# How stupid is it to go swimming with a Speedmaster Professional Moonwatch?



## Morgan24 (Aug 15, 2016)

Is it bound to go wrong? How big a risk is it? It do say 50m water resistance?


----------



## Michael Day (Feb 19, 2016)

Morgan24 said:


> Is it bound to go wrong? How big a risk is it? It do say 50m water resistance?


I probably wouldn't make it a regular activity.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## El-Duderino (Feb 21, 2016)

I wouldn’t. 50m is like nothing in regards to WR and why risk it?


----------



## Pimmsley (Jun 19, 2017)

...and if you were to take it for a dip (I wouldn't..) don't use the chrono pushers under water  make for sad time...


----------



## oso2276 (Apr 19, 2017)

NASA did not test it for swimming
https://www.fratellowatches.com/watches-pencils-21-nasa-tests/
I think should be OK if new and all gasquets are fully functional, but I would not risk it

Enviado desde mi Moto G (5) Plus mediante Tapatalk


----------



## bigclive2011 (Mar 17, 2013)

50m is not enough for swimming I wouldn’t risk it, it could cost you big $$$

Just use a 007,and leave the Speedy in the dry.


----------



## SaoDavi (Jan 28, 2014)

I dont even like taking my 100m quartz watches with no screwdown crown into the water. Though admittedly, before I was a WIS, I did so.

Sent from my SM-T380 using Tapatalk


----------



## fish70 (Oct 12, 2006)

50 meters is a long way down. I just wouldn't use the chrono pushers while in the water.


----------



## kazwel (Jul 11, 2018)

Just don't. 

The water resistance on a watch is based on a static pressure, while swimming you put the watch under cyclical pressure, the constant change in pressures expands and contracts the case size and can force water in.


----------



## Archer (Apr 23, 2009)

El-Duderino said:


> I wouldn't. 50m is like nothing in regards to WR and why risk it?





bigclive2011 said:


> 50m is not enough for swimming I wouldn't risk it, it could cost you big $$$
> 
> Just use a 007,and leave the Speedy in the dry.


The watch is rated for 50m, and that means it can go to 50m - not sure about you but I don't go nearly that deep when swimming. It's fine if the watch has been properly maintained, including regular replacement of the seals and pressure testing. Of course the pushers can't be used under water.

If people choose not to risk taking this watch in the water, that's their choice. But it certainly can go in the water if it's been properly maintained.

Cheers, Al


----------



## Archer (Apr 23, 2009)

kazwel said:


> Just don't.
> 
> The water resistance on a watch is based on a static pressure, while swimming you put the watch under cyclical pressure, the constant change in pressures expands and contracts the case size and can force water in.


This is complete nonsense...


----------



## fish70 (Oct 12, 2006)

https://www.hodinkee.com/articles/diving-with-sylvia-earle-dispatches-rolex


----------



## Dr.Tautology (Dec 8, 2017)

I suggest you consult this guy:

https://www.instagram.com/waterproofmoonwatch/

Sent from my Pixel using Tapatalk


----------



## RustyBin5 (May 30, 2015)

Not much water on the moon. Just saying


----------



## Dr.Tautology (Dec 8, 2017)

kazwel said:


> Just don't.
> 
> The water resistance on a watch is based on a static pressure, while swimming you put the watch under cyclical pressure, the constant change in pressures expands and contracts the case size and can force water in.


That's a hilarious trolling comment. The thermal expansion coefficient of steel has the case expanding around .003 inches in area per 100°F, but the pressure of swimming would warp the steel and compromise the seals.

Sent from my Pixel using Tapatalk


----------



## [email protected] (Aug 9, 2008)

Al, I've always wondered why the pushers keep water out when submerged, but using them underwater is a no-no. Are the O-rings in the pushers compromised when using them?


----------



## ChronoB (May 22, 2018)

I'm hard pressed to believe that a new Speedmaster or a well-maintained one with properly sealing gaskets can't be worn while swimming in a pool. If you buy a $5,000 watch and you can't fall or be pushed into a pool without worrying about water getting into it then you should have bought a different watch.


----------



## ar7iste (Sep 24, 2016)

Many people have gone in water with their Speedy and it's fine if it's new or properly maintained. Jut don't go too deep with it on your wrist and don't water ski (or any high impact sport on water really).

Also, for most watches, 50m doesn't mean you can go 50m deep. But Omega, weirdly enough, says that all their watches can actually go up to the depth indicated on the caseback.

Source: speedy pro owner and Omega water resistance chart (just google it).


----------



## RustyBin5 (May 30, 2015)

Get a seamaster


----------



## El-Duderino (Feb 21, 2016)

Archer said:


> The watch is rated for 50m, and that means it can go to 50m - not sure about you but I don't go nearly that deep when swimming. It's fine if the watch has been properly maintained, including regular replacement of the seals and pressure testing. Of course the pushers can't be used under water.
> 
> If people choose not to risk taking this watch in the water, that's their choice. But it certainly can go in the water if it's been properly maintained.
> 
> Cheers, Al


Al: I guess I err on the side of caution when it comes to WR. As you said, it is all dependent on proper maintenance before going for a dip and making sure the pushers don't get pressed (accidentally by you or someone else near you) while in the water.

It's just not zero risk is all I'm saying.


----------



## HiggsBoson (Oct 12, 2009)

RustyBin5 said:


> Not much water on the moon. Just saying


Some on Mars though, apparently. ;-)


----------



## kazwel (Jul 11, 2018)

That was the response I got from Omega when I asked why they weren't covering the water damage under their warranty.


----------



## kazwel (Jul 11, 2018)

Dr.Tautology said:


> That's a hilarious trolling comment. The thermal expansion coefficient of steel has the case expanding around .003 inches in area per 100°F, but the pressure of swimming would warp the steel and compromise the seals.
> 
> Sent from my Pixel using Tapatalk


The gaskets are made out of steel though are they?


----------



## Dr.Tautology (Dec 8, 2017)

kazwel said:


> That was the response I got from Omega when I asked why they weren't covering the water damage under their warranty.


Sounds like Omega was trolling you.

Sent from my Pixel using Tapatalk


----------



## many (Jan 9, 2018)

kazwel said:


> Just don't.
> 
> The water resistance on a watch is based on a static pressure, while swimming you put the watch under cyclical pressure, the constant change in pressures expands and contracts the case size and can force water in.


Do you have a source for this? I've heard this a number of times.


----------



## Archer (Apr 23, 2009)

El-Duderino said:


> I wouldn't. 50m is like nothing in regards to WR and why risk it?





El-Duderino said:


> Al: I guess I err on the side of caution when it comes to WR. As you said, it is all dependent on proper maintenance before going for a dip and making sure the pushers don't get pressed (accidentally by you or someone else near you) while in the water.
> 
> It's just not zero risk is all I'm saying.


Well, you said 50m is nothing when it comes to WR - well it's actually 50m, so quite a lot in real terms.

I never said there was zero risk, but there's risk in everything in life, and people can choose to take them or not, but let people make their decisions based on the facts. The fact is the watch is good to 50m, and that's certainly more water resistance than most people would ever need. when swimming.

People here are (mostly) adults, and if given the facts I think they can make their own judgements about their own tolerances for risk.

That's all I'm saying... ;-)

Cheers, Al


----------



## Archer (Apr 23, 2009)

[email protected] said:


> Al, I've always wondered why the pushers keep water out when submerged, but using them underwater is a no-no. Are the O-rings in the pushers compromised when using them?


The way the pushers are designed, water can get behind the pusher caps, and when you press the pusher in, it effectively pumps water past the seal.

Cheers, Al


----------



## Archer (Apr 23, 2009)

kazwel said:


> That was the response I got from Omega when I asked why they weren't covering the water damage under their warranty.


Regardless, it's nonsense. If I were you I would not have accepted that answer from Omega. There are plenty of reasons to deny a warranty claim for water intrusion - external damage to the case from impact, failure to get the watch tested as recommended, etc., but this one is nonsense. Was this from an Omega service center, boutique, or AD?



kazwel said:


> The gaskets are made out of steel though are they?


The case back, crown, HEV, and pushers gaskets are primarily made of BUNA-N (nitrile) rubber. Crystal gaskets are typically made of a harder plastic that compresses to hold the crystal in place, and some case backs (press in style) also use this style of gasket.

Cheers, Al


----------



## Archer (Apr 23, 2009)

RustyBin5 said:


> Not much water on the moon. Just saying


They call is "splashdown" for a reason...just saying...





RustyBin5 said:


> Get a seamaster


And if you don't maintain it properly, it will leak just as easily as a Speedmaster will.


----------



## TwentiethCenturyFox (Mar 8, 2014)

Relatively stupid.


----------



## Carl.1 (Mar 27, 2006)

El-Duderino said:


> Al: I guess I err on the side of caution when it comes to WR. As you said, it is all dependent on proper maintenance before going for a dip and making sure the pushers don't get pressed (accidentally by you or someone else near you) while in the water.
> 
> It's just not zero risk is all I'm saying.


Brilliant, thank you, I laughed out loud......some-one pushing your chrono buttons accidentally while you are swimming. Do you write health and safety risk assessments by any chance


----------



## Leonine (Mar 27, 2012)

200m.....hmmm.....I wonder if this would be okay in the rain? Better go for the 300m


----------



## El-Duderino (Feb 21, 2016)

Carl.1 said:


> Brilliant, thank you, I laughed out loud......some-one pushing your chrono buttons accidentally while you are swimming. Do you write health and safety risk assessments by any chance


Nope. But I have been in the water with little kids and the amount flailing/grabbing/kicking that goes on could definitely lead to that exact scenario happening.

So, if it were me, and the watch I was wearing had a feature that completely negated the WR, I would choose a different watch to wear in the water. Others clearly would choose differently, which is totally fine.


----------



## James Haury (Apr 10, 2008)

It is an expensive watch so use a DW5600E for swimming.Plus it's chronograph function is to 1/100th of a secondhttps://www.watchuseek.com/images/smilies/icon_good.gif. or you can get a 50 meter wr CASIO with Chrono for about 16 bucks and use that for nautical exercisehttps://www.watchuseek.com/images/smilies/icon_good.gif most of the inexpensive Casio digitals at Walmart have a chrono function to 1/100th of a second too.












Circa forty five bucks. They are cheap insurance and you may grow attached to them.


----------



## handcrank1 (Mar 17, 2018)

Morgan24 said:


> Is it bound to go wrong? How big a risk is it? It do say 50m water resistance?


From Omega...









Those guys are wearing Speedmaster...


----------



## bigclive2011 (Mar 17, 2013)

That is from Omega, so the 50m WR is officially fine for swimming!!

However in the micro print if it leaks and you haven’t had it checked that very year then kerching $$$$$

Of course we all get our watches checked every year don’t we??


----------



## anaplian (Jan 4, 2014)

kazwel said:


> Just don't.
> 
> The water resistance on a watch is based on a static pressure, while swimming you put the watch under cyclical pressure, the constant change in pressures expands and contracts the case size and can force water in.


That's a myth.

https://www.hodinkee.com/articles/seven-dive-watch-myths-deep-sixed


----------



## ebtromba (Oct 18, 2015)

Even if the gaskets and general WR are good to go, if you accidently bump one of the chronograph pushers.... you're going to have a bad time. 

Sent from my Nexus 6P using Tapatalk


----------



## ebtromba (Oct 18, 2015)

Dr.Tautology said:


> I suggest you consult this guy:
> 
> https://www.instagram.com/waterproofmoonwatch/
> 
> Sent from my Pixel using Tapatalk


This is masterful trolling.

Sent from my Nexus 6P using Tapatalk


----------



## GrouchoM (Jul 11, 2013)

handcrank1 said:


> From Omega...
> 
> View attachment 13337895
> 
> ...


I think "these guys" use a different risk management algorithm than those of us here. 
Some say a Speedy is expensive others not. Some say owning a watch that you're afraid of living in isn't owning a watch.

Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk


----------



## Perseus (Mar 25, 2010)

Risk vs. Reward


----------



## Crownw (Apr 4, 2018)

If i have a little doubt, then i won't do it.


----------



## colonelpurple (Oct 29, 2014)

50m actually means 5 bar
No watch can be rated to an actual dive depth due to so many factors so the rating is a convention converted from bar. More serious dive watches only display bar

It is calculated in calm pure water. Each stroke of the arm doubles or triples pressure

I would google recommend swimming depth

The below is all manufacturers advice. Different manufacturers have different recommendations and the tests are done in different ways, so the bar rating is not transferable between different makes. I would caution against the council of those that appear to know more the manufacturers themselves ......

In general it’s:
30m a bit of rain no showers
50m you can shower in it
100m with some watches you can swim but get seals checked regularly (omega, bremont, etc.). Many 100m without screw down crown you cannnot swim. I always get an answer from manufacturer. E.g. Constellation - no screw down crown but 100m rating. Omega told me I can surface swim but not dive. Bell and Ross 100m, I was told not to swim for one type and for another I could if the seals were replaced every year

200m generally accepted as the rating you can actually snorkle or surface/reef dive (150m for aquaterra is fine for this)

300m or more is generally seriously pressure tested

Note that 99% of real divers never go below 45m as you need decompression
Real divers don’t use mechanical watches, they use dive computers. Normally one on each wrist for redundancy

Enjoy your lovely speedy and don’t take it in the water. Buy a watch made for that ...


----------



## GrouchoM (Jul 11, 2013)

colonelpurple said:


> 50m actually means 5 bar
> No watch can be rated to an actual dive depth due to so many factors so the rating is a convention converted from bar. More serious dive watches only display bar
> 
> It is calculated in calm pure water. Each stroke of the arm doubles or triples pressure
> ...


I hate fake news

Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk


----------



## 432 (Jun 29, 2018)

I just gave one to my son for college graduation. He wore it in the pool the first day he put it on.


----------



## Michael Day (Feb 19, 2016)

colonelpurple said:


> It is calculated in calm pure water. Each stroke of the arm doubles or triples pressure


This is often said. Scientific testing shows that these statements are generally crap. Do some research rather than repesting this nonsense.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## GTTIME (Jun 28, 2009)

Stupid? Definitely not. 

Adventurous? Sure

If you are risk averse don’t do it. If you wouldn’t be devastated by water intrusion and would just get it fixed, then no problem. 

I don’t swim with watches more afraid to scratch it on the pool deck or sides. I wouldn’t wear one in the Ocean for fear of spring bar failure and complete loss. 

Water intrusion doesn’t really concern me.


----------



## imranbecks (Oct 3, 2008)

If I had a dollar for every question with regards to this, i'd probably be able to get for myself another Omega.. Haha


----------



## WristWretch (Oct 3, 2016)

Archer said:


> kazwel said:
> 
> 
> > Just don't.
> ...


He has five posts tho


----------



## 432 (Jun 29, 2018)

WristWretch said:


> He has five posts tho


I've always thought this was silly to say. Everyone is new to a given community at one point or another. Heck, I've ben reading this board for years but never could join until I upgraded my browser to Firefox and ditched Internet Explorer. Internet Explorer, for whatever reason, wouldn't let me click the static buttons on the registration page.

There's another watch forum I'm on. And I can say that never once has anyone ever tried to elevate themselves at the expense of another.


----------



## doggbiter (Oct 31, 2010)

Sounds like you now have a reason to get a dive watch. You're welcome.


----------



## colonelpurple (Oct 29, 2014)

GrouchoM said:


> I hate fake news
> 
> Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk


Then don't spread it


----------



## WeWannaLing (Jul 22, 2012)

I take my never been serviced yet for 21 years Speedy Pro to swim every weekend at the pool and shower with it every morning. Haven't had a problem with water ingress yet, but I will be sure to send it in for a full service if it ever does fail me.


----------



## pacorolex (Oct 27, 2013)

bigclive2011 said:


> That is from Omega, so the 50m WR is officially fine for swimming!!
> 
> However in the micro print if it leaks and you haven't had it checked that very year then kerching $$$$$
> 
> Of course we all get our watches checked every year don't we??




Enviado desde mi iPhone utilizando Tapatalk


----------



## Archer (Apr 23, 2009)

colonelpurple said:


> Then don't spread it


Please provide the appropriate calculations to support your theories.


----------



## Archer (Apr 23, 2009)

So let's back up a bit here and talk about how watches are sealed, and what the real differences are between a watch with high water resistance and low water resistance.

Generally speaking most watches are constructed in a similar way, using primarily BUNA-N (nitrile) seals on the sealing surfaces. These seals rely on compression and contact with sealing surfaces to prevent water from entering the case. People keep saying that you need a dive watch in this thread for swimming, which makes no sense at all. The seals are the weakest link and the failure of the seal is the primary failure mode when a watch leaks. You may think that the dive watch uses some very robust seal compared to the non-dive watch, but that really isn't the reality. Here is a photo I've taken to illustrate the point...



The seal on the left is the one used on a the regular Speedmaster Pro case back, and the one on the right is used in a number of Omega dive watches, such as the 2531800 Bond SMP case back. Other than being different diameters, they are the same cross section and material.

In fact, the case back seal on the left for the Speedmaster is used on over 400 different Omega watches, many of them divers that are rated to at least 300m (I didn't go through the whole list to see if they are used on watches rated deeper than 300, but it would not surprise me if they were - the 1 mm cross section is the thickest I've ever seen used on an Omega watch). For those who are convinced you "need" a dive watch for swimming, think about that for a minute...same seals used on 50m rated and 300m rated...

The same is true for other seals on the watch, such as the seal in the crown - there's one in the crown of the SMP and one in the crown of the Speedmaster, and they are not materially different. The seal inside the HEV is very similar to seal inside the pushers of the Speedmaster - again not materially different.

The real differences between a watch rated for very deep depths and one for more shallow depths is the structural build of the watch, rather than the seals. The pressures realized at the depths these dive watches are subjected to (mostly in testing, since very few ever get used for diving to their rated depths) can cause deformation of the watch, and cause a failure. So in dive watches the crystals, case backs, and case frames are typically much more robust to withstand the pressures without deforming. Failure modes don't just include leaking, but other issues such as the watch stopping. I have tested dive watches in my high pressure wet testing equipment to a point where the case back deflected enough to press on the movement and stop the watch, yet the case didn't leak (not an Omega, by the way).

But in the case of regular swimming, no such pressures are present, which leads us back to that weakest link - the seals. And those are not any different than the seals in the dive watch.

So if people are not comfortable taking an expensive watch in the water, I fully understand and respect that, and everyone has to make that decision for themselves given their own risk tolerance. In fact I have a dive watch that I would not take in the water even though I know it is sealed and has passed all the pressure tests - the risk is just not worth it to me (specifically talking about my 1680 Red Sub). But if the watches are properly maintained, seals replaced on a regular basis, pressure checks done, then the risk is actually very small from a purely technical perspective.

The fact is most watches that leak, don't leak because they have gone beyond the depth they are rated to go to - they fail from lack of proper maintenance and in shallow water. Water resistance is not a permanent feature, and like anything else it has to be maintained. I've repaired my share of flooded Speedmasters, but honestly it's the dive watches that are more commonly flooded. Sure that's because people are more likely to take them into the water, but there is also a belief that because it's a dive watch, it will somehow resists water intrusion even if it's not serviced regularly. Of course that's not the case, but it doesn't prevent people from having a false sense of security because of the deep rating, and so I see quite a few divers that are flooded.

Cheers, Al


----------



## 1133834 (Dec 14, 2016)

WeWannaLing said:


> I take my never been serviced yet for 21 years Speedy Pro to swim every weekend at the pool and shower with it every morning. Haven't had a problem with water ingress yet, but I will be sure to send it in for a full service if it ever does fail me.


For some reason that looks really uncomfortable seeing that even though i'm sure it's fine (it clearly is)!

You've got guts that's for sure!


----------



## wolfwatch (Nov 1, 2017)

I wouldn't take that risk with my watches.... Too risky


----------



## bigclive2011 (Mar 17, 2013)

For some reason I spent an hour today on the infernet (Was quiet at work) and to summarise all the different reports on what WR translates to on watches I came round to the following conclusion.

30m = No real water resistance other than showers.
50m = Showers and washing up in a sink.
100m = Swimming and the above.
200m = All the above plus snorkelling and recreational scuba diving.
500m or more = All the above plus professional diving.

So this is what I found on checking through various websites.

So to summarise for the OP, it’s not stupid, just very risky with a watch worth a lot of $$, and my take on it is why would you risk it, I wouldn’t when £150 buys you a 007 That will def be fine.


----------



## Carl.1 (Mar 27, 2006)

I love these threads. Spend thousands on a watch built and designed by a company spending hundreds of thousands on r and d with a decades long track record of quality and fear swimming with it.
I am suprised some folk even step out the door in the morning.

I mean, you spend thousands on these watches and fear the water...good grief people, wake up.

Sorry, sometimes it has to be said. 

Old unserviceable watches are the exception, much like old unserviceable old folk stepping out the door!


----------



## Leonine (Mar 27, 2012)

Al,

You're making too much logical and documented sense. Probably better to write in ALL CAPS and use extreme hyperbole.


----------



## Leonine (Mar 27, 2012)

....but why risk it......


----------



## pinmeuphere (Jul 8, 2015)

I've taken my speedy swimming with no problems, don't worry about it.


----------



## Archer (Apr 23, 2009)

bigclive2011 said:


> So this is what I found on checking through various websites.


I draw a much different conclusion, and that is that there is a lot of misinformation on the internet. Omega's own chart contradicts what you found "on various web sites" so who do you believe? I tend to side with the company that actually made the watches in question, but YMMV.

Cheers, Al


----------



## anaplian (Jan 4, 2014)

Archer said:


> So let's back up a bit here and talk about how watches are sealed, and what the real differences are between a watch with high water resistance and low water resistance.
> 
> Generally speaking most watches are constructed in a similar way, using primarily BUNA-N (nitrile) seals on the sealing surfaces. These seals rely on compression and contact with sealing surfaces to prevent water from entering the case. People keep saying that you need a dive watch in this thread for swimming, which makes no sense at all. The seals are the weakest link and the failure of the seal is the primary failure mode when a watch leaks. You may think that the dive watch uses some very robust seal compared to the non-dive watch, but that really isn't the reality. Here is a photo I've taken to illustrate the point...
> 
> ...


That must be one of the most informative posts in the history of WUS. Thanks!


----------



## omega1300 (Jun 24, 2010)

Love that you continue to contribute and educate here Archer! I’ve learned a lot over the years and hope you stick around for a long time to come! 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## FreelanceWriter (May 30, 2010)

bigclive2011 said:


> ...So this is what I found on checking through various websites. So to summarise for the OP, it's not stupid, just very risky with a watch worth a lot of $$, and my take on it is why would you risk it, I wouldn't when £150 buys you a 007 That will def be fine.


Would I be wrong to give you the benefit of the assumption that you posted this before becoming aware of Post #56?

Re. Post #56, I have two questions, Al:

1. If the gaskets are identical and if water-intrusion risk only increases with the number of seals on a watch, and if the distinguishing WR feature of a dive watch relates to case & crystal deformation-resistance rather than to better gaskets, does that mean that (assuming similar condition and service history), if anything, a Speedmaster is likely to be _more_ functionally WR for surface swimming than a higher-WR-rated Seamaster because of that extra seal for the HEV?

2. If the HEV is totally useless (in addition to only contributing to the risk of water intrusion) at shallow depths, how did watches with that particular feature become so popular among consumers, 99% of whom will never use that feature even once in their lifetimes, (especially when there are so many alternative options from the same watch brands)?

Thanks in advance, as always.


----------



## Archer (Apr 23, 2009)

FreelanceWriter said:


> 1. If the gaskets are identical and if water-intrusion risk only increases with the number of seals on a watch, and if the distinguishing WR feature of a dive watch relates to case & crystal deformation-resistance rather than to better gaskets, does that mean that (assuming similar condition and service history), if anything, a Speedmaster is likely to be _more_ functionally WR for surface swimming than a higher-WR-rated Seamaster because of that extra seal for the HEV?


Well, all else being equal, the more holes in the case, the more the opportunities for leaking. This is why for a brand such as Sinn (who I am a fan of generally) who have poked extra holes in their watch cases to include a copper sulfate capsule intended to absorb moisture is in a way a bit self defeating. The capsule will not protect against an outright flood of water entering the case (only moisture in for of increased humidity really) but in putting that on the case they have increased the chances of a failure.

But with your specific question, there is another variable in play, so things are not equal. The traditional Speedmaster Pro is a manual winding movement, so its meant to be wound daily. This means the crown seal is subject to wear every day when the watch is wound, and so the crown seal will wear out faster than say on an automatic watch that doesn't need daily winding. So it's really not an apples to apples comparison.



FreelanceWriter said:


> 2. If the HEV is totally useless (in addition to only contributing to the risk of water intrusion) at shallow depths, how did watches with that particular feature become so popular among consumers, 99% of whom will never use that feature even once in their lifetimes, (especially when there are so many alternative options from the same watch brands)?


Why do people who never go into the water buy watches designed to go to massive depths that humans can't really go to?

Why do people buy off road vehicles that they never take off road?

I am not a psychologist, and I think that's who you need to answer this one....


----------



## anaplian (Jan 4, 2014)

Question for Archer - how soon after a service (or the purchase of a new watch) should one get the water resistance checked?


----------



## Opettaja (Sep 9, 2012)

I regularly rake my old Seiko Pepsi-diver, rated at 100m, ocean swimming, snorkelling and diving with never an issue. I have only ever changed the case back gasket, but that was only when I was servicing the watch myself. My Speedmaster will probably never enjoy the ocean though as my old Seamaster failed after a month's daily use in the ocean where one of the pushers broke off and the watch steamed up, but not flooded. After that the dial and hands corroded and the other pusher fell off. Fair play, Omega replaced all the parts and serviced it foc, but I never trusted it again. So, basically, as others have said, the Speedy is capable of 50m, so it is up to you if you want to use it in the water.


----------



## Opettaja (Sep 9, 2012)

Double post


----------



## Carl.1 (Mar 27, 2006)

Funny how questions spring up...why buy a watch with an HEV?

I have two, the HEV was part of the package, I bought the watches for all the other features. Perhaps you should ask why manufacturers provide the HEV.

Having said that, now I have the Omega SMPc with it I like it, I think it is a neat addition to the watch and makes it more interesting. On the Tag Aquagraph you would not even know it was there.


----------



## Archer (Apr 23, 2009)

anaplian said:


> Question for Archer - how soon after a service (or the purchase of a new watch) should one get the water resistance checked?


Omega recommends once per year.


----------



## FreelanceWriter (May 30, 2010)

I've always thought it was sort of weird that so many people who will never so much as set foot into a pressurized diving chamber in their entire lives wear watches with a HEV. Now that I've learned that the HEV actually makes those watches less impervious to water intrusion from ordinary diving, snorkeling, and even just from doing laps in a backyard pool, I think they're totally ridiculous. Same goes, IMO, for Breitling emergency watches worn by people who live and work in big cities and whose recreational activities don't include hiking or skiing, or anything else that could result in their ever needing to be found by an emergency search team (unless you have a specific fear of surviving a remote plane crash and you bought it for that reason and wear it whenever you fly).

If I'm understanding what Archer has explained, a Seamaster with a HEV is more vulnerable to water intrusion during swimming than any other modern Omega quartz or automatic mechanical watch worn by someone who's active enough not to need to wind it (or who keeps it on a winder). At least SUVs are useful in snow anywhere and offer a lot of usable space and a high vantage point, even if you never take them off-road. Same goes for watches originally designed for road racing and tested for astronauts whose chronograph features are useful for myriad other purposes by non-racers and non-astronauts.

This cannot possibly be a comfortable conversation, either:

Q: That's a nice-looking watch. What is it?
A: Thank you. It's an Omega Seamaster.
Q: What's that other thing there?
A: That's called a helium escape valve.
Q: What's it for?
A: It's to prevent tiny helium molecules forced in under pressure from blowing off the crystal when deep-sea divers who work in pressurized dive chambers return to atmospheric pressure. The HEV allows all that helium to escape before that happens.
Q: Wow. Deep-sea diving in a pressurized chamber; that sounds interesting and maybe a little scary.
A: Yeah, it does.
Q: Wait. You've never done it?
A: No, I'm an accountant. I just liked the watch.


----------



## Carl.1 (Mar 27, 2006)

I do not think most buy a watch with an HEV for the HEV I think they buy them because they like the watch and the HEV is there.
And I do not see the above conversation being uncomfortable unless you are really insecure in yourself, it is just a watch after all.

HEV tachymeter moon phase, there are a whole host of watches out there with features that the owners never use, people are just enjoying having stuff.


----------



## checkjuan2 (May 24, 2017)

I regularly swam in my Moonwatch with no issues, I’d have my local watchmaker check it every few months to 5 bar and all was well.

I just never touched the pushers while the watch was wet, and never had a single problem.

The “static pressure” and “dynamic pressure” discussion has been reliably debunked, and I’m surprised to see it mentioned seriously by someone on a forum of this caliber. I hope he was trolling.


----------



## FreelanceWriter (May 30, 2010)

Carl.1 said:


> ...I bought the watches for all the other features. Perhaps you should ask why manufacturers provide the HEV.


What are the other features that are unique to your HEV watches that couldn't be found in other models from the same brand without the HEV? As far as manufacturers go, I imagine that they make them because there's a demand for them and that they wouldn't, otherwise. My curiosity is about the demand for them, not the motivation for a manufacturer to satisfy that demand.



Carl.1 said:


> ...And I do not see the above conversation being uncomfortable unless you are really insecure in yourself, it is just a watch after all.


I don't think it's a function of insecurity to feel somewhat silly about not having a more logical answer to the question about compression diving. It strikes me as somewhat similar to having a $2,000 tennis racket on your bookshelf when you've never played a single set of tennis in your life. But that's just MHO.



Carl.1 said:


> HEV tachymeter moon phase, there are a whole host of watches out there with features that the owners never use, people are just enjoying having stuff.


I respectfully disagree. The tachymeter is something that most Speedy owners acknowledge as useless, and something they'd probably opt to trade for a rotating bezel or even a more useful fixed bezel if it were (more readily and cheaply) available. The moon phase feature isn't necessary, but at least it's something interesting in a functional way, because it provides information for anybody who finds that interesting. As I said, the HEV always seemed weird to me, but much more so now that I've learned that it makes the watch less safe to swim with. That's particularly that case (again, just to me) when there are comparable models available with all of the same other features but without the HEV, especially if the owner is someone who also wants to swim or snorkel with the watch.


----------



## bigclive2011 (Mar 17, 2013)

I’m hooked now, so come on OP put us out of our misery, are you or aren’t you going swimming with your Speedy??


----------



## Dr.Tautology (Dec 8, 2017)

FreelanceWriter said:


> What are the other features that are unique to your HEV watches that couldn't be found in other models from the same brand without the HEV?


Do they make an SMPc or Planet Ocean without an HEV? No? Well I guess if you want those watches the you are getting an HEV. They are beautiful time pieces first and foremost. Are professional dive watches cool? Absolutely. Do you need to dive to 600M to appreciate them? No. Should you feel embarrassed that you're not a saturation diver but wear a luxury dive watch? Nope.

Sent from my Pixel using Tapatalk


----------



## SaoDavi (Jan 28, 2014)

bigclive2011 said:


> I'm hooked now, so come on OP put us out of our misery, are you or aren't you going swimming with your Speedy??


We all want to know how stupid you have to be to go swimming with a Speedy Pro.

We need OP to let us know!


----------



## Morgan24 (Aug 15, 2016)

Seems like I wont, he he!! But it is with regret, because then you have to leave your watch at home if there is a chance you might go swimming!! 
Regarding the HEV it was news to me that it makes the watch more vulnerable for normal swimming and diving!! Always found it a bit overkill and ugly!! Now I find it more stupid than go swimming with a Speedmaster ; ))


----------



## Morgan24 (Aug 15, 2016)

SaoDavi said:


> We all want to know how stupid you have to be to go swimming with a Speedy Pro.
> 
> We need OP to let us know!


Better not to take the risk!!

News to me about the HEV makes the watch more vulnerable for normal swimming and diving. Always found it a bit overkill and ugly!! Now I find it more stupid than if you go swimming with a speedmaster ; ))


----------



## FreelanceWriter (May 30, 2010)

Morgan24 said:


> Better not to take the risk!! News to me about the HEV makes the watch more vulnerable for normal swimming and diving. Always found it a bit overkill and ugly!! Now I find it more stupid than if you go swimming with a speedmaster ; ))


I agree, except for the part about the manual-wind Speedy, for the reason explained by Archer about the greater gasket-wear from regular winding.


----------



## Carl.1 (Mar 27, 2006)

FreelanceWriter said:


> What are the other features that are unique to your HEV watches that couldn't be found in other models from the same brand without the HEV? As far as manufacturers go, I imagine that they make them because there's a demand for them and that they wouldn't, otherwise. My curiosity is about the demand for them, not the motivation for a manufacturer to satisfy that demand.
> 
> I don't think it's a function of insecurity to feel somewhat silly about not having a more logical answer to the question about compression diving. It strikes me as somewhat similar to having a $2,000 tennis racket on your bookshelf when you've never played a single set of tennis in your life. But that's just MHO.
> 
> I respectfully disagree. The tachymeter is something that most Speedy owners acknowledge as useless, and something they'd probably opt to trade for a rotating bezel or even a more useful fixed bezel if it were (more readily and cheaply) available. The moon phase feature isn't necessary, but at least it's something interesting in a functional way, because it provides information for anybody who finds that interesting. As I said, the HEV always seemed weird to me, but much more so now that I've learned that it makes the watch less safe to swim with. That's particularly that case (again, just to me) when there are comparable models available with all of the same other features but without the HEV, especially if the owner is someone who also wants to swim or snorkel with the watch.


Sorry I do not know how to break the quotes into sections, so I will try to answer as follows....

First, the Tag Aquagraph has a locking bezel and a central driven minute counter I consider essential for my diving, HEV was part of the watch, and maybe some pro divers also chose it for that feature, who knows. Those are unique features.
The Omega I have because it is lovely, there was not one made without the HEV so it is also unique.

Second, as you say, your opinion. But I feel you are insecure in your answer.

Third, 'something most Speedy owners acknowledge as useless', rubbish, how on earth would you know, you made that up. Moon phase , as the tachy though are just examples. As to the watch being less safe to swim with, well a case with one hole would clearly be best! I don't know of any though so let's say two. But really do you not think you are over reacting a bit, after all has anyone heard of an HEV hole failing? People buy watches for lots of reasons and a lot of people like watches with differing complications, the complications mentioned here are all valid in watches depending on view.


----------



## FreelanceWriter (May 30, 2010)

Carl.1 said:


> First, the Tag Aquagraph has a locking bezel and a central driven minute counter I consider essential for my diving, HEV was part of the watch, and maybe some pro divers also chose it for that feature, who knows. Those are unique features.


Buying a watch that has specific features you want and in spite of the fact that it may also have one useless feature (to you) makes perfect sense to me; buying a watch that has no special features except the one that's totally useless to you does not make sense to me, especially if that useless feature also comes at the expense of compromising another feature (WR) that does matter to you.



Carl.1 said:


> Second, as you say, your opinion. But I feel you are insecure in your answer.


I don't own a watch with a HEV; so I have nothing to be insecure about in that regard. I always thought it was somewhat silly, but now that I know that particular feature also presents an additional unnecessary risk of water intrusion, I think it's much sillier, especially for anybody who bought it to wear swimming or snorkeling because it's considered a "diver's" watch. If I were looking at watches in a store and someone explained to me what a HEV was, my immediate reaction would be "Well, that's definitely not something I need in a watch" and I'm just baffled that so many people don't have that reaction. I think the Breitling emergency watch is also unique and very interesting, but I think it's silly to buy one unless your hobbies and lifestyle could conceivably make it useful to you. No offense intended, but I think it's even sillier to buy and use a watch with a HEV for _scuba_ diving, where you could conceivably be exposing it to the kinds of pressures where that additional unnecessary vulnerability might actually become an issue. IMO, your responses in conjunction with your avatar (that I just noticed) suggest to me that you might be expressing a little defensiveness over that, specifically.



Carl.1 said:


> Third, 'something most Speedy owners acknowledge as useless', rubbish, how on earth would you know, you made that up. Moon phase , as the tachy though are just examples. As to the watch being less safe to swim with, well a case with one hole would clearly be best! I don't know of any though so let's say two. But really do you not think you are over reacting a bit, after all has anyone heard of an HEV hole failing? People buy watches for lots of reasons and a lot of people like watches with differing complications, the complications mentioned here are all valid in watches depending on view.


I'm not overreacting; I'm just expressing an opinion, and one that's become much stronger since yesterday when I learned that a HEV actually could make a watch _less WR _than it would be without it. You're right, though: maybe I should have said that the tachymeter is something that _I'd imagine_ most Speedy owners consider totally useless. Originally, it was designed for road racing, and _I imagine_ intended mostly for pit crews more than for drivers who had dashboard speedometers. Nowadays, pit crews have all sorts of advanced instrumentation computer-linked to their cars that obviates the need to time laps manually with a watch. For 5 of the 6 decades since the Speedmaster was introduced, it's been considered more of a pilot's and astronaut's watch than a road-racer's watch; and there are no kilometer markers in the sky or in space.

_I imagine_ that the vast majority of Speedmaster owners consider the tachymeter to be a functionally-useless artifact on a classic watch design whose other functions are very useful. I'd also imagine that if the Speedmaster had originally been available with a rotating bezel option (and if the Apollo crews had worn both versions), those with a tachymeter would be worth a fortune today, precisely because the lack of demand for them in the last 40 years would probably have led to their discontinuation decades ago.


----------



## Eric_M (Jul 25, 2018)

I wouldn't risk it with any of my nice watches. That much more reason to buy more watches! I like to swim with a relatively "disposable" SKX or Orient Mako


----------



## Carl.1 (Mar 27, 2006)

I think you are a little hung up on the HEV thing.


----------



## FreelanceWriter (May 30, 2010)

Carl.1 said:


> I think you are a little hung up on the HEV thing.


And I think you're just being a little defensive about it because you're as surprised as I was yesterday (and, perhaps, understandably disappointed) to learn that the watch you've been wearing all along precisely because you thought it was particularly well-suited for scuba might actually be more vulnerable to water intrusion than many watches with much lower depth ratings.

(I've never given much thought at all to HEVs other than wondering why they're so popular among people who will never use that feature at all. If you recognize that many recreational divers wear watches with them because they're "diver's" watches, you have to admit that's somewhat ironic. Listen: I think the Alaska Project is a really sharp-looking watch; but to me, it would seem equally weird if that temperature shield weren't removable and a lot of people wore them, especially in temperate climates; that's all.)


----------



## Carl.1 (Mar 27, 2006)

No. I could not care if my watches actually had one, as I have already stated they were actually a by product of my purchase.

The water intrusion, oh my god, I can find no examples or even made up anecdotal 'evidence' of a leak through a HEV.

And yet again you are making things up, you say they are so popular, really how do you know? All you really know is that some watches have them.

Are you a journalist?


----------



## bigclive2011 (Mar 17, 2013)

Never thought of a HEV as popular?? Just something that comes with divers watches capable of being used professionally.

I personally have never gone out looking for a dive watch purely cos i liked them.

And as for the HEV being another source of leakage?? Well I’ll have to take that with a pinch of salt water.

(See what I did there?)


----------



## FTE (May 17, 2018)

I do not think it is stupid, or a stupid question to ask. You clearly are going to get a lot of different opinions. In my experience, a 50m resistant watch that is new-ish with proper seals is okay for light submersion and splashes. You would probably be fine swimming with it as long as you are not diving where pressure will be higher, or as others have stated using the pushers. That being said, I would not swim with it. I generally do not swim with anything rated under 100m. The Omega page that was posted above does not say it is ok to swim with theor 30m or 50m rated watches. It says they are able to withstand splashes and submersion. The next higher rating is for “surface” water activities, like swimming. Being an expensive watch does not make it fit for all activities, and only makes repair more costly should it wind up water-logged. Pretty sure you already know this, but wanted to weigh-in without taking you through pressure dynamics or emotional arguments. Enjoy that beautiful watch, but buy another if you plan to swim frequently with wrist candy.


----------



## Sodafarl (Sep 22, 2017)

I get that some people have mixed feelings about whether 50m is indeed swimming suited but according to the manufacturer it is. If Omega say you can swim with it then you can swim with it.









The chart currently on the Omega website states 'Each and every OMEGA watch in the current collection is tested in water during production up to its relative pressure reference' and 'WATCHES RESISTANT TO WATER
UP TO SPECIFIED DEPTH'.

Questions of age / servicing etc. are going to be the case with any watch: An old 300m diver with aged seals probably shouldn't be worn in the shower, a new 50m Speedy is rated as suitable for swimming by Omega so go swim.

I don't swim with mine for two reasons:

I have a Planet Ocean
My Speedy is usually on a leather strap

My Mühle is 100m rated but I don't swim in it either for the same reasons, not through any water ingress concerns.


----------



## FTE (May 17, 2018)

I do not think you are interpreting the Omega chart correctly. Submersion in water does not equate to swimming. The 10-15bar category is the first one certified for "water surface activities', like "snorkeling", meaning shallow swimming. The 3-5bar category states "submersion", but not intended for snorkeling, a ton of active movement underwater or prolonged submersion. As I stated previously, it is probably ok to swim with it, but best to go 100m or greater resistance for peace of mind.


----------



## SaoDavi (Jan 28, 2014)

FTE said:


> I do not think you are interpreting the Omega chart correctly. Submersion in water does not equate to swimming. The 10-15bar category is the first one certified for "water surface activities', like "snorkeling", meaning shallow swimming. The 3-5bar category states "submersion", but not intended for snorkeling, a ton of active movement underwater or prolonged submersion. As I stated previously, it is probably ok to swim with it, but best to go 100m or greater resistance for peace of mind.
> 
> View attachment 13347687


I think "submersion in water" is for things like falling into a lake or pool, or accidentally dropping your watch into the sink. You can see that it's paired with other similarly light activities such as splashing and rain.

It doesn't help that Omegas submersion icon looks like a person swimming. I think that's just bad drawing.

Snorkeling and swimming are effectively the same thing and appear to merit the more stringent specification.

Sent from my SM-T380 using Tapatalk


----------



## Dr.Tautology (Dec 8, 2017)

Good god, will this thread ever end? It's a cheap, mass produced, piece of junk watch. Just throw it in the pool without regard, like a true baller. If it gets ruined, buy another one.

Sent from my Pixel using Tapatalk


----------



## Carl.1 (Mar 27, 2006)

I have worked it out....

Too scared to leave the home .......don't swim with a watch rated for it.

Happily leave home and venture in to the big bad world ......swim with it.

Writes health and safety notices........live in a bunker with all your watches.

Sorted.


----------



## Sodafarl (Sep 22, 2017)

FTE said:


> I do not think you are interpreting the Omega chart correctly. Submersion in water does not equate to swimming. The 10-15bar category is the first one certified for "water surface activities', like "snorkeling", meaning shallow swimming. The 3-5bar category states "submersion", but not intended for snorkeling, a ton of active movement underwater or prolonged submersion. As I stated previously, it is probably ok to swim with it, but best to go 100m or greater resistance for peace of mind.


Am I also misinterpreting "WATCHES RESISTANT TO WATER UP TO SPECIFIED DEPTH"?

So by your logic, the technical - marketing meeting that (we can safely assume) occurred in Omega HQ to approve the chart went like this ...

Technical department: "Hmm, this little icon looks a lot like a person swimming but we only feel comfortable with the watch surviving the occasional dip as we only pressure test it to 50m submersion in water."
Marketing department: "People will know what we mean. Crack on sure, what's the worst that can happen."

Or _might_ it have been more like this:

Marketing department "We've chosen this icon that looks a lot like someone swimming. Are you happy that this is OK, we wouldn't want anyone to misunderstand."
Technical department: "Yes, we pressure test each watch to 50m submersion in water."


----------



## FTE (May 17, 2018)

In a word, "yes", you are misinterpreting this phrase completely. You may theorize all you want about a ficticious joint marketing-technical meeting, but the fact remains that the designations for water resistance are NOT synonymous with safe depth. As also explained by multiple sources below, a designation of 50m resistance does not in industry or legal terms mean that a watch is safe at a depth of 50m. It is basically fit for accidental submersion and not prolonged exposure.

https://www.thrillist.com/gear/what-your-watch-water-resistance-numbers-mean

https://www.gq-magazine.co.uk/article/what-does-water-resistance-in-diving-watches-mean

https://www.howtogeek.com/218747/water-resistant-gadgets-arent-waterproof-what-you-need-to-know/

https://www.prestigetime.com/page.php?waterresistance

https://www.active.com/triathlon/articles/what-does-a-water-resistant-watch-really-mean

The general consensus is "Do not shower or swim with your watch unless it is rated 100m/330ft and has a screw-down crown".

And in scientific terms: "It does not indicate that the device is water-resistant under all conditions to 50 meters below the surface of the water. It indicates that *under static (nonmoving) conditions at 50 meters below the surface of the water the pressure of the water will not breach the seals on the device. If you were to take a spill while water skiing the moment you hit the water the pressure of the water hitting the device would be much higher than the static pressure at 50 meters of depth, and it's quite possible water could force its way into the device*."

- From How-To Geek link above


----------



## Archer (Apr 23, 2009)

FTE said:


> In a word, "yes", you are misinterpreting this phrase completely. You may theorize all you want about a ficticious joint marketing-technical meeting, but the fact remains that the designations for water resistance are NOT synonymous with safe depth. As also explained by multiple sources below, a designation of 50m resistance does not in industry or legal terms mean that a watch is safe at a depth of 50m. It is basically fit for accidental submersion and not prolonged exposure.
> 
> https://www.thrillist.com/gear/what-your-watch-water-resistance-numbers-mean
> 
> ...


Once again this is complete nonsense. The watch is perfectly fine for submersion up to 50m, and surface swimming, provided the seals are intact.


----------



## Archer (Apr 23, 2009)

Carl.1 said:


> The water intrusion, oh my god, I can find no examples or even made up anecdotal 'evidence' of a leak through a HEV.





bigclive2011 said:


> And as for the HEV being another source of leakage?? Well I'll have to take that with a pinch of salt water.


Any hole made in a watch case that relies on a seal to keep water out is a potential point of leakage. You don't need any specialized knowledge to understand that.

As for not being able to find evidence of water entering a case via an HEV, well let me fix that for you...



22545000 came in with condensation inside the watch, and rust stains coming from the HEV...that was the source of the leak.

The HEV is not a big problem if it's properly maintained. Again all of the watches that cross my bench that have had water in them are there for one reason...because they were not maintained properly...

Cheers, Al


----------



## Carl.1 (Mar 27, 2006)

Archer, I do not disagree, a hole is a risk. But this is the first I have heard of an HEV leaking, that looks like a Seamaster? Would the cap being loose have contributed to that?

My comments were really to another who I felt was getting a bit excited about HEV's. I am not one to service watches however I have one exception to that and that is my dive watches due to the nature of what they are there to do and as such I never have issues. I like your contributions here at WUS, they remind us that servicing realistically can eliminate some of the nasty issues that arise when seals wear and compress over time, along with the myriad of issues on worn parts, thank you.


----------



## Archer (Apr 23, 2009)

Carl.1 said:


> Archer, I do not disagree, a hole is a risk. But this is the first I have heard of an HEV leaking, that looks like a Seamaster? Would the cap being loose have contributed to that?


Well, because you have not seen something, that doesn't mean it doesn't happen. Even if the cap was loose, what difference to the primary point would that make? If there was no HEV and no hole in the case there, the cap would not need to exist at all...

But in any case, when the HEV is properly maintained, it has water resistance even with the cap open...so once again this is simply a failure of maintenance.

Cheers, Al


----------



## Sloopjohnb (Sep 8, 2014)

FTE said:


> The general consensus is...


you meant to say urban or WIS myth?

And one pic clearly shows a person swimming, and the next one a person snorkelling, not on the surface but a little further down, something every snorkeller I know does regularly.

And why should I believe anything you say when Al has actually WORKED with these watches.

P.S. and even your „watch expert" from the triathlon site you linked says: „Water Resistant 50m: Good for some swimming and white water rafting. Not recommended for snorkeling or diving." Which is in fact exactly what Omega says...


----------



## ar7iste (Sep 24, 2016)

Just in case, because I have seen the other chart posted quite a lot, the Omega website links to a PDF that tells us this:


----------



## FTE (May 17, 2018)

Sloopjohnb said:


> you meant to say urban or WIS myth?
> 
> And one pic clearly shows a person swimming, and the next one a person snorkelling, not on the surface but a little further down, something every snorkeller I know does regularly.
> 
> ...


<yawn>


----------



## FreelanceWriter (May 30, 2010)

Carl.1 said:


> My comments were really to another who I felt was getting a bit excited about HEV's.


Only one of us seems to be getting "excited" about HEVs here; and I'd suggest that would be the person who has accused the other of being "insecure," and "making things up" (twice) and who has commented sarcastically (twice) about what the other person probably does for a living. I've said nothing about you personally and nothing more than that it has always seemed somewhat strange to me that so many people choose to wear watches with HEVs despite never using that feature for anything.



Carl.1 said:


> I have worked it out....
> Too scared to leave the home .......don't swim with a watch rated for it.
> Happily leave home and venture in to the big bad world ......swim with it.
> Writes health and safety notices........live in a bunker with all your watches.
> Sorted.


Actually, I wear a Speedy Grail about 50% of the time as my daily watch and I've worn my 1861 to keep track of periods and penalty minutes while refereeing hockey games when the rink's scoreboard wasn't working. I've also worn it under my glove during no-contact practices as a player. Admittedly, not necessarily the smartest thing to do in either case; but I believe that disproves your assumptions about living in a "bunker" with my watches.



Carl.1 said:


> The water intrusion, oh my god, I can find no examples or even made up anecdotal 'evidence' of a leak through a HEV.


I believe that Archer has already provided the evidence that you couldn't find and IMO, your choice of phrasing here suggests that any "excitement" over HEVs here is strictly on your part.



Carl.1 said:


> And yet again you are making things up, you say they are so popular, really how do you know? All you really know is that some watches have them.


I simply suggested that most Speedy owners consider the tachymeter useless and I acknowledged that this is strictly an assumption (but one that nobody has yet contradicted, incidentally). As to how many people wear watches with a HEV, I'm limited to the sample represented on two watch forums because I don't really run across many high-end watches in person. Based (admittedly) only on how often I've seen them here, it seems to me that they are surprisingly popular among people who will never use that feature for anything. It's certainly possible that I'm wrong on either or both counts; but I'm not "making up" anything; and I think you're being unnecessarily confrontational and insulting to suggest otherwise and I'm not sure why my personal opinion about HEVs is so infuriating to you.



Carl.1 said:


> Are you a journalist?


No, but there's really no need to start asking sarcastic personal questions just because you disagree with someone's opinion about a feature of a watch that you own. There are plenty of people who have expressed the opinion that they don't particularly like the Grail and don't "get" why it's considered more desirable than various other models available for the same cost or less. It would never even occur to me to argue with them about their opinion, much less to start getting angry or personal about their opinions about my watch.


----------



## Dr.Tautology (Dec 8, 2017)

A pissing contest? Cool!

Sent from my Pixel using Tapatalk


----------



## SaoDavi (Jan 28, 2014)

Dr.Tautology said:


> A pissing contest? Cool!
> 
> Sent from my Pixel using Tapatalk


Can I use the pushers on my Speedy Pro while involved in a pissing contest?


----------



## GrouchoM (Jul 11, 2013)

How many holes are there in a typical g shock? Should their owner's avoid water, too? 

Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk


----------



## Carl.1 (Mar 27, 2006)

Yes I think he is getting very excited!


----------



## Dr.Tautology (Dec 8, 2017)

SaoDavi said:


> Can I use the pushers on my Speedy Pro while involved in a pissing contest?


I wouldn't risk it. Mine still has all the plastic on it and hasn't left the original box. Sometimes I like to open the box and look at it.

Sent from my Pixel using Tapatalk


----------



## Archer (Apr 23, 2009)

GrouchoM said:


> How many holes are there in a typical g shock? Should their owner's avoid water, too?


No idea how many holes in a G shock, and I can't be bothered to look. Should their owners avoid water? Yes if they don't maintain the watch properly and care about it getting flooded. Nothing changes because it's a G shock...except maybe how much people care about it failing...


----------



## FutagoWatch (Mar 25, 2018)

I owned a speedy and own a daytona. The Daytona got wet but for sure is fine. Risk it man. You only die once. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## raustin33 (Jun 15, 2015)

FTE said:


> In a word, "yes", you are misinterpreting this phrase completely. You may theorize all you want about a ficticious joint marketing-technical meeting, but the fact remains that the designations for water resistance are NOT synonymous with safe depth. As also explained by multiple sources below, a designation of 50m resistance does not in industry or legal terms mean that a watch is safe at a depth of 50m. It is basically fit for accidental submersion and not prolonged exposure.
> 
> https://www.thrillist.com/gear/what-your-watch-water-resistance-numbers-mean
> 
> ...


Yeah&#8230; I'm gonna take the professional Omega-certified watchmaker's opinion in this thread over GQ magazine.


----------



## ssr1863 (May 30, 2013)

I own this for the times when I'm dragged kicking and screaming to the beach by the rest of the clan.


----------



## Aliosa_007 (Feb 17, 2015)

Archer said:


> Once again this is complete nonsense. The watch is perfectly fine for submersion up to 50m, and surface swimming, provided the seals are intact.


The dynamic pressure myth will never die.

For anyone who likes numbers, once again, the dynamic pressure component is given by: 
_dynamic pressure = density x velocity x velocity x 0.5_

This the absolute highest possible value, calculated at the stagnation point (where flow velocity is zero) which will almost never be at a gasket (unless you set up a very well controlled experiment) and is irrespective of depth. It does however assume steady flow, so no sudden change in velocity.

If we take the following example: watch travelling at 30 m/s (67 mph) at 1 m depth (water is almost incompressible, so we can assume surface density), then we get:
_dynamic pressure = 1,000 [kg/m3] x 900 [m2/s2] x 0.5 = 4.5 x 10e+5 [N/m2] = 450,000 [N/m2] = 4.5 bar_

*So you would have to travel faster than 67 miles/h at a depth of 1 meter just to match the static pressure component experienced at 50m depth.* What do you know that can travel 67 miles/h under water?


----------



## colonelpurple (Oct 29, 2014)

Archer said:


> So let's back up a bit here and talk about how watches are sealed, and what the real differences are between a watch with high water resistance and low water.
> 
> The real differences between a watch rated for very deep depths and one for more shallow depths is the structural build of the watch, rather than the seals. The pressures realized at the depths these dive watches are subjected to (mostly in testing, since very few ever get used for diving to their rated depths) can cause deformation of the watch, and cause a failure. So in dive watches the crystals, case backs, and case frames are typically much more robust to withstand the pressures without deforming. Failure modes don't just include leaking, but other issues such as the watch stopping. I have tested dive watches in my high pressure wet testing equipment to a point where the case back deflected enough to press on the movement and stop the watch, yet the case didn't leak (not an Omega, by the way).
> 
> ...


So does a screw in crown make no difference ?


----------



## cgaites (Feb 3, 2018)

Amazing that this thread has gone on for so long! Interesting discussion actually arising out of such a simple question. 

To the OP, when one of my kids (who could swim, but not super well at the time) fell into a friends pool, I jumped in after him while wearing my vintage, cal 861 Speedy. Everything turned out just fine for both my son and the watch. At the time the watch was 2+ years removed from a service. If I knew I was going swimming I'd wear one of my divers and not my Speedy, but assuming the watch is in good working order a Speedy will survive a quick swim.


----------



## anaplian (Jan 4, 2014)

Dr.Tautology said:


> I wouldn't risk it. Mine still has all the plastic on it and hasn't left the original box. Sometimes I like to open the box and look at it.
> 
> Sent from my Pixel using Tapatalk


Yeah, well, it's exactly that kind of reckless behaviour which gives some watch enthusiasts a bad name!


----------



## PuYang (May 12, 2017)

colonelpurple said:


> So does a screw in crown make no difference ?


I'm wondering this as well, since logically speaking, threads would help prevent water going in. But at the end of the day, screw down crown or not, there will be a seal at the crown to prevent water entering.

Perhaps another benefit of the screw down crown is to prevent accidental turning or popping of the crown while the watch is wet?


----------



## LCheapo (Jul 14, 2010)

I don't think it's the threads, it's compressing a seal (O-ring). But all y'all worrywarts should really buy a dive watch. Of course not an expensive one. Then you would worry again (helium valve). 

Although, on second thought, then you have to remember to put your dive watch on before getting pushed into the pool. Reminds me a bit of that old motorcycle safety expert saying: "Tell me what kind of accident you are planning to have, and I'll tell you what to wear."


----------



## FTE (May 17, 2018)

Aliosa_007 said:


> Archer said:
> 
> 
> > Once again this is complete nonsense. The watch is perfectly fine for submersion up to 50m, and surface swimming, provided the seals are intact.
> ...


I don't think anyone is talking about a person moving at such ridiculous speeds, but the potential for equivalent forces resulting from the repeated thrusting of the hand / arm in swimming. For a punch or baseball throw the human hand can indeed reach speeds in excess of 100mph...probably not as high in the water, but still significant. An arm thrusting into the water surface repeatedly (swimming motion or diving into the pool) can generate significant force and pressure, typically in spikes as the hand/wrist hits the water surface. A typical swim stroke is varies in force depending on velocity (see below).









This could explain why even Omega states that one should use 100m or better rated watches for "surface activities", despite the fact that 50m rated watches are considered safe for submersion to a certain depth.


----------



## Aliosa_007 (Feb 17, 2015)

FTE said:


> I don't think anyone is talking about a person moving at such speeds, but equivalent forces caused by thevthrusting of the hand / arm in swimming. I was under the impression that an arm thrusting into the water surface repeatedly (swimming motion or diving into the pool) could generate a significant spike in force with each stroke, potentially enough to cause seals to fail. For a punch or baseball throw the human hand can indeed reach speeds in excess of 100mph.


Such dynamic situations are a lot more difficult to calculate since there's no simple formula to model them. However, you could always try to put your arm in the water while going 67 mps (obviously an insane experiment). Then try to see if your arm has ever felt that amount of pressure while swimming or diving. If it has, then _you_ should not swim or dive with a 50m rated watch. If it hasn't (this would be my bet) then you're probably OK. A less insane experiment that you can actually try is to put your hand outside the window of your car while *someone else* is driving the car at 67 mph. Then multiply that feeling by 1,000.

Also do keep in mind that my example calculated the highest possible pressure on the surface of the watch. This pressure only occurs at a point where the flow completely stops. In the case of a sphere traveling through a fluid, there is only 1 such point on the entire surface of the sphere. And by the way, there are areas on the object where the pressure is actually lower than the ambient static pressure. So you could be moving your arm while diving at 50m and some parts of your watch will actually feel a pressure lower than 5 bar. (this is the basic principle that allows airplanes to fly)


----------



## FTE (May 17, 2018)

<post deleted>


----------



## Radharc (Nov 23, 2010)

many said:


> Do you have a source for this? I've heard this a number of times.


It's hogwash. Here is a great analysis.

(Sorry if someone already posted that -- I don't have the patience to scrutinize the entire 7-page thread.)


----------



## FTE (May 17, 2018)

Radharc said:


> It's hogwash. Here is a great analysis.
> 
> (Sorry if someone already posted that -- I don't have the patience to scrutinize the entire 7-page thread.)


OK...I concede! It seems that the dynamic pressure myth is in fact debunked. Lesson learned. Time to swim with those 30m rated watches...


----------



## Aliosa_007 (Feb 17, 2015)

FTE said:


> OK...I concede! It seems that the dynamic pressure myth is in fact debunked. Lesson learned. Time to swim with those 30m rated watches...


I'm a bit disappointed that it took the other guy with his fancy schematics to convince you, but then again, those schematics do make his post look a lot more professional and thus trustworthy. Lol.

On a more serious note, there might still be an issue with 30m rated watches, but I am not 100% sure about this one. I remember reading at some point that for a certain category of WR watches the requirement is to test one sample per batch, while for others each watch had to be tested. I think this had to do with what you were allowed to print on the watch as a result. Basically, it comes back to what Archer has been saying: if your watch has been designed and actually tested to 50 m and survived then it's a 50 m water resistant watch, otherwise it's a matter of luck.


----------



## FTE (May 17, 2018)

Aliosa_007 said:


> FTE said:
> 
> 
> > OK...I concede! It seems that the dynamic pressure myth is in fact debunked. Lesson learned. Time to swim with those 30m rated watches...
> ...


Actually you also convinced me (with shear mathematical wizardry)! I no longer buy into the watch industry hype around water resistance...

For the 30m watches I believe the same math would apply as far as how much speed / force / pressure is needed for seals to fail....just a lower threshhold? But not sure how the QC factors in as you state.


----------



## Archer (Apr 23, 2009)

colonelpurple said:


> So does a screw in crown make no difference ?


It would depend on the specific design. For an Omega comparison, we can look at the crown for a Speedy Pro and again an SMP Chronograph...





So one of these is used on a watch rated for 50m, and the other for 300m. What's the difference? Not much. They both seal by means of a single O-ring in the crown, that seals on the outside diameter of the case tube. In both, no matter what position the crown is in - fully up against the case, or pulled out as far away as it can be from the case, that O-ring never leaves contact with the case tube, so the water resistance is the same regardless of the crown position.

Here is my own Speedmaster Pro (1971) in my pressure testing machine - crown in winding position up against the case:



Passes both vacuum and pressure tests:



This is with the crown pulled out to the setting position:



Again passes both tests:



Now I don't have an SMP Chronograph in the shop right now, but I have several regular SMP's - this is a 22545000. Pressure test with the highest this machine can do, so -0.7 bar vacuum (gauge pressure) and then +10 bar pressure, so equivalent to 100m depth on the pressure test. Here with the crown fully screwed down:



Of course it passes both tests just fine since it's just been serviced:



Now I was going to do all the steps here, so first just unscrew the crown and test, then pull to the quick set date position and test, then time setting and test...but since I actually have work to do, I just cut to the last one - this is with the crown unscrewed and pulled out to the farthest position, so movement hacked and hands can be set:



And surprise (not) it passes the testing just fine:



So in my view the screw down crown is not necessarily about water resistance. It's about not having the crown get pulled out accidentally, and having the watch hack or change time on a dive - if you were using it to time your dive that could be quite dangerous. One could argue it also keeps the crown from getting snagged and pulled completely off the watch, which would lead to a flooded watch, so in that way yes it's related to water resistance. But like many things often repeated on watch forums, the idea it has to be screwed down for the watch to have water resistance is a myth that just gets repeated over and over again...

Cheers, Al


----------



## Sodafarl (Sep 22, 2017)

Archer said:


> So in my view the screw down crown is not necessarily about water resistance. It's about not having the crown get pulled out accidentally, and having the watch hack or change time on a dive - if you were using it to time your dive that could be quite dangerous. One could argue it also keeps the crown from getting snagged and pulled completely off the watch, which would lead to a flooded watch, so in that way yes it's related to water resistance. But like many things often repeated on watch forums, the idea it has to be screwed down for the watch to have water resistance is a myth that just gets repeated over and over again...
> 
> Cheers, Al


Thanks for this! It makes a lot of sense and directly answers something that I've wondered about a few times before. It's easy for the crown to sit half a turn or so off fully screwed in if you're not frequently checking it. I'd noticed mine (Planet Ocean) not tightly screwed in on a day where I was in and out of the water and it made me worry for a moment. Common sense told me that a 600m resistant watch couldn't be 100% reliant on a firmly screwed in crown but it's really interesting to have your input explain this properly.


----------



## Sodafarl (Sep 22, 2017)

Aside from anything that Omega state I wonder what is the typical resistance of a Speedy Pro ....

Maybe it's already greater than the stated 50m but Omega choose to only _say_ 50m to give customers a reason to want a Seamaster? Of course they'd likely sell more Speedmasters if they had a higher rating so maybe this theory doesn't add up. Anyway, that's not my point. Whether there's a marketing aspect to the rating or not; has anyone any knowledge of a Speedmaster being tested well past the 50m mark? What is the actual (versus the claimed) limit?? (In theory of course - I'm not suggesting that it's a deep submersion watch incognito).


----------



## Sodafarl (Sep 22, 2017)

Removed duplicate


----------



## Sloopjohnb (Sep 8, 2014)

Thanks for all the insight Al 
(just returned from the beach and a swim with my 60th anniversary Seamaster 300 which I had pressure tested at the OB before a holiday in March, and again last week before this holiday. I certainly think it is worth doing the test regularly to be on the safe side)


----------



## Archer (Apr 23, 2009)

Sodafarl said:


> Aside from anything that Omega state I wonder what is the typical resistance of a Speedy Pro ....
> 
> Maybe it's already greater than the stated 50m but Omega choose to only _say_ 50m to give customers a reason to want a Seamaster? Of course they'd likely sell more Speedmasters if they had a higher rating so maybe this theory doesn't add up. Anyway, that's not my point. Whether there's a marketing aspect to the rating or not; has anyone any knowledge of a Speedmaster being tested well past the 50m mark? What is the actual (versus the claimed) limit?? (In theory of course - I'm not suggesting that it's a deep submersion watch incognito).


If you want to send me yours I'll test it in my wet testing machine until failure, and let you know. Note that it might not work quite the same after I'm done though...


----------



## DolleDolf (Mar 29, 2012)

Horses for courses.









Moon









Pool

Etc.

And I think taking a watch in the shower is even dafter. The gaskets are pretty sure not to like the temperature changes you get in the shower. Why not just take it off?


----------



## WeWannaLing (Jul 22, 2012)

Well I did it...I'll admit I was a bit nervous about this one, as even though I wear my Speedy Pro in the shower and swim in the pool with it, I've never taken it to a wave pool or ocean yet, but....

This past weekend, I decided to take my Speedy to Kalahari water park, and tested it for hours in the wave pool and other areas of the water park, and it held up without any issues. I didn't take a camera with me in the water park, so no pictures there, but here's a shot after I got back to my hotel room. Still in great shape and it's apparently not afraid of water!


----------



## danielmewes (Jan 23, 2016)

ar7iste said:


> Also, for most watches, 50m doesn't mean you can go 50m deep. But Omega, weirdly enough, says that all their watches can actually go up to the depth indicated on the caseback.
> 
> Source: speedy pro owner and Omega water resistance chart (just google it).


Oh my god, that is hilarious!!! Thanks for making me find this. For reference, this is the Omega water resistance chart: https://www.omegawatches.com/fileadmin/Customer_Service/omega_water_resistance_chart.pdf

"WATCHES RESISTANT TO WATER UP TO SPECIFIED DEPTH" this is such a slap in the face for other watch makers that use ridiculous water resistance recommendations. (like the one you find on Wikipedia)
I love it! Someone at Omega must have had a great smile in their face when writing this...


----------



## Alex_TA (May 7, 2013)

There are companies which make a real waterproofness test for each produced watch, IWC is an example. That's why you will not find many winning threads "Poor me, my IWC leaked" even on their 30m WR watches.

IMO Omega makes good, even great watches but water is not their preferred element  If you want to swim or dive without problems the answer is Rolex or (Grand) Seiko.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## bigclive2011 (Mar 17, 2013)

danielmewes said:


> Oh my god, that is hilarious!!! Thanks for making me find this. For reference, this is the Omega water resistance chart: https://www.omegawatches.com/fileadmin/Customer_Service/omega_water_resistance_chart.pdf
> 
> "WATCHES RESISTANT TO WATER UP TO SPECIFIED DEPTH" this is such a slap in the face for other watch makers that use ridiculous water resistance recommendations. (like the one you find on Wikipedia)
> I love it! Someone at Omega must have had a great smile in their face when writing this...


As long as you conform with the "Yearly pressure test at approved Omega service centre" which we all do right?

Or the man who wrote it will have an even bigger smile on his face if he's on commission, when all the water damaged 30/50m Omegas start rolling in.


----------



## Archer (Apr 23, 2009)

bigclive2011 said:


> As long as you conform with the "Yearly pressure test at approved Omega service centre" which we all do right?
> 
> Or the man who wrote it will have an even bigger smile on his face if he's on commission, when all the water damaged 30/50m Omegas start rolling in.


Keep in mind that the yearly pressure test recommendation applies to ALL watches in Omegas line-up, not just those rated for shallow depths.

I know people think that their deep rated dive watches will remain impervious to water for longer than a watch not rated to high depths - that's why the most common watches I see that are flooded are the dive watches...


----------



## Carl.1 (Mar 27, 2006)

Alex_TA said:


> There are companies which make a real waterproofness test for each produced watch, IWC is an example. That's why you will not find many winning threads "Poor me, my IWC leaked" even on their 30m WR watches.
> 
> IMO Omega makes good, even great watches but water is not their preferred element  If you want to swim or dive without problems the answer is Rolex or (Grand) Seiko.
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Water is not any watches preferred element, but you single out Rolex and Grand Seiko, intrigued. Why?

Omega divers are built and designed for that, why would the others you mention be any better or worse for diving?


----------



## Aliosa_007 (Feb 17, 2015)

Alex_TA said:


> There are companies which make a real waterproofness test for each produced watch, IWC is an example. That's why you will not find many winning threads "Poor me, my IWC leaked" even on their 30m WR watches.
> 
> IMO Omega makes good, even great watches but water is not their preferred element  If you want to swim or dive without problems the answer is Rolex or (Grand) Seiko.


Seems legit!


----------



## Alex_TA (May 7, 2013)

Aliosa_007 said:


> Seems legit!


Maybe your Ploprof is another animal.



Carl.1 said:


> Water is not any watches preferred element, but you single out Rolex and Grand Seiko, intrigued. Why?
> 
> Omega divers are built and designed for that, why would the others you mention be any better or worse for diving?


I write it based on my own experience and experience of people I know, not pretending to absolute truth.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Aliosa_007 (Feb 17, 2015)

Alex_TA said:


> Maybe your Ploprof is another animal.


Has nothing to do with that. METAS certification require that each watch is tested for water resistance, so I'm not sure about previous non-METAS watches, but nowadays, every Omega that leaves the factory should have been pressure tested.


----------



## WIS_Chronomaster (Sep 17, 2007)

I have swam with my 3510.50 with no problems, i haven't taken my Moon - To - Mars, swimming yet but it has been caught out by some rain.


----------



## redcedar5000 (Jul 29, 2018)

I’m in enough debt as it is with these watches. They are not going under water! If you can afford to loose the money, take it for a swim. Maybe it will be fine, maybe it won’t. If you can afford the chance then go for it. If not, then just happily dance in the rain with your Speedy.


----------



## cedargrove (Mar 10, 2011)

If it's rated 50m by a reputable company, then I'd have no problems swimming with it.


----------



## Carl.1 (Mar 27, 2006)

Alex_TA said:


> Maybe your Ploprof is another animal.
> 
> I write it based on my own experience and experience of people I know, not pretending to absolute truth.
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Ah ok. So no better or worse then.


----------



## GTTIME (Jun 28, 2009)

I think going in a wave pool is “stupid” but not because the water. Because the wave pool has plaster bottom and sides, lose your balance in the wave pool and scratch the crap out of your nice watch. My watches don’t go in pools. Has nothing to do with water resistance.


----------



## montes (Aug 6, 2015)

ar7iste said:


> Many people have gone in water with their Speedy and it's fine if it's new or properly maintained. Jut don't go too deep with it on your wrist and don't water ski (or any high impact sport on water really).
> 
> Also, for most watches, 50m doesn't mean you can go 50m deep. But Omega, weirdly enough, says that all their watches can actually go up to the depth indicated on the caseback.
> 
> Source: speedy pro owner and Omega water resistance chart (just google it).


For older watches, that may be the case. However, watches produced after 2010 by any respectable manufacturer comply with ISO 22810:2010, which stipulates that the watch must be suitable for all water activities down to the rated depth.

https://www.iso.org/news/2010/11/Ref1367.html


----------



## pamfan (Apr 12, 2018)

thats why I sold my speedy. I wouldnt want a watch I had to think about. I just want a watch I can put on my wrist and forget about what could go wrong with it.


----------



## SaoDavi (Jan 28, 2014)

GTTIME said:


> I think going in a wave pool is "stupid" but not because the water. Because the wave pool has plaster bottom and sides, lose your balance in the wave pool and scratch the crap out of your nice watch. My watches don't go in pools. Has nothing to do with water resistance.


The local wave pool is all the action my 500m Pelagos gets.


----------



## Fbcanman (Feb 24, 2018)

I think no screwdown no go


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## nhlducks35 (Nov 26, 2017)

I wouldn't recommend it, only splash damage


----------



## Midas (Dec 23, 2017)

I agree


----------



## Croft360 (Dec 23, 2017)

do not do it. 70% risk of losing your watch


----------



## Archer (Apr 23, 2009)

Croft360 said:


> do not do it. 70% risk of losing your watch


99.99% risk that your advice is bogus...


----------



## MswmSwmsW (Jun 25, 2017)

Archer said:


> 99.99% risk that your advice is bogus...


i 100% agree

Sent from my SM-G930U using Tapatalk


----------



## WeWannaLing (Jul 22, 2012)

Croft360 said:


> do not do it. 70% risk of losing your watch


Guesss I'm in the 30% then. I swim and shower with it all the time!


----------



## sasilm2 (Jul 13, 2018)

WeWannaLing said:


> Guesss I'm in the 30% then. I swim and shower with it all the time!


OMG!!!!! My speedy & Navi does not see water at all! You are very brave!!!


----------



## Premise (Jul 31, 2016)

SaoDavi said:


> I dont even like taking my 100m quartz watches with no screwdown crown into the water. Though admittedly, before I was a WIS, I did so.
> 
> Sent from my SM-T380 using Tapatalk


While I understand the reasoning and used to do the same, I do take my 100m non screw down crown in the water occasionally, I'm guessing that you never had one flood either. The piece of mind of heavier resistance and a screw down crown is nice.


----------



## jaybe52 (May 12, 2018)

Those old-style pushers on the Speedy make me nervous! 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## chicagosailor7 (Sep 18, 2014)

I love reading people's comments on this topic, it's quite entertaining. I'll never understand the "it says it's tested to 150', so I better not wear it if it's going to rain"... I can't imaging owning a watch I wouldn't swim with.


----------



## Dr.Tautology (Dec 8, 2017)

Let's keep this thread going!

Synopsis:
1.Question
2.Hysteria
3.Anecdotal evidence
4.Actual evidence and facts from an expert
5.Hysteria
6. More anecdotal evidence
7. More hysteria
8. Superstitions
9. Name calling

And here's my contribution. A slightly vague blurb on the back of a Swatch Group invoice.










Sent from my Pixel using Tapatalk


----------



## mrcoach32 (Feb 26, 2012)

That's a mic drop post. Nice work.



Dr.Tautology said:


> Let's keep this thread going!
> 
> Synopsis:
> 1.Question
> ...


----------



## OmegaRed (Apr 15, 2007)

Dr.Tautology said:


> Let's keep this thread going!
> 
> Synopsis:
> 1.Question
> ...





mrcoach32 said:


> That's a mic drop post. Nice work.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


This pretty much wrapped it up. Saved me from reading 17 pages.


----------



## delco714 (Nov 30, 2010)

Alex_TA said:


> There are companies which make a real waterproofness test for each produced watch, IWC is an example. That's why you will not find many winning threads "Poor me, my IWC leaked" even on their 30m WR watches.
> 
> IMO Omega makes good, even great watches but water is not their preferred element  If you want to swim or dive without problems the answer is Rolex or (Grand) Seiko.
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


They LITERALLY have a watch called Planet Ocean.


----------



## Archer (Apr 23, 2009)

OmegaRed said:


> This pretty much wrapped it up. Saved me from reading 17 pages.


Yes, it's a great post for those who don't want to actually learn anything.


----------



## Carl.1 (Mar 27, 2006)

delco714 said:


> They LITERALLY have a watch called Planet Ocean.


And are one of the few that say 100m and actually mean that.....that goes for all their depths.


----------



## Dr.Tautology (Dec 8, 2017)

Archer said:


> Yes, it's a great post for those who don't want to actually learn anything.


Oh yeah I forgot the philosophers stone hidden in here, I'll provide a synopsis for that as well:

1. Have your Speedmaster pressure tested each year by Omega.
2. Swim with your Speedmaster.
3. Don't use the pushers or crown underwater.
4. Make fun of people who don't swim with their Speedmaster.

Sent from my Pixel using Tapatalk


----------



## mrwatchusername (Jun 10, 2013)

Very interesting thread. Read it through. I have showered with my Speedy but am yet to take it for a swim. Trying to get it pressure tested but my local watch repair guy's water pressure machine is broken and he has been waiting for parts to repair it for some 3 months now. Any recommendations for devices one could buy to pressure test one's own watches?

Also been swimming regularly with my Milgauss for 3 years and diving with my Seamaster for 4 years, no problems so far but they are both probably well overdue a pressure test. Also swim regularly with my Breguet Type XX but that one was serviced in 2015 and is currently being serviced (so I assume that Breguet pressure tests it).


----------



## montes (Aug 6, 2015)

Dr.Tautology said:


> Let's keep this thread going!
> 
> And here's my contribution. A slightly vague blurb on the back of a Swatch Group invoice.
> 
> ...


Makes a lot of commercial sense for a company to issue very conservative guidelines when it comes to use that may potentially result in costly guarantee claims. 
However, it gets a bit ridiculous when at least one of the subsidiaries of that same company (Omega) issues contradictory information by stating in it's official website that the watches are safe up to the stated depth rating, as has already been posted in this thread.


----------



## thbeck (Aug 17, 2017)

cedargrove said:


> If it's rated 50m by a reputable company, then I'd have no problems swimming with it.


It could be rated 50m or even 200m but if any of the rubber gaskets is worn out (they usually do after a few years), then that 200m might eventually mean 0m and your risks of the watch getting water damage just shoots off the roof. And if that moon watch is a 10k moon watch, then, man, it is screwed.


----------



## briang583 (Mar 25, 2014)

Look, if you are not wearing the watch below please don't even think about getting water on or near it. Watches are not made to touch water!


----------



## briang583 (Mar 25, 2014)

Now that I went back and read everything what do you guys think will happen when they send an astronaut to Mars? Will the Moonwatch due or will there be a Mars watch needed? Will the Mars watch be more like the Seamaster/Ploprof since they have evidence of water on Mars?


----------



## Carl.1 (Mar 27, 2006)

No one is going to Mars. Sorry.


----------



## Archer (Apr 23, 2009)

thbeck said:


> It could be rated 50m or even 200m but if any of the rubber gaskets is worn out (they usually do after a few years), then that 200m might eventually mean 0m and your risks of the watch getting water damage just shoots off the roof. And if that moon watch is a 10k moon watch, then, man, it is screwed.


That applies to any watch...even dive watches rated for ridiculous depths.


----------



## thbeck (Aug 17, 2017)

Archer said:


> That applies to any watch...even dive watches rated for ridiculous depths.


Yes


----------



## Aliosa_007 (Feb 17, 2015)

briang583 said:


> Look, if you are not wearing the watch below please don't even think about getting water on or near it. Watches are not made to touch water!
> View attachment 13417271


Does the Ti count?


----------



## briang583 (Mar 25, 2014)

Aliosa_007 said:


> Does the Ti count?


Oh man, that's beautiful!

Sent from my SM-G920F using Tapatalk


----------



## reeder1 (Feb 10, 2017)

Any question that begins with the words, "How stupid is it..." is like saying"I know I shouldn't, but...." Buy a SEAmaster if you just have to go swimming with it or can't stand to shower without a watch on. As long as you can live w the consequence and know the risk....but it's not a great idea.



Morgan24 said:


> Is it bound to go wrong? How big a risk is it? It do say 50m water resistance?


----------



## delco714 (Nov 30, 2010)

briang583 said:


> Now that I went back and read everything what do you guys think will happen when they send an astronaut to Mars? Will the Moonwatch due or will there be a Mars watch needed? Will the Mars watch be more like the Seamaster/Ploprof since they have evidence of water on Mars?


Well theres water on the space craft... Speedmaster did fine

Jk of course theyll create the Planetmaster


----------



## briang583 (Mar 25, 2014)

delco714 said:


> Well theres water on the space craft... Speedmaster did fine
> 
> Jk of course theyll create the Planetmaster


Think of all the limited edition Planetmasters!

Sent from my SM-G920F using Tapatalk


----------



## delco714 (Nov 30, 2010)

briang583 said:


> Think of all the limited edition Planetmasters!
> 
> Sent from my SM-G920F using Tapatalk


Can't wait to get my hands on Uranus


----------



## briang583 (Mar 25, 2014)

delco714 said:


> Can't wait to get my hands on Uranus


Boom









Sent from my SM-G920F using Tapatalk


----------



## MartinVang (Apr 7, 2015)

take it to space, not the swimmingpool


----------



## oso2276 (Apr 19, 2017)

Ok, see the text below to learn what might happen if things go wrong 


Archer said:


> Some time ago I received an email from a Speedmaster Pro owner who had an unfortunate event - he went swimming in the ocean with his watch while on vacation, and did not realize that a pusher had come off the watch. The watch was flooded and due to his location, he could not do anything with it for a few days.
> 
> He sent me some photos that were not good, but regardless I agreed to at least have a look at the watch to see what could be done. Earlier this year I was sent a Seamaster chronograph with a Cal. 1164 (ETA 7750 base) that was one solid rusted mass, and for that one the only option was a brand new movement from Omega. However with this one the movement was in good enough shape I thought it could be salvaged.
> 
> ...


Enviado desde mi Moto G (5) Plus mediante Tapatalk


----------



## Carl.1 (Mar 27, 2006)

That Archer chap knows his stuff. Always informative posts.


----------



## Toothbras (Apr 19, 2010)

delco714 said:


> Can't wait to get my hands on Uranus


Maybe they can use that Sinn technology to make it gas filled


----------



## georges zaslavsky (Feb 11, 2006)

Nope, I wouldn't dive with it because it also hasn't got a screw down crown and it wasn't designed as a dive chrono unlike the ollech & wajs astrochron/jenny sealab/haste deluxe caribbean/britscar diving chrono ref 2003 which were having a massive screw down crown with massive seals and a specific diving bezel, otherwise there was the jenny carribean 1000m monobloc chronograph (the first real 1000m diving chrono powered by a valjoux 72).


----------



## Paulsky (May 20, 2016)

I think it depends on what sort of swimming you’re talking about. If it’s just a quick dip and you’re staying near the surface I doubt you’ll ruin your watch. But if you plan on spending a lot of time in the water (snorkeling) and doing even shallow dives I would avoid.


----------



## rfortson (Feb 18, 2012)

Highly likely the watch will be fine, but why risk it?


----------



## rfortson (Feb 18, 2012)

OmegaRed said:


> This pretty much wrapped it up. Saved me from reading 17 pages.


Well, you missed the part where Omega themselves contradict this chart. 50m is fine for swimming per Omega.


----------



## Dr.Tautology (Dec 8, 2017)

On a related note I finally got to use the CO2 release valve on my PO...

I can confirm that it works.









Sent from my Pixel using Tapatalk


----------



## checkjuan2 (May 24, 2017)

I swapped my Moonwatch for a Pelagos and now I really don’t think about my watch when swimming LOL


----------



## Archer (Apr 23, 2009)

checkjuan2 said:


> I swapped my Moonwatch for a Pelagos and now I really don't think about my watch when swimming LOL


This is why I see so many dive watches that are flooded...


----------



## Archer (Apr 23, 2009)

Dr.Tautology said:


> On a related note I finally got to use the CO2 release valve on my PO...
> 
> I can confirm that it works.


Based on the amount of body cheese I see on the average watch that comes into my shop, I hope you didn't drink the beer after... ;-)


----------



## Dr.Tautology (Dec 8, 2017)

Archer said:


> Based on the amount of body cheese I see on the average watch that comes into my shop, I hope you didn't drink the beer after... ;-)


Everyone likes their own brand. I drank the whole thing with a straw. On a serious note, do you think beer ingress would be covered under warranty?

Sent from my Pixel using Tapatalk


----------



## Archer (Apr 23, 2009)

Dr.Tautology said:


> I drank the whole thing with a straw. On a serious note, do you think beer ingress would be covered under warranty?


No, but on the bright side drinking that may give you some temporary immunity from GI symptoms if you travel to a developing country...but at a price!


----------



## checkjuan2 (May 24, 2017)

Archer said:


> This is why I see so many dive watches that are flooded...


Yes! I bet. I loved your photos. To combat this I have a habit of visiting my watchmaker friend in the early springtime for pressure-check fun, and I'm diligent about screwing down the crown.

But I don't think about the Pelagos as much as I did the Moonwatch, naturally.

Sometimes my car gets dented. It doesn't prevent me from driving it in traffic.


----------



## delco714 (Nov 30, 2010)

Dr.Tautology said:


> Everyone likes their own brand. I drank the whole thing with a straw. On a serious note, do you think beer ingress would be covered under warranty?
> 
> Sent from my Pixel using Tapatalk


Only the German watches


----------



## Archer (Apr 23, 2009)

checkjuan2 said:


> Yes! I bet. I loved your photos. To combat this I have a habit of visiting my watchmaker friend in the early springtime for pressure-check fun, and I'm diligent about screwing down the crown.
> 
> But I don't think about the Pelagos as much as I did the Moonwatch, naturally.
> 
> Sometimes my car gets dented. It doesn't prevent me from driving it in traffic.


I'm glad you *do* actually think about your dive watch, and don't just believe that because it's rated for higher depths that it will somehow have everlasting water resistance, as many people do.

As I said in my very first post in this thread, if the watch is properly maintained (regular seal replacement and pressure testing) then the Speedmaster is just fine for swimming. The issues surrounding how you think about things are all in your head, and not based on the reality of what the watch is capable of.

The myth that any watch with less than 100m rating that doesn't have a screw down crown is only barely splashproof has been repeated so many times on watch forums that, as is shown in this thread, factual information still can't dispel it. I try but people hold onto their strongly held beliefs very tightly...


----------



## checkjuan2 (May 24, 2017)

Archer said:


> The myth that any watch with less than 100m rating that doesn't have a screw down crown is only barely splashproof has been repeated so many times on watch forums that, as is shown in this thread, factual information still can't dispel it. I try but people hold onto their strongly held beliefs very tightly...


Screw-down beliefs, apparently.

I swam with my Speedmaster because the Omega operating instruction manual said I could. The owner is advised to visit the dealer for an inspection "before every bathing season" (how very Swiss!) So yeah, I just did what the book said to do and never had a problem.


----------



## RolSte (Aug 30, 2018)

Wouldn’t advise that, look at my post about Seamaster pro 600m, got flooded for the third time


----------



## RolSte (Aug 30, 2018)

Oh that didn't post with quote, the suggestion was to buy a Seamaster, but my SM Pro got flooded for the third time, see here.. https://www.watchuseek.com/f20/3x-failure-water-planet-ocean-chrono-600m-4779113.html


----------



## RolSte (Aug 30, 2018)

FTE said:


> I don't think anyone is talking about a person moving at such ridiculous speeds, but the potential for equivalent forces resulting from the repeated thrusting of the hand / arm in swimming. For a punch or baseball throw the human hand can indeed reach speeds in excess of 100mph...probably not as high in the water, but still significant. An arm thrusting into the water surface repeatedly (swimming motion or diving into the pool) can generate significant force and pressure, typically in spikes as the hand/wrist hits the water surface. A typical swim stroke is varies in force depending on velocity (see below).
> 
> View attachment 13352843
> 
> ...


Hi there, even an Omega Sea Master Pro 600m gets flooded at casual swimming, got that now the third time within four years. There seems to be a massive design flaw here.. 
https://www.watchuseek.com/f20/3x-failure-water-planet-ocean-chrono-600m-4779113.html


----------



## Leonine (Mar 27, 2012)

Wow, 21 pages.

Lets start some other rumors. Climate change is fake, vaccinations cause autism, and the moon landing was staged.


----------



## GrouchoM (Jul 11, 2013)

Leonine said:


> Wow, 21 pages.
> 
> Lets start some other rumors. Climate change is fake, vaccinations cause autism, and the moon landing was staged.


I'll leave that to the politicians.

Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk


----------



## iuprof (Feb 9, 2012)

double


----------



## iuprof (Feb 9, 2012)

Even though the moon landing was staged, it was staged with Speedmasters


----------



## iuprof (Feb 9, 2012)

Even though the moon landing was staged, it was staged with Speedmasters 😉😉😉


----------



## Morgan24 (Aug 15, 2016)

Apparently not an easy question to answer ; ))


----------



## Dr.Tautology (Dec 8, 2017)

Morgan24 said:


> Apparently not an easy question to answer ; ))


Easy to answer, difficult to accept.

Sent from my Pixel using Tapatalk


----------



## Opettaja (Sep 9, 2012)

Why not try "action based research"?

Put the watch on, wash the dishes -> moisture -> yes -> damn! get the rice bag out, wait to dry!
No -> have a shower -> moisture -> yes -> damn! get the rice bag out, wait to dry!
No -> go for a swim -> moisture -> yes -> damn! get the rice bag out, wait to dry!
No -> try a dive -> moisture -> yes -> damn! get the rice bag out, wait to dry!
No -> you know that it is OK to swim with it as Omega state it is! Duh!o|


----------



## boostmiser (Jun 17, 2008)

I believe water ratings are always conservative. Inevitably, people will take it to 50m and if it doesn't hold, Omega sure doesn't want want to start replacing $5K watches, aside from the bad press. So i'm pretty confident it would hold to 60m and I don't think swimming would be any issue. That said, I'm sure as hell not testing it. That's what my dive watch is for. 
off-topic... I tested my $1K iPhone in the ocean recently just for the hell of it. I did some underwater video. The speaker got funky for a little, but it's all fine now.


----------



## Dr.Tautology (Dec 8, 2017)

I went to a Rolex dealer today and they were astounded that Omega required all their watches be pressure test once a year. I was told that Rolex would guarantee the water resistance of all their watches for the duration of the 5 year warranty.

This also raises another question, if a watch is under warranty will Omega pay to have the watch shipped to them each year to have it checked, or are we expected to foot the bill? Seems ridiculous that a watch with 600 meters water resistance would need to take a month long trip to the Omega service center each year.

Sent from my Pixel using Tapatalk


----------



## Opettaja (Sep 9, 2012)

Whilst still under warranty, (albeit only 2 years -come on Omega, really?), take to your AD service centre, tell them the watch is running slow/fast and needs regulating. It is free. When they regulate the movement, they should also replace the rear cover seal and do a pressure test as a matter of course.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Archer (Apr 23, 2009)

Dr.Tautology said:


> I went to a Rolex dealer today and they were astounded that Omega required all their watches be pressure test once a year. I was told that Rolex would guarantee the water resistance of all their watches for the duration of the 5 year warranty.
> 
> This also raises another question, if a watch is under warranty will Omega pay to have the watch shipped to them each year to have it checked, or are we expected to foot the bill? Seems ridiculous that a watch with 600 meters water resistance would need to take a month long trip to the Omega service center each year.


Well we know dealers always have accurate technical information, and would never mislead a potential customer... :roll:

Ask them to put that in writing, and see how quickly they backpedal.

By the way, Omega does not "require" the annual testing. They do recommend it though.


----------



## Dr.Tautology (Dec 8, 2017)

Archer said:


> Well we know dealers always have accurate technical information, and would never mislead a potential customer... :roll:
> 
> Ask them to put that in writing, and see how quickly they backpedal.
> 
> By the way, Omega does not "require" the annual testing. They do recommend it though.


Yep they "recommend" it. Translation: If your new watch leaks after 366 days of ownership and you didn't send it in on day 365 to have it pressure tested by us, then we will deny any warranty claim.

Sent from my Pixel using Tapatalk


----------



## gviddy (May 4, 2018)

Wow I cannot believe how many posts this thread generated! My take...it would be exciting to take a Speedie swimming, BUT I would be furious at myself if it incurred water damage. It is definitely a risky move. I do take my Seamaster Professional in the pool routinely, but I believe that watch should be more than capable.

GV


----------



## Archer (Apr 23, 2009)

Dr.Tautology said:


> Yep they "recommend" it. Translation: If your new watch leaks after 366 days of ownership and you didn't send it in on day 365 to have it pressure tested by us, then we will deny any warranty claim.


Now you are just making stuff up. There is no requirement to have it tested or send it anywhere to maintain the warranty.


----------



## pascs (Jun 2, 2011)

I pressure tested my old Speedmaster case to 3 bar recently and it leaked at the crystal, wasnt expecting that. A stream of bubbles coming from the edge of the crystal, I removed the crystal and reseated it but it was still the same when i tested it again, makes me wonder if I should test my other Speedmasters :-d


----------



## Dr.Tautology (Dec 8, 2017)

Archer said:


> Now you are just making stuff up. There is no requirement to have it tested or send it anywhere to maintain the warranty.


I guess reading and making deductions based on the provided information could be considered "made up".

While not clearly stated in their instruction manual, it can easily be inferred that if you do not get your watch checked for water resistance once every 365 days by an Omega service center, and you incur water damage, then that would be considered "lack of care" and therefore not covered by the manufacturers warranty.

It's all there in writing.










Sent from my Pixel using Tapatalk


----------



## anthonyw (Jul 7, 2017)

True story: My friend took his speedy swimming recently and got moisture in it so as others have said it before...it’s up to you but it’s risky


----------

