WATER RESISTANCE false advertising?

Trying to explain water pressure to even some enthusiasts is challenging enough, imagine trying to do so to the general public?

Unless it’s an ISO rated diver, I probably wouldn’t swim with a watch. I’m not a diver by any means, and really only want WR to make sure I can wash my hands or go out in the rain with a watch…

Are they deceptive practices though? I mean, they might be, but we never check so who knows?  
 

I think a better system would be where companies truely test their watches to like 5m for regular watches and 50m for dive watches.  Test every watch. That would pretty much cover everybody.  Even professional divers aren’t going to 500m as far as I can tell, so that’s just a number to brag about. And that’s really the point isn’t it?  These WR numbers weren’t meant to be real, they’re for advertising purposes. 

It's like the megapixel war. Higher number equals more sales. 

So 5 bars of pressure is equivalent to 50 meters of water pressure in a static state, so by stating 50 m, they aren’t dishonest, instead it’s that the consumer doesn’t understand what that means. They usually do test a portion of the watches at that his pressure, but again, it’s static, not dynamic. 
 

So why can’t you swim in 50 m of water?  Because one of the components of pressure is speed. The greater the speed, the greater the pressure, and the deeper you are, the more that speed impacts the pressure. 
 

If you have 50 meters of WR, then you should be able to wade in the kiddy pool, but diving boards and lap swimming is off limits. 100 m should be good for snorkeling. 

I'd also add that companies advise against swimming, etc., because they want to limit the number of warranty returns from faulty seals and people pushing buttons/playing with crowns underwater.   

On a separate note, I think a lot of the "common wisdom" online about WR is pretty silly and driven by spec sheets. Even in this thread someone advised against swimming in anything but an ISO rated diver, and is worried about wearing a watch in the rain. 

As a static pressure rating it's a good and universal system. 50 meters (of head pressure), 4.9bar, 4.83atm.

But that is all it is, a static pressure rating. If a watch is pressure tested why not advertise it?

It's kind of like car emissions, lab tested numbers don't always translate to real use but they give a great indication. So 50m on the dial might withstand 4.9bars of static pressure but that doesn't account for all the dynamic pressures but I know 100m can withstand 9.8bars of static pressure so it'll be better in other scenarios as well.

For those that are interested, this article explains it much better than me:

https://www.watchdoctor.biz/water-resistance/

I would bet the average person would assume they could scuba dive with a 30m watch. 
Flashlights used to advertise all kinds of different brightness ratings, using candlepower, lumens, wattage, or other various terms. Now most manufacturers use a standard chart that gives a much clearer picture of what kind of performance the consumer can actually expect. They also use IPX water resistance ratings that make comparisons between products much more meaningful. 

It seems watch companies could adopt a standard to give consumers a clearer idea of what to expect from a watch.

I am not sure if I would go so far as to say it is deceptive, although I can see why it can be perceived as deceptive. I tend to view WR claims much like MSRPs. Depending on the brand, there will be a great deal of difference between what is listed by the manufacturer and what the reality experienced is.

I have had Casio watches with 30M WR that have survived swimming in the ocean just fine, while I have also had watches from other brands with 50M WR or more get water under the crystal just from washing my hands. There are brands like Seiko, Citizen, Casio, and Islander that I tend to trust the WR much more than other brands, which I will refrain from listing. Granted, this is based entirely on my own experiences, and could be nothing more than coincidence, but I tend to trust the WR of certain brands much more than others. 😉

https://youtu.be/nc6qPc0Xjac

well the chronos homage isn’t lying i dont think. 

It is purely a marketing trick. Watch producers and sellers noted, that when they claimed a watch to be 3 bar water resistant or just water resistant it sold worse than 30m water resistant, because 99% of people would never care to research this question and dive deep into the question (pun intended). And the same 99% of people will never even touch water with watches on. So the damage of the returns and complaints is much less impactful then the sales boost of these 30m. And in the end they managed to persuade the authorities that 30m are 30m of static pressure, while sitting on a spherical horse in vacuum. 

It's just another way to add perceived value to a product without actually doing anything. I once bought a Breitling for my sister and she had to bring it to the shop for service because water got inside the case. Turn out that she took the 200m WR at face value and went SCUBA diving with it.

The repair was not covered by warranty.

If I were to actually go diving, I'd definitely wear a dive computer rather than a dive watch.

Are you saying that big companies whose goal it is to make as much money as possible in the shortest time possible are actually lying to the cattle? Sorry, I mean the consumers? Shocking!

Sorry for my sarcasm, but especially now I think all companies are willing to cut corners to make more sales. That's why I am so happy with Watchcrunch and other places where you can get good information.

I’m an Aussie and we go surfing. Now imagine wave pressure being higher than still water pressure, when you get a wipe out on a 3 meter reef wave you kinda need that shock pressure wave strength of 200 mtrs to ensure your watch doesn’t leak ! Just worth taking that into account peoples :) 

I agree with @TimeToRide . If I’m ever submerged in water with an Omega on, it means I’ve drowned. I literally pay no attention to the rating. The closest I come to swimming recently is doing the dishes. I would never wear a vintage watch to do that and if the newer watch I‘m wearing can’t survive that.. good bye. 

This is an odd discussion to me. For any watch to be sold as water resistant it has to meet specs that essentially allow you to swim with it on without worrying, that is the entire point of the water-resistant ISO. It's literally in the spec for that ISO:

" The International Standards Organisation exists to set industry-wide standards for all aspects of manufacturing and services. It has a range of standards for watchmakers including some on Water Resistance. They are very helpful and were last updated in 2010. Most notably, they include tests of activity, and the watches are designed to be tested up to 2 Bar. This means that they will be useful for almost any water-based activity other than scuba diving. The Standard for Water Resistance is ISO 22810:2010. " from my Blog Post here: https://thewatchcollectorsclub.com/blog/what-makes-a-watch-waterproof/

Before you wade in saying I don't understand about pressure, the ISO includes moving the watch around under water pressure.

Now most watches are not tested by the manufacturer before leaving the factory, although of course Some like Rolex are. There may be build quality issues and the seals wear out quite quickly (two years is the recommended life of a cheap rubber gasket), hence the need to service them to maintain the water resistance, but my view is that people worry about this way way too much. 

Water ratings are coming out of the factory. Vintage watches would not be expected to hold to whatever standard was stated.  

Watches are just as water resistant as the condition of the seals and the wear of the crown tube will allow. Again, the daughter of a friend learned that the hard way with her submariner. I have lost a watch with a 50m rating to a hotel pool in Mexico.

I have a case that is currently between movements, and has a new crystal coming. Maybe I should run some experiments. 😉

Excelent!

Cool article and it mostly lines up with what Seiko says about its watches. https://www.seikowatches.com/us-en/customerservice/faq/general-information-8

Interesting thing about Seiko:

• 50 meters ok for swimming, yachting, and taking a shower (though my 5KX bezel got sticky over time which I attribute to my hot showers).
• 100-200 meters ok for bathing and shallow diving (though I wonder about the difference between bathing and swimming/showering).
• Divers 200 Meters ok for scuba diving

Not that anything beyond what Seiko says is ok for 50 meters applies to me at all.

People forget to read the instructions regarding water resistance.  It needs to be checked more often than you think for any water resistance rating to be meaningful.  I used to send my work watches in on a yearly check, sometimes less.

Static vs. dynamic water pressure at depth. A (X) meter water resistance is rated for static pressure at that depth. That’s at least what my diving instructor taught me many moons ago. 

Lots of great info in this post thread on a greatly debated topic. IMO there should be a test for products regarding their water resistance. Bigger question: Why so much resistance to water resistance? Watch collectors loves themselves some accuracy, anti-magnetic qualities. Anti-reflective coating, legacy achievement real or embellished, new versions of metallurgy - grades of stainless steel & Titanium, etc.  Overbuilt extremes justify Pilot, Scientific,  Rail, and Dive watches save one category: water resistance. Nobody on this thread is doing a space EVA tomorrow,  taking sorties for the departed Ghost of Kiev, or introducing a new method of fusion reaction next Monday. We all love overbuilt watches that help us justify adding one more to the collection. As someone who is old enough to have relied on a watch to dive with, divers love overbuilt gear. Greater tolerance often equal greater durability & better reliability. Why pooh pooh 100m (or more) of water resistance protecting that killer Spring Drive or Coaxial Movement? It's more protection for the movement you love. The same can be said for Gauss rating. No one has posted 15,000 Gauss is too damned extreme! I say hold manufacturers accountable for inexcusable sub par water resistance ratings on all the danty little dress watches we love. Overengineer water resistance just like the ridiculous tourbillon movement we all gaffaw about in those dainty gold watches. 

BTW, some watches do hit water. This little Titanium gem sees 2.5 hours of pool time 6 days a week & the Pacific a minimum of once a week in the winter & three days a week spring to fall. Swimming, diving, surfing, pool laps, open water miles. 2022 has seen a lot for this watch. Diver aren't all made for booth diving at a Vegas Club 

Well, I once clocked a Plesiosaurus doing about 105. 

It seems like water resistance standards are clearly set to something other than real world situations.  It’s nice that there are standards.  It’d be nicer if the standards correlated with real world situations.😂

Ok so I've just got a speedy 3861 with 50m wr.  Can or can't I go swimming with it? What I've seen online is a 50/50 split. 

Exactly.  It’s surprising how quickly lint and grit can get under the crown, which can lead to compromised sealing.