ROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEX

Dan Pierce · 22 February 2007, 05:55 AM

Quote:

Would love to see a picture of that, Dan!!

Oh no you would'nt!

dP

nko51 · 22 February 2007, 05:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JJ Irani

Would love to see a picture of that, Dan!!

Yeah! Let's see Pic.

SeaGoer · 22 February 2007, 06:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by nko51

Here is my depth (Approx 290 yds). Here is my secret: First you get a Cabella Salt Striker fishing rod, with a Shimano Stella
20000FA, spinning reel, loaded with 300 yds of Stren Super Braid 30lb test fishing line. Get someone to take you off
shore about 25 miles. Stop the boat, check the depth finder to make sure you have enough depth. Tie 5 loops of line around
the bracelet, and lower it all the way down until you have only a dozen or so wraps left on your reel. Whalah!.. there you have it!
Oh! bye the way, first make sure it's a 1000' sub, and crown is screwed in properly before lowering. You are probably asking
yourself, why did this idiot do it? Long story short, during a off shore fishing trip this past September a non believer of Rolex
quality made me a bet that my Rolex Sub 14060M was no better than a Seiko Dive watch. I said how much! He said $200, I said
plus $50, for every 100' deeper than 300', he said your on loser!. I walked away that day with $450, a very nice fishing trip indeed.

I think I'll go back to sleep

steve-o · 22 February 2007, 06:29 AM

Lucky a large fish did not "take the bait" so to speak... :)

tonelar · 22 February 2007, 06:39 AM

wow...
I can just imagine what the other guys story would have been if the rod and reel had flipped overboard.

Quote:

Originally Posted by nko51

I walked away that day with $450, a very nice fishing trip indeed.

Good thing he was a gentleman and paid up... and didn't try and argue that the watch didn't go strait down.

nko51 · 22 February 2007, 06:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by steve-o

Lucky a large fish did not "take the bait" so to speak... :)

The more I think about it now, the more I realize what a huge chance I took.
But my adrenaline was really flowing that day.

tonelar · 22 February 2007, 06:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by nko51

Here is my depth (Approx 290 yds). Here is my secret: First you get a Cabella Salt Striker fishing rod, with a Shimano Stella
20000FA, spinning reel, loaded with 300 yds of Stren Super Braid 30lb test fishing line. Get someone to take you off
shore about 25 miles. Stop the boat, check the depth finder to make sure you have enough depth. Tie 5 loops of line around
the bracelet, and lower it all the way down until you have only a dozen or so wraps left on your reel. Whalah!.. there you have it!
Oh! bye the way, first make sure it's a 1000' sub, and crown is screwed in properly before lowering.

I guess Rolex did this sort of thing when they tied their watch onto the bathascape...

Great fishing story... NKO!

mrbieler · 22 February 2007, 06:56 AM

About 6". I don't dive much anymore.

JJ Irani · 22 February 2007, 07:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by steve-o

Lucky a large fish did not "take the bait" so to speak... :)

Good point, Steve!!

That would have been the one bet our friend would have sat and regretted for the rest of his life!!

tonelar · 22 February 2007, 07:36 AM

Jeff... are you really a crazy squirrel?

JJ Irani · 22 February 2007, 07:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tonelar

Jeff... are you really a crazy squirrel?

Actually CUTE more than crazy!!

mrbieler · 22 February 2007, 07:41 AM

Hey, it's a pint of Guinness. Like mothers milk.

Mrdi · 22 February 2007, 08:15 AM

My SD has seen 200 ft. Once
and 60 feet 60 times.

JJ Irani · 22 February 2007, 08:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mrdi

My SD has seen 200 ft. Once
and 60 feet 60 times.

WOW!! 60 feet x 60 times = 3600 feet. You're okay, you were still 400 feet short of SD's capacity!!

Earl · 22 February 2007, 08:58 AM

<--- shakeing my head at JJ and smileing!!!!! ;o)

slim · 22 February 2007, 09:25 AM

Theres no way i woulda tied my watch to some fishing string hahah you are one brave soul.

astcell · 22 February 2007, 09:29 AM

How about widths? My watch has not seen depth as much as it has width.

haakon59 · 22 February 2007, 10:27 AM

For just a second or two I was very impressed because I assumed you had actually dove down 290 yrds. I would have had confidence in your Rolex making it that far, but that depth would be challenging unless you are an expert diver with the proper equipment. But your test aside, I was trying to think if I had ever heard of even a 100m rated Rolex failing to meet it's water resistance level and I can't say that I ever have? I imagine someone must have used his Rolex with the crown unscrewed or something, but I haven't heard of it. It just goes to show that Rolex is of such quality that people don't even accidently ruin their watches. Anyway, congratulations on your test--glad a fish didn't eat your watch.

miner · 22 February 2007, 10:52 AM

Great story, but wow you were lucky, could have ended up losing the world's most expensive lure. I have a couple in the tackle box that have all the characteristics of a sub: big, shiny, black bits etc. Only they didn't cost $5k each.

If you ever try this again maybe put a hook on there too, just in case the fish are hungry!!

Thurnau · 22 February 2007, 01:45 PM

So what happened to the seiko dive watch?

Launch Mini · 22 February 2007, 01:47 PM

I've always thought about doing something like that, but my luck, some big mouth fish would decide to eat my watch or I would drop the rod.

edit, mine has been to a max of about 8 feet, fresh water lake

ROLEX4EvEr · 22 February 2007, 03:21 PM

bathroom sink

SeaGoer · 22 February 2007, 06:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by nko51

Here is my depth (Approx 290 yds). Here is my secret: First you get a Cabella Salt Striker fishing rod, with a Shimano Stella 20000FA, spinning reel, loaded with 300 yds of Stren Super Braid 30lb test fishing line. Get someone to take you off shore about 25 miles. Stop the boat, check the depth finder to make sure you have enough depth. Tie 5 loops of line around
the bracelet, and lower it all the way down until you have only a dozen or so wraps left on your reel. Whalah!.. there you have it! Oh! bye the way, first make sure it's a 1000' sub, and crown is screwed in properly before lowering. You are probably asking yourself, why did this idiot do it? Long story short, during a off shore fishing trip this past September a non believer of Rolex quality made me a bet that my Rolex Sub 14060M was no better than a Seiko Dive watch. I said how much! He said $200, I said plus $50, for every 100' deeper than 300', he said your on loser!. I walked away that day with $450, a very nice fishing trip indeed.

Where did this experiment took place?

JJ Irani · 22 February 2007, 06:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SeaGoer

Where did this experiment took place?

Most sensible question so far!!

Tombstone · 22 February 2007, 08:55 PM

SD 130 ft I guess it could have gone 3870 more feet. Oh yea I hope I am dead before I am 4000 ft under the water.

nko51 · 23 February 2007, 12:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SeaGoer

Where did this experiment took place?

Off the Atlantic Coast of Delaware.

nko51 · 23 February 2007, 12:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tombstone

SD 130 ft I guess it could have gone 3870 more feet. Oh yea I hope I am dead before I am 4000 ft under the water.

Use a Tuna fishing pole with 130 LB test line. Make sure you put about a pound of anchors at the end of the line, and tie off the Rolex about 6 feet higher than the lead anchors.

SeaGoer · 23 February 2007, 06:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SeaGoer

Where did this experiment took place?

Quote:

Originally Posted by nko51

Off the Atlantic Coast of Delaware.

nko51,

Sorry but your story is full of exagerations

. I was not going to call it when I first saw it but you keep on posting it.

a. You said you went 25 miles offshore (the coast of Delaware) and found water 290 yds deep and verified the depth with your depth finder. My friend, 290 yds equate to about 870 ft or 145 fathoms. There is no such depth offshore of Delaware within 25 miles of the beach. In order to find the depth of 870 ft you need to go past the edge of the canyons which are about 60 miles offshore. The depth 25 miles offshore is rather consistent at around 15-20 fathoms (90-120 feet depending where you are).

b. You said you tied your watch to the end of the line and drop it to the bottom. You might have done this but your watch never reached bottom. The tide together with the currents always move the boat faster than a light weight object (ie watch) can reach down 870 ft. When we fish for tile fish at depths of 600 feet we use 2 lbs worth of weights to be able to send the bait down there. Your watch only weighs a few ounces; you can pay out a mile of line and still it will not reach bottom on its own.

I think you send your watch overboard but I know you did not attain the depths you are suggesting as you are describing it.

If your friend reads TRF he may ask for his money back

astcell · 23 February 2007, 06:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by nko51

Off the Atlantic Coast of Delaware.

As opposed to the Pacific Coast of Delaware?

tonelar · 23 February 2007, 07:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by astcell

As opposed to the Pacific Coast of Delaware?

Robert... wouldn't that be off of Washington?

I mighta called it earlier when I posted this bit...

Quote:

Originally Posted by tonelar

Good thing he was a gentleman and paid up... and didn't try and argue that the watch didn't go strait down.

22 February 2007, 06:29 AM	#34
steve-o "TRF" Member Join Date: Jun 2006 Real Name: Steve-O Location: Naplis, Merlin Watch: Blue TT Sub Posts: 857	Lucky a large fish did not "take the bait" so to speak... :) __________________

22 February 2007, 06:56 AM	#38
mrbieler "TRF" Member Join Date: Nov 2006 Real Name: Jeff Location: Lost Angeles Watch: all about acrylic Posts: 683	About 6". I don't dive much anymore. __________________ - Jeff Cursimus Cum Forfex

22 February 2007, 07:36 AM	#40
tonelar "TRF" Member Join Date: Dec 2006 Real Name: Tony Location: san francisco Watch: Seadweller Posts: 1,368	Jeff... are you really a crazy squirrel? __________________ It's a rarity that something popular is actually right... Wear 'em with PRIDE, y'all.

22 February 2007, 07:41 AM	#42
mrbieler "TRF" Member Join Date: Nov 2006 Real Name: Jeff Location: Lost Angeles Watch: all about acrylic Posts: 683	Hey, it's a pint of Guinness. Like mothers milk. __________________ - Jeff Cursimus Cum Forfex

22 February 2007, 01:47 PM	#51
Launch Mini "TRF" Member Join Date: Jan 2006 Real Name: John Location: Canada, eh Watch: can I? Posts: 6,240	I've always thought about doing something like that, but my luck, some big mouth fish would decide to eat my watch or I would drop the rod. edit, mine has been to a max of about 8 feet, fresh water lake __________________ Something witty to go here. Member # 293

22 February 2007, 08:15 AM	#43
Mrdi Banned Join Date: Mar 2006 Location: PA Posts: 3,478	My SD has seen 200 ft. Once and 60 feet 60 times.

22 February 2007, 08:58 AM	#45
Earl "TRF" Member Join Date: May 2005 Real Name: Who Me? Location: Northern Virginia Watch: out Posts: 4,616	<--- shakeing my head at JJ and smileing!!!!! ;o)

22 February 2007, 09:25 AM	#46
slim "TRF" Member Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: los angeles/SD Watch: RG DD,SD43,Pam104 Posts: 385	Theres no way i woulda tied my watch to some fishing string hahah you are one brave soul.

22 February 2007, 09:29 AM	#47
astcell "TRF" Member Join Date: Aug 2006 Real Name: Robert Location: Angelus Oaks, CA Watch: 116713 Posts: 6,828	How about widths? My watch has not seen depth as much as it has width.

22 February 2007, 10:27 AM	#48
haakon59 "TRF" Member Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: Seattle Posts: 1,571	For just a second or two I was very impressed because I assumed you had actually dove down 290 yrds. I would have had confidence in your Rolex making it that far, but that depth would be challenging unless you are an expert diver with the proper equipment. But your test aside, I was trying to think if I had ever heard of even a 100m rated Rolex failing to meet it's water resistance level and I can't say that I ever have? I imagine someone must have used his Rolex with the crown unscrewed or something, but I haven't heard of it. It just goes to show that Rolex is of such quality that people don't even accidently ruin their watches. Anyway, congratulations on your test--glad a fish didn't eat your watch.

22 February 2007, 10:52 AM	#49
miner "TRF" Member Join Date: Jul 2006 Location: Perth, Australia Posts: 1,294	Great story, but wow you were lucky, could have ended up losing the world's most expensive lure. I have a couple in the tackle box that have all the characteristics of a sub: big, shiny, black bits etc. Only they didn't cost $5k each. If you ever try this again maybe put a hook on there too, just in case the fish are hungry!!

22 February 2007, 01:45 PM	#50
Thurnau "TRF" Member Join Date: May 2006 Location: Metairie, LA Watch: DateJust Posts: 738	So what happened to the seiko dive watch?

22 February 2007, 03:21 PM	#52
ROLEX4EvEr "TRF" Member Join Date: Sep 2006 Real Name: Freddy Location: NYC Watch: My Back Posts: 819	bathroom sink

22 February 2007, 08:55 PM	#55
Tombstone "TRF" Member Join Date: Jan 2007 Real Name: Richard Location: LV, NV Watch: LV Sub and others Posts: 2,689	SD 130 ft I guess it could have gone 3870 more feet. Oh yea I hope I am dead before I am 4000 ft under the water.

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)