Need advice on authenticity of a Seamaster 166.010, cal. 565

Posts
419
Likes
184
As it was explained to me, it is also the condition of the metal where the gaskets sit. Mine was a bit pitted and, although cleaned, the surface mating isn't good enough for it to pass the pressure test. OP, that's a good way to know for sure (pressure test)
 
Posts
16,307
Likes
44,937
As it was explained to me, it is also the condition of the metal where the gaskets sit. Mine was a bit pitted and, although cleaned, the surface mating isn't good enough for it to pass the pressure test. OP, that's a good way to know for sure (pressure test)
The pitting around the case back seal I can understand, but with a fresh gasket it would make enough of a seal to withstand sweat or a splash, just not a dunk or a swim perhaps. The real culprit is the crown seal. If you look a large portion of dial damage, you see it creep in from the right side (or darker lume on the 2-5 hour markers)- that’s a bad crown seal. The whole “originality” movement has done a huge disservice to these watches, an original crown has a seal that’s as hard as a rock and will slide off the tube without stem into movement. A fresh crown will cling to the tube and make a soft seal which is how they pressure test (sans movement).
Getting a fresh factory crown is cheap and easy insurance and if you have an original, just ask for it back and keep it for if you ever choose to sell the watch.
 
Posts
284
Likes
334
If the rear seal and crown seal are fresh, there is no reason these couldn’t take a splash or even a quick dunk in the sink, they were designed for it.
I don’t believe your crown is original (which is no big deal), but if it’s a factory service crown you may have a fresh(ish) gasket in it (gaskets are not replaceable, whole crown has to be replaced).
If you really want to be sure, have a watchmaker do a pressure test- that will tell you for sure.
Of course, don’t go swimming with it.
Thank you for this! Yes, as a matter of fact the crown is a factory service piece. I will make sure to source a correct crown if I have a mind to be OC about the water resistance in the future. I’m really just concerned about wrist sweat right now. Not planning to swim with this guy. Should I be concerned if the weather is humid?
 
Posts
284
Likes
334
The real culprit is the crown seal. If you look a large portion of dial damage, you see it creep in from the right side (or darker lume on the 2-5 hour markers)- that’s a bad crown seal. The whole “originality” movement has done a huge disservice to these watches, an original crown has a seal that’s as hard as a rock and will slide off the tube without stem into movement. A fresh crown will cling to the tube and make a soft seal which is how they pressure test (sans movement).
Getting a fresh factory crown is cheap and easy insurance and if you have an original, just ask for it back and keep it for if you ever choose to sell the watch.
The sub-par samples I’ve seen while doing research did have most of the damage around the crown side where you said it would be. This likely explains the slight smudge near the date window in mine. Wow. Maybe I should actually start thinking about sourcing a new crown and having this guy pressure tested. Again, not because I’m planning to go swimming with this. But the insurance aspect sure is very appealing.
 
Posts
28,020
Likes
71,506
As it was explained to me, it is also the condition of the metal where the gaskets sit. Mine was a bit pitted and, although cleaned, the surface mating isn't good enough for it to pass the pressure test. OP, that's a good way to know for sure (pressure test)

Please follow the advice of your watchmaker, and not people on a forum who have no idea at all about the actual condition of your watch. Pitting in the groove of the case back seal and case back can most certainly lead to moisture intrusion and subsequent damage.

Thank you for this! Yes, as a matter of fact the crown is a factory service piece. I will make sure to source a correct crown if I have a mind to be OC about the water resistance in the future. I’m really just concerned about wrist sweat right now. Not planning to swim with this guy. Should I be concerned if the weather is humid?

Unless the watch has passed a pressure test, you should treat it as if it has zero water resistance. This includes avoiding situations where there is heavy arm seat, or taking it out in very humid weather.

The people advising you that it "should be fine" are not going to pay the bills if it gets damaged, so take the advice they are giving you with a grain of salt. Regardless of what a watch was "designed for" initially, water resistance is not a permanent feature, and must be maintained.

Cheers, Al
Edited:
 
Posts
16,307
Likes
44,937
@Archer , I’m not disagreeing with you, what I am suggesting is that if his watchmaker replaces the case back seal and crown and pressure tests it- and it passes, there is no reason he can’t get the watch wet or wear it in humid conditions. You being a watchmaker, I’m sure you have heard/ seen other watchmakers give misinformation.

I have had some watchmakwrs say that all older watches need to avoid water which is BS, if the watch was designed to be waterproof (as was the Seamaster line), and it passes a pressure test- then it’s fine with water. Pitting around the case back seal is another issue as I said above, but with a fresh gasket, washing your hands carefully “shouldn't” be an issue as long as you don’t splash up on the wrist and are careful (which I do regardless of which watch I wear from 1917 to 2010). If the weather is steamy and I’m sweating, then I’m not wearing one of these oldies anyway....but again, if it passes the pressure test then there won’t be an issue.
 
Posts
28,020
Likes
71,506
@Archer , I’m not disagreeing with you, what I am suggesting is that if his watchmaker replaces the case back seal and crown and pressure tests it- and it passes, there is no reason he can’t get the watch wet or wear it in humid conditions. You being a watchmaker, I’m sure you have heard/ seen other watchmakers give misinformation.

I have had some watchmakwrs say that all older watches need to avoid water which is BS, if the watch was designed to be waterproof (as was the Seamaster line), and it passes a pressure test- then it’s fine with water. Pitting around the case back seal is another issue as I said above, but with a fresh gasket, washing your hands carefully “shouldn't” be an issue as long as you don’t splash up on the wrist and are careful (which I do regardless of which watch I wear from 1917 to 2010). If the weather is steamy and I’m sweating, then I’m not wearing one of these oldies anyway....but again, if it passes the pressure test then there won’t be an issue.

Yes, I've seen bad advice from watchmakers before, but far more bad advice given by collectors on forums...

You now talk about passing a pressure test, but that's not what you actually said initially. Your first reply regarding water resistance was this:

"If the rear seal and crown seal are fresh, there is no reason these couldn’t take a splash or even a quick dunk in the sink, they were designed for it. Earlier watches with the press-on backs are the ones with which you need to be careful around water"

Again, what they are designed for is irrelevant if the sealing surfaces are pitted, or the case tube is worn - neither of these things are "solved" by new gaskets, so to imply that these are good for a "dunk in the sink" is not great advice to put I mildly.

Later you said this:

"The pitting around the case back seal I can understand, but with a fresh gasket it would make enough of a seal to withstand sweat or a splash, just not a dunk or a swim perhaps. The real culprit is the crown seal. If you look a large portion of dial damage, you see it creep in from the right side (or darker lume on the 2-5 hour markers)- that’s a bad crown seal. "

Again you have no way of knowing that a new seal will "make enough of a seal" to avoid damage from humid weather from sweat, or a splash to the watch. You have no idea if the crown seal is the only issue in that area, or if the case tube is worn or damaged. If there is an issue with the case tube (which you can't see when the crown is installed) then a new crown isn't going to help.

I fully agree that a pressure test is something that should be done to confirm things, and that's why I said so in my post above. But if you don't have the test, again it should be treated as if it has zero water resistance until you know if it has any at all. If the watchmaker who worked on it said "keep it dry" then that is what you should do.

Cheers, Al
 
Posts
16,307
Likes
44,937
I then apologize for being so loose in my advise to Lotus. Archer is a watchmaker, he’s seen the disasters, he knows.
Get thee to a watchmaker and get a pressure test- then you’ll know how careful you need to be.
 
Posts
284
Likes
334
All of the above are gratefully noted and greatly appreciated. 👍

I have always been careful with my vintage pieces near or around water. I trust my guy and his watchmaker who serviced this Seamaster before it was delivered to me. But because I view this as an extra-special piece, I will err on the side of caution and follow the general consensus of taking a pressure test.
 
Posts
28,020
Likes
71,506
I'm just trying to make sure someone doesn't read a post and think it's okay to get a watch wet that their watchmaker has examined and said should not get wet - first hand knowledge trumps forum speculation, that's all.