Sunk the Red Sub……

[Cryten]

I think some on here need to be reminded that the OP has owned this watch for 45 years. It's just an old friend that happened to become valuable as the years passed. It's not like he bought a high dollar vintage piece and took it diving.

It's a horrible mistake, and I just hope it can be salvaged.

[Boaters]

Very sad indeed hope it all works out

[TimRolex]

I think that most in this thread who feel OP shouldn't have gone swimming with his watch are forgetting a very important part of the story: he has owned his watch for decades and probably had been underwater with it hundreds of times. He made a mistake with the crown. But to call him out for swimming with a red sub (which, to him, was an "old friend" and likely not an investment) is ridiculous. If you're mad you may never have the chance to own OP's watch in original condition, too f-ing bad. The OP didn't ask for your opinions on whether he should have swam with his watch vs keeping it in some air tight safe. Keep your selfish opinions to yourself.

[alwayshere]

Originally Posted by TimRolex

I think that most in this thread who feel OP shouldn't have gone swimming with his watch are forgetting a very important part of the story: he has owned his watch for decades and probably had been underwater with it hundreds of times. He made a mistake with the crown. But to call him out for swimming with a red sub (which, to him, was an "old friend" and likely not an investment) is ridiculous. If you're mad you may never have the chance to own OP's watch in original condition, too f-ing bad. The OP didn't ask for your opinions on whether he should have swam with his watch vs keeping it in some air tight safe. Keep your selfish opinions to yourself.

Reminding / advising the OP to not swim with vintage watches to prevent these incidents from happening is...our selfishness?

you just made a fool of yourself...

[Fleetlord]

Originally Posted by TimRolex

I think that most in this thread who feel OP shouldn't have gone swimming with his watch are forgetting a very important part of the story: he has owned his watch for decades and probably had been underwater with it hundreds of times. He made a mistake with the crown. But to call him out for swimming with a red sub (which, to him, was an "old friend" and likely not an investment) is ridiculous. If you're mad you may never have the chance to own OP's watch in original condition, too f-ing bad. The OP didn't ask for your opinions on whether he should have swam with his watch vs keeping it in some air tight safe. Keep your selfish opinions to yourself.

[Shawnnyang]

Wouldn't the same thing have happened with a new sub?

[swatty]

Originally Posted by Shawnnyang

Wouldn't the same thing have happened with a new sub?

No not with a trip lock crown .

[TimRolex]

Originally Posted by alwayshere

Reminding / advising the OP to not swim with vintage watches to prevent these incidents from happening is...our selfishness?

you just made a fool of yourself...

I like how you just glazed right over my other points and went straight to the selfish part.

Yes, in my opinion, it is selfish to come into a thread, posted by a brand new member asking for advice in restoring his already damaged watch, and rip into him for a mistake he already knows he made...just so that you can get Internet strangers to give you some cheesy little smilies toasting each other with beer. Yay for you!

Certainly you can choose to skip right past this point as well, and then call me a fool again, but I'll post it anyway:

The OP posted not for someone to "remind / advise" him not to swim with his watch, but to get advice on its salvageability and restoration from a group of people he thought might be helpful. He seemed genuinely interested in documenting the process for us and keeping us up to date on the progress, and it seemed OP might be a valuable addition to this community. He seemed genuinely appreciative for the couple dozen or so positive comments giving him useful advice and wishing him well.

But then, right after his last post (ever? I guess we will wait and see), someone decided it would be a good idea to post this...and he hasn't been back since:

Originally Posted by alwayshere

jesus

why did you go swimming with a red sub..... expensive lesson

I wonder who that could have been? Talk about making a fool of yourself...wow.

Final point: at what point in his 45 years of ownership and likely hundreds (thousands?) of times he has swum with his watch (presumably without issue) did it become vintage and therefore inadvisable to swim with it any longer? Was there a particular day he should have retired it from water duty? After a particular number of submersions? I just bought my first real dive watch last year and I intend on keeping it for a really long time, so I am genuinely curious when I should no longer swim with it.

[05carbondrz]

Originally Posted by TimRolex

I like how you just glazed right over my other points and went straight to the selfish part.

Yes, in my opinion, it is selfish to come into a thread, posted by a brand new member asking for advice in restoring his already damaged watch, and rip into him for a mistake he already knows he made...just so that you can get Internet strangers to give you some cheesy little smilies toasting each other with beer. Yay for you!

Certainly you can choose to skip right past this point as well, and then call me a fool again, but I'll post it anyway:

The OP posted not for someone to "remind / advise" him not to swim with his watch, but to get advice on its salvageability and restoration from a group of people he thought might be helpful. He seemed genuinely interested in documenting the process for us and keeping us up to date on the progress, and it seemed OP might be a valuable addition to this community. He seemed genuinely appreciative for the couple dozen or so positive comments giving him useful advice and wishing him well.

But then, right after his last post (ever? I guess we will wait and see), someone decided it would be a good idea to post this...and he hasn't been back since:


I wonder who that could have been? Talk about making a fool of yourself...wow.

Final point: at what point in his 45 years of ownership and likely hundreds (thousands?) of times he has swum with his watch (presumably without issue) did it become vintage and therefore inadvisable to swim with it any longer? Was there a particular day he should have retired it from water duty? After a particular number of submersions? I just bought my first real dive watch last year and I intend on keeping it for a really long time, so I am genuinely curious when I should no longer swim with it.

When it's worth it's worth 20 Times what You paid for it.

[TimRolex]

Originally Posted by 05carbondrz

When it's worth it's worth 20 Times what You paid for it.

So, make all decisions in life based on money. Got it.

[jedly1]

Originally Posted by TimRolex

I like how you just glazed right over my other points and went straight to the selfish part.

Yes, in my opinion, it is selfish to come into a thread, posted by a brand new member asking for advice in restoring his already damaged watch, and rip into him for a mistake he already knows he made...just so that you can get Internet strangers to give you some cheesy little smilies toasting each other with beer. Yay for you!

Certainly you can choose to skip right past this point as well, and then call me a fool again, but I'll post it anyway:

The OP posted not for someone to "remind / advise" him not to swim with his watch, but to get advice on its salvageability and restoration from a group of people he thought might be helpful. He seemed genuinely interested in documenting the process for us and keeping us up to date on the progress, and it seemed OP might be a valuable addition to this community. He seemed genuinely appreciative for the couple dozen or so positive comments giving him useful advice and wishing him well.

But then, right after his last post (ever? I guess we will wait and see), someone decided it would be a good idea to post this...and he hasn't been back since:


I wonder who that could have been? Talk about making a fool of yourself...wow.

Final point: at what point in his 45 years of ownership and likely hundreds (thousands?) of times he has swum with his watch (presumably without issue) did it become vintage and therefore inadvisable to swim with it any longer? Was there a particular day he should have retired it from water duty? After a particular number of submersions? I just bought my first real dive watch last year and I intend on keeping it for a really long time, so I am genuinely curious when I should no longer swim with it.

well said.

and having the pleasure of meeting peter and getting the restoration underway , i have to say he's a perfectly nice, normal human being , not some watch geek who spends all their time wondering how much their watch may be worth .

His watch i just a faithful tool thats been as the end of his arm for a long time , has been regularly serviced ( so you can't shoot him under that excuse either) and made the same mistake that many a well seasoned WIS has had in a mad moment when they were actually busy living their lives rather than swooning over the investment on their wrist ( or actually usually in the safe)

[dysondiver]

its not a faithful tool , or it would still be water tight , its an old machine, do i red line my rc30 no ,,, its old and spares are getting hard to find , so it gets a little bit of respect ,
regarding the sea , an ounce of prevention is better than a pound of cure.
hopefully others may think twice , its not about money , its about keeping safe the things you care about , if that wasnt the case op would have sold the watch and bought a seiko etc.
once spares are not available , many things need more looking after.

[highcotton]

People on this board get really upset when you use the watch the way it was intended. I have read on here where people will not carry their watch into a bathroom in their own home if the shower is running because the steam may infiltrate it.

I guess I am crazy but I do not own a watch that I do not swim with. If I am wearing it it does what I am doing that day. I have a red submariner and an underline dial 7928 that I swim and sometimes dive with. Wear it and enjoy it.

People that own classic automobiles do not worry about driving them as much as people worry about their watches. I would say the chances of having a wreck are 10 times more likely than water damage to a properly maintained dive watch.

[jedly1]

Originally Posted by dysondiver

its not a faithful tool , or it would still be water tight , its an old machine, do i red line my rc30 no ,,, its old and spares are getting hard to find , so it gets a little bit of respect ,
regarding the sea , an ounce of prevention is better than a pound of cure.
hopefully others may think twice , its not about money , its about keeping safe the things you care about , if that wasnt the case op would have sold the watch and bought a seiko etc.
once spares are not available , many things need more looking after.

its not water tight because he , by his own admission left the crown wide open - a very simple human error.,

Over the years I've heard many people on forums claim that a sub should we watertight with the crown unscrewed , but to date I've never met a rolex watchmaker who would make that claim, or guarantee such a thing or say it was something you should rely on for total submersion , nor something I've ever seen tested as part of a service , rolex or not . ...once done up peters watch is perfectly water tight even now when we tried it.

he had respect for it and had it serviced in 2012 to keep it working as it was meant to be.

the fault doesnt lie with the watch , or with choosing to use the watch for what it was meant to be used for , it lies with a minor piece of human error , and if we are going to start having a go at people for that , there will be an awful lot of people in that line waiting to get pelted with tomatoes in the TRF town square.

[soundserious]

Please show a pic of the watch before this unfortunate incident.

[TimRolex]

Originally Posted by highcotton

People on this board get really upset when you use the watch the way it was intended. I have read on here where people will not carry their watch into a bathroom in their own home if the shower is running because the steam may infiltrate it.

I guess I am crazy but I do not own a watch that I do not swim with. If I am wearing it it does what I am doing that day. I have a red submariner and an underline dial 7928 that I swim and sometimes dive with. Wear it and enjoy it.

People that own classic automobiles do not worry about driving them as much as people worry about their watches. I would say the chances of having a wreck are 10 times more likely than water damage to a properly maintained dive watch.

Yes, some of the folks on this forum seem a little too precious about their watches. I would hate to go through my days so worried about the watch I'm wearing that I alter my behaviors...and I'm speaking from the perspective of someone who has lost one before (my first Rolex, on Duval Street for Fantasy Fest, I hope a pin popped rather than some thief got it off me, but who knows?)

Originally Posted by jedly1

its not water tight because he , by his own admission left the crown wide open - a very simple human error.,

Over the years I've heard many people on forums claim that a sub should we watertight with the crown unscrewed , but to date I've never met a rolex watchmaker who would make that claim, or guarantee such a thing or say it was something you should rely on for total submersion , nor something I've ever seen tested as part of a service , rolex or not . ...once done up peters watch is perfectly water tight even now when we tried it.

he had respect for it and had it serviced in 2012 to keep it working as it was meant to be.

the fault doesnt lie with the watch , or with choosing to use the watch for what it was meant to be used for , it lies with a minor piece of human error , and if we are going to start having a go at people for that , there will be an awful lot of people in that line waiting to get pelted with tomatoes in the TRF town square.

Totally agree, and very well said.

For anyone claiming that the sub should be watertight even with the crown unscrewed, please update us with a video of you unscrewing the crown on your watch and jumping into the ocean with it on your wrist.

[scooba]

Originally Posted by jedly1

its not water tight because he , by his own admission left the crown wide open - a very simple human error.,

Over the years I've heard many people on forums claim that a sub should we watertight with the crown unscrewed , but to date I've never met a rolex watchmaker who would make that claim, or guarantee such a thing or say it was something you should rely on for total submersion , nor something I've ever seen tested as part of a service , rolex or not . ...once done up peters watch is perfectly water tight even now when we tried it.

he had respect for it and had it serviced in 2012 to keep it working as it was meant to be.

the fault doesnt lie with the watch , or with choosing to use the watch for what it was meant to be used for , it lies with a minor piece of human error , and if we are going to start having a go at people for that , there will be an awful lot of people in that line waiting to get pelted with tomatoes in the TRF town square.

Well done Jedley for stepping in and helping Peter , I expect he is gutted and readily admits it was his own fault , Can the dial be saved , I am really looking forward to see its return as good as new

[nobbylon]

Originally Posted by TimRolex

Yes, some of the folks on this forum seem a little too precious about their watches. I would hate to go through my days so worried about the watch I'm wearing that I alter my behaviors...and I'm speaking from the perspective of someone who has lost one before (my first Rolex, on Duval Street for Fantasy Fest, I hope a pin popped rather than some thief got it off me, but who knows?)




Totally agree, and very well said.

For anyone claiming that the sub should be watertight even with the crown unscrewed, please update us with a video of you unscrewing the crown on your watch and jumping into the ocean with it on your wrist.

Twinlock crowns ie 2 seal area crowns have a stem seal and a crown seal. The stem seal if in good condition will keep water out even if the crown is unscrewed.
Triplock added an extra stem seal and an outer tube seal.
It sounds to me that the stem seal had failed OR water got in via the back or crystal.

[TimRolex]

Originally Posted by nobbylon

Twinlock crowns ie 2 seal area crowns have a stem seal and a crown seal. The stem seal if in good condition will keep water out even if the crown is unscrewed.
Triplock added an extra stem seal and an outer tube seal.
It sounds to me that the stem seal had failed OR water got in via the back or crystal.

Yes. My point was that many of the commenters here have been critical of the OP's decision to swim with a vintage watch, seemingly blaming the watch's age instead of the OP's mistake, by saying that even with the crown unscrewed it should have remained watertight. So I challenge anyone who is so confident in that assertion to take a plunge in saltwater with their sub's crown unscrewed.

[Man Of Breiz]

Peter, any update on the repair?
Good luck...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[1675-David]

Originally Posted by TimRolex

I challenge anyone who is so confident in that assertion to take a plunge in saltwater with their sub's crown unscrewed.

I won't be taking you up on that... Last time I took my sub out of the safe I got an anxiety rash on my cheek.

[igatomic]

If this happens, I have been told to drop the watch in oil. Anything to stop the corrosion...especially if you can't get it cleaned quickly...

Any thoughts?

[nobbylon]

IF it happened to me I think i'd unscrew the back off and flush and fill with alcohol if i had any or failing that vodka.

[1675-David]

If it happened to me I'd just poo my pants and start crying...

[highcotton]

Originally Posted by igatomic

If this happens, I have been told to drop the watch in oil. Anything to stop the corrosion...especially if you can't get it cleaned quickly...

Any thoughts?

I would think the oil would be bad on the dial and that is where the value is.

[alwayshere]

Originally Posted by TimRolex

I like how you just glazed right over my other points and went straight to the selfish part.

Yes, in my opinion, it is selfish to come into a thread, posted by a brand new member asking for advice in restoring his already damaged watch, and rip into him for a mistake he already knows he made...just so that you can get Internet strangers to give you some cheesy little smilies toasting each other with beer. Yay for you!

Certainly you can choose to skip right past this point as well, and then call me a fool again, but I'll post it anyway:

The OP posted not for someone to "remind / advise" him not to swim with his watch, but to get advice on its salvageability and restoration from a group of people he thought might be helpful. He seemed genuinely interested in documenting the process for us and keeping us up to date on the progress, and it seemed OP might be a valuable addition to this community. He seemed genuinely appreciative for the couple dozen or so positive comments giving him useful advice and wishing him well.

But then, right after his last post (ever? I guess we will wait and see), someone decided it would be a good idea to post this...and he hasn't been back since:


I wonder who that could have been? Talk about making a fool of yourself...wow.

Final point: at what point in his 45 years of ownership and likely hundreds (thousands?) of times he has swum with his watch (presumably without issue) did it become vintage and therefore inadvisable to swim with it any longer? Was there a particular day he should have retired it from water duty? After a particular number of submersions? I just bought my first real dive watch last year and I intend on keeping it for a really long time, so I am genuinely curious when I should no longer swim with it.

No one is toasting beers - stop making assumptions of the broader group here who thinks swimming with a red sub is not recommended.

Everyone who has shared similar notion to mine (which seems the majority in this thread, mind you) have NOT ripped into the OP aside from stating its not a good idea to swim with it. Guess what? this thread will save the next person who has a vintage red sub thinking of going for a swim..and if so, i'm happy with that result.

You can swim with yours all you want and if it indeed one day becomes an expensive vintage and something like this happens to you, shoot me a message

[highcotton]

Okay, so everybody agrees you should not swim with a red sub. What is the year model sub that is safe to swim with? Red writing = no swim, matte dial = no swim, tritium dial dial = no swim, gilt dial = no swim. Just to be safe it it says Rolex = no swim.

[nobbylon]

Originally Posted by highcotton

Okay, so everybody agrees you should not swim with a red sub. What is the year model sub that is safe to swim with? Red writing = no swim, matte dial = no swim, tritium dial dial = no swim, gilt dial = no swim. Just to be safe it it says Rolex = no swim.

They should all get service dials that have been corrected to

0 ft = 0 m

[scooba]

Originally Posted by Man Of Breiz

Peter, any update on the repair?
Good luck...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I don't know where he is with the repairs, But at the start we talked by PM and I advised him to mail a Australian/UK member who knows his vintage ,It seams they are now dealing with this RedSub as it should be dealt with, I expect it will be made good and hopefully they will show us how it has come out , Movement and case would be relatively simple to fix the dial is another matter ,

The owner won't make the mistake again of going swimming without checking the crown is wound down after this repair bill

[TimRolex]

Originally Posted by alwayshere

No one is toasting beers - stop making assumptions of the broader group here who thinks swimming with a red sub is not recommended.

Everyone who has shared similar notion to mine (which seems the majority in this thread, mind you) have NOT ripped into the OP aside from stating its not a good idea to swim with it. Guess what? this thread will save the next person who has a vintage red sub thinking of going for a swim..and if so, i'm happy with that result.

You can swim with yours all you want and if it indeed one day becomes an expensive vintage and something like this happens to you, shoot me a message

So far, it appears you're right, the majority do agree with you...by a VERY small margin: 14-13 (speaking of "making assumptions about the broader group..."). By the way, I started counting at your first post, since you were the first who thought it a good idea to greet a new member looking for advice about a damaged watch with a personal attack and insult (again, well done on that).

Another area where you're correct: everyone else who thinks its a bad idea to swim with a vintage watch "have NOT ripped into the OP...", but you DID. Stop trying to act like you're some internet hero saving others from the same mistake by being a dick. You could have just as easily accomplished that like others have in this thread: by being sorry for the OP, and explaining why you feel it was a mistake without making OP feel like a schmuck.

Every time you post in this thread you reveal yourself to be more and more unlikeable. But please, by all means, continue.