Wristwatches suitable for sailing, celestial navigation, anc scuba diving

[hellosailor]

"Marine chronometer... obsolete? Maybe."
No, I don't speak of "marine chronometers" but of ANY time-keeping instrument that is a certified chronometer. ANY certified chronometer is seriously vague about keeping time, compared to any modern timepiece. Having a ships' clock, or timepiece, certainly isn't obsolete--but using one that is just chronometer certified, would mean you're using a timekeeping device that is fifty years out of the current state of the art.

And I don't know if there is any maritime regulation about having them serviced. Kinda doubt it, in general. But the makers of all mechanical watches, including the chronometer-certified ones, strongly suggest authorized service typically every two years. They claim the oils gum up, moisture can cause corrosion (somehow, even in the water"proof" models) dust can get in (again in water"proof" models somehow) and that the watches must be certified. Oh, and there are no specs for the magical oils they require except "Use ours."

Too much hokem in the pokem for me.

[Sailmon]

Thank you for the credit card suggestion. I will check for future reference

[davedindubai]

Oooh I just couldn't resist a watch thread inc diving too!

I've owned a few nice watches, all for diving. After my first commercial dive I bought myself an Omega Seamaster as a little treat to myself and then a few years later after my first deep dive I bought the Daddy of all diving watches (this is not up for debate) the Rolex Sea Dweller. The Sea Dweller is still is and always will be the number 1 go to watch for a diver. Then when I got married, I treated myself again to a Rolex Submariner Bimetal, not really a divers watch but it was a limited edition and built in the year I started diving. Plus it matched my new wedding ring!

But then we started cruising and had to say goodbye to all these unnecessary luxuries until for my birthday a couple of weeks ago, my wife thoughtfully (knowing I missed my very sentimental watches) bought me the new Garmin Forerunner 645. It ticks all my boxes and many of yours. Even has music storage for those night watches. Battery is 7 days and you can even pay for a loaf of bread when you're ashore without your wallet. I love it.

[Shibumik]

I use a Seiko Astron. Mine covers 2 timezones - a very useful watch. No need for all of the complications you never use anyway. It is solar powered and GPS satellite-linked for almost perfect accuracy. They run from $2,000-$3600. These watches are water resistant, but not divable. Mine is titanium. Light weight but will scratch easier than steel. The crystal is a real crystal.

I have two Rolex watches, neither remotely accurate enough for navigation. They are mechanical watches, which will never be as accurate as digital or even close to GPS. Few people realize that when a chronometer is ‘certified,” it is only the one watch that is submitted that is tested. The others that come after must use the same manufacturing process, but do not get tested.

[Alita49DS]

As ever, a fascinating discussion. From which I think can be gleaned;-

1. Quartz watches, at whatever price, are better than expensive mechanical watches for keeping the time. So forget the Rolex. A supermarket quartz watch will be more accurate. Accuracy relates to frequency of oscillation so no mechanical watch is even in the same race.
2. Quartz watches which can pick up a time signal are even better. Even if that is more a comfort blanket than a necessity.
3. Only serious scuba divers need to get worked up about waterproofing. I am never going to get anywhere near the 200M that my under £100 titanium Seiko watch is rated.
4. Cheap is good. Watches on a boat get bashed about.
5. There are some nice toys - but who really needs a watch to control their autopilot? Any more than they need one to do what they can already do on their mobile phone?

[Shibumik]

Originally Posted by Alita49DS

As ever, a fascinating discussion. From which I think can be gleaned;-

1. Quartz watches, at whatever price, are better than expensive mechanical watches for keeping the time. So forget the Rolex. A supermarket quartz watch will be more accurate. Accuracy relates to frequency of oscillation so no mechanical watch is even in the same race.
2. Quartz watches which can pick up a time signal are even better. Even if that is more a comfort blanket than a necessity.
3. Only serious scuba divers need to get worked up about waterproofing. I am never going to get anywhere near the 200M that my under £100 titanium Seiko watch is rated.
4. Cheap is good. Watches on a boat get bashed about.
5. There are some nice toys - but who really needs a watch to control their autopilot? Any more than they need one to do what they can already do on their mobile phone?

Pretty much how it is. I dive and use a dive computer, not a watch. Most divers today use dive computers.

Watches are not used as much today with the advent of things like iPhones and GPS devices. I like mine. For me, multiple timezones are delightful capabilities and GPS accuracy are godsends. In addition to telling time, day of the week, a second hand a daylight savings time compensation and solar power, what else do you need?

FWIW, I have found light faces are easier for me to read at sea. Dark faces and their specular twinkles are more difficult for me to read for some reason. Your mileage may vary.

[Adelie]

Originally Posted by Jammer

Do you wear a wristwatch?

It seems to me that a wristwatch is a good thing. The ideal wristwatch:
[LIST]
....[*]Accurate enough (10 seconds a year) for celestial navigation[*]5 year battery life
.......

Except for a 2yr period during the recession I’ve worn a wristwatch since I was 15.

For the last 30yr or so it’s been 3 Casio G-Shocks, I’m on my 4th now. They last about 10yr by which time the buttons become too difficult to operate reliably. I replaced batteries about year 7 for each of them. Bands were replaced about every 4yr.

If you get a watch with 10s/yr or better error rate it will be just luck. Individual quartz watches have a very consistent error rate over time but it varies watch to watch significantly in the range +/- 30s/mo.

For celestial I would get 3 cheap waterproof Casios ($15 ea) and a Molinja mechanical pocket watch ($35 EBay) and keep them all in the sextant case with a Rite-in-the-Rain notebook to track error rate.

I would be hesitant to use an atomic resetting watch but have not investigated enough. To use an atomic watch for celestial you need 2 things:
A. You need to establish the error rate without an reset. That means shielding the watch from radio reception for 30d and logging the error rate.
B. The watch needs some kind of indicator as to when it last updated the timer to the atomic reference.

Currently WWV & WWVH are on the budget chopping block but not WWVB which is the source for updating atomic watches. That will probably change. Getting an atomic watch may be a waste of money.

If you want a way more thorough discussion of all of this go to NavList read that forum.

[I36guy]

Get a time hack from HF radio. Or, since you're into doing it "old school", just calculate the lunar distance to derive time.

[lewisa]

I use a Chronosport (from the early 1980's) which is certified to 30 atm. It has been indestructible and extremely accurate for long durations. Probably any modern electronic and waterproof watch will be sufficient for most of us. I believe that it is critical for the watch to be able to accept a continuous watch band; if one pin breaks or gets dislodged, the watch won't be lost as the remaining pin will hold it.

I useful feature is a lighted dial (like on Timexes) for use at night or at deep depths. My tritium dial is pretty useless after 45 years.

[secrabtree]

Just about any watcg is accurate enough IF YOU USE WWV to set the watch immediately before taking your celestial sights. For instance say it is off a full minute a day that's about 150 sec an hour, = less than a sec in 20 seconds, the time to easily take a sight, and easily within the capability of a watch wihin the $25 to $50 range. Buy two or three just in case you drop one overboard. Four Casios cost less than one Rolex by a long shot and provide more safety from overboard losses. One Casio and one timecube got me to Hawaii in 1980 just fine. Didn't even have to use my backups.

[jlcnuke]

Originally Posted by a64pilot

The Shearwaters are highly regarded, and there is apparently an air integrated wrist watch version now. All I know about it is it exists, I don't like air integrated myself , but that was because I usually Dove with four, separate, independent air sources.
I have a Predator, bought my Son a Petrel, and they would at best look ridiculous on your wrist as a watch.
https://www.divegearexpress.com/shea...research-teric
Isee the need for an accurate time keeping device, but not the need for a watch.
BTW the quartz time keepers will vary time keeping based on temperature, Im not sure if they slow down or speed up in hot weather, just know it's temp based.
I wouldn't be surprised if an extensive one compensates for temp, but wouldn't expect a budget one to.

Not to derail the thread, but many dive computers these days support multiple, independent gasses. My Oceanic OCi for instance does up to 4 transmitters, each programmed with their specific gasses.

[surazo]

but...finally which watch is better at low cost for celestial navegation ?

[Jammer]

Originally Posted by Alita49DS

3. Only serious scuba divers need to get worked up about waterproofing. I am never going to get anywhere near the 200M that my under £100 titanium Seiko watch is rated.

The water resistance depth ratings are greatly exaggerated. The "secret decoder ring" for them goes like this:


* 50m = can withstand rain, splashes, and occasional immersion
* 100m = suitable for swimming and snorkeling but not scuba diving

* 200m = suitable for scuba diving to usual recreational depths


I scuba dive, and like most, I use a dive computer for dives that involve any meaningful exposure to depth.


But the majority of my dives -- the vast majority -- are shallow, and there's really not any reason to take a dive computer on a dive where the bottom is only 30 feet down..

[JBWrites]

After I pawned my Omega (2008-2011 were bad years), I bought a Casio Pathfinder G-Shock watch. It's solar powered, so no batteries, and has a compass, barometer, good to 100-meters, tracks several time zones, and all the other digital watch bells and whisltes. As of September 2018, you can find it on Amazon for $153. (https://www.amazon.com/Casio-PAG240-.../dp/B003URP7NK)

That said, I don't usually wear it as I keep it on the handle of my computer bag. Telling the time while sailing isn't really hard to do, but trying to remember what day of the week it is has been my biggest issue when I'm off cruising for a few weeks at a time.

[Jammer]

Originally Posted by Adelie

If you get a watch with 10s/yr or better error rate it will be just luck.

There are several makers of watches with high-accuracy movements. They have thermal compensation and are more accurately rated during production. Error rates specified by manufacturers vary from +/- 20 seconds per year to +/- 5 seconds a year. Watch enthusiasts sometimes call these "HAQ" -- high-accuracy quartz -- movements. Posts on the watch enthusiast's boards indicate that most HAQ watches live up to these specifications and that manufacturers will repair the ones that do not under warranty.

Individual quartz watches have a very consistent error rate over time but it varies watch to watch significantly in the range +/- 30s/mo.

There is also considerable variation depending on temperature. It affects watches of similar design similarly, and is the critical flaw in the approach of using 3 cheap watches and rating them.

Currently WWV & WWVH are on the budget chopping block but not WWVB which is the source for updating atomic watches. That will probably change. Getting an atomic watch may be a waste of money.

WWVB lacks coverage outside North America. There are similar stations elsewhere with their own regional coverage in major population/technology centers but not in more remote areas.

If you want a way more thorough discussion of all of this go to NavList read that forum.

Thanks, I'll take a look.