WatchUSeek Watch Forums banner

20561 - 20580 of 20668 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
692 Posts
OK, if information is publicly available can you fetch the following (I wasn't able to):
It always feels a bit off, when someone claims to not get to a piece of information that is well documented on the internet. Even if you are smart, some things cannot be be solved from deduction. So aquiring that knowledge is a basic step. But let's say you're genuine in your inability to visit ISOs website and read about their procedures and the way they work, there's currently no new watch to hate so why not go through this:

ISO is a NGO with parttaking national branches. JISC is the Japanese organization on a national level in Japan. ISO is not legally binding, but often companies depend on ISO compliance so you can be sure that something you order is in fact up to it's task. This might come in handy when your equipment must be able to protect you from let's say a virus.

When a ISO standard is revised a technical committee takes care of it. This is done by a selected national organization, in this case the Committee Manager is Mr Patrick Lötscher of the Swiss Association for Standardization. There is no direct involvement from anyone from JISC in the committee. In fact the contact address for the technical committee is given as:
Federation of the Swiss Watch Industry, FH
Watch Industry Standards Department (NIHS)
Rue d'Argent 6
2502 Bienne
Switzerland

So maybe it's not so directly influenced by Seiko.
But of course, the JISC as a parttaking member of ISO gets a vote. As do eight other national orgs. ISO states that a new standard is accepted if 2/3 of the votes are in favour. So now that the procedure of revising or creating a standard should be clear, i still don't see how Seikos influence would be greater that convincing JISC to vote no.
 

·
Registered
Orient and Sieko
Joined
·
305 Posts
Yes, so they say. But who actually updated the ISO specs? Did this update happen despite Seiko's objection? How much influence does Seiko have with that ISO committee? I think they have whole lot of influence there.

So I don't buy it. This is Seiko's fault, they cannot blame ISO specs for this.
Just because you think something is a certain way, doesn't mean that's actually the way it works.

Companies have no pull with ISO. You meet their standards or lose certification..
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
478 Posts
It always feels a bit off, when someone claims to not get to a piece of information that is well documented on the internet. Even if you are smart, some things cannot be be solved from deduction. So aquiring that knowledge is a basic step. But let's say you're genuine in your inability to visit ISOs website and read about their procedures and the way they work, there's currently no new watch to hate so why not go through this:

ISO is a NGO with parttaking national branches. JISC is the Japanese organization on a national level in Japan. ISO is not legally binding, but often companies depend on ISO compliance so you can be sure that something you order is in fact up to it's task. This might come in handy when your equipment must be able to protect you from let's say a virus.

When a ISO standard is revised a technical committee takes care of it. This is done by a selected national organization, in this case the Committee Manager is Mr Patrick Lötscher of the Swiss Association for Standardization. There is no direct involvement from anyone from JISC in the committee. In fact the contact address for the technical committee is given as:
Federation of the Swiss Watch Industry, FH
Watch Industry Standards Department (NIHS)
Rue d'Argent 6
2502 Bienne
Switzerland

So maybe it's not so directly influenced by Seiko.
But of course, the JISC as a parttaking member of ISO gets a vote. As do eight other national orgs. ISO states that a new standard is accepted if 2/3 of the votes are in favour. So now that the procedure of revising or creating a standard should be clear, i still don't see how Seikos influence would be greater that convincing JISC to vote no.
Good info. Perhaps Seiko felt it was improper to engage in any direct lobbying of ISO on specific standards.
That's actually a good idea to have an arms length relationship between a manufacturer and the ISO. It benefits
both parties and maintains ISO independence. Credibility is important. As you mentioned it always interesting
when someone can't make the minimal effort to use the Google Machine to resolve their own confusion. The poster made a comment,
didn't research it, expected you to research the issue for him, and then will move the goal posts on his next post.


 

·
Registered
Joined
·
250 Posts
Thank you all.

My point is: 'updated ISO standards' is not a valid excuse for the current (ugly) designs in any case.

Nobody, not even the market is forcing Seiko to make ISO compliant dive watches, Seiko can implement a better, higher standard of its own (like some others). So, IMHO, Seiko believes in this updated specs even if it means ugly designs, and that's OK. But then SEIKO (or people speaking for Seiko) should take responsibility and should not blame the new ISO specs as an excuse..

ISO is an NGO that sells you specs, so, on paper, in theory, all is in order. Technical committee cannot be influenced!!! How dare we even think about this?!?!! ISO is independent, yeah, of course, Googled it and it is written on their site, what more evidence do we need? Maybe we can continue this part of the discussion when you come back to the real world :)
 

·
Registered
Orient and Sieko
Joined
·
305 Posts
Thank you all.

My point is: 'updated ISO standards' is not a valid excuse for the current (ugly) designs in any case.

Nobody, not even the market is forcing Seiko to make ISO compliant dive watches, Seiko can implement a better, higher standard of its own (like some others). So, IMHO, Seiko believes in this updated specs even if it means ugly designs, and that's OK. But then SEIKO (or people speaking for Seiko) should take responsibility and should not blame the new ISO specs as an excuse..

ISO is an NGO that sells you specs, so, on paper, in theory, all is in order. Technical committee cannot be influenced!!! How dare we even think about this?!?!! ISO is independent, yeah, of course, Googled it and it is written on their site, what more evidence do we need? Maybe we can continue this part of the discussion when you come back to the real world :)
the real world is. They made a change; You dislike it. Fair enough.
Don't buy one. Or do and have the dial modded. Vote with your wallet. At anyrate the hand wringing and excessive bashing of design (which is likely the most cost effecitve way they had to conform to the new standard, something they value being able to offer) gets a bit tiresome.
My 2 cents.
Buy a watch you like and move on.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
517 Posts
View attachment 15800391
They updated ISO6425 2018. That’s the reason all new SEIKO diver’s have a index @3 or date elsewhere.
These don’t need no sticking update. Index at three and day/date at three and a reasonable size to boot!
2F5623AA-7402-4C81-A59C-5E70D9562D22.jpeg

But I’m waiting for the day someone actually notices (1) my watch; (2) my diver’s watch and then remarks “Cool, do you even dive, Bro?” At which point, I can honestly reply “You bet your ass I don’t “!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
250 Posts
I have an SKX173 and an SKXA35 with little lume slivers next to date. My SXK009 has none but it makes no difference to me ethier way so im suprised some people are so passinate about an extra sliver of lume?
SKX173 and SKXA35 are OK.

Can you see it below? One of them is ugly.
15801199
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
232 Posts
Am I the only one that thinks Dive watches when shopping Seiko? If I want a dressier watch, Seiko is the one of the last choices for me. Now bring on the Diver's at 35% less price.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
37 Posts
I really like those new Astrons. The green-dialed version, SBXY011, looks especially good on their website. Unfortunately, I also noticed that those new Astrons are NOT GPS-sync. They are only radio-sync. I was under the impression that all Astrons were GPS-sync.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,944 Posts
SKX173 and SKXA35 are OK.

Can you see it below? One of them is ugly.
View attachment 15801199
Yup, the issue isn't "lume existing at 3." Seiko's dials run small, but there's still space to put it there. The Samurai has had it forever, and it looks perfectly fine. The issue is that by going to steel rehauts in place of their old indexed chapter rings in many of the newer models, they've decided to put the minute track at the edge of the dial, and move the markers inboard. That look works perfectly well when there's no 3 o'clock pip required, as on the initial SPB14x models. With the new requirement though, regardless of who's responsible for it, it doesn't really work.

It especially doesn't work on the latest MM300s, which have even smaller dials than the standard 28.5mm used in the 4R and 6R based divers. I really cringe though at what the next SLA range 62MAS reissue is going to look like, assuming they make more of them. The 043 just got in under the old spec, but newer ones wouldn't be able to if they want to keep the "Diver's" tag on the dial. There's really no way to fix that without ruining the design.

 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,944 Posts
Am I the only one that thinks Dive watches when shopping Seiko? If I want a dressier watch, Seiko is the one of the last choices for me. Now bring on the Diver's at 35% less price.
Divers are definitely what they're most known for, but Seiko actually has a fair number of quite nice dress watches. I think the SARX057 is still my pick of the Presage line. The Seiko models with leaf hands and Romans for whatever reason have never done anything for me. I'm not necessarily against that style, I just think Cartier does it way better.

 
20561 - 20580 of 20668 Posts
Top