Waterproof Watches

[superdog]

Pretty crazy actually.

Waterproof is pretty important to me. It’s always a factor when looking at a watch.

But can you tell me what’s wrong with this article?

https://www.menshealth.com/style/g44...3-4771b83fa5a5

[brandrea]

People will rail on the Omega because it doesn’t have screw down pushers and is rated 50 meters.

Personally, I wouldn’t have a problem swimming with mine.

Archer (certified Omega watchmaker) over on the Omega Forums gives it the thumbs up and he knows a lot more about watches than the vast majority

[Maleg]

The article is an advert written by fashion experts.

I wouldn’t trust my Speedy deeper than 5 meters. I don’t swim with it.

[pickettt]

Always choose the right tool for the job. That is all.

[Krash]

The author didn’t do proper research when writing this article.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Blansky]

Originally Posted by superdog

But can you tell me what’s wrong with this article?

It's in Men's Health.

[TheVTCGuy]

Uhm…. Yeah, swing and a miss Men’s Health, this was obviously written by a non WIS or even someone with basic knowledge of fine watches. They have an Omega at $9,000 but not a Rolex Sub at $10,000? The Omega is not even a Seamaster, it’s a chrono, and they choose THAT model as an excellent DIVING watch? Swing and a miss.

[AF_Rob]

Originally Posted by Maleg

The article is an advert written by fashion experts.

I wouldn’t trust my Speedy deeper than 5 meters. I don’t swim with it.

I had a Speedy, same here. Rain and washing hands were the limits of water it saw.

Yeah, fashion expert opinions mean less than nothing to me.

[Krash]

Originally Posted by AF_Rob

I had a Speedy, same here. Rain and washing hands were the limits of water it saw.

Yeah, fashion expert opinions mean less than nothing to me.

Same here. I’ll never swim with my Speedy, but mine has a leather strap on it. So that’s a pretty big constraint right there.

Why they would pick a Speedmaster over a Seamaster is beyond me.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Carguy87]

Plus the term should never be “waterproof”. Water resistant is the correct terminology; like “bulletproof” vests aren’t ever truly bulletproof, they are bullet resistant.

I do suppose one could argue the Deepsea Challenge is waterproof since there’s nowhere on the planet you can take it deep enough to experience water intrusion lol.

[swils8610]

Ridiculous…


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

[logo]

Originally Posted by Carguy87

Plus the term should never be “waterproof”. Water resistant is the correct terminology; like “bulletproof” vests aren’t ever truly bulletproof, they are bullet resistant.

I do suppose one could argue the Deepsea Challenge is waterproof since there’s nowhere on the planet you can take it deep enough to experience water intrusion lol.

Depth rating isn’t everything, gaskets are more important for day to day water exposure. A Speedmaster with fresh gaskets is probably safer in pool water than a 15 yr old unserviced sea dweller despite the difference in depth rating.

[George58]

Originally Posted by logo

Depth rating isn’t everything, gaskets are more important for day to day water exposure. A Speedmaster with fresh gaskets is probably safer in pool water than a 15 yr old unserviced sea dweller despite the difference in depth rating.

I disagree

[superdog]

Originally Posted by TheVTCGuy

Uhm…. Yeah, swing and a miss Men’s Health, this was obviously written by a non WIS or even someone with basic knowledge of fine watches. They have an Omega at $9,000 but not a Rolex Sub at $10,000? The Omega is not even a Seamaster, it’s a chrono, and they choose THAT model as an excellent DIVING watch? Swing and a miss.

Exactly my thoughts.

Considering the actual focus of the article, it was surprising that a watch the actual manufacturer recommends is not even used for swimming was listed.

Especially when they could have listed the seamaster.

[White Collar Boy]

Because why just conquer the water and the whole world is out there waiting for you?… Nice tapestry of compilations at least.

[Andad]

I agree Seth, that doesn’t make any sense.

But stating that a watch rated to 5 Bar can only be used when washing your hands doesn’t make sense either.

If one of my watches passes at 6 Bar on my pressure tester I have no hesitation swimming and diving with it.

My pool is not 60 metres at the deep end.

[enjoythemusic]

Roflol that this even makes it to a thread on TRF. Ummmm, it's an advertorial within a 'men's' magazine.

Love you Seth, and yeah someone got a bit 'enthusiastic' with their advertorial writing.

As for the advertorial itself....

download (1).jpeg

[Maleg]

Originally Posted by logo

Depth rating isn’t everything, gaskets are more important for day to day water exposure. A Speedmaster with fresh gaskets is probably safer in pool water than a 15 yr old unserviced sea dweller despite the difference in depth rating.

Depth rating is the crush depth, the depth at which deflection of the case under pressure contacts the movement.

The o-rings are usually water tight to many times the depth rating. Modern o-rings under normal wrist watch service have a very long service life (longer than the typical service interval). But you are correct, a worn out o-ring is a risk that isn’t represented well by the rating stamped on the dial.

The seals in the Sea Dweller are probably still better than my Speedy in your example. A pressure check would confirm that if you were planning to dive with it.

[Andad]

How can the depth rating be the crush depth?