Building the Perfect Dive Watch

Introducing: the Heaton Diver. Coming... never.

In December of 2008, I conducted my very first “real world” review of a diving watch. It was a Doxa SUB 800Ti, that brand’s first titanium watch. At the time, I was new to diving, fairly new to watches, and really didn’t know what made a “good” dive watch, objectively speaking. It was all kind of intuitive. The bezel was grippy, the hands had tubes glowing with luminous tritium, the bracelet clasp had a sliding extender for wearing over a wetsuit sleeve, and the watch had exponentially more water resistance than I would ever need. The titanium case was highly corrosion resistant, light, and rugged. How could that package be anything but a superb diving instrument? My “review” was short, a bit light on details, and read more like ad copy. But it was the first of many, many more underwater watch reviews in the next 12 years.

Along the way, I have often been asked, “Would you ever want to design the perfect dive watch?” I won’t lie, I’ve thought about it. After all, after wearing over 200 different dive watches underwater, I think I have a clear sense of what works and what could be improved. I also have contacts in the business who could source components, help with the design work, assemble the watches and, yeah, even a pretty good underwater photographer to take the marketing photos. (Never mind the small matter of funding such a venture for now.) So is it time for me to become a watch brand mogul? The Heaton Diver… When I consider the idea more thoroughly, a few issues come to mind that make it seem like a daunting, if not entirely quixotic, quest.

First of all, the dive watch is obsolete. I won’t trot out the usual cynical axiom, “no one wears a dive watch for diving.” Because some do, including yours truly. But the fact is, to improve on the dive watch, or create the ultimate example of one, is basically to evolve an extinct species. It’s a bit like building a titanium typewriter, or one with more responsive keys or a paper feed system. If our love of mechanical (and yes, some quartz) dive watches lies in nostalgia or craftsmanship, then it’s hard to improve on what’s been done already. To truly build the “ultimate dive watch” would be, in reality, to make a better dive computer and I’d rather leave that to Garmin or Suunto, who are doing a pretty good job of it.

Secondly, dive watches were largely perfected early on, when actual use for timing dives teased out flaws and presented new targets for improvement. By 1970, dive watches had screw-in crowns, ratcheting one-way bezels, 1,000-meter water resistance, helium release valves, and spring-loaded adjustable clasps. As if that wasn’t enough, some brands incorporated sophisticated analog “dive computers” on the dials and bezels of watches, from the decompression calculator of Vulcain’s Cricket, to Doxa’s no-deco bezel scale, to the repetitive dive calculator of the Aquastar Deepstar. There were even built-in depth sensors on watches like the Favre-Leuba Bathy and Aquadive Time-Depth Model 50. If you’re going to evolve an obsolete instrument, it’s going to be hard to improve on all of the above. Still, watch brands continue to try. The results are largely “improved” with materials. We see ceramic, carbon, titanium, or a mix of those, used for the case, the bezel, or both.

One of the watches considered the “best of breed,” when it comes to contemporary divers, is the Tudor Pelagos. Titanium case, ceramic bezel, an in-house movement, an innovative floating clasp adjustment… I love this watch. Its clean lines and quality build make it a standout. Does it improve on anything that was available, say… 30 years ago? Not really. So then, what makes it so appealing? Maybe it’s the fact that it’s fresh and doesn’t look like so many of the vintage re-issues. The same can be said about the dive watches from Bremont or Sinn. But are they better? What could I come up with that could be better in any respect than these?

The best modern dive watch?

I was chatting with Rick Marei, owner of the Synchron brand, and a master of recreating some of the greatest vintage dive watches in history (Doxa, Aquadive, Aquastar…). His take on building the perfect dive watch is different, and clearly informs why he does what he’s so good at. He told me that it’s pointless to try to create a new, modern dive watch, so he would rather look back to some of the great ones of the past and “pick up where they left off.” Take, for example, the Aquadive Bathyscaphe GMT. The case, dial, and bezel clearly are based on the Aquadive Time-Depth of 1970, but now has a 24-hour ring and GMT hand to track a second time zone. The bezel insert is made of ceramic. It’s as if Aquadive continued to evolve its watches beyond the ‘70s and add new materials and complications.

“Where they left off…”

It seems that to build a new and better dive watch, one has two choices: start with a blank sheet of paper and add or invent the best features, or start with an existing design and either recreate it exactly, or enhance it. Of course, all of this is under the original premise of this article: that I’m setting out to create the “ultimate dive watch,” when, in fact, most people buy watches for the look of them, or the way it makes them feel. That’s probably the best reason of all. One can debate the merits of an orange dial’s legibility at depth (white hands on a black dial still provide the best contrast), but if wearing an orange dialed watch makes you feel like an action thriller hero, then who am I to argue?

So here’s my proposition: to build the ultimate dive watch, the criteria should be to take what’s been done best in the past but to incorporate new criteria for the way watches are used by divers today. Dive watches are used differently nowadays. They’re worn opposite a digital dive computer, maybe used for timing swim distances, surface intervals or to get to the boat on time. And even if the majority of buyers won’t even swim with it, it still needs to be built with diving foremost in mind, or you can’t call it a dive watch. I know how I use my dive watches and these are the features I value the most. Some may surprise you.

First of all, since diving is notoriously hard on equipment, and because a lot of diving is done in far flung parts of the planet, the watch needs to not be precious. That can mean affordable, but it also needs to seem like a rugged and reliable companion, not a luxury item that should be babied or worried about. This should not be a watch you lock in your hotel room safe when you go for a day of diving. Since diving requires concentration and attention to detail, if you’re distracted by bashing your watch on a tank or boat gunwale, you might then do things differently, skip a vital equipment check. If you’re gazing at it underwater, worried it will leak, you might not see that rare sea creature or, worse, not be paying attention to your own tank pressure or your buddy in distress. And if the worst case happens and the watch gets lost or broken, it’s not the end of the world. Topside, it needs to be able to ride on your wrist confidently, without fear of theft or drawing unwanted attention when you venture out for a post-dive dinner in some local haunt. 

Secondly, make the watch field serviceable. I don’t mean you’re going to be taking the caseback off to regulate an escapement to gain a second or two a day. No, this means that if, after a day of diving, or crawling around on a beach, the bezel gets jammed up with sand or dried salt, you can easily remove the bezel to give it a rinse, then reassemble quickly. Whether that’s by using some sort of bayonet mounting system, a threaded retaining ring, or simply prying it off with a Swiss Army knife, it’s got to be quick, not finicky and dead simple. The same goes for straps and bracelets. Drilled lugs allow for easy strap changes and good old-fashioned micro-adjustment clasps with multiple holes can be quickly sized with a toothpick to accommodate a tropics-swollen wrist. Shoulderless spring bars are my preference.

That little notch? For removing the bezel to clean out grit. 1969 technology.

What about the strap itself? As much as I like NATO straps for topside maneuvers, for diving, unless you tighten it down like a tourniquet, it will inevitably get loose underwater and flop around on your wrist. Bracelets don’t hold moisture and fitted end-links are perhaps the most secure since they don’t allow lateral stress on a spring bar but getting just the right fit can be hit and miss. I wouldn’t opt for a fancy adjustable clasp since they can be complicated and trap grit. For me, the best fit for actual diving is a good, LONG rubber strap, preferably one with accordion vents to take up slack. With drilled lugs, a quick swap between rubber and NATO would be a cinch and I’d offer both options with the watch.

What about case size and case material? I’ve always felt that a dive watch should be big. After all, it’s an instrument that rides alongside a dive computer, a wrist compass, a depth gauge, all of which are north of 50 millimeters. Legibility, alongside water resistance, is the most important factor. 42 millimeters feels like a sweet spot for round the clock wearability. But it doesn’t need to be thick. This is tied, to some degree, to water resistance. Give me a 200-meter dive watch that can allow the case to stay slim. Then it won’t get hung up on gear as you’re suiting up.

For material, titanium is probably the best, but it’s also expensive. I’ve always worn steel but it can get heavy quickly. I don’t need a watch to feel heavy to make me think it’s high quality. What about anodized aluminum? It’s very light, tough, and can be rendered in just about any color, matte or shiny, that your heart desires. Dive computers and gauges have been made from it for years, as well as mountain bike components, so we know it’s tough. 

Anodized aluminum has been used for dive computers for years.

For the bezel, it needs to have a good castellated grip, standing proud of the case, somewhere between a Marathon and a Doxa. In terms of markings, fully hashed, elapsed time. If a matte ceramic ring can be done affordably, fine, but aluminum inserts worked well for about 50 years so I’m OK with that. And please, white numerals, black background. OK, I could be persuaded to offer navy blue too. Oh, and make it bi-directional. Over hundreds of dives with hundreds of watches, I’ve never once had a bezel get accidentally knocked. And you know what? Bi-directional bezels are more useful for timing dive-y things beyond simply bottom time.

The dial and hands should focus on legibility above all else. After all, a dive watch really only needs a minute hand and a timing bezel to time a dive, but since I’m focusing on common, modern use by divers, being able to tell time of day is acceptable too. Big logos, bright colors, symbols, confusing hand shapes should be avoided.

OK, what about the all important movement? It might be a controversial opinion, but if we’re talking about a real world “ultimate” dive watch, given much of my earlier criteria (affordable, not precious, field serviceable…), quartz is the way to go. If you drop even your most rugged automatic Seiko on the concrete floor going through airport security (hypothetically, of course. Not saying I’ve ever done this… OK, at least not more than once), it’s going to have consequences. Set it by the big speakers in the hotel bar and, zap, magnetized. But a quartz watch? Unfazed. Swap the battery before a long trip and you’re good for years. Worst case, get it changed in any city around the world or, better yet, pack a spare battery and do it yourself.

Quartz is not loved by many, but I can think of several appealing battery-powered divers that would make a short list of competitors for my “perfect dive watch”: a Marathon TSAR, a CWC Royal Navy diver, a Scurfa Diver One, or a Seiko “Tuna Can.” Sangin makes some nice quartz divers (if you can find one). Elliott Brown too. You can argue that an automatic won’t quit unexpectedly, last a lot longer, and is more appealing to someone buying a watch for more than simply function. But while the last point may be true, there’s no disputing that a quartz watch is simply better suited for rough, unassuming duty than a mechanical. And most of the watches in my list above are quite appealing and some even have some legitimate heritage.

So if you’ve made it this far, you’ve learned that the fictional Heaton Diver is 42 millimeters of anodized aluminum, with a quartz movement, bi-directional bezel, a rubber strap, and 200 meters of water resistance. Would I get many buyers? No, I don’t think so either. Because there’s so much more to a dive watch than cold, hard specs. Some people want nostalgia, some want high tech materials. Others want a colorful dial, or an engineered clasp. Or maybe a Swiss movement inside, powered by their motion. And still others want 800 meters of water resistance. Come to think of it, that sounds an awful lot like that first dive watch I ever reviewed, way back in 2008. There is more than one “perfect dive watch” out there. In fact, we each probably have our own version of it. So maybe I should stick to testing, and writing about, dive watches, instead of trying to reinvent them.

(Got a wish list spec sheet for your ideal diver? Leave them in the comments.)