Water resistance with crown unscrewed?

[kd_submariner]

How waterproof are the ceramic subs if the crown is left open ? I did some searching and have seen conflicting feedback.

Any one have any stories of accidentally leaving the crown open and then going for a shower or a swim? Any problems, or all was well?

[Benjo74]

I went swimming in my Black Bay without realising that I hadn't screwed in the crown after winding it up. It was fine.

I know you asked about Subs, but I'd expect a Sub would hold up better than a Black Bay.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Cryten]

The main seals are in the stem. Leaving the crown unscrewed isn't advised, but doesn't harm the watch.

[Boaters]

It should be just fine

[Jack T]

Rolex sells a bilge pump for not much more than the price of the watch.

[TG3N]

Originally Posted by Benjo74

I know you asked about Subs, but I'd expect a Sub would hold up better than a Black Bay.

Yes, indeed - Tudor don't really publicize it, but the Black Bay uses a similar design to the older 702 Rolex trip-lock crown, whereas the newer Ceramic Submariners have the 703 trip-lock crown.

Both the 702 & 703 designs have two permanently-activated gaskets inside the tube, providing the primary water resistance, whether screwed down or not. Screwing down the crown is recommended, but just compresses a third gasket inside the crown head itself, which stops water reaching the two inner gaskets.

The 703 has the fourth gasket visible around the outside of the tube, but that is the least important of the gaskets, in terms of water resistance.

[GMT Aviator]

Originally Posted by Jack T

Rolex sells a bilge pump for not much more than the price of the watch.

HAHA! Wonderful!

[KDS777]

Originally Posted by Jack T

Rolex sells a bilge pump for not much more than the price of the watch.

But does it come in 18K YG ?

[morimotom]

Originally Posted by KDS777

But does it come in 18K YG ?

With PCL's.

[DCheeta]

Originally Posted by TG3N

Yes, indeed - Tudor don't really publicize it, but the Black Bay uses a similar design to the older 702 Rolex trip-lock crown, whereas the newer Ceramic Submariners have the 703 trip-lock crown.

Both the 702 & 703 designs have two permanently-activated gaskets inside the tube, providing the primary water resistance, whether screwed down or not. Screwing down the crown is recommended, but just compresses a third gasket inside the crown head itself, which stops water reaching the two inner gaskets.

The 703 has the fourth gasket visible around the outside of the tube, but that is the least important of the gaskets, in terms of water resistance.

That's some great information there. Thanks for taking the time to post it for us.

[Trazor]

If you were to have a leak, RSC will test with Crown unscrewed and Crown screwed down.

If the watch leaks only with the Crown unscrewed, I think Rolex will argue that you did not follow there recommendation, that the Crown should be screwed in,
for maximum waterproofing.

How that would affect any warranty I have no idea, you pay your money you take your chance.
.

[Tony-GB]

Originally Posted by TG3N

Yes, indeed - Tudor don't really publicize it, but the Black Bay uses a similar design to the older 702 Rolex trip-lock crown, whereas the newer Ceramic Submariners have the 703 trip-lock crown.

Both the 702 & 703 designs have two permanently-activated gaskets inside the tube, providing the primary water resistance, whether screwed down or not. Screwing down the crown is recommended, but just compresses a third gasket inside the crown head itself, which stops water reaching the two inner gaskets.

The 703 has the fourth gasket visible around the outside of the tube, but that is the least important of the gaskets, in terms of water resistance.

Brilliant post, thanks.

[Andad]

Originally Posted by TG3N

Yes, indeed - Tudor don't really publicize it, but the Black Bay uses a similar design to the older 702 Rolex trip-lock crown, whereas the newer Ceramic Submariners have the 703 trip-lock crown.

Both the 702 & 703 designs have two permanently-activated gaskets inside the tube, providing the primary water resistance, whether screwed down or not. Screwing down the crown is recommended, but just compresses a third gasket inside the crown head itself, which stops water reaching the two inner gaskets.

The 703 has the fourth gasket visible around the outside of the tube, but that is the least important of the gaskets, in terms of water resistance.

If the crown seal prevents water reaching the inner gaskets then it becomes the primary seal.
But a finger tight screw down crown seal would not withstand the Triplock seal rating of 500 Bar?

[Abdullah71601]

Originally Posted by Trazor

If you were to have a leak, RSC will test with Crown unscrewed and Crown screwed down.

If the watch leaks only with the Crown unscrewed, I think Rolex will argue that you did not follow there recommendation, that the Crown should be screwed in,
for maximum waterproofing.

How that would affect any warranty I have no idea, you pay your money you take your chance.
.

I think if any seals fail on a watch within its warranty period, Rolex will own responsibility for the failure.

The triplock shouldn't leak regardless of the crown position, as an open crown would still provide redundant stem seals.

[NeoXerxes]

First post (a stupid question):

If the crown is left open and water enters the watch (but not the movement), I would imagine the water would remain trapped within the sealing mechanism.

Wouldn't it make sense (whether or not the movement is compromised) to leave the watch to dry such that the water evaporates from the seals prior to screwing down the crown again?

Otherwise it seems possible that one could inadvertently trap water within the sealed areas, leading to eventual rust/corrosion. A few folks have said elsewhere that they panicked and screwed down the crown once they noticed that it was open (after already being exposed to water), but this seems counterproductive.

[Abdullah71601]

Originally Posted by NeoXerxes

First post (a stupid question):

If the crown is left open and water enters the watch (but not the movement), I would imagine the water would remain trapped within the sealing mechanism.

Wouldn't it make sense (whether or not the movement is compromised) to leave the watch to dry such that the water evaporates from the seals prior to screwing down the crown again?

Otherwise it seems possible that one could inadvertently trap water within the sealed areas, leading to eventual rust/corrosion. A few folks have said elsewhere that they panicked and screwed down the crown once they noticed that it was open (after already being exposed to water), but this seems counterproductive.

Once you get water inside the case, leaving the crown unscrewed isn't going to help. The cure is to express the watch to a service center for repair.

Moisture inside the crown, but not inside the case isn't an issue. It won't affect your watch. Better to keep the crown screwed down. The part is better protected against bumps and wear when screwed down.

[TG3N]

Originally Posted by directioneng

If the crown seal prevents water reaching the inner gaskets then it becomes the primary seal.

Depends upon your definition, really:

—adjective

1)first or highest in rank or importance; chief; principal: his primary goals in life.
2)first in order in any series, sequence, etc.

Primary in the sense that it is the first proper line of defence IF screwed down? Yes, certainly primary in terms of literally being the first proper seal that water encounters.

But I would deem those tube seals that provide the protection regardless of whether or not the user has remembered to screw in their crown to be of greater primacy - in the sense of importance - above the crown seal. One only works if activated, but the other two are always operating. One is fallible, the others are not. Hence, the most important, or primary line of defence (in my opinion!).

Whilst in writing, I should add that much of what I've written in terms of the Black Bay should be credited to fellow forumite 'Blackdog', who brilliantly contributed to a thread on here a few years back.

[NeoXerxes]

Originally Posted by Abdullah71601

I think if any seals fail on a watch within its warranty period, Rolex will own responsibility for the failure.

The triplock shouldn't leak regardless of the crown position, as an open crown would still provide redundant stem seals.

Originally Posted by Abdullah71601

Once you get water inside the case, leaving the crown unscrewed isn't going to help. The cure is to express the watch to a service center for repair.

Moisture inside the crown, but not inside the case isn't an issue. It won't affect your watch. Better to keep the crown screwed down. The part is better protected against bumps and wear when screwed down.

That makes sense, thanks! But in the event that water does get inside the crown, would it be better to leave the crown open for a day or so just so that the water dries? I'd probably be more nervous about leaving water inside the crown (and screwing it down) than leaving the crown unscrewed to dry for a day.

[Dirt]

Originally Posted by NeoXerxes

That makes sense, thanks! But in the event that water does get inside the crown, would it be better to leave the crown open for a day or so just so that the water dries? I'd probably be more nervous about leaving water inside the crown (and screwing it down) than leaving the crown unscrewed to dry for a day.

This theory has merit.

I would add that in the case of salt water immersion and subsequent inclusion into the crown area, I would first wash the watch well or soak in fresh tap water.
The reason behind this is to remove the salt. In the event one gets salt crystals inside the crown and tube assembly it may cause corrosion in the long term on the parts that ought to be smooth and remain so to ensure the seals are working the way they are intended.

On any watch, if I suspect that some moisture has entered the crown assembly or is sitting around it, I always simply blow the crown area with my breath to get the bulk of the water droplets away. Afterward I just leave the watch sitting for a few hours to dry then screw the crown down before I put it back on.
It may be a little overkill, but so far so good

[Abdullah71601]

Originally Posted by NeoXerxes

That makes sense, thanks! But in the event that water does get inside the crown, would it be better to leave the crown open for a day or so just so that the water dries? I'd probably be more nervous about leaving water inside the crown (and screwing it down) than leaving the crown unscrewed to dry for a day.

I wouldn't leave the crown unscrewed while wearing it. If you bang it into something you could cause a mechanical injury to the stem.

Keep in mind that water will not corrode your watch, and it won't somehow sneak past the seals just because the crown is screwed down.

Originally Posted by Dirt

This theory has merit.

I would add that in the case of salt water immersion and subsequent inclusion into the crown area, I would first wash the watch well or soak in fresh tap water.
The reason behind this is to remove the salt. In the event one gets salt crystals inside the crown and tube assembly it may cause corrosion in the long term on the parts that ought to be smooth and remain so to ensure the seals are working the way they are intended.

On any watch, if I suspect that some moisture has entered the crown assembly or is sitting around it, I always simply blow the crown area with my breath to get the bulk of the water droplets away. Afterward I just leave the watch sitting for a few hours to dry then screw the crown down before I put it back on.
It may be a little overkill, but so far so good

Agree with rinsing off seawater. Anytime, not just in this circumstance.

You may have a point about salt crystals abrading the metal under the right conditions, but Rolex SS isn't going to be corroded by sea salt crystals.

[Dirt]

Originally Posted by TG3N

The 703 has the fourth gasket visible around the outside of the tube, but that is the least important of the gaskets, in terms of water resistance.

In the case of the Triplock crown design.

I think the seal around the outside is primarily only intended to stop the ingress of dirt/dust to what I believe to be the Secondary seal located in the recess inside the Winding crown.
Other than that it seems to serve little other useful purpose.

The secondary seal/gasket seems to have limited capacity to establish enough crush to form the most critical seal even though it will increase the amount of crush on the Winding stem in a rather limited capacity because of the taper in the base of its recess. It will ultimately be limited by the Crown sitting down hard on the end of the Crown tube.

By the looks of the two Seals down deep inside the assembly, there is probably more than sufficient crush and surface area to form the primary seal within the assembly.

Of course it's only an educated guess because really only Rolex knows.

[Dirt]

Originally Posted by Abdullah71601

I wouldn't leave the crown unscrewed while wearing it. If you bang it into something you could cause a mechanical injury to the stem.

Keep in mind that water will not corrode your watch, and it won't somehow sneak past the seals just because the crown is screwed down.



Agree with rinsing off seawater. Anytime, not just in this circumstance.

You may have a point about salt crystals abrading the metal under the right conditions, but Rolex SS isn't going to be corroded by sea salt crystals.

It's not the abrasion that's going to be the issue.
It's the potential for corrosion creating an uneven seal surface through enlargement and or pitting.

The salt crystals could easily retain moisture by nature and not be visible or apparent.
The presence of air trapped within the assembly combined with elevated temperatures in the air will certainly promote corrosion that will never ever stop once it starts.
Even with 904 L Stainless steel. It will just take longer to manifest itself to the point where it will become problematic.

[Abdullah71601]

Originally Posted by Dirt

It's not the abrasion that's going to be the issue.
It's the potential for corrosion creating an uneven seal surface through enlargement and or pitting.

The salt crystals could easily retain moisture by nature and not be visible or apparent.
The presence of air trapped within the assembly combined with elevated temperatures in the air will certainly promote corrosion that will never ever stop once it starts.
Even with 904 L Stainless steel. It will just take longer to manifest itself to the point where it will become problematic.

Sea salt isn't going to corrode SS in the manner you suggest. The watch will likely go in for regular service long before such corrosion manifests itself.

[Tools]

Leaving the crown unscrewed is not going to automatically allow water into the tube to the primary seals, especially if it is partially screwed down (not quite snug). The air space in the tube would need to be forcibly overcome, similar to holding an empty water bottle under water. Water does not enter simply by it's proximity to a void. With no real way to escape, the trapped air in the tube becomes a very effective water barrier in most instances of inadvertent immersion.

Many, many watches in the world do not have screw down crowns and remain water-tight. Likewise, we do like to point out that the Daytona pushers only use a single o-ring to maintain 100 meter "waterproofness"

[Dirt]

Originally Posted by Abdullah71601

Sea salt isn't going to corrode SS in the manner you suggest. The watch will likely go in for regular service long before such corrosion manifests itself.

Agreed.
That's assuming the watch will be serviced at appropriate intervals.
Naturally, that depends upon lots of variables

[Dirt]

Originally Posted by Tools

Leaving the crown unscrewed is not going to automatically allow water into the tube to the primary seals, especially if it is partially screwed down (not quite snug). The air space in the tube would need to be forcibly overcome, similar to holding an empty water bottle under water. Water does not enter simply by it's proximity to a void. With no real way to escape, the trapped air in the tube becomes a very effective water barrier in most instances of inadvertent immersion.

Many, many watches in the world do not have screw down crowns and remain water-tight. Likewise, we do like to point out that the Daytona pushers only use a single o-ring to maintain 100 meter "waterproofness"

Quite right.

I believe the internal pressure of the watch at depth with air being displaced is a major factor in maintaining the water resistance of the Winding crown and Pusher seals design.

[Abdullah71601]

Originally Posted by Dirt

Quite right.

I believe the internal pressure of the watch at depth with air being displaced is a major factor in maintaining the water resistance of the Winding crown and Pusher seals design.

The pressure at depth (100m) is an order of magnitude higher on the outside of the watch.

The seals are good much deeper than the depth rating. The depth rating is the crush depth - the point where deflection of the case will damage the movement.

[Dirt]

Originally Posted by Abdullah71601

The pressure at depth (100m) is an order of magnitude higher on the outside of the watch.

Yes that's a given as air is compressible.
But the air being pushed out must(to an extent) play a roll in reducing the force of the water trying to get in.
After all, it's harder to keep air in than it is to keep water out due to its density. Assuming the structural integrity isn't compromised of course.

[jonnyz1245]

Originally Posted by TG3N

Yes, indeed - Tudor don't really publicize it, but the Black Bay uses a similar design to the older 702 Rolex trip-lock crown, whereas the newer Ceramic Submariners have the 703 trip-lock crown.

Both the 702 & 703 designs have two permanently-activated gaskets inside the tube, providing the primary water resistance, whether screwed down or not. Screwing down the crown is recommended, but just compresses a third gasket inside the crown head itself, which stops water reaching the two inner gaskets.

The 703 has the fourth gasket visible around the outside of the tube, but that is the least important of the gaskets, in terms of water resistance.

Thank you so much for this post. Great info!

[Abdullah71601]

Originally Posted by Dirt

Yes that's a given as air is compressible.
But the air being pushed out must(to an extent) play a roll in reducing the force of the water trying to get in.
After all, it's harder to keep air in than it is to keep water out due to its density. Assuming the structural integrity isn't compromised of course.

If your argument were true, the case would breath whenever you changed altitude. Air travel would be disastrous to your watch.

The structure of the case minimizes deformation under the great pressures (10 Bar and up) at depth. The case doesn't change shape much (as a percent of total volume) above it's crush depth. What little deformation there is compresses the air only very slightly. The air inside isn't at all a factor in water resistance.

The water resistance is entirely the seals pressing against the metal surfaces. The case can deform substantially before the seals lose enough integrity with the surface to leak.