Pre-Order Borealis Seafarer II 4000m Automatic Diver Watch
- Thread starter Borealis Watch Admin
- Start date
jinikari01
Perfect Apprentice WIS
i was so excited by the title of seafarer resurrection... much to my excitement, it was just a name change.
not a huge fan on the looks... but i may consider for future purchase....
Borealis is really hurting my pockets with all these new projects... but keep them coming!
not a huge fan on the looks... but i may consider for future purchase....
Borealis is really hurting my pockets with all these new projects... but keep them coming!
We will update drawings soon.
bill anagnos
WIS
Seafarer II is a great name as well 
let us know the Preorder price asap possible so we can sell other watches to get this one, LOL
About the numbering due to Asian superstition, Interesting/maybe Smart on Rolex part to say 3900 WR, but I was thinking about it and Huboldt has a watch with a 4,000 WR on the dial, so either Huboldt does not get it, or they know something Rolex does not, OR Huboldt does not have many Asian customers (which I doubt)
let us know the Preorder price asap possible so we can sell other watches to get this one, LOLAbout the numbering due to Asian superstition, Interesting/maybe Smart on Rolex part to say 3900 WR, but I was thinking about it and Huboldt has a watch with a 4,000 WR on the dial, so either Huboldt does not get it, or they know something Rolex does not, OR Huboldt does not have many Asian customers (which I doubt)
As for Hublot has to give with perception of brand, it is a brand that likes to show off more and to innovate in designs (for the good and bad) while Rolex is more conservative.
GOPENNSTATE!
WIS
Maybe it's just me, but listing water resistance at 3,989 sounds like too "precise" of a number (as if the rating is indicating that if the watch went to 3,990 meters you're screwed - the watch is going to fail) and it would seem "busy" on the dial to me not being a round number. I don't understand the opposition to 4,000 meters on the dial. I mean don't some people think the number "13" is unlucky and 3,989 meters equals 13,087 feet? Where do you draw the line for superstitions with numbers (and I've never even heard of superstitions with watch numbers before)? I'd much prefer to see 4,000 meters on the dial - or go to 3,900 if the fear is 4,000 meters on the dial would hurt sales. Not that anyone is going to dive anywhere near these depths.
So, should we follow Rolex on this for the water resistance rating?
Itsonlytime
Master WIS
If a 4,000 WR number can't be used, I believe either 3,900 or 3,999 would have a better overall look, uniqueness, and appeal.
Pakz
Patriarch WIS
Well, superstition regarding watches is a bit of crucial point.
Ever noticed that classic watches in Roman numerals user IIII (which is not even a real number) instead of IV? The ratings giving 100, 200 or all other, aren't they pure convention?? Aren't they just as precise as 3989m? It's all conventions and implied values. And you seem to be hurt by not having a "round" number, i.e. finishing with 2 zeros. Is that so different from feeling bad about having something with a 4? Ask yourself, do you let conventions rule your world? Are you a free man?
Now 3989 has nicer properties than 4000 or 3900. It's a prime, it can be read in mandarin as implying prosperity, it includes a palindrome... And doesn't follow that beaten path of choosing to display numbers that are just as precise and "ad hoc" (the 200m dive watch just doesn't die at 200m and 1 cm!) but finish with a pair of zeros.
It's an "Easter egg" a "conversation starter" a "nice story that puts you in the "in" ". IMHO, much better and alluring than a "plain" 4000, 3900 or even 3999 (that one is the worst, looks like a marketing ploy for saying 4000 without saying it. Like $9.99). Which are, indeed, plain but just as arbitrary.
Last edited:
Itsonlytime
Master WIS
PAKZ -- I have found your posts interesting, informative, and very helpful, up until this one. I find these comments rude, and condescending. I for one, totally agree with PennState, and appreciate his post.Well, superstition regarding watches is a bit of crucial point.
Ever noticed that classic watches in Roman numerals user IIII (which is not even a real number) instead of IV? The ratings giving 100, 200 or all other, aren't they pure convention?? Aren't they just as precise as 3989m? It's all conventions and implied values. And you seem to be hurt by not having a "round" number, i.e. finishing with 2 zeros. Is that so different from feeling bad about having something with a 4? Ask yourself, do you let conventions rule your world? Are you a free man?
Now 3989 has nicer properties than 4000 or 3900. It's a prime, it can be read in mandarin as implying prosperity, it includes a palindrome... And doesn't follow that beaten path of choosing to display numbers that are just as precise and "ad hoc" (the 200m dive watch just doesn't die at 200m and 1 cm!) but finish with a pair of zeros.
It's an "Easter egg" a "conversation starter" a "nice story that puts you in the "in" ". IMHO, much better and alluring than a "plain" 4000, 3900 or even 3999 (that one is the worst, looks like a marketing ploy for saying 4000 without saying it. Like $9.99). Which are, indeed, plain but just as arbitrary.
Personally, I really don't care much of what the few superstitous Mandarin customers might think, although I do appreciate their culinary talents.
If Maria likes your number, great, but I'am sure they are more concerned with sales and profits, and therefore need to filter in Main Stream thinking, and marketing.
You want to offer a unique depth rating, how about
(> Than You'll Ever Need, or 20X Death), that should fill your Easter Egg....
By the way, I still like 3,999, being in technical sales my entire career, I have seen this strategy work, and I'am sorry you don't get it.
Last edited:
jinikari01
Perfect Apprentice WIS
LOL. maria I would say its safer to follow Rolex's lead and print 3900...
unless you want more unless chinese superstition info...
how about 3888? chinese love "8." The number 8 is considered extremely lucky. In Mandarin Chinese, the sound byte for "eight" is close to that for "prosperity, wealth", while in Cantonese it is similar to the sound byte for "fortune".
unless you want more unless chinese superstition info...
how about 3888? chinese love "8." The number 8 is considered extremely lucky. In Mandarin Chinese, the sound byte for "eight" is close to that for "prosperity, wealth", while in Cantonese it is similar to the sound byte for "fortune".
Pakz
Patriarch WIS
Well, very sorry that you've understood my post this way. It was absolutely not intended to be condescending or anything, just playful and a tad ironic.
I totally prefer the slightly mysterious 3989m and all the stories that go with it, but really understand the more "mainstream" approaches and have nothing but respect for people doing marketing/sales and getting good results with the $9.99 strategy. Thing is, I work in a business school and have many friends who are marketing faculty, but my own field is applied maths and therefore if the number could talk more to me than to them for a change, I'd very much appreciate that. Not sure that would have any negative impact on the sales (save maybe the 4000 or 4xxx for east Asian people who feel strongly about that... )
That said, if everyone feels like 3999 is best, lets go 3999
Pakz
Patriarch WIS
Yeah. But that's 2m less than Rolex, why settle for less when we could claim more (even if it's all very very arbitrary and their DSSD might well be actually designed for depth larger than those of the Seafarer II)
GOPENNSTATE!
WIS
Well, superstition regarding watches is a bit of crucial point.
Ever noticed that classic watches in Roman numerals user IIII (which is not even a real number) instead of IV? The ratings giving 100, 200 or all other, aren't they pure convention?? Aren't they just as precise as 3989m? It's all conventions and implied values. And you seem to be hurt by not having a "round" number, i.e. finishing with 2 zeros. Is that so different from feeling bad about having something with a 4? Ask yourself, do you let conventions rule your world? Are you a free man?
Now 3989 has nicer properties than 4000 or 3900. It's a prime, it can be read in mandarin as implying prosperity, it includes a palindrome... And doesn't follow that beaten path of choosing to display numbers that are just as precise and "ad hoc" (the 200m dive watch just doesn't die at 200m and 1 cm!) but finish with a pair of zeros.
It's an "Easter egg" a "conversation starter" a "nice story that puts you in the "in" ". IMHO, much better and alluring than a "plain" 4000, 3900 or even 3999 (that one is the worst, looks like a marketing ploy for saying 4000 without saying it. Like $9.99). Which are, indeed, plain but just as arbitrary.
Are you saying for Roman numerals, watchmakers utilize IIII instead of IV because of superstition instead of giving a better visual balance to the roman numeral VIII on the opposite side of the dial? Never heard of superstition of the number 4 being the reason for that.
Sorry - I do not like the 3989 idea at all, no matter how you spin it. It's a 4000m watch (which if I understand right the tested rating needs to be able to exceed the stated rating by a certain %). The water resistance is not an exact number - why try to peg an exact number like 3989 on it when a rounded 4000 could be used? If it's so bad to have a number 4 on the watch, then how do we deal with the "40" on the bezel and the numbers 4,14 and 24 on the date wheel? Maybe use a smiley face emoticon to replace those?
TheWraith
Master WIS
I would prefer the water pressure number be greater than the Deep Sea. Let's blow Rolex outta the water!
However, I love the new name - Seafarer Mk II and I love the design of this watch. Beautiful! I'm in. Start the pre-ordering already!!
I agree with Gopennstate, though. I want the dial to say 4000m or 5000m. I want the watch to be water resistant to the lowest depth possible, this watch should be Borealis' biggest project yet, it's supposed to show the big boys that the same--or better--quality can be had for far less and the deepest possible diver can be had for far less than Rolex etc. charge. That's what this watch is supposed to be about. None of this 3989m guff. Go all the way!! Since when should we cater to silly superstitions? There are plenty of deep sea dive watches that do not allow superstition get in the way of creating a great watch, as per this link:
http://www.watchtime.com/blog/6-extreme-divers-watches/
You see? Superstition should play no part in the determining how a watch should be designed!
I don't think how a bracelet fits has anything to do with the severity of its taper. My Rolex Submariner tapers a full 5mm from lug to clasp, and I've achieved a perfect, tight fit. There are other factors involved, not just how a bracelet tapers, that much is clear.Bracelet will taper from 24mm to 22mm. Problem with tapering from 24mm to 20mm is that then it won't be easy to ajdust bracelet and people with small wrists will complain (something that happened with the Scorpionfish).
With a 24mm bracelet tapering to 22mm all 22mm links can have screws and be added/removed.
I would like to departure from the Rolex theme on this one and using more a dial/hands combination like the Seiko Marine Master Professional (aside from the seconds hand that I do not like). It would suite well this type of watch.
As for the name if Seadog does not appeal much we can call it the Seafarer II
However, I love the new name - Seafarer Mk II and I love the design of this watch. Beautiful! I'm in. Start the pre-ordering already!!
I agree with Gopennstate, though. I want the dial to say 4000m or 5000m. I want the watch to be water resistant to the lowest depth possible, this watch should be Borealis' biggest project yet, it's supposed to show the big boys that the same--or better--quality can be had for far less and the deepest possible diver can be had for far less than Rolex etc. charge. That's what this watch is supposed to be about. None of this 3989m guff. Go all the way!! Since when should we cater to silly superstitions? There are plenty of deep sea dive watches that do not allow superstition get in the way of creating a great watch, as per this link:
http://www.watchtime.com/blog/6-extreme-divers-watches/
You see? Superstition should play no part in the determining how a watch should be designed!
Last edited:
Pakz
Patriarch WIS
Isn't wanting to have 4000m or whatever the highest possible thing rating is on the watch as much superstition as not wanting to have a 4xxx? I mean, I'm in no way Chinese so to me it's really all the same. BUT.... I'm a mathematician and 4000 is in no way a number that's more special than 4001 (I'd actually prefer 4001, prime also) and all "specificities" that we attach are based solely on our culture (for example the fact that we use a base 10... If we were using a base 12 4000m would actually be written 2394m. Still, that would be the exact same quantity). Again the pressure difference between 3997m and 4003m is rather negligible and we are not going to dive to that depth or even plunge our watches there.
Why not admit that we are driven by "superstition" or "cultural biases" or whatever you want to call it, and recognize the right to others to have those biases? Why would our (I count myself in, don't get me wrong) "natural" inclination to have "round numbers" (multiples of 10, which are no more "round" than any other number) and see them as "more meaningful" or "more potent" or whatever, would be "not superstition" and "noble" and the desire of people from Asian cultures not to have 4s and numbers that sound, when read, as "good fortune for ever" or "eternal lucky chance" or whatever, be bad, negative, or anything to be despised? Superstition? Silly superstition?
If you want it "not superstition driven" use the maximum number achieved in pressure test (centimetres included) minus 25% (if you want it ISO style, as is if you just want it large) and be done. That'd be probably something like 4213.57 but well, at least not "superstitious". Then write it in most bases, to be sure not to have a cultural bias. Or in base 16 to have it as compact as possible while still using a base that has some use in practice.
Meh... maybe I rant a too much about that, but that really seems a case of "my culture is better than others", even if certainly unconscious... But well, I don't want to come through as "patronising" or rude or condescending. At least not as much as I feel some other comment could be perceived towards Asian cultures. So that'd be the last you'll hear from me on that topic.
Why not admit that we are driven by "superstition" or "cultural biases" or whatever you want to call it, and recognize the right to others to have those biases? Why would our (I count myself in, don't get me wrong) "natural" inclination to have "round numbers" (multiples of 10, which are no more "round" than any other number) and see them as "more meaningful" or "more potent" or whatever, would be "not superstition" and "noble" and the desire of people from Asian cultures not to have 4s and numbers that sound, when read, as "good fortune for ever" or "eternal lucky chance" or whatever, be bad, negative, or anything to be despised? Superstition? Silly superstition?
If you want it "not superstition driven" use the maximum number achieved in pressure test (centimetres included) minus 25% (if you want it ISO style, as is if you just want it large) and be done. That'd be probably something like 4213.57 but well, at least not "superstitious". Then write it in most bases, to be sure not to have a cultural bias. Or in base 16 to have it as compact as possible while still using a base that has some use in practice.
Meh... maybe I rant a too much about that, but that really seems a case of "my culture is better than others", even if certainly unconscious... But well, I don't want to come through as "patronising" or rude or condescending. At least not as much as I feel some other comment could be perceived towards Asian cultures. So that'd be the last you'll hear from me on that topic.
Itsonlytime
Master WIS
Well said Wraith, I totally agree with you and PennState.I would prefer the water pressure number be greater than the Deep Sea. Let's blow Rolex outta the water!
I don't think how a bracelet fits has anything to do with the severity of its taper. My Rolex Submariner tapers a full 5mm from lug to clasp, and I've achieved a perfect, tight fit. There are other factors involved, not just how a bracelet tapers, that much is clear.
However, I love the new name - Seafarer Mk II and I love the design of this watch. Beautiful! I'm in. Start the pre-ordering already!!
I agree with Gopennstate, though. I want the dial to say 4000m or 5000m. I want the watch to be water resistant to the lowest depth possible, this watch should be Borealis' biggest project yet, it's supposed to show the big boys that the same--or better--quality can be had for far less and the deepest possible diver can be had for far less than Rolex etc. charge. That's what this watch is supposed to be about. None of this 3989m guff. Go all the way!! Since when should we cater to silly superstitions? There are plenty of deep sea dive watches that do not allow superstition get in the way of creating a great watch, as per this link:
http://www.watchtime.com/blog/6-extreme-divers-watches/
You see? Superstition should play no part in the determining how a watch should be designed!
Goofy numbers or cutesy fonts don't sell timepieces that folks are proud to wear, quality, value, uniqueness, and customer caring, do.