Vintage Watches & Water Resistance

[Undefeatable]

Hello!

I have been heavily considering consolidating my watches into one, really nice example of a vintage Sub (1680). I don't plan on diving or even swimming with it (I rarely swim anyway), but being able to wash it off or have it get wet (dishes, watering plants, whatever) is important to me.

Here is the question: If I find a stellar example of a vintage sub, with no case pitting or anything like that, AND I have it fully serviced and pressure tested, is there any more risk to getting a vintage watch wet vs. a modern one? I know the general thought it that you should treat a vintage watch with a certain level of care, which I understand, but if it's passes all the test and is structurally sound, what is the risk?

Thank you!

[cts]

Vintage is definitely more delicate. A gentile bath should be fine. Definitely no swimming with it on. I would not chance that…

[Slimpee]

I have a Day Date 1803 and when I have it serviced next, I’m going to ask the watchmaker about new seals and a pressure test.

I figure that as long as the watch passes the test, I won’t need to fret about water.

That’s my $.02 anyway.

[cm70]

As a matter of respect, I avoid putting vintage divers watches life at risk swimming or getting them in touch with any water … these objects survived till our days just let’s treat them properly … no water at all
Old metals and material may become osmotic and they really do (look at the crown surface) and human error is there, ready to kill

[Swearengen]

I personally would not take the risk with my vintage watches and water. My buddy Paul (BH13GMT) had an expensive adventure with a red 1680 and a paddling pool. He was lucky to source a replcement mkiv dial, it was an expensive exercise and I hate to think what the cost would be today.

[OliverD]

If a watch has been serviced and passed a pressure test it should be fine.

However, if something unfortunate were to happen not only would it potentially be a major cost to rectify but as others have said finding a correct original replacement dial can be nearly impossible.

[cm70]

Not only dial , but also hands, date wheel, various mechanical parts are at risk

[harry in montreal]

When Tudors subs cost me 1200 I’d buy them and swim with them. I have two that I never pressure tested and just wear everywhere. A 79090 my wife has gets a shower or two a day and a swim in a salt water pool. All my others I’ve not wanted to risk killing them. Even aft a pressure test I don’t think it’s really worth it any more. I guess I say this as I just bought another 79090 and when I unscrewed the crown the tube came with it. The biology of these watches is pretty simple but I’ve had a number of things fail due to age related fatigue. A 1680 is a gem of a watch. Wash you car with it. But I’d go buy something else for swimming. Maybe a Seiko Arnie or Willard if you can get one to pass a pressure test

[Dan S]

Under the conditions you mentioned, it should theoretically be ok the get the watch wet or swim with it. And many people do. On the other hand, some people feel it’s an unnecessary risky thing to do with a 50 year survivor. A watch is water resistant until it isn’t.

[Styles Bitchley]

If it’s serviced and properly pressure tested, I can’t see doing the things you suggest would be a problem. Sounds like would’ve not talking about even submersion but incidentally getting sprayed by a hose or splashed with water doing the dishes…I think the likelihood of water intrusion is very minimal. As others have said, swimming would be taking a chance, but even that would be probably fine…until it isn’t. I used to swim with my 1680 all the time but stopped when the value made it not worth it. But this was a decision based on value, rather than structural integrity.

[Chester01]

Perhaps I don't understand vintage but are folks saying that old subs cannot be brought to spec? I mean as long as the watches are maintained, is there a reason to expect that they cannot do 200m underwater?

I mean I have a 16610 and (yes not really vintage but went 17 years without service) and its like if the crown and case back tight, very little room for water to get in?

[Dan S]

Originally Posted by Chester01

Perhaps I don't understand vintage but are folks saying that old subs cannot be brought to spec? I mean as long as the watches are maintained, is there a reason to expect that they cannot do 200m underwater?

I mean I have a 16610 and (yes not really vintage but went 17 years without service) and its like if the crown and case back tight, very little room for water to get in?

Vintage Subs can not always be brought back to the original water resistance specifications in my experience. However, unless they are in bad shape, they can usually pass a modest pressure test after replacing seals and crystal, if that’s what you want to do.

However, I think you are really misreading the responses. People are not primarily commenting on water resistance, but on risk. Any watch is at risk when under water. Things can go wrong. Apparently you have not had a bad experience, and I hope you don’t. But once you have seen serious water intrusion into a dive watch, and the damage it causes, your feelings might change. I’m sure that every watchmaker has seen many examples of this.

[Tools]

Originally Posted by Undefeatable

. . .
Here is the question: If I find a stellar example of a vintage sub, with no case pitting or anything like that, AND I have it fully serviced and pressure tested, is there any more risk to getting a vintage watch wet vs. a modern one? I know the general thought it that you should treat a vintage watch with a certain level of care, which I understand, but if it's passes all the test and is structurally sound, what is the risk?

Thank you!

If the seals and sealing surfaces are sound, the risk is no different than any other watch.

What is different is the consequence. A more modern reference can be repaired without any apparent change. A vintage can result in very expensive or non-existent parts issues.

[springer]

Originally Posted by Chester01

Perhaps I don't understand vintage but are folks saying that old subs cannot be brought to spec? I mean as long as the watches are maintained, is there a reason to expect that they cannot do 200m underwater?

I mean I have a 16610 and (yes not really vintage but went 17 years without service) and its like if the crown and case back tight, very little room for water to get in?

600 feet underwater with a Sub, I'd like to meet that guy!

I started diving in 1970 and haven't been deeper than 120 feet.

[springer]

Originally Posted by Tools

If the seals and sealing surfaces are sound, the risk is no different than any other watch.

What is different is the consequence. A more modern reference can be repaired without any apparent change. A vintage can result in very expensive or non-existent parts issues.

My sentiments exactly. This sums up the question posed by the OP.

[Undefeatable]

Thanks for all the feedback, and it all makes perfect sense. I think during my hunt for my "perfect" 1680, I will look for the best example I can get, bring it up to spec, and use caution when around water (i.e. not swimming or anything beyond cleaning).

[StanGMT]

A Sub (vintage or otherwise) that has been properly serviced, with new seals, crystal, etc, and successfully pressure tested, will have water resistance that far exceeds anything it will encounter through day-to-day washing or even shallow swimming. I was regularly swimming with my 1967 GMT up to about ten years ago and it still gets the odd splash from time to time through normal activities. Be careful with the Sub by all means but if it's regularly serviced and checked there's no need to treat it as if it has zero water resistance.

Stan.

[Yachtbuoy]

I've posted about i before but my '77 Datejust was brought back to spec after it was serviced and I've taken it swimming and it's fine. I do get it pressure tested yearly, however.

[zapokee]

Originally Posted by Dan S

A watch is water resistant until it isn’t.

Originally Posted by Styles Bitchley

...swimming would be taking a chance, but even that would be probably fine…until it isn’t.

Sage words, which many have learned to their great expense. Get a Casio for water stuff.

[karleone]

Originally Posted by Tools

If the seals and sealing surfaces are sound, the risk is no different than any other watch.

What is different is the consequence. A more modern reference can be repaired without any apparent change. A vintage can result in very expensive or non-existent parts issues.

This

[Chester01]

Originally Posted by Dan S

Vintage Subs can not always be brought back to the original water resistance specifications in my experience. However, unless they are in bad shape, they can usually pass a modest pressure test after replacing seals and crystal, if that’s what you want to do.

However, I think you are really misreading the responses. People are not primarily commenting on water resistance, but on risk. Any watch is at risk when under water. Things can go wrong. Apparently you have not had a bad experience, and I hope you don’t. But once you have seen serious water intrusion into a dive watch, and the damage it causes, your feelings might change. I’m sure that every watchmaker has seen many examples of this.

I get the risk aspect, but lets say one has a brand new 2022 sub and an an old early 1980's sub. Assuming both have been serviced in the last few years, hypothetically both should be fine despite the age.

My mother had a mid 80's ladies DJ w/president bracelet and she never serviced it and wore it in the pool, hot tubs, anything and it was always good to go. I get the risk aspect especially for someone who buys the vintage watch. For those that just have the vintage watch because they had it since it was now, I wonder if they tend not to pamper the watch and doing say feels alien to them. I mean my 16610 is from 1997 and while not old, I can't see myself starting to wear it differently even 10, 20 years from now.

Now also hypothetically lets say water does get it and its spotted right away. They watch can be brought back no? I saw a story of a lady that had a 1016 explorer that her dad wore daily for like 30 years (running marathons, working, etc) and then the daughter did as well. She went clamming or something and the crown was open and water got in. Rolex refused to service it, but an indy watch maker brought it back and she continued wearing it daily. IDK where im going with this, but feel she has it right. That's where the meaning comes from. Otherwise it simply another antique.

[Dan S]

Originally Posted by Chester01

I get the risk aspect, but lets say one has a brand new 2022 sub and an an old early 1980's sub. Assuming both have been serviced in the last few years, hypothetically both should be fine despite the age.

If water gets into a modern watch, the parts can all be replaced by Rolex, no problem. That's the difference.

Originally Posted by Chester01

Now also hypothetically lets say water does get it and its spotted right away. They watch can be brought back no?

The dial and many other parts will be destroyed almost immediately, I've seen it. But yes, it can be restored by hunting down period-correct replacement parts on the secondary market at great expense. Good luck.

[Tools]

Originally Posted by Chester01

I get the risk aspect, but lets say one has a brand new 2022 sub and an an old early 1980's sub. Assuming both have been serviced in the last few years, hypothetically both should be fine despite the age.

. . .

This is true up to a point.

A 1980's Sub may have corrosion at the sealing surfaces and a plexi crystal seals differently from the sapphire models.

A service does not reconstruct/repair sealing surfaces and so the more these have degraded, the higher risk of failure goes.

[Chester01]

Originally Posted by Dan S

If water gets into a modern watch, the parts can all be replaced by Rolex, no problem. That's the difference.



The dial and many other parts will be destroyed almost immediately, I've seen it. But yes, it can be restored by hunting down period-correct replacement parts on the secondary market at great expense. Good luck.

I see, that certainly can be a real gamble. Im assuming the dial-lets say on 4 digit references are a different material that 5 digit versions?

[Black Bay Dan]

I have always swam and dived with my older watches from the 1960's and 1970's without any problem. I have done this always on the assumption that they have been serviced by RSC in either St. James Square or Bexley, so they must be waterproof to the extent stated on the dial. Not had an water ingress yet.

[Filipão]

Originally Posted by Chester01

I see, that certainly can be a real gamble. Im assuming the dial-lets say on 4 digit references are a different material that 5 digit versions?

904L steel makes the difference.

This SD of mine is "old" 316L steel and has a plexi that develops micro cracks. I swim/sail but do not dive with it.

904L was used from around 1985 (correct me experts) from the SubDate 16800+0 and SD16660 onwards.

So 5 digits on sapphire also may have lower grade steel

[1680]

I swim with my 1665 great white! It has a new crystal and gaskets.