Why the false / exaggerated depth readings on watches?
Discussion
I have been looking at watches recently I was reminded of my bugbear about depth readings. I see posts and info saying that 30m is suitable for splashing etc and not for swimming. 100m is OK for swimming / shower / snorkeling but no more.
I guess divers watches must be properly rated by ATM settings, but why the over exaggeration? I mean surely it would be better to have the X metre rating be true and then just lower it to 0.5m for showering etc from 30m, and the same with the 100m & 250m?
I guess people here will have a good answer!
I guess divers watches must be properly rated by ATM settings, but why the over exaggeration? I mean surely it would be better to have the X metre rating be true and then just lower it to 0.5m for showering etc from 30m, and the same with the 100m & 250m?
I guess people here will have a good answer!
They're tested to depth Xm, you should be able to wear it at Xm, some have been tested to further than their rating with no problems.
I think the problem comes in when you have had the watch for a few years and the seals may not be as good as new, ingress can then happen. It's the limit of its performance so to be safe rather than sorry the common interpretation of depth rating is a more conservative figure.
Dynamic water pressure may be a factor, particularly for 30m watches, but is negligable for the higher rated ones.
The depth rating is also a way to place the product in the market, which may be a factor for some varience.
I think the problem comes in when you have had the watch for a few years and the seals may not be as good as new, ingress can then happen. It's the limit of its performance so to be safe rather than sorry the common interpretation of depth rating is a more conservative figure.
Dynamic water pressure may be a factor, particularly for 30m watches, but is negligable for the higher rated ones.
The depth rating is also a way to place the product in the market, which may be a factor for some varience.
Taken from another website:
"Some watches have only minimal resistance, they will be marked simply 'water resistant'. If this is the case then the watch will be splash proof but nothing more, meaning that it should not be worn whilst washing up or showering. If you need a watch that can be used for these everyday tasks it would be better to go with a watch with a rating of at least 30m. Watches within this category are not suitable for swimming.
The next common rating is 50m or 5 atmosphere. These watches are suitable for swimming but not for diving as the pressure at the moment of impact with the water would exceed 5 atmosphere. If you want to do more than just swim you need a watch with a 100m rating. A watch within this classification is appropriate for everyday swimming, watersports and diving, but must not be used for high board or scuba diving.
A watch within the 200m water resistant class can be used for most water sports. If you are searching specifically for a divers watch, it is imperative that you check that the watch complies with international standards for divers watches. Generally the word 'divers' will be imprinted on the case back of the watch. There are higher classifications of water resistance, 300m or more. In principle the higher the water resistance rating the more durable the watch will be, although this is dependent on the quality of manufacture."
"Some watches have only minimal resistance, they will be marked simply 'water resistant'. If this is the case then the watch will be splash proof but nothing more, meaning that it should not be worn whilst washing up or showering. If you need a watch that can be used for these everyday tasks it would be better to go with a watch with a rating of at least 30m. Watches within this category are not suitable for swimming.
The next common rating is 50m or 5 atmosphere. These watches are suitable for swimming but not for diving as the pressure at the moment of impact with the water would exceed 5 atmosphere. If you want to do more than just swim you need a watch with a 100m rating. A watch within this classification is appropriate for everyday swimming, watersports and diving, but must not be used for high board or scuba diving.
A watch within the 200m water resistant class can be used for most water sports. If you are searching specifically for a divers watch, it is imperative that you check that the watch complies with international standards for divers watches. Generally the word 'divers' will be imprinted on the case back of the watch. There are higher classifications of water resistance, 300m or more. In principle the higher the water resistance rating the more durable the watch will be, although this is dependent on the quality of manufacture."
- Water-resistant to 30 meters (100 feet). Will withstand splashes of water or rain but should not be worn while swimming or in any water sport activities.
- Water-resistant to 100 meters (330 feet). Suitable for swimming and snorkelling.
- Water-resistant to 150 meters (500 feet). Suitable for snorkelling.
- Water-resistant to 200 meters (660 feet). Suitable for skin diving.
- Diver's 150 meters (500 feet). Meets ISO standards and is suitable for scuba diving.
- Diver's 200 meters (660 feet). Meets ISO standards and is suitable for scuba diving.
The point is that the pressures involved are equivalent to that depth. If you wore it at that depth, it would be fine, but you couldn't move.
I actually managed to break a G-Shock in a spectacular wipe-out while surfing in water no more than 5m deep. The forces involved were far stronger however.
I actually managed to break a G-Shock in a spectacular wipe-out while surfing in water no more than 5m deep. The forces involved were far stronger however.
I think that this is a good thread on water resistance. Taken from the watchuseek forum....
http://forums.watchuseek.com/showthread.php?t=1591...
Basically I wouldn't worry wearing a 50m resistant watch for swimming, snorkling, etc. But I wouldn't wear a something like a Speedmaster for any of this irrespective of it's water resistance.
http://forums.watchuseek.com/showthread.php?t=1591...
Basically I wouldn't worry wearing a 50m resistant watch for swimming, snorkling, etc. But I wouldn't wear a something like a Speedmaster for any of this irrespective of it's water resistance.
Ikemi said:
Taken from another website:
The next common rating is 50m or 5 atmosphere. These watches are suitable for swimming but not for diving as the pressure at the moment of impact with the water would exceed 5 atmosphere. If you want to do more than just swim you need a watch with a 100m rating. A watch within this classification is appropriate for everyday swimming, watersports and diving, but must not be used for high board or scuba diving.
Interestingly enough my JLC Reverso Chrono is rated to 5 ATM or 50m. Reading the booklet that came with it, it first claims 5 ATM water resistance is denoted by a fish symbol engraved on the back of the watch (a fish symbol which I haven't been able to find *anywhere* on the watch and bracelet - obviously the 'back of the watch' is another watch with the Reverso but even the cradle underside and reverse has no 'fish' symbol), and then goes on to describe what JLC mean by '5 ATM water resistance'.The next common rating is 50m or 5 atmosphere. These watches are suitable for swimming but not for diving as the pressure at the moment of impact with the water would exceed 5 atmosphere. If you want to do more than just swim you need a watch with a 100m rating. A watch within this classification is appropriate for everyday swimming, watersports and diving, but must not be used for high board or scuba diving.
They say bath / shower - no problem. Swimming - no problem, but interestingly they specifically differentiate between different types of diving. JLC say that 'diving from the edge of a pool / rocks at sea level' is not a problem at all, but diving 'from an elevated diving board, or cliff above the water' is not on. Swimming should be done only a few metres below the surface of the water (this accounts for most recreational swimming - scuba divers are likely to have a real 'dive' watch), and the watch should be checked for seal performance every year if used regularly underwater.
This seems fairly honest and straightforward - big height dives will cause high dynamic water pressure, that seems fair. Diving from the edge of a pool isn't a big deal and with nominal 50m pressure resistance, sounds OK to me.
So this watch, theoretically, should deal with virtually any water activity that I'm likely to get involved in (except maybe waterskiing, or jetskiing if I come off). However it really doesn't *look* like a watch that would deal with even dunking in the bath. The lack of the alleged 'fish' symbol is worrying (it may have been polished off in the recent service).
And no - JLC claim that both the automatic non-chrono (which has a screw-in crown) AND the chrono (which doesn't) are BOTH resistant to 5 ATM... I haven't misread the documentation, even though you'd expect the plain automatic Reverso with screw-in crown to naturally be more water-resistant than the Chrono, which doesn't have a screw-in crown *and* it has two extra chrono pushers where water could get in.
I guess JLC had to claim *some* waterproof ability for the Gran'Sport line of Reversos, since they were an early attempt at a more masculine, sporting design.
I'd like it to be true - it's even *more* impressive engineering from JLC to make the Chrono 50m waterproof given how advanced and difficult the chrono complication was to develop, and how they haven't used screw-in sealed crowns and chrono pushers (like Rolex's Daytona, and JLC's Master Compressor range, for example). However given the aggro I had getting it serviced in the first place, I haven't got the balls to actually try it out - as in wear it on holiday and dive into a few pools / dive off rocks into the sea / etc. It's my favourite watch at the moment and I really don't want to break it
And, of course, one of my watches has '2000m' water resistance claimed on the dial
which is utterly preposterous. Whether it does survive that sort of pressure or not is irrelevant, since there's nothing I'm ever likely to do which will test it out. But at least I know that it'll survive easily if I go waterskiing and stack badly, or take a jetski out with an 1100cc Kawasaki bike engine and try to hit 70 mph on water... and then crash 
I suppose the problem is that dynamic water pressure is hard to control for in the lab, whereas a static pressure test is fairly simple to do with a basic piece of equipment which can be used to test multiple watches.
It's not rocket science any more though. Even the popular replica of Rolex's 16600 Sea Dweller is waterproof to 100m (and hence usable by most recreational swimmers / holidaymakers messing about in pools / the sea). The crazy 'depth war' being fought by the genuine watchmakers really doesn't apply these days to anyone.
I remember someone here (who works in the offshore energy industry) saying it was fun to see the old, gnarled experienced commercial divers sitting in the rig canteen with their old Rolex SDs or Subs, whilst the younger, less experienced divers wore much cheaper, equally waterproof watches. The old Rolex Subs (which are obviously worth a fortune now, but still being used as working tools by the old divers) only started off at 200m - the COMEX branded Subs were initially 200m (checking from a reference website devoted to the Sea Dweller), then 300m, then 600m, and 1220m - but instead of the depth rating improving over time (as you'd expect if COMEX actually had demand for kilometre-grade diving watches), the limited COMEX editions seem to have random depth ratings even in later models. So whilst the 1970 watch was rated to 200m, and the 1980-1984 watch was rated to 1220m, the 1986-1997 COMEX watch has 300m on the dial.
Which says two things to me - firstly Rolex's Sub 'tool' watch is an incredibly tough, reliable old thing and the depth ratings are not 'false / exaggerated' - being used *still* by old pros gives the Rolex incredible credibility AFAIAC. Secondly, it implies that human divers don't need crazy depth ratings. I'm not in the industry - and I know a couple here actually are - but isn't there a limit to which human divers go these days? Robots are used for deeper stuff aren't they? So anything deeper than 'x' (which I suppose is a few hundred metres) is unnecessary in a wristwatch and just marketing BS.
I'm only a rec diver so don't dive deeper than 40m- which is enough.
Have a timx Expedition that alledges to be water resistant to 200m- its been down to 40m real at least 40 times and its never leaked.
Lets be honest they don't test them properly, so its all guess work really-and there will be a huge margin because of it.
Guess the benefit of this timex is that it was cheap as a cheap thing. Wouldn't take my breitling Colt "divers" watch diving under any cicrumstance!
Have a timx Expedition that alledges to be water resistant to 200m- its been down to 40m real at least 40 times and its never leaked.
Lets be honest they don't test them properly, so its all guess work really-and there will be a huge margin because of it.
Guess the benefit of this timex is that it was cheap as a cheap thing. Wouldn't take my breitling Colt "divers" watch diving under any cicrumstance!
cyberface said:
I remember someone here (who works in the offshore energy industry) saying it was fun to see the old, gnarled experienced commercial divers sitting in the rig canteen with their old Rolex SDs or Subs, whilst the younger, less experienced divers wore much cheaper, equally waterproof watches. The old Rolex Subs (which are obviously worth a fortune now, but still being used as working tools by the old divers) only started off at 200m - the COMEX branded Subs were initially 200m (checking from a reference website devoted to the Sea Dweller), then 300m, then 600m, and 1220m - but instead of the depth rating improving over time (as you'd expect if COMEX actually had demand for kilometre-grade diving watches), the limited COMEX editions seem to have random depth ratings even in later models. So whilst the 1970 watch was rated to 200m, and the 1980-1984 watch was rated to 1220m, the 1986-1997 COMEX watch has 300m on the dial.
Interesting, I guess that could just be a 'random' model being issued to a Comex diver? From what I've read (quite a lot!) about Comex and their divers', they have been issued Sea-Dwellers for a long time and the '4000' model (referring to the depth rating in ft) was the last issued to them.One of their divers set a record in a hyperbaric chamber, at a depth of over 700m!! Wearing an SD no less!
pugwash4x4 said:
Lets be honest they don't test them properly, so its all guess work really-and there will be a huge margin because of it.
Not quite sure if that's a generic comment or not, but watches that are divers' watches have to conform to ISO 6425 divers' watches standard. Which they have to be tested to 125% of the depth-rating in still water.So the Sea-Dweller Deep Sea was tested to 4875m/16000ft to achieve it's rating of 3900m/12800ft!!
LukeBird said:
pugwash4x4 said:
Lets be honest they don't test them properly, so its all guess work really-and there will be a huge margin because of it.
Not quite sure if that's a generic comment or not, but watches that are divers' watches have to conform to ISO 6425 divers' watches standard. Which they have to be tested to 125% of the depth-rating in still water.So the Sea-Dweller Deep Sea was tested to 4875m/16000ft to achieve it's rating of 3900m/12800ft!!
In my diving world everyone uses wrist computers anyway so and watches aren't worn that often (a lot of people seem to think i'm a bit weird for wearing mine- but it is nice to know the time quickly underwater!)
Shouldn't be normally, Sinn use copper sulphate (anhydrous) capsules to soak up any micro-moisture in the air (or Argon in their case) in the watch case, handy as you can view them from the outside - when/if it turns dark blue you know the seal has been compromised to some degree and you can send it off pronto.
The Argon is used instead of air as it's inert and so has no degradation effect on the oil and movement in the watch, things don't rust without oxygen.
The Argon is used instead of air as it's inert and so has no degradation effect on the oil and movement in the watch, things don't rust without oxygen.
Balmoral Green said:
Regardless of depth/pressure, if you wear the watch in the bath/shower, with the hot/cold heat differential, are there any condensation issues?
Never seen any such on my G-Shocks, Seiko Black Monster or Planet Ocean, all of which accompany me into the shower (but not all at once, that'd be weird).My experiences of watches and depth have been pretty good IMO.
£1.99 petrol station digital special went to 200-250m ish for 6 weeks and was working perfectly on its return.
Omega Seamaster never missed a beat to 107m on my wrist
however a Casio G shock, the face shattered on impact with the water when I jumped from 15m ish
£1.99 petrol station digital special went to 200-250m ish for 6 weeks and was working perfectly on its return.
Omega Seamaster never missed a beat to 107m on my wrist
however a Casio G shock, the face shattered on impact with the water when I jumped from 15m ish
pugwash4x4 said:
Yep sorry Luke- meant to say for the majority of "non-divers" watches that have a depth rating, then they're not depth tested- at least i couldn't get anyone at Timex to admit to depth testing them (and i only asked out of interest).
No worries chap, that's what I thought. Gassing Station | Watches | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff