Speedmaster waterproof
Discussion
Nice username change...
No I would think this is somewhat a cut and shut of a watch
By the way to the above people, event though it says water resistant to over 100 ft, you wouldn't trust it in other than a bath tub? Even though Omega have obviously tested the piece many times to be able to rate it?
That's like saying I should on;y go down a few M on my Omega that is rated to 600.. Because they probably haven't checked it ...
No I would think this is somewhat a cut and shut of a watch
By the way to the above people, event though it says water resistant to over 100 ft, you wouldn't trust it in other than a bath tub? Even though Omega have obviously tested the piece many times to be able to rate it?
That's like saying I should on;y go down a few M on my Omega that is rated to 600.. Because they probably haven't checked it ...
VinnieP said:
I agree, I'm not into diving or anything like that so I never wear any of my watches in water, not even the shower but, my question was: do "waterproof" speedies have the word "Seamaster" on the back instead of"Speedmaster"?
That's not something that I have ever heard before. That is not to say that it's not true though. Water resistance is usually quoted on the dial and would certainly be stated in the manual.okgo said:
That's like saying I should on;y go down a few M on my Omega that is rated to 600.. Because they probably haven't checked it ...
It doesn't work that way. You need to read this:http://www.abouttime.com/abouttime/watch_water_res...
jshell said:
okgo said:
That's like saying I should on;y go down a few M on my Omega that is rated to 600.. Because they probably haven't checked it ...
It doesn't work that way. You need to read this:http://www.abouttime.com/abouttime/watch_water_res...
leginigel said:
jshell said:
okgo said:
That's like saying I should on;y go down a few M on my Omega that is rated to 600.. Because they probably haven't checked it ...
It doesn't work that way. You need to read this:http://www.abouttime.com/abouttime/watch_water_res...
I don't buy that article saying that 10m means a watch won't be waterproof if immersed in water, nor the 30m pressure not being adequate for swimming.
Try swimming 10 metres down - you will certainly feel the pressure in your ears - it's a non-trivial water pressure. If the watch has been tested as waterproof at 10 metres then even moving the watch through the water at arm-speed should be OK. Has anyone done the physics on this - i.e. calculated the dynamic pressure of water if you move the watch through the water at the sort of speeds you typically make whilst swimming?
It's crazy to assume that these numbers are just meaningless and incorrect estimates. The manufacturers would have been sued by the Americans to hell by now. If a watch says '300m' on it then one has to assume that the manufacturer has bunged the watch in a pressure chamber and it survives. I understand that dynamic effects can change the water pressure at points around the watch case, but a 30m waterproof watch 'not sufficiently resistant for swimming' ???
If dynamic effects drown out the static pressure resistance then I'd have thought that any self-respecting manufacturer would have spotted that their '30m waterproof' watch was regularly failing when worn in the bath and made sure that it was secure to 30m *being used*. Nobody gets into water and just sinks without moving to a set depth, then resurfaces. All people wearing watches when messing about in the water for leisure or work will be moving about, so I can't see any manufacturer risking regular lawsuits or warranty claims by putting blatantly misleading numbers on their watches.
And from that page again, saying 'specifically, diving-type watches never have been completely 'proof' of water entry under normal use' - that's a bold claim and something I'm sure Rolex, amongst others, would raise their eyebrows at.
The watch I'm wearing today has '2000 meters' (why can't IWC spell?) written on the face. Does that mean it'll leak if I swim particularly fast or in uncommonly warm water? I don't buy it. Making a watch adequately watertight at human swimming pressures isn't hard - and if even the counterfeiters can make fake Sea Dwellers that survive saturation diving depths... well it's not expensive either.
I'd have to see some properly worked equations that show the dynamic pressures from waving my arm around in shallow water surpass the static pressure at 30m - gut feeling is that this is crap, and written by a second hand watch dealer who is trying to avoid anyone returning old watches that he hasn't replaced seals on etc. because they leak...
Try swimming 10 metres down - you will certainly feel the pressure in your ears - it's a non-trivial water pressure. If the watch has been tested as waterproof at 10 metres then even moving the watch through the water at arm-speed should be OK. Has anyone done the physics on this - i.e. calculated the dynamic pressure of water if you move the watch through the water at the sort of speeds you typically make whilst swimming?
It's crazy to assume that these numbers are just meaningless and incorrect estimates. The manufacturers would have been sued by the Americans to hell by now. If a watch says '300m' on it then one has to assume that the manufacturer has bunged the watch in a pressure chamber and it survives. I understand that dynamic effects can change the water pressure at points around the watch case, but a 30m waterproof watch 'not sufficiently resistant for swimming' ???
If dynamic effects drown out the static pressure resistance then I'd have thought that any self-respecting manufacturer would have spotted that their '30m waterproof' watch was regularly failing when worn in the bath and made sure that it was secure to 30m *being used*. Nobody gets into water and just sinks without moving to a set depth, then resurfaces. All people wearing watches when messing about in the water for leisure or work will be moving about, so I can't see any manufacturer risking regular lawsuits or warranty claims by putting blatantly misleading numbers on their watches.
And from that page again, saying 'specifically, diving-type watches never have been completely 'proof' of water entry under normal use' - that's a bold claim and something I'm sure Rolex, amongst others, would raise their eyebrows at.
The watch I'm wearing today has '2000 meters' (why can't IWC spell?) written on the face. Does that mean it'll leak if I swim particularly fast or in uncommonly warm water? I don't buy it. Making a watch adequately watertight at human swimming pressures isn't hard - and if even the counterfeiters can make fake Sea Dwellers that survive saturation diving depths... well it's not expensive either.
I'd have to see some properly worked equations that show the dynamic pressures from waving my arm around in shallow water surpass the static pressure at 30m - gut feeling is that this is crap, and written by a second hand watch dealer who is trying to avoid anyone returning old watches that he hasn't replaced seals on etc. because they leak...
You might find this interesting:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_Resistant_mark
It does support your scepticism about the affect of movement/dynamic pressure.
Edited to add I think you need to get hold of ISO 2281 and 6425 to fully answer your questions.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_Resistant_mark
It does support your scepticism about the affect of movement/dynamic pressure.
Edited to add I think you need to get hold of ISO 2281 and 6425 to fully answer your questions.
Edited by tertius on Saturday 5th September 08:39
cyberface said:
I don't buy that article
Someone worked out the dynamic pressures involved in swimming normally and found it to be a few metres of over pressure, nothing major - i.e swimming at 30m can produce 31-32m worth of pressure when you start waving your arms about. I think it's more a legal CYA situation than anything, if they say 'waterproof' it technically means not a molecule of H2O will enter the case, which probably is near impossible, which is why all (nearly?) watches are 'water resistant' but not 'waterproof'. More to do with semantics than practise I feel.Edited by andy_s on Saturday 5th September 10:17
andy_s said:
cyberface said:
I don't buy that article
Someone worked out the dynamic pressures involved in swimming normally and found it to be a few metres of over pressure, nothing major - i.e swimming at 30m can produce 31-32m worth of pressure when you start waving your arms about. I think it's more a legal CYA situation than anything, if they say 'waterproof' it technically means not a molecule of H2O will enter the case, which probably is near impossible, which is why all (nearly?) watches are 'water resistant' but not 'waterproof'. More to do with semantics than practise I feel.Here's a long thread answering most points
"Without repeating all the calculations here (they involve denominators and the greek alphabet and are PITA to type out), at a depth of 330ft(100 m) and moving your arm at 3 ft/sec, the dynamic pressure is in the order of magnitude of 0.14 feet of head or 0.04% of the depth. Even assuming you could move your arm at 20 ft/sec (14 mph!) the dynamic pressure is only about 6.2 feet of additional depth (<2%)."
So with this we can conclude that the Dynamic pressure is normaly a small force for a diver and do not limit your watch capacity very much. It only reduces it whit a couple of meters at most."
The term 'water resistance' and what a depth rating is recommended for in practise is an ISO recommendation.
"Without repeating all the calculations here (they involve denominators and the greek alphabet and are PITA to type out), at a depth of 330ft(100 m) and moving your arm at 3 ft/sec, the dynamic pressure is in the order of magnitude of 0.14 feet of head or 0.04% of the depth. Even assuming you could move your arm at 20 ft/sec (14 mph!) the dynamic pressure is only about 6.2 feet of additional depth (<2%)."
So with this we can conclude that the Dynamic pressure is normaly a small force for a diver and do not limit your watch capacity very much. It only reduces it whit a couple of meters at most."
The term 'water resistance' and what a depth rating is recommended for in practise is an ISO recommendation.
In reply to the original question "Is it correct for some Speedmasters to have the Seamaster stamp instead of Speedmaster on the back". I have done some research and have discovered that in fact, quite a lot of Speedmasters did have Seamaster on the back. I also found out that the watch I was concerned about, mine, is actually quite rare and only made for the German market. It is a 1982 Speedmaster with c.861 movement in brushed stainless with a silver/grey face and, to my relief is totally correct! To add a little more, Speedmaster Pro's never have Seamaster on the back.
Gassing Station | Watches | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff