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

Okay, fine, so it fogs up again, I send a borderline angry CS request and follow up with a call and they just repeat the same answer "we are sorry, won't happen again". At the end, I still get a clean working watch. What I am escalating, on what basis could I say "not you have not fixed it"... even after 3rd, 4th, nth... time.

I was ALWAYS WITH OMEGA UK DIRECTLY.
That is what they implied, yes.

The point - it is an ongoing case, Omega still has the watch, the "escalation" is ongoing.

What solutions were rejected?

"On receipt, we put the watch through the full water resistance test, and it passed, meaning that the seals were still holding. This means that the only way what the moisture could have got in would have been through the crown not being properly tightened."

Then I called them and asked, "what you mean by tightened, this is a push-down crown, not screw down"... to which the response was "yes, so maybe it was not pushed down fully".

By "implied", I mean they never said "you have not pushed the crown down", there is no way for me to prove it was pushed down, there is no way for them to prove it was open, so they just use vague descriptions "maybe, not fully, partially, not completely" etc.

Fair, now that with the help of this forum, I was able to decipher what is actually happening with my watch from their terrible explanation, I have escalated it.

"I confirm that this has been read by the Customer Care Manager and she is aware of your concerns."

Yes... although, it is possible to read in two ways... either it is already their final position, or I need to wait for CCM to review and respond. I followed up with a question asking if I am waiting for CCM response now?

I never said that. I said I would choose not to any more than I would choose to wear it if I were snorkeling. I have actual diver's watches (a specific and technical term) that are better designed for divers' use. Intended use doesn't equal capability. I'm snorkeling, not timing splits during a race. I even expounded further because I'd sensed you'd latch on to my preference and run with it, but you read right by my rationale and explanation.

The only design element that the Seamaster chronographs have over the Speedmaster chronographs in the benign and totally safe water regime involving submersion and swimming is that the Seamaster chronograph pushers are designed to completely seal at the rated pressure even when pressed. You mentioned nothing about using the pushers while submerged so that doesn't seem to be the issue here.

Your Speedmaster doesn't have marginal or poor WR. It is fine for swimming. It has a defect that has never been properly addressed by Omega. That is the problem, not some (ambiguous to you) water resistance rating.

I hope this clears up any confusion regarding my personal stance regarding Omega and the ratings and use criteria they publish.

I hope so too... it is not the rating that is ambiguous (in fact Omega's definition and wording is quite clear on that), it is proving that the watch does not meet it which is ambiguous. And beyond that - finding why.

This is a typical case of marking your own work (for Omega). In theory, they can take the watch apart to the smallest part and measure everything with a micrometre to check maybe some dimension is machined not quite right...

... or they can say - you "didn't properly tighten the crown"... whatever that means... and "it will be £1300 from you, thank you very much". It is entirely down to them outside of warranty.

Just some closure on this matter.

After the case was escalated to the Customer Care Manager, Omega agreed to replace the dial, hands, etc. free of charge. Realistically, they didn’t have much of a choice - when I sent the watch in (and when they received it), the lume was still intact. It only started falling out while the watch was in their possession, so returning it in worse condition was never an option.

The last email from the service manager was borderline threatening - “pay now or we send it back as is”, but again, they couldn’t actually do that given the condition it arrived in.

The CCM apologised and confirmed that, considering the history of repeated water‑ingress issues, the dial should have been replaced during the earlier warranty work and it was their oversight that it wasn’t. On that basis, they are replacing the dial and hands free of charge as if it were still under warranty.

The remaining cost for me is £450 (50% discount) for the full service - new crown, stem, all tubes, pushers, seals and a full movement service. Honestly, that is about what I expected to pay anyway, so I’m fine with that part.

I also asked for a complimentary polish of the case and bracelet (normally £200+£200). Given the watch has been with them for over three months and handled multiple times, the last thing anyone wants is a fresh argument about new scratches. They initially suggested saving the complimentary polish for later to preserve material, but since I’m likely to move the watch on sooner rather than later, I asked for it now.

So overall, I’m actually quite happy with the outcome. I still have zero trust in the water resistance of this particular watch, but a free new dial and hands, free polish and a 50% discounted service (including 2 years warranty) feels like a fair resolution. Sad they didn't arrived to this offer right away, but better late than never, I guess.

One more interesting detail I only discovered at the end... because the last warranty service was in January 2024, Omega effectively “stacked” the warranties. The original 5‑year sales warranty (mid‑June 2020 purchase) would normally expire July 2025, but because the January 2024 warranty service added another 2 years - the service warranty only expired in February 2026. The watch failed again on 14 February 2026, literally two weeks after the extended warranty expired, not 6-7 months as I originally thought.

Also, the e-mail to use for UK Omega Customers is [email protected] (this is public information), rather than [email protected], but it is not clear on their website, as it appears out of context.

Thanks to everyone who offered advice - it definitely helped steer this in the right direction.