsore. But now I will never know...

He actually talked about the Offshores in an interview:

http://www.revolution-press.com/arch...ld%20Genta.pdf

He basically thought the Offshores were shocking. When you put something like a Volcano or Bumblebee next to the classic RO, the difference is quite shocking indeed...

[ec10020]

Originally Posted by Tony-GB

One day I was buying a 5711R. Not because it was a Patek, but because I liked it. I didn't know/understand that patek was in the "big three". I had the 5711R in one hand and my credit card in the other. Then an elderly guy in the boutique asks me if I like Patek. I said that I liked the one I'm about to buy, but I will keep my Yacht-Master for every day. This guy asks me if I've heard of Audemars Piguet. I said "...who...?" This guy asks the staff to get me a selection, The staff were fawning over him.

This elderly chap told me that Audemars Piguet are better value for money than any Patek. The design is purer and not a facsimile of an original. We shook hands and I thanked him for his time.

I asked the staff who this guy was and they said his name was Gerald Genta.

At the time the name meant nothing, but now...

.
So since then I have always favoured Audemars Piguet. Because I have heard it from the man himself.

this post made the thread worth the effort. thank you for sharing.

[Tony-GB]

Originally Posted by Fiery

He actually talked about the Offshores in an interview:

http://www.revolution-press.com/arch...ld%20Genta.pdf

He basically thought the Offshores were shocking. When you put something like a Volcano or Bumblebee next to the classic RO, the difference is quite shocking indeed...

Thanks very much for that.

[Tony-GB]

Originally Posted by ec10020

this post made the thread worth the effort. thank you for sharing.

My pleasure.

[johnswatch]

This thread started going down hill but has corrected itself. I especially like the point about water resistance. I'm surprised people think that marketing depts lie to them......of course they'll lie about water resistance to position a premium model higher than one of the lower ones.
I'm especially happy to see the WR myth being tackled. IWC recently did a proper divers watch with depth guage that was only rated to I think 50m or 100m.

The Royal Oak was designed as a waterproof watch that could be worn in the pool but now we're being told that 50m is not sufficient. Did the original royal oak's all flood? No!

I'm not anti massive watches, I own and love an Oris 1000m titanium diver but I recognize it's over the top and totally unnecessary.

[Sarajevo]

Originally Posted by Tony-GB

I'll add to the hilarity.

Before I became aware of the forums and of how mad the watch obsession can get I used to go out and buy a watch because I liked it. Simple.

One day I was buying a 5711R. Not because it was a Patek, but because I liked it. I didn't know/understand that patek was in the "big three". I had the 5711R in one hand and my credit card in the other. Then an elderly guy in the boutique asks me if I like Patek. I said that I liked the one I'm about to buy, but I will keep my Yacht-Master for every day. This guy asks me if I've heard of Audemars Piguet. I said "...who...?" This guy asks the staff to get me a selection, The staff were fawning over him.

This elderly chap told me that Audemars Piguet are better value for money than any Patek. The design is purer and not a facsimile of an original. We shook hands and I thanked him for his time.

I asked the staff who this guy was and they said his name was Gerald Genta.

At the time the name meant nothing, but now...

.
So since then I have always favoured Audemars Piguet. Because I have heard it from the man himself.

But surely Genta only designed the case and not the movement?

[Submarino]

Originally Posted by johnswatch

This thread started going down hill but has corrected itself. I especially like the point about water resistance. I'm surprised people think that marketing depts lie to them......of course they'll lie about water resistance to position a premium model higher than one of the lower ones.
I'm especially happy to see the WR myth being tackled. IWC recently did a proper divers watch with depth guage that was only rated to I think 50m or 100m.

The Royal Oak was designed as a waterproof watch that could be worn in the pool but now we're being told that 50m is not sufficient. Did the original royal oak's all flood? No!

I'm not anti massive watches, I own and love an Oris 1000m titanium diver but I recognize it's over the top and totally unnecessary.

While I am the biggest fan of AP and I own several, I need to say that when it comes waterproofness, the only problem with the Royal Oak is the lack of a screw-down crown. Also the fact that the stem on the crown is very fragile is a big problem in my opinion. On all three Royal Oaks (1972, 1974 and 1972) that I've owned the stem broke at least once on each of them. On my current 5402SA the stem broke a few weeks ago and this is the third time it happens. But still with that major pitfall I still love AP and the ROs.

[elevensheep]

good thread

[mdtddd2007]

Had to choose one would be 5711/1Aa

[Rolexavidfan]

As it is the iconic Patek sports watch IMHO and the closest to the original that started this all.

[dddrees]

I think both the 5167/a and 5711/a are great looking watches. In fact there's something kinda of cool about the rubberstrap and the black faced 5167/a. However when it comes down to it I decided to go with the 5711/a and it's Blue Black Dial.

Would it be so wrong now to go back and get the 5167/a too?

[jim251]

Originally Posted by dddrees

I think both the 5167/a and 5711/a are great looking watches. In fact there's something kinda of cool about the rubberstrap and the black faced 5167/a. However when it comes down to it I decided to go with the 5711/a and it's Blue Black Dial.

Would it be so wrong now to go back and get the 5167/a too?

Dan I'd rave bout the 5167 being as perfect a daily wearer as there is and an excellent companion to just about any other beautiful piece, but as you know it all comes down to the big numero-uno and that is looks. Yes for some and no way for others. I will say though that it's a wholly different and beautiful animal when sized on the wrist as opposed to photos or even a mockup at an AD counter.

For me, the watch has gotten better with each passing day.

More candy...

[Adam K.]

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

I too have heard of this, and think it raises some compelling arguments that a well designed watch case can actually perform to its rated depth. The static/dynamic pressure argument has always seemed a little fishy to me given the limitations of most people's underwater movement.

Getting beyond this, I see no reason that any AP 15300 owner should be concerned about a dip or swim with their watch, assuming case seals are sound. The stem issues Submarino points out (rightly) with the Jumbo models are not relevant to the 15300, which in fact has a pretty robust threaded crown tube and screw-down crown.

[dddrees]

Originally Posted by jim251

Dan I'd rave bout the 5167 being as perfect a daily wearer as there is and an excellent companion to just about any other beautiful piece, but as you know it all comes down to the big numero-uno and that is looks. Yes for some and no way for others. I will say though that it's a wholly different and beautiful animal when sized on the wrist as opposed to photos or even a mockup at an AD counter.

For me, the watch has gotten better with each passing day.

More candy...

Looks great.

Thanks,

Jim

[dddrees]

Originally Posted by Adam K.

I too have heard of this, and think it raises some compelling arguments that a well designed watch case can actually perform to its rated depth. The static/dynamic pressure argument has always seemed a little fishy to me given the limitations of most people's underwater movement.

Getting beyond this, I see no reason that any AP 15300 owner should be concerned about a dip or swim with their watch, assuming case seals are sound. The stem issues Submarino points out (rightly) with the Jumbo models are not relevant to the 15300, which in fact has a pretty robust threaded crown tube and screw-down crown.

Boy, that's reasuring to hear Adam. Especially since I just purchased my 15300.

[Starwalker]

Originally Posted by Tony-GB

I'll add to the hilarity.

Before I became aware of the forums and of how mad the watch obsession can get I used to go out and buy a watch because I liked it. Simple.

One day I was buying a 5711R. Not because it was a Patek, but because I liked it. I didn't know/understand that patek was in the "big three". I had the 5711R in one hand and my credit card in the other. Then an elderly guy in the boutique asks me if I like Patek. I said that I liked the one I'm about to buy, but I will keep my Yacht-Master for every day. This guy asks me if I've heard of Audemars Piguet. I said "...who...?" This guy asks the staff to get me a selection, The staff were fawning over him.

This elderly chap told me that Audemars Piguet are better value for money than any Patek. The design is purer and not a facsimile of an original. We shook hands and I thanked him for his time.

I asked the staff who this guy was and they said his name was Gerald Genta.

At the time the name meant nothing, but now...

.
So since then I have always favoured Audemars Piguet. Because I have heard it from the man himself.

WOW! That is a fantastic story! Since I've been a member of TRF....this is one of the best posts I have EVER read!

[Adam K.]

Originally Posted by dddrees

Boy, that's reasuring to hear Adam. Especially since I just purchased my 15300.

Glad it helps, sir! And, if its any additional comfort, I have swam in my 15300 on more than a few occasions (fresh water) and also regularly wash and clean it as I do my Rolex watches...and as expected, no issues. Of course, in the 5 years I've owned it, I have attended to various recommended AP services, the first of which was a water resistance service back in 2007. The watch just came back from Clearwater this month for its first full overhaul, so once again, gaskets are fresh and everything is copasetic. My AP will again experience water from time to time, and I'm not worried about it--it may be a sportily elegant watch, but its still a sports watch dammit!


While this is getting more bold yet, here's a gent who took his 15300 snorkeling and his watch lived to tell the tale. It wouldn't be my first choice of watches for this, but goes to show that these AP beauties can take more than most give them credit for: http://forums.timezone.com/index.php...=5921794&rid=0