Robert-Jan
··#SpeedyTuesdayThis clickbait just gets worse and worse. I'm not even tempted to read it.
Please consider donating to help offset our high running costs.
This clickbait just gets worse and worse. I'm not even tempted to read it.
As a publisher, you have to. But the article covers a lot of frequently asked questions (and comments).
Just because you can, it doesn't mean you should.
This clickbait just gets worse and worse. I'm not even tempted to read it.
Just get a Seamaster if you want to swim, it will probably be ok on the moon too if that is on your holyday plan.
Just to add, if you are planning on wearing it on your moon vacation, the standard bracelet won't fit over your clothes.
Nothing major, just something for the well travelled gentleman to be aware of
I have had 2 Speedmasters with water damage.One was a brand new Trilogy.
Jumped in the pool realized it was on my wrist and jumped straight out but it was to late.
Omega fixed it under warranty but my confidence has been damaged for ever.
In my eyes 50m watches are not meant for any water activities.
I find my Daytona a much more robust watch than the Speedmaster purely on it's water resistance
Yet I find the Speedmasters aesthetics far superior to my Daytona.
Please Omega give us 100m.
Nonsense, that is what the clasp expention is for! Slips over an EVA suit beautifully.
I've seen this (and other) statements a lot in cases like this, and they've always slightly bothered me. I think it's because this phrase in English is meant to imply a guaranteed negative outcome- or at least it facilitates the reader towards that conclusion once they think about it. That is- we use it specifically in cases where someone is about to do something that is, without likely doubt, unwise.
So- here's an example filled out that makes sense: "Just because you can (touch that hot stove), it doesn't mean you should."
But if we fill it out in the case of a watch with water resistance: "Just because you can (take a watch with 50 meters (or more) of water resistance that the manufacturer states is capable of withstanding submersion to that depth), doesn't mean you should," it makes a lot less sense. This isn't a situation in which there is a guaranteed negative outcome. Yes; the water resistance can fail. Yes, that can be expensive. But it's definitely not a guaranteed thing. The reality is, the risk is statistically miniscule, especially on a watch that is regularly maintained.
I'm not judging your or anyone else's decision on how you wear your watches. Ultimately, each person should weigh the potential risk in any situation, but they should do so from an accurately informed position.
Ultimately, each person should weigh the potential risk in any situation, but they should do so from an accurately informed position.
Ultimately, it's your watch and you are free to wear it wherever you want and to do whatever you want to it.
As Archer says, a watch is water resistant until it's not.