ROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEX

SirLoki · 2 April 2009, 04:16 AM

time for rolex to make the "deepest sea" now

Bisquitlips · 2 April 2009, 04:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by nylawbiz

measures 46mm x 28.5mm and weighs 265 grams.
yow

X10! Many WOW's!

BigHat · 2 April 2009, 04:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mike B

Speaking of deep (well, ridiculuosly deep) diving watches, the MTM Black Seal divers watch is completely water proof. It's water resistant to a depth of (I beleive) 39,000 feet ! However, the case is filled with silicone oil, and is a quartz movement. The watch retails for $1700. The watch can be ordered in both black (dial is carbon fiber), and SS.
I don't think I'd want to spend that kind of coin on a watch just to take a bath with, knowing it will go 1,000,000,000,000 times deeper lol

39,600 ft to be precise. Depth rating stuff is truly comical. The Black Seal is a heavy watch, but the curved case makes it sooo comfortable to wear. It also has a 7 year battery (maybe 10, can't remember) and tritium hands. The stem screws in as smooth as glass and it keeps great time. All- in-all a very handy knock around watch when I don't wish to risk messing up any of my others.

Timber Loftis · 2 April 2009, 04:42 AM

If it's deeper than one can physically go on this planet, why would we care?

BigHat · 2 April 2009, 04:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Timber Loftis

If it's deeper than one can physically go on this planet, why would we care?

Exactly. You buy any watch for the overall look and feature set. A GMT-IIC is more than adequate for nearly every dive situation on planet earth ( and a Millie for 90% of them) so to buy something you only like for the depth rating is comical to me.

Goodwatch · 2 April 2009, 04:49 AM

It is a pointless feat. Outside at that depth no-one survives and inside a submarine you don't need such a watch. But it is an engineering marvel because it was accomplished without filling the case with a liquid. Nice box though

BTW: the crystal is 10 mm thick!

mixedccr · 2 April 2009, 08:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by moby33

This is it? Interesting that it can hold water integrity despite having push buttons. No sour grapes but as a diver used to low light conditions at depth or during penetrations, DS/SD and the rest of the Rolex cadre still can't be beat in terms of function/objective. Number 1 function is to have a clear, distinct watch face to keep track of elapsed time. Simple, functional but still handsome to boot.

chicagowatchman · 2 April 2009, 08:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by nylawbiz

One shortcoming: not a Rolex

How very true!!!!!

tthopp05 · 2 April 2009, 08:53 AM

If Rolex increased the size of the crysyal on the Deepsea,it would blow away any watch as far as depths,records ect.The bottom line is how good it looks in the end.10mm eye sight,are they kidding.

AIKO · 2 April 2009, 08:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SeamasterGMT

Are the Deepsea owners here dissappointed that the DSSD is no longer the the best for WR? With the new Montres Charmex CX at 20,000 ft the Deepsea is way behind. I know they're all overkill etc etc but from an engineering point of view they're all pretty cool.

Good, now people can trash another watch for being overboard.

mike · 2 April 2009, 09:08 AM

Pssst! Why are you guys wearing those girlie watches??

txbikerdude · 2 April 2009, 09:57 AM

trying to find a reseller here in the US.....

tthopp05 · 4 April 2009, 02:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BigHat

39,600 ft to be precise. Depth rating stuff is truly comical. The Black Seal is a heavy watch, but the curved case makes it sooo comfortable to wear. It also has a 7 year battery (maybe 10, can't remember) and tritium hands. The stem screws in as smooth as glass and it keeps great time. All- in-all a very handy knock around watch when I don't wish to risk messing up any of my others.

Thats a great watch,Im really thinking about getting one.Only downfall is that it needs to be emtyed to servise which will COST you BIG.

tthopp05 · 4 April 2009, 02:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mike

Pssst! Why are you guys wearing those girlie watches??

Man Mike,you got all my dream watches.Great collection.

JJ Irani · 4 April 2009, 02:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AIKO

Good, now people can trash another watch for being overboard.

mike · 4 April 2009, 02:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tthopp05

Man Mike,you got all my dream watches.Great collection.

LOL! It's not mine. I think there were only something like 6 or 7 made. Way out of my league.

gettocard · 4 April 2009, 03:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by criggs19

My Bell & Ross Hydromax is rated for 11,200 meters or 36,000 feet (6.8 miles) but I rarely dive that deep :)

completely useless watch.

2200 Euro...you have to ship it back to the factory to have the battery changed and they would keep it for about 5 months......

:comeand ge

Nothing personal of course..it's a beautiful watch with a neat design,but this battery thing is been a complete disappointment...did the bubble show up already on yours ???

Watch Fan · 4 April 2009, 07:46 AM

I'm real happy with my Deepsea. I could care less what any other manufacturer has. I buy what I like for whatever reason. Rolex is iconic, it is what it is. If you like Rolex, then that is what you want. If you just want the deepest watch, whatever the brand, then get one of those. I personally preferr Rolex, but that's just me.

swish77 · 4 April 2009, 07:59 AM

Am I the only one who thinks the aforementioned Montres Charmex CX is an eyesore? Sure, that depth rating is a cool accomplishment, but it is one ugly watch, IMHO. I own Omega, Doxa, Seiko, and, of course, Rolex dive watches, so I'm not a Rolex-only watch snob. But come on, the hunk of metal on my wrist still needs to be handsome, no matter how deep it goes.

Dom · 4 April 2009, 03:25 PM

I will start to care the moment I am 20,000 feet under water and have nothing better to do than to check the time. As soon as I am done with that I shall consult the date function and plan for my multi-day ascent to the surface.

moby33 · 4 April 2009, 04:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by swish77

Am I the only one who thinks the aforementioned Montres Charmex CX is an eyesore? Sure, that depth rating is a cool accomplishment, but it is one ugly watch

Ahhh...no. I believe I said essentially the same thing 28 posts ago (even supplied a picture to provide a visual representation of said eyesore).

postiff · 4 April 2009, 04:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lion

Heck, most people do not go any deeper than their bath tub!!!

Hey speak for yourself I swam to the bottom of my pool once (9.5') with my 100m GMT…

cody p · 4 April 2009, 05:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Timber Loftis

If it's deeper than one can physically go on this planet, why would we care?

i guess some people are fascinated by that kind of thing - man's ingenuity vs nature's brutish realities. but an oyster perpetual with twinlock is good enough for me - it's seen 3 meters, and that's as deep as i'll ever go.

argee1977 · 4 April 2009, 05:46 PM

All these watches are pointless, and i include the DSSD in that, for 99.99% of the world the Submariner is all you'd ever need, so i can't understand why Rolex have this obsession with depths of nearly 4000 metres, there is no point in it and it's way past what a tool watch needs to be, the montres and the others are even worse, at least the DSSD is passable on the wrist, although to me the sacrifices Rolex made for it does make it less of a wearable watch.

cody p · 4 April 2009, 05:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tthopp05

Man Mike,you got all my dream watches.Great collection.

and people complain about the bracelet looking disproportional on the deep sea.

BigHat · 4 April 2009, 10:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tthopp05

Thats a great watch,Im really thinking about getting one.Only downfall is that it needs to be emtyed to servise which will COST you BIG.

Well, maybe 1/5th the price of servicing my Sub half as often.

2 April 2009, 04:49 AM	#36
Goodwatch "TRF" Member Join Date: Aug 2005 Real Name: Frans ® Location: Rotterdam Watch: the sunrise... Posts: 10,230	It is a pointless feat. Outside at that depth no-one survives and inside a submarine you don't need such a watch. But it is an engineering marvel because it was accomplished without filling the case with a liquid. Nice box though BTW: the crystal is 10 mm thick! __________________ Member# 127

4 April 2009, 05:46 PM	#54
argee1977 "TRF" Member Join Date: Oct 2008 Real Name: Ryan Location: England Watch: AP ROC Posts: 1,462	All these watches are pointless, and i include the DSSD in that, for 99.99% of the world the Submariner is all you'd ever need, so i can't understand why Rolex have this obsession with depths of nearly 4000 metres, there is no point in it and it's way past what a tool watch needs to be, the montres and the others are even worse, at least the DSSD is passable on the wrist, although to me the sacrifices Rolex made for it does make it less of a wearable watch. __________________ PANERAI, MORE THAN A WATCH, LESS THAN A KITKAT

2 April 2009, 04:42 AM	#34
Timber Loftis "TRF" Member Join Date: Nov 2007 Real Name: Jon Location: Chicago Watch: IIc,DJII,P244,A1-Z Posts: 2,857	If it's deeper than one can physically go on this planet, why would we care?

2 April 2009, 08:53 AM	#39
tthopp05 Member Join Date: Feb 2009 Location: NY Watch: THE MIGHTY DEEPSEA Posts: 839	If Rolex increased the size of the crysyal on the Deepsea,it would blow away any watch as far as depths,records ect.The bottom line is how good it looks in the end.10mm eye sight,are they kidding.

2 April 2009, 09:08 AM	#41
mike "TRF" Member Join Date: Jul 2005 Posts: 22,683	Pssst! Why are you guys wearing those girlie watches??

2 April 2009, 09:57 AM	#42
txbikerdude Member Join Date: Feb 2009 Location: texas Posts: 622	trying to find a reseller here in the US.....

4 April 2009, 07:46 AM	#48
Watch Fan "TRF" Member Join Date: Apr 2008 Location: California Watch: Sea Dweller Posts: 676	I'm real happy with my Deepsea. I could care less what any other manufacturer has. I buy what I like for whatever reason. Rolex is iconic, it is what it is. If you like Rolex, then that is what you want. If you just want the deepest watch, whatever the brand, then get one of those. I personally preferr Rolex, but that's just me.

4 April 2009, 07:59 AM	#49
swish77 2024 Pledge Member Join Date: Jan 2009 Real Name: Aaron Location: CT/NYC Watch: ing the time! Posts: 6,980	Am I the only one who thinks the aforementioned Montres Charmex CX is an eyesore? Sure, that depth rating is a cool accomplishment, but it is one ugly watch, IMHO. I own Omega, Doxa, Seiko, and, of course, Rolex dive watches, so I'm not a Rolex-only watch snob. But come on, the hunk of metal on my wrist still needs to be handsome, no matter how deep it goes.

4 April 2009, 03:25 PM	#50
Dom "TRF" Member Join Date: Mar 2009 Real Name: Dominik Location: Zürich Watch: Rolex, Patek, FPJ Posts: 381	I will start to care the moment I am 20,000 feet under water and have nothing better to do than to check the time. As soon as I am done with that I shall consult the date function and plan for my multi-day ascent to the surface.

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)