Actually, no. When your left hand is fully extended up towards your arm, crowns on the right side of your watch touch the back of your hand. But if the watch is on your right wrist, full extension doesn't press the crowns on the right side of your watch into your forearm. Image added for clarity on flexion vs extension of the hand.
I have to agree. DH's are more a nod to the past than anything Jacques Cousteau or Sterling Moss would wear.As consumers, I'd like to think most of us can recognize marketing fluff for what it is... marketing fluff. Is Dan Henry's marketing copy completely honest and above board? Probably not. However, I'd venture to guess that most educated consumers will take "made for hardcore divers" with a generous pinch of salt. Look at the watch in context. DH is closer to a fashion brand than a brand like Marathon. They make watches that look like period references that are purchased and worn for a little bit of fun rather than as mission timers for special operations or anything similarly hardcore.
I bet Dan Henry himself would agree with this assessment.
That's exactly why the situation is so funny (sorry, OP... but it looks like you are not making a tragic story out of it either).But least my 1962 fashion watch will time my runs up to 500mph!
Clearly you do not understand the importance of a properly cooked frozen pizza. I only time my DiGiornio’s with a NASA certified Speedy Pro.So I don't use that watch to time mission critical events. It works fine for cooking rice or frozen pizzas. I own another watch (or three) to use in life or death situations.
I do agree with this. I don’t own a DH, and have no plans to get one, but I do really like the look of some models. But I would never get one with the expectation that it would provide full diving watch functionality the way an ISO certified watch would, regardless of their claims.Is the watch an ISO compliant Dive/Diver/Divers/Diver's watch? If not then it's a divers-like or, if you will, a diver-ish watch, not subject to ISO compliance and thus not a dive watch.
A dive watch is not defined by ISO certification. There is no standards body that decides what is and is not a dive watch.Is the watch an ISO compliant Dive/Diver/Divers/Diver's watch? If not then it's a divers-like or, if you will, a diver-ish watch, not subject to ISO compliance and thus not a dive watch.
The fatal flaw in your argument or theory is that the watch being discussed uses a compressor case. It doesn't. The DH 1970 employs a conventional design to keep out water. Again, it‘s an inexpensive watch designed to look like a period reference.For everyone claiming that this watch is defective because it is not designed for diving, keep in mind that no problems have been described in this thread related to diving. No one has even mentioned taking the watch swimming or in water at all. No failure has been described during diving or in water.
One of the features of the compressor is that the pressure of the water helps to create a tighter seal, so it is likely the secondary crown is actually stiffer and less likely to move when under pressure in water at depth. If you are not in any depth of water, then there is no reason to rotate the inner bezel unless you are timing something unrelated to diving.
So, before you declare the watch unsuitable for diving, you should at least test it while diving to demonstrate that the same problem occurs. The underwater environment is different than your house and the crown may react differently.
If you think the watch is unsuitable for reliable pasta timing and parking meter tickets, then you may have purchased the wrong watch, but Dan Henry can hardly be blamed for it.
So you have dived with the DH 1970 and you know how the crown operates in water? Would you say, in your personal experience diving with the DH 1970, that the water pressure makes some difference in the stiffness of the crown, or no difference at all? Please share your experiences, because they would help to prove or disprove my conjecture. I have not dived with the DH 1970, and I do not own one, nor have I taken the watch apart and studied its design, so I am just speculating. But you seem so sure that you must have personal experience with this watch? You must have taken it apart to know that underwater pressure is incapable of exerting any pressure on the crown assembly?The fatal flaw in your argument or theory is that the watch being discussed uses a compressor case. It doesn't. The DH 1970 employs a conventional design to keep out water. Again, it‘s an inexpensive watch designed to look like a period reference.
AFAIK, the only true compressor currently in production is made by C. Ward.