appophylite
Headphoneus Supremus
- Joined
- Sep 14, 2005
- Posts
- 2,447
- Likes
- 15
Quote:
We have all become infected with the nonsense of most watch forums that say if it ain't got a 300m water resistance it ain't worth diddly squat!!
Yeah, I totally loved that over on watchuseek when a new guy showed up asking for advice and a whole slew of top end forum-goers told him that a watch rated for 100m was an absolutely terrible idea for regular swimming and how he should be looking at least at 150m or better if he was going to use the watch for swimming. When asked further, they stated that they'd only trust 100m for use in the shower or during rain. It was all I could do to keep from laughing at the sheer absurdity. If a 100m rated watch cannot or should not be used for swimming in a couple of meters of water, what is the point of recommending an overkill 300m watch? Just say, 'Don't wear a watch if swimming' As it is, the 300m rating on most watches is overkill for most people's use as many watches that are designed to those specs (Rolex Submariner, Omega Seamaster), while still used by several people for their intended purpose as a diving watch, are mostly worn these days as show-pieces, or as everyday watches.
Quote:
however, i thought the case back was an indicator of quality if not water resistance.
Check out this review of the design methodology for the Vostok Amphibia.
http://forums.watchuseek.com/f54/vostok-amphibia-analysis-design-methodology-491757.html
The watch is rated for 200 meters, but it is effectively a pressed in case-back with a screwed on locking ring - uses the best of both worlds, but shows how both types of case-back have their benefits and flaws.