16inches WR

[shameless]

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 3¹⁄₃₂inches

[Nokie]

Good question. I will bet that the marketing people override the assembly folks when to comes to the definition of WR.........

[KennethRSloan]

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 3¹⁄₃₂inches

You *are* aware of the difference between "accuracy" and "precision", no?

[Seriously]

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 , 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.

[Domo]

Good to see Oris is even being cautious by rounding down, despite 985 being an arguably "nicer" number for the dial.

[shameless]

You *are* aware of the difference between "accuracy" and "precision", no?

This target has been hit with a high degree of accuracy, yet a low degree of precision. DarkEvil, Wikipedia Commons

[KennethRSloan]

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.

[whatmeworry]

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"

[popoki nui]

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.....

[whatmeworry]

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.