The Watch Site banner

1 - 5 of 5 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
336 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
that failed the Pro diver (whose name escapes me...:)) in the 60's and led to the design of the first Tuna?


I believe the old 6159 was a Pro diver's watch right? Maybe it was just that it was NOT impervious to He and that was the problem?


I ask because it is interesting that Seiko produced a new watch (SBDX001) on a platform of a watch that has failed them in the past...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
196 Posts
The 001 doesn't have any more in common with the original 150m diver than any a Monster, Marinemaster or SKX007 does.

The famous letter to Seiko that led to the design of the shrouded watches said that the 150m watch was also too vulnerable to impact damage, as well as not being suitable for helium diving. However I don't know if this meant that the watch was more vulnerable than diving watches in general (meaning really the Sub, Omega and Blancpain at that time) or current non-shrouded models - or just more vulnerable than a shrouded high torque extra heavy duty quartz. I suspect the later.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
336 Posts
Discussion Starter · #3 ·
scuttle said:
The 001 doesn't have any more in common with the original 150m diver than any a Monster, Marinemaster or SKX007 does.

The famous letter to Seiko that led to the design of the shrouded watches said that the 150m watch was also too vulnerable to impact damage, as well as not being suitable for helium diving. However I don't know if this meant that the watch was more vulnerable than diving watches in general (meaning really the Sub, Omega and Blancpain at that time) or current non-shrouded models - or just more vulnerable than a shrouded high torque extra heavy duty quartz. I suspect the later.

Thanks for your reply...but did the diver use the 6159 Pro diver or the 150m diver's of the time...?Was the 6159 not He proof at the time despite the text Professional on the dial?


As regards shock proof it would alos be a mystery how Seiko decided to keep the 6259 movement in their first shrouded diver..since it was deemed not shockproof enough in the first place....
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
3,143 Posts
buddy13 said:
that failed the Pro diver (whose name escapes me...:)) in the 60's and led to the design of the first Tuna?


I believe the old 6159 was a Pro diver's watch right? Maybe it was just that it was NOT impervious to He and that was the problem?


I ask because it is interesting that Seiko produced a new watch (SBDX001) on a platform of a watch that has failed them in the past...

I think you are confusing outward appearance with actual internal construction. Just because the lugs and case profile are similar between the 6215-700x /6159-700x and the SBDX001, that does not mean that all the gasket/sealing systems are the same. From my understanding, the early models mentioned used a bayonet-style system to affix the crystal (Tokunaga museum website calls it a "rotating-rocking structure of glass fixing structure") , whereas the SBDX001 uses a variation of the screw-down retaining ring system first used by the 600M shrouded diver (Tokunaga museum website calls it a "glass screw ring fixing structure"). There are physical differences in the design of these two systems, enough so that the SBDX001 does receive a "He-GAS DIVER'S" designation on its case back. I therefore don't think it is fair to say the SBDX001 is based on a "failed" platform, not that I agree that the early 300M design was "failed" to begin with... One letter of complaint does not make something failed. Saturation diving has never been a common activity by any stretch, and was still in its early stages in the 60's, based on a quick and reckless internet search: http://www.divingheritage.com/saturationkern.htm . From the amount of saturation diver's watches sold these days though, you'd think every neighborhood rec center had a Surface Saturation Complex next to their lap pool.


Just a few observations provoked by what seems to me to be a blanket criticism of a current product undeserving of such.


buddy13 said:
but did the diver use the 6159 Pro diver or the 150m diver's of the time...?

The seiko book, "A journey In Time" does not state which watch the professional diver was criticizing, saying only that "he complained that some watches had been damaged when ascending from such great depths. He added that when working on the ocean floor his watch was sometimes knocked quite hard against rocks; the existing Sieko diver's watch had not been designed to cope with such arduous conditions."


buddy13 said:
As regards shock proof it would alos be a mystery how Seiko decided to keep the 6259 movement in their first shrouded diver..since it was deemed not shockproof enough in the first place....
I think you mean 6159, not 6259 (no such movement). Also, I wouldn't say it was "deemed not shockproof enough in the first place", as the shrouded diver design focuses mainly on external changes to increase shock-resistance, I don't think there was ever criticism of how the movement performed, rather how it was cased. Regardless, the 300m 6159-700x uses a 6159A movement, whereas the 600M shrouded diver (6159-701x) uses a 6159B, which has a few changes from the 6159A, one notable change (which would increase shock-protection for the hands) is the hand hole size of the hour and minute hands- the minute hand hole size is the same diameter of most common hour hand holes:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
336 Posts
Discussion Starter · #5 ·
rileynp said:
I think you are confusing outward appearance with actual internal construction. Just because the lugs and case profile are similar between the 6215-700x /6159-700x and the SBDX001, that does not mean that all the gasket/sealing systems are the same. From my understanding, the early models mentioned used a bayonet-style system to affix the crystal (Tokunaga museum website calls it a "rotating-rocking structure of glass fixing structure") , whereas the SBDX001 uses a variation of the screw-down retaining ring system first used by the 600M shrouded diver (Tokunaga museum website calls it a "glass screw ring fixing structure"). There are physical differences in the design of these two systems, enough so that the SBDX001 does receive a "He-GAS DIVER'S" designation on its case back. I therefore don't think it is fair to say the SBDX001 is based on a "failed" platform, not that I agree that the early 300M design was "failed" to begin with... One letter of complaint does not make something failed. Saturation diving has never been a common activity by any stretch, and was still in its early stages in the 60's, based on a quick and reckless internet search: http://www.divingheritage.com/saturationkern.htm . From the amount of saturation diver's watches sold these days though, you'd think every neighborhood rec center had a Surface Saturation Complex next to their lap pool.


Just a few observations provoked by what seems to me to be a blanket criticism of a current product undeserving of such.



The seiko book, "A journey In Time" does not state which watch the professional diver was criticizing, saying only that "he complained that some watches had been damaged when ascending from such great depths. He added that when working on the ocean floor his watch was sometimes knocked quite hard against rocks; the existing Sieko diver's watch had not been designed to cope with such arduous conditions."

I think you mean 6159, not 6259 (no such movement). Also, I wouldn't say it was "deemed not shockproof enough in the first place", as the shrouded diver design focuses mainly on external changes to increase shock-resistance, I don't think there was ever criticism of how the movement performed, rather how it was cased. Regardless, the 300m 6159-700x uses a 6159A movement, whereas the 600M shrouded diver (6159-701x) uses a 6159B, which has a few changes from the 6159A, one notable change (which would increase shock-protection for the hands) is the hand hole size of the hour and minute hands- the minute hand hole size is the same diameter of most common hour hand holes:

[img]

[/quote]


Thanks for your reply! I am not critisizing the watch...I actually love mine :) ...but that was always a question I wished someone could clarify...

Thanks!!
 
1 - 5 of 5 Posts
Top