Omega PloProf

[CommanderJameson]

Pesty said:

CommanderJameson said:

The DeepSea is a proper fat b'stard of a watch, especially compared to the sub:

Saw my First SDDS in flesh last week as a fan of large watches I was gobsmacked at it. just looked and felt really odd. too much. much prefer the last sea dweller.

You would have to be teh size of The Rock for it not to look out of place

It's not as broad as my PO, at 43mm vs 45.5mm, but it's a full 5mm deeper (18mm vs 13ish) and it's still on a 20mm bracelet. That's one funny-shaped watch, if you ask me.

I'd still have one, though.

It'd fund a JLC Master Compressor Geographic quite nicely

[anonymous-user]

I think it's the price of the deep sea that is the most over the top part. It looks like Rolex are trying to move themselves into higher ground by simply by hiking up the prices of their SS sports watches.

It's £6,000. . It must be good!

[ShadownINja]

Ah, didn't see the PloProf definition above.

[jshell]

el stovey said:

I think it's the price of the deep sea that is the most over the top part. It looks like Rolex are trying to move themselves into higher ground by simply by hiking up the prices of their SS sports watches.

It's £6,000. . It must be good!

Erm, it was £5,760 when I walked into an Edinburgh dealer last week and with the forthcoming 8% Rolex price rise, a nice wee chat with Dominic H , and the fact that the other dealers in Edinburgh have big waiting lists for em and expect 2-3 units/yr..... I Bought It! ....and it's just farking ACE!!!!

[mel]

Well atleast this thread has cleared up the question I always had about the name on the original, for years I never knew if it was a Plop Rof or a Plo Prof I always thought the original had a certain degree of 70's kitsch coolness about it but I'm really not sure on this re release, somethings are just best left as they were (and no Stuart that's not a dig about forum changes)

[rhinochopig]

I think your missing the point slightly on depth ratings. AFAIK watches are typically rated to a static pressure, i.e. sat motionless in a tank of water at a constant temp. A diving watch (used for diving) will never see this type of pressure; rather it will be subject to dynamic pressure and thermal transients which *can* see leakage at lower depths than those rated on the watch. Think of the stresses on a watch being worn by a sat diver welding in 600ft of water - for info sat dives have gone as deep as 2000ft.

I'm surprised at the aesthetic criticisms - there has to be a strong element of form follows function in something designed to withstand that level of pressure.

[andy_s]

I think pressure testing is doe to rated depth for a period and then rated depth plus 25% for a shorter period to account for hydrodynamic pressures while doing an imaginary dive at that depth.

I just like the engineering that goes into deep sea watches, over-engineered and over performance (bit like a ferrari is designed to go at speeds most of them never do).

A good example is the Sinn U1000 - one I'm scrapping pennies together for at the moment. It's the tech of - inert gas filling, copper sulphate micro-moisture capture, visible indicator if moisture has got in, being able to use the pushers at rated depth without screw-down pushers, submarine steel (anti-mag and corrosion resistance better than s/s), the case hardenening process which makes the outer few microns 4 or 5 times harder than normal s/s, the bezel contruction (held on by screws, 'push & turn' uni-directional operation), oil designed for extreme temp variations (-40 to + 70), diver extension on all the straps etc etc - hopelessly over-engineered but a good demonstration of what can be achieved - very clever.
Sinn have been a bit too clever sometimes (problems with silicon oil and lume on the UX for example - which is changed to Teflon oil now under warranty) but I love the design/form/function/engineering of their watches.

I think that the extreme depth ratings are akin to a 'complication' if you will.

Edited by andy_s on Wednesday 15th April 11:19