Page 2 of 2

Re: Is the Super Compressor technology technically relevant?

Posted: Mon Oct 05, 2020 6:05 pm
by Amor Vincit Omnia
^^^I think that's right. Most of Joe's cohort haven't logged in for years. A couple of even earlier members have logged in recently but haven't posted in a long time.

Re: Is the Super Compressor technology technically relevant?

Posted: Mon Oct 05, 2020 8:57 pm
by joerattz
scooter wrote:
Mon Oct 05, 2020 5:49 pm
Great to see Joe still checking out CW and still posting albeit infrequently.

Probably our longest serving (and posting) member.

scooter
I'm not dead yet! It was merely a flesh wound.

Re: Is the Super Compressor technology technically relevant?

Posted: Mon Oct 05, 2020 9:07 pm
by Lavaine
It is no more technically relevant than the helium escape valve on my Seamaster. Completely unnecessary, but intended to help sell watches.

Re: Is the Super Compressor technology technically relevant?

Posted: Tue Oct 06, 2020 1:26 am
by albionphoto
I don't think this is one of CW's most original watches. The whole C65 line is a homage to the Oris Divers 65 even though CW have been much more creative with the C65 line overall and the hands are influenced by the Doxa watches. CW did a very good job with the details and the dial and that's why it works for me. The super compressor doesn't bother me too much as I doubt I'll ever get this one wet, especially on the orange leather strap but I didn't expect to like it and now I have one I'm rather fond of it.

Re: Is the Super Compressor technology technically relevant?

Posted: Tue Oct 06, 2020 9:18 am
by Kansas City Milkman
I appreciate the brilliant photos far more than I do the watch! (I am not a fan of the watch and am unmoved by the design or the tech)

Re: Is the Super Compressor technology technically relevant?

Posted: Tue Oct 06, 2020 10:43 am
by JAFO
If you own a few watches, and want to add to your collection, you probably want something different. You probably have several divers, a dress watch or two, a GMT, a chronograph or 3,so where next.

A bronze, a moonphase, a pilot, different colours, maybe.

The super compressor is something different, and the CW is an attractive design. I don't think a buyer would easily come to this as a first watch though, because they won't see it in a jeweller's window, and they probably won't find it by accident, unless pointed there by a knowledgeable friend.

Re: Is the Super Compressor technology technically relevant?

Posted: Wed Oct 07, 2020 2:15 am
by Fat-Sam
I really like and am tempted by the blue dial variant but have to admit that being the same WR as my Dartmouth which I was marketed as a retro diver leaves me wondering why they couldn’t at least make it 200m.

I get that it’s an engineering flex and an ode to the past, but they have still marketed it based on the technology so for me it needs to have something more than all the other c65s

Really cool watch but I already feel like a Walt for wearing a Royal Navy watch when I’m not in the navy, wearing a technical dive watch I can’t dive with would make me feel even more fraudulent 😂 next thing I’d be in the bus with a Ferrari baseball cap and keyring

Re: Is the Super Compressor technology technically relevant?

Posted: Wed Oct 07, 2020 3:45 am
by Tortoise
Fat-Sam wrote:
Wed Oct 07, 2020 2:15 am
I really like and am tempted by the blue dial variant but have to admit that being the same WR as my Dartmouth which I was marketed as a retro diver leaves me wondering why they couldn’t at least make it 200m.

I get that it’s an engineering flex and an ode to the past, but they have still marketed it based on the technology so for me it needs to have something more than all the other c65s

Really cool watch but I already feel like a Walt for wearing a Royal Navy watch when I’m not in the navy, wearing a technical dive watch I can’t dive with would make me feel even more fraudulent 😂 next thing I’d be in the bus with a Ferrari baseball cap and keyring
I hear what you are saying about the lack of additional WR for the technology ... but maybe the limitation is in the technology itself? The super compressor technology was superseded by better construction techniques after all ? :? :D

Maybe the technical relevance of the piece is simply because it is a well designed, aesthetically pleasing tribute to an important, but superseded, construction technique?

For what it's worth, I think you're being a bit hard on yourself with your fraudulent "Walt" theory... I don't think others would look at it that way. I think they would see your Dartmouth and think "cool watch" rather than wondering if you are in the Navy or not.
Cheers

Re: Is the Super Compressor technology technically relevant?

Posted: Wed Oct 07, 2020 11:29 am
by brash47
I had brought this up in the original thread for this watch.

This is a modern recreation of the actual technology used in a super compressor. This is very in line with the original.....to include depth rating.

Actual SC were rated at 182m...or around 600ft. Its based on the original patented design named a super compressor by EPSA.

Anyway. This is a true representation of the technology which no other company has done in many many years. Yep marketing and such aside, still a good looking watch that will withstand even the deadliest depths of even the modern desk.....

Sent from my SM-G988U using Tapatalk



Re: Is the Super Compressor technology technically relevant?

Posted: Wed Oct 07, 2020 11:50 am
by tikkathree
joerattz wrote:
Sun Oct 04, 2020 9:27 pm
I agree and think it is very handsome. However as a fan of dive watches despite me not diving in them, I very much like the freedom I feel while wearing them of not having to worry about them. And I do take them in the water, pool and ocean, even though I don't dive. But, I sure have a hard time coughing up the money for one versus my 200 meter WR Seiko monster for a mere fraction of the price.

I wonder if CW would consider the same watch without the SC but with a more hardy WR like 300M or higher? That would be more desirable to me.
Joe, and I wonder how many of us here would give second glance to the Vostok Amphibia diver which actually increases the water resistance of the case back under increasing pressure. (For those who aren't aware, whereas "most" dive watches have a case back which screws down directly against a small diameter runner ring - think the diameter of a sewing needle - the Vostok has a separate case back and locking ring, the case back seating on a much wider, deeper in thickness flat O ring of rubber. Whereas the former applies force to the sealing ring in shear, the Vostok works in compression.

I too expect my "dive/waterproof" watches to work in the rain, the sea, the shower, the pool. I'm currently looking at the Casio quartz watch which I bought over fifty years ago: it got wetter than any watch I have owned since and it's stated WR? Just 100 metres.

Re: Is the Super Compressor technology technically relevant?

Posted: Wed Oct 07, 2020 12:28 pm
by Blackdog
Lavaine wrote:
Mon Oct 05, 2020 9:07 pm
It is no more technically relevant than the helium escape valve on my Seamaster. Completely unnecessary, but intended to help sell watches.
I think this summarizes it perfectly.
Still surprising that they didn't go for 200m WR.

Re: Is the Super Compressor technology technically relevant?

Posted: Wed Oct 07, 2020 12:38 pm
by Bahnstormer_vRS
It occurs to me that CW have potentially set the WR on the C65 Super Compressor at 150m, despite in all likelihood of it being capable of a higher WR rating, to maintain the hierarchy within their ranges which are (approximately);-

Dress; 50m - 100m
Motorsport; 50m - 100m
Aviator; 50m - 100m
Military; 100m -150m
Retro-Dive; 150m
Dive; 300m - 600m - 1,000m

Guy

Sent from my Xperia 5 using Tapatalk




Re: Is the Super Compressor technology technically relevant?

Posted: Wed Oct 07, 2020 4:37 pm
by Richard D
First saw this watch in February of this year when visiting No:1. My wife’s reaction was, “at last a lady’s watch”.

Re: Is the Super Compressor technology technically relevant?

Posted: Wed Oct 07, 2020 7:44 pm
by albionphoto
Bahnstormer_vRS wrote:
Wed Oct 07, 2020 12:38 pm
It occurs to me that CW have potentially set the WR on the C65 Super Compressor at 150m, despite in all likelihood of it being capable of a higher WR rating, to maintain the hierarchy within their ranges which are (approximately);-

Dress; 50m - 100m
Motorsport; 50m - 100m
Aviator; 50m - 100m
Military; 100m -150m
Retro-Dive; 150m
Dive; 300m - 600m - 1,000m

Guy

Sent from my Xperia 5 using Tapatalk
This would seem a sensible way to segment the market. Offering different capabilities for different ranges separates the models and allows for some cross-over to capture as many sales as possible. Looks like good marketing to me.