ISO6245 Divers Watch standard more marketing fluff?

My expose on COSC and ISO 3159 was easy, to reveal it as a marketing exercise, just like the purely marketed rarity of diamonds. This post is about the ‘True Divers’ Watch standard the ISO 6425.

Any watch model that passes the tests detailed in the ISO 6425 4 Edition 2018 document can use the term ‘Diver’s xxxM’ on the dial and spec sheet. The tests are performed by the manufacturer Not an independent organisation or the ISO themselves and certainly not an imaginary organisation. So is the ISO 6425 Divers watch standard another marketing scam? 

First of all, standards are important! However if the standards are poorly thought out, clearly biased toward 2nd or 3rd parties etc. commercial interests, self interest and/or simply an attempt to eliminate competition – it is not a standard. For example COSC and ISO 3159 (original) that I explained previously. This sort of stuff clearly makes the standard and the ISO organisation it’s self worthless and a scam. 

Standards allow you as a consumer to make an informed assessment of whether product will meet your needs. The problem is of course : what do you call a product or watch if it exceeds all these tests and more aka G-Shock?

In the end ISO organisation is not judge or jury – it doesn’t hold any legal weight just essentially a self proclaimed standards repository and hence marketing. However remember it is marketed as a standard and how easy or hard it is to meet or the journey is probably more important the end result – aka tick a box at least by 2025 tech standards.

The ISO 6425 documentation (paid) sets out the tests the watch must pass before a company can use the words ‘Divers watch’ and ‘Depth rating’ on promotional and specification literature. SCUBA divers are the primary target of Diver’s watches until the development of the diving computer – of course. PADI is another name that comes up when you research dive watches. PADI is the most prominent organisation for diving instructors. Note that neither are part of this ISO standard and existed before it. Interestingly they use other ISO as part of their own certifications as a means for novices to be more confident in the PADI cert. Technically ISO should pay PADI for use of their IP. 

My question is why would you follow the standard developed by ISO which appears to have no experience or expertise in the field of diving yet alone SCUBA diving? How was this standard developed ? It is just like developed from say Wikipedia? They claim a framework of technical committees yet I haven’t found anyone will to say they contribute any expertise to the ISO. Further research shows, as an example the ISO standard of AI is telling, how that its core ISO is administrative and bureaucratic, filled with self proclaimed experts? However the positive point of all this is that at least there is some process for standardisation but its opaqueness makes it more like marketing.

There is quite a bit of money involved in using ISO certification and its fees vary according to the company wanting to use the the ISO or the Divers branding. Brands who invented or developed the divers watch that predate the ISO often do not bother. This means any brand making them prior to 1982 hence most brands Seiko, Citizen, Rolex, Omega, Longines and so forth. However many brands use ISO reference as decorative and marketing to the non-watch enthusiast with poorly researched talking heads on youtube in particular. 

Summary of what watch designs must endure to pass the ISO 6245 based on searches:
(Tests are certified by the watch manufacturer.) 

Minimum of 100 meters 
Bezel or display that can show elapsed time.
Markings that can be seen at 25cm in the dark. 
Hands must be illuminated
End of life battery indicator if quartz
Still function after 50 hours underwater.
Condensation in temperature difference 
Thermal Shock resistance (as per another standard)
Magnetic resistance (as per another standard ISO 764)
Salt water resistance (as per another standard)
Shock resistance especially the spring bar (as per another standard ISO 1413)
Overpressure (as per another standard)

So is ISO 6425 a scam? No, but the effective restriction of what most would regard as a generic term –  Diver’s watch, is arguably wrong and is to effectively ‘trade mark’ the words together which have been used as common language well before the ISO was even invented. Anyway the standard is quite comprehensive and it does seem fair enough to a normal person. Is ISO 6425 a marketing exercise? Well yes for brands that have been making Diver’s watches for years.

However (and amongst others things) having a standard helps brands without brand history and for others with setting design goals however the downside of bureaucracy is specification creep that effects creative design. Example: all Diver’s watch look virtually the same bar the brand name.