or Connect
Styleforum › Forums › Men's Style › Classic Menswear › The Watch Appreciation Thread (Reviews and Photos of Men's Timepieces by Rolex, Patek Philippe, Breitling, JLC etc...)
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

The Watch Appreciation Thread (Reviews and Photos of Men's Timepieces by Rolex, Patek Philippe, Breitling, JLC etc...) - Page 2380  

post #35686 of 48312
Quote:
Originally Posted by mimo View Post

This is the best and friendliest thread on SF.  At least I think so.  But it will ruin your life.  There is that.

Just ruins the pocket. My life is richer for being in here and admiring the porn.
post #35687 of 48312

Yes, that was my point. I've held back on buying anything beyond a few straps and a Seiko so far, but I'm slipping...

post #35688 of 48312
Dumb question maybe, in my understanding 'water resistance' ratings are not to be taken literal, unless it is a real diving watch? 30m means you can wash your hands with it, shower or swimming not advised. 100m means shower and (light) swimming should be ok. Starting at 200m or 300m you only get into diving territory.
Bit baffled by the comments where people seem to take ratings quite face value.
post #35689 of 48312
Quote:
Originally Posted by DeSense View Post

Dumb question maybe, in my understanding 'water resistance' ratings are not to be taken literal, unless it is a real diving watch? 30m means you can wash your hands with it, shower or swimming not advised. 100m means shower and (light) swimming should be ok. Starting at 200m or 300m you only get into diving territory.
Bit baffled by the comments where people seem to take ratings quite face value.

Why wouldn't you take them at face value.

If people are confused it is not their fault it is the fault of the watch companies.

Perhaps I got out of bed the wrong side this morning.censored.gif
post #35690 of 48312
Why not? Common sense, for one. wink.gif

Ever went down to say 5 meters and felt your ear drums pop? How would a Calatrava or Lange "pop", I wonder.

But seriously, learned that a long time ago. I bet most watch dealers presume it's common domain know-how, which is why they never bother to tell anyone.
post #35691 of 48312
Quote:
Originally Posted by culverwood View Post

Why wouldn't you take them at face value.

If people are confused it is not their fault it is the fault of the watch companies.

Perhaps I got out of bed the wrong side this morning.censored.gif

I think you're right, it is misleading and purposely so. The fact that many people (in fact only many people who know a lot more than the average person about watches) know the real meaning of these terms does not change that it is a bad system to display water resistance.
I think in Germany it is in fact not allowed to display wr with meters rating, only atm.
post #35692 of 48312
Oh great, here we go again. Unfortunately, there is a lot of myth and misinformation about the water resistance thing.

This is not a complicated subject. If the watch will keep out water at X bar pressure, then it's OK to say so. If not, then it shouldn't be on the watch or in printed specifications.

It's regrettable that some of the manufacturers themselves are the source of so much of the BS that keeps coming up on watch forums, such as a 3 bar / 30 m rating only being splash-resistant or a 10 bar / 100 m rating being the minimum for swimming. A genuine 3 bar rating is plenty for anything short of technical diving (yes, this includes use in a shower, hot tub or sauna), and any company that claims otherwise is simply lying and should stop putting it on the watch. (One thing to note: you do need to test the pressure resistance every year or so, as the seals have a finite lifespan due to degradation and wear.)

There's truly no acceptable reason for pressure/depth ratings not to be taken at their face value. If they don't mean exactly what they say, then the manufacturer is misrepresenting their product, whether deliberately or because of ignorance. Cop-outs like "dynamic pressure" or "thermal expansion" only demonstrate their lack of knowledge of the subject.
post #35693 of 48312
Over the years I've spoken to hundreds of dealers and only a handful took the initiative to explain the rating system. Luckily, I learned early on that only dive watches should be submerged and that even they require regular maintenance to do so.
post #35694 of 48312
From a pure technical standpoint, any watch that doesn't come with a screw lock crown, ideally with some sort of gasket, cannot be depth proof beyond say 10 meters. A simple push/pull action crown safe to 30m?

I suppose Rolex for one mean what they say on the box but doubt that goes for everyone out there.
But even then one wouldn't want to try one's luck at diving 40m with a Daytona.
post #35695 of 48312
What a disservice these dealers did. You certainly don't need a diver's watch for use in water. At least they got the maintenance thing right, although you'd be surprised how long the interval can be. One of my GMTs went seventeen years on its unserviced original seals before it finally failed a pressure test.

Also, whether a crown screws down has nothing to do with its pressure resistance. Nor is there any luck involved with exposing a maintained and tested watch to its full rated depth.

I don't understand the paranoia and old wives' tales around watches and water. Just pressure test the thing and you're good to go for the next year if it passes. If you're that concerned about tested O-rings suddenly failing, then don't ever travel by air, because you wouldn't even want to think about how many of 'em the aircraft depends on, or the pressure and temperature range to which they're exposed.
post #35696 of 48312
It is 1atm at sea level which increases by +1atm for every 10 metres below. So at 30m you are at 4atm, that's double a normal car's tire pressure. At 5km height the pressure falls by just -0.5atm. They maintain roughly equal 3km pressure on a commercial plane. Very roughly 3-4m depth equals that, with the slight difference that entering/escaping air hasn't destroyed too many watches, sea water did.
post #35697 of 48312
Quote:
Originally Posted by culverwood View Post

Is it me or is this thread getting less and less open to non TWAT approved watches. About half an dozen watch brands and elicit fawning approval and most others grudging acceptance or outright hostility. These are profit making companies and there is as little sense in the fan mentality for companies as there is for football clubs or pop stars.

Hmmm, I don't think that is the case.  I think we all find it interesting to see less common watches here, and to hear ownership experiences concerning them.  I don't think there is out right hostility, although maybe some of us are rather blunt with our opinions.  I do think that the brands that many of the so called approved watches are approved for a number of reasons such as good reputation for quality, iconic design, good resale value (should a buyer tire of it and wish to sell/trade), and reasonable value for its cost.

 

I think we could all agree Patek and Rolex fit those common traits (although some could argue that basic Calatrava costs are hardly reasonable today).  I think AP, VC, Lange, JLC fit the above also, but with a bit lower resale value, but maybe better discounts from the start.  

 

Many of us like other brands but sometimes feel that for what a particular watch costs, there could be better choices that we would prefer.  Rolex may be approved and somewhat common here, because its often within the budget of many forum members, and has good quality, and good resale value.  However, even among popular watch brands, when we reach a certain price level we may think there are other choices that make more sense.  I love my steel Daytonas...but in platinum, I think many people here would pause and consider something a bit more unique, with more hand workmanship, be it from PP, AP, VC or Lange, or some other brand.  

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by aleksandr View Post


That happened to me once. Took my YM diving, water got in. Long story short, movement was damaged beyond repair, Rolex wanted $7,000 (or some other silly money) to fix it. I figured screw it, managed to find a used 3135 somewhere (eBay I think?) and paid a watch repair guy to replace it. Think it cost me less than $2,000 in all, except I can't ever take my YM back to Rolex ever. Expensive lesson, and then some.

Ouch!!!  Sorry to hear about that expensive lesson.  

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by DeSense View Post

Dumb question maybe, in my understanding 'water resistance' ratings are not to be taken literal, unless it is a real diving watch? 30m means you can wash your hands with it, shower or swimming not advised. 100m means shower and (light) swimming should be ok. Starting at 200m or 300m you only get into diving territory.
Bit baffled by the comments where people seem to take ratings quite face value.

I agree with Belligero regarding water resistance, however I have read and heard the same thing that you have stated.  I'm not sure if what you stated is simply a from a bunch of overly cautious watchmakers, dealers, or salesmen who don't want people to be a bit more cautious with their watches, rather than having them come in damaged and blaming the watch for not being up to the task and expecting free repairs.  I've seen a customer in a shop get pissed off when he was told that his dropping a watch from a counter top to a tile floor causing the sapphire crystal to crack, is not a repair covered by warranty.  The customer was of the believe that the sapphire crystal is essentially unbreakable and was adamant that because it cracked on impact it should be replaced under warranty.  

 

In general, the watches I've seen that are only water resistant to 30m, are often dress watches on croc straps that I would never wear to go swimming anyway.  In general, most watches that I'd go swimming with are sporty enough that they have WR ratings to 50 or 100m.  

post #35698 of 48312
Quote:
Originally Posted by aleksandr View Post

That happened to me once. Took my YM diving, water got in. Long story short, movement was damaged beyond repair, Rolex wanted $7,000 (or some other silly money) to fix it. I figured screw it, managed to find a used 3135 somewhere (eBay I think?) and paid a watch repair guy to replace it. Think it cost me less than $2,000 in all, except I can't ever take my YM back to Rolex ever. Expensive lesson, and then some.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dino944 View Post

Hmmm,
Ouch!!!  Sorry to hear about that expensive lesson.  
I really don't see a "lesson" here unless the OP forgot to screw down the crown in or he was 300ft+ under water??

Older watch? Not serviced?
post #35699 of 48312
Quote:
Originally Posted by DeSense View Post

It is 1atm at sea level which increases by +1atm for every 10 metres below. So at 30m you are at 4atm, that's double a normal car's tire pressure. At 5km height the pressure falls by just -0.5atm. They maintain roughly equal 3km pressure on a commercial plane. Very roughly 3-4m depth equals that, with the slight difference that entering/escaping air hasn't destroyed too many watches, sea water did.

That's true, but I'm talking about the conditions that exist in things like fuel, cooling, hydraulic and fire suppressant systems. Also, ratings are stated in gauge pressure rather than absolute pressure, so the 1 atm at surface doesn't count.
post #35700 of 48312
bvbti.jpg
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Classic Menswear
This thread is locked  
Styleforum › Forums › Men's Style › Classic Menswear › The Watch Appreciation Thread (Reviews and Photos of Men's Timepieces by Rolex, Patek Philippe, Breitling, JLC etc...)