The Evolution Of The Dive Watch
#1
Real diver Tool watches are virtually extinct just like the Dinosaurs . I am getting a real laugh reading watch nerds discussing what is the best diver . Why do they not wake up to the fact that all dive watches today are not made to be used by Pro divers , they are made with a design that can sell them to the non diving public . It is complete and utter bullshit to try to compair these divers with the watches that were made before the invention of the dive computer .

We can take the most iconic watch on the planet , the Rolex Submariner . This was the watch i and other military personal used for the most in the sixties . We used it because it was the most reliable dive watch at this time . In the Far East Seiko was the favorite diver at this time , like the Rolex reliable and strong . It was the military use of these watches and the reputation they gained there , that spread to civil diving use and a world wide reputation with the general public . JLC - Vulcain - Omega- Blancpain - Omega - IWC were just some of the brands who used all of their resources and technical know how to construct reliable dive watches . Shiny cases and design elements for the great public were just a byproduct . The essential at this time was to make something that could be the difference between life and death for a diver .

The Rolex Comex divers were used by Top Professional divers , and Rolex developed them for use in saturation diving by using a Helium valve . The most technically advanced divers ever made , and this still applys to the present day . Were made by IWC ! The Aquatimer 2000m models and the Porsche German navy models were so techniaclly advanced that even Rolex were left standing . IWC lost money on every one of these models they made . And were forced to compromise on future models . The work on a 2000m Aquatimer is so precise that the watch is still waterproof at 200meters without the seals . Just try to find any past or present diver that can do this .

Rolex and IWC today no longer make their dive watches in the same way . Both brands realized that to survive in todays marketplace , you must cater to the people who buy your watches . So less emphasis on the proffesional use , but more on the design and finish . A modern Rolex or IWC has still got DNA from time past . But the era where they achieved legend status is gone . Rolex and IWC and all the other pretenders to the throne can forget about making anything that will make diving safer or easier in the future . This race has already been run , and you cannot repeat it .

And a wake up call to all the brands like Oris - Helison - UPS - Sinn etc etc etc . You can try as hard as you like with your hockey puck divers that bring nothing that as not been done before . All you can make is a back up mechanical diver with a 10 dollar caliber stuck in it . Building a 50mm case and sticking a basic cheap caliber in it , brings nothing new or special to watchmaking . And time will put them all in the big scrapmetal junkyard . Designing a diver to look Tool is a joke . Just take a good look at the Porsche design IWC 2000 m diver . It does more than any hockey puck diver at half the size . These divers remind me of all the four wheel drive Range Rovers parked outside the luxury areas of London . People just have to have one because of the feeling it gives them , but they will never see a muddy field in their lives .

There are today thousands of dive watch brands still making and selling their watches by using the most ridiculous sales arguments ever invented . Its like something close to mass hysteria . 1000 meters 20000 meters 50000 meters , what on earth are they trying to achieve ? You could say technical achievment . But lets be honest any half way good brand could stuff a little 10 dollar caliber in a massive 2 kilogram case and make a new world record . And i bet some watch nerd would buy it , so that he could impress his friends with his new WR diver .

Many of the brands i have named here make OK watches for the money . I am in no way a watch snob . And i could see myself buying any of these watches if i liked the design . But believe me it would only be because of the design , and absolutly nothing else .

Last but not least if you know about any modern dive watch that really does something new or better . Please let me know .
- Jeg er engelsk - bor i Danmark, forstår dansk - men foretrækker at skrive på engelsk Icon_smil
Svar
#2
Willy, you´re right: It is with the classical diving watches as with 60´s british and european sport cars; we love them and we propably own one or wish to own one in the future.
But we know that each and every family car produced since year 2000 has an quicker and stronger engine and are more fit for sporty driving than a vintage MGA or Porsche 914.

So, it´s their semiotic role and iconic design we love. The youthful (and slightly macho) associations, the signal value and their look we love and pay silly amounts of money for to own one.

Knowing this makes not the infantil joy less when looking at a Rolex Sub or MGA from 1964...
Mvh. John - nu under det sorte flag*.
(*Jolly Roger, ikke IS !  Icon_blink )
Svar
#3
Tio Malo Skrev:Willy, you´re right: It is with the classical diving watches as with 60´s british and european sport cars; we love them and we propably own one or wish to own one in the future.
But we know that each and every family car produced since year 2000 has an quicker and stronger engine and are more fit for sporty driving than a vintage MGA or Porsche 914.

So, it´s their semiotic role and iconic design we love. The youthful (and slightly macho) associations, the signal value and their look we love and pay silly amounts of money for to own one.

Knowing this makes not the infantil joy less when looking at a Rolex Sub or MGA from 1964...
Well put John . But in the world of dive watches they are not better or faster , they just got fatter <!-- s:lol: --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/icon_lol.gif" alt=":lol:" title="Laughing" /><!-- s:lol: --> <!-- s:lol: --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/icon_lol.gif" alt=":lol:" title="Laughing" /><!-- s:lol: --> <!-- s:lol: --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/icon_lol.gif" alt=":lol:" title="Laughing" /><!-- s:lol: -->
- Jeg er engelsk - bor i Danmark, forstår dansk - men foretrækker at skrive på engelsk Icon_smil
Svar
#4
Citat:Well put John . But in the world of dive watches they are not better or faster , they just got fatter <!-- s:lol: --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/icon_lol.gif" alt=":lol:" title="Laughing" /><!-- s:lol: --> <!-- s:lol: --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/icon_lol.gif" alt=":lol:" title="Laughing" /><!-- s:lol: --> <!-- s:lol: --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/icon_lol.gif" alt=":lol:" title="Laughing" /><!-- s:lol: -->

Right. Men jeg tænkte ikke engang de her bizarre oversize-sardindåser, kun de klassiske dykkerure, Rolex, Omega, Blancpain og mange andre producerer.
Ærligt talt; IMHO er de her hormonbehandlede store bøf-ure ikke rigtigt værd at nævne. Procentuelt repræsenterer de en uendelig lille niche / segment.
Mvh. John - nu under det sorte flag*.
(*Jolly Roger, ikke IS !  Icon_blink )
Svar
#5
"MGA from 1964"
Ahr...
Se her var der faktisk en mulighed for at anvende "mærket" (sic) ( det burde være "klammeparantes og kursiv) korrekt for en meget sjælden gangs skyld. Icon_e_biggrin
Det betyder jo " det står/stod der virkelig".
/
Kristen
Svar




Brugere der kigge i denne tråd: 1 gæst(er)