Maybe their next edition will be made out of the USS Arizona.
Manufacturers will not make 50 watches. Considering the time and expense involved, even if it sold for $1k, it would be a losing proposition. And nobody would buy it. In any case, we would never make anythng like that.
Last edited by MitchSF; August 26th, 2007 at 05:42.
As of my concern, forget al the gravings which would play a hommage, you should use your own regular graving. In my opinion, this will do the watch more justice, just because it is something from Ocean7, not something from who or wathever else.
As for the depth testing, I know for sure you could go deeper than 1200m, look at UTS, 3000m, ORIS 2000m, even a German watch magazine once placed an article about diving watches (Uhren magazine, its PDF and to big to attach, 2.73MB), in which they tested watches to there limits, even to a depth of 2500m, but if you do so, at what cost?.
I believe a deeper depth rating than 1000m would only be marketing stuf, to raise the price of the watch.. It would in no way be nescessary for diving, as I'm planning on doing with this watch (if it's made, I'm in on pre-order).
Just read all the post with a smile and realise, people are very anxious about this watch, therefore raise so much different suggestions, for me, just manufacture the watch, with a nice standard Ocean7 logo, just minor writing on the dial (no ISO2281 i.e. like ORIS), which detracts your attention. If someone will want to know about the watch, they will 'study' the watch more carefully.
I completely concur with Bart: a simple dial with your logo (I am still personally partial to the depth rating on the dial, but if the consensus is that it is not going on, no biggee to me), a 1000M depth rating (anything more is silly, as Bart points out), and your already-mentioned plans for engraving on the caseback.
The face colour you can have a better idea on once you have the dial mock-ups in your hands, and the same for the HEV ensemble.
As for the bracelet, I think that either the LM-2 bracelet as you already mentioned, or a mesh design that meets Ocean7's well-established high standards of quality and reliability.
I think that anything more will simply complicate and slow down the design and manufacturing processes (and bring out the previously mentioned seppuku speargun). All of the above are simply my opinion, and I've probably missed something from previous posts.
Thanks again, Mitch. The evolution of this beast is outstanding and I for one am really happy and blown away that you have put this project forward for discussion and comment. And the patience to see it through!
AUT VIAM INVENIAM AUT FACIAM - "I will either find a way or make one."
I agree that we should stay with a design theme that has worked so far, while injecting some styling attributes into this model from the original theme. I prefer smooth engraved case backs, not involved machining with sharp edges.
Hopefully we will have a new cad drawing in a few days. The group working on this project is completely different from the one that made the LM-3 and is making the LM-6. They take more time to make revisions.
WR testing - There is a lot of wishful thinking in these ratings. I don't know a lot about testing machines, but I've seen pictures of some that I don't understand at all, and wonder how they could possibly work. If we test and rate this watch at 1000m, we are being conservative. We use a screw down crystal like the LM-3, double seals everywhere, and we will do an honest 1000m test.
Last edited by MitchSF; August 26th, 2007 at 15:34.
Good to see this project getting "back to basics". In design, as in most other things, simpler is almost always better.
WR individually tested to 1000m is overkill in itself, tough to justify the expense of testing to greater depths needlessly. OTOH, the test facility may have the ability (or know who does) to test a single case to failure.
1000m WR with a "crush depth" of say 4600m (or whenever it sprung a leak) would be an impressive calling card and would only involve high-end testing once.
"Back in the day".. when I was involved w/ underwater ops we had clear-cut depth limitations that were observed, but we also had crush or failure depths posted that really enhanced confidence in 'normal' operating depths, and provided a good feel for how much leeway we had to work with on those rare occasions when we had to exceed regular depth limits.
Might be able to call upon our poster from OZ who mentioned access to hydrostatic testing?
Just a thought.
I think we need to just wait it out. And see what Mitch comes up with.
Dive watch fanatic since 1987
1000m is much more than enough. I think the actual world record with open circuit (no saturation dive) and Trimix is a few meters deeper than 300 (I think 308m). I am sure no one will reach much greater depth in the nearer future and 99% of the WUS community will never dive deeper than 150m. I personally think 500m is enough, but I know people want 1000m today.
Joerg, I agree with you, but a lot of people like watches constructed to withstand great depths, although I have my doubts as to whether many are tested to their WR ratings. Then again, in my opinion, many watches rated at 1000m are not properly tested.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)