[Selym]

I really don't understand why would you need another 'o' ring? (except for bragging rights or cosmetic reasons) The SKX single ring was tested to 460M with no leakage and has been used in it's thousands as a dive watch. But have you heard of them being renowned as leaky?.

Redundancy. Two is one, one is none.

Best wishes,
Myles

 

[Selym]

I could even argue that the one piece case is irrelevant at this point. They're only eliminating one point of ingress for water intrusion ie. the case back. They are plenty of hyper deep depth rated watches that utilize a traditional case back design.

You could even argue that they haven't eliminated one point of ingress. Rather, they have moved it from the bottom to the top. There is the gasket with the "L" cross section that the crystal sits in, and the o-ring that seals the crystal assembly to the case. So there are three ways for water to get in. Same as a watch with a traditional case back.

I think the one-piece case is more for historical reasons than technological reasons. After all, the 8L35-0010 is more or less a re-issue of the 6159-7000.

Best wishes,
Myles

 

[Selym]

If that's your best rational answer - why not fit double crystal and caseback seals also?? There must be massive amounts of flooded SKX007's if redundant seals are required.

No need to get snarky.

There are tons of "vintage" Seiko dive watches that have been damaged by water intrusion. The crown seal is subject to more wear than the caseback and crystal seals. It seems like cheap insurance to have more than one gasket at the crown.

Since it seems like I've insulted you by suggesting a better crown sealing system for the Marine Master, I should let you know that I happen to own one. Do you?

I guess I own two, technically.

:grin:

Best wishes,
Myles

 

[Selym]

Snarky?? pmsl - I should let you know that I don't honestly give a monkey's if you have twenty five of them.
It seems like I've touched a nerve when I said the second seal was for bragging rights - and your post proved me right.

This, exactly, was what I was getting at. I'm done. You?

 

[Selym]

:sign0004: this is much better than anything on tv at the moment. Seriously though, differences in opinion are a big part of what keeps the forum interesting. You've both been on here long enough to know that. Embrace it, don't poke at each other because of it. Go have a cold one or a pint or whatever it's referred to in your part of the world and unwind. :singing:

I have no problem with differences in opinion. What gave you that impression?

 

[Selym]

I forget who now but dident some one send theres back to Japan for a new tube/case ? expensive if i remember correct.

I believe that some have had a triplock conversion ?

It was SharkfinDave from Quebec. I'm pretty sure they laser welded a new case tube in. Terry from DWC had his crown and tube replaced with a TripLock.

Best wishes,
Myles

 

[Selym]

the only thing i could think of changing would be to have a seperate ceramic bezel insert replacement option rather than having to change the complete bezel.

the possible crown cross threading never stopped me getting mine. mainly as i have always back threaded first all my watches before winding down the crown.

I would prefer a traditional Al bezel insert. It would be more in keeping with the 6159-7000 it pays homage to.

As for turning the crown backwards to align the threads, I do that as a matter of course with all screw-down crowns. I don't find the crown on the MM to be any more fiddly than any other.

Best wishes,
Myles