My first dive watch was Seiko's first dive watch, the 62 MAS introduced in 1965. I've collected watches ever since. The watch pictured next to my Ball Skindiver is the Seiko Prospex Reinterpretation of that original watch, their newer 1965 Automatic Diver's Watch SPB051J1. I wore that original Seiko dive watch for more than 20 years without service of any kind, through thousands of dives. Their new "reinterpretation" is much improved. I bought my first Invicta 9937 to replace that original Seiko many years ago, mostly because I liked the Submariner look, and it served me wonderfully well until a close friend talked me out of it. I bought a new one to replace it ... the 9937 is my favorite Invicta dive watch hands down. So much for the history, but I thought it might be relevant to those considering a purchase. This review will cover and compare the currently available Invicta 9937, and its less expensive cousin, the Invicta 8926. Both are pictured above side-by-side ... you will note that they are virtually identical. in appearance, but significantly different in cost. In my view, the 9937 is the better watch, worth the difference in cost, but "your mileage may vary." This review is posted under both watches. There are MANY good reviews of both watches on Amazon, but if you look at the dates, many are old, and address QC issues that have long been resolved. If you look closely at the picture of both watches side by side, you'll note that they are running within seconds of each other, which is remarkable since they were set several days ago according to the NIST time clock ... the 9937 is about 2 seconds fast, and the 8926 is about 2 seconds slow. That sort of accuracy is NOT to be expected of ANY mechanical watch. My most expensive, COSC Certified, mechanical watches gain, on average, about 3 seconds a day. I found this to be quite surprising. The luminescence on both watches is identically pitiful. They glow, sort of, but compared to my other (NON-Tritium) watches sitting in the exact same conditions (watch boxes), they might as well not have bothered ... removed to a totally dark room, my SEIKO (my best non-tritium) lume) watch is very clear to read, whereas these are invisible. If you need to tell time in the dark, these are a total bust, and one is no better than the other. I am a great fan of Tritium tubes that do NOT fade overnight ... they can be expected to glow exactly the same for 25 years. The watch manufacturers like Ball, Nite, Luminox, etc., that use Tritium tubes are the way to go if it is important to you to be able to read your watch in the dark. The bracelets on dive watches are very important. Lose a single pin, screw, ... whatever, to corrosion, or have the clasp fail, and your watch falls to the bottom of the sea. These bracelets are almost identical, except the clasp, I never had an issue with my 9937's, and I would not expect an issue with either of these. Both bracelets appear to be finished identically, and they feel exactly the same on the wrist, which is to say quite comfortable and, although the clasps are the same general design (with a security fold over) they are made differently, with the 9937 (top in pic) being the better design. NEITHER watch bracelet has a diver's extension to accommodate a wet suit which surprised me. The dials may look identical in the picture, but they are not. The 8926 is a gloss black, but the 9937 seems to have a SLIGHTLY more gray look. The markers and indices are identical. The 9937 has a Sellita Swiss movement. The 8926 has a Japanese movement which I believe to be made by Seiko. The difference is, you can manually wind the Sellita, but both are incredibly accurate and I have found both Seiko, and Sellita movements to be very reliable. The main difference is the crown assembly ... the 9937 is smooth and precise feeling but the 8926 lacks that precision feel. The 9937 no longer has a sapphire crystal (I think my others did). Instead, it is some sort of hardened mineral crystal they call "flame fusion." The 8926 has the basic mineral crystal, which should scratch more easily ... but I have never scratched one. The bezel assemblies are both tight and precise feeling with the same micro click system on both. The engineering is MUCH better than on some of my more expensive watches. The insert fits flush with the bezel, and mates to the crystal perfectly. They are not quite identical, in that the markings on the 8926 seem a bit more "crisp" to me. They claim that both watches are depth rated to 200M and both are listed as suitable for diving. Both have screw in case backs, and both have screw down crowns. The reality is, divers these days almost universally use dive computers, so it isn't like the old days when your dive watch was critical. For diving, I wear my Seiko ... but that may be just an old man's preference based on nostalgia. The bottom line, I think the 9937 is the better watch, and probably worth the price difference, but I found none of the issues with the 8926 that were reported in old reviews. The construction, fit and finish is excellent on both watches, they feel and look exactly the same on my wrist, and I simply cannot account for the accuracy, which is phenomenal. If you are not sure what you will need, or like, I'd suggest the 8926 ... wear it a while and decide if the design and function suits you. For less than $80, you cannot go far wrong and, if it turns out that you like the design of a divers sport watch, you can always upgrade to a better watch of similar design later. I hope this is helpful to someone.
