This Week's Diver's Watch - the Seiko Sea Urchin

For this week's diver's watch, we go significantly downscale, at least in price, compared to the watches we've looked at till now.  We'll be looking at the Seiko 5; the so-called "sea urchin".  Part of the reason for this is that Seiko makes a fantastic dive watch; the other reason is that I've been thinking about my criteria for dive watches recently.  A dive watch, traditionally, was a really expensive bit of gear, because your life depended on it.  This is why serious diver's bought Rolexes - you needed absolute reliability.  Diving wasn't a cheap sport, and compared to the cost of the rest of your equipment, and your vacations to the great barrier reef, well, cost was no object when it came down to finding the proper watch.  And there were really no cheap, reliable alternatives - if you wanted something that was really, really reliable, AND waterproof to diving depth, you had to buy something expensive.  Most bought Rolexes, Breitlings, Zodiacs or Omegas.  But that was the 60s and early 70s.

Then came the Japanese quartz watches, devastating, for a short while, the Swiss watch industry.  Then came Swatchgroup, making watches a fashion item again.  Then came the consolidation and revitalization  of the Swiss industry, followed by what is now a renaissance of the intricate mechanical movement.  But none of that should change the criteria for a diver's watch.

In today's modern manufacturing world, there is NOTHING in my criteria for a diver's watch that says it should be expensive.  Reliable, yes.  Water resistant to a reasonable depth, yes.  Rugged, yes.  But expensive?  

And the more I think about it, the more I see a new criteria in my list of things I want in my ultimate dive watch: disposability.  A diver's watch is a tool.  It needs to be absolutely reliable and rugged.  But on that day where you smash it up against a rock, or you lend it to a friend for their dive, or you forget it in a kit bag on a boat in aruba, it shouldn't ruin your diving career.  I think disposability is a "like to have" rather than a "must have" feature of a diver's watch; the bright line requirements include reliability, water resistance, ease of use, and all the other good things I mentioned in my first Diver's Watch post.  But I think that, given the choice between two equally good diver's watches, the cheaper of the two would win out.

Which, I think, is why the Seiko line of diver's watches has been so popular with real-life divers.  The so-called "sea-urchin" (I don't think that's its official name) is the last in a long line of watches from Seiko that really seem to do the job well.

So let's take a look at it.  At first glance, it looks an awful lot like a Rolex Submariner.  The black face, the shape and placement of the hour markers, the dimensions of the rotating bezel, and, more than anything else, the band.  But to me, it looks like a diver has taken the Rolex Sub into a room with a bunch of other divers, and tried to improve it.  

First, the useless cyclops magnifier is gone.  OK, really, when does a diver really need to look at the date underwater?  Never.  When the lighting is good, and your above sea level, you can make out the date just fine without a magnifier.  And this means there isn't a big chunky magnet for rocks and brick walls jutting out of the crystal of your watch.  I've never understood the Rolex magnifier - in rough conditions, you know it's getting chipped.  It distorts that portion of the face of the watch, so its harder to read the time.  It kind of looks ugly.  And it's only reason is to make the date look larger.  I can read the date just fine on a normal watch.

And about that date - doesn't it look so much better in white on a black background?  It doesn't stand out from the rest of the face so much.  

I'm not too fussed about the day indicator, but I can see where it would come in handy when you're on a 4 day scuba trip.  I tend to lose track of the day of the week when I'm on vacation, and it's handy to have.

Another improvement over the Rolex is the shape and size of the hands.  I've never really dug the Mercedes-shaped hour hand on the sub.  In some (older) Tudor Submariners, the hour hand was a cross shape that looked unusual, highly functional, and, well, neat.  But the mercedes hand, while easier to read than a tiny hand, was never my favorite feature of the Rolex.  I like the hour hand on this Seiko - huge, thick, tapering so you can get an accurate reading, and with a nice little silver detail to make it look a little less blocky.  I imagine it looks great under water, or in low light situations, with all that luminescence.  The minute hand is also about as big as you could make it on a watch of this size, about the largest minute hand I've ever seen, but also tapered for accurate readings.  The second hand is complete with a luminescent 'dot' so you can confirm that the watch is working, even in low light situations.

I think the hour indicators are even bigger than on the Submariner, making for increased legibility.  I have to say I really like them.  They look a little oversized, but it adds, I think, to the sportiness of the watch.  The unidirectional rotating bezel is also thicker than the Rolex, but not as think as the crazy Blancpain I reviewed last week.  I think the thicker bezel gives the watch a more modern look, but I'm not sure why.  The indents on the bezel make it easy to turn, even with gloves on.  One small detail - I would have liked a luminescent dot or something at the 0 mark on the luminescent bezel.   Maybe it's there, but it doesn't look like it to me.  

I should note that this particular Seiko dive isn't the most "serious" of the Seiko dive watches - it's only resistant to 100 meters, it doesn't have a luminescent dot at 12 (some of the others do), it doesn't have a color change on the bezel between the first 15 minutes and the rest, and it doesn't have a rubber band.  But of the ones I've seen, it's the one I like most (even if it's not the most "diver" of them, if you know what I mean).  Please remember - I'm not actually a diver myself.

The case looks a little squarer than the Submariner, and there are no crown guards.  I think the "perfect" dive watch would have crown guards - lets face it, this watch is going to get banged up a fair bit.  The bracelet is very similar to an oyster bracelet, and there's nothing wrong with that.

In terms of reliability, we're looking at a Seiko 5 movement.  This is Seiko's most ubiquitous automatic movement.  It's been around for decades.  23 jewels, quite accurate, and very, very reliable.  Also very easy to fix or replace if it dies, since there are probably millions of Seiko 5 movements out there.  Pretty standard movement for a watch repair person to have in stock.

All in all, a really nice watch.  Probably head to head with the Rolex Submariner in the race for my "ultimate dive watch".

Search for the perfect diver's watch continued - Blancpain Aqualung

OK - here's a watch that's a little less standard than the ones I highlighted so far, in my search for the ultimate diver's watch.  The Blancpain Aqualung.  

Now, Blancpain isn't really known for their diver's watches.  They're more of a high-end fancy dress watch company.  They're another one of these names that has been "revitalized" - the "modern" Blancpain was started in 1983; the name had been out of use for decades.  One of the oldest watch names in the world, Mr. Blancpain was making watches back in 1735.  Of course, like many other watch brands, the Japanese quartz industry killed the brand at some point...  Some enterprising person recreated the brand in 1983.  The modern company held a lot of world records, including the thinnest automatic chronograph, the smallest minute repeater, and the most complicated watch on the planet.  Think intricate; think lots of precious metals; think delicate and refined.  At least that's what I think of when I see "blancpain" on the dial.

Which is why this watch, sold at Antiquorum last month, threw me for a bit of a loop.  Yes, it's a Blancpain.  But it looks HUGE.  And RUGGED.  And it's water resistant to 1000 feet (333 metres).   I don't know much about the history of this watch (when it was made, etc.), but judging from the wear on the luminous markers, I would have to guess they were radium, which puts the watch somewhere between the 40's and the 60's.  But that's just a guess.

There's no denying this is a serious diver's watch.  1000 foot water resistance is nothing to sneer at.  The hands are extremely luminous and easy to read; the hour markers (in orange!) are also very easy to read and stand out almost as much as the bright white luminous hands.  But what really sets this watch apart is the rotating bezel.  Just look at the size of that thing!  HUGE.  If you have trouble reading elapsed time on this watch, you probably shouldn't be diving.  

If I had to guess based on the picture, I would say this is a stainless steel watch, with a bidirectional rotating bezel (don't ask me why I'd guess this, I just would) and an acrylic crystal.  Looks like an aftermarket, much more modern, kevlar band.  

Gorgeous watch, but I don't think it's going to be my "ultimate" dive watch.  Why?  Well, it's a Blancpain.  If I bought a Blancpain, it would be hugely, horribly complicated, possibly rose gold, with a leather band.  I just can't take the Blancpain name seriously on a dive watch.  I'm not sure why that is - I'm sure they made a fantastic dive watch.  If I had a collection of dive watches, this would definitely be on the short list - it's probably very rare, and watch collectors and divers alike would say "wow".  But if I was looking for the one dive watch to rule them all, this probably isn't "the one".  At least not for me.

The Ultimate Divers' part II - The Rolex Submariner

This week's watch of the week is a little early, since I'll be "computer free" for a while.  I don't have too much time to find something esoteric, and realistically, I couldn't do a search for the ultimate Diver's watch without at least considering the entries from Rolex, so we'll get those out of the way today.

For a lot of people, the Submariner is the ultimate diver's watch, and it's not hard to see why.  It's the watch that everyone else copied.  The oyster case was one of the first waterproof cases, meant for extreme use, and the Rolex is really very functionally and clasically laid out - which is why it hasn't changed too much 

in the last few decades.

I'll be looking at a few different Subs, though, since the devil is in the details, and you can really tell what's important in a watch by the little changes that are made over the years.  All photos used today are courtesy of Antiquorum.com - these are all watches that Antiquorum sold over the last week, in their mega watch auction.

So let's look at this first sub.  Black dial?  Check.  Easy to read, luminescent hour markers and hands? Check.  Unidirectional rotating decompression bezel, with luminescent marker and markings every 5 minutes?  Check.  Easy to turn with gloves on? Check.  Water resistant to a reasonable depth? Check.  Touch crystal and band? check.  So it's a diver's watch.  

But let's look at some of the extra features that make this Submariner so special.  Crown guards.  Nice touch.  This way, the screw down crown doesn't get banged up from hits to the side.  It also prevents the crown from accidentally getting unscrewed (which would be very bad at 300 metres).  

The first 15 minutes of the bezel are ticked off every minute, to make it easier to see exactly where you stand.  There is also a subtle, but readable minute chapter ring on the dial.  The hands are easy to read - the "mercedes" hour hand, called this because it resembles the mercedes symbol, is unmistakably distinct from the minute or second hands.  The second hand is big enough to read easily, but tapers to a fine point for accuracy.  It is perfectly aligned with the minute chapter ring.  The second hand has a big luminescent dot making it easy to read, but is quite thin for accuracy.  Use of a triangle at 12 and sticks of luminescence at 3,6,and 9, with circles of luminescence at the other hour markers, make this watch very easy to read - you always know which way is up.  Many, many other watches have copied this style.

The oyster band has also been frequently copied.  Nice, big, solid chunks of stainless steel.  In earlier models, the band looked pretty much the same, but solid links weren't used - instead, they were thick sheets of metal folded to shape.  This was fine, but as the watches got used and got older, the metal would bend out of shape slightly, resulting in band "stretch".  Not a big deal, since it really didn't effect the integrity of the band, and actually probably made the band more comfortable to wear, but people didn't like this (made the watch look old) so the solid links (which are also purportedly stronger since the links are solid metal) were adopted.  Of course,

 the band is only as strong as its weakest link, and the spring bars are the same, but so much of the watch business is perception!

The clasp (which can't be seen in any of the pictures) is also much copied.  It folds over itself and never actually separates - another safety feature - it would be hard to lose this watch over your wrist, even if the band somehow got opened.

People have gone on and on about the history of Rolex (to me, looks like a beautifully executed "marketing" play from the start, and not really about watchmaking - for a long time, they had other companies make their movements, under confidentiality).  People have gone on and on about the movements (oyster perpetual, has all sorts of refinements, including use of interesting alloys and mechanisms to increase reliability, all are officially certified chronometers, etc., etc., etc.,).  But I really don't know enough about Rolexes to add anything of value to those discussions.  

Instead, let's look at a couple of "variations on the theme", and see where they get us.

  This one is a "sub date".  The biggest difference is that it features a date window.  Personally, I don't like the date version as much, for a few reasons.  First, the date window is magnified by what's called the "cyclops" loupe.  There's actually a big piece of glass (or acrylic, depending on the year of manufacture) that sticks OUT of the crystal.  If I had one of these, this would get banged up.  A lot.  I'd end up with lots of scratches on this piece of glass, since it sticks out and just asks to be banged into something.  Second, I think the big white aperture window detracts a lot from the symmetric nature of the face.  Everything else is black.  Your eye just automatically goes to the magnified (and distorted, since magnification will do this) date, rather than to the time.  Other watch brands have used an inverted date (with the number in white, on a black background), and I like that a little more.  Finally, this is a sports watch.  A diving watch.  I'm going to wear it diving.  Even James Bond didn't wear his all the time - he had a dress watch for dress occasions.  So every time you wear it, you have to set the date.  No thanks.

The other obvious difference between the two watches is that this one looks to be a bit older.  The luminescent markers have yellowed nicely, giving a vintage look.

This next one is called the "Roger Moore" sub.  Not sure why, but I suspect it's the model Roger Moore wore in Moonraker, or some such thing.  

Even though it's got "Roger Moore" in the name, I quite like it.  The luminescent strips have aged quite nicely, and almost look orange.  

A "sub" discussion just wouldn't be complete without a look at the watch known as the "James Bond" submariner.  This is a much earlier version of the watch, made famous for a close-up shot in one of the very early Bond movies (possibly even Dr. No).  Although it's got the submariner rotating bezel, it looks a lot like an Explorer, because there are no crown guards.  Also, I think the overall size of the watch was a fair bit smaller than the submariners you see today.  

It's got so-called "historic value" because of it's movie fame, but I think I'd rather have a version with crown guards.  

If I had my choice, I would get an older one, with a matte dial and as little as possible written on the face (the later Rolexes have more 'stuff' on the face; "superlative chronometer", water resistance in feet and metres, etc. etc. etc.).  Nicely yellowed luminescence (radium if I can find it, or if they ever used it - there's something cool about a radioactive dial).  Crown guards.  And (yes) an acrylic crystal.  None of this sapphire crystal stuff - old school.  I wouldn't care so much about the stretch on the band, or whether the band had a wetsuit extension clasp (some of the newer ones do).  Definitely no date.  This is something I really didn't know I felt so strongly about until I wrote this article - so I guess there is a use to this!  The more I think about it, the more I think a date window detracts from a divers' watch - at least from THIS diver's watch.

I should note that the bezel comes in different "flavours" too - they came out with a "Rolex Green" bezel for the watch's anniversary a few years back.  And I think there might be a few with the first 15 minutes in a different colour.  Oh - and I think the new ones are ceramic rather than painted steel - which means they don't scratch or wear out nearly as much.  But those features are unnecessary to me - a Sub should be banged up - it's a professional divers' watch.  And it should be as black as possible, 'cus that's just the way it should be.