The 6 digits are more tool watches than 5 digits.

[abozz]

Originally Posted by toolr

IMO the whole issue of what constitutes a tool watch is somewhat mislabeled or blurred. Any watch, be it vintage or brand new that tells the time is a tool watch. As many would not subject their new Sub C to a harsh environment, likewise many would not subject their DRSD or red 1680 etc to harsh environments either. Wanting to take care, or pamper, a watch doesn't mean it's not a tool.

When you read in the forum, the 16610/14460 was the last tool watch made by Rolex, implying that the new subc would not hold 300m because they make them worse than before, and my point is that they are better than before.


I'm talking from a technical point of view, is a 5 digits better done than a 6 digits to hold what is supposed to be done? example 300m, or a life on the wrist? No.


Rolex sells you that new SubC in 9.000$ and for that now nobody even wets it in the pool because it costs you an eye of the face is another issue. My point is a 6-digit submarine better manufactured than a 5-digitis to stand the porpuese for what is make? YES

[springbar]

The 4-digits are tool watches. That is, they were state-of-the-art diving instruments purchased for the purpose of diving. The unsentimental U.S. government even bought the things.

Mechanical wristwatches have been obsolete in that application for decades.

"Tool watches" now means "in the style of watches that were once used as tools." In that respect, a 5-digit is a closer approximation than a 6-digit.

[abozz]

Is obsolete but tool watches are the best! Some scratches (I´m the most poor member of this forum, but I use my watches). The 5513 is gone, room for the sd43.




Enviado desde mi SM-G965F mediante Tapatalk

[sechsgang]

Originally Posted by abozz

When you read in the forum, the 16610/14460 was the last tool watch made by Rolex, implying that the new subc would not hold 300m because they make them worse than before, and my point is that they are better than before.


I'm talking from a technical point of view, is a 5 digits better done than a 6 digits to hold what is supposed to be done? example 300m, or a life on the wrist? No.


Rolex sells you that new SubC in 9.000$ and for that now nobody even wets it in the pool because it costs you an eye of the face is another issue. My point is a 6-digit submarine better manufactured than a 5-digitis to stand the porpuese for what is make? YES

It's also nearly doubled in price with overall technology and materials to boot haha. It would be more fun to debate Grand Seiko vs Rolex (both newer) as being a better "tool" watch if that's the case I'd think. Granted its not what this thread is about, so carry on...

[abozz]

Originally Posted by sechsgang

It's also nearly doubled in price with overall technology and materials to boot haha. It would be more fun to debate Grand Seiko vs Rolex (both newer) as being a better "tool" watch if that's the case I'd think. Granted its not what this thread is about, so carry on...

I love Seiko, my sbdx017 is a wonderful watch, but a New Oyster bracelet is a better tool than the bracelet MM300 piece of.....I do not know the bracelet quality of the Grand Seiko 600m Hi Beat, must be incredible but is 10 to 11 thounsand dollars, is a jewlery then?

About obsolet Rolex as a tool this antartic explorer think different of us:

https://youtu.be/_q0N_oNDdR8

[SS Oyster]

A tool is something you use for intended purpose.

Rugged construction is not the same as tool unless used in the same way.

So - if my SD43 were used to dive an oil rig, yes it would be superior to a 1665, but not sure either are being used for this purpose anymore. Mostly, my son (Dover) uses huge digital timers and depth gages.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[abozz]

Originally Posted by SS Oyster

A tool is something you use for intended purpose.

Rugged construction is not the same as tool unless used in the same way.

So - if my SD43 were used to dive an oil rig, yes it would be superior to a 1665, but not sure either are being used for this purpose anymore. Mostly, my son (Dover) uses huge digital timers and depth gages.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

That was exactly my point, the Sd43 would be, then IS, better tool if used in a oil rig to a 1665, then the last tool watch made by rolex is the SD43 not the 16610. The problem is the cost of production and the actual demand (you can not found easy to buy a sd43 if you want it), that is another history.

[037]

Originally Posted by SS Oyster

A tool is something you use for intended purpose.

Rugged construction is not the same as tool unless used in the same way.

So - if my SD43 were used to dive an oil rig, yes it would be superior to a 1665, but not sure either are being used for this purpose anymore. Mostly, my son (Dover) uses huge digital timers and depth gages.

Agreed on all points.

Originally Posted by abozz

When you read in the forum, the 16610/14460 was the last tool watch made by Rolex, implying that the new subc would not hold 300m because they make them worse than before, and my point is that they are better than before.

Despite the ceramic models being made better (which is debatable), very few are diving with a $9000 Rolex. Personally, I've yet to see a 6-digit Rolex on a dive. I used to see 4- and 5-digits but those days are long gone. The backup watches I see today are typically less expensive than dive computers, so $500 or less in most cases.

Trying to define something as a tool versus it actually being used as a tool are two separate things. No matter how bad one might want a 6-digit to be a tool watch, very few are being used as such.

[sager]

Originally Posted by chris242

i think its so funny how people want these “tool” watches, but then have a hissy fit when scratches appear!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

So true

[abozz]

Originally Posted by 037

Agreed on all points.


Despite the ceramic models being made better (which is debatable), very few are diving with a $9000 Rolex. Personally, I've yet to see a 6-digit Rolex on a dive. I used to see 4- and 5-digits but those days are long gone. The backup watches I see today are typically less expensive than dive computers, so $500 or less in most cases.

Trying to define something as a tool versus it actually being used as a tool are two separate things. No matter how bad one might want a 6-digit to be a tool watch, very few are being used as such.

I agreed with you, my point is not if a diver would use a computer or a Rolex, a computer of course!
but If today a divers still use mechanical watches, the SubC is not conceived as a piece of jewelry, but rather as a better tool than a 5 digits, is better and of course obsolete TOOL (and expensive).

[037]

Originally Posted by abozz

I agreed with you, my point is not if a diver would use a computer or a Rolex, a computer of course!
but If today a divers still use mechanical watches, the SubC is not conceived as a piece of jewelry, but rather as a better tool than a 5 digits, is better and of course obsolete TOOL (and expensive).

The modern Rolex is missing a few criteria to truly be a tool watch in the diving field. The 114060 and 116610 no longer have lug holes and no longer include wetsuit extensions. The Glidelock clasp somewhat works as an extension but is far too difficult to manipulate while wearing gloves. The Glidelock version on the DSSD is actually better, plus it includes a proper extension, but I still wouldn't wear one diving due to size and weight.

If I used a modern Rolex as a backup watch for diving, it wouldn't be on a Rolex bracelet. Sure they're made well but aren't ideal. I've had much better luck with 5-digit bracelets myself.

[abozz]

Originally Posted by 037

The modern Rolex is missing a few criteria to truly be a tool watch in the diving field. The 114060 and 116610 no longer have lug holes and no longer include wetsuit extensions. The Glidelock clasp somewhat works as an extension but is far too difficult to manipulate while wearing gloves. The Glidelock version on the DSSD is actually better, plus it includes a proper extension, but I still wouldn't wear one diving due to size and weight.

If I used a modern Rolex as a backup watch for diving, it wouldn't be on a Rolex bracelet. Sure they're made well but aren't ideal. I've had much better luck with 5-digit bracelets myself.

ok I agreed on that. What do you think of the new SD43 with diver extension and glidelock?

[dubins930]

Price, lack of easy availability, and actuall inteneded use keeps the 6 series out of the tool watch catagory. Granted people do use them for intended purposes, but even 5 series is pushing it. I think 4 digit Rolex was probably the last time these watches were true tool watches. Yes 6 series is technically superior and more robust... but 4 and 5 series are still ticking.

[037]

Originally Posted by abozz

ok I agreed on that. What do you think of the new SD43 with diver extension snd glidelock?

The SD43 Glidelock is the same as the Sub, just wider. It's well made but not easy to use in the water. The extension on the 6-digit SD models is still more difficult to manipulate than the 5-digit versions.

Being made better doesn't make something better for a task or better for an individual. That's why it's impossible to say 6-digits are better tools compared to 5-digits or even vice versa.

But, if I had to guess, far more 5-digits were used as tools and far more 6-digits used as jewelry. Sadly, I believe the days of Rolex being viewed as a proverbial tool watch and used as a true tool watch are long gone, no matter how long one debates bullet points.

[abozz]

Originally Posted by dubins930

Price, lack of easy availability, and actuall inteneded use keeps the 6 series out of the tool watch catagory. Granted people do use them for intended purposes, but even 5 series is pushing it. I think 4 digit Rolex was probably the last time these watches were true tool watches. Yes 6 series is technically superior and more tubular... but 4 and 5 series are still ticking.

The 4 and 5 digits are wonderful pieces only overcome (like a tool) for the 6 digits.


My opinion is that rolex continues to produce the submariners as if they were still used for their purpose and each time Rolex improves them more, remember that a mechanical watch is for nostalgic and art lovers.


I read an interview with a high watchmaker (high horology) who said "In my workshop when you go inside, we work as if we were still in the 18th century and we do not care what happens outside". Rolex made his SUB as if we are in the 70´s, if not would lose his soul and is a TOOL.

[abozz]

Originally Posted by 037

The SD43 Glidelock is the same as the Sub, just wider. It's well made but not easy to use in the water. The extension on the 6-digit SD models is still more difficult to manipulate than the 5-digit versions.

Being made better doesn't make something better for a task or better for an individual. That's why it's impossible to say 6-digits are better tools compared to 5-digits or even vice versa.

But, if I had to guess, far more 5-digits were used as tools and far more 6-digits used as jewelry. Sadly, I believe the days of Rolex being viewed as a proverbial tool watch and used as a true tool watch are long gone, no matter how long one debates bullet points.

If people suspect that the 5 digits are better made than the 6 as a tool people, or want a piece of jewlery they would buy cellini line.
A watchmaker (high horology) says in an interview: In my workshop we are still in the 18 century and we do not care what happens outside. If Rolex stop to make BETTER each time his watches as if we are in the 70´s they would lose his soul, is a piece of history, a nostalgic wonderful piece, and I demand to Rolex my Subc has to be better that the early vertion for his diver porpouse, because I paid (and you) 8.550 by a SUBMARINER 300M or a Sea Dweller with Hev valve for saturation diver not for jewlery that says something is not true. Is comic? yes! is only a watch...

[SS Oyster]

Most of the “tool” focus has been on diving, but these were also used for air and land.

I would say the Daytona is a better watch today than in the past (4140 movement with improvements), ceramic bezel, better lume.

Same for the GMT Master II with better movement, more accuracy, just as easy quickset, etc.

And universally, the bracelets are a vast improvement for anyone without gloves -more secure, more adjustable and with more comfortable fit. Same goes for better lume.

Supercase gives more of a cushion case feel and thus fit to the wrist more comfortably in most cases.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[rgwarden]

Originally Posted by The Libertine

My opinion is that your reasoning is neither compelling nor persuasive, and my preference remains with the 5-digit models.

This


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[rgwarden]

Originally Posted by AK797

Just try telling any normal sane person that the five grand you spent on a watch was because it was a tool watch. This was a ludicrous statement even before the I-Watch revolution. I would keep my mouth shut on this whole "tool issue" because anyone you talk to is thinking - yes a tool indeed, but they ain't talking about the watch.

LOL this
Agreed


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[abozz]

Originally Posted by rgwarden

This


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I'm not doing any of that, only want to know opinions not compelling to do or not to do. Is your call and mine.

Enviado desde mi SM-G965F mediante Tapatalk

[brandrea]

Originally Posted by watchwatcher

IMO, it's more of a feeling when you strap it on than anything else. I have watches that feel very "tool-ish" to me and watches that feel more like jewelry.

While I understand your point on ceramic bezels, you could make the argument that even though the aluminum bezel may scratch or fade, it still is cheaper and easier to fix or replace than its ceramic counterpart.

Pretty much sums things up for me as well

[Patton250]

Originally Posted by s.m.b.

Plenty are used as tool watches...

You honestly believe there isn't a pilot out there wearing a six digit GMT as a daily, or a diver donning a six digit Submariner in and out of the water? This forum can give the best of us a distorted vision as to what's happening in the real world.

I guarantee there are a lot of pilots using a GMT or a Breitling but they sure aren’t using them as a tool. It’s more of a nostalgia thing.

I swear some of you guys think the officials at a NASCAR race are using a Daytona as the official clock.

I’m sure there are divers that wear Rolex when diving but I guarantee you that’s not what they are using as their official timer for how much oxygen they have. Once again they’re doing it for nostalgic reasons. Plus it’s cool.

The whole “tool watch” thing sailed long ago. But then you know that.

[Justinmg]

This haha
https://www.rolexforums.com/showthread.php?t=641852

[abozz]

Originally Posted by Patton250

I guarantee there are a lot of pilots using a GMT or a Breitling but they sure aren’t using them as a tool. It’s more of a nostalgia thing.

I swear some of you guys think the officials at a NASCAR race are using a Daytona as the official clock.

I’m sure there are divers that wear Rolex when diving but I guarantee you that’s not what they are using as their official timer for how much oxygen they have. Once again they’re doing it for nostalgic reasons. Plus it’s cool.

The whole “tool watch” thing sailed long ago. But then you know that.

My point is: The 6 digits are a better tool (for his nostalgic porpouse intended) than the 5 digits? In my opinion Yes! If you travel to the past and give to Cousteau a SD43 he will be very more pleasent because is a better tool that his 6200, is not a piece of jeawlery.

Enviado desde mi SM-G965F mediante Tapatalk

[s.m.b.]

Originally Posted by Patton250

I guarantee there are a lot of pilots using a GMT or a Breitling but they sure aren’t using them as a tool. It’s more of a nostalgia thing.

I swear some of you guys think the officials at a NASCAR race are using a Daytona as the official clock.

I’m sure there are divers that wear Rolex when diving but I guarantee you that’s not what they are using as their official timer for how much oxygen they have. Once again they’re doing it for nostalgic reasons. Plus it’s cool.

The whole “tool watch” thing sailed long ago. But then you know that.

Yep, some of us are just so silly.

[Patton250]

Originally Posted by abozz

My point is: The 6 digits are a better tool (for his nostalgic porpouse intended) than the 5 digits? In my opinion Yes! If you travel to the past and give to Cousteau a SD43 he will be very more pleasent because is a better tool that his 6200, is not a piece of jeawlery.

Enviado desde mi SM-G965F mediante Tapatalk

I own both and I think there are more rugged. Elsa think they are jewelry. :-)

If it makes you feel better they are jewelry you can be rough with.

[Patton250]

Originally Posted by s.m.b.

Yep, some of us are just so silly.

Nostalgia is not silly. I think it’s very cool. But then so is realism.

[abozz]

Originally Posted by Patton250

I own both and I think there are more rugged. Elsa think they are jewelry. :-)

If it makes you feel better they are jewelry you can be rough with.

Hehehhe I felt better now!!
Because a phone give you better time do not mean a Rolex is not a watch anymore, I'm making an analogy with two mechanical watches (5 and 6) not with a diver computer, I'm talking as we are in the 80's because a mechanical watch is a piece of art, from an analog world when was a tool and Rolex produce watches as if the world not change! Beautiful!

Enviado desde mi SM-G965F mediante Tapatalk

[Patton250]

Originally Posted by s.m.b.

Yep, some of us are just so silly.

Let me do a better job explaining this. My neighbor owns a model T Ford. He rebuilt it and loves that thing. He drives around the neighborhood and takes it to the Dairy Queen now and then. It doesn’t drive it from Tampa to Boston and back to visit his parents.

[Patton250]

Originally Posted by abozz

Hehehhe i felt better now!!
Because a phone give you better time do not mean a Rolex is not a watch anymore, I'm making a analogy with two mrchanical watches (5 and 6) not with a diver computer, I'm talking as we are in the 80's because a mechanical watch is a piece of art, from an analog world when was a tool and Rolex produce watches as if the world not change! Beatiful!

Enviado desde mi SM-G965F mediante Tapatalk

I totally agree with that.