Likes Likes:  12
Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 22

Thread: 16inches WR

  1. #1

    16inches WR

    just curious about the metres \ feet markings - just now noticed the more precise marking [almost]on this ORIS diver , which borders on overly cautious claim of WR -actually googled 300m to see its actually as below ,
    does this mean for instance seamaster pro and others make false claim to actual WR for instance would that extra 15feet and watch failure on your rolex sub allow you to claim !!!!!

    300 metres =
    984.251969 feet (984 feet 3132inchesName:  1680004.jpg
Views: 103
Size:  66.8 KBName:  OrisTT1DiverBlue.jpg
Views: 102
Size:  87.2 KB

  2. #2
    The Dude Abides Nokie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2014
    Location
    Northern CA
    Posts
    3,518
    Good question. I will bet that the marketing people override the assembly folks when to comes to the definition of WR.........
    "Either He's Dead, Or My Watch Has Stopped....."
    Groucho Marx

  3. Likes shameless, whatmeworry liked this post
  4. #3
    Quote Originally Posted by shameless View Post
    just curious about the metres \ feet markings - just now noticed the more precise marking [almost]on this ORIS diver , which borders on overly cautious claim of WR -actually googled 300m to see its actually as below ,
    does this mean for instance seamaster pro and others make false claim to actual WR for instance would that extra 15feet and watch failure on your rolex sub allow you to claim !!!!!

    300 metres =
    984.251969 feet (984 feet 3132inchesName:  1680004.jpg
Views: 103
Size:  66.8 KBName:  OrisTT1DiverBlue.jpg
Views: 102
Size:  87.2 KB

    You *are* aware of the difference between "accuracy" and "precision", no?
    La lutte elle-mme vers les sommets suffit remplir un cur d'homme; il faut imaginer Sisyphe heureux.

  5. Likes shameless liked this post
  6. #4
    Quote Originally Posted by shameless View Post
    does this mean for instance seamaster pro and others make false claim to actual WR for instance would that extra 15feet and watch failure on your rolex sub allow you to claim !!!!!
    That's easy Name:  reading.gif
Views: 73
Size:  1.5 KB, if you have your deep sea accident in european waters then any water damage claims must refer to the metric rating, elsewhere uses the imperial rating for any water damage claims.





  7. Likes Chase liked this post
  8. #5
    Good to see Oris is even being cautious by rounding down, despite 985 being an arguably "nicer" number for the dial.

  9. Likes shameless liked this post
  10. #6
    Quote Originally Posted by KennethRSloan View Post
    You *are* aware of the difference between "accuracy" and "precision", no?
    Name:  High_accuracy_Low_precision.png
Views: 90
Size:  46.0 KB This target has been hit with a high degree of accuracy, yet a low degree of precision. DarkEvil, Wikipedia Commons

  11. Likes iyonk, KennethRSloan liked this post
  12. #7
    Also, the convention that distinguishes between 300 m and 300. m (and 1000 ft and 1000. ft)

    300 m and 1000 ft are, in this particular case, equivalent.

    I am reminded of the story of an old timer who told a visiting archaeologist that a certain fossil was 1,000,003 years old. When asked how he could be so precise, he replied "another archaeologist was here 3 years ago, and he told us the fossil was 1,000,000 years old...


    In this case, without some further qualification, 300 m means somewhere in (200m, 400m) and 1000ft means somewhere in (900ft, 1100ft). Do the math.
    La lutte elle-mme vers les sommets suffit remplir un cur d'homme; il faut imaginer Sisyphe heureux.

  13. Likes whatmeworry, tribe125 liked this post
  14. #8
    Quote Originally Posted by Nokie View Post
    Good question. I will bet that the marketing people override the assembly folks when to comes to the definition of WR.........
    "Don't worry about it, none of those saps will ever wear it diving anyway"

  15. Likes JAGtime liked this post
  16. #9
    Happily unadjusted 😜 popoki nui's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2014
    Location
    Vancouver Island.
    Posts
    4,580
    Also keeping in mind that pretty much all decent brands test their watches to well in excess (often 50% more) of the advertised depth rating.....
    Eterna | Tudor | Seiko | Casio | G-Shock | Orient | Swatch | Mondaine | Zodiac (pre-Fossil) | Rolex | Wenger | Pulsar Time Computer | Omega | Timex | Bucherer | Citizen I Bulova

  17. Likes JAGtime liked this post
  18. #10
    I wonder what proportion of watches ever get close to the limits of their WR after they're sold.
    Maybe a valid business model (aside from the legalities) would be to advertise 300m but only build the watch for say 50, but offer a replacement / repair service for any that failed.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
About Us
We are an independent and wide-ranging forum for watch enthusiasts. From mainspring to microchip, from Europe to Asia, from micro-brand to boutique - we cover it all. Novice or expert, we want you to feel at home. Whether it's asking a simple question or contributing to the fund of horological knowledge, it's all the same hobby. Or, if you like, you can just show us a picture of your new watch. We'll provide the welcoming and courteous environment, the rest is up to you!
Join us