- Posts
- 8,890
- Likes
- 28,366
tyrantlizardrex
·I wonder if they have to 1099 themselves in April...for all their value-creating activities throughout the year...🙄
What’s a 1099?
Vintage Speedmaster - “I wear it in the pool”...
What’s a 1099?
- Posts
- 1,530
- Likes
- 3,592
Stufflers Mom
·If it passes testing and has fresh seals it’s 50m water resistant. He did have it serviced by Omega so would say it came back water ready.
Not rare to wear a watch in the pool 😗
A line that's often pushed out by folks that have most to gain when it leaks.
- Posts
- 29,242
- Likes
- 75,619
Archer
··Omega Qualified WatchmakerA line that's often pushed out by folks that have most to gain when it leaks.
Yep, Omega are certainly greedy that way. Damn them for rating their watches!
- Posts
- 10,308
- Likes
- 16,128
padders
··Oooo subtitles!A line that's often pushed out by folks that have most to gain when it leaks.
- Posts
- 3,506
- Likes
- 8,773
MRC
·What’s a 1099?
A USA Internal Revenue Service (Service??? Pffffft!) form for declaring Miscellaneous Income for taxation purposes.
I know more than I want to about the IRS and also know they are about to send me, a UK native, citizen and resident, a demand for USD1.00 in tax for a payment someone wants to make to me of USD0.03 😲
I have composed a reply to the people who want to send me a payment of three (count 'em) US cents, but feel I should take out some of the more offensive content when sober. Perhaps not all of it though 😗
Links to "Taxation without Representation" rants are welcome.
Edited:
- Posts
- 94
- Likes
- 122
bimmernerd
·Assets??🙁
Might have to start deleting my OF pics before the US Democratic Socialists pass a wristwatch tax.
I mean.....$3,000 is an asset. Right?!? 😁
- Posts
- 15,248
- Likes
- 44,793
Canuck
·He likely means he wears it in the pool tournament!
- Posts
- 76
- Likes
- 111
BlackTulip
·I wear my 1675 in the pool the sauna and the ocean. But I have it regularly serviced by Rolex. Not sure I would do the same with an Omega..
- Posts
- 29,242
- Likes
- 75,619
Archer
··Omega Qualified WatchmakerNot sure I would do the same with an Omega..
Why?
- Posts
- 272
- Likes
- 224
Taybharr
·Certainly refreshing to see how the real world and the people in it view these watches that those of us on this forum obsess over. Helpful to keep in mind that for most people, these are instruments for time-telling and fashion. While it may be cringy that this guy uses a 68 Speedy like some would use an Invicta, you have to respect his ability to love a tool watch in a carefree manner.
- Posts
- 355
- Likes
- 392
saulgoodman
·Oh well...for my sanity's sake I shall assume the watch itself wasn't in the pool...
When exactly did the Speedmaster get such a bad reputation for water resistance? I have read many posts on many threads where Speedmaster owners refuse to even wash their hands while wearing their Speedy. On the other side of the coin, the NASA astronauts trained in swimming pools all the time while wearing their Speedmasters. I am definitely not an expert, but I'm going to assume that a well maintained and serviced Speedmaster with viable seals is just fine in shallow water. Having said that, I am so self-conscious about this issue after reading all the sky is falling posts that I don't wear my Speedy near the water either. Repeated enough fiction becomes fact.
Edited:
- Posts
- 1,134
- Likes
- 1,690
ext1
·When exactly did the Speedmaster get such a bad reputation for water resistance? I have read many posts on many threads where Speedmaster owners refuse to even wash their hands while wearing their Speedy. On the other side of the coin, the NASA astronauts trained in swimming pools all the time while wearing their Speedmasters. I am definitely not an expert, but I'm going to assume that a well maintained and serviced Speedmaster with viable seals is just fine in shallow water. Having said that, I am so self-conscious about this issue after reading all the sky is falling posts that I don't wear my Speedy near the water either. Repeated enough fiction becomes fact.
Of course I don't know when exactly. But I am aware also that it's OK to light water resistance, so I don't freak out when water drops on my speedy or whatnot. I agree with you on that.
As for the NASA thing, to my knowledge water resistance wasn't really a big concern at design of the speedy so I'm surprised to hear they wrote them underwater at training. I assume they didn't activate the pushers, though?
- Posts
- 10,308
- Likes
- 16,128
padders
··Oooo subtitles!Of course I don't know when exactly. But I am aware also that it's OK to light water resistance, so I don't freak out when water drops on my speedy or whatnot. I agree with you on that.
As for the NASA thing, to my knowledge water resistance wasn't really a big concern at design of the speedy so I'm surprised to hear they wrote them underwater at training. I assume they didn't activate the pushers, though?
I am sure is was a concern. Breitling got the drop on Omega in the use of a Chronograoh in space, Scott Carpenter personally had them design a 24hr version of the Navitimer for use on his Feb 1962 flight. And so was born the Cosmonaute version. Only problem is it flooded during his splashdown egress and was ruined. A few months later a Speedmaster was used more successfully on a mission again in a personal capacity by Wally Schirra in October ‘62. Had the Breitling functioned well there is a good chance it may have been adopted by NASA, as it was they conducted the selection program.
It must have had some influence that one manufacturer’s product worked and another had already failed on actual missions. It’s true to say the selection tests didn’t include actual immersion but it did include 10 days solid exposure to very high humidity of >95% at varying temperatures so some water proof ability was needed to pass this. The Rolex seemingly failed this test.
Edited:
- Posts
- 355
- Likes
- 392
saulgoodman
·I am sure is was a concern. Breitling got the drop on Omega in the use of a Chronograoh in space, Scott Carpenter personally had them design a 24hr version of the Navitimer for use on his Feb 1962 flight. And so was born the Cosmonaute version. Only problem is it flooded during his splashdown egress and was ruined. A few months later a Speedmaster was used more successfully on a mission again in a personal capacity by Wally Schirra in October ‘62. Had the Breitling functioned well there is a good chance it may have been adopted by NASA, as it was they conducted the selection program.
It must have had some influence that one manufacturer’s product worked and another had already failed on actual missions. It’s true to say the selection tests didn’t include actual immersion but it did include 10 days solid exposure to very high humidity of >95% at varying temperatures so some water proof ability was needed to pass this. The Rolex seemingly failed this test.
This is directly from the NASA Statement of Specifications for the procurement of the watch that was to be issued to the astronauts. Below is a picture of Wally Schirra during water egress training. I'm sure he got dunked a time or two!
STATEMENT OF SPECIFICATIONS:
- Accuracy - Must not gain or lose more than 5 seconds over a 24 hour period. Desirable to have an accuracy equal to or better than 2 seconds per 24 hours.
- Pressure Integrity - The chronometer must be immune to large variances in pressure to include a range from 50 feet of water positive pressure to a negative pressure of 10 millimeters of mercury.
- Readability - All disks, bands, and figures must be readable in various lighting conditions. The chronograph must be readable under both “red” and “white” lighting conditions to or beyond a 5 foot candle illumination intensity. Either a black face with white figures and numerals or black on white is satisfactory. The chronograph should not cause glare at the high illumination levels. A stainless steel case with a satin finish is preferred.
- The chronograph must have stop-start elapsed dials with
- Seconds to 1 minute
- Minutes to 30 minutes
- Hours to 12 hours or greater.
- The chronograph must be shockproof, waterproof, and anti-magnetic. In addition, the face cover must be shatterproof.
- The chronograph may be powered electrically, manually or the self-winding type; however, it must be capable of being manually wound and re-set.
- Reliability - the Manufacturer must guarantee the watch to operate properly under normal conditions for at least one year time period. Performance data and specifications should be supplied by the manufacturer. Manufacturer guarantee and/or warranty should also be included.
- Posts
- 248
- Likes
- 183
squarelug
·I'd feel fine wearing it in the pool. Life is too short!
- Posts
- 1,530
- Likes
- 3,592
Stufflers Mom
·Because there is a ton of misinformation about what a watch with 50 meters of water resistance, that the Speedmaster Pro has, really means. If you read various articles, internet experts, and forums, they will tell you over and over again that it's only good for splashes or being out in the rain...maybe. If you listen to Omega (you know the people who made the watch) it's clear that 50 m depth rating means it can go to 50 m.
Someone will jump in with the "dynamic pressure" argument about moving your arms under water adding more pressure, but it's been debunked with real actual math. The added pressure is minimal, and unless you are Aquaman the speed your arm would have to move isn't possible.
If the watch is properly maintained, which includes regular pressure testing and changing of the seals, it will be water resistant. Of course someone can point to examples where watches have failed, but all watches can fail and leak.
That brings me to the corollary of the general advice given that you need a real diver just to get the watch wet, and that's the idea that because it's rated for 300/600/1000 m depth rating, it will "never leak" even if I don't take care of it.
Yes freak things can happen, but if you use your head there's no huge risk. But using it under water or not is a personal decision, and if people decide not to, I have no problems with that. However when people make false claims about the capability, that's not cool.
The number 1 cause of watches leaking is lack of proper maintenance. Anyone who tells you any different is either lying or doesn't have a clue what they are talking about.
Cheers, Al
You are one of the main culprits sending out the misinformation.
Here's Omega's guide on what's what, I'm interested to hear about how you square being ok to dive to 50m but not to snorkel.
- Posts
- 29,242
- Likes
- 75,619
Archer
··Omega Qualified Watchmaker50m means 50m...
- Posts
- 1,530
- Likes
- 3,592
Stufflers Mom
·50m means 50m...
Not fit for snorkelling means not fit for snorkelling, also on the chart I provided 50m does not mean 50M it clearly states that it has some water resistance but snorkelling a sport done not far from the surface is not recommended
Edited:
- Posts
- 5,501
- Likes
- 9,399
BlackTalon
··This Space for RentOh geeze, not this again... Archer, you must have a big dent in the wall by your computer dealing with this over and over again. If only there were a 'search' feature on OF. If only.
- Posts
- 1,530
- Likes
- 3,592
Stufflers Mom
·Oh geeze, not this again... Archer, you must have a big dent in the wall by your computer dealing with this over and over again. If only there were a 'search' feature on OF. If only.
If he's been putting out incorrect info. then he should stop. I've seen him and others who have listened to him trot out the exact same line, but I'll be happy to hear how Omega can recommend a watch can dive to a depth of 50m but not use that same watch to snorkel at a depth of 1m.
Similar threads
- Posts
- 11
- Views
- 7K
- Posts
- 22
- Views
- 11K
- Posts
- 44
- Views
- 44K
