Omega Seamaster Aqua Terra Ultra Light

Posts
1,035
Likes
1,908
It’s the instantaneous pressure generated by someone diving into water from the side of a pool or from a diving board that is the real reason for having higher depth ratings.
OK, so I could buy that argument if we're talking about only owning one watch and having it be capable of withstanding anything that I might throw at it. In which case, the most extreme environment, even if only encountered once in ones life, is what must be protected against. So we're talking about someone's one-and-only watch being a Ploprof or Ultra Deep. But in the case where someone owns more than one watch, and presumably knows beforehand whether jumping off a diving board is potentially on today's agenda, maybe 100m is good enough for the non-diving (board) watch. Certainly the 150m of the ATUL. My calendar doesn't have any diving board jumping for at least 6 months, so my Speedmaster's 50m should suffice for me. Your mileage & extracurriculars may vary.
 
Posts
709
Likes
404
OK, so I could buy that argument if we're talking about only owning one watch and having it be capable of withstanding anything that I might throw at it. In which case, the most extreme environment, even if only encountered once in ones life, is what must be protected against. So we're talking about someone's one-and-only watch being a Ploprof or Ultra Deep. But in the case where someone owns more than one watch, and presumably knows beforehand whether jumping off a diving board is potentially on today's agenda, maybe 100m is good enough for the non-diving (board) watch. Certainly the 150m of the ATUL. My calendar doesn't have any diving board jumping for at least 6 months, so my Speedmaster's 50m should suffice for me. Your mileage & extracurriculars may vary.
::facepalm1::::facepalm1::::facepalm1::
 
Posts
1,035
Likes
1,908
Your criticism is duly noted, but unless you can demonstrate that a significant portion of the watch-wearing world needs to be diving-board-ready at all times, I do not accept it.
 
Posts
848
Likes
1,747
If you are jumping into a pool from the side, or a dive board, you don’t need a dive watch with any particular water resistance rating. You need a sun bed and someone to look after your watch while you make an ass out of yourself.
 
Posts
709
Likes
404
Your criticism is duly noted, but unless you can demonstrate that a significant portion of the watch-wearing world needs to be diving-board-ready at all times, I do not accept it.
Don’t wanna argue. That’s a standard accepted by watch industry. Someone might say useless, like you and others find it a must in their way of living. Whether someone has one, two, a few or an abundance of watches suitable for every kind of situation/encounter does not matter for the standards accepted. 😀 Let it be peace!
 
Posts
16,774
Likes
47,480
It’s the instantaneous pressure generated by someone diving into water from the side of a pool or from a diving board that is the real reason for having higher depth ratings.
Yes, but that seems confined to the case of the watch being already in the medium, I was considering the case of transitioning between them which is much harder to apply simple math to, we now need to consider the interaction of a compressible and essentially incompressible medium, the position of the watch relative to hands etc... agree though that it may not be as clear cut as my post made out!

Diving in a pool does not change depth rating need. Maybe if your diving in at 300mph. But diving into a pool from the side into 1 or 2 meters of water is fine with a 50m rated watch. ( done it many times with a new Speedmaster 😗 )
 
Posts
1,035
Likes
1,908
Don’t wanna argue. That’s a standard accepted by watch industry. Someone might say useless, like you and others find it a must in their way of living. Whether someone has one, two, a few or an abundance of watches suitable for every kind of situation/encounter does not matter for the standards accepted. 😀 Let it be peace!
This isn't a discussion about the standards. I disagree with the individual who stated that 150m water resistance was insufficient for this watch. It's not a dive watch, nor is it promoted (despite its pricetag) as a one-and-only watch, so I don't see why it isn't sufficient. If diving into a water hazard to retrieve ones ball were a regular and accepted part of golf, and said-diving has the potential for creating pressures which exceed that of a 150m rating, then I could see changing my mind. Only the second part of that is potentially true.
 
Posts
2,026
Likes
7,157
What if the price is set so as to ensure that (very very) few will be sold? 😉
I see this mostly as a prototype watch... 😗
 
Posts
5,270
Likes
48,654
I see this mostly as a prototype watch... 😗

Yes, in an interesting article on RobbReport.com, Omega CEO Raynald Aeschlimann conceded that right now it's more of an 'exposition model', to be worn by the likes of Rory McIlroy, Sergio Garcia, and Tommy Fleetwood. Aeschlimann also tries to justify the extraordinary cost for this simple manual wind, three-hand, non-precious metal watch.

https://robbreport.com/style/watch-...a-new-seamaster-golf-watch-for-omega-2866716/
Edited:
 
Posts
348
Likes
503
Yes, in an interesting article on RobbReport.com, Omega CEO Raynald Aeschlimann conceded that right now it's more of an 'exposition model', to be worn by the likes of Rory McIlroy, Sergio Garcia, and Tommy Fleetwood. Aeschlimann also tries to justify the extraordinary cost for this simple manual wind, three-hand, non-precious metal watch.

https://robbreport.com/style/watch-...a-new-seamaster-golf-watch-for-omega-2866716/

Wait, it has a velcro strap? For nearly $50k? "Exposition model" or not, the price is ridiculous.