WatchWerx ... and Watch Doesn't

A BLOG FOR THE HOROLOGICALLY INCLINED

  • About WatchWerx

A tale of unrequited (horological) love

Posted by Rob on 4 February 2014
Posted in: Potpourri. Tagged: bracelet, clasp, dualtime, easylink, GMT, hometime, jaeger, jlc, lecoultre, luxury, watchuseek.
The blue "home" hours hand is set to UTC, whilst the silver "local" hours hand is set to EDT.

The blue “home” hours hand is set to UTC, whilst the silver “local” hours hand is set to EDT.

I received my first really nice watch — an Omega Seamaster 300 — back in 1967. I bought my first Rolex in 1981. In the intervening years, I have owned more than a dozen of each.

Along the way, I have dabbled in other fine watches: Cartier, Concord, Ebel, Rado, Tag Heuer, Oris, Ferragamo, Eterna, Geneve, Panerai and Zenith, to name a few. But I have hovered ever so precariously around the fringes of the “big four:” Patek Philippe, A. Lange & Sohne, Audemars Piguet and Jaeger-LeCoultre.

JLC DualTime Crown UpIn the last several years, I have become more and more determined to finally score a watch from one of these iconic brands, and the brand I have admired longest of the four is Jaeger-LeCoultre. I remember seeing a Reverso in person back in the early ’80s, and it was very difficult to remove it from my wrist when it was time to leave the store (with my credit card un-maxed).

Dabbling temporarily with other square watches convinced me that the Reverso would have been a short-term infatuation, had I actually made a purchase. But my attention was drawn just as strongly to the Master Control 1000 Hours line of watches from JLC. These watches are all referred to as “1,000 hours” because each and every watch — not just a sample — is subjected to 1,000 hours of tests before it is made available for sale.

JLC DualTime Dial sideThe Master line is a much more traditional look, enhanced by the delicate precision of the alpha or dauphines hands and the lustrous sunburst dial. Fit and finish of the cases is what one would expect from a manufacture such as JLC, with a flawless mirrored finish on the case. That is complemented by a sapphire crystal and exhibition back (Normally, I do not care for exhibition backs, because they add too much thickness to the watch. But the JLC Hometime is an elegantly slim 11.7mm, so the exhibition back is a welcome feature to display the stellar calibre 975H movement.

JLC DualTime CasebackThis superb movement is a work of horological art, as one would expect from Jaeger-LeCoultre, which has supplied its excellent calibers to both Patek and AP. Blued screws and Côtes de Genève circulaire decorate the movement, but it is not all form over function. The rotor’s counterweight is crafted from 22-karat solid gold, chosen as much for its inertial properties as for its intrinsic beauty. A variable inertia balance wheel and ceramic ball-bearings in the rotor add to the movement’s durability and reliability.

The cal. 975H is one of the most utilitarian “GMT” watches I have ever owned … and I have owned many in the 32 years I have been a pilot. The dial has five hands: Central 12-hour “home” time; central 12-hour “local” time; central minutes; seconds in a 6:00 subdial; and a 24-hour hand, linked to the “home” time, in a 12:00 subdial. If you keep the “home” time set to UTC — or Zulu — time, the large 24-hour subdial is easy to read at a glance. But where the Hometime really shines is as a traveler’s watch, not a pilot’s watch.

JLC DualTime WristYou set the “home” time to the time in your home timezone. The blue central hours hand tells you the hour at a glance, whilst the 24-hour subdial lets you know whether it is day or night at home. The second hour hand, which tells local time, is set in one-hour jumps by rotating the crown in the #1 position. This makes it very easy to quickly set the local time when arriving on a flight, without the need to hack the movement and throw off your careful calibration of the time done at home (and given the amazing accuracy of the JLC movements — a function of that 1,000-hour testing — you will not want to tamper with that precision). The date is linked to the local hours hand, so that the date reflects where you are. And it is adjusted quickly by turning the local hours hand around two full turns with the crown in the #1 position. The beauty of this dial configuration is that you easily can see the relationship between time at home and time in your current location. If there is more than 12 hours difference, the 24-hour hand will keep you straight. It is a fantastic watch for the frequent traveler who never wants to lose track of time at home or at his current location.

JLC DualTime ¾ sideThe watches are delightful on a leather strap with the JLC deployant, but I am a diehard bracelet fan. Fortunately, JLC makes some of the nicest bracelets available for their Master line. First, the links have a proprietary spring-bar adjustment system, whereby the link spring is depressed past the joint with the next inner link. This allows the outer link to swing outward like a door. The link spring, which also functions as the pin that holds two links together, can then be removed and the links separated. Reconnecting is just as simple: The link spring is slid back into the connected links, then depressed enough to allow the outer link to swing back into position. When that outer link is in place, the link spring snaps back to its full engagement, creating a solid link that will not succumb to torsional pressures as links with screwed pins might.

JLC DualTime ClaspAnd the deployant is a thing of beauty … an elegant butterfly clasp that closes around a central pillar in the clasp. On either end of the clasp is an expandable link, quite similar to Rolex’s new Easylink clasp adjustment. However, while the Easylink allows a single expansion or contraction of 5mm in the bracelet, the JLC deployant includes two such adjustable links, each offering 4mm of expansion. Thus, the bracelet can be adjusted up-or-down by 4mm or 8mm on the go, for optimal comfort and fit.

It took me a long while, with much research, to settle on the JLC Hometime (I also strongly considered the Master Chronograph, the Master Calendar and the Master Grand Reveil). Once I had made my decision, I thought I had selected the best example of JLC’s craftsmanship and prestige, combined with the utility of a watch that would serve me well in my travels. And, when I finally received the watch, I was not disappointed with any aspect of the watch. It was everything I expected and more.

JLC DualTime CrownTragically, I never really “fell” for the watch. For the nine months I have had it, it has spent most of its time riding one of my Orbita winders. At least every week or so, I will retrieve it, fasten it about my wrist, marvel at its beauty, and wonder why I do not wear it all of the time. But then I pass a mirror and notice that, in my semi-retirement in a resort community, I almost always am attired in shorts and polo shirts. The JLC Hometime looks entirely too elegant for such a pedestrian wardrobe. In fact, on the rare occasions when I wear a dress shirt and suit jacket, I gratefully remove the Hometime from the safe and relish how perfectly it goes with my dressier look. But I don’t like wearing dress shirts and suits. It’s wonderful to be able to enjoy our balmy temperatures in shorts, polo and sandals. Formal, at least for me, has evolved to long trousers, Topsiders and a Hawaiian shirt.

JLC DualTime BraceletI have struggled to hold onto this watch, especially after I spent so much time in its selection. The sad truth is that I’m not good enough for it. Perhaps a few decades ago, when I was constantly criss-crossing the country and traveling abroad, and a suit was worn six out of every seven days (and when I had more neckties than socks), the JLC Hometime would have been a watch that I would have loved to own and wear. Certainly, it would have been very useful during those years, in addition to being an understated beauty on my wrist. But those days are gone, and I fear that I have waited too long to own a watch made by the “big four.” They are all too elegant for this weary traveler who is happy to never go anywhere, and to never dress up.

So I decided, with a heavy heart, to sell my Jaeger-LeCoultre Hometime. Fortunately, the buyer is someone who travels frequently across time zones, and wears business suits almost daily. I’m sure he will love it as much as I wish I had.

Is ‘in-house’ really important?

Posted by Rob on 19 January 2013
Posted in: Potpourri.
The upscale version of the cal. 8500, the cal. 8501 features rotor and other parts fabricated from 18k gold (image from OmegaWatches.com)

The upscale version of the cal. 8500, the cal. 8501 features rotor and other parts fabricated from 18k gold (image from OmegaWatches.com)

Probably one of the most hotly debated topics on the various watch fora is the issue of “in-house” movements and what constitutes a true manufacture. The debate is made more difficult by the symbiotic nature of the Swatch Group, which owns ETA and a host of other movement component producers (e.g.-Nivarox). So why is the production of an in-house movement important?

If one takes the movement out of a watch, it becomes a piece of jewelry of varying degrees of aesthetic appeal (depending on design, metals used and complementary accoutrements). I suspect a very, very tiny fraction of watch aficionados would stay on the various watch fora if all they were discussing were the merits of using rubies or sapphires on bezels or stainless cases instead of platinum.

I would wager that almost all active watch forum members, along with more casual enthusiasts, have an interest in watches because of their mutual fascination with the tiny machine within that manages to track the passage of time, usually with amazing accuracy … a machine that is almost three centuries old and has been only refined – not radically changed – in all that time. And the most luminous names in the horological firmament are those who labored to develop movements that had one or more distinguishing characteristics, as it was the only legitimate way to differentiate one company from another.

Before the Great Depression, a watch company might source movements from another initially, but everyone understood that long-term survival depended on the ability to produce movements in-house. That’s why there was a robust watch industry in the United States in those days. The economic exigencies of the global financial crisis that was the Depression changed the industry and sowed the first seeds of consolidation.

Decades later, the Quartz Revolution altered that dynamic dramatically, driving many old, established companies out of business. It also gave us watch companies who, in fact, were jewelry houses only, casing another company’s quartz movements in their wares. With the Mechanical Renaissance, that trend continued … with many producers sourcing their movements from ETA, whilst a few sourced from other manufactures.

So a watch company that placed no emphasis on movement design, development or production eventually was at the mercy of a very small group of movement producers. Worse, though, was that their wares now were only distinguishable by the design attributes of the case and bracelet or strap. And, as I have noted, that’s really not why so many enthusiasts spend so many hours studying, discussing and collecting watches.

The question now of what is a manufacture, in a modern age that compels at least a modicum of deference to technological advances in production practices, should focus more intently on R&D and design of movements and less on where those movements are actually assembled. A company like Omega, which has the resources to bring forth a calibre such as the 8500, should not be judged on who actually builds that movement (it could be done turnkey in Asia with no diminution in quality). Rather, it should be judged on how ingeniously it took a 300 year old machine and refined it to create a distinctive variation that is worthy of admiration by peers and customers alike. To me, that is the 21st century definition of a manufacture. Admittedly, others – including a certain horology columnist we’ll refer to as the Timepiece Stiff Neck – have a more narrow view, but they’re placing emphasis on things which are not nearly as relevant today as they might have been a century ago (or even four decades ago).

I have no regard for most watch companies who continue to produce quality jewelry powered by ETA movements (members of the Swatch Group, of course, are exempt from this disdain because ETA belongs to them collectively … it is their “in-house” producer). I might buy such a watch for a particular purpose (e.g. – a relatively inexpensive dive watch that I’ll use only underwater but never wear casually), but it will never take an honored place in my collection. Frankly there is a vast difference between Omega and Rolex, both of which have strived in recent years to solidify their bona fides as in-house producers, and others who rely solely on the forbearance of other movement producers to even exist.

Breitling and TAG Heuer, for example, understand this. It’s not just about supply issues. It’s about corporate self-respect and market credibility. And that’s why they have gone to such lengths to return to producing their own in-house movements. They’re still not where Omega or Rolex are, but they’re trying. And it is vital that they do so.

With most of the major watch brands now owned by large corporate conglomerates with virtually unlimited financial resources, a Breitling or TAG Heuer or IWC cannot be excused for relying on another company’s movements, despite the former glories they might have achieved in days gone by with watches designed using outsourced calibres. In this age of image-is-everything marketing, about the only thing a watch enthusiast can hang his proverbial hat on is how committed a particular company is to the art of watchmaking, best exemplified by creating one’s own calibres.

Under my foregoing definition, a watch company’s status as a manufacture figures quite significantly in my purchasing and collecting decisions. I suspect that, after some honest reflection, most knowledgeable watch enthusiasts would agree.

Bremont introduces new World Timer chronograph

Posted by Rob on 23 August 2012
Posted in: Bremont. Tagged: bracelet, Bremont, chronograph, chronometer, COSC, GMT, internal bezel, leather strap, super luminova, World Time.

Photos provided by Bremont

The big news coming out of Bremont this summer is the availability of their new World Timer chronograph, the ALT1-WT. First displayed at Baselworld 2012, the World Timer provides a watch with eminent practicality for world travelers and pilots.

The World Timer is standard with a leather strap and deployant clasp, but a matching bracelet also is available.

The new watch is a redevelopment of the “Globemaster” design commissioned in 2010, and is intended to be the civilian version of that watch.

In addition to its chronograph functions, the World Timer features a 24-hour hand that is set independently of the hour hand. This is complemented by an internal bezel showing each hour of the day, with times for major world locations noted around the periphery. The bezel is activated by means of a crown at 8:00, and provides an audible “click” at each iteration, corresponding to the 60 minutes on the watch dial. The independently set bezel allows the user to dial in any city noted to determine the time there, either at takeoff or landing.

The watch features a new Trip-Tick® case, which is specially hardened to about 2,000 Vickers (the typical 316L stainless case, by way of comparison, typically has a 300 Vickers hardness). The barrel of the case features Bremont’s distinctive scratch-resistant PVD coating. The case has a stainless-steel exhibition back, secured by five screws, to allow viewing of the highly decorated movement.

The movement is the Bremont cal. BE-54AE (Valjoux 7750 base). In addition to the 24-hour complication, the 25-jewel movement features a Glucydur balance, Anachron balance spring and Nivaflex 1 mainspring. It has a 42-hour power reserve and a frequency of 28,800bph. Chronograph functions include center timing seconds hand, a 30-minute accumulator at 12:00 and a 12-hour accumulator at 6:00. A small-seconds hand is at 9:00 and the date is at 3:00. The movement is COSC-certified as a chronometer.

The domed sapphire crystal is already scratch-resistant. However, Bremont has applied nine layers of anti-reflective coating to each side of the crystal, reducing glare up to 95%. The special AR treatment is designed to make the coating as resistant to scratches as the crystal to which it is applied.

The watch features a diameter of 43mm, which is a bit smaller than most other chronograph/GMT combinations. That should be welcome news to those who want a more versatile watch for wear in both casual and dress situations whilst traveling. Typical for this movement base, the case thickness is a more imposing 16mm, although still low enough to clear the cuff of a dress shirt. Finally, lug width is 22mm, pretty much the standard for most of Bremont’s offerings.

The dial is ground metal, offered in three colors: Black, blue and white. The white dial looks especially striking against the white world time bezel. Hands are nickel-coated, with C1 Super Luminova applied to hands and markers. The watch is rated water resistant to 10ATM, or 100 meters.

Bremont is a British luxury watch brand founded by brothers Nick and Giles English ten years ago. The brand adheres to its stated principles of durability, legibility and precision. The new World Timer can be found at Bremont Authorised Dealers, whilst more information on the company and its wares can be found at the Bremont website.

Win a new Armida A5!

Posted by Rob on 8 June 2012
Posted in: Armida, Contests.

(All photos courtesy of Armida Watches)

WatchWerx is proud to announce its first watch contest, in partnership with Armida Watches. One lucky person will be chosen at random from the entrant pool to receive a brand new Armida A5 1000m dive watch, complete with all accessories.

The A5 1000m features a 316L stainless steel case and bracelet, powered by an ETA 2824-2 25-jewel automatic movement. The sapphire crystal is double-domed and treated with anti-reflective coating on the inside. The hands and markers are coated with C3 SuperLuminova for superior visibility in low light. The A5 is water resistant to 1000 meters, and comes with a 1-year manufacturer’s warranty.

To enter the contest, do all of the following:

1) “Like” the Armida Facebook page: Armida on Facebook

2) “Like” the WatchWerx Facebook page: WatchWerx on Facebook

3) Subscribe to WatchWerx … and Watch Doesn’t

Important Note: You subscribe by entering your email address in the space provided at the top of the right-hand column and clicking on “Subscribe.” You then will receive a confirmation email to the entered email address. You must click on the confirmation link in that email and select a notification option for your subscription to be entered and your email address to be recorded in our database. If you do not receive your confirmation email within a reasonable time, please check your spam folder. If you encounter any problems with entering your subscription, please email us at “contest@watchwerx.biz”.

Once the Armida Facebook page reaches 1,000 “Likes,” the lucky winner will be drawn at random from amongst the WatchWerx subscribers. The winner will be contacted at the email address provided to obtain shipping information. The winner also will be announced here on WatchWerx, and on the WatchWerx and Armida Facebook pages.

Good luck!

NOTE: Contests conducted by WatchWerx.com and its sponsors are valid only if all conditions of entry are met. Contest participation is void wherever prohibited by law.

A fond look at the Doxa SUB 5000T

Posted by Rob on 3 June 2012
Posted in: Doxa.

Win a new Armida A5 by clicking HERE!

When I began diving back in the ’60s, my dive instructor had just received a new “pride and joy” — a Doxa SUB 300 he had just purchased from U.S. Divers Co. (which, at the time, distributed the new watches in the United States). I had never seen anything like it, especially that now-iconic orange dial. But my dive instructor was most excited about the bezel, which incorporated the US Navy’s no-decompression table alongside the elapsed time scale.

Upon receiving my certification, my father presented me with a new Omega Seamaster 300, so the Doxa was quickly forgotten. But not by my father … he bought one for himself not long afterward, and wore it regularly on dives for many years.

A few years ago, while researching another watch, I stumbled upon the new website for Doxa Watches and discovered that the watches had been reintroduced, with design improvements that made them better than ever.

I immediately ordered a SUB 1200T Professional, which was the closest model offered to the original SUB 300. However, upon receiving it, I was a bit crestfallen by its “tiny” size (please refer to my earlier post “Does size really matter?” for a better understanding of my collecting criteria at that time). I know now that the low dial-to-case ratio and short lug-to-lug made the whole watch appear smaller, but at the time I was very disappointed with the modern version of a watch of which I had such fond memories. So I returned the watch to Doxa and ordered a larger model — the newly introduced SUB 5000T Pro.

When that watch finally arrived, I was smitten. The case had a crown-exclusive diameter of 45mm, but an overall length only slightly more, so the watch rode quite well on my roundish wrist. The bracelet was a thing of beauty, a heavy five-link hunk of metal that flowed over the wrist for a comfortable fit, despite its non-tapered 21mm width, plus thickness and weight. Topping it off was the clasp, my first exposure to the magnificent “ratcheting” clasp. The double push-button deployant featured heavy, machined components (unlike the 1200T, which had some stamped metal parts). And the clasp had a push-button release that extended the clasp by about 18mm, allowing the watch to fit comfortably over a wetsuit. If the bracelet still was a bit loose, the clasp could be “ratcheted” to a snug fit by pushing the extension back into the clasp.

Then I began to notice I was less enamored of the orange dial than I remember being when first seeing it in the ’60s. It was only later that my wife reminded me that I was partially color blind, so the orange did not “pop” for me the way it did for her (and she thought the watch was, to put it in her words, “loud”). Back in a world of black or white watches, my first dive instructor’s orange Doxa must have appeared colorful even to my color-challenged eyes. But my 5000T Pro … not so much.

So I flipped the Pro pretty quickly and replaced it with the same watch in the Sharkhunter model (which is to say, a black dial). If you’re partially color blind, you can never go wrong with a black dial. And I loved the look of that Sharkie.

I went on a dive trip to Cozumel and the 5000T was the main watch I used. Although I never needed to use the ratcheting function on the clasp – all I wore was a thin, Lycra rash guard – everything about the watch exceeded my expectations. Perfectly balanced, the watch stayed put on my wrist, was easy to read – both the dial and the bezel setting – and stayed securely fastened. I even felt more comfortable knowing the lug pins were screws rather than spring pins, although I have never experienced a spring bar failure underwater. Out of the water, the watch was so impeccably finished that it fit in with whatever I was wearing (and some nights I had to wear a sport coat and dress shirt).

If there is a fault I might find with the 5000T, it is my gravitation away from big, bulky dive watches … at least for use on dry land as a daily wearer. The watch is not too heavy, but its size is not something you’re ever completely unaware of. Perhaps the 1200T would have been a better fit for my wrist, if only I had given it a chance when I first received it. But now that I have experienced the new bracelet of the 5000T, I don’t think I could fully appreciate the faux beads-of-rice version on the 1200T, or its thinner clasp. I know there are purists who love the look of the original BOR, but the 5000T bracelet has truly independent links – unlike the fused, solid links of the faux BOR – so appears to be a more fitting successor to the original for use on all of Doxa’s watches.

The Doxa SUB 5000T seems to be, at least to this old diver, one of the best underwater watches available. My Scottish nature will not allow me to keep one just for use on dives, and it just doesn’t work for me as a daily wearer for long stretches. But I so enjoy the watch – and covet it when I don’t own one – that my frugal resolve continually weakens. Soon, I suspect, I’ll be buying my fourth. And I’m determined not to let this one go.

Crawling into collections soon: the Helson Turtle

Posted by Rob on 1 June 2012
Posted in: Helson.

Win a new Armida A5 by clicking HERE!

When I started diving back in the ’60s, I saw lots of different dive watches. Most numerous were the Seamasters and Submariners. But I immediately encountered dive watches that were different in shape and character, with names such as Doxa, Aquadive and Certina. My first dive instructor had just obtained one of the new Doxa SUBs, and I was entranced by the orange dial. Another instructor I worked with in the early ’70s had just acquired a Certina DS-2 Super PH1000m, and I loved the massive – for its time – proportions of that watch.

Anyone who spends any time on the dive watch fora knows that the SPH1000 is a coveted watch, whether the original DS-2 or the subsequent DS-3 (which was identical in all respects, right down to the reference number). So much so, in fact, that Certina introduced a similarly styled limited edition – also called  the DS-3 – which quickly sold out, despite a production of 1,888 pieces. Today, the original DS-2 and DS-3 SPH1000s (and the somewhat different LE DS-3s) command prices well in excess of their original selling price – on the rare occasions when one surfaces in a “for sale” posting or on eBay.

In other words, the SPH1000m is only available as a vintage watch, similar to the original Omega Seamaster 600 Plongeurs Professional. This, sadly, despite Certina now being a part of the Swatch Group and certainly having the resources to resurrect a beloved dive watch (as sister company Omega did with the PloProf, now replicated by the SMP1200).

For many of us who love nearly-extinct dive watches, Peter Helson of Helson Watches is a boon companion. His company has produced a number of faithfully reproduced homages to great dive watches, including the Sharkmaster 1000 (Omega SM1000), the Tortuga (Squale), the Skindiver (original Blancpain Fifty Fathoms), and the Sharkmaster 600 (Omega SMP600 PloProf), to name a few. Now Helson Watches gives us a new watch to love: the Helson Turtle, a beautiful homage to the original Certina DS-2 Super PH1000m.

The dimensions of the original were maintained: A 43mm diameter (excluding crown; 46.2mm with the crown) and just shy of  47mm lug-to-lug. Lug width is 20mm. What was unique about the SPH1000 when it was introduced at Basel in 1970 was its 1,000 meter depth rating, almost unheard of in a production model mechanical watch. It was accomplished by a case that featured thick, sturdy components. Combined, the watch is almost 18mm in height. And so is the Helson Turtle. Weight is acceptable for a watch of this size, coming in under 190g on the mesh bracelet – heavy enough to feel substantial, but not so heavy that wearing it becomes a distraction. And the crown is a good size, at slightly more than 6mm in diameter. It is easy to unscrew, pull out, turn and screw back down – actually better than other dive watches that cost considerably more.

Fit-and-finish – a Helson strong point – is excellent. This really is a resplendent recreation of a classic, iconic dive watch. Like the original, the Turtle features a case that combines polished and brushed surfaces, although polished surfaces predominate. Some might see this as a flaw, despite the original Certina being finished the same. But, to me, nothing looks more handsome than a dive watch with polished surfaces scarred up by years of use on dives.

Helson has taken the liberty of allowing for refinements not available in the late ’60s when the original was designed. It features a sapphire crystal, a 120-click bezel with a sapphire insert, an ETA 2824-2 25-jewel automatic movement with 40 hour power reserve, and C3 SuperLuminova on the hands and markers for low light visibility.

Performance

A dive watch – especially one rated to a depth of 1,000 meters – belongs in the water … and that is where I headed to check out the Turtle.

I found the mesh bracelet to be sturdy and secure, and easily could adjust to fit over a thin wetsuit (and if more than “thin” is required, the water is too cold for me). However, I think I prefer the strap in the water. In fact, I likely would use this watch on a NATO or GGB for extra insurance against a pin failure (although, in all honesty, I have never had a pin fail underwater in 45 years of diving; just more of a belt-and-suspenders mentality).

The design of the SPH1000 bezel was a popular one in that era – deep grooves that tapered to a narrower top to reduce the likelihood of the bezel shifting from a strike. According to Colin Millar, an expert diver as well as a recognized watch collector, the original SPH1000 had a push-to-turn bezel, but that feature is abandoned on the Turtle in favor of the standard unidirectional spring-ratcheting bezel. I found the bezel on the Turtle to be rather stiff, but after doing a half-dozen spins, it became much more pliant. Wearing reef gloves, I found the bezel easy to set underwater.

Normally, the water in our part of the Gulf of Mexico is crystal clear, but a persistent westerly wind – the posterior effects of Tropical Storm Beryl – had kicked up a lot of sediment due to rough surf. Regardless, I found the dial easy to read underwater. In what I perceive to be a big plus, Helson has moved to very Spartan dials, and the Turtle is no exception. Only three words appear: Helson; automatic; and 1000m. That lack of clutter minimizes distraction and makes for a very readable dial, especially in minimal visibility. Thumbs up, then, for this design element from Helson.

Because the watch is pretty tall, it tended to slip around the wrist underwater on the mesh, but stayed well in place on the rubber. Again, this is where a strap such as GGB would excel, keeping the watch solidly – but safely – centered on the wrist and further reducing weight.

For me, a dive watch has to do more than perform well underwater. On a dive trip, taking even a pair of watches – one for dives and another for surface wear – makes little sense. The relatively modest proportions of the Turtle – at least by modern standards – make this watch quite wearable on dry land. After several days of wearing only this watch on the mesh, I must confess that it has the ability to be unobtrusive on the wrist … until one looks at it. Those lovely, classic lines then make it difficult to look away.

The Helson Turtle will be available with black, orange or yellow dials, all with black bezels. It will include a mesh bracelet with deployant clasp and safety, along with an assortment of extensions for proper fit, a textured, perforated rubber strap, spare lug pins and a bracelet changing tool, all packaged in Helson’s now-familiar padded, waterproof cylinder. Price will be US$899, including shipping, and the watch will be available in mid- to late-June.

UPDATE 2 Jun 2012:

Peter Helson has kindly provided photos of the Turtle with orange and yellow dials, in response to the many requests to see them. Also included is a “group” photo of the trio.

Enjoy!

(Photo provided by Helson Watches)

(Photo provided by Helson Watches)

(Photo provided by Helson Watches)

Boschett spears a winner with ‘Harpoon’

Posted by Rob on 21 May 2012
Posted in: Boschett.

Win a new Armida A5 by clicking HERE!

Boschett just started shipping their new Harpoon dive watches, and it looks like they’ve got themselves another winner. I’ve dived with their popular Cave Dweller II in Cozumel and thought it performed exceptionally well in a variety of visibility conditions. But, spec for spec, the Harpoon has taken the CD II to a whole new level.

The Harpoon incorporates many of the most popular features of the CD II, including the bracelet’s ratcheting clasp, which allows for a proper fit over a wetsuit. It also retains the uncluttered dial of the CD II, and the supple five-link bracelet. But the Harpoon packs on the added features, starting with an ETA 2824-2 automatic movement (the CD II is only available now with the Miyota 8215). It features the quintessential “status” feature – that is, one that almost everyone wants on their dive watch but almost no one needs – with an automatic helium release valve. The second status feature is the 1000m water resistance rating, another bit of overkill given that no human has ever dived below 701m – or ever will.

But ridiculously high depth ratings are considered an essential part of what makes a real “tool” watch, so the Harpoon does not disappoint. With its massive case and 4.34mm-thick sapphire crystal, you know it could go that deep, even if its wearer never could.

What really makes the Harpoon stand out is how compact it actually is for a 1000m diver. The bezel features a raised saw-tooth grip that makes turning with even the thickest gloves a cinch. But even with the added height of that serrated lip, the Harpoon is more than a mm thinner than the CD II, at only 15.3mm. And the Harpoon has a surprisingly short overall length of 52mm, owing to short lugs which turn down sharply to hug the wrist. Consequently, despite its nominal 44mm diameter (actually, closer to 47mm across the diagonal), it wears much smaller than one would expect.

Of course, while it might wear smaller in physical dimensions, it makes up for that in weight, topping out the scales at a stout 275g. That’s more than 3/5 pound! If you like a hefty watch on your wrist, the Harpoon will never let you forget you’re wearing it.

The caseback graphics on the Harpoon deserve a special mention. Etched in deep relief is the image of a male silhouette poised to hurl a harpoon into the gaping maw of a horrific sea monster. The intricate design was the creation of Dave March, a graphic artist in the Tampa Bay area, who offered it to Keith Boschetti when he solicited design ideas on WatchUSeek. Frankly, it is one of the most appealing – and theme-appropriate – caseback designs I have seen.

In the water is where the Harpoon really excels, an excellent attribute for a dive watch. Its weight does not seem that significant once you’ve been wearing it for a while anyway, and becomes even less noticeable underwater. As mentioned, the saw-tooth bezel is extremely easy to grip, but it has a strong enough spring that it should not accidentally turn if the bezel should strike a surface at the wrong angle. And the dial is a thing of simple beauty … easy to read at a glance.

The lume is BGW9, which seems all the rage these days (as C3 was not that long ago). So much lumed area is provided on the dial and hands that, fully charged, you might need to tuck it into the bedside drawer, lest the glow keep you awake at night.

Finally, Boschett provides the Harpoon with two interchangeable bezels. The all-stainless bezel was shipped on the watches, and a version with a ceramic insert will be shipped in coming weeks.

The Harpoon is one of the best divers to spring forth from the mind of owner Keith Boschetti. Even more appealing, it is priced less than a hundred bucks more than the ETA version of the CD II, despite all of its extra features. If you like dive watches with some heft and size, no blingy features and excellent underwater capabilities, the Harpoon is hard to beat.

Rolex ups its diving game with Glidelock

Posted by Rob on 18 May 2012
Posted in: Rolex.

The Omega Seamaster Professional clasp was both sturdy and attractive

In 45 years of diving, I have seen the good, the bad and the ugly of dive watch bracelets and clasps.

For many years, the best I’ve used was the foldover clasp on the Omega Seamaster Professional, first introduced in the early-1990s. Its heavy, machined parts and precise operation made you feel confident in its functioning – above and below the surface – as well as delighted with its aesthetic appeal.

The heavy-duty, precisely machined components of the SMP clasp

And I found the flip-out divesuit extension to work quite well, at least when I dived in waters cold enough to require a wetsuit (I’m a committed warm water diver now).

The runner-up for most of those years was Rolex’s redoubtable Fliplock clasp, used on the Submariner and Sea Dweller models. I bought my first Submariner in 1981, to replace the Omega Seamaster 300 that had been lost a few years before. By this time, Rolex was using solid machined links, of which the ones closest to the clasp were removable by way of a threaded pin. Coupled with the micro-adjust holes in the clasp, the bracelet could be precisely fitted to any wrist and to suit any tastes.

The Fliplock featured a safety clasp that locked the clasp in place once closed, so that it could not pop open accidentally. It also had a flip-out divesuit extension, but it was stamped metal like the clasp. In fairness, while this seemed a bit flimsy in retrospect – especially compared to the beefier Omega extension – it always functioned as it should on dives and I never had any problems with it on dozens of dives.

The ‘ratcheting’ clasp on the Doxa 5000T

But, compared to the Seamaster Pro bracelet and clasp, the Sub bracelet no longer seemed the apotheosis of design I had theretofore considered it to be. I often considered buying another Submariner, but kept deciding against it because of the thin, “jangly” clasp.

In the past few years, another clasp – commonly referred to in dive watch circles as the “ratcheting” clasp – has exceeded even the Seamaster Pro clasp as especially well-suited for underwater use. It employs a push-button deployant very similar in design to the Omega clasp, but incorporates a novel divesuit extension that opens by way of another push-button.

The ‘ratcheting’ clasp on the UTS 1000m

Once fully extended – which adds from 12 to 18mm to the length of the bracelet – the clasp is “ratcheted” to a snug fit around one’s wrist (presumably over a divesuit). While variations of the design apparently have been around awhile, it has been extensively promoted on models for Doxa, UTS and Boschett.

But everything changed when Rolex introduced the Sea Dweller Deepsea in 2008. Among its many features was the new Glidelock clasp. Gone were the stamped metal parts of the Sea Dweller and Submariner clasps. Instead, Rolex had designed an entirely new clasp made from cast and machined parts. The closing mechanism used an articulating claw clasp, which provided a very positive “click” when closed, and opened by lifting the hinged head of the clasp, disengaging the claw. Even better, the clasp incorporated an incremental divesuit extension – dubbed Glidelock by Rolex – which allowed a diver to increase the bracelet length a total of 18mm, in 1.8mm increments. In addition, a much sturdier, machined fold-out divesuit extension was provided, allowing another 26mm of lengthening.

The Glidelock clasp on the Deepsea

The Glidelock mechanism worked by lifting the center part of the clasp, which incorporated ratchets to lock the bracelet lengthening when closed. Once lifted, the bracelet could be slid out to lengthen or in to shorten, allowing for a precise fit. Once adjusted, the center section closed to lock the bracelet at that length. Rolex’s safety clasp, which also was beefed up to a machined piece rather than the old stamping, provided the final assurance that the clasp would remain intact during strenuous use underwater.

The completely re-engineered dive clasp of the Rolex Deepsea and Submariner

Two years later, Rolex updated the venerable Submariner with many of the new features on the Deepsea, including a ceramic bezel and a slightly different version of the Glidelock clasp. Rather than a separate section in the center of the clasp that lifted to free the ratcheting mechanism, the Submariner clasp had the ratchet notches cast into the clasp itself, which was substantially thicker than its predecessor. The locking mechanism was incorporated into the links, which, when released, allowed the bracelet to slide out of or back into the clasp, with a full 20mm of adjustment in 2mm increments – enough to expand the bracelet to fit over a typical 3mm wetsuit.

The Rolex Glidelock clasp on the new Submariner

For years, dive watch enthusiasts who gladly – or grudgingly – paid the prices Rolex demanded for the Submariner had complained that the clasp on the watch did not match up to either the quality of the rest of the bracelet and case, or the selling price. With the advent of the Glidelock, however, Rolex has created a clasp which ranks as among the most utilitarian available to divers, as well as one of the most sturdily crafted. As a bonus, it is beautifully executed and enhances the overall appearance of the watch.

Note: I should point out that Seiko has had a clasp similar in function to the Glidelock on its vaunted Marine Master line. However, the Seiko clasp is made of stamped metal, similar to the old Rolex clasps, and exposes an unsightly pierced link when the extension is employed. While almost equally functional, the execution on the Seiko MM clasp pales in comparison to the Glidelock, especially on a watch that sells for almost $3,000.

Does size really matter?

Posted by Rob on 15 May 2012
Posted in: Potpourri.

This 36mm Rolex Datejust was my “daily wearer” before the size mania took over

Has it really been only a decade since I became infatuated with large watches? It seems almost a quaint notion now, but in the years before then I considered my 41mm Omega Seamaster Pro as huge, and enjoyed wearing my Seamaster 120 and Rolex Datejust more than any other watches (and at 37mm and 36mm, respectively).

Blame Sylvester Stallone, I suppose. I happened to catch him in “Daylight” late one night on cable, and really liked that cool watch he was sporting (it probably was the only thing that kept me watching that stink bomb). A little research revealed that he was wearing a Panerai Luminor.

The 44mm Panerai Luminor Submersible looks perfect on the Rock’s massive, 6½-foot frame in “G.I. Joe: Retaliation.” Me … not so much.

Given that Stallone and I are about the same height (I’m ignoring the fact that his physique is a bit more brawny than mine, although my Pillsbury Doughboy frame does give me a stout wrist), I was certain I could pull off the look. I immediately started checking out Panerai in cities I would visit on my travels, and fell in love with the PAM 188 chronograph.

Now, I had owned quite a few Omegas and Rolexes at that point, several in stainless and gold, but I really wasn’t prepared for the price of that Panerai in plain ol’ stainless steel. Fortunately, my wife recognized it would take a long while for my watch lust to overcome my Scottish frugality, so she bought the watch for me as a gift to celebrate our 20th wedding anniversary.

[As an aside, the wise watch aficionado will try to discourage having a significant other purchase such an expensive item as a gift. We’re a fickle lot, but a gift from a loved one has an immediate status as “permanent” in one’s collection … oftentimes the only watch in the collection so designated.]

I’ll never forget the sheer size and weight of that watch (which, for the record, was 44mm). Everyone noticed it and I loved the attention. But I eventually tired of the weight and switched to an Italian rubber dive strap (dive straps, for those not familiar with them, have ribs or corrugation in the rubber to allow the watch to stay snug as one’s wetsuit compresses in deeper waters; the bulky strap perfectly complemented the PAM). I found I really liked the strap, both from an aesthetic standpoint (it got even more admiring glances) and comfort (the strap was much more comfortable than the wide stainless bracelet that came with the watch). Of course, it bothered me that the expensive bracelet was gathering dust in my jewelry box (did I mention my Scottish blood?), so I would occasionally – heck, often – put the bracelet back on. Then, I’d grin-and-bear the heft of that watch.

The PAM is almost never worn today (mostly on my wedding anniversary; my wife is too sweet to ask why not more often), but my tiring of it did not discourage me from exploring other large-case watches. I had discovered what is referred to on the watch fora as “boutique divers” – dive watches made by small companies who subcontract most of the parts – and sometimes the entire assembly – to manufacturers in China. They’re able to sell their wares at a much lower price than one would expect to pay for a mainstream Swiss brand such as Omega.

The 44mm Zixen Trimix GMT

The first to catch my eye was a Deep Blue Master 2000, which I saw in a section of International Watch magazine on dive watches. As a diver for 45 years now, I always have had a weak spot for dive watches, and that Deep Blue attracted me on two levels – it’s sheer size (46mm and almost 300 grams!), and it’s low price (at the time it was like 500 bucks).

It was the whole Panerai experience all over again – the admiring glances (actually, in retrospect, I realize they mostly were curious stares) and the massive heft. It wasn’t long before I found myself tiring of both the weight and the size. But it didn’t matter … I was hooked now on these behemoths and started scouring the horological landscape for others.

The 45mm Doxa SUB 5000T Sharkhunter

In quick succession, I discovered other watches which had “wrist presence” (the euphemistic expression employed by all watch lovers who prefer watches that bear more than a passing resemblance to a satellite dish): Doxa, Helson, Boschett, Zixen, Prometheus, to name just a few. It wasn’t long before I had a collection of almost three dozen watches. Worse, I had sold off most of my “tiny” watches to feed this new addiction, including an original Omega Broad Arrow (at 39mm) and a Seamaster 120 Plongeurs DeLuxe (the watch Jacques Mayol wore in 1981 when he set his 101m free-diving world record).

Yet one “Holy Grail” loomed on the horizon – the Rolex Sea Dweller Deep Sea. At 44mm, it was the largest watch Rolex made and had oodles of “wrist presence.” But it retailed for almost 11 grand, so some room had to be made in the collection – or, rather, some cash had to be accumulated in the bank account.

One after another, my watches disappeared to new owners. As each was purchased, packaged up and shipped off, I had to grudgingly acknowledge that it was not really worn very much, if at all. I just wasn’t ready to admit the reason why most were not worn often.

Finally, in a bit of serendipity, an acquaintance on WatchUSeek let me know he was planning to sell his Deep Sea and would sell it to me for a price that was simply too good to pass up. It took almost two weeks to reach me via USPS Registered Mail (the service that really puts the “snail” in “snail mail” – the Pony Express could traverse the entire western frontier in less time), and I was beside myself with impatience and anticipation. Finally, it arrived and I excitedly tore through the many layers of packaging to reveal this coveted watch, which fit perfectly when I fastened it around my wrist.

The 44mm Rolex Sea Dweller Deep Sea

Then a strange thing happened. I thought to myself, “This is one big freakin’ watch!” When I stole the occasional glance at it on my wrist, I found myself less admiring its looks and more eschewing its mass. It reached in hours the level of discontent achieved with the PAM 188 only after months of wear.

Finally, I casually mentioned to my wife that I thought the Deep Sea just might be too big for me. “Thank God!” she blurted out, “I didn’t want to say anything, but it just looks ridiculous.”

I was stunned. Not just because she had never expressed so direct an opinion about one of my previous timekeeping leviathans, but because I realized she was right. The Emperor, as the young child had revealed, was not wearing any clothes.

Exactly seven days after I received the highly anticipated Deep Sea, I placed it in the hands of its new owner … and quietly said a prayer of thanks for the mound of cash in front of me that represented the full recoupment of my investment (not, I must say, a common experience up to that point).

The clarity of that quick boom-to-bust experience with the Deep Sea led me to reassess my fascination with large watches and the appropriateness of them on my wrist. I pared my collection down to a few quality watches, all of which were between 40mm and 42mm. The centerpiece of that effort was a watch I had theretofore fastidiously abjured: the Rolex Submariner.

Ironically, I had previously owned three Submariners, beginning with the first in 1981. The last I sold about 10 years later because I felt it was “too large.”

But, in the grip of huge watch mania, I felt the Sub was downright dainty, and only the very manly Deep Sea would satisfy my craving. With the all-too-brief tenure of the Deep Sea, I determined to give the Submariner another look. And, as fortune would have it, a female friend (who has a thing for large men’s watches) had just purchased a new Submariner and, deciding it was just not to her liking, sold it to me at a great price.

The Rolex Submariner 116610LN appears to be a better “fit” than the Deep Sea on the right.

The 40mm Submariner (the new squarer-cased 116610LN with the ceramic bezel) brought into stark focus my self-deception on watch sizes. I realized that the central issue was not how I thought a watch looked on someone else’s wrist, but how it looked on mine. And as I pored through photographs of me wearing watches both large and small, I gained the perspective not available to me sitting at a desk or driving in my car … and saw just how appropriate those smaller watches looked on my wrist, and how out-of-place the larger ones appeared to be.

I still look at the big watches on the wrists of others, think they look good on them, and feel a familiar pang of longing. But I’ve learned my lesson. Regardless of whether large watches persist in popularity, I realize that I have found the size that works best for me. And, when I catch myself wondering if a 41mm watch really is “big” enough, I recall how huge my first 41mm SMP was.

To use a metaphor from another eternal size debate, it’s not the size of one’s boat, but the motion in the ocean.

In Memoriam: Planet Ocean cal. 2500

Posted by Rob on 9 May 2012
Posted in: Omega.

My first dive watch, received as a gift upon completing my dive certification in 1967, was an Omega Seamaster 300 on a rubber strap. For more than a decade, it was my almost constant companion … with the exception of a pocket watch fetish I developed in college and a brief dalliance with digital watches in the 1970s. Sadly, it was lost at sea in 1978, and I have never stopped missing it.

In the past few years, I have learned about vintage SM300s that could be had for a reasonable sum. Even more interesting were those Watchco versions. Watchco, an Australian company, at one time was an Omega service center and parts distributor. When the service center relationship ended, Watchco began assembling Seamaster 300s from factory-new parts, and inserting a vintage movement to create a working watch. While not cheap, it was a good way to get a modern version of a vintage watch, right down to a new dial with SuperLuminova.

For whatever reason, I have managed to resist the urge to snag one of these beauties. The price, which probably was about 10 times what my original cost new, certainly could be one reason. But the other is that we tend to romanticize things from our past, remembering the good things but forgetting the bad. As exciting as the possibility of owning a NOS (new old stock) version of my beloved SM300 might be, it was not perfect. The crystal had to be replaced several times, the watch was not the most accurate I have owned, and bracelets from that era were not nearly so refined as what we have today. So, from the standpoint of my personal collection, the SM300 remains where it is most valued – as a memory.

Not to worry, though. Omega extracted a generous portion of the “good” DNA from the SM300 and used it to create an entirely new, modern watch: the Planet Ocean. Introduced in 2005, the Planet Ocean (or PO to its legions of admirers) has become a favorite of Omega fans (for example, after its introduction, the Omega forum on WatchUSeek gradually metamorphosed from a predominantly pro-Speedmaster site to a pro-Planet Ocean site). And it is little wonder that such was the result.

The PO bore a striking resemblance to the original SM300, right down to the fonts used on the dial. But the PO was a decidedly different watch. It featured a COSC-certified calibre 2500 movement, which is the co-axial escapement version of the calibre 1120, itself based on the venerable ETA calibre 2892-A2. The domed crystal was scratch-resistant sapphire. The caseback was an elegant carving of the famous Omega hippocampus. And the bracelet was a beautifully finished reinterpretation of the original SM300 bracelet, with solid links and endlinks, along with the famous Seamaster Professional fold-over clasp.

I was an early adopter of the Seamaster Pro when it was introduced as the watch of James Bond in the 1990s. It was an excellent watch for use on dives, not the least because of that superb clasp. It featured a double push-button deployant and a foldout divesuit extension that allowed the watch to fit comfortably over a 5mm wetsuit. For the PO, the bracelet was tapered slightly so that the clasp was 2mm narrower than on the Seamaster Pro, but the effect of this taper was to make the bracelet more gracefully conform to the contours of the PO case, and to make the clasp much more comfortable on the wrist.

Omega created several versions of the PO. It was available in either a 42mm or 45.5mm diameter. It was available with either white numbering on the dial, or orange. And there also was an orange bezel as an alternative to the traditional black. But the model that most clearly evoked the watch on which it was based – the Seamaster 300 – was the 42mm version with white numbering and a black bezel, Omega’s ref. 2201.50.

The PO was not a thin watch, however. It carried a 600m water-resistance rating, as compared to 300m on both the Seamaster Pro and the Rolex Submariner. The Seamaster Pro was only 12.7mm thick, whilst the PO gained to 14.5mm. The profile still was enough to allow the PO to fit beneath a dress shirt, so that it could make the transition from divesuit to business suit.

Sadly, the Planet Ocean was modified by Omega to allow it to incorporate a new in-house movement, the calibre 8500, and was reintroduced at Baselworld 2011. But the proportions were changed with this update, most especially with a thicker case. To accommodate the thicker cal. 8500 movement and an exhibition caseback, the case thickness increased to 16.3mm. This was almost 30% thicker than the case of the Seamaster Pro. The bezel teeth were modified to be a greater percentage of the bezel sides. And the bezel insert was changed to a matte black ceramic, which looked more gray than black. Whatever its positives, the new PO looked considerably less like its Seamaster 300 forebear.

Then, earlier this spring, Omega announced the discontinuation of the original Planet Ocean models with the cal. 2500, ending forever the production of this beloved dive watch.

Hence this retrospective, to commemorate a superlative dive watch that was itself a paean to another famous dive watch. Certainly, the PO continues as the ceramic bezel, cal. 8500 version. But many fans of the Planet Ocean, myself included, struggle to accept this newer incarnation. For us, the Planet Ocean will always be the cal. 2500 model.

Posts navigation

  • Enter your email address to follow this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

  • There is a new kid on the block — the International Watch League — founded and run by true watch enthusiasts! Check it out:
    International Watch League


    Check out the world's most visited watch forum:
    WatchUSeek


    Please visit and "Like" us on:
    Facebook
  • Upcoming Articles

    ■ Armida A1 1000m BRONZE
    ■ Ocean7 LM-5 GMT
    ■ Omega Planet Ocean c.8500
    ■ Rolex Submariner 116610LN
    ■ Everest Bands' Rolex strap
    ■ Omega Seamaster Pro ceramic
    ■ Helson Sharkmaster 600
    ■ Omega Seamaster Aqua Terra
  • Most recent articles

    • A tale of unrequited (horological) love
    • Is ‘in-house’ really important?
    • Bremont introduces new World Timer chronograph
    • Win a new Armida A5!
    • A fond look at the Doxa SUB 5000T
    • Crawling into collections soon: the Helson Turtle
    • Boschett spears a winner with ‘Harpoon’
    • Rolex ups its diving game with Glidelock
    • Does size really matter?
    • In Memoriam: Planet Ocean cal. 2500
  • Categories

    • Armida
    • Boschett
    • Bremont
    • Contests
    • Doxa
    • Helson
    • Omega
    • Potpourri
    • Rolex
  • SEARCH

  • Archives

    • February 2014
    • January 2013
    • August 2012
    • June 2012
    • May 2012
  • Meta

    • Register
    • Log in
    • Entries feed
    • Comments feed
    • WordPress.com
  • Copyright © 2012-2015 New Sheriff Publishing, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed without permission. Contests conducted by WatchWerx.com and its sponsors are valid only if all conditions of entry are met. Contest participation is void wherever prohibited by law. WatchWerx is not affiliated with any watch brand or watch company. All watch brand names or trademarks referenced on this site are the property of their respective owners.
Blog at WordPress.com.
  • Follow Following
    • WatchWerx ... and Watch Doesn't
    • Join 165 other followers
    • Already have a WordPress.com account? Log in now.
    • WatchWerx ... and Watch Doesn't
    • Customize
    • Follow Following
    • Sign up
    • Log in
    • Report this content
    • View site in Reader
    • Manage subscriptions
    • Collapse this bar
 

Loading Comments...
 

You must be logged in to post a comment.