"Velcro" - Timer => OCEAN and AT 2000

A comparison of these two watches has been planned for many years. First I had
no AT Ref. 3536, the direct successor of the OCEAN 2000, then always one of
these two watches was into the banksafe ?!

Now, by chance, both watches are available and I can compare some - for me
interesting - detail.

The used OCEAN is an OCEAN BUND, which has a flat glass and is therefore
specified to a depth of 300 meters. The civilian variant OCEAN 2000 has a
thicker one-sided curved glass and is therefore specified to 2000 meters
diving depth.

Why does the BUND have a flat glass?

Sure not only to save a few grams of weight.
But likely to reduce glass reflections that more likely occur with domed
glasses.

A practical experiment has confirmed that, as expected.

I was surprised by the low weight of the OCEAN, only 66 grams, only 11 mm
high.

The AT brings 83 grams on the scales and is whopping 15 mm high.

Probably PORSCHE DESIGN still has the rights to the OCEAN design, so IWC was
forced to create its own design after the cooperation with PORSCHE DESIGN.

Many parts of the OCEAN were used for the AT as well: identical movement, the
glued glass with identical size and the mechanism for locking the bezel.

The bracelet of the AT with the pushers for the links are no longer available
for current AT models, because these pushers react very critically to dirt and
particles. These pushers clamp very frequently and are no longer solvable.

In order to keep the AT bands functioning when used, an intensive cleaning of
the bracelet is required after about three months. After cleaning, each pin
should be pressed several times - and the pins should be loosened and cleaned.

A procedure that is not required with the sleeve / pin titanium tapes of the
OCEAN, because the pins are easy to remove.

The OCEAN is the technically much more interesting option because it is
optimized minimizing edges, weight and height.

Only the actual required amount of material is used.

If you prefer design, you'll probably prefer the edgy AT, because the rounded
and flat design of the OCEAN is not getting used to the expectation of a
diver's watch.

The Lunette of the AT also fits unrestricted on an OCEAN and vice versa. Then
the current specifications for diving watches also by the OCEAN are respected.

Regards

Hello Heiko,

It seems very interesting for a diver collector when he reads that a watch is
water proof untill 300 meters and it sounds incredible that some watches can
dive 2000 or even 3900 meters.

But, as you say, the Ocean Bund should be above all functional and was not
build for colectors. There was no need to use a domed crystal as the
'Kampfschwimmer' and the 'Minentaucher' were supposed to work in shallow
waters, not deeper than perhaps 50 meters.

So, why making a watch water resistant untill 2000 meters if the diver can not
work deeper than 50 meters (without a decompression unit). To me it is much
more appealing to build a watch which is above all suitable for its task than
to provide a specification which is completely useless.

Regards,

Adrian,

(alwaysiwc).

Interesting and insightful observations!

Thank You Heiko

Have to agree with you Adrian, there really is no practical reason for a
regular dive watch to be rated to 200 meters or beyond. Technical divers will
likely be using other equipment. My Aquatimers are all rated to 12 bar and I
have no concerns using them for recreational
diving.

Thanks for your reactions and additional hints.

The ISO 6425 (standard for diving watches) includes a lot of requirenments and
test.

The depth spec. :

the ISO 6425 standard, which defines test standards and features for watches
suitable for diving with underwater breathing apparatus in depths of 100 m
(330 ft) or more

Most probably the BUND spec. was not identical to ISO 6425, but at least
similar.

Very well done tool watches. In the mean time those BUND watches are off-duty
and just rare collectors items.

For me, one of the most fascinating IWC watches ever made.

Regards

Heiko

"Why does the BUND have a flat glass"?

Because it's housed by a cheaper bezel...a part that regularly gets damaged.

Thanks Heiko, great comparison with great pictures to illustrate it!

Kind regards, Bob

Thanks for this really great comparison and also for the hints to check the
pins of the AT band. After reading the post I checked the pins of my 3227.
Some of them were nearly stuck. So I will repeat that regularly.

@catherine

This topic is most probably a missunderstanding ?!

I checked currently bezels for a civ. OCEAN and another for a mil. OCEAN. They
have identical shapes, both of titanium.

But the black bezel has a black coating and I have another rare black OCEAN
with such a black bezel .

The kinds of glasses do not have any impact to the bezels or vice versa !

My apologies hebe..i had wrongly presumed the bezel was of alu construction on
the BUND after reading just that on here many archives ago...having no desire
for the model i never got round to checking.....

Which all still begs the 300ft question....one thing is for certain....it's
the military that say what's happening