Why would the author make this mistake?

[milspec]

I have been scanning throug a book called "The World Of Watches" ... in the ROLEX section, he is stating that the sub is pressure proof to 975 feet and the GMT II to 325 feet ....It thought GMT IIs were 100m so that would make it 330ft ... In the cae of the sub, it clearly states 1000ft on the dial .... so is this an oversight/typo on behalf of the author or does he know something we don't?

here are the pics...judge for yourselves ....

[Omega_Precision]

This has been discussed before and Rolex rounds their numbers up because if they were to give actual numbers the dial would look very cluttered.

The author is rounding up and down in this case in his book.

1000ft=304.8 m

300m=984.251968504 ft

100m=328.083989501 m

They both are just rounding up and down.....

[landroverking]

Do the math!

[ilan]

Originally Posted by Omega_Precision

This has been discussed before and Rolex rounds their numbers up because if they were to give actual numbers the dial would look very cluttered.

The author is rounding up and down in this case in his book.

1000ft=304.8 m

300m=984.251968504 ft

100m=328.083989501 m

They both are just rounding up and down.....

The equations you give are not exact either, except for the first one. Also, if Rolex were so concerned with not cluttering up their dial, they wouldn't have added the spurious words "superlative, officially, certified", not to mention giving a units conversion.

You can also fault the book for stating "waterproof" which is no longer official usage.

The moral of the story is: "Don't believe everything you read." I just realized that the previous statement has to be heard to be believed!!!

-ilan