ROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEX
30 December 2005, 05:30 AM | #1 |
Fondly Remembered
Join Date: May 2005
Real Name: JJ
Location: Auckland, NZ
Watch: ALL SOLD!!
Posts: 74,320
|
Logical question!!
Hi guys,
Don't know how many of you would be able to answer this one, but it's a pretty logical and serious question!! Now we all know that the Subs, YM (only 40 mm) and the Daytona are fitted with TRIPLOCK crowns. So technically speaking, they should all be good to a depth of 300 m/1,000 ft. Right? Right!! So does this also mean that all THREE models mentioned above should also have sapphire crystals of the SAME thickness? JJ
__________________
Words fail me in expressing my utmost thanks to ALL of you for this wonderful support during my hour of need!! I firmly believe that my time on planet earth is NOT yet up!! I shall fight this to the very end.......and WIN!! |
30 December 2005, 07:02 AM | #2 |
Guest
Posts: n/a
|
I don't know about crystal thickness, but even though the daytona's crown is a triplock, I don't think (and I may be wrong here) the sub pushers are triplocks, prolly just twinlocks if that. So I would say a Daytona is likely not WP to 300m.
|
30 December 2005, 04:44 PM | #3 |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: May 2005
Real Name: Sir
Location: Melbourne
Watch: F-series SD
Posts: 8,589
|
Yuh huh, the Daytona's rated to 100m.
I don't know if we're talking about thickness here. Logically, to account for different dial sizes, I would imagine the more valid measure would be the ratio of the crystal's diameter to its thickness.
__________________
You buy a Casio to make sure you're on time; you wear a Rolex because you don't have to be on time. |
Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests) | |
|
|
*Banners
Of The Month*
This space is provided to horological resources.