Fine Swiss Watches in the Field..? (1 Viewer)

[Sterngucker]

I've always been suspicious of Damasko's use of martesitic steel for some of their cases. It is probably an alloy that is used for some stainless steel knife blades and, although it can be hardened, its carbon content would make it less corrosion resistant than austenitic steels such as 316L or 904L.

If the watch comes into contact with salt water it should be rinsed off and even sweat getting under the case back could cause pitting corrosion in the absence of oxygen.

For their dive watches, I see that Damasco uses an austenitic "submarine" steel.

John

PS:- A quick look at the English web site didn't reveal any serious errors, but perhaps I've become desensitised after nearly half a century in Germany. German advertising though does sometimes contain some pretty excruciating anglicisms. A commonly seen Dutch one (for beer) is "Socialise Responsibility". Wtf is that supposed to mean?

LOL ... I also have a Sinn U1 (Germanischer Lloyd rated 'submarine' steel) and so far the Damasko has fared no worse, ie. neither shows any sign whatsoever of wear or specifically rust/pitting.


PS. Here's a discussion of Damasko's steel and rust.

 

[etudiant]

I've always been suspicious of Damasko's use of martesitic steel for some of their cases. It is probably an alloy that is used for some stainless steel knife blades and, although it can be hardened, its carbon content would make it less corrosion resistant than austenitic steels such as 316L or 904L.

If the watch comes into contact with salt water it should be rinsed off and even sweat getting under the case back could cause pitting corrosion in the absence of oxygen.

For their dive watches, I see that Damasco uses an austenitic "submarine" steel.

John

PS:- A quick look at the English web site didn't reveal any serious errors, but perhaps I've become desensitised after nearly half a century in Germany. German advertising though does sometimes contain some pretty excruciating anglicisms. A commonly seen Dutch one (for beer) is "Socialise Responsibility". Wtf is that supposed to mean?

Wow, that is a whole lot more in depth steel know how than is the norm!
I did think that the emphasis on 'submarine steel' was a little over the top, but am delighted to receive a bit more practical information to confirm my doubts.
Two immediate beefs with the English language site were the typo on the anti magnetic specification, written as 'anit-magnetic', followed by the arm bands getting labelled as 'manufactury', rather than 'own make' or 'factory issued'.
There may be others, but the stilted 'denglish' copy really did not do justice to what appear to be finely crafted hardware.

 

[Alexis Powell]

Hey folks, no more discussion of German watches in the fine _Swiss_ watch thread! Where are the mods when you need them?

--AP

 

[elkcub]

Ok, I've used three fine Swiss watches since 1985: Rolex Date, Rolex Zephyr, and Victorinox V7-20, which is a dive watch good to 200m. Nowadays, the Rolex models reside in a safe but get wound every few months. The V-7 gets a new battery every year or so.

Ed

 

[fazalmajid]

IWC Portugieser Chronograph Classic, nice large easily readable dial for my tired eyes...

 

[Robert Wallace]

I have a Citizen Eco-Drive a so called Royal Navy Commando watch which has a titanium body and sapphire glass. the strap is kelvar with a black nylon covering which tends to wear through. The watch is water resistant to 300 metres. It does not require battery replacement, it is light and fits my relatively small wrist perfectly adequately. It cost me about £230. It outperforms any posh Swiss Watch, most of which are pure bling, which is why I wear my 1970 Omega Seamaster when I want to impress. The big downside of posh watches is that they need servicing my Omega cost me almost £800 to be refurbished when it stopped working, I only paid out when I saw a similar model on Ebay for approx £1500. My cost in 1970 when new was £40 plus £8.50 when I purchased the Omega stainless steel bracelet.
Most watches are status symbols whatever their owners admit to. Style before function. The last time I checked my Citizen it gained 5 seconds per month.

 

[Alexis Powell]

...Most watches are status symbols whatever their owners admit to...

Based on my experiences in the watch-enthusiast community, I don't think that is a fair assessment. Many popular watches amongst enthusiasts cost $500-$1000 and are not effective as status symbols, nor are the widely appreciated models from Casio that cost $100 or less. Rolex watches are often used as status symbols, but most watches (either more or less expensive) are unknown by the general public so they don't serve to mark status. It is unusual for anyone to be impressed by a fine watch let alone even take notice of a watch. True that most watches (including all mechanical watches) aren't the most practical tools for telling time, and it is true that many status symbols are impractical, and it is true that watches play a role as status symbols, but I think watch enthusiasts cherish them as jewelry/body adornment with the added aesthetic of their mechanical operation which also evokes nostalgia for a word with gears (I also like the aesthetics of a bicycle drivetrain), the history of timekeeping, watch making, and the broader human endeavor of measuring and being mindful of time, which is so important to us as a species aware of our mortality.

--AP

 

[Robert Wallace]

AP,

Based on my experiences in the watch-enthusiast community, I don't think that is a fair assessment. Many popular watches amongst enthusiasts cost $500-$1000 and are not effective as status symbols, nor are the widely appreciated models from Casio that cost $100 or less. Rolex watches are often used as status symbols, but most watches (either more or less expensive) are unknown by the general public so they don't serve to mark status. It is unusual for anyone to be impressed by a fine watch let alone even take notice of a watch. True that most watches (including all mechanical watches) aren't the most practical tools for telling time, and it is true that many status symbols are impractical, and it is true that watches play a role as status symbols, but I think watch enthusiasts cherish them as jewelry/body adornment with the added aesthetic of their mechanical operation which also evokes nostalgia for a word with gears (I also like the aesthetics of a bicycle drivetrain), the history of timekeeping, watch making, and the broader human endeavor of measuring and being mindful of time, which is so important to us as a species aware of our mortality.

--AP

I think you make valid points, but I assume that most people buying expensive watches do so to reflect their social status and are not "watch enthusiasts"

 

[Alexis Powell]

AP,

I think you make valid points, but I assume that most people buying expensive watches do so to reflect their social status and are not "watch enthusiasts"

Yes, true, enthusiasts only make up a small slice of the overall watch market. --AP

 

[pppppvvvv]

It is bizarre, that these really expensive watches, have very limited functionality, and less accuracy than the consumer items. So much of the appeal must be status symbol, or rarity/exclusive value.

Garmin Instinct.. £200, Tells me time based on GPS, GPS position, GPS track, sunrise/sunset, altimeter, barometer, compass, email and calendar notifications, steps, heart rate, stress, sleep quality, weather, moon phase, world times, alarms, stopwatch, timer, can find my phone! Looks naff lol!

 

[Alexis Powell]

It is bizarre, that these really expensive watches, have very limited functionality, and less accuracy than the consumer items. So much of the appeal must be status symbol, or rarity/exclusive value.

I don't think it is so strange, nor does it have to be about status or rarity. Many things that people do are not perfectly practical. Like birding, why do it? For some, it is a competitive enterprise, but I think it would be a mistake to attribute most interest in birding to its function as an arena for competition and status. Many things that we do are simply about satisfying our personal interests, senses of the aesthetic etc. Men (mostly) sometimes get interested in watches. They are fun accessories to turn in the light and fiddle with a bit, and which can accompany us everywhere. Some get excited about ties or other articles of clothing. Some get excited about super-powerful mini-flashlights, or pocket multi-tools, or folding knives. I know a plenty of guys who have elaborate EDC ensembles composed of potentially useful tools that they rarely actually use, so to me it is obvious that the potential utility of those items does not explain why they are carried. Rather, they are fun little accessories to fiddle with, like a child's fidget spinner or the "worry beads"/prayer beads/misbaha that many men carry in the Middle East. Sure, a really nice mini-flashlight or folding knife can gain you some status in the right circles, as can the right watch, or the right tie, or the right shirt, or wallet, but that isn't what fuels the interest day in and day out.

--AP

 

[Pinewood]

Hello,

I was confused with the term "fine watch," as that always meant to me a thin, elegant timepiece to worn when I went to an event which required something dressier than casual. I had a Rolex Oyster but it was large and heavy and not a particularly good timekeeper. I gave it to my late brother, who was more impressed by the watch than I was. His son is quite attached to it. My watchmaker is of the opinion that Omega make a better timekeeper.

Of course, I have a need for a field watch. I certainly do not need a watch with many "complications," or added facilities. I attach a photograph of three watches. The first is an elegant fine watch and good time keeper, which needed an overhaul one in twenty five years. The second is a rugged Heuer, before the merger with Tag, a quartz watch which keeps excellent time, it is well sealed, rated to 200 metres depth, and needs a new battery rather rarely. The third is a favorite, a UK Lighthouse service watch, with a very good ETA automatic movement. It keeps decent time but it is certainly more dependable than the first.

Stay safe,
Arthur

 

[Andy Adcock]

Based on my experiences in the watch-enthusiast community, I don't think that is a fair assessment. Many popular watches amongst enthusiasts cost $500-$1000 and are not effective as status symbols, nor are the widely appreciated models from Casio that cost $100 or less. Rolex watches are often used as status symbols, but most watches (either more or less expensive) are unknown by the general public so they don't serve to mark status. It is unusual for anyone to be impressed by a fine watch let alone even take notice of a watch. True that most watches (including all mechanical watches) aren't the most practical tools for telling time, and it is true that many status symbols are impractical, and it is true that watches play a role as status symbols, but I think watch enthusiasts cherish them as jewelry/body adornment with the added aesthetic of their mechanical operation which also evokes nostalgia for a word with gears (I also like the aesthetics of a bicycle drivetrain), the history of timekeeping, watch making, and the broader human endeavor of measuring and being mindful of time, which is so important to us as a species aware of our mortality.

--AP

Generaly true but my Raymond Wiel has attracted comment on numerous occasions from 'non watchies', had it over twenty years and still love it.

 

[b_reynolds_ak]

Here is my Breitling Chronomat Evolution on a rubber strap, alongside the new Zeiss 8x32 SF. I absolutely love this watch and wear it out in the field quite often.

 

[Eranou]

This watch goes everywhere with me, come rain or shine - they’re made to be worn and enjoyed, and are plenty tough in my view