Bahnstormer_vRS wrote: ↑Fri Aug 30, 2024 9:52 am ^^^^ Although not DIN or ISO tested, all Elliot Brown Watches are individually tested for WR before sale.

Testing, testing and more testing

Guy

Sent from my Galaxy S23 Ultra using Tapatalk

This is awesome just the sort of stuff brands should be transparent on well done Elliot Brown.

simoncpage wrote: ↑Thu Aug 29, 2024 6:22 pm So I take it I am the only one who cares if CW does a ISO certified dive watch or not? I almost bought the new compressor and I think if that had diver on the dial I would have that now. I also would have snapped up the new watch today (which I still might go for...)

The 3 CWs I do have are top quality I have no issue with CW quality control but I would just like the backup reassurance that it is a proper tool watch and can be used for things that I will more than likely never use it for...

I don't know that you're the only one who cares. I don't dive -- medical thing -- but my wife and son do and I gather that more and more people are using dive computers. I'm guessing that the vast majority of "dive" watches are really bought as sport watches (and not a few not even for much sport). For me (just me personally), a dive watch is a sport watch suitable for tennis or the pool. I mean, Rolex sells a solid gold (18k) Deepsea for a mere 54k (US) and I trust that it's suitable for real diving if "suitable" has to do with water resistance, but are any of their customers diving with that gold brick on their wrists? If three are, are they diving much below 100 or 150 feet? But none of this is to say that you shouldn't care about the certification or the functionality. Whatever the trend, I'm sure that there are still many divers using proper dive watches.

My two sons are both EMTs who are water rescue certified. I’ve asked them, and they report neither they nor any of their colleagues worry as to the ISO certification on a watch. The only one in their group who has such a watch is an ex-US Navy diver who is also certified in deep water rescue, and that is because she was gifted one by her parents when she graduated from the program. She mostly wears a Timex Iron Man.

As I only swim and don’t dive, and I don’t take my watches, divers or others, in the water, it’s not a certification that would mean much to me. I’m sure some would value the ISO or similar rating. It’s a selling point for marketing purposes in my view. If I’m intending to go in a pool, pond, lake, or ocean I take my watch off. I wear a water resistant watch while boating but I don’t expect to capsize and thus immerse my watch.

Sinn is very keen on certificates. But I do understand whyrest of the industry skips on those. So few of the potential customers care and the costs arent small


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

simoncpage wrote: ↑Thu Aug 29, 2024 6:22 pm So I take it I am the only one who cares if CW does a ISO certified dive watch or not? I almost bought the new compressor and I think if that had diver on the dial I would have that now. I also would have snapped up the new watch today (which I still might go for...)

The 3 CWs I do have are top quality I have no issue with CW quality control but I would just like the backup reassurance that it is a proper tool watch and can be used for things that I will more than likely never use it for...

Would you be asking the same thing of a Tudor Pelagos or Rolex Sea Dweller?

So good news is that CW tests every watch it sells for pressure, not so good news that is the only test they carry out.

I was hoping to hear that there was a bunch of tests carried out on samples or I was half expecting a reply that they aren't at liberty to divulge the tests but that the watches far exceed ISO standards...

MarkingTime wrote: ↑Sat Aug 31, 2024 8:49 am Would you be asking the same thing of a Tudor Pelagos or Rolex Sea Dweller?

I guess the difference with them is that they actually were brands that specifically at one point made watches for divers and so have a history of actually providing these as tool watches way before ISO so no I wouldn't and expect them probably like Squale have exceeded ISO standards.

thomcat00 wrote: ↑Fri Aug 30, 2024 8:43 pm As I only swim and don’t dive, and I don’t take my watches, divers or others, in the water, it’s not a certification that would mean much to me. I’m sure some would value the ISO or similar rating. It’s a selling point for marketing purposes in my view. If I’m intending to go in a pool, pond, lake, or ocean I take my watch off. I wear a water resistant watch while boating but I don’t expect to capsize and thus immerse my watch.

I can't say I follow the same when I buy a tool watch I want to use it as a tool watch and put it through it's paces which I think is why I care more here.

Thing is if you look at the ISO certification it isn't just about water pressure. It covers, impact, legibility, moisture, temperature etc. I just think yes a selling point but when you are paying £2k+ on a "dive" watch unless it is a Rolex, Tudor, Squale, Doxa etc I would want some reassurance that the watch is what they say they are and not just a fashion watch that does go to 200m but would get wreaked with moisture changes or sudden temperature changes etc. I also am aware that 5% (plucked figure) of dive watch owners get them wetter than a shower and so probably don't really need them to perform I'm just surprised not many people care if they are buying a genuine dive watch or not.

I don't dive but surely with the diving computers you would want to make sure it had some certification and was actually going to perform at depths?

simoncpage wrote: ↑Thu Sep 05, 2024 6:11 pm …I just think yes a selling point but when you are paying £2k+ on a "dive" watch unless it is a Rolex, Tudor, Squale, Doxa etc I would want some reassurance that the watch is what they say they are and not just a fashion watch that does go to 200m but would get wreaked with moisture changes or sudden temperature changes etc.

When you put it that way, I very much understand your point. In fact, I find it hard to disagree with. It begs the question am I buying an actual tool watch or a tool style watch? In light of some earlier points, it’s not so relevant a question if one’s not actually buying it as a bonafide tool. However, it’s a very relevant question if one plans to use the watch as a tool! This conversation fits in with @rkovars’s thread about a professional tool watch.

I’ve been giving thought to picking up a Citizen Promaster Diver as a knock around, grab & go, daily beater. A big part of the appeal is the ISO certification, as I know if it meets that certification, it’s more than fit for purpose for me wearing it when doing yard work and various chores around that house.

This has been a really interesting thread!

There's not really much to this.
The mainstay of Swiss made automatic watches, contain either ETA or Sellita movements and all are as robust as each other. Put these movements into competently made cases and you will have a watch that will in all probability, exceed ISO standards in terms of robustness and water resistance.
In fact, a manufacturer would have to try quite hard to not meet ISO specification, I'd say, even a £100 Vostok Amphibia would meet the spec.
I say 'even', the Vostoks are well proven dive/tool watches.

MarkingTime wrote: ↑Sat Sep 07, 2024 5:15 pm There's not really much to this.
The mainstay of Swiss made automatic watches, contain either ETA or Sellita movements and all are as robust as each other. Put these movements into competently made cases and you will have a watch that will in all probability, exceed ISO standards in terms of robustness and water resistance.
In fact, a manufacturer would have to try quite hard to not meet ISO specification, I'd say, even a £100 Vostok Amphibia would meet the spec.
I say 'even', the Vostoks are well proven dive/tool watches.

But what are you basing this on? I’m sure a lot of watch particular the more high end or dive history brands Doxa, Rolex, Tudor etc will trump ISO but for the lesser watches unless you have specifically taken said watch diving and taken it to the extremes of impact, strap tension, moisture and temperature changes, legibility, saltwater, pressure and accuracy tests (+ whatever I have missed as part of 6425) I don’t see how any one can say the above with any degree of certainty? You certainly wouldn’t accept the same reasoning on a dive computer?

The fact CW do no other test other than pressure also to me means a question mark above them now but why don’t they? - yes the quality of the watches in hand seem great to me but if I wallop it / put it through extreme temperature etc with whatever force/temps ISO states is it going to actually carry on… without testing no ones really knows and because 95+ % are never used as proper tool watches we will never know…

simoncpage wrote: ↑Sun Sep 08, 2024 11:04 am

MarkingTime wrote: ↑Sat Sep 07, 2024 5:15 pm There's not really much to this.
The mainstay of Swiss made automatic watches, contain either ETA or Sellita movements and all are as robust as each other. Put these movements into competently made cases and you will have a watch that will in all probability, exceed ISO standards in terms of robustness and water resistance.
In fact, a manufacturer would have to try quite hard to not meet ISO specification, I'd say, even a £100 Vostok Amphibia would meet the spec.
I say 'even', the Vostoks are well proven dive/tool watches.

But what are you basing this on?

Logic, physics, my engineering experience and hands on empirical evidence.

MarkingTime wrote: ↑Sun Sep 08, 2024 8:58 pm Logic, physics, my engineering experience and hands on empirical evidence.

Warning:

Bit dodgy, that empirical evidence malarkey. Can it replace a piece of paper?

Two of my CWs (black dial and blue dial). Both run well within COSC specs. One has a certificate and one doesn’t.

“Black and blue, and who knows which is which, and who is who?” (Waters/Wright).

Funnily enough, they both enjoy a dip in the old briny too (well, the top metre or so, which is the bit I use).