Vintage submariners and water proofing

[jmsjabb]

I have a 1974 Tudor sub 7016 and have been asking about having it pressure tested. As a submariner, I would like to swim in it. OK, I know it is 42 years old, but it was designed to be dived with.
Now, Rolex AD says no can do.
Local says can do but after, he wouldn't swim with it. ( What's the point then? )
So, guys, opinions please?
What age to professional watches become redundant?
Any watchmaker in the UK, ideally Cotswolds / Oxfordshire who could check it?

[Black Bay Dan]

I would check with RSC before you believe your local AD. I swim with all my watches and some are slightly older than 1974. Good luck.

Dan

[jmsjabb]

Originally Posted by Air King Dan

I would check with RSC before you believe your local AD. I swim with all my watches and some are slightly older than 1974. Good luck.

Dan

RSC? I took it to the Rolex dealer in my local town to verify it, and asked them to test it. When it came back, it wasn't tested and they said they wouldn't.

Hence my desire to find a local sensible watchmaker

[joli160]

Just do a pressure check before going in the water. If it passes the test, you're good to go.
If you can't even swim with a diver The age does not matter, integrity of seals and crystal do.

[speedolex]

Originally Posted by jmsjabb

I have a 1974 Tudor sub 7016 and have been asking about having it pressure tested. As a submariner, I would like to swim in it. OK, I know it is 42 years old, but it was designed to be dived with.
Now, Rolex AD says no can do.
Local says can do but after, he wouldn't swim with it. ( What's the point then? )
So, guys, opinions please?
What age to professional watches become redundant?
Any watchmaker in the UK, ideally Cotswolds / Oxfordshire who could check it?

Opinion:

There comes a time where every tool in our lives crosses the line where it's primary purpose transitions from 'functional' to 'nostalgic' due to age, scarcity of parts, risk of destruction, etc. My late father left me a set of tools that he got from his father, they must date to 1910, and while I still could use the hammer as a 'hammer' if I truly needed to I simply won't because if it broke it would be irreplaceable and cause me more emotional harm than the physical good it's ability to bang in a nail could bring.

Look at your 42 year old watch as a great timepiece, let go of its other function as a water-tight diving tool.

[Black Bay Dan]

Originally Posted by jmsjabb

RSC? I took it to the Rolex dealer in my local town to verify it, and asked them to test it. When it came back, it wasn't tested and they said they wouldn't.

Hence my desire to find a local sensible watchmaker

RSC = Rolex Service Centre. There are two in England, the HQ in London and another in Kent. A lot of AD's in UK don't know what they are talking about when it comes to older Rolex watches (or new Rolex watches come to that). Call 020 7024 7300 to speak with Rolex in St. James's Square.

Dan

[Qinhan]

Originally Posted by speedolex

Opinion:

There comes a time where every tool in our lives crosses the line where it's primary purpose transitions from 'functional' to 'nostalgic' due to age, scarcity of parts, risk of destruction, etc. My late father left me a set of tools that he got from his father, they must date to 1910, and while I still could use the hammer as a 'hammer' if I truly needed to I simply won't because if it broke it would be irreplaceable and cause me more emotional harm than the physical good it's ability to bang in a nail could bring.

Look at your 42 year old watch as a great timepiece, let go of its other function as a water-tight diving tool.

This is really well put. For me, the chance of water damage to an irreplaceable watch is not worth the risk. If you need something for swimming, find something more modern. For me, it's a cheap Casio G-Shock.

[agsstructures]

Originally Posted by speedolex

Opinion:

There comes a time where every tool in our lives crosses the line where it's primary purpose transitions from 'functional' to 'nostalgic' due to age, scarcity of parts, risk of destruction, etc. My late father left me a set of tools that he got from his father, they must date to 1910, and while I still could use the hammer as a 'hammer' if I truly needed to I simply won't because if it broke it would be irreplaceable and cause me more emotional harm than the physical good it's ability to bang in a nail could bring.

Look at your 42 year old watch as a great timepiece, let go of its other function as a water-tight diving tool.

Exactly

[Black Bay Dan]

Originally Posted by Qinhan

This is really well put. For me, the chance of water damage to an irreplaceable watch is not worth the risk. If you need something for swimming, find something more modern. For me, it's a cheap Casio G-Shock.

Don't agree. As long as the watch is serviced properly and pressure tested then it should be used for what it was designed for. It's a bit like having a 1965 Ferrari and never taking it out of the garage in case it rains. Pointless.

Dan

[jban5]

I have a 5513 and a 1680 that are going on 50 and 40. The seals and crystals are not, they are as new as the last servicing, all the seals. A competent watchmaker is going to inspect your watch carefully especially if you confer with them about these issues and when your watch is reassembled with new seals and crystal it is going to be pressure tested according to Rolex specs. If any of these things aren't true you are using the wrong watchmaker.

When it comes time that 100% correct parts are not available to keep your watch swimpruf then it is time to ban your Submariner from the water.

Now, GMT Master. Should we fly with a 48 year old one or leave it on the ground?

^^^^^j/k^^^^^

[njs22]

I sent my Tudor Snowflake off to RSC through my local AD and they returned it saying they couldn't service it due to the fact that they don't keep Tudor spares for more than 30 year 😩

I got a nice green Rolex watch pouch free of charge though. Now I need to send it to someone who knows what they are doing.

My daily ware is a double red Sea Dweller it was serviced in January and is fully waterproof. ( they keep spares for Rolex 😫)

[speedolex]

Originally Posted by Air King Dan

Don't agree. As long as the watch is serviced properly and pressure tested then it should be used for what it was designed for. It's a bit like having a 1965 Ferrari and never taking it out of the garage in case it rains. Pointless.

Dan

Bad analogy. It's like having a 1965 Ferrari and entering it in the Daytona 500 simply because a long, long time ago it might have been capable of that.

One should surely drive one's 1965 Ferrari around town, on pleasure drives, in the rain as that was always its primary purpose. And, more importantly, it's what it's best suited for now.

[jban5]

Well then, a swim in what would be likely less than 5 feet would be nothing more than a pleasure drive for a submariner (maybe even insulting to it.) If someone from a commercial dive company were asking the question if they were safe using their 5513 if they were only averaging 100m dives then I could see that being compared to the Daytona.

[brandrea]

Analogies aside, it's a personal choice. Yes you could have the watch pressure tested and you could swim or dive with it.

The problem in doing so is what happens IF you do damage to the dial. It's pretty much irreplaceable and in IMO not worth the risk.

For me Vintage are for wearing but not diving or swimming.

[El Cascarrabias]

Originally Posted by speedolex

Opinion:

There comes a time where every tool in our lives crosses the line where it's primary purpose transitions from 'functional' to 'nostalgic' due to age, scarcity of parts, risk of destruction, etc. My late father left me a set of tools that he got from his father, they must date to 1910, and while I still could use the hammer as a 'hammer' if I truly needed to I simply won't because if it broke it would be irreplaceable and cause me more emotional harm than the physical good it's ability to bang in a nail could bring.

Look at your 42 year old watch as a great timepiece, let go of its other function as a water-tight diving tool.

Oh, please . . .

This analogy would be appropriate only if someone had an emotional attachment to the seals that need to replaced to maintain water resistance. If the hammer breaks, replace the handle!

Originally Posted by Air King Dan

Don't agree. As long as the watch is serviced properly and pressure tested then it should be used for what it was designed for.

This!

I would think as long as the parts are available to maintain water resistance one should be able continue using their Rolex dive watch.

[Black Bay Dan]

Originally Posted by speedolex

Bad analogy. It's like having a 1965 Ferrari and entering it in the Daytona 500 simply because a long, long time ago it might have been capable of that.

One should surely drive one's 1965 Ferrari around town, on pleasure drives, in the rain as that was always its primary purpose. And, more importantly, it's what it's best suited for now.

Talking of bad analogies why would you enter a 1965 Ferrari in the Daytona 500? (as last time I looked that was a NASCAR Race). We are talking about a 1974 Tudor Submariner here not the Crown Jewels!

Dan

[Black Bay Dan]

Originally Posted by jban5

Well then, a swim in what would be likely less than 5 feet would be nothing more than a pleasure drive for a submariner (maybe even insulting to it.) If someone from a commercial dive company were asking the question if they were safe using their 5513 if they were only averaging 100m dives then I could see that being compared to the Daytona.

This was what I meant to say

Dan

[Black Bay Dan]

Originally Posted by njs22

I sent my Tudor Snowflake off to RSC through my local AD and they returned it saying they couldn't service it due to the fact that they don't keep Tudor spares for more than 30 year 😩

I got a nice green Rolex watch pouch free of charge though. Now I need to send it to someone who knows what they are doing.

My daily ware is a double red Sea Dweller it was serviced in January and is fully waterproof. ( they keep spares for Rolex 😫)

I still think it would be worth a call to Rolex HQ. I am not disputing the fact that if they are out of spares then it is impossible for them to service and pressure test the watch, but they serviced (re-built) my wife's 1982 Tudor Princess Date recently so you never know, you might be lucky.

Dan

[Black Bay Dan]

Originally Posted by jmsjabb

I have a 1974 Tudor sub 7016 and have been asking about having it pressure tested. As a submariner, I would like to swim in it. OK, I know it is 42 years old, but it was designed to be dived with.
Now, Rolex AD says no can do.
Local says can do but after, he wouldn't swim with it. ( What's the point then? )
So, guys, opinions please?
What age to professional watches become redundant?
Any watchmaker in the UK, ideally Cotswolds / Oxfordshire who could check it?

And in answer to your original question here are the details of some independents which I was given recently. Good luck and let us know how you get on.

Dan

http://www.rytetimewatchrepairs.co.uk/
http://www.robertreeves.co.uk/
http://www.watchworks.co.uk/about-us.html
http://www.sonningvintagewatches.com...FdUy0wod75IGFQ
http://www.robinmartin.co.uk

[speedolex]

Originally Posted by Air King Dan

Talking of bad analogies why would you enter a 1965 Ferrari in the Daytona 500? (as last time I looked that was a NASCAR Race). We are talking about a 1974 Tudor Submariner here not the Crown Jewels!

Dan

LOL. I should have said the 24 Hours of Daytona, Ferrari competed in that race. That said, I am proud of my ignorance of all things NASCAR, not a fan.

The OP's watch is an antique and should be treated as such. Good for daily wear as jewelry, good as a dependable timekeeper, not good for building a shed, not good for water sports. No analogies needed.

[Tools]

Originally Posted by jmsjabb

I have a 1974 Tudor sub 7016 and have been asking about having it pressure tested. As a submariner, I would like to swim in it. OK, I know it is 42 years old, but it was designed to be dived with.
Now, Rolex AD says no can do.
Local says can do but after, he wouldn't swim with it. ( What's the point then? )
So, guys, opinions please?
What age to professional watches become redundant?
Any watchmaker in the UK, ideally Cotswolds / Oxfordshire who could check it?

If the sealing surfaces are still sound and solid, there is no reason why your watch cannot be properly sealed the way it came from the factory.

An AD isn't always the best option unless they have a proper watchmaker on staff.

If the sealing surfaces have become pitted and corroded, which is common with older watches, then the rubber seals cannot fill in those voids and it becomes necessary to either resurface the metal, if possible, or compromise with a less than original depth/water rating.

You need a professional evaluation of why it may be degraded, not just a "no can do", or an "I wouldn't swim with it" comment, those mean nothing.

[Black Bay Dan]

I am sorry but how is a 1974 Tudor Submariner an antique exactly? It just needs a service by someone who knows what they are doing.

Dan

[speedolex]

Originally Posted by Air King Dan

I am sorry but how is a 1974 Tudor Submariner an antique exactly? It just needs a service by someone who knows what they are doing.

an·tique anˈtēk/
noun: antique; plural noun: antiques

a collectible object such as a piece of furniture or work of art that has a high value because of its considerable age.

synonyms: collector's item, period piece, antiquity, heirloom

I believe the definition fits the description, put yourself back in 1974 and ask yourself if something from 1932 would have been considered an antique back then. Any-old watch from 1974 isn't worth a fraction of what the original buyer paid for it, but one that is special and considered collectible falls into a different category.

You can I both own treasured 1960's 1016's. Do you swim with yours? Climb mountains with yours? I don't. Just because we theoretically can do something doesn't mean that we should. If the OP wants to take risks, let him have at it, but in my opinion it's not worth it, there's nothing to gain.

[jmsjabb]

Thanks for the encouragement Dan.
It is a very clean watch, so I don't think there will be a lot wrong with it.
I will ring Rolex and speak to the links.
Cheers

[Clay]

More then anything else, it's about "comfort level"...

I had a friend who thought nothing of taking his 150k Mil sub to the beach and going for a swim with it on...

I had another friend who had an M series 16600 and was afraid to get it wet for fear he might ruin something on it...

You can't say either of these two people is right or wrong...

A personal possession is just that...Personal...

And how one chooses to use it is up to him or her...

No right, no wrong...Just personal preference...

[Black Bay Dan]

So anything that is now 40 years old is an antique. Better not tell my wife. Love pedantic's!

[Black Bay Dan]

Originally Posted by jmsjabb

Thanks for the encouragement Dan.
It is a very clean watch, so I don't think there will be a lot wrong with it.
I will ring Rolex and speak to the links.
Cheers

No worries and good luck with your "antique" watch.

Dan

[jban5]

I don't want to play with semantics too much but as far as that definition goes it doesn't apply to these watches.

Vintage Rolex's are valuable due to the fact that they were made to a high standard not because they have gotten old. Made to a high standard and always had a demand.

I wouldn't categorize a 1940-50-60's Rolex an antique, the models that are not currently made are vintage and the ones that are are "used."

I've never given this any thought before but it's likely that the survival rate of Rolex and a few others is likely much higher than the more common makers. An Elgin, Croton, and others that fell to disrepair would much more likely be relegated to the trash than a Rolex in the same condition.

[Rebel]

I have a Tudor Submariner 75090. I could swim in it. I don't. Not work the taking the risk.....to me.

I have a Casio that I will allow the risk.

Again and seriously, it's just not worth the risk.....to me.

[speedolex]

Originally Posted by jban5

I don't want to play with semantics too much but as far as that definition goes it doesn't apply to these watches.

Vintage Rolex's are valuable due to the fact that they were made to a high standard not because they have gotten old.

I wouldn't categorize a 1940-50-60's Rolex an antique, the models that are not currently made are vintage and the ones that are are "used."

You don't want to play with semantics but that's exactly what you're doing.

It goes without saying that a Rolex was made to a high standard and there's value to that, we don't need to go down that road. And if you don't like the word "antique", we can use "vintage" if you like.

But to say that the value in a vintage Rolex has to do with quality standards and not their age is way off the charts. Modern and vintage Rolexes tell the time very well. Modern and vintage Rolexes can perform their secondary functions very well (submersions, time zones, lap timing, etc.). There isn't much difference functionally between an antique model and a new one. Where they differ is in the styling, and the styling has everything to do with how old they are. Simpler designs. Smaller cases. Lighter bracelets. Matte dials. Patina'd lume. Those are all the stylistic hallmarks of an old Rolex.

Just look at the threads in this subforum. People showing off their 45 year old pink GMT bezels for their uniqueness and age. People paying huge multiples for yellowing lume dots. The world screeching to a halt over red printed Submariners and art deco Newman Daytona's. As stated in my first post, there comes a time where every tool in our lives crosses the line where it's primary purpose transitions from 'functional' to 'nostalgic' due to age, scarcity of parts, risk of destruction, etc. If the OP wants to roll the dice with his vintage Tudor just to prove a point, that's cool, it's his watch. Most of us are content with our watches keeping excellent time and looking great, that's their primary 'function' after 40 years.