I was salivating over a moon phase the other day, and my wife looked over my shoulder and said, "it's just a speedmaster, you haven't liked any of the speedmasters you've owned or worn enough to hang on to them."
And yet... boy is that ever a Speedmaster i like
Begging your pardon- and I am indeed begging your pardon with this response- but this idea that 50 meters is not enough (and I'm assuming you meant 5 atmospheres) is absolutely bogus.
Omega tests their water resistance for activity to the depth rating. And, like any good depth rating, Omega tests to a +20-30% margin of depth
on that depth rating.
Directly from Omega's site:
found here:
https://www.omegawatches.com/en-us/customer-service/faq/using-your-omega-watch
This "concept" that 50 meteres is inadequate for an Omega is the most irritating and most pseudoscientific garbage that gets spread around the watch community today. INDEED- this does not apply to vintage pieces. INDEED- water ratings may not always be consistently applied. But there you have it, from Omega.
You want to talk about the pushers not being used underwater- now we're into the realm of "handling real life."
🤣🤣🤣
Of course mine are vintage and probably half of them in pieces. So does not really apply here.
Thirty some years ago when I started collecting rolex already had a parts moratorium. SMH at the time did not. Even now if one is patient and perseveres it is not difficult to acquire parts and junked vintage for the cost of a dine out meal. Or skip filling the gas (petrol) tank and not drive for a while.
Such is impossible with rolex. They are not hobby friendly. So this still makes rolex irrelevant.
In case this is not a typo- 10 ATM is equal to 100 meters of resistance. 5ATM is equal to 50.
Roughly.
As far as the water resistance being greater/lower amongst the Speedmasters is concerned, some of them outside of the 861, 1861, 3861, and derivatives have 100 meters. I think it's related to case design, but you'd have to ask either an Omega watchmaker like @Archer or perhaps a collector of some of those watches.
And my harsh responses aside- it's the propagation of this misunderstanding that irritates me so greatly, not you personally.
EDIT: Just saw your linked post. I understand the frustration; hopefully you get some traction in helpful responses but ultimately, I hope Omega is able to correct this issue for you.
Well truth to be told, I think my watch is defective, so perhaps my experience with 50m rating on Omega is not representative.
I always thought it is impossible that my brand new Omega gets wet if I just look too long at water, but it does not help that when I ask exactly that question nobody responds...
50ATM on a non‑dive watch is not "50 metres" - I’m sure that’s not news to anyone.
Let’s take a simple hypothetical. It’s a perfect sunny summer afternoon, you are walking along the coastline, wearing your prized Speedy. The sea looks amazing. You weren’t planning to swim, but now you are tempted.
What do you do? Do you take off a £5k–£10k watch and leave it in your shoe on the beach, or do you anxiously bite your tongue and swim with it in a hope the 50-100m rating will be just about enough?! If it doesn’t, you are greeted with a steamed‑up dial and a £900 service bill.
And this isn’t paranoia - anyone who has ever left a watch on the shore knows exactly how uncomfortable that feels. Getting mugged is one thing, voluntarily leaving a luxury watch unattended on a public beach is another. Most people would rather keep it on their wrist if they can.
So what’s the practical solution?
You end up with a two‑watch Omega setup - Speedmaster for the iconic looks + Seamaster for actual everyday usability. That is £11k at the absolute minimum (38mm Speedy + basic Diver 300M).
Realistically, once you are at the Sapphire Sandwich and a nicer Seamaster, you are closer to £14k mark.
...or you buy a £9,800 Submariner and it works for all occasions without thinking about it. Not having to plan your day around your watch is a form of luxury in its own right. For me, I’m allergic to being disrespected, so I went with the two‑watch combo. But I completely understand the people who would rather wait for the one watch they never have to worry about.
This is why "just don't swim with it" isn't good enough for a practical everyday luxury watch, it needs to handle real life, not just washing hands.
The 32xx issue is an interesting lesson in Rolex’s marketing genius.
After 30 years of the workhorse 31xx movement, in 2015, Rolex introduced the 32xx movement in response to improving market standards set by other manufacturers (led by Omega) with respect to power reserve, anti-magnetism, and overall efficiency. Many feel the main improvement of the 32xx over the 31xx was increasing the power reserve from 48 hours to 70 hours.
Beginning with the Day Date in 2015, the 32xx rollout across all Rolex models was completed for the most part by 2020 (with some lesser models upgrading in 2021-23).
Reports of Rolex 32xx series movement problems, primarily regarding low amplitude, inconsistent timekeeping, and slow running, surged in the early 2020s, with many users reporting issues appearing 2–5 years after purchase.
Modern wearing habits where watch owners have many watches, require the regular resetting of watches that are worn for shorter periods making the long-term accuracy of watches harder to detect, in contrast to when people only own one watch where long-term accuracy is easier to measure.
Given these circumstances, issues with the 32xx started to become discussed/known around 2020-21. At that time, Rolex was selling over a million watches a year; demand was high and during COVID people had money and a pent up desire to spend.
An admission of a design/mechanical problem would have been devastating to their reputation, and a recall might have been very costly to implement.
What did Rolex do? They made their watches scarce.
Coinciding with the beginning of the 32xx problems, they made their watches extremely hard to get at the AD level, yet very available on the grey market at substantial premiums. Watch buyers became grateful to get a Rolex at MSRP and asking questions about rumored problems did not help in “establishing a relationship”.
Buyers chose allocation over accuracy.
Modern wearing habits made the 32xx issue hard to detect for many enthusiasts and Rolex handled these issues quietly without admitting the problem or announcing a fix or solution. Personally, I am fearful of buying a 32xx, especially if the recently introduced 71xx becomes the new standard.
W&W 2026 will be very interesting.
The lesson here is: Rolex made lemonade out of lemons.
Omega has a worthy competitor.
No one can say what’s wrong with your watch just based on a couple of photos.
But I think it would be wise to differentiate between an individual example that has a defect, as it appears your watch might have, and what the watches generally are designed and manufactured to withstand.
There is a lot of misinformation out there on watch forums on the subject of water resistance, and you should always default to what the actual brand says, and in this case all of Omega’s water resistance ratings are for the actual depth you can take them to with no restrictions on the activity. Not every brand does this, and I for one appreciate that Omega makes this clear rather than many who tell you that a 50m depth rating is only splash proof.
If your water resistance is shot, the depth of exposure doesn't matter.
That is more or less what Omega AD told me tough... they didn't say it is "splash-proof", they said you can swim with it, maybe snorkel carefully, but by all means never jump into water with it.
Also, just to be clear my watch was never even 1m UNDER water... maybe like 30cm underwater if that, the second time it got wet I was LITERALLY cycling and it started raining... and that was all it too for the watch to steam up.
I do not expect anyone to tell what is wrong with my watch from photos (photos are just for reference, maybe comment on "oxidised dial and hands"), but I would expect somebody to say whenever the story makes sense i.e. watch gos back for warranty 3 times and no issue is found... 5 month after warranty end there is stem damage... yet "passes test".
Back to the main topic - 50m is an issue in real‑world. You can believe 50m = 50m, but it still leaves ambiguity, it should be fine, but it may not be fine, because it is not a dive watch, most people simply won’t risk it. A Submariner’s 300m rating removes all doubt - you never have to think about it... unless you have concrete block strapped to your feet, but as somebody already said - you likely have bigger issues to worry about in such case.
The AD is not Omega.
I have serviced a lot of watches that have leaked. None of them leaked at some incredible depth, or even in a swimming pool. They leaked most often when the owner was washing their hands…so not even submerged.
If the hands or markers on the dial are water damaged, what is it that you are asking us to comment on?
And yes, I’ve had the occasional watch in that has water damage, but passes the pressure testing on my initial inspection. It doesn’t seem to make sense, but it happens.
I don’t think anyone is saying you shouldn’t be upset by what has happened to your watch. But again you are not separating an issue with a single watch with what the watch is designed for.
You appear to have fallen for all the misinformation out there. That’s fine, you aren’t the first and won’t be the last…
If your watch has a defect, or expired gaskets, there is no difference between a 5m or a 5000m depth rating. So the idea that a sub or seamaster is any better at depth than a DeVille at 29m, is absolute nonsense.
Depth failures tend to be catestrophic in practice. It is "crystal folks onwards and shattered", or "caseback pressed so hard it cracked the plate".
I differentiate those from gasket failures, which allow leaks, and are the result age/degredation. The gasket material on your submariner or deepsea, or speedmaster are identical, so leaks in them that happen, could happen to every one.
