# Splash Proof Or Water Resistant?



## Running_man

When watches are designated splash proof, what level of water exposure can they stand? I wouldn't ever be daft enough to swim with one on but what about accidental submergence or prolonged exposure such as torrential rain?

In the Seiko manuals, they say that splash proof only goes as far as light splashes, i.e. car washing but a military watch such as the O&W MP or a CWC, both of which are (to my knowledge) designated splash proof and were designed to meet military standards surely must be able to stand more exposure? I even recall the first ever Swatch watches in the 80's had adverts showing people swimming with them on.

My interpretation of splash proof is a watch that one wouldn't intentionally get wet but occasional saturation without heavy pressure wouldn't do tham any harm.

I'd be interested to hear other opinions....

Thanks in advance,

Andrew.


----------



## pugster

imo watch depth ratings are highly misleading ,this is a rough guide i show 'inexperienced' ppl who want a dive watch.

50 feet [15m] Get wet at your own risk.

100 feet [30m] Watch should withstand a brief hand washing experience.

150 feet [45m] Watch should withstand swimming near the surface.

330 feet [100m] Watch built to withstand underwater depths of up to 100 feet and swift arm movement.

660 feet [200m] Watch built for extreme undewater conditions such as scuba diving.


----------



## JonW

Ive also seen Seikos table for depth etc and it makes some sense even if the reality of whats printed on the dial vs the depth it could acheive seems spurious. Its more to do with ingress based on an air pressure test rather than water...

Also when you get more serious in the diving watch stakes with 500, 600, 750, 1000 and above there comes a question as to wether these are real or not.... sure a man cant dive to 1000m with the watch on his wrist but many deep sea expiditions have strapped these watches to the side of the sub and dived with them and theyve worked ok... useful tho? maybe not....

You do also wonder if some manufacturers are telling the truth that you could seriously dive to 50m with their watch and yet some others are just taking the 50m rating to mean you can look at the time when its raining... AFAIK no one has tested the depth claim in a court as yet...


----------



## Running_man

Thanks for the reply Jon. The reason I ask is that I was advising a friend of mine on a new watch and as he's an outdoors type of person, (camping, fishing, survival etc) rather than a dress watch, I pointed him in the direction of an O&W MP auto or manual. He wouldn't go swimming in a watch either but getting it saturated occasionally is an inevitibility.

Andrew.


----------



## JonW

Hi Andrew, no problem mate. The O&W would be fine, also for budget the seikos are excellent value for money... as are things like Casio Digitals


----------



## Bareges

Hi Running_man here's some more info on the topic:

Water resistance Glossary

Water resistant 30 meters (99 feet / 3 ATM / 3 BAR) Resists accidental splashes of water but should not be worn while swimming or diving.

Water resistant 50 meters (165 feet / 5 ATM / 5 BAR) Can be used while showering or swimming in shallow water.

Water resistant 100 meters (330 feet / 10 ATM / 10 BAR) Suitable for swimming and snorkeling. Buttons should not be pressed underwater.

Water resistant 150 meters (500 feet / 15 ATM / 15 BAR) Suitable for snorkeling. Buttons should not be used underwater.

Water resistant 200 meters (660 feet / 20 ATM / 20 BAR) Suitable for diving. Buttons can be used underwater in selected models.

Diver's 150 meters (500 feet / 15 ATM / 15 BAR) Buttons can be used underwater. Compliant with ISO (International Organization for Standardization) standards for scuba diving.

Diver's 200 meters (660 feet / 20 ATM / 20 BAR) Buttons can be used underwater. Compliant with ISO (International Organization for Standardization) standards for scuba diving.

Hope it is of some use


----------



## marius

....and here is what Bulova had to say in a 1978 owner's guide:

"Water resistant: This means it has been tested to Government prescribed standards, and equals or exceeds them. These standards require that a watch withstand the admission of water or moisture if completely immersed in water for at least 5 minutes under atmospheric pressure of 15 pounds per square inch, and for at least another 5 minutes under an additional pressure of at least 35 pounds per square inch."

What it means to me, is that I don't swim wearing that 28 year old Bulova, but I do swim wearing any of my Seiko5's, and none of them have ever been bothered by diving as deep as the bottom of a swimming pool.


----------



## Isthmus

Sorry guys but the table posted by Bareges (except for the ISO references) and Pugster is just way off base. What marius claims is more accurate. ISO standards does not require that a watch have the word "Diver's" written on it, anywhere. If you don't believe me feel free to have a read here (ISO charges for a copy of the standards, but Saudi Arabia adopted the 1996 ISO 6425 standard for divers' watches verbatim):

http://www.saso.org.sa/sasod/ProjectFiles/E2891.PDF

----------------------------------------------

The following is a composite answer based on my own info and those of others:

For the overwhelming majority of people (with the possible exception of hard hat divers), anything above 150 feet (such as 300m, 600m or 1,000M designations) will only be necessary if you're tying your watch to the OUTSIDE of a deep diving submersible. FYI the world depth record for scuba diving on compressed air is only a little over 300 meters. If you know of any scuba diver who regularly dives on air to 200m who is not confined to a mental institute, I would love to shake his hand (assuming he can still move it). 150m rating is far more than adequate for a dive watch, for the far majority of divers, both professional and recreational.

This whole talk about dynamic pressure because of movement is nonsense. The amount of pressure that you could except on a watch face when moving through water is very small. You might add a few extra psi, but not much more than that. You should be more concerned about dynamic pressure exerted from banging your watch into something. Tha said here are a coule of quotes from a SCWF member called spearfish that shed light on dynamic presure:



spearfish said:


> Here is something I read on: http://www.chronocentric.com/watches/wresist.shtml
> 
> ----
> 
> What does "Water Resistant" really mean?
> 
> Here's the real scoop: Water resistance of watches is rated based on a laboratory pressure tests comparable to a swimmer or diver sitting still at that pressure level. But many water-based activities involve a lot of movement and other environmental changes. These exceptions to how the watch was rated may challenge or defeat the water protection features of a water resistant watch.
> 
> In particular, the water resistance rating of a watch does not take in to account:
> 
> * Sudden, rapid, and repeated water pressure changes experienced by the wrist of a surface swimmer. The force of plunging your arm into the water while swimming can for a fraction of a second greatly exceed the static pressures the watch was rated for.
> 
> * High water temperatures experienced in a hot tub. Normal diving and water activities are done in temperate to very cold waters--not water exceeding body temperature. Such high temperatures can damage the water protection seals of a watch.
> 
> * Sudden changes of temperature experienced going from a hot tub to a cold swimming pool. In diving and swimming, temperature changes are usually fairly gradual. A sudden transition from the 100Âº F of a hot tub to the 70Âº F of a cold pool causes a contraction of the rubber seals in a watch--which may allow water to leak in.
> 
> * The ability of the watch to STAY water resistant as it ages. The seals that prevent water from entering the watch will weaken and fail with age. For use in water, water resistant watches should be pressure checked every year. The seals should be replaced at least every two or three years.
> 
> Even taking a shower or bath with your watch on can be bad for it. Besides the hot water issues already mentioned, many people do not realize that bath soap is a fine level abrasive. Soap can build up in the small, precision joints of the watch bracelet links. Over time this can wear down the link joints, ruining the bracelet. This is a greater issue with softer metals, such as gold. But steel can also be worn down this way too.
> 
> -----------------------------------
> 
> similar information, from:
> 
> http://www.europastar.com/europastar/watch...sp#anchor653701
> 
> "My watch is labeled "water-resistant to 50 meters" but the manufacturer's instructions say I can only wear it swimming, not snorkeling or diving. Why is that?
> 
> The different levels of water resistance as expressed in meters are only theoretical. They refer to the depth at which a watch will keep out water if both watch and the water are perfectly motionless, says Scott Chou, technical director at Seiko Corp. of America. These conditions, of course, are never met in the real swimmer's or diver's world. in real life, the movement of the wearer's arm through the water increases the pressure on the watch dramatically; so it can't be worn to the depths indicated by lab testing machines."


Screw-down crowns on most watches do NOTHING to enhance a watch's crown seal properties (there are a few designs in which the stem seal swells a bit when the crown is pushed in). All the screw down crown does is prevent you from accidentally turning the crown while under water. This is crucial because if you accidentally adjust your time (as unlikely as that sounds) you will screw the time calculations you have timed your bezel to. When a watch is pressure tested it is done with the crown unscrewed.

Helium release valves are also bollocks. They only come into play in SATURATION diving. In other words, if you are planning on being underwater in a helium rich environment, such as a diving bell, for a very extended period of time, then and only then will your watch begin to accumulate helium inside the case. The HRV only comes into play during your ascent. Otherwise, HRV's serve no purpose on a dive watch.

Also watch ratings are not absolute amounts. In a professional dive watch, the depth rating is only a fraction of the watch's true depth performance. Don't quote me on it, but IIRC, the depth rating is usually about 2/3 of what the watch can actually do, before it begins to experience seal failure. IOW's if your watch says 200m rated, it should actually withstand closer to 300m worth of pressure before failing.

As for depth ratings here is a well thought out response posted by a commercial diver in and certified dive master:



Mike said:


> The recognized maximum sport diving depth is 132 feet, lets say 130 feet for simplicity sake as it's easy to remember. The U.S Navy is more conservative at 100 feet for sport divers. But let's think this through and try to get some perspective. How long do you think your air supply will last from a standard 80 cubic foot aluminum tank at 130 feet, the short answer is not very long, it'll be in the few minutes maybe few breathes range if you're going for no decompression. You will be cold as you will be below a thermal layer, it will be darker, and there will be less wildlife, you will also be experiencing nitrogen narcosis. All in all, it'll be short, you won't see much, you'll risk getting bent, and it'll be awhile before you can make a repetitive dive. So, unless you have a purpose or are trying to be macho I suppose you can do what you want. Me? I'm staying shallow as a sport diver unless someone is paying me to go deep then it won't be on scuba gear. It'll be surface supplied with communications and a decompression chamber waiting for me topside and my tender will time my ascent. Oh, and I won't be wearing a watch then so it won't matter.
> 
> Most sport divers would do well at depths much shallower than 100 feet. In fact, you'd probably have a great dive at 40-60 feet. Lot's of wildlife, easy on your air, make a repetive dives sooner than later, no nitrogen narcosis, above the thermal layer so it's a little warmer .... all good stuff.
> 
> I guess what I'm trying to get at in a very round about way is ....... your watch can go deeper than you can. If they were only ever rated at 50 meters and had screw down stems most sport divers would be fine.
> 
> Enjoy your watches because you like them and don't caught up in "my watch can go deeper than your watch". Buy based on what you want or need and enjoy.
> 
> My opinion for what it's worth.
> 
> Mike


Lastly here is a quote on depth ratings and scuba from the Open Water Sport Diver Manual:



> Beyond 100 feet, nitrogen narcosis can affect your ability to think and make judgments; at 150 feet, you may become somewhat dizzy. Between 200 and 250 feet, you may be unable to communicate or perform simple motor or mental tasks, and below 250 feet, the average diver is more or less useless and becomes a safety menace to himself and others.


So to recap:

- ratings whether in bars, water resist, or otherwise, when listed in a watch produced by a major manufacturer, are designed to have the seals keep out water to a minimum of the stated static presure.

- What keeps water out of your watch are the rubber seals around case-entry points, not anything else. Seals can and do deteriorate over time and should be replaced whenever a watch is serviced. Things such as excessive heat/cold, solvents or detergents can speed the deterioration of rubber seals.

- A proffesional dive watch must be rated to ISO standards, which include dynamic performance as well as static. ISO standards used to be 150m (what do you think all those vintage seiko dive watches were for) but were revised upward in the mid 90's to 200m.

- Humans can only dive on compressed air (scuba), with reasonable safety to about 130 feet (not meters). Much beyond, whle possible, and you face decompression and risk injury or serious complications.

Take care of your watches sure, but for the most part, most modern watches will be able to withstand splashes and the occasional immersion without any ill effect, provided everything is in working order.


----------



## pugster

so basically (without doing a massive copy/paste of your answer )the answer is exactly what i said without being techincal -,we can talk pounds,psi or klingon inches,to be honest im starting to wonder if ive been blocked by most ppl in this forum and ppl cant see my answers as most replys i give seem to be echoed by other ppl.


----------



## jasonm

Who said that?

Did you see anything?

What?

























Dont worry Pugster, I understood you


----------



## Isthmus

No Pugster I was specifically disagreeing with your answer.

If a watch has a depth or presure rating on it, and it is produced by a major manufacturer, you should be able to abide by the stated measure. If you want to know how that measure translates to real world applications read my post above.

As for the "ratings" you posted:



pugster said:


> imo watch depth ratings are highly misleading ,this is a rough guide i show 'inexperienced' ppl who want a dive watch.
> 
> 50 feet [15m] Get wet at your own risk.
> 
> 100 feet [30m] Watch should withstand a brief hand washing experience.
> 
> 150 feet [45m] Watch should withstand swimming near the surface.
> 
> 330 feet [100m] Watch built to withstand underwater depths of up to 100 feet and swift arm movement.
> 
> 660 feet [200m] Watch built for extreme undewater conditions such as scuba diving.


They are simply inaccurate. A watch from a respected manufacturer that is rated between 50 and 150 feet should be able to withstand that much static presure fully immersed, and have some room to spare above it's state rating. A watch rater for more than 150 feet, thta is produced by a major manufacturer, showd be able to withstandthe static presure of most environments where a human can dive. That does not make it a dive watch though. For that you need to meet ISO performance standards. That said, saying that the specified ratings mean that the watch can "Get wet at your own risk"; "withstand a brief hand washing experience"; or "swimming near the surface" is just plain wrong. Also saying that a watch can "withstand underwater depths of up to 100 feet and swift arm movement" if false, since thsoe arm movements exert very little additional dynamic presure on the watch. the dynamic presure you should be concerned with is that caused by sudden presure changes and striking forces, such as those caused by jumping into a body of water or the splashing motions caused by surface swiming. My point being that ratings, especially on dive watches are misleading, because they give the watch performance far in excess of what anyone will ever expose it to - including those who will use it for diving. Your explanation (and that of Bareges) far understates the capabilities of watches rated to the specific ratings you mentioned.


----------



## jasonm

I think Im with Pugster on this , I allways understood the wr ratings diddnt really mean what they say at all,

So your saying a 50m rated watch will / should be fine to that depth?


----------



## pg tips

I remember quite clearly my water resistant timex wasn't, at age 9 that's a big let down when you find something that doesn't do what it says it will.

TBH I wouldn't go anywhere near water in a watch that hasn't got a 200M rating on it and then I'd want to know if it's seals are fairly new.

I take off my watches that aren't 200M rated even when running a bath just in case they get splashed.

I certainly wouldn't trust anything less than 200M if



> getting it saturated occasionally is an inevitibility.


Isthmus I'm sure your far more knowledgeable than me on the subject, these are my own personal feelings.

I don't agree with your interpretation on the screw down crown though. I thought the whole idea of the screw down crown was to give you double the protection, a seal that is around the stem between the stem and stem tube and another in the end of the crown that seated on the top of the stem tube when the crown is screwed in..


----------



## pugster

sorry to disagree ,i dont think a 50m rated watch will able able to 'dive' to 50m, search for dive ratings for watches and you will see this,if you want buy a 50m watch and go scuba diving in it,afaik not many 'holiday' scuba divers go beyond this,let them buy 50m watches and see if the thing works after.


----------



## pg tips

jasonm said:


> I think Im with Pugster on this , I allways understood the wr ratings diddnt really mean what they say at all,
> 
> So your saying a 50m rated watch will / should be fine to that depth?


No Jase he's saying it should be fine to _ at least _ that depth and maybe even deeper. I'm sure some may indeed be that good but I bet many won't. I certainly wouldn't trust them.


----------



## Isthmus

jasonm said:


> So your saying a 50m rated watch will / should be fine to that depth?


If the watch is from a major manufacturer (notice I didn't say brand) then the answer is yes. If the rating is inpresure measurements then the watch should be able to be immersed to a depth producing the corresponding static presure. Even when the watch is at that presure, most major manufacturers will build the watch to be able to withstand higher depths/presures than those it was rated for. I don't know that I would test this on a watch I really liked that wasn't specificaly intended to be submerged, but you should have no problem, walking in the rain, washing your hands, showering with it (in luke warm water) or taking the occasional swim in the pool or shore.



pugster said:


> sorry to disagree ,i dont think a 50m rated watch will able able to 'dive' to 50m, search for dive ratings for watches and you will see this,if you want buy a 50m watch and go scuba diving in it,afaik not many 'holiday' scuba divers go beyond this,let them buy 50m watches and see if the thing works after.


pugster read my post. I specifically said that a watch intended to be used for scuba should meet ISO standards. I also said that those standards far exceed anything the overwhelming majority of divers will ever expose them to WHILE DIVING. If you look at profesional divers from the 60's you will find a fair share that were rated to 100m and 150m, and yes they were equally as capable as a modern 200m rated watch for practically any use a scuba diver could give to it (and come out alive). A hard hat diver, that's a different story.


----------



## pugster

mmm, my ocean master is supposed to be 5atm ,do you think i would let it sit in a bowl of water? or maybe O+W arent a major manufacturer ?



> intended to be used for scuba
> 
> 
> Code:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> i agree for any watch that is/has been recogised for scuba, what i have said all along as that watches are misleading ,every watch does not say 'scuba' rated ,they just say 50m,100m etc etc


----------



## JoT

This is all very confusing









Could domebody explain then why Seiko advise thus:

http://www.seikowatches.com/support/faq/resistance.asp


----------



## pg tips

According to a Casio instruction book I have it says

50M light spray, persperation, light rain, bathing etc OK#

swimming etc OK

skin diving (diving without oxygen cylinder) NO

Scuba diving (diving with oxygen cylinder) NO

Can be worn swimming but not whilst diving!

Now I assume from that as your arm when swimming on the surface will only go about 1m deep then a Casio 50 metre watch is actually not expected to be worn more than 1 metre deep by the manufacture!

In fact it says 100M skin diving OK, scuba diving NO so even a 100M rated watch isn't waranted to be used below what a normal person can dive to whilst holding their breath!


----------



## Isthmus

pg tips said:


> I don't agree with your interpretation on the screw down crown though. I thought the whole idea of the screw down crown was to give you double the protection, a seal that is around the stem between the stem and stem tube and another in the end of the crown that seated on the top of the stem tube when the crown is screwed in..


Perhaps I was unclear. yes you are correct about the additional crown seal adding some extra protection when the crown is screwed, but that is not the primary purpose of the screw down crown. If you look at some older proffesional divers you will find several that either had no screw down crown and a few that had flip-lock crowns. the primary seal, and the one that is used to test depth rating is the one in the crown tube, and those ratings are supposed to be taken with the crown unscrewed.


----------



## pugster

so basically watch ratings dont mean what it says on the tin (so to speak) i concluded this on the previous page and most ppl agree with me ,anyone who doesnt, save money and buy 50m watches (instead of 200m) and go swimming/diving in them,you may want to spray with wd40 before you go.


----------



## pg tips

Running_man said:


> Thanks for the reply Jon. The reason I ask is that I was advising a friend of mine on a new watch and as he's an outdoors type of person, (camping, fishing, survival etc) rather than a dress watch, I pointed him in the direction of an O&W MP auto or manual. He wouldn't go swimming in a watch either but getting it saturated occasionally is an inevitibility.
> 
> Andrew.


Andrew I would advise your friend, base on the above esp the "saturated" part to buy a 200Metre rated watch. In the long run it will be the wisest option IMHO.


----------



## pugster

getting back on track i agree with mr pg ,get a 200m watch and it shouldnt matter if it gets wet.


----------



## Isthmus

JoT said:


> This is all very confusing
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Could domebody explain then why Seiko advise thus:
> 
> http://www.seikowatches.com/support/faq/resistance.asp


That sounds about right, if a little conservative. If you figure 1 bar for approximately every 10 feet in depth, and leave some room for error, then their recomendation is similar to what I described (if a bit more conservative). Notice that both Seiko and the Casio quote only recomend Dive watches for SCUBA. That means Dive watches meeting ISO standards. It makes sense since when diving you must rely on that tool for it could mean your life if it fails. If your watch should fail while skin diving or snorkeling (both activities that do not require timing by a watch), all you have to do is come back up when you can't hold your breath any more. In other words, it doesn't matter whether your watch can withstand the presure or not when doing those activities (and my guess is that they won't guarantee that), but it does while scuba diving or diving with other types of gear.



pugster said:


> most ppl agree with me ,anyone who doesnt, save money and buy 50m watches (instead of 200m) and go swimming/diving in them,you may want to spray with wd40 before you go.


That's really mature.


----------



## pugster

mature or not its correct ,for some reason you do not seem able to take it.


----------



## andy100

Crikey, this is a real kettle (or maybe a swimming pool







) of fish opened up here!

As far as Isthmus's post goes, I've read pretty much the same thing before (it might well even have been Isthmus posting over at Watch U Seek?). I know from my own personal experience that I've had several watches (namely a Tissot and a Seiko) rated to 1200m *without* a screw in crown, and wearing them day in day out in the shower, bath, washing up, and occasionally swimming, have never had a problem with them leaking. Seeing as I'm *very* unlikely to get the opportunity to go deeper than the deep end of a swimming pool for quite a while this rating seems perfectly adequate for my uses! If I ever do get the chance to go scuba diving maybe I'll take one along to see how it performs.

Actually, I've just remembered years ago I had a mate who used to go scuba diving; he had a titanium early Seiko Kinetic which I'm certain was a standard 100m WR with push in crown, and he never had a problem when he wore it diving.



marius said:


> ...I do swim wearing any of my Seiko5's, and none of them have ever been bothered by diving as deep as the bottom of a swimming pool.


Are your Seiko 5's unrated Marius? I used to have one years ago that I used to be really careful with, but these days I'm just to plain lazy to bother stripping my watches off, and it comes in handy seeing how late I am for work whilst manically trying to wake myself up of a morning!









Further to the argument (or maybe as an aside?!







)I've always been wary of the Traser P6500's as they only seem to have a caseback screwed down with four screws. They're still rated to 30m, but a few people I've asked over at Watch U Seek again said they've used them for snorkelling and swimming without a problem. I think Crusader had his pressure tester at some point and it was good to 100m. The same model by Luminox (and I believe the first version of the Traser's) is rated to 200m. Go work that one out...are the Traser company just being cautious???

Thanks,

Andy


----------



## Running_man

Thankyou for all the interesting responses; it would seem that some manufacturers are more cautious than others - could it be that they're covering their own arses, i.e. 30 or 50m would be good enough for swimming but better to go one level of resistance further just be sure? (and not get sued if they fail.)

Given all the interesting points mentioned, I'd be confident of a 30m designated watch to withstand very heavy rain and light occasional / accidental submergence. Unless you're a diver or water sports enthusiast, I think this would be good enough for most people. If it's going to get regularly wet, I'd follow Paul's advice and only go for 200m rated.

I'll show my mate this thread when I see him tomorrow.

Andrew.


----------



## pg tips

Isthmus said:


> jasonm said:
> 
> 
> 
> So your saying a 50m rated watch will / should be fine to that depth?
> 
> 
> 
> If the watch is from a major manufacturer (notice I didn't say brand) then the answer is yes.
Click to expand...




Isthmus said:


> JoT said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is all very confusing
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Could domebody explain then why Seiko advise thus:
> 
> http://www.seikowatches.com/support/faq/resistance.asp
> 
> 
> 
> That sounds about right,
Click to expand...

Now you've really got me. 1st you say you should be able to take a 50 M watch to that depth without a problem

then you say the seiko / casio table of 50M only meaning surface swimming and not diving is correct.

Your not a politician by any chance are you


----------



## Stan

I hope we are all getting our gaskets checked every two years too.


----------



## pugster

mmm ,the way i look at it is 50m is 164 ft ,now to be honest i dont know many ppl that can freedive to that depth (without remembering that they have to come back up) ,if your life depended on it would your trust a Â£20 50m rated watch?

*edit ,price is not not an issue,just an example


----------



## Isthmus

pugster said:


> mature or not its correct ,for some reason you do not seem able to take it.


It's not about taking it or not. It's about having a different opinion based on verifiable and defensible facts. I'm not trying to pick a fight with you Pugster. However this sin't just my opinion. My father (with hom I verified my initial post) who was a navy combat diver for 25 years, myself who learned to dive over 20 years ago, and the others who i quoted on my post have come about these opinions by experience and by learning how the watches are tested.

Still, when disagreeing it is good manners to be respectful about it. Saying what essentially boils down to "most people agree with me so I must be right and if you don't like it the stuff it" (I know those aren't your exact words but that's how it comes across), is just rude for no reason.

If you don't like my opinions, feel free to deconstruct my analysis and put forward one of your own. Attacking me does nothing.


----------



## Stan

Frankly, I'll be sticking to the manufacturers recommendations and with my vintage samples I'll be keeping them very dry.


----------



## Roy

Just read the manufacturers guidelines. They all seem to be different.

To be honest if your going to dive and your life depended on it then you would use the proper gear and not a normal wrist watch.

I can't even swim and I do not do the washing up







so it would not matter to me anyway. A 1 meter watch would do.


----------



## andy100

Stan said:


> Frankly, I'll be sticking to the manufacturers recommendations and with my vintage samples I'll be keeping them very dry.


I've just acquired a 6309. Until I get round to having the seals checked out, that one's certainly not going anywhere near water....I won't even probably wear it out in the rain!









Andy


----------



## Isthmus

pg tips said:


> Now you've really got me. 1st you say you should be able to take a 50 M watch to that depth without a problem
> 
> then you say the seiko / casio table of 50M only meaning surface swimming and not diving is correct.
> 
> Your not a politician by any chance are you


Come on man be fair. If you are going to quote what I said, at least quote the entire explanation supporting the opinion. No I'm not a politician, I work in finance.


----------



## pugster

> If you don't like my opinions, feel free to deconstruct my analysis and put forward one of your own. Attacking me does nothing.


my answer was not an attack and i dont need to 'deconstruct' any answer you have put forward , the answer is simple,standard watches do NOT do what they say on the tin,the weblink you providied to seiko says this well enough (50m swimming,not diving) ,unless this means you can swim 50m in a straight line on the surface,in which case you are right.


----------



## Isthmus

pugster said:


> my answer was not an attack and i dont need to 'deconstruct' any answer you have put forward , the answer is simple,standard watches do NOT do what they say on the tin,the weblink you providied to seiko says this well enough (50m swimming,not diving) ,unless this means you can swim 50m in a straight line on the surface,in which case you are right.


why do you insist on implying that I said that you can use a 50m rated watch for diving? On several occasion now I have said that if you are going diving to use a watch matching ISO standards. I suppose that if the watch was made to ISO standards and that the standards allowed for 50m then that should be adequate, since you will most likely not be diving to those depths anyway. That said current ISO standrds set the minimum requirement at 200m so that's what you dive with.

What I did say was that in the case of major manufacturers, it is a safe bet to trust that the watch is capable of being submerged to the depth or presure rating specified on it. Submerging a watch is not the same thing as diving.

If the watch came from a popular brand that was not a manufacturer (such as today's Timex or Fossil), you are right, I would not trust the rating spelled out on the watch.


----------



## ESL

Just my two bob but,

When watch ratings say that 50M means swimming at up to that depth (one assumes) but not diving, what they actually mean is that the watch is rated as water resistant to at least 50m (or equivalent static pressure test) but not for diving - where "diving" means, diving off the side of a swimming pool or such like, into a body of water - which could exert a higher degree of dynamic pressure than the seals could cope with.

NOT diving in the goggles, fins and air tanks sense of the word.

Now I'm off for a spot of desk diving, with my favourite SKX009. 200M rated dontcha know!


----------



## marius

Andy, hi, from the splashing of the fishkettle I finally saw your question. I am not wearing a Seiko5 right now, so I wont swear this true, but I will check tonight. As far as I remember, they all say "water resistant" as opposed to "water proof". Some of the later ones say "water resistant 5 atm". I am not especially active in water, but I would say I do swim at least 2 meters deep, (and sometimes thrash about quite violently when I do.) In fact I have been towed behind a bassboat, (ski-boat, I think I used to know them as in SA) not on ski's, through the bloody water after dropping off the ski's, for quite long distances by the overzealous boat operator, while wearing a 10 year old Seiko 5. I am not advocating drowning all watches, but I do believe the manufacturers "sticker" their watches with a lower rating than they test them for. And I think it is a sensible thing to do. When I design a crane hoist which is going to get a 1,5 ton rating lable, I design it for 6 ton failing strength. I think any rating on a watch, should be read as a laboratory SAFE rating. I take it as a HINT from the manufacturer. At the severe end, I think it is up to the user to make a decision if his actual activity is comparable to the manufacturer's test guarantees. And to remember that the high rating tests were probably passed with smaller margins than the low rated ones. At the low end, chances are good that the actual performance will be way over the manufacturer's stated rating. I think it is just not that easy to make a watch that will drown at 3 meters but not at two meters.

Then, as said by others, the overall condition of the watch is probably more important than the rating. I would not put a 1000m rated watch in a beerglass if the crown is rattling like teeth in a tin can.


----------



## Stan

Well said Marius, I think you hit the nail right on the head. 

Most of us own watches that are not brand new and should be wary of the water resistance capabilities of them so as not to cause them harm. As I suggested my in previous post.

Perhaps we may be guilty of becoming a little obsessed with this issue as we have with the accuracy of mechanical watches?

I doubt any watch will ever be "perfect" and that the specifications that a watch meets is only valid for a certain period after it has left the factory. A thirty year old NOS watch would be unlikely to perform to original specification unless carefully restored?

I fail to see what all the fuss is about in relation to the issue of the water depth capability of the traditional wristwatch, as real diver's use much more suitable equipment these days. 

It is always wise to adhere to the manufacturers guidelines on the use of a watch, if you wish to retain warranty support.

For watches out of the warranty period just use your own judgement, you are paying the bill. 

Moot point in a potentially inflamatory thread, in my humble opinion.


----------



## JonW

Wow, a bath full of fish indeed....

Ok so I think we have the answer in here, tho its hard to find. It seems anyone can write 50m or something on a watch and suffer the warrnty hassle for the first few years but only those that are tested to an ISO standard are to be trusted to actually do what they say on the dial/caseback.... and, even then only if theyve been regularly tested.

Basically I take my watch off for showers/washing up even if theyre 300m + dive watches from a major manufacturer and have been tested... but thats cos I hate the feel of water under the bracelet for the next half hour... 

Would I swim in a watch on holiday? yes, you bet. but only what I think of as a watch that Id be prepared to lose as the internet is peppered with stories of people who lost their Rolex after bashing it on a rock when diving and my other half (who is a diver) has found a watch on the bottom whilst diving.


----------



## Nalu

I'm hesitant to jump in here since it seems the waters are chummed and full of predators. Then again, I really don't give a tinker's cuss who disagrees with me or for what reason.

I have my own 'policy' on watches and water resistance that I'll state up front, everything else is beyond that is in response to what's been posted previously. This policy is based on reading multiple manufacturers' recommendations (after all, no one sees more watch failure modes than they do), my engineering background and a lifetime of being in, on and under the ocean.

1. To answer the intial question: I think 50m WR is fine for a 'sports watch' - swimming, diving, paddling, hiking, sweating, etc. That's what I would tell the person seeking our advice (who hopefully is not reading this). 50M also happens to be my minimum WR rating for a field watch, since it should be able to be hiked, dived, rained on, immmersed in a stream crossing, etc.

2. If I know I'm going below the surface (spear fishing, skin diving, etc.), I'll wear a 100-200m watch - never a 50m watch. I'd go without a watch before taking a 50m watch to depth.

3. If I have a rig on, and I do wear a watch when diving (along with a computer and a backup computer in a pocket), then I'll wear at least a 300m watch. The exception would be one of my Citizen Aqualands, which are often rated to 200m. Since they are purpose-built dive watches I'll push the envelope.

What are my other considerations? Time since the last service/seal replacement, price and replace-ability of the watch, type of dive (pass diving in Rangiroa is quite different from a reef dive in a lagoon) and how much I _care_ about the watch. At one time in the past, I had a ladies Timex Ironman that I used for about 2 years (7-10 workouts/week). I cared more about that $20 watch (actually free - I found it in the ocean) than I do about some of the 4-figure watches I own now.

The fact that _most_ sports divers only dive to 130' is irrelevant, IMO. _Most_ people think a watch is solely for telling time! And _most_ people think they'll never go below 20m when they first learn to dive. Then two years later they're advanced open water divers taking a Nitrox class and glancing longingly at a Draeger.

Firstly, there is plenty to see at 130' and below - there is an entire U/W exploration society dedicated to researching the 200-400' depths, which is entirely reachable with SCUBA units. I bought and got qualified on such a unit last summer. It cost less than a Submariner, so they're not out of the reach of 'civilian' sport divers. Narcosis is a relative risk, not an absolute one. Similarly for DCS. Plan your dive, dive your plan and you'll be safe.

Secondly, the time you _most_ need your watch to function correctly is the time you accidentally break your dive plan and exceed your floor! It happens every day folks.

How people have sucessfully abused their watches is also irrelevant. Everyone knows someone who "never had it serviced in 23 years and it's still +/- 5 secs/day". So what? Does that mean it's the correct way to treat your watch? Should you really abuse a piece of equipment your life depends on?



Of course the manufacturer's are conservative in their recommendations - it would be irresponsible to do otherwise! _Of course_ watches intended for extreme environments are over-engineered. Part of that overengineering is purely a safety margin, part of it is to take into account the fact that the watch won't be serviced on the recommended schedule and part of the overengineering is to take into account _materials defects_ - not every part of every watch is delivered in spec. Some pieces (cases, for example) are expensive to inspect for defects. Much cheaper to overengineer the case so that when there is a void in the steel you still reach your spec - without having to x-ray every case.

Just my 2p, not trying to stomp on any feet. I don't know why depth ratings (and HEVs) generate so much passion, it's really pretty straightforward. Anyone for a Rolex thread?


----------



## JonW

Er.... im with you Colin... I wouldnt wanna be against you! 























Seriously tho, I was going to say that I agree with everything you said except the 50m thing. And that I wouldnt want to tell a mate to spend his hard earned on a brand new watch that he will want to keep and use for outside use if it was only 50m depth and from a non watch maker and not tested etc. All because I agree its better than no WR but I would hate to see his face if it leaked and he should go up to 100 or 150m and be sure hes got something useful I reckon. But.....

Then I remebered a Timex Digital I bought for the sole purpose of providing time when I was rallying my Kawasaki KDX250SR dirtbike - you need to meet your start times for each stage or you get dropped from the running and have to go home...







I strapped this poor watch to the handlebars and there it stayed for 2 whole years. It got bashed over bumps and when the bike got dropped when I fell off - quite a bit actually! It was always covered in wet mud and other yuk (in every nook and crevice) and often got a semi bath when I forded streams and of course got jetwashed along with the bike. Needless to say it performed its task without problem and had a far harsher workout than it would on any persons wrist. Its still going strong with a new battery in it (5 year lithium as standard).... Ok so maybe I wouldnt Scuba with it but I would wear it swimming, Its a robust watch indeed.


----------



## jasonm

> The fact that most sports divers only dive to 130' is irrelevant, IMO. Most people think a watch is solely for telling time! And most people think they'll never go below 20m when they first learn to dive. Then two years later they're advanced open water divers taking a Nitrox class and glancing longingly at a Draeger.


----------



## Running_man

I looked at the manual for my Polar heart rate monitor last night. That is rated at 50m and is designed for swimmers as well as runners and cyclists.









I think from now on where water is concerned, I'll never intentionally get watches wet, even if I'm washing up or taking a shower and I'm wearing the Seiko Black Monster. I'll take it off beforehand. With this in mind, any accidents shouldn't do them any harm.

A mate at work said that whilst his cheapy watch from a market stall is rated to 30m, if had 30m of water above his head, something would be very wrong and the last thing he'd be worried about was his watch!
















Regards,

Andrew.


----------



## raketakat

Before taking my watches to water I ask;

1 How much did it cost?

2 How much do I care about it?

I THEN read the specifications with scepticism ( skepticism for Colin ).

Finally, I put on my Â£9.99 Kahuna or old G-shock and bugger it  .


----------



## jasonm

> Finally, I put on my Â£9.99 Kahuna or old G-shock and bugger it


Now THATS how to abuse a watch.....


----------



## andy100

marius said:


> Andy, hi, from the splashing of the fishkettle I finally saw your question. I am not wearing a Seiko5 right now, so I wont swear this true, but I will check tonight. As far as I remember, they all say "water resistant" as opposed to "water proof". Some of the later ones say "water resistant 5 atm". I am not especially active in water, but I would say I do swim at least 2 meters deep, (and sometimes thrash about quite violently when I do.) In fact I have been towed behind a bassboat, (ski-boat, I think I used to know them as in SA) not on ski's, through the bloody water after dropping off the ski's, for quite long distances by the overzealous boat operator, while wearing a 10 year old Seiko 5. I am not advocating drowning all watches, but I do believe the manufacturers "sticker" their watches with a lower rating than they test them for. And I think it is a sensible thing to do. When I design a crane hoist which is going to get a 1,5 ton rating lable, I design it for 6 ton failing strength. I think any rating on a watch, should be read as a laboratory SAFE rating. I take it as a HINT from the manufacturer. At the severe end, I think it is up to the user to make a decision if his actual activity is comparable to the manufacturer's test guarantees. And to remember that the high rating tests were probably passed with smaller margins than the low rated ones. At the low end, chances are good that the actual performance will be way over the manufacturer's stated rating. I think it is just not that easy to make a watch that will drown at 3 meters but not at two meters.
> 
> Then, as said by others, the overall condition of the watch is probably more important than the rating. I would not put a 1000m rated watch in a beerglass if the crown is rattling like teeth in a tin can.


I think you hit the nail right onthe head Marius!









And as a few other people have said, if you're bothered about ******* up your watch in water, then wear something cheap & cheerful that you don't mind drowning (the watch, not yourself!







)

Andy


----------



## Bareges

Isthmus,

Thank you for pointing out that the table I found was "way off base". If I can remember which manufacturer supplied it I will pass on some of your comments in the hope of a correction to their published facts.

All I would add is as I am not a "diver" but nonetheless an outdoors person any of these tables are more than adequate as a 'rough guide'  as to what you can expect and as such they are quite adequate.

Roy's point is well made and taken - follow the manufacturer's guidelines and yes there are differences in the claimed tolerances by most if not all..............but for the mass of the population who might accidentally find themselves 6/8 feet below the surface or caught in the surf or a wave break - does it really matter?

In general conversation most people seem to be trying to establish whether, in their terms, it will leak or not. Their real interest is therefore whether they can bath/shower, swim, wash up, etc ,etc without giving the innards of their pride and joy a good washing and thereby reducing it to a pile of junk...........

Some interesting and enlightening exchanges but I feel that we all, in our respective hobbies because they are precisely that, risk becoming (out of our enthusiasm for our hobby) too anal and boring for the 'ordinary' man - yes like eveyone I have been told to 'shut up' when on favourite topics!!    .



raketakat said:


> Before taking my watches to water I ask;
> 
> 1 How much did it cost?
> 
> 2 How much do I care about it?
> 
> I THEN read the specifications with scepticism ( skepticism for Colin ).
> 
> Finally, I put on my Â£9.99 Kahuna or old G-shock and bugger it  .


Like it Ian,

I have a "terrain" watch @ Â£9.99 and that has to take whatever is dished out and do I care!!


----------



## JonW

jasonm said:


> Finally, I put on my Â£9.99 Kahuna or old G-shock and bugger it
> 
> 
> 
> Now THATS how to abuse a watch.....
Click to expand...

ROTFL!


----------



## watch lover

Hi members,

The point of water resistent is one very dear to my heart at present.

I cant understand for the life of me why so many of you here seem to throw your consumer rights away at the drop of a hat? I have been purchasing watches for around 40 years and untill a few weeks ago, and due to watch web sites, I had NO idea at all that there was some mystic secret watch industry regulations regarding the water resistence of watches. I wrongly ASSUMED that when a watch was rated in writing on the back with "water resistent 30M, 50M, 100M, or 200M etc I expected that watch to be WATER RESISTENT to the specified depth?

Please explain to me how so many posters here spend small fortunes on a product that is CLEARLY labeld with a specification in English yet it will apparently not perform to the standard. This is a scam and needs to be addressed. I am trying to do this. I am beginning with Oris as I have this years spent thousands of pounds purchasing their watches and am furious to now learn I cant take a 50M watch even in the swimming pool as it is 'technically' only able to withstand splashes or 'moisture'. Hello? Why do the manufacturers place this highly misleading data on the back and more important how on earth do they get away with it in the EC where we thankfully have consumer protection laws. A product purchased must be of merchantable quality, perform the task is is sold to do AND respect any claims made on the product. IE a can of baked beans when opened MUST contain eadible baked beans and not peas etc.

Why do so many of you pay so much and expect so little AND allow this scam to take advantage of people like me who believe what they read and TRUST manufacturers will not mislead me in my purchase.

To date I have been unable to find ONE industry code. I see many posters here giving data, where does this data come from?. I have been in thousands of watch shops all around the globe and NEVER seen such industry data published?

I am so sorry for the long and passionate post I just feel well and truly had!!! and I dont like it, and I am trying to do something about it.

Thank you for your kind attention and best wishes to you all.


----------



## JonW

Wow, you are passionate mate. Good luck in your quest. Please do let us know how you get on.









FWIW my car speedo reads up to 180mph... my car doesnt go 180mph tho.....


----------



## JoT

watch lover said:


> To date I have been unable to find ONE industry code.


The Swiss industry follows NIHS 92-10 for water resistant watches and NIHS 92-11 for divers watches these are the same as ISO 2281 and ISO 6425 respectively.

I don't agree that I (we) have thrown our consumer rights away, also when I spend "thousands of pounds" I know what I am buying, I don't buy things then suddenly find out they can't be used in a swimming pool 

I don't think the water resistant information is misleading (this implies intention) but it is confusing to the general watch buying public, especially as most are not aware of the various ISOs and how the specifications relate to real conditions. Watch companies also tend to specify what the watch can be used for in the instructions, Seiko is a good example, I can't speak for Oris as I have never owned one.

The ISO have been discussing a "less ambiguous" classification but as yet have not made any changes.


----------



## Running_man

watch lover said:


> Hi members,
> 
> The point of water resistent is one very dear to my heart at present.
> 
> I cant understand for the life of me why so many of you here seem to throw your consumer rights away at the drop of a hat? I have been purchasing watches for around 40 years and untill a few weeks ago, and due to watch web sites, I had NO idea at all that there was some mystic secret watch industry regulations regarding the water resistence of watches. I wrongly ASSUMED that when a watch was rated in writing on the back with "water resistent 30M, 50M, 100M, or 200M etc I expected that watch to be WATER RESISTENT to the specified depth?
> 
> Please explain to me how so many posters here spend small fortunes on a product that is CLEARLY labeld with a specification in English yet it will apparently not perform to the standard. This is a scam and needs to be addressed. I am trying to do this. I am beginning with Oris as I have this years spent thousands of pounds purchasing their watches and am furious to now learn I cant take a 50M watch even in the swimming pool as it is 'technically' only able to withstand splashes or 'moisture'. Hello? Why do the manufacturers place this highly misleading data on the back and more important how on earth do they get away with it in the EC where we thankfully have consumer protection laws. A product purchased must be of merchantable quality, perform the task is is sold to do AND respect any claims made on the product. IE a can of baked beans when opened MUST contain eadible baked beans and not peas etc.
> 
> Why do so many of you pay so much and expect so little AND allow this scam to take advantage of people like me who believe what they read and TRUST manufacturers will not mislead me in my purchase.
> 
> To date I have been unable to find ONE industry code. I see many posters here giving data, where does this data come from?. I have been in thousands of watch shops all around the globe and NEVER seen such industry data published?
> 
> I am so sorry for the long and passionate post I just feel well and truly had!!! and I dont like it, and I am trying to do something about it.
> 
> Thank you for your kind attention and best wishes to you all.


To be honest Watch Lover, I don't think consumer rights / goods descriptions come into it as it's not sold as a hard and fast rule and hardly ever going to be put to the test. Take for example, a basic Â£25 plastic Swatch watch. These are designated 30m water resistant yet who in their right mind would want to test such a watch to that depth? It just isn't going to happen. The only people who would be at that depth are divers who'd be wearing a robust professionally designed watch for the job and even then, I'm told most use dive computers these days instead.

You mentioned that you had a 50m rated Oris - unless it's a diver / sports model, why would you want to intentionally get it wet, especially if it's a dress watch? I'm currently yearning for Roy's new RLT30 which on the back says 5ATM. Yet if or when I get it, there's *no way* that's going anywhere near water! But at least I'll be confident of it being OK if I get pushed into the river whilst I'm wearing it!

Despite Oris labelling their watch as 50m, I reckon you'd probably lose a consumer claim if you damaged it whilst swimming as they have clearly printed in their manual that they don't recommend anything wetter that splashes or moisture. I dare say it'd be Ok if you swam in it a few times but I get the impression that manufacturers are just covering their own arses with their ratings and recommendations.

The question which inspired my original post was would a 30m designated watch survive non habitual accidental saturation such as catting caught in a torrential rainstorm or falling off the side of the bath into the water. Going off all of the replies and information given, I believe it would.

Andrew.


----------



## JoT

Running_man said:


> The question which inspired my original post was would a 30m designated watch survive non habitual accidental saturation such as catting caught in a torrential rainstorm or falling off the side of the bath into the water. Going off all of the replies and information given, I believe it would.
> 
> Andrew.


I agree Andrew

I am sure the manufacturers have some safety factor when considering recommendations for use; they wouldn't advise a certain use and open themselves to warranty claims or legal action if the watch wasn't capable of meeting their recommendations.

What that safety factor is I guess only the manufacturer will know.

I think that is where Isthmus was coming from ..... although I am glad he is in finance and not mining engineering







I would hate to think I was travelling in a shaft cage attached to a rope with a breaking strain just above the working load and not, as is usual, between 5 and 8 times working load


----------



## watch lover

JonW said:


> Wow, you are passionate mate. Good luck in your quest. Please do let us know how you get on.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> FWIW my car speedo reads up to 180mph... my car doesnt go 180mph tho.....


Hi Jon,

Thank you for your reply.

When you purchase a car there is a MASS of information on that car from magazines to online tests to goodness knows what. You also have the manufacturers hand book. If you look at your hand book it will give the top speed and acceleation for YOUR model in the handbook. The car manufacturers IN THIS INSTANT are not trying to pull the wool over your eyeys. As you well know each model is made to different specifications but only one speedo will be used in all models. No where can you find it stated that YOUR model can acheive that speed unless the hand book and car trade information tell you of this. All product information on your car is readily available and nothing is done to mislead you. I could write more about this but the point is made.

I am sorry to sing to the choir but as you raised this point I just wanted to respond.

My best wishes to you


----------



## JoT

watch lover said:


> JonW said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wow, you are passionate mate. Good luck in your quest. Please do let us know how you get on.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> FWIW my car speedo reads up to 180mph... my car doesnt go 180mph tho.....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hi Jon,
> 
> Thank you for your reply.
> 
> When you purchase a car there is a MASS of information on that car from magazines to online tests to goodness knows what. You also have the manufacturers hand book. If you look at your hand book it will give the top speed and acceleation for YOUR model in the handbook. The car manufacturers IN THIS INSTANT are not trying to pull the wool over your eyeys. As you well know each model is made to different specifications but only one speedo will be used in all models. No where can you find it stated that YOUR model can acheive that speed unless the hand book and car trade information tell you of this. All product information on your car is readily available and nothing is done to mislead you. I could write more about this but the point is made.
> 
> I am sorry to sing to the choir but as you raised this point I just wanted to respond.
> 
> My best wishes to you
Click to expand...

Please give an example of a watch manufacturers who is trying to "pull the wool over our eyes" or mislead? The water resistance ratings are not just some arbitrary number they are determined by an ISO test







The fact that manufacturers advise owners to use the watch in a way that allows them a considerable margin of error makes perfect sense to me


----------



## watch lover

JoT said:


> watch lover said:
> 
> 
> 
> To date I have been unable to find ONE industry code.
> 
> 
> 
> The Swiss industry follows NIHS 92-10 for water resistant watches and NIHS 92-11 for divers watches these are the same as ISO 2281 and ISO 6425 respectively.
> 
> I don't agree that I (we) have thrown our consumer rights away, also when I spend "thousands of pounds" I know what I am buying, I don't buy things then suddenly find out they can't be used in a swimming pool
> 
> I don't think the water resistant information is misleading (this implies intention) but it is confusing to the general watch buying public, especially as most are not aware of the various ISOs and how the specifications relate to real conditions. Watch companies also tend to specify what the watch can be used for in the instructions, Seiko is a good example, I can't speak for Oris as I have never owned one.
> 
> The ISO have been discussing a "less ambiguous" classification but as yet have not made any changes.
Click to expand...

Hi,

You appear a man of knowledge regarding the watch industry.

A layman purchasing a product is not in any way obliged to search and study the product. The product is sold under certain laws. One of the laws, not your opinion nor mine, states that goods are marked with correct and truthfull information. Now look at the back of my Oris Mark webber sport watch. It states 'water resistent 50M" it does not say splash proof, moisture proof, or any other such marking. I am so stupid to read English then apply some OTHER meaning to this label? If the product is only moisture proof or splash proof I dont have a problem with that. I do have a problem in being sold a product, any product, that is not labelled correctly.

Some watches cost 50euro some cost 100,000euro, in each case is it not the cost but the principle of the matter.

When I purchase a car I go to the showrrom and a plethora of information is available in both the cars hand book and brochures plus the sales man will tell me if asled what the performance of the car will be. To add to this the government had made the car trade print the cars fuel consumption these figures are monitored by the state.

I have NEVER been to a watch shop and found a single word on the subject of water resistence? Yet you seem to think I should just know? If the product didnt have a water rating printed on the back THIS is when I would study the problem NOT when there are clear specifications printed on the back WATER REISITENT 50m must MEAN JUST THAT?!

I have read my 10 different model watch hand books and not one of them mentions anything about the codes you write about?

It is a scam.

I wish you well and thank you for your kind reply. Please do look at this problem form the consumer point of view and not the expert like yourself.



JoT said:


> watch lover said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JonW said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wow, you are passionate mate. Good luck in your quest. Please do let us know how you get on.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> FWIW my car speedo reads up to 180mph... my car doesnt go 180mph tho.....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hi Jon,
> 
> Thank you for your reply.
> 
> When you purchase a car there is a MASS of information on that car from magazines to online tests to goodness knows what. You also have the manufacturers hand book. If you look at your hand book it will give the top speed and acceleation for YOUR model in the handbook. The car manufacturers IN THIS INSTANT are not trying to pull the wool over your eyeys. As you well know each model is made to different specifications but only one speedo will be used in all models. No where can you find it stated that YOUR model can acheive that speed unless the hand book and car trade information tell you of this. All product information on your car is readily available and nothing is done to mislead you. I could write more about this but the point is made.
> 
> I am sorry to sing to the choir but as you raised this point I just wanted to respond.
> 
> My best wishes to you
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Please give an example of a watch manufacturers who is trying to "pull the wool over our eyes" or mislead? The water resistance ratings are not just some arbitrary number they are determined by an ISO test
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The fact that manufacturers advise owners to use the watch in a way that allows them a considerable margin of error makes perfect sense to me
Click to expand...

Hi,

I am confussed? Please be patience with me. Does your watch have written on the back 'water reistent 30M, 50M, 100M or 200m? If the answer to this is yes, then please translate the English into Enlish? I have stupidly thought that the measurement means just what it says in plain English? Are you, question, saying that the figures dont mean what they say, in other words can a watch that has 50M written on the back be taken to 50M and resist water?

Please please dont think me being provokative nor confrontational I am genuine with my query? I know I speak for many toehr novices here as I am a member of several other forums who have simliar posts with identical problems.

To answer your question I would say all manufacturers whose product cannot perform to the label on the back are committing a scam at the consumers cost.

I think we are writing at cross purposes to a degree, can you straighten this point out for me. I thank you.

Best wishes to you and yours.


----------



## Running_man

watch lover said:


> JoT said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> watch lover said:
> 
> 
> 
> To date I have been unable to find ONE industry code.
> 
> 
> 
> The Swiss industry follows NIHS 92-10 for water resistant watches and NIHS 92-11 for divers watches these are the same as ISO 2281 and ISO 6425 respectively.
> 
> I don't agree that I (we) have thrown our consumer rights away, also when I spend "thousands of pounds" I know what I am buying, I don't buy things then suddenly find out they can't be used in a swimming pool
> 
> I don't think the water resistant information is misleading (this implies intention) but it is confusing to the general watch buying public, especially as most are not aware of the various ISOs and how the specifications relate to real conditions. Watch companies also tend to specify what the watch can be used for in the instructions, Seiko is a good example, I can't speak for Oris as I have never owned one.
> 
> The ISO have been discussing a "less ambiguous" classification but as yet have not made any changes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Hi,
> 
> You appear a man of knowledge regarding the watch industry.
> 
> A layman purchasing a product is not in any way obliged to search and study the product. The product is sold under certain laws. One of the laws, not your opinion nor mine, states that goods are marked with correct and truthfull information. Now look at the back of my Oris Mark webber sport watch. It states 'water resistent 50M" it does not say splash proof, moisture proof, or any other such marking. I am so stupid to read English then apply some OTHER meaning to this label? If the product is only moisture proof or splash proof I dont have a problem with that. I do have a problem in being sold a product, any product, that is not labelled correctly.
> 
> Some watches cost 50euro some cost 100,000euro, in each case is it not the cost but the principle of the matter.
> 
> When I purchase a car I go to the showrrom and a plethora of information is available in both the cars hand book and brochures plus the sales man will tell me if asled what the performance of the car will be. To add to this the government had made the car trade print the cars fuel consumption these figures are monitored by the state.
> 
> I have NEVER been to a watch shop and found a single word on the subject of water resistence? Yet you seem to think I should just know? If the product didnt have a water rating printed on the back THIS is when I would study the problem NOT when there are clear specifications printed on the back WATER REISITENT 50m must MEAN JUST THAT?!
> 
> I have read my 10 different model watch hand books and not one of them mentions anything about the codes you write about?
> 
> It is a scam.
> 
> I wish you well and thank you for your kind reply. Please do look at this problem form the consumer point of view and not the expert like yourself.
Click to expand...

You could always take the watch back to where you purchased it from, citing this reason for your dissatisfaction. But the retailer would probably just reply that Oris' interpretation of 50m water resistance is described within the supplied documentation and attempt to resist giving a refund.


----------



## JoT

I totally understand your frustration, but in my opinion their isn't a court in the EU that would back your case. Most watches (Swiss certainly are) are tested in accordance with an international standard i.e. International Standard Organisation ISO2281, a 50m water resistant watch will conform to this standard i.e. will be water resistant to a specified depth using a procedure set out in ISO2281.

The fact is that wearing a watch creates so many variables that the manufacturers probably allow a considerable safety factor when formulating their recommendations for use. It would not be possible to account for all the variables that could occur in a real life situation in one test!

I do agree however that the current system is confusing, something the ISO has recognised, I have no doubt that it will change one day.

If someone was unfortunate enough to be thrown into the Thames Estuary wearing a 50m resistant watch and concrete block tied to their legs and fortunate enough to be able to free themselves at 50m I would like to bet that the watch would still be OK .... whether he could hold is breath that long is another matter. If you used a 50m water resistant watch as a swimming or diving watch I suspect that it might be Ok for a while but would inevitably fail.

I don't think it is a scam but do agree that it not an ideal classification.


----------



## watch lover

Running_man said:


> watch lover said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hi members,
> 
> The point of water resistent is one very dear to my heart at present.
> 
> I cant understand for the life of me why so many of you here seem to throw your consumer rights away at the drop of a hat? I have been purchasing watches for around 40 years and untill a few weeks ago, and due to watch web sites, I had NO idea at all that there was some mystic secret watch industry regulations regarding the water resistence of watches. I wrongly ASSUMED that when a watch was rated in writing on the back with "water resistent 30M, 50M, 100M, or 200M etc I expected that watch to be WATER RESISTENT to the specified depth?
> 
> Please explain to me how so many posters here spend small fortunes on a product that is CLEARLY labeld with a specification in English yet it will apparently not perform to the standard. This is a scam and needs to be addressed. I am trying to do this. I am beginning with Oris as I have this years spent thousands of pounds purchasing their watches and am furious to now learn I cant take a 50M watch even in the swimming pool as it is 'technically' only able to withstand splashes or 'moisture'. Hello? Why do the manufacturers place this highly misleading data on the back and more important how on earth do they get away with it in the EC where we thankfully have consumer protection laws. A product purchased must be of merchantable quality, perform the task is is sold to do AND respect any claims made on the product. IE a can of baked beans when opened MUST contain eadible baked beans and not peas etc.
> 
> Why do so many of you pay so much and expect so little AND allow this scam to take advantage of people like me who believe what they read and TRUST manufacturers will not mislead me in my purchase.
> 
> To date I have been unable to find ONE industry code. I see many posters here giving data, where does this data come from?. I have been in thousands of watch shops all around the globe and NEVER seen such industry data published?
> 
> I am so sorry for the long and passionate post I just feel well and truly had!!! and I dont like it, and I am trying to do something about it.
> 
> Thank you for your kind attention and best wishes to you all.
> 
> 
> 
> To be honest Watch Lover, I don't think consumer rights / goods descriptions come into it as it's not sold as a hard and fast rule and hardly ever going to be put to the test. Take for example, a basic Â£25 plastic Swatch watch. These are designated 30m water resistant yet who in their right mind would want to test such a watch to that depth? It just isn't going to happen. The only people who would be at that depth are divers who'd be wearing a robust professionally designed watch for the job and even then, I'm told most use dive computers these days instead.
> 
> You mentioned that you had a 50m rated Oris - unless it's a diver / sports model, why would you want to intentionally get it wet, especially if it's a dress watch? I'm currently yearning for Roy's new RLT30 which on the back says 5ATM. Yet if or when I get it, there's *no way* that's going anywhere near water! But at least I'll be confident of it being OK if I get pushed into the river whilst I'm wearing it!
> 
> Despite Oris labelling their watch as 50m, I reckon you'd probably lose a consumer claim if you damaged it whilst swimming as they have clearly printed in their manual that they don't recommend anything wetter that splashes or moisture. I dare say it'd be Ok if you swam in it a few times but I get the impression that manufacturers are just covering their own arses with their ratings and recommendations.
> 
> The question which inspired my original post was would a 30m designated watch survive non habitual accidental saturation such as catting caught in a torrential rainstorm or falling off the side of the bath into the water. Going off all of the replies and information given, I believe it would.
> 
> Andrew.
Click to expand...

Hi Andrew,

I thank you for your kind reply. I have to say you are a retailers dream. Sell you what they like and just let you get on with it? Cant you even see the point I am trying to make? I am sounding like a parrot when I write that a product sold HAS to conform within consumer law. IF a watch is sold as water resistent to 30M it MUST be water resistent to 30M. Why would you consider a consumer stupid if they went swiimming with a 30M water resistent watch? Most pools are only 1 or 2 metres deep not even close to 30M?

I have scoured the hand books that come with my watches and non of them mention that the watch cannot do what it says on the case.

Please please dont tell me next that when the back case reads "sapphire glass" its only window glass BUT this I should also know due to some 'other' watch trade code?

Look, you buy a can of baked beans, you take it home and open it. What do you get.......Baked beans not peas? This is my point. I realy cant write more here as I find it such plain English. I would appreciate any other angle on this? How could I be so wrong. I do understand English.

Best wishes to you Andrew.


----------



## JoT

watch lover said:


> Running_man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> watch lover said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hi members,
> 
> The point of water resistent is one very dear to my heart at present.
> 
> I cant understand for the life of me why so many of you here seem to throw your consumer rights away at the drop of a hat? I have been purchasing watches for around 40 years and untill a few weeks ago, and due to watch web sites, I had NO idea at all that there was some mystic secret watch industry regulations regarding the water resistence of watches. I wrongly ASSUMED that when a watch was rated in writing on the back with "water resistent 30M, 50M, 100M, or 200M etc I expected that watch to be WATER RESISTENT to the specified depth?
> 
> Please explain to me how so many posters here spend small fortunes on a product that is CLEARLY labeld with a specification in English yet it will apparently not perform to the standard. This is a scam and needs to be addressed. I am trying to do this. I am beginning with Oris as I have this years spent thousands of pounds purchasing their watches and am furious to now learn I cant take a 50M watch even in the swimming pool as it is 'technically' only able to withstand splashes or 'moisture'. Hello? Why do the manufacturers place this highly misleading data on the back and more important how on earth do they get away with it in the EC where we thankfully have consumer protection laws. A product purchased must be of merchantable quality, perform the task is is sold to do AND respect any claims made on the product. IE a can of baked beans when opened MUST contain eadible baked beans and not peas etc.
> 
> Why do so many of you pay so much and expect so little AND allow this scam to take advantage of people like me who believe what they read and TRUST manufacturers will not mislead me in my purchase.
> 
> To date I have been unable to find ONE industry code. I see many posters here giving data, where does this data come from?. I have been in thousands of watch shops all around the globe and NEVER seen such industry data published?
> 
> I am so sorry for the long and passionate post I just feel well and truly had!!! and I dont like it, and I am trying to do something about it.
> 
> Thank you for your kind attention and best wishes to you all.
> 
> 
> 
> To be honest Watch Lover, I don't think consumer rights / goods descriptions come into it as it's not sold as a hard and fast rule and hardly ever going to be put to the test. Take for example, a basic Â£25 plastic Swatch watch. These are designated 30m water resistant yet who in their right mind would want to test such a watch to that depth? It just isn't going to happen. The only people who would be at that depth are divers who'd be wearing a robust professionally designed watch for the job and even then, I'm told most use dive computers these days instead.
> 
> You mentioned that you had a 50m rated Oris - unless it's a diver / sports model, why would you want to intentionally get it wet, especially if it's a dress watch? I'm currently yearning for Roy's new RLT30 which on the back says 5ATM. Yet if or when I get it, there's *no way* that's going anywhere near water! But at least I'll be confident of it being OK if I get pushed into the river whilst I'm wearing it!
> 
> Despite Oris labelling their watch as 50m, I reckon you'd probably lose a consumer claim if you damaged it whilst swimming as they have clearly printed in their manual that they don't recommend anything wetter that splashes or moisture. I dare say it'd be Ok if you swam in it a few times but I get the impression that manufacturers are just covering their own arses with their ratings and recommendations.
> 
> The question which inspired my original post was would a 30m designated watch survive non habitual accidental saturation such as catting caught in a torrential rainstorm or falling off the side of the bath into the water. Going off all of the replies and information given, I believe it would.
> 
> Andrew.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Hi Andrew,
> 
> I thank you for your kind reply. I have to say you are a retailers dream. Sell you what they like and just let you get on with it? Cant you even see the point I am trying to make? I am sounding like a parrot when I write that a product sold HAS to conform with consumer law. IF a watch is sold as water resistent to 30M it MUST be water resistent to 30M. Why would you consider a consumer stupid if they went swiimming with a 30M water resistent watch? Most pools are only 1 or 2 metres deep not even close to 30M?
> 
> I have scoured the hand books that come with my watches and non of them mention that the watch cannot do what it says on the case.
> 
> Please please dont tell me next that when the back case reads "sapphire glass" its only window glass BUT this I should also know due to some 'other' watch trade code?
> 
> Look, you buy a can of baked beans, you take it home and open it. What do you get.......Baked beans not peas? This is my point. I realy cant write more here as I find it such plain English. I would appreciate any other angle on this? How could I be so wrong. I do understand English.
> 
> Best wishes to you Andrew.
Click to expand...

You are completely missing the point, the watches are resistant to the depth stated on the case ... the fact that they may not be if used diving or swimming is a different matter altogether! The watches also conform to consumer law, but I haven't got the time to explain why ...

I thought only Anglo-Saxons ate baked beans?


----------



## Roy

30m on a watch means that it has been tested to a pressure equal to 30m in static lab conditions.

It does not mean that the watch is suitable for using at a depth of 30m.

This has been well documented and has even been on Watchdog in the past.


----------



## TikTok

So does this mean it's ok to take a can of beans to the pool.or not?

I looked on the label and can't find any info on this matter.

where's the consumer protection when you really need it?


----------



## artistmike

An interesting news article from the 'Swiss Watch News 2006 ' 'Federation of the Swiss Watch Industry FH' states

' Participants firstly exchanged information concerning economic growth in the sector, observing that developments generally were positive in the different markets and prospects for 2006 also seemed quite favourable. Attention was drawn however to a general decline in volumes. A detailed discussion then took place on revisions of the standard ISO 2281 "water-resistant watches" on which subject important differences still exist between different member countries of the ISO. It will not therefore be easy to find a compromise in all areas of the discussions (whether or not to take into account swimming poses a particular problem). Competence in this matter lies with the committee ISO TC 114. '

So it would seem that this is something still causing controvery within the trade.


----------



## pugster

this debate still running?







,yes its ok to take a can of bake beans into a pool tho there is no insurance that it will remain waterproof, however, the can does not say its waterproof to 'x' metres so it doesnt bull**** you either


----------



## knuteols

Hmm... interesting thread







If I found myself at 200M depth ( or even 5M ) I would have other things to worry about than if my watch was waterproof or not... That's just me though... I can barely swim









Knut


----------



## Boxbrownie

JonW said:


> Wow, you are passionate mate. Good luck in your quest. Please do let us know how you get on.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> FWIW my car speedo reads up to 180mph... my car doesnt go 180mph tho.....


Just as well Jon.......or your noddle would blow off!


----------



## marius

Is there anyone here who has taken a fairly new watch, marked "Water resistant" or "5 atm", swam with it, and found that it had gotten water inside?

Actually, how many have had any watch get wet inside from rain, shower, swimming in a pool, or skin diving? I am obviously not talking about a "dress watch" with a pop-off back and a rattling crown. Just regular "sport watch" not a diver's watch.

I am not a deep water scuba diver. I dont own a single "diver's" watch. I do a lot of stuff that get my watches submerged. I have not yet gotten water into a single one. To my mind, that is good enough.

If you are buying a watch, (like any other tool) for a very specific purpose, you buy one that is rated for what you want to do with it. Untill it fails in that specific purpose, you cannot tell me that it will. In Fact, unless you have drowned a 5 atm watch at 50 meters, you have no way to tell me that my 5 atm watch will not survive at 50 meters.

I have just bought another $10 real sissy looking watch, marked 5atm water resistant, and I am going to strap this thing to a mixer impeller and try to drown it. Has anyone done anything about quantifying the so-called "much higher pressures" that a watch experiences during quick arm movement in water? What is really the effect of fast movement? What is percentage increase in perceived depth pressure? Unless you are being chased by something, how fast does a scuba diver really move his arms?

This kettle of fish seems to have turned into a can of beans.


----------



## Running_man

watch lover said:


> Running_man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> watch lover said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hi members,
> 
> The point of water resistent is one very dear to my heart at present.
> 
> I cant understand for the life of me why so many of you here seem to throw your consumer rights away at the drop of a hat? I have been purchasing watches for around 40 years and untill a few weeks ago, and due to watch web sites, I had NO idea at all that there was some mystic secret watch industry regulations regarding the water resistence of watches. I wrongly ASSUMED that when a watch was rated in writing on the back with "water resistent 30M, 50M, 100M, or 200M etc I expected that watch to be WATER RESISTENT to the specified depth?
> 
> Please explain to me how so many posters here spend small fortunes on a product that is CLEARLY labeld with a specification in English yet it will apparently not perform to the standard. This is a scam and needs to be addressed. I am trying to do this. I am beginning with Oris as I have this years spent thousands of pounds purchasing their watches and am furious to now learn I cant take a 50M watch even in the swimming pool as it is 'technically' only able to withstand splashes or 'moisture'. Hello? Why do the manufacturers place this highly misleading data on the back and more important how on earth do they get away with it in the EC where we thankfully have consumer protection laws. A product purchased must be of merchantable quality, perform the task is is sold to do AND respect any claims made on the product. IE a can of baked beans when opened MUST contain eadible baked beans and not peas etc.
> 
> Why do so many of you pay so much and expect so little AND allow this scam to take advantage of people like me who believe what they read and TRUST manufacturers will not mislead me in my purchase.
> 
> To date I have been unable to find ONE industry code. I see many posters here giving data, where does this data come from?. I have been in thousands of watch shops all around the globe and NEVER seen such industry data published?
> 
> I am so sorry for the long and passionate post I just feel well and truly had!!! and I dont like it, and I am trying to do something about it.
> 
> Thank you for your kind attention and best wishes to you all.
> 
> 
> 
> To be honest Watch Lover, I don't think consumer rights / goods descriptions come into it as it's not sold as a hard and fast rule and hardly ever going to be put to the test. Take for example, a basic Â£25 plastic Swatch watch. These are designated 30m water resistant yet who in their right mind would want to test such a watch to that depth? It just isn't going to happen. The only people who would be at that depth are divers who'd be wearing a robust professionally designed watch for the job and even then, I'm told most use dive computers these days instead.
> 
> You mentioned that you had a 50m rated Oris - unless it's a diver / sports model, why would you want to intentionally get it wet, especially if it's a dress watch? I'm currently yearning for Roy's new RLT30 which on the back says 5ATM. Yet if or when I get it, there's *no way* that's going anywhere near water! But at least I'll be confident of it being OK if I get pushed into the river whilst I'm wearing it!
> 
> Despite Oris labelling their watch as 50m, I reckon you'd probably lose a consumer claim if you damaged it whilst swimming as they have clearly printed in their manual that they don't recommend anything wetter that splashes or moisture. I dare say it'd be Ok if you swam in it a few times but I get the impression that manufacturers are just covering their own arses with their ratings and recommendations.
> 
> The question which inspired my original post was would a 30m designated watch survive non habitual accidental saturation such as catting caught in a torrential rainstorm or falling off the side of the bath into the water. Going off all of the replies and information given, I believe it would.
> 
> Andrew.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Hi Andrew,
> 
> I thank you for your kind reply. I have to say you are a retailers dream. Sell you what they like and just let you get on with it? Cant you even see the point I am trying to make? I am sounding like a parrot when I write that a product sold HAS to conform within consumer law. IF a watch is sold as water resistent to 30M it MUST be water resistent to 30M. Why would you consider a consumer stupid if they went swiimming with a 30M water resistent watch? Most pools are only 1 or 2 metres deep not even close to 30M?
> 
> I have scoured the hand books that come with my watches and non of them mention that the watch cannot do what it says on the case.
> 
> Please please dont tell me next that when the back case reads "sapphire glass" its only window glass BUT this I should also know due to some 'other' watch trade code?
> 
> Look, you buy a can of baked beans, you take it home and open it. What do you get.......Baked beans not peas? This is my point. I realy cant write more here as I find it such plain English. I would appreciate any other angle on this? How could I be so wrong. I do understand English.
> 
> Best wishes to you Andrew.
Click to expand...

I think John and Roy have answered the question perfectly. It's not as simple as doing exactly what it says on the tin. You have an Oris which is marked 50m yet in the manual they advise not to swim with it on as it isn't suitable to do so. The fact that it's covered in the manual saves Oris from any comeback on the offchance that somebody decides to swim down to a depth of 50 metres and it fails.

I wouldn't go swimming wearing a watch on that is marked 30 or even 50 meters and I don't think anyone with any common sense would either but to reiterate a statement I made earlier in this thread:

_The question which inspired my original post was would a 30m designated watch survive non habitual accidental saturation such as catting caught in a torrential rainstorm or falling off the side of the bath into the water. Going off all of the replies and information given, I believe it would._

Many other purveyors of goods and services follow a similar policy of explaining the terms and conditions of the features of their product. I believe it's commonly known as small print. I'm well aware of this which is why I'm not exactly a retailer's dream. Especially with what little wealth I have!







I'm lucky if I can afford a tin of beans at the end of each month! 

Kind Regards,

Andrew.


----------



## Boxbrownie

Ooooo really very interesting this thread.....I have several Omega SMP's and would happily swim, dive, splash, bomb or snorkel (to look at bikinis underwater  ) with them......I also have a Omega Multi Function 120 Seamaster which has no srew down crown and would be very wary to swim with it, although I am sure Omega reckon I could quite safely.

Actually I don't quite know what my point is







so I'm going to have my tea now









Best regards David


----------



## watch lover

JoT said:


> watch lover said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Running_man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> watch lover said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hi members,
> 
> The point of water resistent is one very dear to my heart at present.
> 
> I cant understand for the life of me why so many of you here seem to throw your consumer rights away at the drop of a hat? I have been purchasing watches for around 40 years and untill a few weeks ago, and due to watch web sites, I had NO idea at all that there was some mystic secret watch industry regulations regarding the water resistence of watches. I wrongly ASSUMED that when a watch was rated in writing on the back with "water resistent 30M, 50M, 100M, or 200M etc I expected that watch to be WATER RESISTENT to the specified depth?
> 
> Please explain to me how so many posters here spend small fortunes on a product that is CLEARLY labeld with a specification in English yet it will apparently not perform to the standard. This is a scam and needs to be addressed. I am trying to do this. I am beginning with Oris as I have this years spent thousands of pounds purchasing their watches and am furious to now learn I cant take a 50M watch even in the swimming pool as it is 'technically' only able to withstand splashes or 'moisture'. Hello? Why do the manufacturers place this highly misleading data on the back and more important how on earth do they get away with it in the EC where we thankfully have consumer protection laws. A product purchased must be of merchantable quality, perform the task is is sold to do AND respect any claims made on the product. IE a can of baked beans when opened MUST contain eadible baked beans and not peas etc.
> 
> Why do so many of you pay so much and expect so little AND allow this scam to take advantage of people like me who believe what they read and TRUST manufacturers will not mislead me in my purchase.
> 
> To date I have been unable to find ONE industry code. I see many posters here giving data, where does this data come from?. I have been in thousands of watch shops all around the globe and NEVER seen such industry data published?
> 
> I am so sorry for the long and passionate post I just feel well and truly had!!! and I dont like it, and I am trying to do something about it.
> 
> Thank you for your kind attention and best wishes to you all.
> 
> 
> 
> To be honest Watch Lover, I don't think consumer rights / goods descriptions come into it as it's not sold as a hard and fast rule and hardly ever going to be put to the test. Take for example, a basic Â£25 plastic Swatch watch. These are designated 30m water resistant yet who in their right mind would want to test such a watch to that depth? It just isn't going to happen. The only people who would be at that depth are divers who'd be wearing a robust professionally designed watch for the job and even then, I'm told most use dive computers these days instead.
> 
> You mentioned that you had a 50m rated Oris - unless it's a diver / sports model, why would you want to intentionally get it wet, especially if it's a dress watch? I'm currently yearning for Roy's new RLT30 which on the back says 5ATM. Yet if or when I get it, there's *no way* that's going anywhere near water! But at least I'll be confident of it being OK if I get pushed into the river whilst I'm wearing it!
> 
> Despite Oris labelling their watch as 50m, I reckon you'd probably lose a consumer claim if you damaged it whilst swimming as they have clearly printed in their manual that they don't recommend anything wetter that splashes or moisture. I dare say it'd be Ok if you swam in it a few times but I get the impression that manufacturers are just covering their own arses with their ratings and recommendations.
> 
> The question which inspired my original post was would a 30m designated watch survive non habitual accidental saturation such as catting caught in a torrential rainstorm or falling off the side of the bath into the water. Going off all of the replies and information given, I believe it would.
> 
> Andrew.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Hi Andrew,
> 
> I thank you for your kind reply. I have to say you are a retailers dream. Sell you what they like and just let you get on with it? Cant you even see the point I am trying to make? I am sounding like a parrot when I write that a product sold HAS to conform with consumer law. IF a watch is sold as water resistent to 30M it MUST be water resistent to 30M. Why would you consider a consumer stupid if they went swiimming with a 30M water resistent watch? Most pools are only 1 or 2 metres deep not even close to 30M?
> 
> I have scoured the hand books that come with my watches and non of them mention that the watch cannot do what it says on the case.
> 
> Please please dont tell me next that when the back case reads "sapphire glass" its only window glass BUT this I should also know due to some 'other' watch trade code?
> 
> Look, you buy a can of baked beans, you take it home and open it. What do you get.......Baked beans not peas? This is my point. I realy cant write more here as I find it such plain English. I would appreciate any other angle on this? How could I be so wrong. I do understand English.
> 
> Best wishes to you Andrew.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are completely missing the point, the watches are resistant to the depth stated on the case ... the fact that they may not be if used diving or swimming is a different matter altogether! The watches also conform to consumer law, but I haven't got the time to explain why ...
> 
> I thought only Anglo-Saxons ate baked beans?
Click to expand...

Hi Jot,

I am MORE than willing to accept I am missing the point. Perhaps you could explain how a water resistent watch to 50M IS water resistent but NOT to swim in? I am thick please accept this and explain to me in ABC how this works? Please do.

Thank you for your kind attaention.


----------



## andy100

Well I performed a very unscientif test yesterday and took an old 'Storm' watch (some people might remember the brand, they still produce distinct fashion watches. Some nice, some ming







) that I didn't like into the shower with me with the crown out. Having kicked it around the deeper pools of water in the shower bottom for a good 10 mins and let all of the soapy water cover it, it wasn't touched *at all* inside by water. After this, I levered the push-in caseback off, and discovered the only seal there was the caseback itself and the molded plastic that held the quartz movement in place inside the case! And this is in a fashion watch rated to 50m!

Now I'm not trying to use this example for either side of the argument







but I for one was given more confidence in wearing any of my 100m WR watches in the shower or swimming pool!

Andy


----------



## Running_man

Boxbrownie said:


> Actually I don't quite know what my point is
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> so I'm going to have my tea now
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Best regards David


Baked beans by any chance?!


----------



## watch lover

Roy said:


> 30m on a watch means that it has been tested to a pressure equal to 30m in static lab conditions.
> 
> It does not mean that the watch is suitable for using at a depth of 30m.
> 
> This has been well documented and has even been on Watchdog in the past.


Hi,

You write "well documented". Please give me the address where I can find this 'code'.

My watch does not say "in static lab conditions' only water resistent to 50M?

In English water resistent 50M means just that no matter how you choose to play with the words? I didnt invent the English language but I can read it and understand it. Splash prrof or moisture prrof mean just that. Why not use those terms?

Thanks for the reply.



TikTok said:


> So does this mean it's ok to take a can of beans to the pool.or not?
> 
> I looked on the label and can't find any info on this matter.
> 
> where's the consumer protection when you really need it?


Getting realy silly here BUT. If the can of beans has written on the can 'water resistent to 50M' then of course you can expect the bean can to be just that. Your point being?

A watch is not resistent to flame throwers so it doesnt say it is on the back? Please lets write some common sense here? Respects to you but your point is very immature?

Best wishes


----------



## raketakat

Running_man said:


> Boxbrownie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually I don't quite know what my point is
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> so I'm going to have my tea now
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Best regards David
> 
> 
> 
> Baked beans by any chance?!
Click to expand...









Have you accounted for the fart gas variable?


----------



## JoT

watch lover said:


> Hi Jot,
> 
> I am MORE than willing to accept I am missing the point. Perhaps you could explain how a water resistent watch to 50M IS water resistent but NOT to swim in? I am thick please accept this and explain to me in ABC how this works? Please do.
> 
> Thank you for your kind attaention.


You have either not read of have not understood my earlier posts ... but here it is again:

The test as performed by the manufacturers is in a laboratory under conditions as specified in the ISO or equivalent national standard. In real life there are many other variables to be taken into account, for example: the condition of the watch, age of the seals, rapid changes of temerature, activity being undertaken, accidentaly knocking the crown etc etc etc. The test does not, and is not, intended to replicate real life.

Manufacturers quite sensibly allow a considerable saftey factor when considering their recommendations for use, it's all quite simple really.


----------



## watch lover

Running_man said:


> watch lover said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Running_man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> watch lover said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hi members,
> 
> The point of water resistent is one very dear to my heart at present.
> 
> I cant understand for the life of me why so many of you here seem to throw your consumer rights away at the drop of a hat? I have been purchasing watches for around 40 years and untill a few weeks ago, and due to watch web sites, I had NO idea at all that there was some mystic secret watch industry regulations regarding the water resistence of watches. I wrongly ASSUMED that when a watch was rated in writing on the back with "water resistent 30M, 50M, 100M, or 200M etc I expected that watch to be WATER RESISTENT to the specified depth?
> 
> Please explain to me how so many posters here spend small fortunes on a product that is CLEARLY labeld with a specification in English yet it will apparently not perform to the standard. This is a scam and needs to be addressed. I am trying to do this. I am beginning with Oris as I have this years spent thousands of pounds purchasing their watches and am furious to now learn I cant take a 50M watch even in the swimming pool as it is 'technically' only able to withstand splashes or 'moisture'. Hello? Why do the manufacturers place this highly misleading data on the back and more important how on earth do they get away with it in the EC where we thankfully have consumer protection laws. A product purchased must be of merchantable quality, perform the task is is sold to do AND respect any claims made on the product. IE a can of baked beans when opened MUST contain eadible baked beans and not peas etc.
> 
> Why do so many of you pay so much and expect so little AND allow this scam to take advantage of people like me who believe what they read and TRUST manufacturers will not mislead me in my purchase.
> 
> To date I have been unable to find ONE industry code. I see many posters here giving data, where does this data come from?. I have been in thousands of watch shops all around the globe and NEVER seen such industry data published?
> 
> I am so sorry for the long and passionate post I just feel well and truly had!!! and I dont like it, and I am trying to do something about it.
> 
> Thank you for your kind attention and best wishes to you all.
> 
> 
> 
> To be honest Watch Lover, I don't think consumer rights / goods descriptions come into it as it's not sold as a hard and fast rule and hardly ever going to be put to the test. Take for example, a basic Â£25 plastic Swatch watch. These are designated 30m water resistant yet who in their right mind would want to test such a watch to that depth? It just isn't going to happen. The only people who would be at that depth are divers who'd be wearing a robust professionally designed watch for the job and even then, I'm told most use dive computers these days instead.
> 
> You mentioned that you had a 50m rated Oris - unless it's a diver / sports model, why would you want to intentionally get it wet, especially if it's a dress watch? I'm currently yearning for Roy's new RLT30 which on the back says 5ATM. Yet if or when I get it, there's *no way* that's going anywhere near water! But at least I'll be confident of it being OK if I get pushed into the river whilst I'm wearing it!
> 
> Despite Oris labelling their watch as 50m, I reckon you'd probably lose a consumer claim if you damaged it whilst swimming as they have clearly printed in their manual that they don't recommend anything wetter that splashes or moisture. I dare say it'd be Ok if you swam in it a few times but I get the impression that manufacturers are just covering their own arses with their ratings and recommendations.
> 
> The question which inspired my original post was would a 30m designated watch survive non habitual accidental saturation such as catting caught in a torrential rainstorm or falling off the side of the bath into the water. Going off all of the replies and information given, I believe it would.
> 
> Andrew.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Hi Andrew,
> 
> I thank you for your kind reply. I have to say you are a retailers dream. Sell you what they like and just let you get on with it? Cant you even see the point I am trying to make? I am sounding like a parrot when I write that a product sold HAS to conform within consumer law. IF a watch is sold as water resistent to 30M it MUST be water resistent to 30M. Why would you consider a consumer stupid if they went swiimming with a 30M water resistent watch? Most pools are only 1 or 2 metres deep not even close to 30M?
> 
> I have scoured the hand books that come with my watches and non of them mention that the watch cannot do what it says on the case.
> 
> Please please dont tell me next that when the back case reads "sapphire glass" its only window glass BUT this I should also know due to some 'other' watch trade code?
> 
> Look, you buy a can of baked beans, you take it home and open it. What do you get.......Baked beans not peas? This is my point. I realy cant write more here as I find it such plain English. I would appreciate any other angle on this? How could I be so wrong. I do understand English.
> 
> Best wishes to you Andrew.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I think John and Roy have answered the question perfectly. It's not as simple as doing exactly what it says on the tin. You have an Oris which is marked 50m yet in the manual they advise not to swim with it on as it isn't suitable to do so. The fact that it's covered in the manual saves Oris from any comeback on the offchance that somebody decides to swim down to a depth of 50 metres and it fails.
> 
> I wouldn't go swimming wearing a watch on that is marked 30 or even 50 meters and I don't think anyone with any common sense would either but to reiterate a statement I made earlier in this thread:
> 
> _The question which inspired my original post was would a 30m designated watch survive non habitual accidental saturation such as catting caught in a torrential rainstorm or falling off the side of the bath into the water. Going off all of the replies and information given, I believe it would._
> 
> Many other purveyors of goods and services follow a similar policy of explaining the terms and conditions of the features of their product. I believe it's commonly known as small print. I'm well aware of this which is why I'm not exactly a retailer's dream. Especially with what little wealth I have!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm lucky if I can afford a tin of beans at the end of each month!
> 
> Kind Regards,
> 
> Andrew.
Click to expand...

Hi,

Thank you for your mail. I am sitting here now with two new Oris watches and their manuals. In neither manual does it mention any such thing as you quote?

I have written to Oris regarding this point but of course have not even had the manners of a reply?

I am also aware that this position is not particular to Oris. I like the Oris watchs' and will continue to purchase them.

In view that so many here know about this 'industry code', that writes one thing but means another, where can I obtain an official copy? I have now asked this numerous times but no one has posted it yet?

I have said in previous forums I find this all very odd as I have NEVER had a watch leak water in 40 years of pool use. I used to dive and bought a watch specific for that purpose.

What set me on my 'high horse' was when I read a trade watch maker calling the public uneducated and stupid as they took watches marked 50M or 100M swimming (not diving) and when they got water in them the customer complained???? This remark infuriated me. As a simple consumer I buy a product and READ what is says on the product. I just expect it to do what it says as in most other purchases I make.

Best wishes to you.


----------



## JoT

watch lover said:


> What set me on my 'high horse' was when I read a trade watch maker calling the public uneducated and stupid as they took watches marked 50M or 100M swimming (not diving) and when they got water in them the customer complained???? This remark infuriated me. As a simple consumer I buy a product and READ what is says on the product. I just expect it to do what it says as in most other purchases I make.


Who said this?


----------



## watch lover

JoT said:


> watch lover said:
> 
> 
> 
> What set me on my 'high horse' was when I read a trade watch maker calling the public uneducated and stupid as they took watches marked 50M or 100M swimming (not diving) and when they got water in them the customer complained???? This remark infuriated me. As a simple consumer I buy a product and READ what is says on the product. I just expect it to do what it says as in most other purchases I make.
> 
> 
> 
> Who said this?
Click to expand...

Hi,

The article is publised in the 'Oris unofficial watch club forum' known as czar. It was a full lengh report from a watch maker who had two very expensive watches to dry out etc and he was so derogitory about his customers. I have been purchasing watches for 40 years and have NEVER known about this bloomin code you all seem to quote but cannot produce? In all honesty it must be seen as very misleading to a consumer to purchase a watch that is marked as water resistent but is not. Or converely is it?

I shall continue to use my watches in the pool and while showering.

As for the chap who wrote here it is "common sense NOT to use a watch marked 30 or 50M in a pool"....I am just bereft of speach.

However, I am now being used as amusement so will stop posting here and let all get back to business.

Thank you for your civil and helpful posts. I am sorry I am not an expert in watches only a poor fool who may have been dupped regarding this topic? I guess I shall never know as its just impossible to find any authentic information.

Best wishes to you and yours


----------



## Silver Hawk

watch lover said:


> However, I am now being used as amusement so will stop posting here and let all get back to business.


Watch Lover, I don't think you should go.

I haven't followed this thread too carefully but I hope you are not being used as amusment...that doesn't normally happen on this Forum...

Cheers

Paul


----------



## jasonm

I agree with Silver Hawk, I cant see anything in the posts that would suggest that at all....

I was following the discussion with genuine interest...


----------



## Stan

I do agree with Paul. I haven't paid too much attention to this thread either, because I didn't find it that important to _me_. I come from a time when waterproof watches weren't and therefore I'm sceptical about manufacturers claims in that area.

For my part I will stick to the manufacturers recommendations and if they prove to be in error then I'll knock on their doors.

Maybe Roy is in a better position to understand the mechanics of this issue than most of us, being a watchmaker?


----------



## Roy

Stan said:


> Maybe Roy is in a better position to understand the mechanics of this issue than most of us, being a watchmaker?


Don't look at me.


----------



## Stan

Roy said:


> Stan said:
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe Roy is in a better position to understand the mechanics of this issue than most of us, being a watchmaker?
> 
> 
> 
> Don't look at me.
Click to expand...


----------



## Running_man

Sorry if I've offended you in any way watch lover, that wasn't my intention and I apologise sincerely if I've come across as disrespectful. I'd be saddened if I thought I was the cause of anybody leaving a forum they enjoy posting on just because of an off the cuff remark or a bit of mischievous humour. I don't for one minute think you're lacking in common sense it was just a figure of speech. Please stay, your contributions as a watch enthusiast are valued and I for one, look forward to reading more of your contributions.

Regards,

Andrew.


----------



## pugster

i agree that if a watch says 50m water resistant on the dial thats what i would expect it to do ,this was my argument all along and i gave a reply what i thought was right in the second post to the original posters question-that a watch will not do what it says on the dial ,even the seiko link posted states that a 50m is just for splashing about in a paddling pool







and not for diving to 50m ,tho it seems you may be able to swim 50m in a straight line







,can someone that goes sea fishing tie a 50m watch to a brick and thro it in the channel for a day connected to a bouy and give us the results







.


----------



## artistmike

Anyone that seriously requires more info.... ( and is prepared to pay for it







) should have a look here for the ISO standards on water resistance. Iso Standards


----------



## JoT

pugster said:


> i agree that if a watch says 50m water resistant on the dial thats what i would expect it to do ,this was my argument all along and i gave a reply what i thought was right in the second post to the original posters question-that a watch will not do what it says on the dial ,even the seiko link posted states that a 50m is just for splashing about in a paddling pool
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> and not for diving to 50m ,tho it seems you may be able to swim 50m in a straight line
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ,can someone that goes sea fishing tie a 50m watch to a brick and thro it in the channel for a day connected to a bouy and give us the results
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> .


But a 50m watch is water resistant to 50m


----------



## jasonm

Im so confused by all this









John, I really dont accept that a 50m watch can be water resistant to 50m









Why ( if its true) cant a 50m watch be worn for SCUBA?


----------



## pugster

> But a 50m watch is water resistant to 50m
> 
> 
> 
> seiko doesnt seem to think so seiko
> 
> for 5bar (i think is about 40m depth -pressure wise ),i read this convertion on a scuba page,but admit i know nothing about diving so might be completly wrong) ,the above link says splashes,swimming,shower,not 40m depth wise ,ok this is for 5 bar -not 50m- but its still no where near what it says on a seiko watch,not sure if watches are tested in air only to water bar equilavent or in actual pressurised water ,if the first then its a moot point as you dont go diving in air ,well unless you are sky diving and i would have thought that would be a lower pressure,this thread has given me a headache,the only bar im really interested in is in the pub.
Click to expand...


----------



## JoT

Pugster Seiko's stated water resistance rating is a fact, their recommended conditions of use is another matter altogether and takes into account real life and a significant safety margin



jasonm said:


> Im so confused by all this
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> John, I really dont accept that a 50m watch can be water resistant to 50m
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why ( if its true) cant a 50m watch be worn for SCUBA?


The test as performed by the manufacturers is in a laboratory under conditions as specified in the ISO or equivalent national standard. In real life there are many other variables to be taken into account, for example: the condition of the watch, age of the seals, rapid changes of temerature, activity being undertaken, accidentaly knocking the crown etc etc etc. The test does not, and is not, intended to replicate real life.

Manufacturers quite sensibly allow a considerable saftey factor when considering their recommendations for use, it's all quite simple really.


----------



## pugster

ah i see now



> Tested in the method prescribed by the ISO or equivalent national standard


 (this is the magic line)

so basically its like a car MOT (tested to government standards) that can still break down round the corner from the garage and means bugger all once you have driven it out of where it was tested.


----------



## jasonm

So its all bollox then


----------



## 8.32

Apolgies for not having read all of the previous, but here's my 2p.

I've been diving recreationally for about 10 years now. Purely as a holiday diver - got my AOW but haven't gone any further than that. I own, or have owned, many 200/300/500/1000 M watches, but the one I've dived with most? A Citizen Navihawk bought at least 9 years ago. It's been serviced and resealed a couple of times and the thing is bulletproof, let alone waterproof!

It has been down to 30m a few times, but never any further. According to Citizen though, it shouldn't have survived that...

It's still the one watch I know will keep on going, whatever I throw at it.

regards,

Rich


----------



## JoT

pugster said:


> ah i see now
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tested in the method prescribed by the ISO or equivalent national standard
> 
> 
> 
> (this is the magic line)
> 
> so basically its like a car MOT (tested to government standards) that can still break down round the corner from the garage and means bugger all once you have driven it out of where it was tested.
Click to expand...

Hmmm not sure









I gave an example earlier .... I am a miing engineer by training ..... the wire rope that you attach to the shaft cage has a particular breaking strain as tested in a laboratory and as long as you don't exceed the maximum load your rope shouldnt break ..... in an ideal world







. This is why we have a safety factor of a minumum of five times maximum load ..... so the rope is five times stronger than the maximum load.

The analogy I am trying to draw here is that there is a big difference between a laboratory test and the real world, and the recommendations watch manufacturers give for use of their products must take this into account.

Of course if you want to dangle your watch gently on a string under 50m of water it will probably be OK as long as the seals are new and the watch's integrity hasn't been compromised in any other way. Lending it to Jason to swim around the Red Sea is another thing altogether









That's my take on it .....











jasonm said:


> So its all bollox then


No its not


----------



## jasonm

Isnt your analogy the wrong way around John









Your wire is stronger than the specs quoted in the real world, ( built in safety factor)

But the watches WR rating is worse than the specs in real world situations...


----------



## JoT

jasonm said:


> Isnt your analogy the wrong way around John
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your wire is stronger than the specs quoted in the real world, ( built in safety factor)
> 
> But the watches WR rating is worse than the specs in real world situations...


I was comparing it to the recommended use although I agree it can be looked at in the way you chose







.... a watch recommended for diving has a WR rating higher a lot deeper than you would normally dive .... i.e. built in safety factor


----------



## jasonm

So is a 50m rated watch ok for diving?


----------



## JoT

...... it is you isn't it Jason?











jasonm said:


> So is a 50m rated watch ok for diving?


I don't know of a manufacturer that would recommend it, built in safety factor again?

Rich's experience with his Citizen suggests it might be OK

I would prefer to adopt the mine rope approach ..... 5 times what is needed


----------



## jasonm

Yeah, Im afraid it is me









Ill stop now.









Unconvinced


----------



## Isthmus

Well since the topic already got a bit silly...

What about pilot's watches? They work in reduced preasure environments don't day (I'm talking about open or non-presurized cockpits here). Would sealing the watch actually be a good thing for it? I'm not talking about rapid decompression, but rather slow presure equalization. what would air leaking out of the seals do to the watch's oils?

Is this even an issue?


----------



## Nalu

Three pages later, I'm _really_ hesitant to step in, but here goes.

To go back to the car analogy: you go to your dealer armed with _Automobile_ testing reports, internet postings from your favorite forum (well, second favorite







) and manufacturer's specs. They all say that braking and acceleration performance are excellent - zero to 100kph to zero in 12 seconds, 100kph to zero in 32m, all that rubbish. The car _can_ do all that and more. But _no dealer or manufacturer_ is going to tell you it's OK to drive like that. You _can_ do if you want, and you may get away with it for a while - maybe longer than a while if you service your car regularly. But the car will eventually fail and the results could be disastrous.

The upside of this is that you have a sporty car which you can drive aggressively if you need and want to, plus it's always there in the event of an emergency. If you take care of it, it will take care of you. The downside is that you've paid a lot of money for a car that you may never drive over the legal limit. Some people buy sports cars, some people buy Ford Cortina's (or whatever they're called in the UK), some people take the bus.

Any help? Or should I just shut my piehole and let this thread die a natural death?


----------



## JonW

Wow, this is an intersting thread.... 

As for people leaving the forum over this thread... er, take it easy... We understand your beef and are just giving you our oppinions in the same way you did. We are all either for or against any motion to some extent and we dont all agree all of the time... this isnt something to feel you should leave a forum over imho but hey its your choice. BTW I dont find you a source of amusement in the smiley-sides-hurty sense, but I guess I do in the you-peeked-my-interest-enough-to-reply-more-than-once sense.

Also re cars the cars that are 'figured' are generally striped out cars with blue printed engines in the prime of health driven by people who know how to get good times (no matter how many clutches and set of tyres it takes) and as such perform better 0-60 times than any of us would.... I eont say Ive tried... honest...














(I ripped my exhaust clean out of all its rubber mounts once sidestepping the clutch trying to figure an awfully slow heap of junk...obviously the engine mounts werent in the rudest of health...  )

And yes doing 180 (or as close as I could make my car do) has meant ive a receeding harline...







I actually think its from pulling a bike helmet on and off my head for all these years!
















Back to watches.... 50m dive at sea level is 5atm IIRC, but at 1000m elevation its not 5atm, its less.... another vaiable...

It seems there really are too many varaibles i think to still expect a depth rating to be as per the specs in reallife. I do agree that if it says something then it should do it, but the reality is that there are many things in life that arent exaclty as per the spec and so we are careful. What we really need is a self testing watch that monitors its seals and pressure at any given time and will tell you what is safe and what is not. Imagine starting a dive with a watch that says "safe to 162m" or "Unsafe for any place moist" etc.

Alternatively a non compressable fully sealed watch (like the Sinn EZM series - filled with silicone oil, and said to be good to 11000ft - yes really!) should be ok for almost anything... but bash the crown on a rock or wreck or even the swimming pool ladder and you may unseat a seal and let water in...

I was trying to think of another analogy for all this and my other thought is that my girlfriend has a diamond ring. Its pretty solid and we all know diamonds are strong as... but she doesnt wear it swimming, showering or to wash up... she reasons that its an expensive airloom and shed like to keep it safe. I think thats how I feel about swimming with my Rolex, but not with my Seiko... My mate Scuba dives with his Rolex, and only has it serviced when it stops. He has had no issues with it and will continue to do so I am sure, no matter what I say. FWIW its a GMT2 and has no depth rating at all on the dial or the back and yes I do know its not useful as a dive watch, I guess he just likes to know what time it is at home when hes on the seabed....


----------



## Boxbrownie

raketakat said:


> Running_man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boxbrownie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually I don't quite know what my point is
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> so I'm going to have my tea now
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Best regards David
> 
> 
> 
> Baked beans by any chance?!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Have you accounted for the fart gas variable?
Click to expand...

You really.......REALLY cannot account for my "fart gas variables"


----------



## raketakat

Griffs not here so I'll fill in







.


----------



## Russ

I've also read this thread with great interest and I'm impressed with the depth of knowledge you guys have. I suppose what we 'know' shapes our own opinions and actions. I certainly know more on the subject now after this thread but my 'common sense' approach to water won't be changing.

I trust my orange monster to get wet, all the rest will stay dry forever no matter what it says on the tin. My Omega Seamaster Chronostop was pressure tested at the last service and it held up, but I won't be seeing if it works sub aqua. The Autavia is a 50m rated watch I think, but again not a chance, there is something about chrono buttons that fill me with fear.

On Terra Ferma, even if I was going for a hike in the rain, my good watches would be tucked up at home.


----------



## Boxbrownie

Stan said:


> Roy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Stan said:
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe Roy is in a better position to understand the mechanics of this issue than most of us, being a watchmaker?
> 
> 
> 
> Don't look at me.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...

Well I would say that's typical of a retailer..........but then Roy isn't your typical retailer









So can I take my RLT 200m down to 200 meters Roy?























Best regards David

ps.Don't go watchlover, your certainly not here at our amusement, well not mine for sure, and I too agree with you on a lot of points mainly the stated depths should be exactly that, the depth that a customer "could" take the watch to and not expect it to fail (as long as the watch is in good condition of course) regardless of moving my arms around under water!









I really would expect a brand new watch that is rated to 50m to perform faultlessly whilst swimming, and be most pissed off if it didn't.

Obviously its time for the whole ISO and ratings system to be overhauled and refined.


----------



## andy100

Boxbrownie said:


> Obviously its time for the whole ISO and ratings system to be overhauled and refined.


Or at least explained in terms that all of us can understand!


----------



## Boxbrownie

Isthmus said:


> Well since the topic already got a bit silly...
> 
> What about pilot's watches? They work in reduced preasure environments don't day (I'm talking about open or non-presurized cockpits here). Would sealing the watch actually be a good thing for it? I'm not talking about rapid decompression, but rather slow presure equalization. what would air leaking out of the seals do to the watch's oils?
> 
> Is this even an issue?


Apparently yes, thats why the Omega missions (space series?) watches are only 30m rated, they are designed more for low pressure than high, there is a danger of the crystal popping out if sudden decompression was experienced by a more WR watch......as the Rolex crystal did during the early NASA tests I believe.

Best rgeards David


----------



## Boxbrownie

Nalu said:


> Three pages later, I'm _really_ hesitant to step in, but here goes.
> 
> To go back to the car analogy: you go to your dealer armed with _Automobile_ testing reports, internet postings from your favorite forum (well, second favorite
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ) and manufacturer's specs. They all say that braking and acceleration performance are excellent - zero to 100kph to zero in 12 seconds, 100kph to zero in 32m, all that rubbish. The car _can_ do all that and more. But _no dealer or manufacturer_ is going to tell you it's OK to drive like that. You _can_ do if you want, and you may get away with it for a while - maybe longer than a while if you service your car regularly. But the car will eventually fail and the results could be disastrous.
> 
> The upside of this is that you have a sporty car which you can drive aggressively if you need and want to, plus it's always there in the event of an emergency. If you take care of it, it will take care of you. The downside is that you've paid a lot of money for a car that you may never drive over the legal limit. Some people buy sports cars, some people buy Ford Cortina's (or whatever they're called in the UK), some people take the bus.
> 
> Any help? Or should I just shut my piehole and let this thread die a natural death?


But Colin, If you took your brand new car and drove it a maximum speed for the maximum mileage warranty allowed, less one mile and the engine failed, provided you have had the car serviced according to the manufacturers guidlines the manufacturer would be legally obliged to honour the warranty, not come back and say "ah but you only have one mile to go so we are not covering honouring the warranty"

best regards David

BTW, we test our cars to much higher and more severe conditions than stated on the pack! One particular test involves cycling an engine to maximum revs for 600 hours with only oil and filter changes at alloted intervals.....







but don't do this at home folks!


----------



## JonW

Boxbrownie said:


> BTW, we test our cars to much higher and more severe conditions than stated on the pack! One particular test involves cycling an engine to maximum revs for 600 hours with only oil and filter changes at alloted intervals.....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> but don't do this at home folks!


.... In a lab environment.... at least I hope so... tho saying that Transit vans are tested at max revs alkl their lives 
















Of course cars are tested harshly over many weeks 24hrs a day in sub zero and also in hot as hell conditions but no one can account for the 710 not adding oil, or not realising its a manual and only ever using 1st gear for 100,000 miles... there will always be anomalies in any real world situation taht no one ever thought to test...


----------



## Boxbrownie

Your absolutely right Jon, but the fact still remains if the vehicle is serviced according the instructions, just as if the watch would be, then it should do as it says on the pack, just as the watch says....50m and it should survive at 50m. Really playing devils advocate here, I would never want to use a 50m watch for scuba, but I would expect it to survive surface swimming with no problems at all.

Maybe its time for the watch manufacturers to actually say what they mean and rate them at "no water" "splashes" "surface swimming" "scuba diving" "deep diving" and "K70 depth" 

And we test for as many as we can think of believe me.....one of my favorites is the "wet welly" test.....

Full load, maximum revs, first gear and reverse gear then just side step the clutch to engage......

WEEEEE BANG!!!!!!!! well hopefully not........but I do rememebr once we did this test on a loaned Lancia Intergrale.......it went back with most of the 4 wheel drive system in the trunk









BTW Jon.....thats a beautiful accutron you have for sale......really beautiful, don;t do it matey...its only a car, well almost a car









Best regards David


----------



## JonW

Boxbrownie said:


> Full load, maximum revs, first gear and reverse gear then just side step the clutch to engage......
> 
> WEEEEE BANG!!!!!!!! well hopefully not........but I do rememebr once we did this test on a loaned Lancia Intergrale.......it went back with most of the 4 wheel drive system in the trunk


Yes Ive done it... I had to drive home with the exhaust on the ground all the way... another time I broke one of the engine mounts on my VW doing a traffic light GP with some other hotted up rust bucket... I could only get 1st, 3rd and 5th after that until I got a new mount... ahh the vagaries of yoof! luckily i grew up (a bit) 



Boxbrownie said:


> BTW Jon.....thats a beautiful accutron you have for sale......really beautiful, don;t do it matey...its only a car, well almost a car
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Best regards David


....most of a car you mean!























nah its gotta go along with a few others... ive been rather spendy of late with a couple of Sinns and an omega etc etc... ive been very bad...























Er, whoever buys the Accutron Diver i have for sale... er, 666ft... im thinking that would perhaps be a bad idea....


----------



## Boxbrownie

JonW said:


> Er, whoever buys the Accutron Diver i have for sale... er, 666ft... im thinking that would perhaps be a bad idea....


Might hummmm then bubble....then POP.........


----------



## JonW

It is kinda interesting that the watch industry did conceed to change from "Waterproof" to "water resistant" in the 60s/70s but thats about as far as they got... I do wonder if some hollow bracelet links perform under pressure....


----------



## pugster

As already stated, it seems the iso standard needs a major overhall ,looking at the iso ratings posted a few pages back, there seems to be more than one, including 'normal wear' ,'sports wear' ,how is anyone without any knowledge supposed to know which one they have if they both have 50m on the front ,personally if i had paid Â£1500 for a watch with 50m on and it died while i was swimming i would be knocking on somones door to get it replaced,the main point seems to be that most ppl dont want to try their luck with depth ratings and on expensive watches i dont blame them







,someone leaving the forum because they dont agree ? i missed that one ( hell thinking about it,it was probably one of my comments),we all have different views,especially when there are so many variables involved and this is our hobby,we all have different pockets knowledge to add to this forum,and i am one of these ppl that like to learn anything i can,its always a shame to lose a forum member and i hope this doesnt happen.


----------



## marius

Very interesting indeed.

I am still going to strap the $10 sissy watch to the mixer impeller.

I think it is wrong to say that watchmakers state higher ratings on watches than they should. I am sure that almost all rated watches will withstand much more than their rated capacity. Watchmakers are not all dive experts though. It is up to the user to generate his own requirement specification, and compare that to the actual watchmaker's test procedure and rating, and then de-rate the watch according to the expected real life application. In the same way you buy a mining cage cable that is rated for 5 times your requirement, because you know that the manufacturer's cable rating is a laboratory test rating.


----------



## raketakat

marius said:


> I think it is wrong to say that watchmakers state higher ratings on watches than they should. I am sure that almost all rated watches will withstand much more than their rated capacity. Watchmakers are not all dive experts though. It is up to the user to generate his own requirement specification, and compare that to the actual watchmaker's test procedure and rating, and then de-rate the watch according to the expected real life application. In the same way you buy a mining cage cable that is rated for 5 times your requirement, because you know that the manufacturer's cable rating is a laboratory test rating.


Well that's easy for you to say isn't it Marius







 ?


----------



## pg tips

Boxbrownie said:


> So can I take my RLT 200m down to 200 meters Roy?


We all know the answer to this one, of course you can, and unlike most dealers you can be safe in the knowledge that is it does go wrong Roy will sort it!

btw shouldn't this thread have self destructed by now?


----------



## Boxbrownie

pg tips said:


> Boxbrownie said:
> 
> 
> 
> So can I take my RLT 200m down to 200 meters Roy?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We all know the answer to this one, of course you can, and unlike most dealers you can be safe in the knowledge that is it does go wrong Roy will sort it!
> 
> btw shouldn't this thread have self destructed by now?
Click to expand...

Your absolutely correct........isn't he Roy?.......Roy.........Royyyyyyy?????


----------



## marius

Boxbrownie said:


> Your absolutely right Jon, but the fact still remains if the vehicle is serviced according the instructions, just as if the watch would be, then it should do as it says on the pack, just as the watch says....50m and it should survive at 50m. Really playing devils advocate here, I would never want to use a 50m watch for scuba, but I would expect it to survive surface swimming with no problems at all.
> 
> Maybe its time for the watch manufacturers to actually say what they mean and rate them at "no water" "splashes" "surface swimming" "scuba diving" "deep diving" and "K70 depth"
> 
> And we test for as many as we can think of believe me.....one of my favorites is the "wet welly" test.....
> 
> Full load, maximum revs, first gear and reverse gear then just side step the clutch to engage......
> 
> WEEEEE BANG!!!!!!!! well hopefully not........but I do rememebr once we did this test on a loaned Lancia Intergrale.......it went back with most of the 4 wheel drive system in the trunk
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BTW Jon.....thats a beautiful accutron you have for sale......really beautiful, don;t do it matey...its only a car, well almost a car
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Best regards David


I like your tests, but I wont loan you my car! The owner's manual on my 67 Cadillac contains instructions for getting out when you are stuck in snow or mud: "Keep the gas pedal depressed, while shifting the gear selector lever between 'Reverse' and 'Drive' " !! Just does not sound right.


----------



## Boxbrownie

Thats right Marius, what they don't make clear is the fact it should only be done at virtually tickover!

A buddy of mine has a couple of 60's caddies over here, he uses them for weddings etc, we went out for a meal and he took his caddy for a treat, I will never forget that ride.....down the backlanes of essex in a 8' wide convertable with recirculating ball steering that had 40 years of wear and adjustment!!! It wandered all over the road like a drunk clown! The big advantage was that we parked on double yellow lines outside the resturaunt and the police came along had a good look at it and said it was no problem to leave it there!









Best regards David


----------



## marius

Boxbrownie said:


> Thats right Marius, what they don't make clear is the fact it should only be done at virtually tickover!
> 
> A buddy of mine has a couple of 60's caddies over here, he uses them for weddings etc, we went out for a meal and he took his caddy for a treat, I will never forget that ride.....down the backlanes of essex in a 8' wide convertable with recirculating ball steering that had 40 years of wear and adjustment!!! It wandered all over the road like a drunk clown! The big advantage was that we parked on double yellow lines outside the resturaunt and the police came along had a good look at it and said it was no problem to leave it there!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Best regards David


Mine rides like a big boat too. I had it over 95 miles per hour once or twice, (complete sense-of-fear failure!) and then it stayed on a fairly straight line.

Tyres like Marie biscuits, and drum brakes all round! When I got it, it still had a Nylon spare tyre!


----------



## MarkF

Any pics, sounds wonderful.









I went along the canal path on my bike today, to Micklethwaite, where I came across a dedicated Morris 1000 garage.







It took me back, I was given one for my 21st ( I didn't want it) and neglected it, I was young, I wish I had it now.









The garage had maybe 15+ for sale and the owner assured me he was as busy as f**k and could not keep up with demand.









What was this thread about?


----------



## JonW

Marius I love those old barges... totally opposite of the cars I favor to drive, but I just get drawn by the looks and lazy carefree nature.











MarkF said:


> What was this thread about?


Water Resistancy.... sadly tho the Morris Minor wasnt even splashproof when new... there we go, back on topic! 

In fact there are a number of things you could really get upset with watch manufacturers about. Surely the drift in time accuracy on non COSC models cant really follow the 'fit for purpose' guidelines on a device to keep time... and thinking about it the COSC thing seems a bit iffy in the same light... were told to run a movt in but the COSC tests are done before that... and whos to say it still conforms once its been serviced.... but then i guess you could argue my car might not still be capable of its factory 0-60 time after a few services either... tho few cars come with their own individual test certificate... ohh this is indeed a huge can of worms/beans....


----------



## pg tips

JonW said:


> Water Resistancy.... sadly tho the Morris Minor wasnt even splashproof when new...


Sliding







again







I remember when we were kids dads car gave out a week b4 we were due to go on our holidays so he bought a cortina for Â£25 from a mate at the pub. He spent every night that week checking it over and doing repairs so it was all OK. It was lovely weather late July so most nights it was 10 pm before he came in, he even missed his wednesday night doms and thursday darts that week!

Anyway Saturday came and we all piled in and off we went to Sunny Gt Yarmouth. We got to Norwich and I remember it quite clearly. We were somewhere near the football ground and there was the mother of all down pours. I remember the water rushing down the hills, and the car leaked like a sieve. We had to grab towels out of the luggage in the boot to try and stop the leaks!

I wonder what watch I was wearing in those days. Probably one of these. Sliding back on topic







the one I remember didn't do what it said on the dial when I was a kid!


----------



## Boxbrownie

pg tips said:


> JonW said:
> 
> 
> 
> Water Resistancy.... sadly tho the Morris Minor wasnt even splashproof when new...
> 
> 
> 
> Anyway Saturday came and we all piled in and off we went to Sunny Gt Yarmouth. We got to Norwich and I remember it quite clearly. We were somewhere near the football ground and there was the mother of all down pours. I remember the water rushing down the hills, and the car leaked like a sieve. We had to grab towels out of the luggage in the boot to try and stop the leaks!
Click to expand...

Hills? in Norfolk.......it must have been a long long time ago Paul.....pre jurasic I assume?









And who had a 60's Mini which everytime you overtook or were overtaken by a artic in the rain, would cut out as the ignition and disty got a drenching right behind the grill







....ah those were the days...thank heaven they've gone!









Best regards David


----------



## pg tips

Living where I do David Norfolk is Mountainous in comparison!


----------



## mach 0.0013137

pg tips said:


> Living where I do David Norfolk is Mountainous in comparison!


I went to Norfolk in 2000 on a residents holiday, why were all the VW owners driving round as if going over 30MPH (whatever the speed limit) would blow up their car?









I went with my mate Bill who onwned a Golf at the time, boy did he get some stick, I`ve heard of similar experiences from other work colleagues who`ve been there including one lady who isn`t happy unless at least two wheels of her Golf are off the ground at any time, she nearly had a fit when she saw how they drove theirs


----------



## jasonm

This one


----------



## PhilM

jasonm said:


> This one


You bad bad man for finding this again









Just skimming through this has made my head hurt


----------



## rev

Well I think that topic is well and truly covered....................!

Andy


----------



## Toshi

why don't we have threads like this anymore? we're all too nice and friendly IMO









It's great that people get so passionate about water resistance. Those damn watch manufacturers! Whay can't they just say what they mean?










Rich


----------



## jasonm

I agree Rich.......

( you tosser.....)


----------



## Toshi

jasonm said:


> ( you ******.....)


Jason, just remember......










What's the Capelands water resistance again?









1000m...... let's see, shall we?









Rich


----------



## jasonm

Damn! Me and my big gob.....


----------



## pg tips

Those were the days, when we had respect on the forum, even Pugster called me *Mr*. pg









now there's a little green emoticon you all use instead


----------



## PhilM

What this one :wanker:










Edit: Actually Mr PG you don't do a bad job after all


----------



## pg tips

jasonm said:


> So its all bollox then


Glad to see some things remain consistant like Jase's erudite responses! Oh and his lack of apostrophe's!

Wonder who watch lover really was and where he disapeared to?


----------



## jasonm

Apostrophes are vastly over-rated in my opinion....


----------



## Stuart Davies

Jeez - Like reading a good thiller!!! ...and almost distracted me from Liverpools mighty victory


----------



## Robert

Right, after 20 minutes (at least) reading this - I'm confused.

Can I wear a 3ATM watch whilst driving at 70mph in my Morris Minor after eating beans, when its raining?


----------



## mrteatime

Robert said:


> Right, after 20 minutes (at least) reading this - I'm confused.
> 
> Can I wear a 3ATM watch whilst driving at 70mph in my Morris Minor after eating beans, when its raining?


only with the windows closed


----------



## Stan

Robert said:


> Right, after 20 minutes (at least) reading this - I'm confused.
> 
> Can I wear a 3ATM watch whilst driving at 70mph in my Morris Minor after eating beans, when its raining?


It depends on the type of beans you've been eating and how much propulsion they provide, per square GigaBongle.

Not to mention the angle and gross weight of the rain in MegaPloxels.


----------



## mrteatime

Stan said:


> Robert said:
> 
> 
> 
> Right, after 20 minutes (at least) reading this - I'm confused.
> 
> Can I wear a 3ATM watch whilst driving at 70mph in my Morris Minor after eating beans, when its raining?
> 
> 
> 
> It depends on the type of beans you've been eating and how much propulsion they provide, per square GigaBongle.
> 
> Not to mention the angle and gross weight of the rain in MegaPloxels.
Click to expand...

oh pooh....forgot to mention that......

stan is of course correct


----------



## Stan

mrteatime said:


> Stan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Robert said:
> 
> 
> 
> Right, after 20 minutes (at least) reading this - I'm confused.
> 
> Can I wear a 3ATM watch whilst driving at 70mph in my Morris Minor after eating beans, when its raining?
> 
> 
> 
> It depends on the type of beans you've been eating and how much propulsion they provide, per square GigaBongle.
> 
> Not to mention the angle and gross weight of the rain in MegaPloxels.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> oh pooh....forgot to mention that......
> 
> stan is of course correct
Click to expand...

Really?

It must be the first time I was.


----------



## PhilM

Quick lock the thread Stan and preserve that moment


----------



## SharkBike

jasonm said:


> So its all bollox then


Sorry Stan...gotta give it to Jase...he nailed it on the head (apart from the missing apostrophe, of course).

Plus, everyone knows that when windows are closed the gross weight of the rain in MegaPlozels only applies when square GigaBongles reach a minimum of 50 SnagglePiddlyPooPoos. This is how you properly account for the fart gas variable (mentioned earlier in the thread).

Jeez...do I have to explain EVERYTHING to you people?

Perhaps Watch Lover had it right after all...

"I guess I shall never know as its just impossible to find any authentic information."

...and he seems to feel apostrophes are overrated too...wait...could it be?


----------



## KEITHT

Robert said:


> Right, after 20 minutes (at least) reading this - I'm confused.
> 
> Can I wear a 3ATM watch whilst driving at 70mph in my Morris Minor after eating beans, when its raining?


Your funny, fancy thinking a Morris Minor can do 70, my uncle had several and the only speed they saw was....oh! actually shouldn't get into that!

Keith


----------



## mrteatime

SharkBike said:


> jasonm said:
> 
> 
> 
> So its all bollox then
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry Stan...gotta give it to Jase...he nailed it on the head (apart from the missing apostrophe, of course).
> 
> Plus, everyone knows that when windows are closed the gross weight of the rain in MegaPlozels only applies when square GigaBongles reach a minimum of 50 SnagglePiddlyPooPoos. This is how you properly account for the fart gas variable (mentioned earlier in the thread).
> 
> Jeez...do I have to explain EVERYTHING to you people?
> 
> Perhaps Watch Lover had it right after all...
> 
> "I guess I shall never know as its just impossible to find any authentic information."
> 
> ...and he seems to feel apostrophes are overrated too...wait...could it be?
Click to expand...

I think you are out in your calculations...there should be a point before snagglepiddlypoopoos.it should be .50 SnagglePiddlyPooPoos......is equal to and no greater than 3 to the power of trump.

you need to think out of the box otherwise its just ridiculous


----------



## jasonm

> Perhaps Watch Lover had it right after all...
> 
> "I guess I shall never know as its just impossible to find any authentic information."
> 
> ...and he seems to feel apostrophes are overrated too...wait...could it be?


Im a watch lover, no capitals







commas are ok though


----------



## pg tips

there should be an apostrophe in I'm or are you just being obtuse now?

Jase can't be watch lover. Watch lover's spelling was too good!


----------



## loucos66

I have an Omega that says it is good for 600m but i doubt i'll take it diving or strap it to a sub!!


----------



## samb

It's all very ambiguous isn't it, I had a watch that was supposedly spash proof but during torrential rain it broke, luckily it wasn't very expensive


----------



## Haggis

Roy said:


> Just read the manufacturers guidelines. They all seem to be different.
> 
> To be honest if your going to dive and your life depended on it then you would use the proper gear and not a normal wrist watch.
> 
> I can't even swim and I do not do the washing up
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> so it would not matter to me anyway. A 1 meter watch would do.


I was once told that if you want a watch for swimming get a screw in crown, except G shock etc, I also would not go for a swim with anything less than 200m. Fashion tricks from manufactures like calling a watch series Neptune which is actually splashproof, does not help. Even some 200m are not rated for aqualung. Only dive certificated are. Seiko 007 and 009 should have a dive certificate. Although most standard Rotary are okay for swimming all day, dolphin standard.

30M PROTECT FROM THE RAIN

50M GOOD EXCUSE NOT TO DO THE DISHES

70M ?

100M MIGHT GET AWAY WITH A DIP

150M SWIMMING SURFACE

200M OKAY FOR MOST WATER SPORTS

300M SAME AND DIVING

500M CHANCES ARE YOU WON'T MAKE IT BACK ALIVE

1000M LOOKS GOOD IN THE BAR


----------



## Roger the Dodger

So, basically, you're saying that what it says on here is b0ll0x.....


----------



## Haggis

300M Omega, you should be able to dive with no worries.


----------



## Haggis

Haggis said:


> Roy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Just read the manufacturers guidelines. They all seem to be different.
> 
> To be honest if your going to dive and your life depended on it then you would use the proper gear and not a normal wrist watch.
> 
> I can't even swim and I do not do the washing up
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> so it would not matter to me anyway. A 1 meter watch would do.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I was once told that if you want a watch for swimming get a screw in crown, except G shock etc, I also would not go for a swim with anything less than 200m. Fashion tricks from manufactures like calling a watch series Neptune which is actually splashproof, does not help. Even some 200m are not rated for aqualung. Only dive certificated are. Seiko 007 and 009 should have a dive certificate. Although most standard Rotary are okay for swimming all day, dolphin standard.
> 
> 30M PROTECT FROM THE RAIN
> 
> 50M GOOD EXCUSE NOT TO DO THE DISHES
> 
> 70M ?
> 
> 100M MIGHT GET AWAY WITH A DIP
> 
> 150M SWIMMING SURFACE
> 
> 200M OKAY FOR MOST WATER SPORTS
> 
> 300M SAME AND DIVING
> 
> 500M CHANCES ARE YOU WON'T MAKE IT BACK ALIVE
> 
> 1000M LOOKS GOOD IN THE BAR
Click to expand...




Roger the Dodger said:


> So, basically, you're saying that what it says on here is b0ll0x.....


As above, 300m Omega, swim with style.


----------



## luddite

Its quite alright to omit the apostrophe, its the correct way to do it.

Its not ok to take the pee out of jase.

Its, its, its, okay? 

But it isn't in isn't.


----------



## Haggis




----------



## normdiaz

I don't intentionally expose a watch to water, but I don't accept any WR rating below 50M. Just a personal preference. (As a general rule of thumb, it appears that most snapback cases are rated at 30M WR or lower but a few are rated at 50M WR; just my observation, accurate or not.)


----------



## Roamer Man

For me there's only one reason to wear a watch while swimming - I don't want to get it nicked while I'm frolicking about in the waves. So, rules of thumb apply here and personally, I don't think I'd risk a 'dip in the pool' with less than 100m WR. Based on my limited experience with water...

I've only tried it with three watches, decades ago now - two Roamers and a Seiko. They were all quite new at the time and none of them were diver's. The first Roamer I don't remember what it's rating was, but I did snorkel to ear-painful depths with it a few times without a problem. Then I accidentally crunched it, and It wasn't WR any more..

...so the 2nd Roamer I bought was a 100m WR Rockshell and it kept the water out well for several decades - without any servicing (shame on me), let alone testing the seals. Forty year on though, I did find rust around the stem area.

The Seiko (SQ dress watch) didn't do so well. Don't know the rating, probably 50m, and it soon suffered with ingress of water and rust, after only swimming (no snorkelling). This meant a repair. In hindsight I reckon I was taking a big chance with it, and I was very lucky it was repairable.

So, for my two pennyworth, and given that the average 'dive' is about 2m for 99% of people, I reckon 100m WR gives a fair margin of safety. In the shower? I wouldn't chance it with less than a 50m WR watch.


----------

