Dive watches are not dressy, no matter how hard you try

Borna Bošnjak

Watch enthusiasts love to categorise things. Whether it’s an excuse to buy even more watches to fill their collections (but I don’t have a 15,000 Gauss-resistant chronograph for my desk job!), or simply argue what the “best” of any category is, it’s a tale as old as time. So, being the nascent enthusiast that I am, my ears perked up when Buffy floated the idea about “dressy dive watches”, and which ones to wear with a tux, the idea in itself being a WIS category special. As someone who makes conscious and measured sartorial choices, I couldn’t stand for such blaspheming (example A being the image above, courtesy of Second Movement), and discussion turned into argument that we decided to settle with a debate, with one side (the wrong one) Buffy explored earlier this week. Allow me to put this to bed.

A note on definitions

Just as you’re likely not expected to show up to a cinema in a “casual” suit and tie, traditional formalwear such as white tie or morning dress is now mostly reserved for equally archaic occasions. Seeing as the definition of “dressy” depends on who you ask, let’s first look at more well-defined dress codes. If we consider black tie, for example (a traditionally semi-formal dress code), it has become the golden standard for evening occasions, usually meaning a dinner suit (with a black bowtie, thank you) or evening gown.

As dress codes have gotten more relaxed, does that mean that dive watches are now more acceptable to be worn with formalwear? While you’ll see this happening, it really shouldn’t. Just because you popped on a blazer and not-sweatpants, this doesn’t mean you’re wearing something formal, and probably not even “dressy”. So, what does “dressy” mean? If we’re looking to say that it’s anything more put-together than a white tee and jeans, sure, you could say that the Rolex Submariner you see all the finance bros wearing is a dressy diver, but that doesn’t really go along with the definition of formalwear. But as times change, and though we’ve gotten less formal across the board, the definition of what a dive watch is changed too. The dawn of watches that were able to withstand getting wet, like the 1950s Seamasters, was some time ago, but I’d be hard-pressed to call these “divers”, given their diminutive size, poor legibility, and lack of diving bezel, all the elements that make a good diver in my view.

Oh, and just one final point that always gets brought up in this debate: it’s James Bond. You’re not James Bond.

There are dive watches, and then there are dive watches

And speaking of those vintage, dive-capable watches, they very much meet the definition of a dress watch these days. Ever since they first entered production in the 1950s, proper dive watches have become increasingly popular, meaning that manufacturers have gone every which way in their designs over the years.

The very polished Jaeger-LeCoultre Polaris is undoubtedly a dive watch, but so is a Citizen Promaster Aqualand, though both were designed with the primary inspiration being water-based activities. By comparison, then, the JLC is a dressy diver, surely? And yet, I’m not sure the wide-open dial, large case, and knobbly crowns are the best choice for a formal occasion.

The conflict of fashion and watches

I use the word “fashion” on purpose, because anything related to “sartorialism” takes on the meaning of clothing of a more traditional style, usually relating to elevated, everyday menswear. But fashion encompasses so much more. If I was shown the latest piece from a high-fashion designer, I’d struggle to define it as formal, informal, “dressy”, whatever category you want to put it in. For many current trends, clothes have lost much of their relation to occasions, and the only definition of whether they’re appropriate has become the level of the wearer’s confidence. Just how Gianni Agnelli wore a PloProf atop his cuff in the ’80s, I can totally see someone rocking Chitose Abe’s sick boots and bomber blazer combo with a bulky diver.

So, what it comes down to is simply being stylish which is a purely subjective endeavour. I fully subscribe to the fact that some dive watches are less tool-tastic than others, but the very definition of what a dive watch is makes it unsuitable for most occasions that would require formal attire. And if you already go to the lengths of finding a dive watch that’s under 10mm in thickness, under 40mm in diameter, with a dial that won’t blind people with lume, and a bezel that can still be used for diving but isn’t constantly catching your sleeve, did you really find a dive watch?

So, where do I stand?

If we’re talking about the world of clothing rooted in male-centric traditional outfits, I think you’d be much better off with a sleek Cartier Tank or Bulgari Serpenti when wearing a piece of traditional evening or formal wear. Dive watches are inherently not dressy, but they can be appropriated for “dressier” occasions given it’s the right watch with with the right clothing, but this can only go so far. There’s a certain level at which things just don’t go together – think socks and sandals, tux and long tie, or sweatpants and a dress shirt – so leave the Black Bay (or Invicta if you’re Shaq) at home when going out to your next formal event.

I’m fully aware of being on record talking about dress watches being amazing streetwear pairings, and while I don’t see the same being proven for traditional divers and formalwear, I’m always happy for someone like Tyler to prove me wrong. Until then, I continue to exist in blissful ignorance.