 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| HomeArticlesDiving DestinationsLearning Scuba DivingMarine LifeMiscellaneousDiscussion GroupsGeneralScuba EquipmentScuba LocationsAustralian ScubaUK ScubaDirectoryScuba Clubs |
Scuba Forum / General / January 2005Dive Watch Question
Stumbled across a German dive watch for sale that looked interesting and was wondering if anyone might have any experience with the manufacturer... I've never heard of them, but the watch *looks* like it might be pretty solid... It's not like I *need* another dive watch... Hell, my Seiko is nearly 30 years old, working great, and is rated for deeper than I'll probably ever go... Here's the link for it... http://www.watches-for-sale.de/T0018.html Anyone have any experience with them? > Stumbled across a German dive watch for sale that looked interesting and was > wondering if anyone might have any experience with the manufacturer... That small German company? No. What was the highest bid? I've > never heard of them, but the watch *looks* like it might be pretty solid... > It's not like I *need* another dive watch... Looks almost like a Tag Hauer, but it isn't. Perty solid? I owuld hope so. Max depth to 1000 meters. My Rolex Submariner is only good to 300 meters. > Hell, my Seiko is nearly 30 > years old, working great, and is rated for deeper than I'll probably ever > go... Here's the link for it... Yeah, but if you drop it when the wrist band breaks ... My wife found a nearly new Tag Heuer at the bottom of the ocean in LCM. I was so new that Kirk's Rolex shop in Grand Cayman replace the broken stem of the watch without charge. We eventually sold it, 5 years later, last year, through a local e-bay broker, and fetched $300 for it, at our reserve price, the last minute, after not a single bid at any price before that the whole week. :-) I had already told boat Captain Giovanni in Coz that I might give him that watch but he was unlucky that I sold it, but was happy that I gave him $100 USD from the sale. :-) It was one of the better UW finds we've had. When you dive below 150 fsw, there are usually some stuff that had been sitting there, some for a long time. :-) > http://www.watches-for-sale.de/T0018.html -- Bob. > That small German company? No. What was the highest bid? You've heard of the company? I couldn't find anything on the web about them, but I might have been searching for the wrong name... They start the bids at around $129 with a "Buy it Now" price of $199... The last buyer made the mistake of using "Buy it Now" when there were no other bidders and there was only an hour to go before the end of the bid... The shipping from there to here is probably around $15-20, IIRC... > Looks almost like a Tag Hauer, but it isn't. Perty solid? > I owuld hope so. Max depth to 1000 meters. My Rolex Submariner > is only good to 300 meters. My GMT-II is good for 100m and my Seiko is good for 150m... I never dive with the Rolex, only with the Seiko... Either one is good for deeper than I've ever been, but I like a little margin for error... I figure 1000m would be quite a margin for error... <grin> I also like not feeling really crappy if I did somehow manage to lose or break the watch... Not that I would feel all that great about losing a watch that I have had for nearly 30 years, but I suspect that I would feel better than if I had lost a watch that I paid over $3K (it's the stainless model) for... > Yeah, but if you drop it when the wrist band breaks Well, that's a risk on any watch if enough things go wrong at the same time... I've never had that happen on my Seiko... Hell, it took a motorcycle wreck that was bad enough to make me lose my leg to cause the watch to come off my arm... Turned out that it bent one of the very heavy duty pins and it came off that way... These days, I've switched to a different type of band that is made in Australia with various stainless steel oval rings that is supposed to survive a single pin breaking... It's a fairly strong nylon stap band and doesn't use velcro... The thing is, how often do divers lose watches? It's something that some people talk about potentially happening, but I've never had it happen... I doubt that it is anything that I'm doing that's special, so I would assume that it just isn't that common of an occurrance... > > Looks almost like a Tag Hauer, but it isn't. Perty solid? > > I owuld hope so. Max depth to 1000 meters. My Rolex Submariner > > is only good to 300 meters. > > I figure 1000m would > be quite a margin for error... <grin> Actually, the margin of "safety" is not as big as you might think. The max depth is for "STATIC" pressure -- when nothing moves. Taking into consideration the DYNAMIC (equivalent) depth, Rolex's 300m is about right for recreational divers. Still, Rolex hedges the quarantee and uses the phrase "water resistant" rather than "waterproof"! Even the model for PRO divers to depth, the water is only "water resistant" to 1000m. Then there are those cheap waters "water resistant" to 100 feet -- which means if you don't get within 100 feet of any water. The kitchen sink will be deep enough to sink some of those forever. > > Yeah, but if you drop it when the wrist band breaks > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > band and doesn't use velcro... The thing is, how often do divers lose > watches? It's something that some people talk about potentially happening, Keep this in mind. There are very, very, very few "vertical drops" at dive sites. Just because you can't SEE the bottom doesn't mean anything dropped will reach the bottom. Bar from it. In fact, I have written that at the most vertical portion of the Santa Rosa Wall in Cozumel, there are at least 4 or 6 ledges between 90 and 200 fsw, in steps. If you know the exact location you drop anything in Santa Rosa Wall, I can mostly likely retrieve it before I get below 150 fsw. I can just see the follow-up now ... Hugh Huntzinger pulling out his worthless depth chart of the Cozumel Channel, and say I claimed that I could retrieve something from below 2000 fsw, at the deptest part of the channel. :-) So, just make it any part of the "wall" dived by the Cozumel shops taking divers. The steepest and deepest FIRST ledge I've dived was the wall at the island by the same name Gmn..., in Palau, in which the levge of the wall starts at the SURFACE, and it drops vertically down to about 190 feet before you encounter the sorst ledge of any width. :-) I did not look for or found any watch there. -- Bob. > Actually, the margin of "safety" is not as big as you might think. > The max depth is for "STATIC" pressure -- when nothing moves. I had always assumed that was the case which is why I liked a little more of a fudge factor... The 150m on the Seiko apparently has enough of a fudge factor since I've had it down to 190 ft and it didn't leak even though I was swimming somewhat... A better test was probably Cork Rock at Blue Springs in Orange, FL... It's only 130 ft or so, but the water is really flowing out of there and I've tried to get through it quite a few times (only to fail and get a good look at the overhead as I was pinned to it)... > Taking into consideration the DYNAMIC (equivalent) depth, Rolex's > 300m is about right for recreational divers. Still, Rolex hedges > the quarantee and uses the phrase "water resistant" rather than > "waterproof"! Even the model for PRO divers to depth, the > water is only "water resistant" to 1000m. As far as I'm concerned, to classify something as truly "waterproof", it should be able to handle the deepest part of the Marianas Trench (11,035m)... I seem to remember a liquid filled watch awhile back that advertised 11,000m... It was probably created back when it was thought that the trench was only around 10,900m... > Then there are those cheap waters "water resistant" to 100 feet > -- which means if you don't get within 100 feet of any water. > The kitchen sink will be deep enough to sink some of those > forever. Grace has a Timex that she uses for diving and I figured that would have been the case with it... Surprisingly, it didn't flood... Oh well, sometimes you get surprised... > Keep this in mind. There are very, very, very few "vertical drops" > at dive sites. Just because you can't SEE the bottom doesn't mean [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > in steps. If you know the exact location you drop anything in Santa > Rosa Wall, I can mostly likely retrieve it before I get below 150 fsw. I've been down to 170 ft at Santa Rosa... I could still see quite a ways down the 'wall'... From what I could tell, it wasn't so much a 'wall' as a steeply sloping hill... Probably 45-60 degrees of slope, IIRC... Considering the slope, I would think that unless you were diving extremely far away from any sort of coral / terrain formation, if you dropped something, you could probably still be able to retrieve it (assuming that you could in fact SEE it)... > I can just see the follow-up now ... Hugh Huntzinger pulling out his > worthless depth chart of the Cozumel Channel, and say I claimed that > I could retrieve something from below 2000 fsw, at the deptest part > of the channel. :-) So, just make it any part of the "wall" dived > by the Cozumel shops taking divers. 2000 ft? I had heard that Santa Rosa eventually bottomed out at 6000... Not that it really makes much difference -- you're pretty much f.cked either way if you have managed to make it down that far... <grin> So, you've heard of the watch... Any comments on it? > 2000 ft? I had heard that Santa Rosa eventually bottomed out at 6000... As per a citation from Forest Aten, the max depth between Coz and the Mainland is ~2900ft, and its not particularly close to either shore. FWIW, that "6000ft" number does seem to get thrown around a lot in the Caribbean...I've heard the same claim over on Cayman Brac and Little Cayman several times. Unfortunately, when you take a look at an actual depth sounding map (this one's depths are in meters)... http://www.huntzinger.com/photo/2003/brac/cayman_brac_depths.jpg ...you can see that while you may need to go a 1/4 mile offshore to get to the drop-off that we dive on, you have to go roughly another mile or so offshore from there to get to the 1000m depth line...quite a long swim :-) Overall, the general depth profile looks roughly like this: http://www.huntzinger.com/photo/2003/brac/brac_depths.jpg > Not that it really makes much difference... Unless you're in a submarine :-) -hh > As far as I'm concerned, to classify something as truly "waterproof", it > should be able to handle the deepest part of the Marianas Trench > (11,035m)... I seem to remember a liquid filled watch awhile back that > advertised 11,000m... It was probably created back when it was thought that > the trench was only around 10,900m... A german "Sinn". The company is sold, but Sinn himself started a new business (don't acrtally remember the name, and continous to make these watches. Matthias > > As far as I'm concerned, to classify something as truly "waterproof", it > > should be able to handle the deepest part of the Marianas Trench > > (11,035m)... I seem to remember a liquid filled watch awhile back that > > advertised 11,000m... It was probably created back when it was thought that > > the trench was only around 10,900m... I chose not to nitpick this the FIRST time, but since this is a repeat and the main event in this post <g> ... That would be "water resistant" (or waterproof if you wish) to 11,035m only. :-) According to your implied definition, there is NO waterproof watch or anything else, because it'll eventually break (at simulated 1,000,000m say) or shrink to ZERO volume <G> in a Black Hole. :-) -- Bob. Just a quick note, i was given a $100 Seiko copy made under the name of Astina, "Professional" 500m. ok so it's cheap, functions well to any practial recreational depth that i've been to, has survived many accidents and smashes... once i was starting a small outboard motor that backfired and whipped the starter cord around, it happened so quick that the handle took a chunk out of my wrist, afterwards i looked down and saw something shiny on the bottom, it was my watch, it had ripped the pin in half so it dropped like a stone, i was incredibly lucky that i was standing in shallow water, and that the water was calm and clear enough that i could recover the watch and the broken pin from in the sand. i once swapped watches with a Tongan boatman for a dive just for a laugh, he had a fat Gshock piece of plastic that someone gave him as a gift, the scary thing was that when he handed mine back to me over 500m depth of water he handed it to me only holding onto the buckle pin... i've seen guys who buy a $2 Casio digital watch and dip it in resin so that it is waterproof (yes, proof... not resistant) it seems to be a cheap and nasty option, no worries about losing that, but i'd be gutted if i lost my watch now, i've been through watch shops in Switzerland with a jeweler friend of mine once, he was looking for a cool watch to take home, we tried on watches worth upwards of $50,000... in all those shops we had seen, i never saw a watch as solid and practical let alone simply nice looking as my cheap replica! . > once i was starting a small outboard motor that backfired and > whipped the starter cord around, it happened so quick that the > handle took a chunk out of my wrist, afterwards i looked down > and saw something shiny on the bottom, it was my watch, it had > ripped the pin in half Did it have the thick pins that the Seiko diver watches have or just the normal thickness pins... My motorcycle wreck managed to bend the pin, but not break it... It was very difficult for me to find a local replacement to that pin... Tons of the normal thickness pins, but I only found one place in all of Houston that had the thick pins... By the time I had finally found it, it wasn't like I was going to haggle on the price either... Then again, after I found the correct pin, it's not like I kept looking for other places... <grin> Turns out that the company gave me the pins for free once they found out that I had had my Rolex spring replaced there before... Fuckin' paid more for the replacement mainspring and installation that my Seiko cost brand new... > i've seen guys who buy a $2 Casio digital watch and > dip it in resin so that it is waterproof (yes, proof... > not resistant) it seems to be a cheap and nasty option, > no worries about losing that Not sure that it could be classified as truly waterproof... There is probably a crush depth even if it technically didn't leak before being flattened... At 11000m, it would probably crush... Hell, that's over 16,000 psi... crappy cheap arsed pins, hence why it broke. >Actually, the margin of "safety" is not as big as you might think. >The max depth is for "STATIC" pressure -- when nothing moves. Yep. >Taking into consideration the DYNAMIC (equivalent) depth, Rolex's >300m is about right for recreational divers. Still, Rolex hedges >the quarantee and uses the phrase "water resistant" rather than >"waterproof"! Even the model for PRO divers to depth, the >water is only "water resistant" to 1000m. Thats not a Rolex thing, it's a government thing. Not sure about the laws in other countries, but in the U.S. manufacturers are no longer allowed to call their watches "waterproof". >Then there are those cheap waters "water resistant" to 100 feet >-- which means if you don't get within 100 feet of any water. >The kitchen sink will be deep enough to sink some of those >forever. The general rule is that if it's not marked water resistant don't splash it, sweat, or anything. If it's marked less than 50M water resistant it can get wet but not very (I wouldn't recommend immersion). 50 to 100M should be OK for swimming or showering. 100 to 200M is OK for snorkeling. 200M plus is needed for SCUBA. The above are all assuming gaskets are in good shape, buttons are not worked underwater, and crowns are screwed down tight (assuming screwdown crowns). > The general rule is that if it's not marked water > resistant don't splash it, sweat, or anything. And most importantly -- don't buy it... > If it's marked less than 50M water resistant it can get > wet but not very (I wouldn't recommend immersion). [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > crowns are screwed down tight (assuming screwdown > crowns). I've always figured that if it didn't have a screwdown crown, it was at best good for perhaps a swim, more than likely just a shower or getting caught out in the rain... There's probably three philosophies in watchmaking... 1. Design everything inhouse and hopefully have a watch that the watch connoisseurs will respect (or at least something that gives people a quality watch for the cost)... 2. Design a case into which you can fit a 3-rd party movement... This would be similar to the computer makers who buy various parts from different manufacturers and put it all together under their own name... If you consider a watch just a tool, this might not be that bad of a philosophy to look for in a manufacturer... It shouldn't be all that difficult to design a watch that would be good for 60-100 atm... There's only a couple of openings in the case and they're fairly small... Hell, companies make dive lights that are good for this depth and they have even larger openings that must be sealed... A couple of O-rings around the crown and the back of the watch and it should be watertight... Make the crystal and case thick enough that it won't get deformed under pressure and you're probably over halfway there assuming O-rings for the crown and back of the watch... It's not like you have to try to make the watch really small... Hell, divers are used to concept of having large bulky watches on their arms... If it's not large and bulky, we don't think that it could be that much of a dive watch anyway... 3. Make a cheap copy of someone else's design so that it can be sold in flea markets and such as fake brand XXXXX models... That's how all the fake Rolexes came into being... Some of these might have decent movements, but they're still not the real thing nor do they necessarily have the watertight integrity of the original item... If the Tauchmeister manufacturer is using philosophy #2, I don't have a problem with it as long as they're using a quality movement... Unfortunately, I'm not sure about it and they're not publishing the full details about it... I don't think they're using philosophy #3 since they have their own brand... They might look like some of the high end dive watches, but all in all, most classic dive watches look similar anyway... > > The general rule is that if it's not marked water > > resistant don't splash it, sweat, or anything. > > And most importantly -- don't buy it... I posted MY follow-up to NE333RO before your post appeared. My wife's "waterproff" Rolex, to 100m/330ft, is NOT marked water-resistant or water-proof. :-) Don't buy it applies, if you can't afford it. :-)) -- Bob. > I posted MY follow-up to NE333RO before your post appeared. > > My wife's "waterproff" Rolex, to 100m/330ft, is NOT marked > water-resistant or water-proof. :-) > Don't buy it applies, if you can't afford it. :-)) Grace's Rolex is similar to your wife's, I guess... Same model name, but it's the stainless and gold model (with what looks like perhaps diamond chips around the face)... I really strained my eyes trying to read the damn print on the face of the watch, but you're right, there's nothing on it that mentions depth or water resistancy... The fact that it has a screw down crown would imply some sort of water resistancy, but it's unknown from looking at the watch exactly how much that might be... As small as it is, it's probably useless as a dive watch unless you had magnifying glasses for bifocals in your mask... <grin> Without a rotating bezel, I hadn't really considered it as a dive watch either... Considering what she probably paid for it, it's definitely NOT going to be a dive watch... > > I posted MY follow-up to NE333RO before your post appeared. > > > > My wife's "waterproff" Rolex, to 100m/330ft, is NOT marked > > water-resistant or water-proof. :-) > > Don't buy it applies, if you can't afford it. :-)) Ooops. "waterproof" of course. > Grace's Rolex is similar to your wife's, I guess... Same model name, but > it's the stainless and gold model (with what looks like perhaps diamond > chips around the face)... Yup. Those little diamonds upped the price a bit. > I really strained my eyes trying to read the damn > print on the face of the watch, but you're right, there's nothing on it that > mentions depth or water resistancy... The fact that it has a screw down > crown would imply some sort of water resistancy, but it's unknown from > looking at the watch exactly how much that might be... But knowing it has the OYSTER label, it's good enough for 100m. > As small as it is, > it's probably useless as a dive watch unless you had magnifying > glasses for bifocals in your mask... <grin> I use my Rolex as backup dive water, and for its WEIGHT, so I don't have to carry as much lead. :-) Really! When I was really fine-tuned in my warm-water diving, I actually have customed-made 1/4-lb pieces for my weightbelt. That's 4-oz piece -- in dive shops, you can't even find 1 lb pieces -- which I also have customed=made ones. My Rolex weighs more than a 4-oz piece of lead. :-) Actually that's the PRIMARY reason I wear heavy gold for diving -- as substitute for lead weights. > Without a rotating bezel, I hadn't really > considered it as a dive watch either... I've NEVER used the rotating bezel on my Submariner. Do people still use that for diving? :-) My computer(s) do a much better than the bezel can. The HyperAqualand watch has no bezel either, but it's a fine watch that serves as both a time-piece and a data-recorder. And then there is the ReefNet data recorder. :-) Plenty of useful "redundancy" equipments that are USEFUL. > Considering what she probably paid > for it, it's definitely NOT going to be a dive watch... Nah! If you BUY a dive watch (as I did the Submariner) why wear it on land and don't dive with it? I wear mine on every dive and use it as a regular watch as well. It's 15 years old now -- you cannot tell it from a NEW one (when it's polished during a service) because the material is so scratch-resistant. The only times I DIDN'T wear it were a few rare times I was at locations where the risk of having the arm cut off by muggers wanting my watch was non-negligible. :-) Rio of Brazil and Mexico City (outside of the Zona Rosa) came to mind. -- Bob. > Yup. Those little diamonds upped the price a bit. I suspected so... I never saw the price tag on it... She bought it for herself about a year after she had bought me the GMT-II as a gift... > Actually that's the PRIMARY reason I wear heavy > gold for diving -- as substitute for lead weights. That would make it a little more interesting if you ever need to drop your weights... <grin> > I've NEVER used the rotating bezel on my Submariner. > Do people still use that for diving? :-) Frankly, I use mine mainly for parking meters... <sheepish-grin> > Nah! If you BUY a dive watch (as I did the > Submariner) why wear it on land and don't dive > with it? I had a choice and I chose the GMT-II since having the 2nd timezone is useful... I set it to GMT (aka ZULU) since when I'm in contact with Flight Service, they expect you to give your times in 24-hr ZULU format... Considering all the wear and tear on my Seiko over the years, I've decided to just use the GMT-II as a dress watch... > I wear mine on every dive and use it as a regular watch > as well. It's 15 years old now -- you cannot tell it from > a NEW one (when it's polished during a service) because > the material is so scratch-resistant. My Seiko looks very new considering it is nearly 30 years old and it's had a lot of abuse thrown at it... It's gone through quite a few bands over the years though... > The only times I DIDN'T wear it were a few rare times I was at > locations where the risk of having the arm cut off by muggers > wanting my watch was non-negligible. :-) Rio of Brazil and > Mexico City (outside of the Zona Rosa) came to mind. Yeah, there is that issue... Really inconvenient when you are visiting countries that do not allow you to bring your guns with you... Grumman You can get a cheap watch with the Rolex screwdown stem from the former CCCP...it advertises itself as the Russian Watch on eBay :-) About $40.00 US bid for a 20 atm watch...and gee they really work :-) (at least to 130 ft) Paul in VT >My wife's "waterproff" Rolex, to 100m/330ft, is NOT marked >water-resistant or water-proof. :-) >Don't buy it applies, if you can't afford it. :-)) Heck, theres plenty of other reasons not to buy a Rolex besides not being able to afford it. > Heck, theres plenty of other reasons not to buy a Rolex besides not being > able to afford it. Really... Which would you rather have, a $3K watch on your arm or $3K worth of handguns within easy reach? <evil-grin> Awh, hell, might as well have BOTH... > > Heck, theres plenty of other reasons not to buy a Rolex besides not being > > able to afford it. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Awh, hell, might as well have BOTH... ummm... with one, you can get the other? > ummm... with one, you can get the other? Exactly... Next time you're wearing a Rolex and someone pulls a gun on you to rob you, offer to trade him the Rolex for the gun... At the very least, you might confuse him... >Really... Which would you rather have, a $3K watch on your arm or $3K worth >of handguns within easy reach? <evil-grin> > >Awh, hell, might as well have BOTH... I'd rather have a $3K watch worth $3K. Rolex is a decent watch but is terribly overpriced. > >My wife's "waterproff" Rolex, to 100m/330ft, is NOT marked > >water-resistant or water-proof. :-) > >Don't buy it applies, if you can't afford it. :-)) > > Heck, theres plenty of other reasons not to buy a Rolex besides not being > able to afford it. NE333RO, Welcome to the rec.scuba circus. My statement was of the LOGICAL form: "If A, then B." It's NOT the saem as "B iff A" or --- "B, if and only if A" You statement is only a logical consequence of my statement. Already inbluded. You said it ONLY because or your faux pas in LOGIC. Thanks for playing. -- Bob. >NE333RO, > >Welcome to the rec.scuba circus. Oh, I've been around for a while. (this is where you start bragging about how long you've been on rec.scuba) >My statement was of the LOGICAL form: "If A, then B." >It's NOT the saem as "B iff A" or --- "B, if and only if A" So? My statement was of the newsgroup kind. Intended to elicit a response. (it'll be about here that you start pontificating about all of your degrees and a bunch of other useless crap that has absolutely nothing to do with your knowledge of watches) >You statement is only a logical consequence of my statement. >Already inbluded. Already inbluded huh. Go figure. My statement was a swat at Rolexes and those who buy them without knowing anything about them. Well, except that they are a "status symbol". (this is where you'll bitch about me questioning your spelling.............oh, and try to convince us Rolex makes amazing watches that are expensive due to quality not marketing) >You said it ONLY because or your faux pas in LOGIC. No faux pas in logic, just a statement. You bought a mediocre watch, with a good case, well known for keeping mediocre time, with a poorly made band, and a mediocre mass produced movement, for way to much money. Then you tried to justify it by telling us how great it is. (you won't say much of anything here because you really don't know squat about Rolexes beyond what's in the manual and what you've heard word of mouth) >Thanks for playing. Anytime Bob. Next time we'll pick a game you know something about. (it's right here that you go off the deep end and start rambling..........I will stop reading after the 3rd paragraph) >>My statement was of the LOGICAL form: "If A, then B." >>It's NOT the saem as "B iff A" or --- "B, if and only if A" If A, then B, is the same as B if A. Neither is the same as B if and only if A. > >>My statement was of the LOGICAL form: "If A, then B." > >>It's NOT the saem as "B iff A" or --- "B, if and only if A" That was what I said to NE333RO. > If A, then B, is the same as B if A. Neither is the same as B if and only > if A. 1. What happened to your killfile or "blocked sender list" on me? 2. Why are you repeating what I said, except adding the superfluous "the same as B if A"? -- Bob. >>NE333RO, >> [quoted text clipped - 35 lines] > (it's right here that you go off the deep end and start rambling..........I > will stop reading after the 3rd paragraph) Oh dear - you were expecting an answer to reasonable points rather than nitpicking peripheral issues. Nice idea, unfortunately..... > >Actually, the margin of "safety" is not as big as you might think. > >The max depth is for "STATIC" pressure -- when nothing moves. [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > in other countries, but in the U.S. manufacturers are no longer allowed to call > their watches "waterproof". Since Rolex is NOT necessarily manufactured in the USA, the USA law wouldn't apply anyway. The WRITTEN warranty booklet of my wife's SWISS manufactured Rolex had this, "They are waterproof to 100m/330 feet". > >Then there are those cheap waters "water resistant" to 100 feet > >-- which means if you don't get within 100 feet of any water. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > The general rule is that if it's not marked water resistant don't splash > it, sweat, or anything. My wife's Rolex, which cost MORE than my 18K Rolex Submariner <G> is NOT marked "water resistant" anywhere, but the warranty booklet says it's "waterproof"/"pressure-proof" to 100m/300ft. (See the manufacturer statemnent at the end of this post about "Oyster") On the face of my Submariner, it does have "1000ft-330m, without the word "proof" or "resistant". > If it's marked less than 50M water resistant it can get > wet but not very (I wouldn't recommend immersion). 50 to 100M should be OK for > swimming or showering. 100 to 200M is OK for snorkeling. 200M plus is needed > for SCUBA. The above are all assuming gaskets are in good shape, buttons are > not worked underwater, and crowns are screwed down tight (assuming screwdown > crowns). Not a bad "rule of thumb", but your rule depends much on the MANUFACTURER as well, besides the Rolex. Brand A's "resistant to 100m" may be less than Brand B's "resistant to 50m", or not labeled as "water resistant" at all, such as my wife's Rolex Oyster Perpetual DATEJUST. I didn't know until a few years ago (because I didn't RTFM on my Rolex) that ALL Rolex Oyster models are water-pressure-proof to at least 100m/330ft. Rolex did not have any official "dive watch" for ladies, which was why Sue had used Tag Heuers (one bought years ago, and one found in LCM in 1999) and finally sold both on e-bay last year, after having used her Rolex (with NO depth marked) since Christmas 1999. :-) Safe this for your FACTOID about Rolexes. All cited INFO came directly from the WRITTEN booklets from two Rolex manufactures, one USA, one Swiss. YMMV, even for Rolexes, if it doesn't have the OYSTER word in it: "The world renowned Oyster pressure-proof case was invented and patented by Rolex in 1926. Today, every handcrafted Rolex Oyster is rigorously tested for its ability to provide pressure-proof performance to depths ranging from 330ft/100m to 4000ft/1220m." -- Bob. >Since Rolex is NOT necessarily manufactured in the USA, the USA law >wouldn't apply anyway. It is, however, marketed and sold in the USA. This could very easily make US law apply. In the late 60's the Federal trade commission along with some other federal agencys decided that waterproof was misleading and that if any word was used, it had to be water resistant. >The WRITTEN warranty booklet of my wife's SWISS manufactured Rolex >had this, "They are waterproof to 100m/330 feet". How old was the watch and where was it purchaced? >Not a bad "rule of thumb", but your rule depends much on the >MANUFACTURER >as well, besides the Rolex. Brand A's "resistant to 100m" may be less >than Brand B's "resistant to 50m", or not labeled as "water resistant" >at all, such as my wife's Rolex Oyster Perpetual DATEJUST. Ummmmmmmm............thats why it's called a rule of thumb. If it was a law I would have called it a law. >I didn't know until a few years ago (because I didn't RTFM on my Rolex) >that ALL Rolex Oyster models are water-pressure-proof to at least >100m/330ft. Well no, actually they aren't if you want to get technical, though maybe this is a mistake in the way you stated it. They may have been tested to that pressure in the lab, that doesn't mean they remain that way. Chlorine, hot water, and soap are just three of the everyday things we encounter that can quickly make your watch considerably less water resistant. Rolex did not have any official "dive watch" for ladies, >which was why Sue had used Tag Heuers (one bought years ago, and one >found in LCM in 1999) and finally sold both on e-bay last year, after >having used her Rolex (with NO depth marked) since Christmas 1999. :-) There's a watch you couldn't pay me to wear. Talk about an overpriced...........oh nevermind. >"The world renowned Oyster pressure-proof case was invented and >patented by Rolex in 1926. Today, every handcrafted Rolex Oyster >is rigorously tested for its ability to provide pressure-proof >performance to depths ranging from 330ft/100m to 4000ft/1220m." It's never been disputed that Rolex make a great watch case. Now lets talk about their movements, band, and value. Glad to see we're finally back ON Topic talking about Dive Watch questions. > >Since Rolex is NOT necessarily manufactured in the USA, the USA law > >wouldn't apply anyway. > > It is, however, marketed and sold in the USA. The two are separate and different issues. There IS/was a Rolex USA, Inc. which was the manufacturer of my Submariner purchased in the USA. On the other hand the non-USA made (Swiss) Rolexes are sold everywhere in Caribbean. It's possible they are not sold in the USA because of the law about labeling "water proof" vs "water resistant", but I doubt it. > This could very easily make > US law apply. In the late 60's the Federal trade commission along with some [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > How old was the watch and where was it purchaced? It was purchased in Cozumel, Christmas 1999. Rolexes sold in the Caribbean typically carry a 10% Caribbean discount over MSRP of Rolexes sold in the USA. > >Not a bad "rule of thumb", but your rule depends much on the > >MANUFACTURER [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Ummmmmmmm............thats why it's called a rule of thumb. If it was a law > I would have called it a law. But here we WERE talking about rule of thumb on how to ESTIMATE the water resistant level of watches. I was merely saying your rule of thumb is far off the mark, because there are Rolexes that are NOT MARKED water-resistant to any depth, but are guaranteed to be waterproof to 100 meters. > >I didn't know until a few years ago (because I didn't RTFM on my Rolex) > >that ALL Rolex Oyster models are water-pressure-proof to at least > >100m/330ft. > > Well no, actually they aren't if you want to get technical, though maybe > this is a mistake in the way you stated it. I was CITING what the manufacturer said in the warranty MANUAL. RTFM means Read The f.cking Manual -- apparently you didn't know that. That's why I said I didn't know UNTIL a few years ago ... > They may have been tested to that > pressure in the lab, that doesn't mean they remain that way. Chlorine, hot > water, and soap are just three of the everyday things we encounter that can > quickly make your watch considerably less water resistant. But it's THEIR warranty. Why don't you buy a Rolex and try it in your boiling chlorine water pot to see if it's waterproof still? > Rolex did not have any official "dive watch" for ladies, > >which was why Sue had used Tag Heuers (one bought years ago, and one [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > There's a watch you couldn't pay me to wear. Talk about an > overpriced...........oh nevermind. You're entitled to you OPINION. So far, you are very scarce on FACTS about Rolexes, because you never owned one, you never did any research on one, and even when I cited the Manuals of two different manufacturers (on in the USA; the other SWISS), you are still fumbling all over the place about your rule of thumb which is far off the mark, as I exhibited, but FACTUAL reference to Rolex watches with the Oyster label. Other Rolexes without that patented movement may well not live up to the 100m/300ft waterproof guarantee, whether the depth is stated or not. > >"The world renowned Oyster pressure-proof case was invented and > >patented by Rolex in 1926. Today, every handcrafted Rolex Oyster [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > It's never been disputed that Rolex make a great watch case. Now lets talk > about their movements, band, and value. It was all stated above. You just overlook it and ignored it until now. -- Bob. > It's possible they are not sold in the USA because of the law >about labeling "water proof" vs "water resistant", but I doubt it. So it's your contention that we allow foreign watch companies to market their watches in the USA following guidelines that are less restrictive than those we hold our own to? >It was purchased in Cozumel, Christmas 1999. I was more interested in the age of the one bought in the U.S.. I assumed Rolex was not following U.S. laws when dealing in other countries. > Rolexes sold in the Caribbean >typically carry a 10% Caribbean discount over MSRP of Rolexes sold in >the USA. I can't dispute your assertion, never having done even a loose comparison. Knowing something about the way Rolex does their marketing however, I would be VERY suprised by that. >But here we WERE talking about rule of thumb on how to ESTIMATE the water resistant level of watches. I was merely saying your rule of >thumb is far off the mark, because there are Rolexes that are NOT MARKED >water-resistant to any depth, but are guaranteed to be waterproof to >100 meters. Ok, lets try this one more time. The reason I called it a rule of thumb is because it does not apply in all cases. IT'S NOT A LAW. >But it's THEIR warranty. Why don't you buy a Rolex and try it in your >boiling chlorine water pot to see if it's waterproof still? They don't warranty against stupidity. If you put it in a boiling chlorine water pot you would quickly find out why the U.S. decided on the water-resistant label. >You're entitled to you OPINION. That should be "informed opinion". Unlike yours. When you've worked on as many of them as I have maybe you'll have a clue. > So far, you are very scarce on FACTS >about Rolexes Why do you need facts? You've learned everything you need to know from their manual and your supercilious friends. Here's a couple they might have left out. Q:You know why they have such a good case? A:They are carved from a solid piece of whatever metal they are made of. No welds, solders, etc. Q:You know why their movements are mediocre? A:They use mass produced ETA (brand) movements. They do however, polish the pivots and a rework some other areas to make them a bit better than off the shelf. Still, not what one would expect from a watch that expensive. Q:You know why their bands are so poorly made? A:I don't know the answer to that one. You'd think after putting that much work into a quality case they would at least take the time to give it a decent band. At least a band with closed links. >, because you never owned one, Ummmmmm..............actually I've owned four, but you never were one to let facts get in your way. If you'd have said I never owned a new one you would have been right. New Rolexes are a bad value. Used ones can be a good value if the price is right. > you never did any research >on one, You mean other than taking them apart, fixing them, and putting them back together? You are the one getting all of your knowledge from the Rolex owners manual. You know one of the reasons it's so expensive to get a Rolex fixed? Rolex requires you to order some parts in packages of three. > and even when I cited the Manuals of two different >manufacturers >(on in the USA; the other SWISS), So your expertise tells you these watches are manufactured in Switzerland and in the USA? >It was all stated above. You just overlook it and ignored it until now. >-- Bob. Come back and talk intelligently when you get a clue. > > It's possible they are not sold in the USA because of the > law [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > market their watches in the USA following guidelines that are less > restrictive than those we hold our own to? They are sometimes referred to as the "grey market" products. Not limited to watches. > >It was purchased in Cozumel, Christmas 1999. > > I was more interested in the age of the one bought in the U.S.. I > assumed Rolex was not following U.S. laws when dealing in other > countries. NE333RO, you need to pay more attention to FACTS and DETAILS you should have known in your discussion with ME. The facts below were already posted -- you simply didn't pay attention, as you let lots of other facts escapt you: The one bought in the US was MANUFACTURED by Rolex USA, and it didn't have the "waterproof" statement in the manual. The watch was purchased in 1989. > > Rolexes sold in the > Caribbean [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > comparison. Knowing something about the way Rolex does their marketing > however, I would be VERY suprised by that. Surprised or not, it's a FACT. I was at Ocho Rio only a few days ago, and stopped by a Rolex shop there. My 18K submariner has now a MSRP of over $19,000 USD. The price in Ocho Rio was $15,990. I remember that number because it was just short of $16K, and there are no sales tax added. If that same watch were purchased in the US, by the time you add the sales tax, it would be over $20,000. > >But here we WERE talking about rule of thumb on how to ESTIMATE the > water resistant level of watches. I was merely saying your rule of [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > Ok, lets try this one more time. The reason I called it a rule of > thumb is because it does not apply in all cases. IT'S NOT A LAW. But you're all THUMBS because you said if labeled water resistant to less than 100 feet don't count on it being water resistent -- and there are MANY Rolexes that are NOT labeled to be water resistent at all on the watch face or anywhere else on the watch, but is guaranteed to be WATERPROOF to 100 meters / 330 ft. > >But it's THEIR warranty. Why don't you buy a Rolex and try it in your > >boiling chlorine water pot to see if it's waterproof still? > > They don't warranty against stupidity. If you put it in a boiling > chlorine water pot you would quickly find out why the U.S. decided on > the water-resistant label. How do YOU know? Have you tried it? > >You're entitled to you OPINION. > > That should be "informed opinion". Unlike yours. When you've worked > on as many of them as I have maybe you'll have a clue. The foregoing discussion has proven that your opinion is UNINFORMED. It's true that I've not worked on ANY watch, because that's not my business or hobby, but I sure know much more about SOME brands of watch than YOU. > > So far, you are very scarce on FACTS > >about Rolexes > > Why do you need facts? That speaks on your stupidity. > Q:You know why their bands are so poorly made? A:I don't know the > answer to that one. Then why are you mouthing off on your unsubstantiated fact (about being "poorly made") and you unfounded opinion? > You'd think after putting that much work into a > quality case they would at least take the time to give it a decent > band. At least a band with closed links. The bank of the 18K Rolex Submariner costs MORE than the watch itself! That would put the band to cost over $10,000. The amount of GOLD content in the band is less than $1,000. So, that's where Rolex makes the majority of the PROFIT, on the band as a jewelry item. You didn't know THAT, did you? As far as the running and water resistent/proof part of a Rolex Submariner go, the 18K version that costs over $19K USD is the same as the cheapie steel version that cost about $2K to $3K. Everyone who cares to INFORMED knows it, and can choose to buy whichever version they choose. That's called the FREE MARKET. > >, because you never owned one, > > Ummmmmm..............actually I've owned four, but you never were > one to let facts get in your way. If you'd have said I never owned a > new one you would have been right. New Rolexes are a bad value. Used > ones can be a good value if the price is right. I was drawing the inference from the fact you never read a MANUAL. Even used ones should be purchased WITH a manual. So you owned several you bought from the pawn shop? Swell. That's WHY you are so ignorant about Rolexes. > > you never did any research on one, > > You mean other than taking them apart, fixing them, and putting > them back together? And invalidate the Rolex WARRANTY, because you are NOT one of the three (or so) authorized Rolex service centers in the USA? An "research" would require MINIMALLY know what's in the MANUAL? So, you didn't know either that by "working" on a Rolex, you had INVALIDATED whatever warranty that watch may have had, by the manufacturer? > You are the one getting all of your knowledge from > the Rolex owners manual. And many Authorized Rolex Dealerships and Authorized Rolex Service/Repair Centers -- which you ain't! > > and even when I cited the Manuals of two different > >manufacturers > >(on in the USA; the other SWISS), > > So your expertise tells you these watches are manufactured in > Switzerland and in the USA? They have their serial numbers and Rolex warranties, from those manufacturers. I didn't buy them from pawn shops like you did. Where ELSE could they have been manufactured, given the serial number ID, and the world-wide Rolex warranty? Even the watch band has serial numbers on them! > >It was all stated above. You just overlook it and ignored it until > now. > >-- Bob. That what I say to you. You are CLUELESS when it comes to Rolex watches. You've had your 15 minutes of fame to DISPLAY and PROVED your lack of facts and your cluelessness about Rolex watches. Go back to your shop and fix your cheapies and Mickey Mouse watches. -- Bob. > They are sometimes referred to as the "grey market" products. Not > limited to watches. As usual you have no clue. Watches sold contrary to the laws of the USA would be more correctly called black market or just plain illegal. In the watch industry, a grey market watch is one that is not being sold by an authorized dealer, or if sold by an authorized dealer, was not supplied by the manufacturer (bought at a discount from a third party). Some manufacturers turn their head the other way when this goes on. Rolex is not one of those. If Rolex catches you selling to a third party so they can discount it beyond what Rolex allows, they will jerk your right to sell Rolexes in a heartbeat. If Rolex catches you discounting beyond what they allow (20% off MSRP I seem to remember) they will do the same. What this means to the consumer is that if you buy a grey market Rolex, it almost always has the serial number ground off. It also means there's no manufacturer warranty and it will be hard(impossible) to get a Rolex certified watchmaker to work on it. The problem there is that the only ones with factory access to parts are the certified watchmakers. > NE333RO, you need to pay more attention to FACTS and DETAILS you > should have known in your discussion with ME. The facts below [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > didn't have the "waterproof" statement in the manual. The watch > was purchased in 1989. Cite the post. > Surprised or not, it's a FACT. I was at Ocho Rio only a few days ago, > and stopped by a Rolex shop there. My 18K submariner has now a > MSRP of over $19,000 USD. The price in Ocho Rio was $15,990. What's your point? That's less than a 20% discount. You can get 20% off of MSRP in the US. With some models it's easier than others, but within what's allowed by Rolex. Now, if you tell me that's the Caribbean MSRP and they give 20% off of that, I'll be impressed. Impressed at how gullible you are. I > remember that number because it was just short of $16K, and there > are no sales tax added. If that same watch were purchased in the US, > by the time you add the sales tax, it would be over $20,000. I can't speak to sales tax (or lack thereof) in the Caribbean but out of curiosity, how much did you pay when you declared it to customs upon entering the country? For that matter, in some states you are required to pay state sales tax on things bought out of the country. Did you pay your state sales tax Bob? Lee, you paying attention? > But you're all THUMBS because you said if labeled water resistant > to less than 100 feet don't count on it being water resistent -- > and there are MANY Rolexes that are NOT labeled to be water resistent > at all on the watch face or anywhere else on the watch, but is > guaranteed to be WATERPROOF to 100 meters / 330 ft. You are just to dumb for words. I thought we had already established that this particular brand does not fall under the rule of thumb. Should I point out some that do? Oh wait, I already pointed out two that actually put something similar in their manuals. > > They don't warranty against stupidity. If you put it in a boiling > > chlorine water pot you would quickly find out why the U.S. decided on > > the water-resistant label. > > How do YOU know? Have you tried it? Bad Bobby. Don't put your hand on the stove, it's hot. Ok, go ahead and try it if you must. I know because I actually paid attention in college (here we go again). I understand about temperature making materials expand and contract at different rates. I also understand that some substances are corrosive to other substances. I don't NEED to try it to know. > The foregoing discussion has proven that your opinion is UNINFORMED. I've yet to see you prove anything of the sort. > It's true that I've not worked on ANY watch, because that's not my > business or hobby, but I sure know much more about SOME brands of > watch than YOU. Oh? Name me one brand you know more about. I have yet to see anything you KNOW. I've seen you quote the manual that comes with the watch. So what? You don't KNOW anything about it. You are just parroting words from a manual WRITTEN BY THE COMPANY. For all you know that manual could be 80% bullshit. The point being that you don't know it's factual, any more than a parrot KNOWS what it is saying. > > > So far, you are very scarce on FACTS > > >about Rolexes > > > > Why do you need facts? > > That speaks on your stupidity. My point was, you already made up your mind without having any facts, and giving them to you would not influence you in the least. Your followup proved me correct. > > Q:You know why their bands are so poorly made? A:I don't know the > > answer to that one. > Then why are you mouthing off on your unsubstantiated fact (about > being "poorly made") and you unfounded opinion? I know what makes them poorly made, just not why they are made that way. I guess I need to type a bit more slowly so you can keep up. Look at the underside of your precious watch. Notice how loose the links are? If it's the band I think it is, the links are probably not even soldered. On a lot of their bands they just fold the links over. They use pins that are too thin, they use metals of very different hardness, in places where they can rub against each other. Other fun stuff like that. > The bank of the 18K Rolex Submariner costs MORE than the watch > itself! That would put the band to cost over $10,000. The > amount of GOLD content in the band is less than $1,000. So, > that's where Rolex makes the majority of the PROFIT, on the > band as a jewelry item. Well of course. In your world it's much more important to put the money in the look rather than the operating parts or the quality. That's why you own a Rolex. > You didn't know THAT, did you? I never really thought much about it. I do find it rather humorous that you are bragging about it. I do know that with any piece of jewelry, the price of the metal is generally a minor percentage of the total cost. > As far as the running and water resistent/proof part of a Rolex > Submariner go, the 18K version that costs over $19K USD is the > same as the cheapie steel version that cost about $2K to $3K. Well..............at least you got your moneys worth. > Everyone who cares to INFORMED knows it, and can choose to buy > whichever version they choose. That's called the FREE MARKET. Informed huh. I guess your criteria are different from mine. > I was drawing the inference from the fact you never read a MANUAL. There you go being loose with your facts. I have read a manual. I even owned one at one time. You wouldn't know a fact if it ripped you off for 19 grand. > Even used ones should be purchased WITH a manual. Oh? Whyso? I know how to work the watch. I don't care about the warranty or service centers. I bought them cheap enough that the manual wasn't an issue. Short of having it for resale, what did I need it for? So you owned > several you bought from the pawn shop? Swell. That's WHY you > are so ignorant about Rolexes. God, you're a pompous a.s. The first one, a submariner, I bought from a coworker at the jewelry store where I worked. I took it apart, cleaned it, replaced the mainspring, refinished it, and put it back together. The second and third (two tone sub + GMT) I bought from private parties. They only needed cleaned and refinished. The last (SS Daytona) I actually did buy at a pawn shop. One that I owned. That's not including the 20 or so I bought and turned over instead of keeping. Want to explain to me what the place of purchase has to do with someone's knowledge of a watch? Other than the amount of salesmen's smoke stuck up your a.s after the purchase. > And invalidate the Rolex WARRANTY, because you are NOT one of the > three (or so) authorized Rolex service centers in the USA? What do I care about the warranty on a used watch. The funny part is, the warranty really means little. It covers manufacturers defects. It doesn't cover cleaning, crystals, wear, or abuse. Those are the main reasons watches get put into a shop. > An "research" would require MINIMALLY know what's in the MANUAL? Why? The manual is written by the company. It has a company bias. It's not much use on a used watch. I'd rather have REAL knowledge of the subject. > So, you didn't know either that by "working" on a Rolex, you > had INVALIDATED whatever warranty that watch may have had, by > the manufacturer? Ummmmmmmm..........that's true with every warranty I've ever read. Why would you think Rolex would be any different. Why would you think I would think it would be any different. Just out of curiosity, how would Rolex know the watch has been worked on by an "unauthorized" watchmaker? You think they have some kind of special seal? (They don't by the way) > They have their serial numbers and Rolex warranties, from those > manufacturers. I didn't buy them from pawn shops like you did. > Where ELSE could they have been manufactured, given the serial > number ID, and the world-wide Rolex warranty? Even the watch > band has serial numbers on them! Rolex does not manufacture in the US. Think distributor. But I'm sure you knew that with your vast knowledge of everything Rolex. >> They are sometimes referred to as the "grey market" products. >> Not limited to watches. > >As usual you have no clue. Watches sold contrary to the laws of the >USA would be more correctly called black market or just plain illegal. .. Well, somebody has no clue! The term "grey market" generally refers to items that are sold without a manufacturer's warranty. Typically, the seller obtains these items through perfecty leagal means other than the manufacturer's authorized distribution. In some cases, items are purchased outside the USA and imported (or re-imported) by the seller. This happens because USA law makes warranties more costly to the manufacturer than does the law elswehre. Thus items can sometimes be purchased at signifcantly lower cost outside the USA. None of this is in any way "contrary to the laws of the USA". There is absolutely nothing illegal about this. (Although this is certainly not always the case, some "authorized distributor" may be violating an agreement with the manufacturer, but that is a civil issue.) Some grey market sellers offer their own warranty in lieu of the manufacturer's. The seller's warranty may or may not differ from the manufacturer's. Repair work, especially warranty work, my cost more, take longer and be generally less satisfactory for grey market items. However, some grey market sellers have very good reputations for the warranty coverage the provide. A buyer should consider if the lower cost justifies the lack of a warranty, and wether or not the seller's warranty (if offered) is acceptable. This is quite different from a "black market" -- which implies that at least some part of the process is illegal. (e.g. The sale of stolen items is certainly "black market".) -- Charlie Hammond -- Hewlett-Packard Company -- Ft Lauderdale FL USA (hammond@not@peek.ssr.hp.com -- remove "@not" when replying) All opinions expressed are my own and not necessarily my employer's. > The term "grey market" generally refers to items that are sold without > a manufacturer's warranty. Grey market and its exact meaning can vary by the type of goods or manufacturer. Some grey market goods come with a manufacturer's international warranty and not the warranty offered by the authorized distribution entity or its affiliates. When the international warranty is exercised the owner may be required to pay a fee for service at a local service center in lieu of shipping the product to an international destination. This is a point of clarification as what you state is also true. >Well, somebody has no clue! >The term "grey market" generally refers to items that are sold without a manufacturer's warranty <snip> Ummmmmmm.................Charlie, maybe you need to go back and re-read (I know Bobs cut and paste jobs leave much to be desired). This portion of the disagreement between Bob and I started out a number of posts ago with me saying that the US government had dissallowed the use of the word waterproof when describing watches sold in the US (now water-resistant is substituted). Bob started pontificating about his Rolexes that had the waterproof labeling. My reply to him was: "So it's your contention that we allow foreign watch companies to market their watches in the USA following guidelines that are less restrictive than those we hold our own to?" Bobs response was: "They are sometimes referred to as the "grey market" products. Not limited to watches." My response to that was that what he was refering to was NOT grey market. Marketing a watch in the US, but not follow our laws when advertising, would not be legal (I termed it black market or illegal). I then followed it up with a definition of what the term grey market means as it is used in the watch business. It was little different from yours. > > They are sometimes referred to as the "grey market" products. Not > > limited to watches. > > As usual you have no clue. Charlie Hammond has beat me to it in pointing out YOUR cluelessness. > > NE333RO, you need to pay more attention to FACTS and DETAILS you > > should have known in your discussion with ME. The facts below [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > Cite the post. You do your own search next time (if you knew how)! Talk about SHORT memory in addition to cluelessness. Jan 17, 5:54 am NE333RO> It is, however, marketed and sold in the USA. RF> The two are separate and different issues. There IS/was a RF> Rolex USA, Inc. which was the manufacturer of my Submariner RF> purchased in the USA. > > Surprised or not, it's a FACT. I was at Ocho Rio only a few days > ago, > > and stopped by a Rolex shop there. My 18K submariner has now a > > MSRP of over $19,000 USD. The price in Ocho Rio was $15,990. > > What's your point? My poinnt was in rebutting the point YOU made, and snipped: RF> > Rolexes sold in the Caribbean typically carry a 10% Caribbean RF> > discount over MSRP of Rolexes sold in the USA. NE333RO > I can't dispute your assertion, never having done even a NE333RO >loose comparison. Knowing something about the way Rolex does NE333RO > their marketing however, I would be VERY suprised by that. > That's less than a 20% discount. No sh.t! I was using it as a FACT to back up the 10% Caribbean discount. NE333RO, you showed first a lack of grasp for FACTS that had already been stated. Then you showed your cluelessness in the meaning of "greg market". NOW, you showed your INCOHERENCE in a discussion! > I > > remember that number because it was just short of $16K, and there > > are no sales tax added. If that same watch were purchased in the US, > > by the time you add the sales tax, it would be over $20,000. > > I can't speak to sales tax Then STFU. You have failed to grasp anything of substance in the entire thread about Rolexes. > > The foregoing discussion has proven that your opinion is UNINFORMED. > > I've yet to see you prove anything of the sort. Of course not, by YOU. But every reader who read this thread about Rolexes would have known the number of instances in which YOUR FOOT in the MOUTH have proven that you are UNINFORMED. > > It's true that I've not worked on ANY watch, because that's not my > > business or hobby, but I sure know much more about SOME brands of > > watch than YOU. > > Oh? Name me one brand you know more about. How about Rolex? Have you serviced any Citizen's HyperAqualand? If you did, you have INVALIDATED its 5-year warranty the same way you had invalidated any Rolex warranty by "working" on it. > I have yet to see > anything you KNOW. I've seen you quote the manual that comes with the > watch. So what? You don't KNOW anything about it. You are just > parroting words from a manual WRITTEN BY THE COMPANY. But when it comes to the terms of WARRANTY, you bet your DUMBASS it matters that it's WRITTEN BY THE COMPANY. That's why YOU invalidated any WARRANTY that might have been on the Rolex watches you cluelessly worked on -- NOT KNOWING the conditions of warranty required the service be done by an AUTHORIZED Service Center -- named by Rolex! > > > > So far, you are very scarce on FACTS > > > >about Rolexes > > > > > > Why do you need facts? > > > > That speaks on your stupidity. The same stupidity was repeated by you above. > > The band of the 18K Rolex Submariner costs MORE than the watch > > itself! > > > > You didn't know THAT, did you? > > I never really thought much about it. You never thought much about ANYTHING you've been mouthing off about Rolexes -- nothing but your own uninformed, unsubstantiated, and opinionated BULL sh.t! > Informed huh. I guess your criteria are different from mine. Definitely! And it has been proven in this thread what YOUR criteria of "informed" is -- not read any manual, violate warranty condition without knowing it, ..., not knowing FACTS ... > > Even used ones should be purchased WITH a manual. > > Oh? Whyso? I know how to work the watch. And INVALIDATE the warranty by so doing! We had already established THAT. > > And invalidate the Rolex WARRANTY, because you are NOT one of the > > three (or so) authorized Rolex service centers in the USA? > > What do I care about the warranty on a used watch. And what do you care about your own IGNORANCE? Ignorance is Bliss, ya know? > > An "research" would require MINIMALLY know what's in the MANUAL? > > Why? The manual is written by the company. That is ONE of the many reasons WHY. You're so dumb that it's incredible even to me who had seen MANY dummies in my years on internet ngs. No wonder you didn't know what RTFM means -- for dumb a.ses like you -- who does everything (wrong) by NOT Read The f.cking Manual! > > So, you didn't know either that by "working" on a Rolex, you > > had INVALIDATED whatever warranty that watch may have had, by > > the manufacturer? > > Ummmmmmmm..........that's true with every warranty I've ever read. That shows you shouldn't be in the watch (or any other) business, not knowing the warranty conditions (or the fact that YOU VIOLATED them). I had already said, RF> You've had your 15 minutes of fame to DISPLAY and PROVED your RF> lack of facts and your cluelessness about Rolex watches. You've had overtime to DISPLAY and PROVED your lack of facts, cluelessness, and general ignorance and callousness about WARRANTIES. This is my final reply for you, NE333RO. You have wasted enough bandwidth and have proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that you are BLISSFULLY IGNORANT about Rolex watches in particular, and probably about other watches in general (by not reading or paying any attention to the manufacturer's MANUAL). Adio, and have fun invalidating warranties and ruin OTHER folks' watch that came to your service/repair. -- Bob. >Charlie Hammond has beat me to it in pointing out YOUR cluelessness. Charlie Hammond misread, and aimed the clueless label in the wrong direction. Did you even read what he wrote? Isn't it amazingly parallel with what I wrote? I'm going to skip most of the tripe you've written, a lot of it is practically incomprehensible. Between creative snipping (some would say deceiving), poor diction, and atrocious spelling, your posts get harder and harder to read, as you get redder and redder in the face. >This is my final reply for you, NE333RO. Thank God. Wouldn't want you to have a coronary screaming at your computer. Interesting world you live in though, believing that the one who screams the loudest is right. Must be stressful being "right" all of the time.  SignatureDirk I'm too lazy to compose a creative sig. > >Actually, the margin of "safety" is not as big as you might think. >>The max depth is for "STATIC" pressure -- when nothing moves. [quoted text clipped - 31 lines] > screwdown > crowns). Question? Are you talking about expensive watches, (ie the Rolexes and other fancy watches that everybody keeps talking about) or watches in general? Because I've got a couple different Timex digital watches that I switch between depending on which features I want, (the compass or the thermometer) neither cost more than $60, and both have been below 90 ft with me on dives with no probs. And they are both marked to 100m. >Question? Are you talking about expensive watches, (ie the Rolexes and other >fancy watches that everybody keeps talking about) or watches in general? That is a general rule of thumb used by the watch/jewelry industry. I've seen something similiar in Seiko's paperwork, check http://www.seikousa.com/Faq/FaqAbout.aspx#5 As far as expensive or cheap go, that really isn't much of a guideline. I've worked on very expensive watches that were not water proof at all, and cheap watches that held up to amazing abuse. Hell, I had a Casio G-shock that I spent $29.95 for and the original batteries lasted 15 years. I'm sure it wasn't designed to those specifications but sometimes you just get lucky. >Because I've got a couple different Timex digital watches that I switch >between depending on which features I want, (the compass or the thermometer) >neither cost more than $60, and both have been below 90 ft with me on dives >with no probs. And they are both marked to 100m. Thats entirely possible. While I'm sure there's a small margin of over-engineering in the designs, I'm also reasonably sure that if they thought they could put a deeper designation on the watch, they would. It would allow them to get more money. If you are interested in Citizens take on this try: http://www.citizenwatch.com/us/frame_noflash.html (tech topics) >>>Looks almost like a Tag Hauer, but it isn't. Perty solid? >>>I owuld hope so. Max depth to 1000 meters. My Rolex Submariner [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > "waterproof"! Even the model for PRO divers to depth, the > water is only "water resistant" to 1000m. <snip> If you think the fact you are moving a bit makes much difference (i.e. significantly increases pressure) you may want to consider why your eardrums don't blow up every time you move your head. The recommended depths vs water resistant levels are just arse covering. Most watches will be fine way below the recommended swimming depths (not the same thing as water resistance levels). Personally can't see why I would care, my breitling has a greater depth rating than my stinger - I have no intention of ever taking it diving. Why on earth would I want to. If you just want a watch that won't destroy itself then buy a g-shock and a decent watch for out of the water. > >>>Looks almost like a Tag Hauer, but it isn't. Perty solid? > >>>I owuld hope so. Max depth to 1000 meters. My Rolex Submariner [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > significantly increases pressure) you may want to consider why your > eardrums don't blow up every time you move your head. Where did I say "moving a bit". I was merely pointing out that there MAY be a large difference between STATIC and DYNAMIC. Your example is absurd. Rain in hurricane storm doesn't blow up your eardrums either. They sure cause water to sip into otherwise "water-tight" windows and other "sealed" structures, not to mentino blowing down houses. How many blown up eardrums have you heard of that were caused by hurricane rain storms? > The recommended depths vs water resistant levels are just arse covering. So? Almost every spec has margin of safety built into it. The elevator can safely carry 10 times its stated maximum load, most of the time. > Personally can't see > why I would care, my breitling has a greater depth rating than my > stinger - I have no intention of ever taking it diving. Is it a dive watch? If so, why not take it diving? > Why on earth > would I want to. If you just want a watch that won't destroy itself > then buy a g-shock and a decent watch for out of the water. You're a man full of contradictions, unable to coherently state his PERSONAL value judgment, nor any logical reasons for them. Everyone is entitled to his OPINION, especially a PERSONAL one. But if you're trying to make a case that your personal opinion is one others may/should follow, then you have failed miserably. JMHO. -- Bob. >>>>>Looks almost like a Tag Hauer, but it isn't. Perty solid? >>>>>I owuld hope so. Max depth to 1000 meters. My Rolex Submariner [quoted text clipped - 31 lines] > How many blown up eardrums have you heard of that were caused by > hurricane rain storms? What have hurricanes got to do with anything. You presumably are an expert on why that happens. Things are protected against a certain pressure. You're knowledge of fluid dynamics is pretty slim. Try looking up Bernoulli's equation - speed = lower pressure. If you have dived in an underwater tornado then let us know..... Maybe they do create a pressure differential compared to waving your arms about at 30m... Must admit - never studied underwater tornadoes fortunately. >>The recommended depths vs water resistant levels are just arse > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > elevator can safely carry 10 times its stated maximum load, most > of the time. Agreed - point is still arse covering in terms of "water resitant" instead of "water proof". >> Personally can't see >>why I would care, my breitling has a greater depth rating than my >>stinger - I have no intention of ever taking it diving. > > Is it a dive watch? If so, why not take it diving? Yes - it even has a drysuit extention, point is it is useless underwater and why take the risk when something $50 will do the job. >>Why on earth >>would I want to. If you just want a watch that won't destroy itself [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > -- Bob. Yep, you yours and me mine. Not sure what yours is yet, just know you're understanding of fluid dynamics in particular and physics in general is not too hot. > >>significantly increases pressure) you may want to consider why your > >>eardrums don't blow up every time you move your head. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > > > Rain in hurricane storm doesn't blow up your eardrums either. > What have hurricanes got to do with anything. That was merely an example of DYNAMIC vs STATIC (of the rain water at 1 atmosphere pressure. > You presumably are an > expert on why that happens. Things are protected against a certain > pressure. You're knowledge of fluid dynamics is pretty slim. Try > looking up Bernoulli's equation - speed = lower pressure. You are just name dropping Bernoulli. "lower pressure"? WHAT pressure? The pressure of the rain water is at ONE atmosphere. You lie in a bath-tub motionless, the pressure is STATIC. You spray that water with a high-speed spray gun, that LOWERS the pressure of that water on your ears? > If you have dived in an underwater tornado then let us know..... Maybe > they do create a pressure differential compared to waving your arms > about at 30m... Must admit - never studied underwater tornadoes > fortunately. You obvious had no such experience. I dived in those tornado- like condition UW in Cozumel many times. > > Everyone is entitled to his OPINION, especially a PERSONAL one. > > But if you're trying to make a case that your personal opinion [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > you're understanding of fluid dynamics in particular and physics in > general is not too hot. And I suppose you're a hot sh.t in both? :-) Judging from your inappropriate reference to Bernoulli's equation, you went to the wrong funeral and didn't even know it. Go back to your new toy (PC and ng access) and go bark elsewhere. -- Bob. > You are just name dropping Bernoulli. "lower pressure"? WHAT > pressure? The pressure of the rain water is at ONE atmosphere. > You lie in a bath-tub motionless, the pressure is STATIC. You > spray that water with a high-speed spray gun, that LOWERS the > pressure of that water on your ears? I looked it up and came across equations that concerned flow of water under pressure in a pipe... If you assumed a pipe with a 1 sq-in area, you might be able to come up with a value that might be appropriate... There should be a relation to speed of object and the water pressure equivalent exerted upon that object since that is basically how many boat speedometers work... Aircraft air speed indicators work the same way via a pitot tube, but air compressibility at higher speeds and the decrease in density of the air at higher altitudes gives us the difference between 'indicated' and 'actual' airspeeds... Unfortunately, this doesn't take into account the possibility of a difference in pressure on the various parts of the watch dependent upon the relative direction of the water flow on the watch... Will it make a significant difference? I don't know, but one would assume that it might be a factor in the equation... > You obvious had no such experience. I dived in those tornado- > like condition UW in Cozumel many times. Sorry, Bob... If I had know you were down there, I wouldn't have flushed... <grin > > You are just name dropping Bernoulli. "lower pressure"? WHAT > > pressure? The pressure of the rain water is at ONE atmosphere. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > I looked it up and came across equations that concerned flow of water under > pressure in a pipe... < SNIP > That's basically why Simon is Fulla Schitt, in a nutshell. http://www.bertc.com/jackschitt.htm > > You obvious had no such experience. I dived in those tornado- > > like condition UW in Cozumel many times. > > Sorry, Bob... If I had know you were down there, I wouldn't have flushed... > <grin> As much and as often as you had to go to the toilet to unload what you acquired in this ng, it ain't nuttin' ... compared to the cyclones and vortexes (but not "downcurrent") that are well-known to happen in Coz. (Check the archives. <BG >>You are just name dropping Bernoulli. "lower pressure"? WHAT >>pressure? The pressure of the rain water is at ONE atmosphere. [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > significant difference? I don't know, but one would assume that it might be > a factor in the equation... This is correct - the point is the difference in pressure at the speeds you are likely to be going compared to the existing pressure is negligible. There is no way it could turn 30m into the equivalent of 200. >>You obvious had no such experience. I dived in those tornado- >>like condition UW in Cozumel many times. > > Sorry, Bob... If I had know you were down there, I wouldn't have flushed... > <grin >>>>significantly increases pressure) you may want to consider why your >>>>eardrums don't blow up every time you move your head. [quoted text clipped - 45 lines] > > And I suppose you're a hot sh.t in both? :-) Well - I do have a masters degree in engineering covering fluid dynamics - what is your qualification? Judging from your > inappropriate reference to Bernoulli's equation, you went to the > wrong funeral and didn't even know it. > > Go back to your new toy (PC and ng access) and go bark elsewhere. > -- Bob. > Well - I do have a masters degree in engineering covering > fluid dynamics - what is your qualification? He stayed in a Holiday Inn Express last night? <snicker |
Enable EMail Alerts
Start New Thread
Reply to this Message