Vintage Speedmaster - “I wear it in the pool”...

Posts
10,308
Likes
16,128
There's no need to hand out insults because you claimed something that wasn't true, and I corrected it for you. You should remember that it was you that made the statement "It clearly says the watch is covered against immersion to 50m" when all anyone has to do is actually read what is on the page and not rely on the mantra of someone who should no better to see that is not the case at all.
Umm what isn’t true? The watch is rated to 50m. You are delusional and yet again factually inaccurate. No change there.
Edited:
 
Posts
1,530
Likes
3,592
50m water resistance = water resistant to 50m

According to Omega's own documented guidance 50m water resistance = not suitable for snorkelling at a depth of 1m.
 
Posts
7,111
Likes
23,092
someone who should no better to see that is not the case at all.

Honestly, I have know idea why this persists.
 
Posts
8,890
Likes
28,366
According to Omega's own documented guidance 50m water resistance = not suitable for snorkelling at a depth of 1m.

50m water resistance = water resistant to 50m
 
Posts
1,530
Likes
3,592
I say again McFly. The Imega Soeedmaste

Umm what isn’t true? The watch is rated to 50m. You are delusional and yet again factually inaccurate. No change there.

What isn't true you say?
Well you made the following statement "It clearly says the watch is covered against immersion to 50m." and really doesn't, but if it does please post it here, if you can't then it might be you that's delusional and factually inaccurate.
 
Posts
10,308
Likes
16,128
What isn't true you say?
Well you made the following statement "It clearly says the watch is covered against immersion to 50m." and really doesn't, but if it does please post it here, if you can't then it might be you that's delusional and factually inaccurate.
Interesting question. What is it you think the 50m means? Yes I will take the time to find something that shows you that your talking nonsense but I sense you won’t care.
 
Posts
2,675
Likes
7,487
There's no need to hand out insults because you claimed something that wasn't true, and I corrected it for you. You should remember that it was you that made the statement "It clearly says the watch is covered against immersion to 50m" when all anyone has to do is actually read what is on the page and not rely on the mantra of someone who should no better to see that is not the case at all.
Wasn’t it you who posted this visual aid?

 
Posts
1,530
Likes
3,592
Wasn’t it you who posted this visual aid?


Yes it was me, but if you take the time to read it and look at the corresponding pics it explains that while the watches are rated they also have examples of the practical uses and the limits of the rating, and at no point does it make the claim the a 5 bar watch is protected to be immersed at a depth of 50m, quite the reverse actually.
 
Posts
10,308
Likes
16,128
Yes it was me, but if you take the time to read it and look at the corresponding pics it explains that while the watches are rated they also have examples of the practical uses and the limits of the rating, and at no point does it make the claim the a 5 bar watch is protected to be immersed at a depth of 50m, quite the reverse actually.
Wrong. Again.
 
Posts
2,675
Likes
7,487
Yes it was me, but if you take the time to read it and look at the corresponding pics it explains that while the watches are rated they also have examples of the practical uses and the limits of the rating, and at no point does it make the claim the a 5 bar watch is protected to be immersed at a depth of 50m, quite the reverse actually.
How do you read “submersion in water” and assume it means “quite the reverse actually”... ? 😕
 
Posts
4,946
Likes
69,626
So it’s safe to wear whilst taking a shower , not saying I want too but was slightly concerned that the water resistance of a speedy was less than rice paper according to the general consensus.
 
Posts
1,530
Likes
3,592
How do you read “submersion in water” and assume it means “quite the reverse actually”... ? 😕

You can't just make up a point simply by paraphrasing. It's the submersion in water up to depth of 50m that is at issue, the Omega guidance states that the activity of snorkelling is not recommended hence the reverse.
 
Posts
8,890
Likes
28,366
It's the submersion in water up to depth of 50m that is at issue, the Omega guidance states that the activity of snorkelling is not recommended hence the reverse.

It clearly states that they don't recommend the watch for Snorkeling. Nowhere does it state that a watch with 50m of water resistance is not water resistant to 50m.

Given that freedivers include a snorkel in their kit, and the world record for constant weight freediving is currently 120m, I'd argue that watches with 100m of water resistant are not suitable or snorkeling... no matter what Omega's chart says. 😉