Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

I bet we've discussed this before...

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #31
    I was going to say "que the circus music" but I just cannot put you in that group.
    "most things are NOS for a reason"

    Comment


    • #32
      Believe me, there are plenty of Rado watches out there that others love and I cannot grasp. Here's one (a Thai-specific model):

      Time is Money, except on Dark Side of the Moon

      Comment


      • #33
        Wiki-P has some pretty good detail
        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_Resistant_mark

        but the practical implications are that ISO 2281 is to ensure the user that the watch can survive morning showers, afternoon rains, and evening baths; where as ISO 6425 is to ensure the user that watch has been designed not to get him killed while scuba diving.

        Putting a 1000m claim on an ISO 2281 watch is the functional equivalent of selling a Ford Escort with a 1000 mph speedometer and hoping that the driver doesn't decide to go racing trains a rail road crossings.

        Comment


        • #34
          Fascinating...

          I had always just assumed that "1000M" just meant that it could withstand that pressure - didn't know there was much more to it.

          Those specs don't seem to allow for a depth rating with that certification... I wonder if the real differentiation is that Oris has performed the more stringent certification to that case design and found it to be suitable to 1000M, and therefore labels it thus, but has not performed pressure-testing on each individual watch, therefore making it eligible for the former certification but not the latter. So, in other words, they believe that the design is sufficient for every example to pass the more stringent test, but aren't going to spend the money to certify that for each specimen.

          -Nate

          Comment


          • #35
            Originally posted by Nate View Post
            I had always just assumed that "1000M" just meant that it could withstand that pressure - didn't know there was much more to it.

            Those specs don't seem to allow for a depth rating with that certification... I wonder if the real differentiation is that Oris has performed the more stringent certification to that case design and found it to be suitable to 1000M, and therefore labels it thus, but has not performed pressure-testing on each individual watch, therefore making it eligible for the former certification but not the latter. So, in other words, they believe that the design is sufficient for every example to pass the more stringent test, but aren't going to spend the money to certify that for each specimen.

            -Nate
            I won't guess as to why they did it, but it is my opinion that companies that make 1000m iso 2281 watches are making poseur watches. I take it as an element of deception.

            Comment


            • #36
              How would we know who is fully testing and who isn't? Do all makers of ISO 6425-certified watches identify them as such?

              In practical terms--though I am not a SCUBA diver--should I not trust my modern 300m Omega for more than showering?
              Time is Money, except on Dark Side of the Moon

              Comment


              • #37
                Originally posted by Watch Carefully View Post
                How would we know who is fully testing and who isn't? Do all makers of ISO 6425-certified watches identify them as such?

                In practical terms--though I am not a SCUBA diver--should I not trust my modern 300m Omega for more than showering?

                Diver's watches made since iso 6425 are marked as such, the standard lists how the watches should be marked.

                I believe ORIS clearly marked the dials of some of their 1000m watches with "ISO 2281". I wager the rational for that was a marketing ploy to those who didn't know better, and a get out of civil suit free card for those who might use such a watch for diving and have a negative result.

                If the watch was made post the creation of ISO 6425 and it just states "water resist" it probably is ISO 2281
                Last edited by TKTM; 12-23-2009, 02:29 PM.

                Comment


                • #38
                  Forgive me for asking but...

                  Some of this seems a bit strident to me. I have no love for companies or individuals who mislead either passively or actively, their customers but...this is the very first I've ever heard of this discussion. Which may only point up my ignorance but, I would wonder, is the failure rate for watches rated with the 2281 versus failure rate on the watches rated with the 6425 designation. There's no question which standard is more stringent I'm just wondering how much this applies in the real world.

                  And I have to admit, I have never seen an ISO designation on a watch.

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Originally posted by russell View Post
                    Some of this seems a bit strident to me. I have no love for companies or individuals who mislead either passively or actively, their customers but...this is the very first I've ever heard of this discussion. Which may only point up my ignorance but, I would wonder, is the failure rate for watches rated with the 2281 versus failure rate on the watches rated with the 6425 designation. There's no question which standard is more stringent I'm just wondering how much this applies in the real world.

                    And I have to admit, I have never seen an ISO designation on a watch.
                    In regard to stridency, it is my own personal response to this question "What brand/style/trend of watches that is popular/respected continues to elude your understanding/interest?" I also don't like name brand watches that look like Rolexs but aren't.

                    As for importance, the specification difference exists for a reason, usually stuff like this gets spec'd out because some one died.

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Nope. Now if you were driving a Hummer, then maybe.

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        I think Hummer owners use ...

                        ...MINI Coopers as dinghies.

                        All ashore that's goin' ashore.
                        _____

                        You know that you're over the hill when your mind makes a promise that your body can't fill.

                        Little Feat

                        _____

                        dean.

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Best moment

                          One of the best moments of my big driving trip this summer was passing one of those enormous custom coaches someone had made into a RV of sorts. Behind it, on a tow bar, they were towing an H2.

                          Hilarious.

                          I passed them in the Prius, doing about 80 MPH on the lonely New Mexico highway, getting about 55 MPG.

                          Then again, I don't have a jacuzzi and Wolf range in the Prius.

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            I think you could fit a Mini inside a Hummer.

                            Comment

                            Working...
                            X