Speedmaster Racing - repeated moisture issues for 5 Years, now Omega says crown tube damaged

Some background - I bought a new Speedmaster Racing (329.30.44.51.01.001) directly from Omega a little over five years ago. From day one, I had issues with moisture ingress. It went back to Omega for warranty service at around 16 months, then again the following year and again the year after that. So three times in the five‑year warranty period.

Since then, I have bought other watches and started jokingly calling this one my “office/indoor” watch because it was absurdly sensitive to steaming up. And just to be clear - I was extremely careful with it, especially after the first incident. I’m not someone who dives with a 50m watch. I treated it more gently than any other watch I own, yet it kept getting moisture inside. In total, it’s probably steamed up around eight times over five years.

Every time I sent it in, I specifically asked Omega to get to the bottom of it. I said I didn’t care about the cost - I just wanted the root cause fixed because this behaviour clearly wasn’t normal. And every time the answer was the same - “we tested it, it passed the water‑resistance test, we cleaned it, resealed it and it’s all good”. They never charged me, but the problem always came back. I had no basis to challenge them because I don’t have ten Speedmasters to compare it to - just a gut feeling that something wasn’t right.

Last month it happened again. I was digging snow with gloves on (long story), and a tiny amount of snow got under the glove. Honestly, even with one of my vintage Speedies I wouldn’t have thought twice about that, just a trace amount of melting snow. But this watch steamed up immediately. Okay - it was +20 in the car and -20 outside, temperature difference may have played the role, but still the amount of water that went onto the watch was less than you would get when washing hands.

The watch is now five months out of warranty, I sent it to Omega again. Same story - “it passes the tests”, except now the service is chargeable. They offered a 50% goodwill discount due to the history, which I appreciate. Then I received the estimate. Normal wear and tear items aside, they recommend replacing the dial and hands due to oxidation (£1500), which I’m not convinced is necessary. But the key line is this - “the tube of the watch case is damaged.”

So here’s my question to other Omega owners and watchmakers - am I right in thinking that a crown tube does not get damaged through normal wear?
Nobody has ever opened this watch except Omega. It’s been serviced three times by them and the moisture issues started from day one (first time going close the water) - long before anything could reasonably “wear out.” To me, a damaged crown tube sounds like the most logical explanation for all the sealing problems I have had since day one. The crown tube is one of the primary sealing interfaces and if it was defective, misaligned or damaged from the factory (or damaged during the service), that would explain all the issues... isn't it?

What I find contradictory is that Omega says the watch “passes the tests”, yet also says the crown tube is damaged to the point it needs replacement. Those two statements don’t really align. Given the history, does it seem likely that this was a pre‑existing manufacturing or assembly defect and that’s why I have had such a rough time with this watch?

I would really appreciate opinions from people who know these watches inside out, am I wrong challening Omega on this?

I think there are two ways to look at this. From a practical standpoint, what Omega is offering is essentially a discounted full service. A chronograph service is already expensive, and that normally includes all sealing components like gaskets, crown, and crown tube. So even though they’re calling out the tube now, that work would typically be part of a full service anyway. The unknown is the hands—depending on what they’re replacing, that could add a meaningful amount. So whether this ends up being “a good deal” really depends on the total quote.

Looking at the history, I’d have a hard time ignoring the fact that this has been an issue from early on and never properly resolved despite multiple returns. At some point it stops being about cost and becomes a trust issue. I probably would have stopped sending it back to Omega after the second attempt and had an independent watchmaker diagnose it properly.

At this point, accept the discounted service, get the watch fully sorted, and then decide whether to keep it or move it on. I don’t think you’re wrong to question Omega here - they definitely dodnt handke this correctly at all, but I also don’t know that pushing it is likely to change the outcome much.

I do think that a politely worded but unsparingly honest message to customer support (not the service dept) about this is warranted. It may not yield a full refund of your service costs, but you never know: they might seek to make things at least a little more right, or offer some swag. I went through a bracelet clasp ordeal a few years ago and ended up getting several hundred dollars of Omega branded stuff—that I didn’t want and that I immediately sold on eBay. Didn’t ask for it—they just sent it to me.

Thanks for the replies - I mainly wanted to sanity‑check and make sure I’m not imagining things or being unreasonable.

The service quote is £900 (-50%), and the dial + hands is another £900 with no discount. Total of £1,386, including shipping and other fees.

My issue is that neither the hands nor the dial showed any visible oxidation when I sent the watch in. The photo I took isn’t perfect, but there was nothing you could see with the naked eye. Did oxidation appear in the three weeks before they inspected it... possible, I guess. Or they’re simply upselling, because £450 for a full service would actually be a decent deal. That is... if this weren’t the 4th time they have done it in just over five years (ironically, I remember the AD telling me Omega’s modern movements don’t need service for at least 10 years… well, maybe if they stay dry).

My view is that the watch was defective from the start and whatever happened to the hands and dial is directly linked to that defect. If they had found “no issue” again, they could blame me - crown not pushed in, user error, maybe jetskiing in January (I guess if I flew to Australia... possible). But now they are saying the crown tube is damaged, yet there’s no visible external damage anywhere else. For me, that sounds like a pre-existing defect they missed and in my opinion should be fixed FOC.

And yes, it’s absolutely a trust issue now. Why did I keep sending it to Omega then? Because it was under warranty and I didn’t want them to have the excuse that an independent watchmaker "damaged it somehow". Also, with this kind of fault, it’s genuinely hard to know if it’s fixed - it comes back from service, works fine for daily use and then six months later something trivial happens that any watch should survive, but it fogs up again. Only then do you realise it wasn’t fixed.

I also, bought a Seamaster, so any time I was swimming or near water I wore that instead lately. The Speedmaster simply wasn’t exposed much recently, which is probably why it only needed warranty repairs 3 times instead of 15.

Either way, I will speak with Omega CS, and someone also suggested talking to the AD to see if they can put pressure on the service centre given the history. I have already replied to the service centre politely, pointing out that their new findings could explain all the past issues, and asked whether they can provide an alternative explanation that rules out a pre‑existing fault (because, unless they can show clear evidence of external damage, the logical conclusion is that the issue was pre-existing).

Thanks for the detailed explanation...

I know it is kind of a leading question, but would you say it is at all likely that crown damage happens to a new watch (5.5 years old), that does not have screw down crown?

Also, if I understand correctly crown tube is part of the service and it was serviced 3 times already, last time ~18 months ago.

Would have been better off taking it to an independent watchmaker. This whole story sounds outrageous

Yeah, that is what is leading to... So my argument here would be - watch comes in for warranty with physical damage to it, I would assume they say "not warranty service, it is physically damaged", but they never said that, so I assume it wasn't physically damaged or they missed the issue.

I guess they counter argument - the last 3 times were just user error, the 4th time is now physical damage. Just that timing is kind of very convinient for them.

I had no contact with AD, this is directly to Omega CS > booked for pick-up > directly to their regional service centre and my communication is directly with the service centre.

I had asked them for more info on it and clearly, I will need to be asking more.

I want to reiterate that I do think this hasn’t been handled the way it should have been, especially given the repeated history. At this point, I’d manage your expectations a bit based on how Omega is going to look at it.

From their side, they have objective evidence proving the water resistance of the watch each time it was returned to them. Whether or not that captured the actual issue, if one existed, gives them a basis to say the watch met spec at those points, which makes it difficult to prove a pre-existing defect.

The 50% on a full service is actually a good outcome on its own. You could have some room to push back on the hands. If you feel there was no visible oxidation when you sent it in, it’s reasonable to question whether replacement is actually necessary versus just failing their cosmetic standard. Even then, the presence of oxidation now doesn't necessarly prove a pre-existing defect on its own.

Either way, they're probably not going to ever say any of the findings are caused by a defect or issue that existed previously or now. It's a watch that has been used and worn and now requires service and some new parts.

You could ask them to proceed with the full service, but decline the hands replacement for now. That at least gets the watch fully serviced and resealed at a reduced cost, and you can reassess from there.

I think the best-case scenario beyond that is goodwill from Omega or the AD, but realistically that’s going to depend on how sympathetic they are to the history.

I think their sympathy ends at 50% discount to service. That is pretty clear. So I really doubt I would get any further with the service department. The only thing I can get from them is evidence of what is wrong and maybe an opinion of why it is. That perhaps I can then take to AD or Omega HQ/CS and say - "I am not exactly happy with my experience overall, not specifically the current service".

My bigger issue is that the watch that supposedly has 50m "practical" WR (some people argue you should be able to swim "normally" in the sea with it, some would disagree) actually had absolutely zero WR from day one (it was hand-wash safe at most), so it is almost mis-selling at this point. I know there is no such thing as "lemon law" for watches, but if there were, this would be an example of that.

I would again refer to the image above - there is no "oxidation" (I assume that means "rust"?) to speak of at the time I sent it out for service, it was taken literally before sealing the bag and taking it to the post office, it was next day guaranteed service before 9AM, so it reached them like 18 hours later after the photo was taken. Now if they left the damp watch sealed in the bag for three weeks upon receiving it, maybe some oxidation happened then... which is again a kind of grey area, who should take responsibility for it. One of the reasons I always take pictures before sending in case it arrives smashed, so then I can prove it wasn't smashed before sending it out... or "oxidated" as they claim. Could it be under the dial? Okey, but that does not bother me.

All that said, I think if I can't get any further with this, then my plan is to go for £450 service option, reject replacements and just ask them to clean it as much as they can, add £100 for polish and just get rid of the watch as soon as I get it back, because I have absolutelly zero trust in it. At this point I am pretty confident my vintage Moonwatch has more WR than this... and if that is the case, then this watch loses purpose...

The only reason I even have it... it is automatic and sapphire caseback, so from my perspective it is more daily and Moonwatch is more sporty "dresswatch" (as Racing is not exactly going under any the cuff without violence).

I think engaging Omega one more time since they have possession of it right now is a good idea.

It's not really rust they're talking about as rhodium doesn't really corrode itself. In this case, it's dulling of the polish, corrosion of the underlying hands' material, any type of spotting, discolored lume, any visual defect, etc. The picture isn't clear enough for me to judge the condition of the hands. The 3594 and 3894.50 hands were especially prone to "corrosion" if you want to see what that might look like.


50m water resistance is enough for any daily activity involving water. There is probably not something working correctly and I don't know what it is. I don't know if your activities were somehow so unique that the problem only exhibits itself during those activities. I don't know why the Omega water resistance tests didn't show anything.

If you want to find out what is wrong, if there is something wrong, a trusted independent service is the only option. Omega will just replace the parts, service the movement, test it, and return it. Investigative service is something they do not provide directly. If you can find out for sure if there is something wrong, it might change how you feel about the watch. On the other hand, if Omega comes back to you in the middle of service saying the mid case now needs replacement or something like that, I think you'd have your answer and I'd definitely be pushing back on their claim of no defect.

All that being said, it may just be easier moving it on.

Yes, that is what I thought, maybe they can see something via a magnifying glass, not something I could see with my naked eye... unless it happened after I sent it out.
I don’t really want to start the whole “50m means 50m” debate, as I am quite sure my watch isn’t representative of what a 50m‑rated Omega. At the same time, I also don’t think it’s quite as capable as some people suggest, but that is just opinion, what I can say is that the activities that caused issues were almost too stupid to believe any modern watch would have a problem with.

The first time was actual swimming - even then very gentle, because I wasn’t sure it was a good idea and it was the first time out for the watch. They say you need to "build confidence"... It fogged up within about five minutes, before I even got out of the water. Straight to service.

The second time I was cycling in the rain. It was heavy rain, I was soaked, but nowhere near even the force of a normal shower at home.

The third time I was washing the car and got a bit of spray bouncing off the paint.

And in between those, there were a few odd occasions where I noticed a tiny bit of condensation in a corner of the crystal for no obvious reason. Because it was minor and not salt water, I just stuck it in a bag of desiccant overnight and didn’t bother sending it in.

Fourth time, as I mentioned, was when I was digging snow with my hands. The watch was under the glove, a bit of snow got inside, and it fogged up straight away.

If I contrast that to my vintage (it is 1997, supposedly serviced in 2023 before sale, but I don't trust that either) Moonwatch, I wouldn’t swim with the Moonwatch, If it fogged after a heavy rain, I would be disappointed but I would understand. I wouldn’t wash the car with it, but not because I would expect it to fail at that. And I absolutely would have dug snow with it without thinking twice. If it fogged up, I would chalk that up to my own mistake.

But I don’t find any of this acceptable for a modern watch that’s supposed to have some level of WR. I genuinely don’t know how “normal” these activities are for an Omega owner, but none of them feel unusual or unreasonable.

Yeah, I think we’re actually on the same page.

This really isn’t about debating what “50m” means. The rating itself is just a pressure test result and how the design is measured empirically. The manufacturer ultimately decides what the watch is intended to handle based on that design and regardless of where someone personally draws the line, what you’ve described - rain, washing the car, incidental water exposure - is all normal use. That shouldn’t cause condensation in a properly functioning watch like this.

At this point, the rating isn’t the issue, the watch is. The frustrating part is that Omega has test results showing it passed each time, so from their perspective, it's fine. Your experience proves different, and repeated fogging over several years isn’t normal.

I don’t think you’re being unreasonable. This points to a clear defect that was never properly identified or resolved, not misuse or misunderstanding of the rating.

Yeah, I spoke to Omega again… and their position is basically “nope, the last three times it was in, there was no note of crown‑tube damage (no shit!), so we assume the damage happened between the last service and now.” They also said it’s a microscopic scratch, with no visible external damage anywhere. So the message is essentially “we don’t think you damaged it, because otherwise we wouldn’t work on it… but also there’s a mark on the inside and we can’t explain how it got there… it just exists, and watch always had ingress issues, but we can't see any relation here”.

The CS guy kept repeating that they “don’t want to see the watch back again before like 2035, and that they’ll do everything they can to make sure it’s right this time". Which does make me wonder why they didn’t do everything they could the previous three times when it was still under warranty?!

They did at least clarify the dial/hands situation. They said the oxidation is on the inside of the dial, not the outside, and that the hands are actually fine - they are only listed because they come with a dial replacement. So the visible parts are clean, the issue is underneath.

But it’s pretty clear this is as far as they are willing to go. If they agree to clean the dial rather than replace it, then I will probably just take the £450 service and call it a day.

There is one caveat, though. They mentioned the watch gets a two‑year warranty after the service. My assumption is that if I decline the dial replacement, they might refuse to honour that warranty. And that puts me in a stupid position - with the warranty, I could actually try to use the watch properly for two years and if it fails again, at least it’s covered and we can have a real conversation about whether it ever met expectations. Without the warranty, I would have no choice but to move it on immediately as there is no way for me to know it won't happen again.

The "hand" damage is on the back of the dial? They said they'll replace the hands with the dial? That is odd, as you'll find many 90s and 2000s watches with new service SL hands and original tritium dials. It's always an option to have the other replaced if one is, but they're not inclusive. If they're giving you both for the price of one, that certainly makes their services offer more appealing to me.

Where is the crown-tube damage precisely? Those are different components and a scratch just anywhere doesn't mean they'll leak. A "microscopic" scratch wouldn't necessarily pass liquid in the scenarios you've described. At depth, likely, maybe, but not with incidental water contact. With how they classified the dial condition, I'd be very wary of this diagnosis and puttng too much stock in it.

If you want to keep it, there's value in letting them service it and replace the dial/hands, crown and tube, and any of the movement parts. It will place it in the best condition for reevaluation with no caveats. If you really want it, it gives you two more years of coverage.

Another way is to send it to a trusted independent, spend more on the service, but get a more critical look at the hands and dial and the crown and tube. Maybe the dial OR hands need replaced, maybe they don't. If you can personally speak to them, maybe they can do a little testing before hand to see if they can find the actual issue and then you can be assured it's repaired.

If I had the money laying about, I'd buy it right now because I really want to know what failed.

That is what they told me, how true it is - that is another question. They have not sent me pictures, just said there is a scratch on it.


Not sure how that would benefit me if it leaks right away, unless you mean - because of the extended warranty. But then what is the plan - it leaks again, I send it out for free service and then sell it later rather than selling it right away?

I don't know any independent watchmakers that can work on it, nevermind one I would trust.