Quote:
Originally Posted by GGGMT
This doesn’t make sense to me. I’m not aware of any company that rates its products based on misuse or lack of correct usage by the owner. It would be like a cars safety rating based on assumption the driver won’t wear a seatbelt. Or a firearm assuming that the owner fails to properly engage the trigger safety. Or the owner of a washing machine who fails to close the door and causes the flood. Or medication of which the user takes twice the prescribed amount. Makes no sense.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
|
There are many well reported cases of watch brands not standing behind a warranty after water intrusion. Many. Omega is famous for this, as they have never upgraded the WR rating on many of their watches beyond 50m. The loss of advertising a depth rating capability does not outweigh the business decision relative to warranty obligations.
This new Patek rating of 30m WR simply enables them to do so easily without issue as well now, and it is no coincidence the 30m WR rating change coincides with their new 5 year warranty offering. This was a business decision and absolutely a discussion within the C-suite and their marketing teams.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk