Rolex > PP > AP

[singkwokhk]

I was wondering why Rolex dress watches have a higher waterproof rating than Patek Phillipe. And PP has better waterproof rating than AP.

In general, why don't these companies make dress watches with a higher waterproof rating...like something over 10ATM.

[Andad]

Are you going to wear your dress at 100 metres?

[subtona]

i would be extremely happy if every watch had a minimum rating of 100m.

[rominvicta]

Me as well.
IMHO it is a product positioning and marketing decision. If you have a multiple service watch would you be then buying multiple watches? RF most likey yes, but the rest of people, i would say NO. If they make cellini or daytona, or Sky D having 300 m then Rolex will lose part of sales for Submariner, SD etc.

[singkwokhk]

I think a 100 ATM waterproof should be the minimum for Rolex, PP, and AP. I personally think they do not want this because they want us to service their watches more frequently!

[roosvelt]

I think those watch companies wants to keep the thickness down on their models hence lower depth rating. The DD is a dress watch but it is thick, some people to thick for formal attire. Me I'll take the thickness because I like the fact I if wanted to use it for rec diving swimming snorkeling ect.

[tyler1980]

Originally Posted by singkwokhk

I think a 100 ATM waterproof should be the minimum for Rolex, PP, and AP. I personally think they do not want this because they want us to service their watches more frequently!

that is excessive. Ive said it before, but excessive WR is just "bling" like diamonds or polished cases or ceramic bezels. Its not functional as i dont believe for a second Rolex designs 4000m WR watches actually for professional divers as even they dont need that and they are not actually the target market anyway. Its a luxury watch and its cool to say, my watch can go 4000m or 300m or whatever.

100ATM is about all you would need even giving a healthy safety margin, not the minimum IMO

[AK797]

Originally Posted by singkwokhk

I think a 100 ATM waterproof should be the minimum for Rolex, PP, and AP. I personally think they do not want this because they want us to service their watches more frequently!

I don't think PP do, they have already faced terrible criticism for their often 6-12 month turnaround times, esp whilst AP and Rolex get them out after a month. PP will also want to keep their watches as slim as possible so there's that balance to keep, they don't want to go the way of the Omega PO.

[HL65]

The only dress watch Rolex makes is a Cellini so not sure who wears their Cellini, Calatrava or Jules Audemars in the water. That is what my professional models are for certainly not dress watches.

[tom2517]

Originally Posted by HL65

The only dress watch Rolex makes is a Cellini so not sure who wears their Cellini, Calatrava or Jules Audemars in the water. That is what my professional models are for certainly not dress watches.

For me a higher rating would be nice not that I will be wearing it under water, but I can wash it with water and soap.

[singkwokhk]

Originally Posted by tom2517

For me a higher rating would be nice not that I will be wearing it under water, but I can wash it with water and soap.

I agree with you. Maybe they should do 6 ATM or maybe 8 ATM

[HL65]

A Cellini is water resistant up to 50m of water or 165 feet and a Calatrava 5196 resistant to 30m or 98.5 feet. Not sure why anyone would even need anything close to those depth ratings for a dress watch.

[codecow]

Wow I didn't know this. I'm going to have to sell my Pateks and pick up some Cellini.

[Chester01]

Well, dress watches often have leather straps which do not hold up well under water. Secondly AP, JLC, and PP dress watches have very thin cases. One sacrifices thickness for waterpoofing as well. While rolex walks a nice line between dressy and casual, even the day-date is a sport watch. Only the cellini line is a dress watch, and does not have an appreciably better WR rating.

[Burlington]

If you want high WR then get a watch designed for that.



If you want a dress watch which should be thin and on a leather strap then it’s not designed for the water - just needs to be splash-proof for day to day encounters with precipitation or the tap.

[Chadridv]

An omega speedy WR is 50m, but when you talk to their techs about that, they basically consider that “splash proof”.

I don’t really get that, but I do know I’d prefer all of my watches to be fully water proof. Not because I swim with a dress watch, but because I like to be able to fully submerge my watch case while cleaning the watch.

Also one time I got drunk at a wedding and jumped into a pool. My wedding lol.

[Sarosh]

Originally Posted by Chadridv

An omega speedy WR is 50m, but when you talk to their techs about that, they basically consider that “splash proof”.

I don’t really get that, but I do know I’d prefer all of my watches to be fully water proof. Not because I swim with a dress watch, but because I like to be able to fully submerge my watch case while cleaning the watch.

Also one time I got drunk at a wedding and jumped into a pool. My wedding lol.

Lol, I did the same at my wedding. Somehow was sober enough to remove my watch and give to my uncle, but drunk enough to know I was going to jump in we’re a rare breed. Lol

[Chadridv]

Originally Posted by Sarosh

Lol, I did the same at my wedding. Somehow was sober enough to remove my watch and give to my uncle, but drunk enough to know I was going to jump in we’re a rare breed. Lol

Haha

Well I was sober enough to remove my pants but my watch stayed on of course.

[Sarosh]

Originally Posted by Chadridv

Haha

Well I was sober enough to remove my pants but my watch stayed on of course.

Lol!!!

[DoctorA]

Higher waterproof means thicker back which equals thicker watch!
My guess is to have a slimmer dress watch you compromise on the depth rating..... that’s only my guess!

[singkwokhk]

I just like at higher depth rating on a dress watch because I live in a place where the humidity is very high. I figure a higher depth rating would keep the moisture away for a longer period of time.

[jstan9]

Dumb question but I’ve wondered, how do atmospheres equate to meters?

Rolex always gives a waterproof rating down to X meters but an old breitling given to me is rated in atmospheres.

Thanks, in advance.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[dddrees]

I for one always going swimming in my suit. Forget the watch why don't strap manufactures make a crocodile strap worthy of deep sea diving?

[jsausley]

Originally Posted by jstan9

Dumb question but I’ve wondered, how do atmospheres equate to meters?

Rolex always gives a waterproof rating down to X meters but an old breitling given to me is rated in atmospheres.

Thanks, in advance.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

1 ATM = 1 bar = 10 meters = 32.8 feet (33 for easy math).

If you're a certified diver (I'm SSI Advanced) these things actually have meaning, lol.

[R!$]

Originally Posted by directioneng

Are you going to wear your dress at 100 metres?

[Likestheshiny]

Rolex depth ratings are far beyond what 99.9% of their watches ever reach, and have value to the average consumer only in the extra time a seal can be neglected before it becomes a problem. Given how some owners literally never service their watches, and will cheerfully swim in them with old, brittle seals, that does have some real value.

However, on a well-maintained watch (or even just a not-terribly maintained watch), those extra-deep ratings are irrelevant. Even professional divers very rarely go deeper than 50m. And the extra WR adds bulk to the watch. The higher-end companies generally aren't marketing on a "tough" image, so there's little value in adding the WR.

[FirstF80InSpace]

I always wonder why any dress watch would have a WR to begin with.

[CoveWatch]

Originally Posted by singkwokhk

I think a 100 ATM waterproof should be the minimum for Rolex, PP, and AP. I personally think they do not want this because they want us to service their watches more frequently!

Please do share your pictures of when you were diving near 100m with your dress watch on

[jrs146]

I think watch companies do what they can without sacrificing functionality and design for unnecessary water resistance.

First, if hardly consider any Rolex (except Cellini) a dress watch. If it has an oyster case it’s not designed for dress as much as durability and with that comes a nice water resistance.

With regards to Patek, their 5711 and 5167 are 100M. That seems plenty. The 5712 is less at 60M but I think that’s mainly because of the pushers and the case design. But I’d rather have the 5712 looking as it is than a larger water resistance.

With AP the Royal Oaks are a little short at 50M. But with all those polished surfaces there’s no way I’m taking it swimming. That’s what an AP diver is for, or even just a sub.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[breitlings]

Anyone ever pressure test the new cellini? I bet it would exceed 100m. Just like a GMT would exceed 100m and a Sub 300m.