Invicta?

Author
Discussion

boyse7en

Original Poster:

6,727 posts

165 months

Wednesday 22nd October 2014
quotequote all
My Casio Ediface, despite being "100m water resistant", is noting of the sort and has got a small amount of water in. This means the glass fogs up when i go indoors-outdoors and is flipping annoying.

Amazon has got a daily deal on the Invicta Speedway silver face for £55, which is 200m WR. Anyone know if they are any good? or would I be better off with something like a G-Shock AW-591MS-1AER

It's daily wear, so it'll be exposed to swimming, gardening, fixing cars, DIY, etc. Can't afford to trash anything more expensive.

Oh, and in case it is relevant, I have very slender wrists, and can't punch my way out of a wet paper bag.

SickFish

3,503 posts

189 months

Wednesday 22nd October 2014
quotequote all
The Invicta is a Rolex Daytona homage non? On that basis I (personally) would go with the G-Shock.

I have 3 G-Shocks and love them.

Edited by SickFish on Wednesday 22 October 14:11

boyse7en

Original Poster:

6,727 posts

165 months

Wednesday 22nd October 2014
quotequote all
SickFish said:
The Invicta is a Rolex Daytona homage non? On that basis I (personally) would go with the G-Shock.

I have 3 G-Shocks and love them.

Edited by SickFish on Wednesday 22 October 14:11
Homage? Is it a bad thing to look like a Rolex then?

I'm a bit worried that a G-shock will look a bit ridiculous, I do have very small wrists.

MrSimba

343 posts

213 months

Thursday 23rd October 2014
quotequote all
Invicta for me!

But then I absolutely hate G-Shocks with a passion nothing screams 'mid life crisis' more than when I see a forty something guy with a red plastic G-Shock...!

I went for the Invicta Explorer II homage as I am lucky enough to have a Rolex Polar Explorer II and would not dream of wearing that to work so a 'look a like' for £80 off Amazon was worth a punt, amazing how many of my non watch friends can't tell the difference as well!

So far its perfect & my hands are in water a lot of the day so waterproof is very important and its all good,

For £80 its a steal!


DH01

820 posts

168 months

Thursday 23rd October 2014
quotequote all
http://m.watchshop.com/watch-guide/waterresistance...

See if this guide on water resistance helps.

jdw100

4,117 posts

164 months

Thursday 23rd October 2014
quotequote all
MrSimba said:
Invicta for me!

But then I absolutely hate G-Shocks with a passion nothing screams 'mid life crisis' more than when I see a forty something guy with a red plastic G-Shock...!

]
I'm 46 and have an orange one - am I having a crisis of which I am unaware?

GC8

19,910 posts

190 months

Thursday 23rd October 2014
quotequote all
DH01 said:
http://m.watchshop.com/watch-guide/waterresistance...

See if this guide on water resistance helps.
Id disregard that completely. It may be well intentioned but it is completely inaccurate.

I have a watch which has 150 Metres on the dial. They suggest that its good for gentle swimming in but it is an ISO standard diver's watch! At this rate, my 1,000m diver will only be good for paddling in, in a few more years.

Variomatic

2,392 posts

161 months

Thursday 23rd October 2014
quotequote all
GC8 said:
Id disregard that completely. It may be well intentioned but it is completely inaccurate.
The trouble is, they actually are accurate guidlines according to the (non divers) ISO standards (ISO 2281). The ISO divers watch standards (ISO 6425) are an entirely different set of rules which include extra tests such as 50 hour immersion, thermal shock, corrosion and mechanical properties. Minimum water resistance for a "divers" rated watch is 100m

Cynically, both standards (especially the original - ISO 2281) are serious overkill for the rated uses, and quite a few copanies will guarantee their own products for use above the standard - especially quite a few 30m watches (not an ISO standard depth) that the makers say you can swim, or even snorkel, with.

But the main difference with the dive standards are to do with reliably continued resistance over time rather than absolute depth ratings.