Water damaged Sub

Marsimaxam · Aug 21, 2020

Sorry about your unfortunate experience. I understand why you felt comfortable to splash around with your Sub after just having it serviced and pressure tested. I have one cardinal rule, " If you are going to go swimming or diving, wear an inexpensive water proof watch, not your vintage Rolex." Simple, I know plenty of collectors will disagree with me, but, really, why take the chance? Hell, I don't wear my watches in the shower either.

No one here can truly answer what exactly went wrong at the watchmaker or at the beach, but, many have given you excellent advice and opinions. Good luck and I'm sure your Rolex will be dry and running smoothly again soon, just stay away from the water.... please.

jaguar11 · Aug 21, 2020

Send it to Kings Hill next time. Specify what you do not want doing, wear it, swim with it and enjoy as intended. That is what I do with mine. You should not have issues like that with a sapphire 16800. Good luck either way!!

fergusm · Aug 21, 2020

Archer
Updates?

Not a great outcome. I gave the watchmaker the watch to test it and try to determine what happened. They came back and told me that the watch had passed the pressure test and the crown must have been open. The thing is that I picked up the watch from them the day before my holiday and they had set the correct time so I never even unscrewed the crown though I did check that it was screwed tight (that automatic thing you do when you put on your watch). There is absolutely no way that the crown was unscrewed.

I no longer trust this watchmaker so I decided to send it to another watchmaker in the UK (Simon Freese who seems to be known on this forum). I've asked Simon to check it over, determine whether the gaskets were even changed and if so were genuine parts used, and of course repair the watch as it no longer works.

I'm hoping that there's no damage to the hands and dial and if the cost is high, I may try to make an insurance claim. If not, I'll write it off as poor judgement on my part using a watchmaker I wasn't familiar with.... Lesson learnt!

Marsimaxam · Aug 21, 2020

jaguar11
Send it to Kings Hill next time. Specify what you do not want doing, wear it, swim with it and enjoy as intended. That is what I do with mine. You should not have issues like that with a sapphire 16800. Good luck either way!!

I agree with you on so many levels, but there has to be a cut off point where you wouldn't risk damage to a watch.... I mean, you're not the guy who would swim with his pressure tested and recently serviced Paul Newman 6239, or are you?

onthedial · Aug 21, 2020

@Marsimaxam
That's not really an apples to apples comparison. Tell me, what's the depth rating on a Ref. 6239? 😉

@fergusm
I'm sorry to hear that there wasn't a satisfactory outcome with your now former watchmaker. They really should provide you with a printout of the pressure test results specific to your watch. After a service a 16800 should easily pass 10 bars as that's only 100 meters.

Marsimaxam · Aug 21, 2020

onthedial
@Marsimaxam
That's not really an apples to apples comparison. Tell me, what's the depth rating on a Ref. 6239? 😉

I was trying to make a point and perhaps did not use the best reference example of a Paul Newman...the 6239 is water resistant, and I found this brief article from:https://malalan.eu/over-17-million-dollars-for-rolex-daytona/

"Paul Newman supposedly got this watch as a present from his wife in 1968; the timepiece has the reference number 6239, and is engraved on the back side with the words: “DRIVE CAREFULLY”. He wore it for several years and used it to keep time on various races in the USA and even at the 24 Hours of Le Mans race. He also wore it while swimming, performing, working and generally wore it on his wrist most of the time. In 1984, while building a treehouse, Newman asked his daughter’s boyfriend about the time and because the man didn’t have a watch, he gave him his Rolex Daytona. Paul Cox wore the watch with great pride for over a decade and didn’t realise until the 1990s that a true collectors’ cult has formed in horological circles around his particular timepiece."

So perhaps to make the point that one shouldn't swim in a very expensive vintage watch I should have used the Paul Newman reference model
6240, sold for over 350,000 USD in 2018 at Phillips, which was depth-rated to 50 meters or 165 feet.
Image from Robb Report

Nobel Prize · Aug 21, 2020

There is no reason a watch of this age with the proper service would not be able to withstand being submerged. This is not on the OP. We as individuals may decide where we draw the risk line, but if a watchmaker says a watch is suitable for diving then the watch should be suitable for diving. It is made out of steel. it is water pressure tested, it is supposed to have new gaskets. It has been given the green light by a watchmaker, it should work.

IF the watchmaker has said....I wold not submerge this watch. I have done what I can but the pressure test is not 100% because (for example) the watch has been banged around and it is no longer sound. (this happened to me with an IWC that then had to be laser welded). Then OK. the OP should not submerge it or should send it to Rolex. Spend the money and get it back.

BTW, when Rolex services a watch and returns it with the testing cleared they guarantee it. Does not matter the age, year or model. If I service a 1970's 5512 or 13 and they return it with a warranty, then I can swim or dive with it and they will stand behind it.

Any good watchmaker should be held to the same standard....if they are guaranteeing the same result.

Marsimaxam · Aug 21, 2020

Nobel Prize
There is non reason a watch of this age with the proper service would not be able to withstand being submerged. This is not on the OP. We as individuals may decide where we draw the risk line, but if a watchmaker says a watch is suitable for diving then the watch should be suitable for diving. It is made out of steel. it is water pressure tested, it is supposed to have new gaskets. It has been given the green light by a watchmaker, it should work.

IF the watchmaker has said....I wold not submerge this watch. I have done what I can but the pressure test is not 100% because (for example) the watch has been banged around and it is no longer sound. (this happened to me with an IWC that then had to be laser welded). Then OK. the OP should not submerge it or should send it to Rolex. Spend the money and get it back.

BTW, when Rolex services a watch and returns it with the testing cleared they guarantee it. Does not matter the age, year or model. If I service a 1970's 5512 or 13 and they return it with a warranty, then I can swim or dive with it and they will stand behind it.

Any good watchmaker should be held to the same standard....if they are guaranteeing the same result.

Excellent reply and I understand, but, I, personally, would not go swimming with a valuable, which is relative a term, vintage watch.
Also, I thought Rolex Service Centers no longer services watches manufactured prior to 1975, has this policy changed? Of course, I stopped sending any of my vintage watches to a Rolex Service Center as they usually, not always, wanted to change the crown, hands, bezel insert, etc.

Nobel Prize · Aug 22, 2020

Marsimaxam
Excellent reply and I understand, but, I, personally, would not go swimming with a valuable, which is relative a term, vintage watch.
Also, I thought Rolex Service Centers no longer services watches manufactured prior to 1975, has this policy changed? Of course, I stopped sending any of my vintage watches to a Rolex Service Center as they usually, not always, wanted to change the crown, hands, bezel insert, etc.

Never heard of such a policy. It does not seem plausible to me that Rolex would not service watches older than 1975.
I completely understand your personal and quite reasonable preference to not swim with a vintage or valuable watch, and I don't disagree with it, Specially if it is a watch rated 50mm. But that is a personal choice, not a guideline, specially if you have a watch rated 300m right out of service and pressure testing.

Lurk41 · Aug 22, 2020

Nobel Prize
Specially if it is a watch rated 50mm

50mm does not leave much room for swimming... 😁

alam · Aug 22, 2020

Lurk41
50mm does not leave much room for swimming... 😁

that would require an itty-bitty short snorkel 😀

alam · Aug 22, 2020

fergusm
I hadn't been wearing my beloved 16800 much so decided to have it serviced last month and bring it on holiday.......First day at the beach and after a little bit of splashing about with the kids, this happened...

fergusm
...They came back and told me that the watch had passed the pressure test and the crown must have been open...

here's a question, what are the odds of water intrusion in the above scenario? where a properly-serviced diver's watch, w/all seals being correctly replaced, and having passed a pressure test, is then exposed to a little bit of splashing while on the beach while the crown is not completely closed, let's say in this scenario the crown was screwed just between half to three-quarters down. I’d guess very low/unlikely?

Archer · Aug 22, 2020

Marsimaxam
Excellent reply and I understand, but, I, personally, would not go swimming with a valuable, which is relative a term, vintage watch.

As is always the case in discussions regarding water resistance, you really need to differentiate your risk tolerance, from the actual capabilities of the watch and the real risk.

They are two completely different things, as one is your emotions and feelings, and the other is determined using scientific test methods.

jaguar11 · Aug 22, 2020

Marsimaxam
I agree with you on so many levels, but there has to be a cut off point where you wouldn't risk damage to a watch.... I mean, you're not the guy who would swim with his pressure tested and recently serviced Paul Newman 6239, or are you?

I agree with on that point totally. I think what I was trying to say is that while the 16800 in the op is vintage it has what I would call modern architecture. While the example in the op has a matte dial it is not a Paul Newman Daytona and given its relative newness/financial value there is no reason why it can't be enjoyed as intended. In the end it is of course a matter of personal choice and the actual value of the watch may be very relative to the individuals circumstances in terms of taking risk. Of course all of us being different is what make the world such an interesting place 😀. Personally those chaps/girls at Kings Hill have kept mine water resistant over the years and to be honest I would feel lost without my old friend on my wrist.... Take care.

fergusm · Aug 29, 2020

The latest on this saga......

I sent the Sub to Simon Freese who very kindly took a look and sent me the following report and photos:

The water has entered via the crown, and has caused extensive rusting to the movement components. The seals on the crown and the case back have been changed, but the tube and crown have not. In order to provide adequate protection to be submerged in water, this watch would have required a new crown and tube, both components are in worn condition, this can be seen in the attached image. It is likely that the watch would pass a basic pressure test with the existing parts, but not provide the level of water resistance required for water based activities such as swimming or even bathing.

Simon is unfortunately not able to repair the watch as he's not an accredited Rolex watchmaker so it's now been sent to Steven Hale (Simon's recommendation). I'm waiting for Steven to give me the bad news....

I have a couple of questions:

1) I hold the original watchmaker responsible for this as they told me that they are (a) Rolex accredited and (b) that the watch was good for swimming. It would be good to know what others think about this? Getting them to pay for repairs won't be easy but I do think I should at least try. Once I know the cost, I'll also consider making an insurance claim.

2) I'm starting to doubt that the original watchmaker is really Rolex accredited. Are the forum members aware of a way to check this? Would Rolex tell me if I asked?

Anyway, thanks again for all the help I've received in this thread. It has definitely allowed me to progress things faster than they probably would. It will cost me a bit but hopefully I'll have a working watch back in my possession before too long.

thx
Fergus

fergusm · Aug 29, 2020

I did have one piece of good news this week when my AD called and offered me this... it wasn't a purchase I planned to make so I'll have to sell something to cover the cost but I'm thrilled to own a Batman! At least this will give me some consolation while my Sub is in the shop!

Dan S · Aug 29, 2020

fergusm
The latest on this saga......

I sent the Sub to Simon Freese who very kindly took a look and sent me the following report and photos:

The water has entered via the crown, and has caused extensive rusting to the movement components. The seals on the crown and the case back have been changed, but the tube and crown have not. In order to provide adequate protection to be submerged in water, this watch would have required a new crown and tube, both components are in worn condition, this can be seen in the attached image. It is likely that the watch would pass a basic pressure test with the existing parts, but not provide the level of water resistance required for water based activities such as swimming or even bathing.

Simon is unfortunately not able to repair the watch as he's not an accredited Rolex watchmaker so it's now been sent to Steven Hale (Simon's recommendation). I'm waiting for Steven to give me the bad news....

I have a couple of questions:

1) I hold the original watchmaker responsible for this as they told me that they are (a) Rolex accredited and (b) that the watch was good for swimming. It would be good to know what others think about this? Getting them to pay for repairs won't be easy but I do think I should at least try. Once I know the cost, I'll also consider making an insurance claim.

2) I'm starting to doubt that the original watchmaker is really Rolex accredited. Are the forum members aware of a way to check this? Would Rolex tell me if I asked?

Anyway, thanks again for all the help I've received in this thread. It has definitely allowed me to progress things faster than they probably would. It will cost me a bit but hopefully I'll have a working watch back in my possession before too long.

thx
Fergus

To me, that photo shows convincing evidence that the crown tube was not changed recently. It's bad that they didn't do this originally (or at least they should have suggested it). I guess it really depends on what you communicated to the watchmaker originally. If you indicated that you wanted to preserve all the original parts, they may have tried to do the best they could without changing parts. But if you indicated that you wanted the watch to be as water-tight as possible, the fact that they failed to change out the tube and crown could indicate that they don't have a Rolex parts account. As I mentioned previously, very few watchmakers still have that account.

miramogge · Aug 29, 2020

fergusm
I did have one piece of good news this week when my AD called and offered me this... it wasn't a purchase I planned to make so I'll have to sell something to cover the cost but I'm thrilled to own a Batman! At least this will give me some consolation while my Sub is in the shop!

At least getting that should ease the pain of the whole experience a little. The 16800 is also beautiful. Hope you get it fixed 👍

Marsimaxam · Aug 29, 2020

I hope you have in writing from the watchmaker that did the original service.... “ watch is water proof and good for swimming”... something along those lines.

Have you discussed any of this with the previous watchmaker now that you have proof that tube and crown were not replaced and thus the cause of the damage?
It will be a costly repair. Insurance might be your best course of action, but, I’m curious what the watchmaker will now say instead of the initial... “ you must have left crown open”
Congratulations on your new watch.

Dan S · Aug 29, 2020

Marsimaxam
I’m curious what the watchmaker will now say instead of the initial... “ you must have left crown open”

I'm guessing he's going to stick with the "crown open" theory. But it would still be worthwhile to send him those photos so he realizes that you understand the full situation.

Water damaged Sub

Marsimaxam

jaguar11

fergusm

Marsimaxam

onthedial

Marsimaxam

Nobel Prize

Marsimaxam

Nobel Prize

Lurk41

alam

alam

Archer

jaguar11

fergusm

fergusm

Dan S

miramogge

Marsimaxam

Dan S

Similar threads

Water damaged rare omega

Need advice on my Omega Medicus 2220/5 - Water damage and repair feasibility

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

Water damage - repair advice for 1973 Omega Speedmaster Mark 4.5 with severe corrosion and rust

550 Second pinion friction spring damage?

Family Heirloom Damaged by ASC