Swimming w/ AP RO Chrono

[GB-man]

I do recall and article, on Hodinkee I think, that debunked the concept of dramatic increases in pressure due to swimming or jumping in the pool etc.

I still don’t t swim with less than 100m.

[mnl]

Ok I found the article I mentioned with the math! Hodinkee talks about it here: https://www.hodinkee.com/articles/se...ths-deep-sixed and here’s the direct link to the math: http://forums.watchuseek.com/f2/sigh...in-610734.html

I think it should be safe to use a 50m rated watch on a pool, I feel like even if the real rating is for 10% of the stated rating it’s still a good amount more than a regular pool (5m). But like this article states any watch can still fail because of wear so it is a good idea to have it tested every now and then. And at the end of the day it’s your watch and your money so it doesn’t matter what others say, it’s up to you…

[subtona]

Depending what you read you get opposite answers.
Upon asking the AP boutique. They recommended not to go swimming with my 15202 (same WR 50m) rating at the time I had it. The salesperson even suggested I should be cautious around heavy steam as the crown is not screw down type.

What is the right answer? I don’t know.

But I do know that if a watch says 100meters I ain’t worried about it, and that’s the way I like it!

[robbonds]

was just in NY boutique..they said swimming fine on 50m rating..

[walds11]

Originally Posted by subtona

Depending what you read you get opposite answers.
Upon asking the AP boutique. They recommended not to go swimming with my 15202 (same WR 50m) rating at the time I had it. The salesperson even suggested I should be cautious around heavy steam as the crown is not screw down type.

What is the right answer? I don’t know.

But I do know that if a watch says 100meters I ain’t worried about it, and that’s the way I like it!

WR 50m with no screw down crown, I’d still go swimming with it.

Originally Posted by robbonds

was just in NY boutique..they said swimming fine on 50m rating..

[subtona]

Originally Posted by walds11

WR 50m with no screw down crown, I’d still go swimming with it.

You can do whatever you like with your watch.
I would not go swimming with it.

Originally Posted by robbonds

was just in NY boutique..they said swimming fine on 50m rating..

I personally received completely contradictory guidance from the ny boutique.


If we look at all the charts and recommendations available they seem to be split down the middle.

This of course is of absolutely no concern to any of us until we notice a crystal fog up along with a rusted movement and a service bill that includes the cost of a new movement and finally indicates clearly you should not have worn your watch while swimming.

[soundserious]

Your watch your call. But heck no.

[MzHammer]

Originally Posted by AshAP

I know Chris personally and I can assure you that he is only being helpful to you and others on the forum and whilst comments like this may seem funny when you think them up they can actually backfire and make you look foolish.

In Swiss watch terms 50m water resistance doesn’t mean what most people think, I suspect Chris is aware of this and simply offering friendly advice.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Continuing to broadcast misinformation doesn't make it true...
I was actually getting so tired of this that on my recent trip to the Caymans I decided to do a little test. I bought a Seiko SNK805 Seiko 5, which is rated to 30M of WR, and wore it on 6 out of my 8 dives.

Average depth was 70ft with a maximum depth of 115ft, surface to surface was usually around 45-55 minutes and the little Seiko ran perfectly, as did my Doxa. On the last day, just to bring the point home I had to wear my GMT which has 100M WR.

[tudorwatches]

50m is for washing hands..

100+ is for swimming..

[tudorwatches]

Originally Posted by MzHammer

Continuing to broadcast misinformation doesn't make it true...
I was actually getting so tired of this that on my recent trip to the Caymans I decided to do a little test. I bought a Seiko SNK805 Seiko 5, which is rated to 30M of WR, and wore it on 6 out of my 8 dives.

Average depth was 70ft with a maximum depth of 115ft, surface to surface was usually around 45-55 minutes and the little Seiko ran perfectly, as did my Doxa. On the last day, just to bring the point home I had to wear my GMT which has 100M WR.

Continuing to broadcast misinformation doesn't make it true...
And that is what he is doing.
The watch industry is wrong. He tested 3 watches in the sea.

[AshAP]

Originally Posted by tudorwatches

Continuing to broadcast misinformation doesn't make it true...

And that is what he is doing.

The watch industry is wrong. He tested 3 watches in the sea.

I’m having lunch with AP in London today, I’ll ask them directly as they would be the ones supply a new watch for free.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Limitless]

Originally Posted by robbonds

don't they actually test these watches much deeper than their rating? im 95% sure I heard that about Rolex..doubt much diff for AP

Rolex tests non-diver watches up to 10% above their WR rating, diver watches get tested up to 25% above their WR rating. Not sure about AP...

[ufboy73]

Originally Posted by AshAP

I’m having lunch with AP in London today, I’ll ask them directly as they would be the ones supply a new watch for free.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Very curious about their comments

[MzHammer]

Originally Posted by tudorwatches

Continuing to broadcast misinformation doesn't make it true...
And that is what he is doing.
The watch industry is wrong. He tested 3 watches in the sea.

Actually AP says its 50M watches are suitable for swimming so... they are correct. Look at people like Dr. Sylvia Earle, who is one of the most experienced divers around, and she often is pictured diving with a gold Rolex datejust because she knows that the 100M is more than enough for Open Water scuba diving. I'd trust the experts in the field, not the salespeople.

Originally Posted by robbonds

don't they actually test these watches much deeper than their rating? im 95% sure I heard that about Rolex..doubt much diff for AP

Assuming AP follows ISO 2281 standards for WR they don't have to test for pressure above their WR rating. The ISO 6425 divers' watches standard requires all dive watches to be subjected to a pressure test of 125% of the rated depth. Rolex tests all dive models to the ISO standards (although, I believe, they do it internally so they don't get ISO Cert.) but the Oysters and other WR models don't get the same 125% overpressure test. As another poster said I believe it's lower than that.

[AshAP]

Ok so I had lunch with AP today and I asked about the 50m and the answer surprised me. The answer was, yes the watch is suitable for swimming with. So I asked if that meant they would repair my watch free of charge if it got water in it and the answer was ‘yes, as long as it’s under warranty’. It transpired that if they discover any defect in the gasket or other poor maintenance reason for resulting water damage then it’s not covered.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[mnl]

Originally Posted by AshAP

Ok so I had lunch with AP today and I asked about the 50m and the answer surprised me. The answer was, yes the watch is suitable for swimming with. So I asked if that meant they would repair my watch free of charge if it got water in it and the answer was ‘yes, as long as it’s under warranty’. It transpired that if they discover any defect in the gasket or other poor maintenance reason for resulting water damage then it’s not covered.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Whoa that’s definitely surprising as I never thought water damage would be covered! Thanks for the info!!

Did they tell you what they recommend for how often you should have the watch tested for water resistance?

[AK797]

Originally Posted by AshAP

Ok so I had lunch with AP today and I asked about the 50m and the answer surprised me. The answer was, yes the watch is suitable for swimming with. So I asked if that meant they would repair my watch free of charge if it got water in it and the answer was ‘yes, as long as it’s under warranty’. It transpired that if they discover any defect in the gasket or other poor maintenance reason for resulting water damage then it’s not covered.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

That's good to hear. Anyway 100 still remains my magic number on any watch.

[AshAP]

Actually they said that when AP do the water resistance test it is with the crown unscrewed, I’ll try it with my plat 44mm and report back!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[AshAP]

Originally Posted by mnl

Whoa that’s definitely surprising as I never thought water damage would be covered! Thanks for the info!!

Did they tell you what they recommend for how often you should have the watch tested for water resistance?

The caveat was that for AP to cover water damage the watch and gasket has to be in perfect condition. Regarding the gasket that would require regular servicing. I think a servic extends the warranty by 2 years each time but would need to check.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[ufboy73]

Originally Posted by AshAP

Ok so I had lunch with AP today and I asked about the 50m and the answer surprised me. The answer was, yes the watch is suitable for swimming with. So I asked if that meant they would repair my watch free of charge if it got water in it and the answer was ‘yes, as long as it’s under warranty’. It transpired that if they discover any defect in the gasket or other poor maintenance reason for resulting water damage then it’s not covered.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Isnt that odd? Why would a gasket (which they presumably source and install) defect not result in a ‘covered’ repair?

Isnt that a manufacturing issue that is exactly what a warranty is supposed to cover?

[AshAP]

Originally Posted by ufboy73

Isnt that odd? Why would a gasket (which they presumably source and install) defect not result in a ‘covered’ repair?



Isnt that a manufacturing issue that is exactly what a warranty is supposed to cover?

The gasket is rubber and can perish therefore minimising it’s effectiveness under water.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[MzHammer]

Originally Posted by AshAP

So I asked if that meant they would repair my watch free of charge if it got water in it and the answer was ‘yes, as long as it’s under warranty’. It transpired that if they discover any defect in the gasket or other poor maintenance reason for resulting water damage then it’s not covered.

Originally Posted by ufboy73

Isnt that odd? Why would a gasket (which they presumably source and install) defect not result in a ‘covered’ repair?

Isnt that a manufacturing issue that is exactly what a warranty is supposed to cover?

Originally Posted by AshAP

The gasket is rubber and can perish therefore minimising it’s effectiveness under water.

I believe the line of thinking is that, if you had your AP services within the 2 year warranty window and the gasket had a defect, shouldn't that be on AP for not catching the defect and therefore still covered? Or, said another way, shouldn't the 2 year warranty cover everything short of someone else tampering/opening the watch?

[Rachdanon]

The point is 50m is borderline, and why risk such an expensive watch? Asking retail staff at AP doesn't count. Anecdotal evidence by those who have tried doesn't count as it could have been "lucky", besides minute amount of water ingress may not be immediately evident. Just base it on the official definitions/recommendations for a 50m rating and be wise that's about it.

[ufboy73]

Originally Posted by MzHammer

I believe the line of thinking is that, if you had your AP services within the 2 year warranty window and the gasket had a defect, shouldn't that be on AP for not catching the defect and therefore still covered? Or, said another way, shouldn't the 2 year warranty cover everything short of someone else tampering/opening the watch?

Exactly - the limitation of coverage shouldnt be on the gasket...if anything it should be on the date of last service, since they presumably confirmed the gasket integrity either when sold new or as part of a subsequent service.

Otherwise, we the owners need to be managing and maintaining our own gaskets??

Doesnt make any sense to me...but ive been told im slow lol

[Submarino]

Originally Posted by superdog

Anyone ever done it?

Does AP have a stance on how well their 50m rating holds up?

Lots of data one way or another on the inter webs.

Curious about real world experience.

Thanks.

I've gotten in the sea and the pool with every single AP I own with the exception of my vintage 5402. No problems with any of them.

[SC11]

Originally Posted by ufboy73

Exactly - the limitation of coverage shouldnt be on the gasket...if anything it should be on the date of last service, since they presumably confirmed the gasket integrity either when sold new or as part of a subsequent service.

Otherwise, we the owners need to be managing and maintaining our own gaskets??

Doesnt make any sense to me...but ive been told im slow lol

Most manufacturers recommend a yearly pressure test which I agree with as this should help monitor seal integrity.

Other then having a third party opening a watch and not refitting the seals/gaskets correctly on closure what other defects can there be?

Only one I can think of is exposure to a chemical which damages the material of the seal itself!

Maybe if you have some form of grit/contamination of the winding stem when winding and on screwing the crown back in this compromises the seal?!