Rolex, Omega....which other manufacturers mean their WR depths literally?

[Der Amf]

No doubt I would be better off titling this thread, More Fruitless Agonising Over What 100m Means, but actual words from actual manufacturers will be getting all my applause





looks nice and reassuring.

This on the other hand



seems quietly determined not to get dragged into any kind of discussion

[MarkO]

Continuing the point started on the Rolex thread the Yachtmaster is only rated to 100m but has the same triplock crown as the Submariner.
There are relatively few reviews of the yachtmaster compared to the number of reviews of the submariner but I did see a comment that Rolex only gives 300m rating to dive watches.
I suspect that if tested the yachtmaster would exceed the 100m rating but I guess that would be a pointless exercise as you wouldn't take a watch with a bidirectional bezel diving.

[Der Amf]

What are physical differences between the two? Different design, or just different materials/thicknesses?

[MarkO]

This review is quite old as it discusses the yachtmaster vs sub 16610 but this side view is interesting.

[MarkO]

If only we had a member with a wide selection of Rolex models who could show the differences side by side......eh Mikey !

[Der Amf]

If only we had a member with a wide selection of Rolex models who could show the differences side by side......eh Mikey !

Yeah I was wondering if/when Mikey would pour his experience and knowledge upon us....

Meanwhile I went and looked at Certina, since they like their reputation for sportiness:



Which seems to be saying "100m is good for splashing around in the water" - which is more than some say, but not a lot

[FuzzyB]

Helberg included a printout of a test done on a CH6 that showed the watch survived at least double what the dial said. I don't think they tested each watch for those depths, but the watch is certainly engineered to exceed the stated rating.

[Der Amf]

Helberg included a printout of a test done on a CH6 that showed the watch survived at least double what the dial said. I don't think they tested each watch for those depths, but the watch is certainly engineered to exceed the stated rating.

Do they only do watches that are rated 200m plus? It's the 50m/100m/150m ratings that leave me most befuddled.

[FuzzyB]

Do they only do watches that are rated 200m plus? It's the 50m/100m/150m ratings that leave me most befuddled.

Correct. In other words, their watches are ridiculously over-engineered to survive depths deeper than anyone could attain in the first place.

[Chase]

Helberg included a printout of a test done on a CH6 that showed the watch survived at least double what the dial said. I don't think they tested each watch for those depths, but the watch is certainly engineered to exceed the stated rating.

H2O, specifically the new OT models, were actually pressure tested in water to those ratings or beyond. In this case 6000m and 8000m respectively for each model (roughly 4 and 5 miles). Apparently Clemens had a heck of a time finding a place in Germany that could water test to those depths.