brandon.c
88
I don't envy their marketing comms team, but I welcome precise and accurate water resistance claims
I think a lot of the discussion has been based on misunderstandings of what has changed. Reading the press release, the change is now there is a clear definition of what 30m water resistance means (e.g. you can swim at a depth of 30m) and they are testing all watches that they claim are water resistant to this standard. There is no indication that they made a change to the cases but they are changing their testing, marketing, and (presumably) warranty guarantees around water resistance.
Reading over comments I've seen posted on many sites, I think a lot of the discontent comes down to people not believing that Patek dress watches actually meet the claimed 30m of water resistance and that those watches should avoid contact with water. I see this change as Patek stating that as of now, when they say "30m water resistance" they mean exactly what they said and they are testing the watches to that standard.
Water resistance claims have always been treated with suspicion by owners with it commonly thought that 30m=washing your hands, 100m=surface swimming, 200m=skin diving, etc. I have always found this embarrassing for a hobby and industry that has precision and accuracy as core tenets. I assume the main reason this is an issue is that marketing wants big numbers for their depth rating specifications while accounting and legal don't want to make grandiose guarantees so they can minimize warrantee claims.
Now, why is the Aquanaut and Nautilus downgraded from 120m to 30m water resistance? Is it because the prior claims were not accurate and their reliability at 120m was questionable? Is it because they want to simplify their testing procedure and they didn't want to add the complexity of testing 120m in addition to 30m?
I don't know, but my guess would be a combination of 120m was an optimistic rating and they want a single testing regime. Probably not fun for the team who has to explain this to customers, but I doubt many people will pass on an Aquanaut or Nautilus because of this.
More posts:
Aquanaut :: Nautilus 30 m thoughts
At least in my mind, Patek has a history of shunning the norm and taking their own direction (like when they left the Geneve seal standard to create their own PP seal, which is completely without outside accountability, when you think about it, but nobody...
I don't envy their marketing comms team, but I welcome precise and accurate water resistance claims
I think a lot of the discussion has been based on misunderstandings of what has changed. Reading the press release, the change is now there is a clear definition of what 30m water resistance means (e.g. you can swim at a depth of 30m) and they are testing...
So are you telling me this watch can ACTUALLY withstand water down to a depth of 30m?
Looking at the thinness of the case and the non-screw crown, I don’t believe it. PP better tread carefully. Just me 2 cents ...
Exactly
The idea that we ought to feel equally comfortable submerging into the ocean both that watch and an Aquanaut is ridiculous, and does more to cast doubt on the Aquanaut than it does increase confidence in a Calatrava.
Thank you, all for indulging
Precisely, this is why I made the suggestion that they can distinguish in their marketing by using Waterproof (Naut/Aqua) vs. Water Resistant (Calatrava, etc.). Just a thought.
It's semantics, but actually misleading
The pressure of water is not static, either you swim or you have a shower. How do I see the new WR 30 m Aquanaut QUARTZ? A great move, because nobody cares!
How can they possibly call this watch an “AQUAnaut”
and give it a 30m depth rating???….I’m sorry but this is laughable unless you own one.
