Okay - last post in this thread, and I honestly don't have time to write this right now, but will anyway.
Mr. Mom has created a tempest in a teapot and made this a Mr. Mom v Archer thread instead of a Speedmaster v water thread, which is what it should be. Others appear to have taken the bait so for one last time I'll clarify my comments...
The issue here is that Mr. Mom thinks I implied that he specifically doesn't take care of his watches, and as he has said and I have confirmed, I have no idea how he takes care of his watches. Since anyone who observes my posts or knows me in person will tell you, I deal in facts and am not keen on wild speculation, so to suggest I was stating that he specifically doesn't take care of his watches goes against my nature to the point it's an absurd suggestion to me. For the record Mr. Mom, I was not saying that you specifically don't take care of your watches, so if you have had the seals replaced in the last few years, get the watch pressure tested regularly, etc. then good for you, as most people do not and simply rely on the fact that it's a dive watch, and think they will be fine.
Did I use Mr. Mom's wording? Yes absolutely, because as has been pointed out several times it is indicative of those who believe, as I've already explained in this thread and others, that dive watches that are "built from the ground up" for water resistance have some inherent ability to not leak even when the seals have gone bad, and as I've shown this leads to them being on my bench filled with water. If people want to believe that me using his wording was a direct assertion about his behavior (that I would have no idea about) then by all means believe what you wish. I know what was in my own head when I wrote that, so for me there's no doubt...
On average I have this water resistance conversation on a forum probably once a month, and all the same internet mythology surrounding the Speedmaster comes up in pretty much every thread, put forward by armchair experts who spout the comments of other armchair experts. I get attacked for stating the facts as Omega lays them out all the time, so trust me I'm used to it. As much as I try debunking it the mythology surrounding the Speeedmaster's lack of water resistance will not die, thanks in part to people like Mr. Mom who still argue in the face of facts. To suggest that the Speedmaster was not "built from the ground up" to have the water resistance it does is just pure nonsense, because I'm pretty sure the design and specs for the seals didn't spontaneously appear on the drafting board while the Swiss engineer was out having his potatoes and cheese at lunch - it was put there with intention, and that intention was to provide adequate water resistance for the expected use of the watch. 50 meters is a long way down - I know I've never swam or dove that deep and I suspect most people here haven't either, so it has plenty of wager resistance when properly maintained as I've said repeatedly. And as I've also said many times, if you choose to use that water resistance is up to you, but it's there no matter what you may believe.
By the way if people wonder why more watchmakers don't participate on watch forums, this thread is a pretty good example why.
Cheers, Al
