Why not a screw down crown ?

[bgolfo]

I love my seamaster which obviously is a screw down crown, but why not the speedmaster?
How can some of the speedmasters be rated to 100m and not be a screw down crown?
i would be too afraid to wear one in the water, which is a shame bc i really want a speedmaster broad arrow

[Cesium133]

I don't know the official reason Omega didn't make it a screwed down crown, but I imagine it had to do with the the Speedmaster's original design function. It's a tool watch for measuring elapsed time. It's not a diving watch so it doesn't need a screwed down crown, i guess. The inner seals provide water resistance for, at the very least, light water activity. Other modern "sport" brands design watches without screwed down crowns, too.

[bgolfo]

Originally Posted by Cesium133

I don't know the official reason Omega didn't make it a screwed down crown, but I imagine it had to do with the the Speedmaster's original design function. It's a tool watch for measuring elapsed time. It's not a diving watch so it doesn't need a screwed down crown, i guess. The inner seals provide water resistance for, at the very least, light water activity. Other modern "sport" brands design watches without screwed down crowns, too.

i understand that but since all Rolex ( i think ) have a screw down crown that omega would too... but not a big deal i just wont swim in mine if i get one

[Cesium133]

Originally Posted by bgolfo

i understand that but since all Rolex ( i think ) have a screw down crown that omega would too... but not a big deal i just wont swim in mine if i get one

Rolex developed the oyster case and it's one of their biggest marketing tools. I'm sure that's why the screwed down crown is expected on a Rolex. Other brands seem to put it only on models that are designed for water activities. But I agree with you that it would be nice for all "tool" watches to have a secure, water tight crown.

[SUBversive]

Originally Posted by Cesium133

I don't know the official reason Omega didn't make it a screwed down crown, but I imagine it had to do with the the Speedmaster's original design function. It's a tool watch for measuring elapsed time. It's not a diving watch so it doesn't need a screwed down crown, i guess. The inner seals provide water resistance for, at the very least, light water activity. Other modern "sport" brands design watches without screwed down crowns, too.

I agree with this. Seems to make sense.

I don't think water was an issue.

I may re read the NASA tests

[AzPaul]

The Speedmaster crown was designed to keep 'space' out.

[SLRdude]

If they felt it was needed, they would have put one on it.

Don't let something like that get in the way of you owning a watch you like.

Over the years, I owned several watches that did not have a screw down crown and one was rated at 150m.

My Aerospace (Breitling) is also rated at 100 meters and not only is the crown not screwed in, but it serves as a multifunction button. All the functions are done through the crown. I took that sucker swimming in the ocean for a week and I had absolutely no issues with it.

Their engineers are good and companies like Omega, Rolex, Breitling etc will not put a rating on a watch if they believe that it will not withstand it.