Submariner vs GMT Depth Rating

[TRM]

From an article on Google:

Although the two watches are remarkably similar and share the same Triplock winding crown, the reference 116610 Submariner has a depth rating of 300 meters, while the reference 116710 GMT-Master II is only rated to a depth of 100 meters.Oct 6, 2017

Anyone know why this is?

[superstarmar]

One is a divers watch the other is a pilots watch ...
You actually get a bonus of water proofing on the
pilots GMT watch , that’s the brilliance and quality of
owning a Rolex !!!

Actually , if I’m correct all Rolex watches are water proof to
100 meters unless it’s a divers model ...

[SearChart]

Thinner case back on the GMT.
Don't worry about it, you won't be visiting that depth anyway.

[KBM]

The real question should be why 100m wr doesn't count as diving depth. Any watch with 100m wr is a do all (diving included) piece.

[Nikrnic]

I think the crystal is also thicker on the Sub

Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk

[traf]

Originally Posted by Nikrnic

I think the crystal is also thicker on the Sub

Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk

No it’s not


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[tyler1980]

Originally Posted by kauebm

The real question should be why 100m wr doesn't count as diving depth. Any watch with 100m wr is a do all (diving included) piece.

the original sub 100m so its plenty sufficient

[KBM]

Originally Posted by tyler1980

the original sub 100m so its plenty sufficient

JLC's deep sea chrono is also diving certified and 100m. That's more than 99.99% of us will ever need.

[tyler1980]

Originally Posted by kauebm

JLC's deep sea chrono is also diving certified and 100m. That's more than 99.99% of us will ever need.

its more of a case of they can now make a deeper depth rating these days therefore we think need it because its available, but we don't.

[KBM]

Originally Posted by tyler1980

its more of a case of they can now make a deeper depth rating these days therefore we think need it because its available, but we don't.

Agreed. Bragging rights do have an important role in today's market.

[Golf&Watches]

I've dived with several of my GMT's. and whilst not planned I went well beyond 100, and not much less than 300, Rolex is so good (possibly very underrated?), ��

[Brian Page]

Originally Posted by Golf&Watches

I've dived with several of my GMT's. and whilst not planned I went well beyond 100, and not much less than 300, Rolex is so good (possibly very underrated?), ��

You dove with a GMT just shy of 300? - 300 what?

[Burlington]

Originally Posted by Golf&Watches

I've dived with several of my GMT's. and whilst not planned I went well beyond 100, and not much less than 300, Rolex is so good (possibly very underrated?), ��

These depths are in metres, not feet.

It’s a one way trip if you did an unplanned dive past 100M to almost 300M.

[c41006]

Originally Posted by Burlington

These depths are in metres, not feet.

It’s a one way trip if you did an unplanned dive past 100M to almost 300M.

It happens all the time I’m sure. It’s like when I go to the grocery store and I miss my exit and end up two states over. I hate it when that happens.

[Wcdhtwn]

Originally Posted by kauebm

JLC's deep sea chrono is also diving certified and 100m. That's more than 99.99% of us will ever need.

I'm not sure... my pool is pretty deep.

[rscott9399]

Originally Posted by Brian Page

You dove with a GMT just shy of 300? - 300 what?

I would also like to hear the details here

[Old Expat Beast]

Oddly enough the Tudor Heritage Ranger and Chrono are rated to 150m. You'd think they could do that for the GMT, Explorer, etc.

[Mystro]

Yea, DJ, Daytona, GMT all have 100M WR and that’s plenty for snorkeling and any thing you are gonna do in a pool. They have a Oyster on them for a reason. The Sub was and still is the Rolex ultimate dive watch icon for a reason at 300m. Beyond that (saturation diving reasoning) is bar stool bravado that is mostly meaningless to the Rolex diver. Like the lobster cracker specially designed for outer space astronaut use.
HE valves are one more needless item to go wrong with your watch.

[Nikrnic]

Originally Posted by traf

No it’s not


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

O ok I guess I thought or heard wrong, now I no

Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk

[dnslater]

Caseback is thinner and flat on the GMT. Overall mid case is also a thinner design.

[Gogo Monomaneshi]

Originally Posted by kauebm

The real question should be why 100m wr doesn't count as diving depth. Any watch with 100m wr is a do all (diving included) piece.

100m WR means the gaskets can withstand 10 atm (atmospheric pressure). But that’s static and does not consider rapid changes in pressure with fast wrist movements. When you’re swimming and diving, the impact of your wrist on the surface of the water can already generate pressures that’s close to 10 atm. Add in gasket deterioration of temperature changes, and the GMT might not be as WR as you might think.

[CRM114]

Originally Posted by Gogo Monomaneshi

100m WR means the gaskets can withstand 10 atm (atmospheric pressure). But that’s static and does not consider rapid changes in pressure with fast wrist movements. When you’re swimming and diving, the impact of your wrist on the surface of the water can already generate pressures that’s close to 10 atm. Add in gasket deterioration of temperature changes, and the GMT might not be as WR as you might think.

The 100m WR of a GMT is more than sufficient for swimming, diving into pools, scuba diving at recreational depths, splashing, or making any other kind of "fast wrist movements" or surface impact with the water you can think of.

The only difference between a modern GMT and Sub's WR is case-back thickness, the case back being the part that will bend inwards during compression at great depths. If water could intrude into a GMT from splashing or diving on the surface, it could intrude into a Sub as well doing the same thing.

[Tomas Eriksson]

Originally Posted by CRM114

The 100m WR of a GMT is more than sufficient for swimming, diving into pools, scuba diving at recreational depths, splashing, or making any other kind of "fast wrist movements" or surface impact with the water you can think of.

The only difference between a modern GMT and Sub's WR is case-back thickness, the case back being the part that will bend inwards during compression at great depths. If water could intrude into a GMT from splashing or diving on the surface, it could intrude into a Sub as well doing the same thing.

What this gentleman just said

[Ckci]

Originally Posted by Brian Page

You dove with a GMT just shy of 300? - 300 what?

I suspect mm’s.

[BLNR Nairobi]

Originally Posted by Gogo Monomaneshi

100m WR means the gaskets can withstand 10 atm (atmospheric pressure). But that’s static and does not consider rapid changes in pressure with fast wrist movements. When you’re swimming and diving, the impact of your wrist on the surface of the water can already generate pressures that’s close to 10 atm. Add in gasket deterioration of temperature changes, and the GMT might not be as WR as you might think.

Nonsense.

Harsh because this is why people start thinking they cannot wash their hands with their watch on. Lots of misinformation on some subjects, with WR being a more serious grouping of misinformation. I usually only bother for such ...although there are others that are hilarious, though not serious. For example, had a certain poster here claim the watches with HE valves have them so the AD can ‘add helium to the watch.’

Anyway - moving back to WR, your statement on ‘dynamic’ pressure changes is incorrect when it comes to Rolex WR.

There are long explanations I could give, and there are longer online discussions on why the ‘static vs dynamic’ narrative is not true for Rolex (and other professional watches).

To save time though, I’ll just post the Hodinkee article below discussing Dr. Sylvia Earle, one of the most reknown professional divers in the world. She’s made many of her dives wearing a gold Rolex Datejust, and so far hasn’t come across any ‘rapid changes in pressure due to fast wrist movements.’

https://www.hodinkee.com/articles/di...spatches-rolex

[padi56]

Originally Posted by SearChart

Thinner case back on the GMT.
Don't worry about it, you won't be visiting that depth anyway.

Originally Posted by Golf&Watches

I've dived with several of my GMT's. and whilst not planned I went well beyond 100, and not much less than 300, Rolex is so good (possibly very underrated?), ��

Please explain 300 what.???????


Have to agree most dive watches today hardly see any water except for perhaps a dip in the pool or shower.Fact there have been more men to have gone to the moon than have dived past 300M wearing just normal scuba gear.

[tyler1980]

Originally Posted by BLNR Nairobi

Nonsense.

Harsh because this is why people start thinking they cannot wash their hands with their watch on. Lots of misinformation on some subjects, with WR being a more serious grouping of misinformation. I usually only bother for such ...although there are others that are hilarious, though not serious. For example, had a certain poster here claim the watches with HE valves have them so the AD can ‘add helium to the watch.’

Anyway - moving back to WR, your statement on ‘dynamic’ pressure changes is incorrect when it comes to Rolex WR.

There are long explanations I could give, and there are longer online discussions on why the ‘static vs dynamic’ narrative is not true for Rolex (and other professional watches).

To save time though, I’ll just post the Hodinkee article below discussing Dr. Sylvia Earle, one of the most reknown professional divers in the world. She’s made many of her dives wearing a gold Rolex Datejust, and so far hasn’t come across any ‘rapid changes in pressure due to fast wrist movements.’

https://www.hodinkee.com/articles/di...spatches-rolex

[Burlington]

Originally Posted by padi56

Please explain 300 what.???????


Have to agree most dive watches today hardly see any water except for perhaps a dip in the pool or shower.Fact there have been more men to have gone to the moon than have dived past 300M wearing just normal scuba gear.

To be fair, some of the best marine life (and only shark to date - little nurse shark off the FL Keys) I've seen whilst diving has been at the astounding depth of about 300cm

even 300 ft, let alone Metres, would be quite the miraculous achievement to survive on a solo tank trip in regular gear.

[jimcameron]

Originally Posted by Golf&Watches

I've dived with several of my GMT's. and whilst not planned I went well beyond 100, and not much less than 300, Rolex is so good (possibly very underrated?), ��

You dive to 100 meters and close to 300 meters?

......or feet?

Stick with golf.

[thesharkfactor]

For reasons above, the SD DeepSea is a ridiculous watch?