- Posts
- 9,058
- Likes
- 47,019
gbesq
·It is absolutely designed for being in water. It's not a dive watch, but watches that are not dive watches are also designed to be used in water, just not for diving.
What actually happens when you do get water in your Speedmaster?
- Posts
- 27,603
- Likes
- 70,225
- Posts
- 9,058
- Likes
- 47,019
- Posts
- 272
- Likes
- 848
- Posts
- 9,058
- Likes
- 47,019
gbesq
·may I remind you that Reverso was designed for polo players. Maybe it's not exactly mountain biking, but nonetheless it's sports.
- Posts
- 272
- Likes
- 848
hronists
·That’s a fair point, but while I see them worn by lawyers and doctors, I’ll admit that I would be surprised to find a polo player wearing one during an active match.
Cartier Santos is regarded as first pilot watch, yet it's worn mostly by lawyers and doctors
Explorer II was designed for spelunkers, yet is mostly worn by some random dudes who never been near caves.
😀
- Posts
- 272
- Likes
- 848
hronists
·oh, and then there're plenty of Submariner owners who take off their watches when washing dishes 😁
- Posts
- 16,307
- Likes
- 44,907
JwRosenthal
·Snorkel, baby!!
Sure, it says 666 on the dial, and the rear seal is fresh- but I have an original crown on it….not a chance I plan on getting this near water. If I really wanted one to wear to the depths, I would get the current reissue.
This is all common sense guys. If it hasn’t passed a pressure test in the last few years, assume it has no water resistance whatsoever. If it has fresh seals and passed- then dunk away.
If you wear vintage and really want to tempt fate- it’s your watch- go for it.
Why does this debate keep coming up?
Sure, it says 666 on the dial, and the rear seal is fresh- but I have an original crown on it….not a chance I plan on getting this near water. If I really wanted one to wear to the depths, I would get the current reissue.
This is all common sense guys. If it hasn’t passed a pressure test in the last few years, assume it has no water resistance whatsoever. If it has fresh seals and passed- then dunk away.
If you wear vintage and really want to tempt fate- it’s your watch- go for it.
Why does this debate keep coming up?
- Posts
- 9,058
- Likes
- 47,019
gbesq
·Snorkel, baby!!
Sure, it says 666 on the dial, and the rear seal is fresh- but I have an original crown on it….not a chance I plan on getting this near water. If I really wanted one to wear to the depths, I would get the current reissue.
This is all common sense guys. If it hasn’t passed a pressure test in the last few years, assume it has no water resistance whatsoever. If it has fresh seals and passed- then dunk away.
If you wear vintage and really want to tempt fate- it’s your watch- go for it.
Why does this debate keep coming up?
- Posts
- 6,698
- Likes
- 21,617
M'Bob
·Regarding vintage Speedmasters, implicit in this thread is that most likely, if you find that flat-foot crown you’ve been searching for to finish your 1960’s restoration, the seals are shot and you needn’t bother testing it as it won’t pass anyway. My guess is that age is as bad or worse for seals than use, like with constant winding.
- Posts
- 16,307
- Likes
- 44,907
JwRosenthal
·Regarding vintage Speedmasters, implicit in this thread is that most likely, if you find that flat-foot crown you’ve been searching for to finish your 1960’s restoration, the seals are shot and you needn’t bother testing it as it won’t pass anyway. My guess is that age is as bad or worse for seals than use, like with constant winding.
Any of my vintage watches I intend to wear in any weather other than dry and sunny have fresh replacement crowns at the time of service (factory if available or generic if not). Original crowns are kept in my parts box and labeled.
I’m not making these points to convince those who have their opinions, just caution people new to vintage who may get the wrong idea from those who like to play it fast and loose.
Originality is awesome- original rubber is a gamble.
- Posts
- 16,307
- Likes
- 44,907
JwRosenthal
·Agreed. What makes the debate even more interesting is that, as Archer suggests, most interactions between watches and water that produce unfortunate outcomes are casual encounters and not long term deliberate exposure. This makes sense to me particularly with regard to dive watches as most scuba enthusiasts use dive computers these days. If they use a watch at all, it's likely as a backup and an inexpensive waterproof quartz watch will do the job better than any Submariner or Seamaster.
Owner goes to friends house with the kids and takes a jump in the pool- and now we have a fog under the crystal- but why?? It’s a dive watch, was barely worn and was running perfectly!
It’s a 20 year old watch that hasn’t been serviced, the rubber has been in an arid environment for that time and has probably become firm and possibly has shrunk a bit. Just because it’s low mileage doesn’t imply it’s still as fresh as new
- Posts
- 886
- Likes
- 470
Duckie
·Interesting that this thread has generated so many responses. My view of the issue is pretty simple. The Speedmaster Pro is not a diver. It works just fine in outer space. In water, not so much. So, knowing that, why risk exposing a $6,000+ timepiece to an element that it's not really designed for? Would you wear a JLC Reverso for mountain biking? If the forecast is for pouring rain, don't wear your Speedy. If you're going to the beach or to the pool, don't wear it. If you're going into the sauna, don't wear it. If you're going to wash the dishes, your car, your dog, your kids or yourself, take it off. That's what I do with my two speedies, a '71 and a '96. Seems to work fine for both of them. Water is the enemy. I understand that accidents happen, but most of the circumstances that cause those accidents can be avoided.
Agreed👍
Rolex went to a fair bit of trouble to establish enviable credentials around their watches being Dust proof and more importantly Water proof which gazumps the former.
There are a number of elements to this, but the well gasketed Screw down winding crown and Automatic winding along with gaskets front and back for the Crystal and Caseback are crucial. The non-screw down pushers are another matter that compounds things exponentially🙁
If any of these elements are mechanically unsound then there is a profound risk to the innards.
The Speedy Pro does not have 2 of these elements but with only a 50m water resistance rating, it should be regarded as having enough water resistance for an encounter with water.
Not a life in, or constantly around the water where it's routinely immersed👎
Timely service intervals along with annual pressure testing outside of warranty is the best way to protect our watch investments unless the watch is regarded as inconsequential.
Additionally, if in doubt take the watch off or run the gauntlet.
Edited:
- Posts
- 2,510
- Likes
- 3,727
rcs914
·Explorer II was designed for spelunkers, yet is mostly worn by some random dudes who never been near caves.
😀
What's funny with this is that I've spent a big chunk of my life around cavers - I was registered as a baby with the National Speleological Society as both of my parents loved caving - and I would venture a guess that almost no cavers own or wear an Explorer II. Multi-day cave trips are NOT very common - but I guess about as common as guys who actually need a Sea-Dweller.
