250 Discussions and CommentsMember since May 5, 2008
My problem was the fact that it looked so good underwater I had to remind myself not to be so distracted - I could look at the watch all I wanted but my dive was limited but overall I really enjoyed the two dives I did with this watch. My first dive off of Cozumel, Mexico, was to a depth of 80 feet along the Santa Rosa Wall. At a depth of 80 feet I spent a little time playing with the the chronograph pushers; the chronograph and flyback functions performed perfectly! I used the chronograph again for my safety stop. The external rotating bezel was easy to set while I was in the water preparing to descend and did not appear to have been bumped or had any change in its initial position during both dives. I had been a little concerned that the bezel seemed easy to move on land but it seemed to remain securely in its position while I was diving. Although I used a dive computer for both dives, I felt quite confident relying on my Aquatimer for any measurements of time and really appreciate that this instrument is fully functional at depth. Although I did try to evaluate the luminosity of the display, even at 80 feet the visibility was so good that the watch was incredibly easy to read and luminosity was not a factor. For all practical purposes I believe the advances in luminosity showcased in the new Aquatimer line has best served me whilst awakened from a deep sleep in the middle of the night, but nonetheless is something I really do appreciate and admire in this watch. I know that a lot of high-end diving watches probably never make it further than the beach and so I felt I should give it a try; the reward now is that I have a gorgeous piece that has done for me what it was designed to do and now I know I can rely on it in the future!
245 Discussions and CommentsMember since Jan. 12, 2008
What an adventure, I must agree with you that if I had a RG AT I wouldn't use it for diving. I also have to admit that I haven't gone that deep in my life.
It's good you tested the watch under real conditions and worked as we all supposed it would do.
250 Discussions and CommentsMember since May 5, 2008
To Clemens and Paul, I am sorry but I have yet to start taking photos underwater, so no James Bond Photos yet. I bet I might wait a while before I start with underwater photography; I am still getting more confident with my air consumption and have seen "veteran" divers getting lost with their cameras and missing vital information from dive masters so I'll wait until I am really comfortable before I take photos underwater. I have to say that I have been inspired, particularly by some shots by a forum member who took some great photos of his Vintage Collection Aquatimer during several dives. I'll look up who that was but his posts helped fuel my own dives with IWC watches.
803 Discussions and CommentsMember since Feb. 9, 2007
Congratulations, Ben. That gold AT was probably my favourite from SIHH in 2009; it's great (and brave!) that you have used it as intended and not just as a fashion item. Kudos.
2,129 Discussions and CommentsMember since March 22, 2001
I think it is wonderful that you go ahead and use this watch as intended, as a diver. Reminds me of a story I once heard about a guy who was in construction, doing heavy physical labor. When my friend noticed his watch- a Patek chronograph, really beat up- the guy said he always wore it.
Not that those were meant for that type of work...
Your gold AT is just beautiful- thanks for showing it. Nelson
Ben
It's good you tested the watch under real conditions and worked as we all supposed it would do.
BR; Julx
Kind regards,
Clemens
Last edited: 30 May, 2012 - 20:59
Ben
Regards.
ross (at) baverstock (dot) me (dot) uk
Not that those were meant for that type of work...
Your gold AT is just beautiful- thanks for showing it.
Nelson
Last edited: 15 February, 2011 - 20:21