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:
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...