It’s not ISO rated for diving as it doesn’t have the other requirements

• The presence of a time-preselecting device, for example a unidirectional rotating bezel or a digital display. Such a device shall be protected against inadvertent rotation or wrong manipulation. If it is a rotating bezel, it shall have a minute scale going up to 60 min. The markings indicating every 5 min shall be clearly indicated. The markings on the dial, if existing, shall be coordinated with those of the preselecting device and shall be clearly visible. If the preselecting device is a digital display, it shall be clearly visible.
• The following items of the watch shall be legible at a distance of 25 cm (9.8 in) in the dark:
  • time (the minute hand shall be clearly distinguishable from the hour hand);
  • set time of the time-preselecting device;
  • indication that the watch is running (This is usually indicated by a running second hand with a luminous tip or tail.);
  • in the case of battery-powered watches, a battery end-of-life indication.
• The presence of an indication that the watch is running in total darkness. This is usually indicated by a running second hand with a luminous tip or tail.

 

Right, because any watch rated for 50m doesn't have sufficient depth ratings to meet the criteria for a dive watch. That in no way means it's not capable of the depth rating that it has...

 

I bowing out of this thread as @Stufflers Mom is clearly just winding people up

 

Now we are getting somewhere, you still seem confused by the two different ISO classifications. I've not referenced the 6425 dive spec. perhaps this is where you are going wrong.
Let's stick to ISO22810 and even widened it a little to look past Speedmasters and to focus on what is stated, which is all and any 50m watches are not suitable \recommended for diving.

 

What would make the watch unsuitable?

 

Yes, because they are not "dive watches" and those are the only ones suitable to be used as dive watches.

But again they are good for their rated depth.

 

Do you think that it's feasibly possible to produce a 50m rated watch as outlined above?

 

You are getting hung up on what constitutes a "dive watch"
We can all agree on what the concept of a dive watch is, but this is not about dive watches per se it's about what ISO recommends and it does not recommend diving with any watch, to any depth with a 50m rated watch.

 

I'm not the one who's getting hung up here. You are the one saying it's not suitable for diving, which is a claim that no one here has made - it's a straw man you are using.

Omega clearly states that their watches rated to 50m, are good to that depth. All of the semantic arguments you want to make are not going to change that fact.

 

I'm not claiming anything, simply pointing out where you have been going wrong. I've posted what the ISO 22810 recommends, but if you are happy to go with the Omega blurb over the internationally agreed recommendations set down in ISO22810 then so be it.

 

There are digital watches that meet it.

But

Ever since ISO ratings came in things have changed. 150m used to be the dive watch threshold

But ratings are there for a reason. ISO is relevant as it is the one that says a 50m watch is good for 50m and 300m is good for 300m
You have to understand a watch may test and hold a rating to 50meters but not be recommend for diving due to not having the right display or bezel.
You can’t just pick and choose ISO

Omega couldn’t put a 50m rating in a booklet if it hadn’t tested to 50m ISO specification

You are right a 50m watch is not usually suitable for diving.
But @Archer is right as it is suitable to go 50 meters in water without a issue.

 

I trust the manufacturer, so when they claim it's good to 50m, I believe them. As I said right from the start of your nonsense in this thread, if you choose not to believe Omega and think they are lying, that's fine with me.

 

I'm not picking or choosing anything, the ISO 22810 makes no reference to displays or bezels, it simply states that it that all watches rated at 50m no matter how they look are not suitable for diving, and once the design argument has been removed there's very little to argue about other than the blurb put out by the various manufacturers.

 

But they are suited to going 50 meters and snorkeling

 

Not according to the spec, but you knew that anyway.

 

Not talking about diving but Snorkeling and swimming deeply with snorkel and flippers up to 50 meters no issues as I’m in spec

 

I look forward to the video of you swimming at 50m down wearing only a snorkel, a Speedmaster and a smile.

 

I don’t do that much snorkelling

 

i don't really want to add fuel to the fire but... what realistic and practical activities go to 50m other than diving? not many people lower their watch on a fishing line to exacly 50.0m and exclaim eureka! ??

50m is not an exact threshold underwater, like the sound barrier, so i'd postulate 50m based on basic physics and marketing. deeper depth = more pressure = more stress on the submerged device. 50m presents better than 49.99m yet the pressure change to 51m is incremental, and as such not drastically different than 50m, so i there's some built in reserve, wiggle room, but the greater the depth, the greater the chance of failure, and after 50m omega doesn't claim water resistance. again there is no line in the sand at 49m where you are safe and dangerous at 51m, but exactly tethered @ 50m, you ballsy risk taker.

the 666 ft rating of the bulova snorkel devil diver was purely marketing, does anyone really think it was 2.997m better than a similar 200m watch? and did the devil really come up and snatch divers at that devious depth?

i might be better if there was 'drunk advertising' for this instead of just a pictograph. "hey you dumb ass, we need to say something about our watch and water, and it does ok to x depth, but like, somewhere it won't. can you hold your breath to 50m? not likely, so don't push it."

speed limits are recommended speed, but are variable for given conditions, water depth ratings are similar. 50m, but no one would claim 50m in boiling water.

i feel like there's some description of an elephant in the room going on.

in 10+ yrs of seeing archer's post on here and WUS, when in doubt: WWAD?