This may be the worst dive watch...
9 comments
Sort by
Oscar
Mexico City watch lover, love complications and historic brands
México
Member since
Last active: 3 hrs ago
Try the new Aquanaut. 30m.
Try the new Aquanaut. 30m.
🫣
At its price? It won't see water with me unless it's getting cleaned and maybe not even that.
Try the new Aquanaut. 30m.
All of them
https://www.hodinkee.com/articles/patek-new-water-resistance
All of them
https://www.hodinkee.com/articles/patek-new-water-resistance
Just gonna leave this here... 😂.
Just gonna leave this here... 😂.
You care to explain why you leave this here 😅 I don't see the connection.
Is it because you can swim in a Casio/Rolex? Or because they have more than 30m WR? Or because you think depth ratings are unnecessary and overkill? Or is it one of those jokes I am not getting?
You care to explain why you leave this here 😅 I don't see the connection.
Is it because you can swim in a Casio/Rolex? Or because they have more than 30m WR? Or because you think depth ratings are unnecessary and overkill? Or is it one of those jokes I am not getting?
No joke, maybe some irony/sarcasm.
I only replied, to head off the inevitable that's not NEARLY enough WR to wash your hands with, much less do anything near water stuff.
WR is realistically a moot point, provided the seals, gaskets, etc are in good condition for 99.9% of the world's divers.
So basically it's a non issue, especially on a new watch.
Granted anyone buying one of these, isn't really worried about WR.
No joke, maybe some irony/sarcasm.
I only replied, to head off the inevitable that's not NEARLY enough WR to wash your hands with, much less do anything near water stuff.
WR is realistically a moot point, provided the seals, gaskets, etc are in good condition for 99.9% of the world's divers.
So basically it's a non issue, especially on a new watch.
Granted anyone buying one of these, isn't really worried about WR.
It isn't about what is enough though. If the watch is indeed tested to 3 bars of pressure for a sufficiently long period of time, then that is enough to use the thing in the water. But that's irrelevant.
Making a reasonably thin watch is hard. Making a reasonably thin and complicated watch is harder. Making a reasonably thin and complicated watch with good water resistance is even harder. Water resistance is in effect a complication. It has very little to do with functionality. One doesn't need a perpetual calendar either.
If one is spending as much as Patek Philippe is asking then it's supposed to be difficult for them to make. By setting the standard to 3 bar, they are making it easier on themselves. That alone I find rather strange. For obvious reasons that cost saving won't be passed on to the consumer.
It isn't about what is enough though. If the watch is indeed tested to 3 bars of pressure for a sufficiently long period of time, then that is enough to use the thing in the water. But that's irrelevant.
Making a reasonably thin watch is hard. Making a reasonably thin and complicated watch is harder. Making a reasonably thin and complicated watch with good water resistance is even harder. Water resistance is in effect a complication. It has very little to do with functionality. One doesn't need a perpetual calendar either.
If one is spending as much as Patek Philippe is asking then it's supposed to be difficult for them to make. By setting the standard to 3 bar, they are making it easier on themselves. That alone I find rather strange. For obvious reasons that cost saving won't be passed on to the consumer.
Agreed on the cost saving, but my guess would be out of all the unnecessary complications, water resistance was booted, over thinness, movement, calendar, whatever.
And 30 m is fine for most, if not all, who wear these things.
Harder use types will trend to the Sinn's, the Tudors, Rolex's, etc. and use the extra cash saved to buy more of those same brands. YMMV.