Condensation Inside Crystal

I have a 1994 (not sure this qualifies as vintage?) Speedmaster Triple Date that I had serviced last year and they replaced the crystal. Several months after I had it serviced I was getting condensation inside the crystal. It failed the compression test and they sent it back to the factory to be fixed. Just tonight I noticed condensation inside the crystal again. Just contacted the AD again to let them know, Is there an issue here that I should know about, or am I just unlucky?

Thanks

I'd say you've been unlucky. I own a Mk40 since 2007, which I wear most of the time. For more than a decade it's been showering with me with no problems. Around christmas it went to Omega for its first revision and it came back almost as new and even more precise. No water tightness problems whatsoever.

Just unlucky. Let them fix it.

Why? It is not as if I'd put the watch to take a shower. It's just that it's there, and there it goes, just like my wedding ring.

Interesting link but, from an engineering point of view, many of the statements there don't seem to make a lot of sense:
- Rubber gaskets against metal are perfectly able to block rather large gas molecules like water vapour. Of course tiny atoms or molecules such as helium or hydrogen will get past them, but these even go through steel itself.
- Air expanding in the watch will not "wear the gaskets". Something rubbing against them would. And we are talking of tiny overpressures here, which will not put any significant stress on the seals.
- The temperatures involved in a shower will not "dry up the oils": you probably shower with water at a lower, or only slightly higher temperature than your body. Watchmaking oils will not be affected by it.
- You definitely don't need a 100 meter water resistance for a shower. Unless you shower with a Karcher, even a 30 meter resistant watch will be fine: it has been tested to 3 bars, which is already a lot. Just don't do stupid things like pulling the crown and aiming the jet directly at it!

One thing I had never thought of though and that could happen in some rare cases is if a seal is just tight enough at room temperature, then the slight expansion of the metal surrounding it (due to the higher temperature) could be enough to make it leaky. Again that would be rare but that's a possibility.

Thank you for your remarks... but please, don't spread them too loud in case my watch hears you. It seems that as long as it doesn't know it should have drown long ago, it won't. And I surely want it to stay that way.

AFAIK my 2007 unit is rated not even 50m but just 30m. It certainly has a snapback, not screwed.

I think things like the above are quite common in basically any hobby -I'd say is part of human condition: there always be a percentage of people that will fall by "conspiranoidism". There are people, of course, that will embrace it in full (i.e.: flat earthers, man didn't reach the Moon, etc.) but then, there's the "mild version" in which the "initiated" will support something in contradiction to the "uninitated common sense" because exactly that is what signal them as "initiated".

The pattern, as I say, requires a contradiction between what can be percieved at first glance and their "reality", i.e.: "it clearly says here 30m, right? Well, you should know it doesn't really mean 30m", or "You did think a wristwatch is first and foremost a time-measuring device, right? Well, you should know that for a mechanical wristwatch, that isn't even a mild expectation", or "You did think a digital recording device should be better than an analog one, right? You are wrong, vinyl LPs are warmer and higher quality than CDs", or "You did think an electronically filtered connector can't make any difference once over its rated impedance level, right? you should try this $300 gold one", or "You did think a 95 octane-tuned car engine can't take advantage of higher octane gas, right? 98 octane gas makes my car to accelerate faster and give you much better mileage"...

Of course there are always things to learn when you dive into a corpus of knowledge (there couldn't be specialists otherwise) but these tend to show a common pattern:
1. Against "common knowledge"
2. The more bizarre and convoluted (even to the point of being contradictory), the better
3. Usually focal, without taking account the global scope (i.e.: why your subject is not under the same physics laws than the rest of the Universe?)
4. Usually self-referenced and supported by anecdotical data: once confronted to real-world experience, they usually go with a "god of the cracks" or "no true scostman" schemes.

So, let's see the URL above:
1. Against common knowldege: You thought a water resistant watch would be... "water resistant", right? You are not only somehow wrong, but utterly wrong, my young Padawan!
2. So... what if I accidentaly shower with one? Oh, don't worry! here comes a five points! list including the use of a toothbrush so you can recover. Oh, did you pay attention that in order to avoid the risks of mild-by-design body soaps and shampoos I'm telling you to fully put into water for ten minutes your watch with much more aggressive dish soap?
3. So... how is it that the steel case sealed with synthetic o-rings of my wristwatch is so delicate when the steel tubes sealed with synthtic o-rings of my shower and my bathtub had stood really hot water and soap exposition for like... since ever?
4. Since I am a simpleton anyway, I've been doing what you say would lead to catastrophic results for decades, with whichever watch I happened to own at the time and I'm still waiting... not only that, up to the Internet days, my behaviour was the norm, and it's still the norm for those "not in the know" (i.e.: in the 80s everybody was in the beach with their "simply water-resistant, not diver's watches" without the expected catasthropic results!)

Of course it will... eventually, as the only watch that won't be drown is the one that doesn't see water, even atmospheric humidity.

The point is how great the risk is. As per wristwatch forums, it sometimes seems that saying "water" three times in a row is enough to destroy even a 1000m diver or, at least, less than 100m WR (which, of course, mandatorily should have a screwed on crown if they want to stand a chance).

Reality, on the other hand, seems to have problems supporting these kind of claims.

PS: as for Challenger, as you may remember, the root problem cause was unprepared people (management) not paying attention to the prepared ones (engineers) that told them they shouldn't launch it. OTOH, in wristwatch forums we have "managers" talking about "dynamic pressure", so basically the same.

You are right about this: a general issue with gaskets is that they are a case of "it works until it doesn't", because they eventually perish (especially natural rubber) or can easily be damaged/improperly repositioned when worked on.

But as long as they are in good shape, they are perfectly fine in a shower. And when they are no longer in good shape, they will fail even under cold water.

Lot's of conversations about a speedmaster getting condensation inside the crystals. My big box speedy did the same but only once during one long airline flight. I had been wearing it for several hours that day. I suspect it had something to do with temperature and humidity changes. Does the watch leak air water, I am guessing it probably does but my watch continues to run and will be serviced soon, but others have reported that even Omega admits they may condensate and it's normal, but if it's happening frequently, then that can't be good for any watch. Ask how many speedmaster owners have experienced condensation inside the crystal and under what conditions did this occur. I would like to know because if condensation only occurs if the seals are damaged, then why have I heard of it happening to watches both recently purchased and recently serviced?