Automatic Dive Watch Duel: Squale 20 Atmos 1545 vs Steinhart Ocean 39 Explorer - Perth WAtch

[@Dan-56]

Well, I think it might boil down to the fact the two watches compared are dissimilar models. I own both the Steinhart and Squale “Vintage Military” models. Both run +2-3 seconds a day, the Steinhart has an aluminum bezel while the Squale has ceramic, both have the “Oyster” style bracelet but the Steinhart does not have the extended end link which, do to its protruding case back, allows it to “teeter-totter” on my wrist, and the latching end of the Steinhart stands off the bracelet while the Squale lays flat. But when it comes down to brand heritage I don’t see them any where near equal. If you take into account Squale’s history of making watch cases for over a dozen major Swiss watch brands in the past, including some of the most revered dive watches, equal in brand history they are not.

[@PerthWAtch]

Thanks for sharing those thoughts guys. I didn't hear anyone say that they're "equal in brand history". In fact, IIRC I said quite the opposite ;) I would've like to be able to compare the Squale with the more regular Ocean 1 model, but alas I did not find one lying around the home :(

[@Dan-56]

Perth WAtch ; I stand corrected. After re-watching the comparison you did In fact mention the “brand history” of the Squale, and I must apologize. I will respectfully disagree with them getting the same mark of 8 for “Brand” however😉. Too bad I’m half a world away or I could hand you “current” versions of each to look over. I truly enjoy all your reviews and look forward to each new upload 😃👍.

[@pavloskourris277]

I agree, a 9 for Squale for brand vs an 8 for Steinhart (because it has build equity through its history/heritage) would have given me the feeling that this posting might not be biased. You said both had ceramic bezels, but they are not? Was ready to buy a Squale but now interested in the Reinhart and doing my research.

[@deansusec8745]

ou are mistaken. Brand history and history are not the same. Maybe Squale built cases for others, BRAND has no history, just like Steinhart.

[@ajw9975]

I was in the market for a homage and narrowed down my choices to the Squale Atmos 20 Classic Ceramic and the Steinhart Ocean 39 Ceramic. I would have liked to see a direct comparison between the two (you mentioned as well); but the inferences you make are fine. I wound up with the Squale. I agree that the Stein represents better overall value. To me, it boils down to how it works for you. I've got 6.7" wrists (53 mm wide). The Squale looks and fits much better on me because of the turned down lugs, whereas the longish lugs the Stein uses tended to teeter-totter on my wrist. Long-and short, there are subjective considerations that only the individual can consider. I should also add that the Squale features a glossy black dial face (i.e., current Rolexes) while it's matted on the Stein (reminiscent of '80s Rolex). The piano black gloss on the Squale matches very nicely with the bling from all the other polished surfaces and applied indices.

[@mcstarling07]

The case on the Squale is so much better. If you move up to the 30 atmos it's even better and blows Steinhart out of the water. I've owned multiple pieces from both brands and the Squale 30 Atmos Vintage and the GMT are some of the best micro brand offerings out there right now.

[@PerthWAtch]

Thanks for sharing those thoughts AJ, I agree with that actually. The Steinharts do tend to have straighter lugs. Also good point about the differences in the dial finishing. Mcstarling - the 30 atmos may have a better case, I haven't had an equivalent one in hand to be able to comment directly. However I don't find the case fit & finishing on this particular Squale to be better - the Steinhart seems quite equivalent to me on close inspection. Do you have any comment as to why you feel the "Squale is so much better"?

[@Mark-sd7fc]

mcstarling07 the 30 atmos is a couple hundred more

[@Mark-sd7fc]

Thank you so much for synchronizing the seconds hands! 😊My OCDs would have kept me up all night

[@PerthWAtch]

You are most welcome :) Check out my videos with 5 or more watches synched

[@jeffreybowden9835]

A big STEINHART fan boy. On a purely value proposition, the brand can’t be beat and the customer service is exemplary. Thanks for another fair and unbiased review.

[@PerthWAtch]

Thanks for that Jeffrey... yeah I have to say, at the $500 mark Steinhart remains peerless. Once they lose ETA movements the story may change but I suspect they will remain the top of the pile...

[@Billeh556]

Jeffrey Bowden I’ve owned both, and have to agree.

[@samuelball8775]

@@PerthWAtch are they switching movement manufacturers Ivan?

[@PerthWAtch]

Sam - yeah that's what some people think will be inevitable with Swatch deciding to cut down supply of ETA movements to any outside their group.

[@samuelball8775]

@@PerthWAtch hmmm interesting. I guess it depends how long they had a supply contract for haha. I don't buy into the whole eta vs sellita shenanigans haha (i don't really care as long as the movement is reliable). Cheers Ivan 👍

[@kevinkoberg4506]

Great review! I started with the Squale and intitially loved it, but after a year of wear it needed a full service. That was a disappointment and I sold it. Soon after, I purchased the Steinhart Ocean One Black Ceramic and was blown away by the build quality, wow factor and customer service. I now own three other Ocean One Steinhart versions, two of which are vintage Submariners dating back to the 70s. Steinhart watches has incredible build quality, extremely fast shipping and all at a very fair price. At one time, I would have loved to own an actual sub, but it seemed obvious that at some point I would would tire of it if that was all I had. My current Steinhart collection of 4 sub homages keeps things fresh and would take $200k/be impossible to replicate with actual subs.

[@PerthWAtch]

That’s awesome man, glad you’re enjoying them, and thank you for taking the time to share from your experiences!

[@trickiwoo3573]

Love my new Squale 1545 maxi with the ceramic black bezel. Great workmanship for the price.

[@PerthWAtch]

Very nice!

[@samuelball8775]

Having tried both - if you want more of a true Rolex homage look the Squale is the go. The bezel action was excellent also. The Steiny wears really well at 39mm and also has great build quality. Cheers Ivan (and Jeremy 👍).

[@PerthWAtch]

Thanks Sam... people report to me that this particular Steinhart is also a very faithful Rolex homage :)

[@samuelball8775]

@@PerthWAtch I'm sure the dial is. The case is very different was what i was kinda meaning. Hey - they're both cool watches 👍

[@PerthWAtch]

Apparently the way the hands look like they're too big for the dial (looked to me like they lifted it off a 40mm watch) is also accurate to the vintage Rolex! Go figure! I made that observation in the original review and was astounded when viewers (and also Jeremy) pointed out that it's actually how the original had it :o

[@samuelball8775]

@@PerthWAtch Classic. I'd maybe guess that was a lucky break by Steinhart rather than a design choice but i could be wrong (it happens sometimes/often.... Haha).

[@willardhooton920]

Well done sir! You’re comparisons are the most fair and thoughtful on the ‘Tube!

[@PerthWAtch]

Thank you very much Willard, that is high praise and I really appreciate it :)

[@pas0003]

I like the Squale more for their history and case profile and divers extension. Steinhart for case size being 39 mm and cleaner watch face, without duplicate branding. That being said I've had a few issues with my Steinhart running poorly and the bezel breaking, so will have to send it back for the second time soon

[@PerthWAtch]

Sorry to hear about your bad experience!

[@pas0003]

@@PerthWAtch yeah it's a shame because it's a really cool watch. Also a shame since sending it back costs a bunch!

[@A_Dude_And_His_Watch78]

I have the Squale 1545 maxi ceramic. Great watch and the only brand that does the cyclops right. I also have the Steinhart OVM 39 and have been really impressed with that one as well. They're a perfect diver collection because you get the modern and the classic submariner looks. I also have the San Martin 62 MAS. These are great homages to much more expensive watches.

[@alexsdg3441]

yes. you are right about cyclops. I just wonder why other brands, specially Steinhart, can not do the cyclops right. when Tisell (Rolex Homage at $230) even can do 2.5 magnification for their cyclops? it can not be that hard, right?!

[@PerthWAtch]

Thanks for the comments guys... yeah I dunno what it is about other homage brands being unable to do the cyclops well. Maybe for others it's just a gimmick rather than felt to be truly functional? Who knows...

[@noelmurphy3450]

Thanks for the really interseting review. I don't own a Squale, but I do own 3 Steinharts (including the one in this video) and I have to say the quality, style, durability and accuracy on all 3 Steinharts is excellent - Great watches, great quality and at a cracking price. Thanks again for the comparison video against the Squale. Cheers Noel

[@PerthWAtch]

Thanks for sharing those thoughts Noel - glad you found this enjoyable and interesting! :)

[@watchalot919]

I would have gone for the Steinhart also. It certainly has the better wow factor as well.

[@PerthWAtch]

Thanks Simon :)

[@derekshearer9049]

I own both Squale and Steinhart. The overall fit and finish is better on the Squale but the accuracy nod goes to the Steinhart. Cheers

[@PerthWAtch]

Thanks for the thoughts Derek! Do you own these very same models, or other Squale/Steinhart?

[@derekshearer9049]

@@PerthWAtch. No l own the Steinhart 42mm Kermit. For the Squale it's the best 42m 30 atm GMT Tropic ceramic. Also the lume on both watches is still readable after 12 hours. Cheers

[@mcstarling07]

@@PerthWAtch My model: 30 Atmos Vintage Ceramica and Derek has the 30 Atmos GMT Tropic. If you ever get the chance to get your hands on one of these models, they will convert you. With Steinhart, you could go up to the Ocean Premium GMT and get close.

[@1SaG]

I'll throw in a second comment since I had all four Gnomon 39mm in my hand yesterday and I'll say that, IMO, the format just works better for these vintage homages. I own the 42mm OVM which I still love, but I did know I had to have the 39mm version once I saw it in person. So I did ... against the protestations of my wallet... :) The Explorer is a very close 2nd place for me out of the four ... love that dial and overall look. The third one was the brand new, non-limited "Marine Blue" watch with the snowflake-hands ...which is just gorgeous. Plus it really stood out amongst this group with its vibrant blue bezel and dial. And I'd even be tempted by the fourth one (double red homage) which I wouldn't really consider in 42mm. That one too, like the OVM, looks a bit more "authentic" in the smaller size.

[@PerthWAtch]

Thanks for sharing those valuable insights - of the four I would have to pick the Explorer for myself :)

[@1SaG]

@@PerthWAtch No argument from me there. I was >< this close to buying the Explorer over the OVM myself... :)

[@Billeh556]

I’ve had the 1545 root beer bezel with black dial, and the Steinhart ocean 39 in Kermit, GMT Pepsi and vintage military variants. Steinhart does definitely win in my books as well but the Squale is a very good watch at the same time. I’ve still got the jubilee for a 39 Steinhart...I’m waiting for them to (finally and not confirmed) come out with the vintage GMT in 39mm size and I’ll be a Steinhart owner once again

[@PerthWAtch]

Thanks for sharing those thoughts... good choices in those watches I have to say! :)

[@patricj951]

Thanks for review! I try to decide between Steinhart and Squale. According to what I read and heard so far, it seems that the strongest criticism against Steinhart is too straight lugs while Squale has bad lume. Does not seem as very difficult issues to solve. I consider 39mm size being a bit too small and therefore would like a Steinhart 42mm model, but 50mm lug to lug with so straight lugs will hardly be good on my 6,7 inch wrist. If the lugs were more curved it had worked, so here Squale wins for me with the 49mm lug to lug for the 42mm model. But maybe I will get some of Squale's 40mm models.

[@PerthWAtch]

Thanks for sharing the thoughts - I appreciate it’s a tricky decision and I think you’ve highlighted a couple of the key differences there.

[@patricj951]

@@PerthWAtch Yes, it's tricky. And here I wonder if the single mm between Steinhart and Squale really does matter. Steinhart 39mm is significantly lower price than Squale 40mm, so I think Steinhart is better value for the money here. Maybe get a Steinhart 39mm and a Squale 42mm?... By the way: I just subscribed.

[@PerthWAtch]

Thanks mate :) Actually your wrist would be very similar to mine, and 39mm is a pretty sweet size I think. I find 42mm on the large side and mostly gravitate to around 40mm. Some larger watches if configured well still sit very comfortably (eg. Omega 41mm SMP, less so the 42mm).

[@mcstarling07]

That Steinhart has a little different case and an obviously cooler dial than the usual sub homage. I think a more fair comparison would've been the regular ocean 1 with the 20 atmos or the steinhart you have there and a 30 Atmos vintage. Worlds apart.

[@PerthWAtch]

Didn't I say I would've liked to compared with the regular Ocean 1? In the end however I think many of the objective catagories would not have changed in scoring. Any comment on why you feel it is "worlds apart"?

[@mcstarling07]

@@PerthWAtch The Steinhart that I own has a very long, straight case that wears blocky whereas the 30 Atmos I own has a case much like the Submariner but with an even more conforming slope. The bezel action on the 30 Atmos is the best I've ever had, including my Omega Seamaster and Aquaracer. The ceramic of the bezel insert of the 30 Atmos is excellent. The domed sapphire has the perfect amount of distortion, the hands aren't Mercedes hands, there's no cyclops, the lume is better. I know you mentioned in the video you'd like to have a more equal comparison but I just posted so that maybe people will understand that there are different levels. I didn't like the 20 Atmos that you have here, but the 30 Atmos is one of my favorite watches. A member of our Facebook group has a Rolex Sub, Tudor Black Bay, and a Squale 30 Atmos GMT that gets just as much wrist time. Wasn't trying to demean what you did here, I'm obviously a fan of your content. It's just that everyone craps all over Squale when they've never held one in person and people get the lowest, worst model to do videos most of the time. Just wanted to make sure people understand that the 30 Atmos line is a different animal. Sorry for the dissertation.

[@PerthWAtch]

Thanks for taking the time to clarify... that is most helpful to know. I'm gonna try and see if I can get my hands on a 30 Atmos some time based on that - which model do you have?

[@mcstarling07]

@@PerthWAtch I had the Vintage Ceramica and I've had experience with the 30 Atmos GMT Vintage. I sold mine recently to fund my Seamaster and regret it completely. I've been posting in our Facebook group for JustBlueFish that I'm on the hunt for another because it was a huge mistake.

[@robkay278]

I have a steinhart ocean one in bronze,love this watch.keeps perfect timing ,looks great on a nato,patina gets gradually darker,I can recommend it,forget Rolex!

[@PerthWAtch]

Haha that’s awesome man, glad to hear you’re really enjoying it! :)

[@deansusec8745]

Are you still happy with it? I have a bronze itch to scratch, as well as a diver/beater to replace my SKX. This looks like it might be it.

[@justinkhleung8748]

I have 2 steinharts (the above one shown in this video also with the extra jubilee & the earlier Soprod versions of Ocean One Titanium) and both have issues with link screws coming out themselves every few weeks. Anyone else notice similar issues?

[@PerthWAtch]

I've never had any problem with that at all. Do you have other watches with screw link bracelets?

[@bjmarchives]

So glad I stumbled upon your comparison.

[@PerthWAtch]

Glad you found it helpful :)

[@PerthWAtch]

Wow these spruiking posts are getting very coordinated!

[@richardvacanti4265]

For style I don’t think the Steinhart Knows what it wants to be with the 3,6 and 9 looking like in explore. And then the hands case and dale of a submariner. So you should call it a sub explore. Definitely style goals to squale

[@PerthWAtch]

Err… it’s an homage to a vintage submariner model. Some of these had the 3-6-9 “explorer” type numerals… I thought that was obvious. So “style goals to Squale” for being a more direct copy? Righto mate 👍

[@brianbuchert6382]

Excellent review I lean more towards the steinhart

[@PerthWAtch]

Thanks for that - I think most commentators seem to be favouring the Steinhart :)

[@ramonalbertotamayoisla2592]

Great discussion. Steinhart beats Squale whenever the items are equal.

[@PerthWAtch]

Thanks for that - happy to hear that you agree :)

[@mcstarling07]

I've had both brands (an OVM and a 30 Atmos) and for me the Squale blew it out of the water. What would you suggest in the Steinhart lineup to compete with the 30 Atmos because I haven't found anything (honest question)?

[@PerthWAtch]

Interesting... which particular 30 Atmos do you mean? Perhaps the Steinhart Ocean 44 models with more robust build and materials?

[@PerthWAtch]

Also, in what particular aspects do you feel the Squale "blew it out of the water"?

[@mcstarling07]

@@PerthWAtch The 30 Atmos GMT and the Vintage Ceramica are the best of the lineup. I responded to your other posted question about some of the differences. The case is completely different, brushing is crisper, polishing seems better, the angles are sharper, you can just tell they spent more energy on it. Original handset, beautiful domed sapphire with loads of AR, big crown and big tube so it screws in perfect every time, super comfortable on wrist, and in my experience excellent bezel action and a beautifully done ceramic bezel insert. I don't like the 20 Atmos myself, I just think more people should know about the 30 and where its different.

[@craig2100]

Great comparison, well done

[@PerthWAtch]

Thank you! :)

[@quarters-eye8922]

Great review Ivan, Steinhart Fanboy here. You simply can't beat Steinhart. They really know how to make a great watch. Thank you for this review.

[@PerthWAtch]

Thanks - wow the Steinhart is getting far more support than I anticipated!

[@TedCornish]

Atmos please ivan. I really like the dial great vid 👍👍

[@PerthWAtch]

Thanks for that Ted. But wait, are you saying you disagree with me? :o

[@TedCornish]

@@PerthWAtch hmmmm it's a crazy world my friend lol

[@saintdave1877]

My Phoibos pyoo2c is veeery akin to the Steinhart black ceramic you featured 🤔

[@PerthWAtch]

Yes it is.

[@alexsdg3441]

WoW! Two in a row!. I also got the same spread scores. it is absolutely amazing. like you said before, I think I am getting brain-washed by your watch review channel. ha ha ha. I love Steinhart. Believe it or not, I "owned" five of them. But sold them all in less than 3 month from the time I bought them. The watches are all good and solid, but I always find something better or interesting to buy, so just to free up the money, I sell them and buy new ones (by the way, Steinhart has one of the best resale values!). but strangely, I always go back and buy another one from Steinhart. (actually, I am thinking of buying this watch that you are reviewing or Gnonom Steinhart Ocean Military Vintage 39). As for Squale, unfortunately, never owned one, but I am looking into 20 ATMOS Militaire Ceramic 1545. (do you see some common factors here??? I like old Rolex Sword hands, vintage look of lume & 40mm :+) * That was the reason that I loved Ginault so much until their movement completely went kapput! and Ginault did not service my two watches....after that, I went to buy Steinhart, Mathew-Tissot and Monta. Monta OceanKing, I am keeping it. that is an awesome watch. So as Mathew-Tissot (you can not beat the price, it is rolex pepsi homage 40mm, vintage lume with SW200 movement, solid link/clasp metal bracelet for less than $300). so I am also keeping M.Tissot... for now. :+) * Sorry Ivan. sometimes I go off to some other topics, not sticking to the watch review that you have done. anyway, I think that I am completely brain-washed by you and your reviews. I believe that is a good thing! Thanks Ivan again for your wonderful review and comparision and keep it coming. okay?! Good day, Ivan.

[@PerthWAtch]

Haha thanks for taking the time to share those thoughts Alex! I always enjoy hearing about others' watch journeys and experiences so it's never tiresome reading about these. And now sir... remember that $100k you owe me? You want to login to your bank account and transfer that to me. Now! (Bahaha if only life was so easy! :D)

[@alexsdg3441]

@@PerthWAtch yes. yes, yes, I remember the money I owe you. thanks for reminding me. please send me your bank information to [e-mail] then, Immediately, I will t/t your money. thanks Ivan for lending me the money before.

[@rayquintanilla614]

The minute I saw them side by side, even before the comparison, Steinhart won hands down. I watched the rest of the video anyway😉

[@PerthWAtch]

Thanks Ray - chalking up another vote for the Steinhart! :)

[@markw-2025]

@@PerthWAtch Can't trust Steinhart GMT, they are having misalignment problem with their GMT hand.

[@PerthWAtch]

@@markw-2025 Good thing that's got nothing to do with this video then ;)

[@rene_falk]

Hello Ivan, I'm not a fan of the 1545 or the Ocean 39. No idea why. But I own some 1521, 2002, and a Squale chronograph that I really like. I do not have a watch from Steinhart yet. I like the Marine Officer Bronze and the Marine Cronograph Bronze Premium Roman. And also the Nav B Chrono II Black DLC has something. greetings René

[@PerthWAtch]

Thanks for the comment Rene. Interesting... maybe you like designs that are less direct homage?

[@rene_falk]

@@PerthWAtch Hello Ivan, I think it's more that I have a slight aversion to Rolex. On the one hand I do not like their image and posturing/attitude, on the other hand I find Rolex watches, with a few exceptions, a bit boring. That probably colors a little bit on similar watches. Greetings René

[@randynovick7972]

Squale all day long for me ... but you knew that already ]winky[

[@PerthWAtch]

I really do think both of these are good choices :)

[@randynovick7972]

@@PerthWAtch ... and I value and respect your opinion.

[@tyarnold4088]

You seemed a little bit biased towards the Steinhart. Dial and crystal look better for the squale. The other categories you placed the Steinhart higher didn't make any sense.

[@PerthWAtch]

Really? Watch the video for the reasons. Have you held either watch in hand?

[@tyarnold4088]

@@PerthWAtch 1 of the 3 categories was style. You have to admit you were a little biased. Style is completely subjective. To have Style as a category then selecting Steinhart is all I have to say. That is in itself being biased. You don't need to agree with me. But it is what it is.

[@PerthWAtch]

So you haven’t held these watches but somehow you know better? Ok mate, that’s all I have to say 😂

[@tyarnold4088]

@@PerthWAtch OK. So I can't have an opinion? You seemed very biased. Deal with it. You sound like a whiney little bitch.

[@PerthWAtch]

Oh you can have an opinion "little bitch", but I'd take the view of someone who's actually done something rather than use my imagination and think I know better! 😂😂

[@jamessmith6402]

I would have any one both lovely watches 👍 good comparison thanks Ivan 😀

[@PerthWAtch]

Most welcome - glad you enjoyed it mate! :)

[@brucemcintosh8260]

I feel You are being a tad unfair here. To the best of my knowledge, the Steinhart comes Standard on The Oysterlok? I have the Plexi Verzh of this on Oysterlok. The Jubilee is an Optional extra. As far as " History" goes, Van Bühren were just CASE manufacturers for Dive Watches many years ago. Their most famous was the DOXA 300T cases. Only recently have they been A WATCH Manufacturer. I L❤️VE My Steinhart! I own Rolices & Omegas & Seikos, but i haven't taken this off since i got it in April. Also this is,(apart from the case), almost a Perfect Resemblace to The Legendary 38mm Rolex Submariner 3315 Gilt Explorer dial Submariner. That Squale with those Silly Weiner hands that don't touch the minute-track simply is NOT A Contender!

[@PerthWAtch]

Are you saying I should've given more or less marks to the Steinhart? Your bracelet comment seems to suggest that the Steinhart should've gotten less whilst the rest suggests it should've gotten more. Yes the Jubilee has been swapped in place of the original Oyster style bracelet (I explained that in the full review) but really, it doesn't change any of the marks even if I had the original on there. Overall, the Steinhart won in my comparison here - sounds like you agree with me.

[@MadMax-pj8ky]

Squale made the case for blancpain and heuer dude , squale made the case for the no radiations fifty fathoms blancpain not the Chinese watch from the $2 store 😂 if you don't like it it's legit but don't come with this bull$#it , also squale was one of the first brands who made 1000 meters water resistant watch and still serves the marine military in italy . Most famous doxa my a$$

[@1SaG]

I guess I'd rate my OVM an 11 WRT durability. Just let it slip off my NATO and dropped the watch-head on a floor of hard bathroom-tiles from around 1.3 meters or so. I freaked out and inspected it with ta loupe ... but there was no visible damage whatsoever. I *think* it fell onto the sapphire crystal, so perhaps I got lucky there. I also checked the accuracy with the "Atomic"-app and it was still keeping perfect time, too.

[@PerthWAtch]

Haha awesome... that’s G-shock level toughness! :)

[@1SaG]

@@PerthWAtch Being the idiot that I am, I dropped it another time about a month later... that's when it suddenly ran at -9s/d when it was at around +1.5s/d before. Called customer support during COVID-lockdown, since no watch-makers were open, and asked if they could regulate it for me. They took it in, sent it back after a few weeks at no charge and now it's running at +0.5 to +1s/d. And I didn't even have to cover the shipping cost. :)

[@PerthWAtch]

That’s awesome man - you spoke to Steinhart directly?

[@1SaG]

@@PerthWAtch Yeah ... I'm German, so the language barrier was kinda low. ;) Very helpful guys and gals down there in Augsburg.

[@jazzman5598]

Fine review!

[@PerthWAtch]

Thank you!

[@user-sungpark0217]

welcome back teacher

[@PerthWAtch]

Thanks dude :)

[@altini7]

I had steinhart ocean one 39 mm ceramic. I sold it only for one reason!!! My hands are hairy and all the time it was catching my arm hair. I had pain. Because it is very well made. The bracelet has almost no space between links so it catch hair like tweezers. I did not like to put the watch on rubber or leather strap. Otherwise the steinhart is very well made

[@PerthWAtch]

Sorry to hear about your pain. So basically… it’s just very well made!

[@MadMax-pj8ky]

I have both and big fan of steinhart here , the squale is built a little better imo , i went for swimming and had showers etc. For years With my steinhart watches and they never disappointed me they are solid watches . Squale it's just a step above mainly because of its history also squale looks more solid in everyway to me

[@PerthWAtch]

Thanks for sharing your thoughts. Squale definitely has the history, but in no way did I feel that they are more solid.

[@MadMax-pj8ky]

@@PerthWAtch with all the money spent for steinhart and squale over the years I could have bought 2 rolex submariners 😂 but I am what I am , I like to change you know and around $1000 range I can enjoy this hobby, I couldn't do that with rolex

[@PerthWAtch]

Definitely cheaper than Rolex

[@shaneweightman]

Steinhart for me everyday cheers Shane uk 🇬🇧

[@PerthWAtch]

Thanks Shane! :)

[@AlexCastignani]

I think both are solid model from respected brand

[@PerthWAtch]

Yep, I can agree with that :)

[@paulvon2378]

Can I say both are great

[@PerthWAtch]

“Yes we can!” - Bob the Builder

[@mrlong6267]

My Squale 1545 in smurf blue has such shitty quality. I already sent it back to Gnomon watches for warranty repair and they still haven’t repaired it completely. The only way you can power it is by manual winding. Automatic function by wearing doesn’t work. On the other hand my Steinhart Ocean GMT in titanium is PERFECT after 1 year

[@PerthWAtch]

Thanks for sharing your experience - that kinda sucks but I would say down to movement rather than Squale it would seem…

[@lucamarsicano3342]

I am a little surprised that the two watches got the same score in the brand cathegory; Squale is much older (founded in the 50s) and supplied cases for many important maisons as Blancpain and Heuer. Squale watches were used by freedivers (Jacques Mayol) and military elite forces in Italy. Steinhart is for sure a good brand making honest watches, but you can't compare the two brands. Interesting video anyway.

[@PerthWAtch]

Thanks for sharing your thoughts Luca. I believe I gave my explanations for the ratings... Squale has a lot of history but they are not today what they once were, or at least that's how it seems to me. In terms of interest and following, Steinhart seems to have the lead right now, hence I gave them equal marks. For me, it's not just history but also current standing and perception.

[@lucamarsicano3342]

@@PerthWAtch Thanks you for answering. I think you made your point well in the video and I respect it . Still, in my opinion such an history makes Squale more interesting than Stainhart as a brand. I also think that Squale is better in the non-homage department, but that's another story.

[@rogertoledo478]

Steinhart is the winner

[@PerthWAtch]

Thanks man - glad you hear you agree! :)

[@commentjedi]

😍Steinhart! 😴Squale

[@PerthWAtch]

Haha thanks for that! :)

[@tomjones9519]

I bought a squale to see first hand about the quality. Sold it within three days. Squale have the WORST QC. There were so many problems with it. The lugs were not 20mm, they were more like 21.5. Very poor quality and over priced/hyped. Dont buy squale.

[@PerthWAtch]

Thanks for sharing that Tom - that sounds appalling! Which model did you get?

[@salvatoreuva9625]

OMG! you canno't compare the history of a Squale brand with Steinhart!!??

[@PerthWAtch]

What?

[@salvatoreuva9625]

@@PerthWAtch Squale is a brand specialized for a diver stuff, and has developed great cases for many brands. Steinhart make only watches.

[@PerthWAtch]

Amazing

[@lonewolf30531]

Steinhart all the way.

[@PerthWAtch]

Hooyah! :)

[@kovko69]

I don't like the categories. Lume, material, crystal/caseback, and finish should be added as four categories. Remove performance, durability, brand, and quality. The categories of performance, durability, and quality are already considered within each of the other categories. And, with "brand" I understand that that it is a strong point to consider for many people. However, that is too subjective and this is supposed to be an objective look at the watches regardless of the name, while the "value" category should already incorporate much of the value retention and resale value (btw, Squale is generally thought to be the better brand). Thus, the value category should also look at those points, not just the initial cost for what you're getting. E.g. an Aliexpress brand watch may perform significantly better than a Steinhart that costs more than twice as much.

[@PerthWAtch]

Interesting… but I don’t like your idea. Mine allows a categorical and systematic look thru, whereas in your case material is a non-matter for many comparisons (316L steel and sapphire crystal) and lume is non existent for some pieces, so becomes totally useless category, a waste. Brand can also be objective not just subjective. Anyway, you should make a video with these ideas and share me the link, I will watch.

[@kovko69]

​@@PerthWAtch If lume isn't included, then it would necessarily = 0. However, within the context of tool or dive watches, it would matter. In the context of say, dress watches, it wouldn't necessarily matter. Regardless, the score is technically a 0 for both. Dress watches without lume can "recoup" that lost score in say, the "style" category. If it looks _better_ without lume, then it may gain points, but a dress watch with tritium tubes may look odd and lose style points. Also, material is most definitely not a non-matter. It's not just the ubiquitous 316L stainless steel, but also 904L, titanium (commercially pure grades or alloys such as Ti 6-4), bioceramic, various precious metals, bronze, carbon fiber, etc. of the case. Then there's the material of the strap--is the leather simply PU leather or genuine leather? Or, is it rubber, silicone, nylon, canvas, sailcloth, kevlar, etc.? If leather, then is it better than the cheapest grade of "genuine leather" like top grain leather? What type of hyde--cowhide, or more exotic offerings such as bison, ostrich, alligator, stingray, shell cordovan, etc.? This is more on quality of build, but if they're say, Oyster-style bracelets, then does it have solid or hollow links? Folded links? Are the deployant clasps milled or stamped? As an example, let's say that you're comparing three watches. The first watch has a top hat mineral crystal, the second has a flat sapphire crystal, and the third has a double-domed sapphire crystal with an underside-only multi-layer AR coating. Looking at it from a technically superior perspective, the last one offers the best materials. When looking at it from the "style" category, if all three watches are going for the vintage look, then the first watch is superior, and the others get points knocked from them, all else constant. This metric is a direct consequence of an objective comparison. Then, all watches, not just those in the comparison video, can be more reliably compared to one another objectively, as it's not merely a relative comparison from a single video. It looks at what the watch offers cumulatively, normalized on a scale of 100, regardless of subjectivity. And, how many points are given is important. Right now, the points you assign are generally way too high. In terms of the case material only, if the brand offers 316L SS, then that's average and the standard, which means that it would only be a score of 5. In fact, if everything meets the minimum standard, then it's a 5 (average), by definition. Thus, meeting the current industry standard is a 5. An overall average watch that meets a minimum standard gives a total score of 50, and that's an overall solid watch. It's not in terms of say, a school grade where an average grade is a "C" (75); it's more like a normalized bell curve distribution where most watches fall in and around the average at a 5, and fewer and fewer brands achieve the higher ratings. For instance, look at your score for "brand". An 8 for Steinhart is ridiculously too high. Where does that put Longines? A 9? Then how about Rolex, a 10? Then how about an F.P. Journe? A 12? To make it easier to rate, I recommend that you choose a watch for each type of watch (e.g. diver, dress, GADA, etc.) that more-or-less represents the industry standard across the board. Alternatively, you can find watches that should be a 10 for a given category, and you can see how other watches compare to that. For example, lume--the brightest and longest lasting lume would be a 10. If a new watch beats it, then that watch becomes the new 10 and the older 10 gets knocked down however many fractions or whole points. A video isn't necessary to flesh out these details.

[@PerthWAtch]

Nope - still don't agree. A category that will get zero because it is absent in a watch is a useless category and shouldn't be included. As I said, material is a non-matter for *many* comparisons, I did not say all comparisons - did you read my comment? You should, before responding. If you take a look at my videos, this has been a non-matter for most of my comparisons. If comparing crystal issues like you describe, I have a category for that. Sorted. Better than trying to say "material" and having no reference to what part of the watch the score refers to. Material and quality are not the same thing. With regards to your comment on that, well I have a quality category, did you see? If you are trying to make a metric that aims to have objective comparison between all watches on a 100 point scale, you will fail. Not even the best magazines in the world have succeeded. 100 points is not a high enough resolution, and it is still subjective in parts, regardless of what you think. That's not what I'm trying to do, so the scores should be seen as relative between the watches being compared, not to every single watch on earth. If you are trying to do that, then getting the "best" watch in a particular category might be a good idea, but if then another 10/10 comes along, it would cock up the articles/videos you've made before - no, thank you, I pass. You should make a video where you try to achieve the points you state, then let people feedback about why it's not good.

[@kovko69]

​ @PerthWAtch A given quality for a watch wouldn't always be absent in a watch. E.g. lume may not be in one or many dress watches, though other dress watches may have it and be well done. Some watches may have the dimmest lume out there, others may have the brightest. It's silly not to have such a category. That said, it's why I mentioned that you may choose to have a separate criteria for dress watches, tool watches, etc. Even then, a criteria that usually scores 0 doesn't make it useless, as that data can be used to cross compare different watch types to look at the different value propositions from a more objective standpoint (this is often the reason why the overengineered dive watch is the most popular style of watch, and is not a point to overlook). And yes, I read your comment and you seem to miscomprehend. Material is a non-matter for many comparisons, yes, given what YOU have compared _so far_ (i.e. 316L SS). However, to exclude it as a category is to say that all other materials are excluded in terms of that specific category. Otherwise, your entire point is moot--you choose not to include "materials" as a category, because it's been a non-matter thus far; however, what are you going to do once you have a different material like titanium, or 904L? Do you simply add it then? Regardless of what watches you decide to pick and choose for review, the reality is that those other materials exist as viable, popular options for watches for buyers to choose from. In terms of the categories, what I presented is not comprehensive. There's a broad set of categories, within each you can break it down further. Assuming that there are no further sub-categories is nonsensical. In terms of the 100 point scale, it will not fail for this purpose by definition of normalizing the data. It's already a relative scale, as the basis for 100 is relative to the best watch that exists. Once a new standard becomes evident, then all other watches self-adjust. You mention "resolution"-- it wouldn't matter if it's out of 100 or 1 million. You can still normalize the data out of 100, as you can still equate something that scores say, 569,432 on a 1 million point scale, to 56.9432 on a 100 point scale. I.e. resolution is already built in. And, if another 10/10 comes along, then it's a tie. Unless you mean a new and better 10/10 comes along, then the scale is normalized with that new watch for that given category.

[@PerthWAtch]

Nope - I still don’t agree with you and I do not think your arguments make my chosen categories less useful in any way. As it is, mine remain more useful than your suggestions for reasons already outlined. I don’t think you’re going to get it - it doesn’t matter. I’m not changing my categories - if you do not want to make videos or any other form of comparison, then best to try to convince someone else. All the best!

[@urieelSEptim]

I feel like the Squale are overpriced. And i hate their logo, it would be the steinhart any day for me

[@PerthWAtch]

Thanks for that - another agreement and vote for the Steinhart it is! :)

[@miloscoopy2469]

Squale glass is wayyy too reflective. Annoying to the eyes imho. Sorry squale..

[@PerthWAtch]

Yeah Squale, time to up your game!!

[@willisbcteoh9840]

😆🤣😂 unbiased?

[@PerthWAtch]

😆😂🤣 tongue tied?

[@markw-2025]

Are you aware that Squale just updated their 1545? Are you aware that your review is obsolete? Are you aware?

[@PerthWAtch]

Sorry mate, can you rephrase that? I couldn’t understand your 3 questions ;)

[@angelos6817]

I purchased the Squale 1545 and the Steinhart GMT 39mm at the same time. The Squale has been sold and the Steinhart remains. The Squale case finish was rubbish and the bracelet is rotten. The Steinhart on the other hand has a beautifully finished case and bracelet. I have been never so let down by a watch as I was with the Squale. Don't do it! It's a piece of crap!

[@PerthWAtch]

Thanks for sharing that Angelo - I'm surprised to hear that you found the Squale so bad... I certainly wouldn't have said it's a "piece of crap", and am wondering whether there were any defects with the watch you received??

[@angelos6817]

@@PerthWAtch The first thing I noticed on the Squale was the case finishing which was under par compared to the Steinhart. Especially the brushed surfaces which seemed so rough compared to the GMT 39mm. The lug ends were also uneven and two of the bracelet links had dodgy threads that wouldn't screw in properly and just spun around. I had a look with a loupe and the threads were virtually not there. It looks like they were cross threaded from the factory. I ended up putting it on a strap.Needless to say it soon ended on eBay and was sold. I still think it's a piece of crap. Go Steinhart! A much better quality watch!

[@PerthWAtch]

Sorry to hear that... overall I think the Steinhart is the winner here but it is unfortunate that your piece had some defects.

[@angelos6817]

@@PerthWAtch It's all good. I love this hobby! We move on from one watch to another. It's amazing how a collection can change almost overnight. In the last month I picked up a new Rolex OP 36mm blue dial, an Omega Dynamic Chronograph and a Sinn 556A. In the midst of buying these watches, I had a mad watch sale on eBay to raise some funds to pay for the new ones. The watches that flew out the door were Glycine SST Airman, Glycine Airman 18, Glycine Combat Sub, Seiko SARG009, Seiko Speedtimer 6139-7020, Seiko 6138-8030, Fortis Official Cosmonaut 200m and 4 vintage Seiko 5's. All sold in a week starting at .99c.

[@PerthWAtch]

Wow hats off to you, you really moved quite a lot of pieces there, and all pretty good and interesting choices too!

[@Javi_C]

:)

[@PerthWAtch]

;)

[@alexsdg3441]

@@PerthWAtch hey Ivan. did you do semi-colon intentionally??? ha ha ha

[@PerthWAtch]

Always ;)