Water Resistance?
Does anyone else think (dress watches excluded) there's no reason for a watch nowadays not to have , as an absolute minimum, 50m WR?
I'm thinking particularly of pieces like the breitling navitimer with 30m. If you're spending ~5k on something, shouldn't it be more than splash proof?
You see so many more budget friendly options with so much higher specs, I wonder what you really get for the money sometimes. Discuss!
25 comments
Sort by
Sam Almond
Watch enthusiast in Durham, UK. Spend most of my time out and about with my four-legged friend.
Durham, UK
Member since
Last active: 1 month ago
If seals are good, new, etc technically 10 m would be good enough for a dress watch. Heck even a regular watch.
Unless you actually spend time in ,or under, the water WR is highly over rated.
I think some watches’ aesthetics and user experience benefit from light water resistance. I think in some instances a watch’s vulnerability adds to its allure.
I absolutely can't remember the practical difference between 30 an 50m and couldn't tell you what I have in either without reading dial text.
For me, water resistance in watches is like "stain resistant" clothing or the like. It's the maker saying "we know you're too stupid to treat this right, so we dummyproofed this for your fool ass." It's rather insulting.
Doesn't matter to me. I don't swim with a watch on
I think 30 is good. I prefer 50. If I fall off my yacht drunk, that might be a problem.
Its one of the first things i look for. Wouldn't entertain a watch without it, unless its a vintage watch
A watch that I can go whitewater rafting, skydiving or surfing is ideal. Most people even pursuing these sports , I reckon if it’s “ Waterproof “ to 30mtrs not “ resistant “ That is plenty. ( divers watches need more obviously)
I absolutely can't remember the practical difference between 30 an 50m and couldn't tell you what I have in either without reading dial text.
For me, water resistance in watches is like "stain resistant" clothing or the like. It's the maker saying "we know you're too stupid to treat this right, so we dummyproofed this for your fool ass." It's rather insulting.
That perspective is probably fair if you remove your clothes before doing any dirty work and take your watch off before doing anything with water. Choosing to buy something with a distinct vulnerability, for arguably little to no benefit, like a seriously low wr watch, doesn't make you superior in any way to someone who would like their watch to deal with any water they may subject it to, deliberately or not. That's like buying a car with a poor crash test rating and bragging about it because you think not caring about crash safety makes people think you're a good driver. It just makes people think you're strangely judgemental.
A lot of people, myself included, want to continue to wear their watches around water, and there are brands that respect those customers enough to create watches with adequate water resistance for us. The point of the original post was whether we get anything in return for low water resistance, which is a valid question. It wasn't an invitation to share what silly lines we tell ourselves to feed our ego and need to feel superior to other people because of what they want from and do with their watches.
A watch that I can go whitewater rafting, skydiving or surfing is ideal. Most people even pursuing these sports , I reckon if it’s “ Waterproof “ to 30mtrs not “ resistant “ That is plenty. ( divers watches need more obviously)
This. People equate "water resistance" with "water proof".
This. People equate "water resistance" with "water proof".
Yes but in reality say a watch is 300mtrs water resistant, I say with a service factor of 10 for water proof at 30 mtrs and 100 mtrs water resistant has a service factor of 3.5 for 30 mtrs water proofness ! Just my engineering brain thinking through the semantics.
Yes but in reality say a watch is 300mtrs water resistant, I say with a service factor of 10 for water proof at 30 mtrs and 100 mtrs water resistant has a service factor of 3.5 for 30 mtrs water proofness ! Just my engineering brain thinking through the semantics.
Yes. My understanding is that 50m WR is static: a watch sit STILL in a tank full of STILL water while the pressure increases. Water resistance doesn't take in account movement, impact, rapid pressure change or water running directly.
Yes. My understanding is that 50m WR is static: a watch sit STILL in a tank full of STILL water while the pressure increases. Water resistance doesn't take in account movement, impact, rapid pressure change or water running directly.
Absolutely
Yes. My understanding is that 50m WR is static: a watch sit STILL in a tank full of STILL water while the pressure increases. Water resistance doesn't take in account movement, impact, rapid pressure change or water running directly.
Dynamic water pressure is negligible. This myth needs to die already
Dynamic water pressure is negligible. This myth needs to die already
Cam , I am not just considering hydraulic pressure gradients I agree with you on this , more about bouncing off a reef after a wipeout or banging on a surfboard or short sharp accelerations and stops , jumping out of a plane ✈️, real world stuff too .
Dynamic water pressure is negligible. This myth needs to die already
OK, are you willing to take a 50m watch you own and swim laps around a pool? And then open the caseback to check for intrusion?
If seals are good, new, etc technically 10 m would be good enough for a dress watch. Heck even a regular watch.
Sounds like you never tried to have a toddler get a bath while wearing a watch before 😜
30m doesn’t even mean the watch can go down 30 meters under water, it just means you can wash your hand with it on and it can withstand water droplets.
I know, doesn’t make any sense does it. Weird but true.
https://jackmasonbrand.com/blogs/news/what-is-a-water-resistant-watch
That perspective is probably fair if you remove your clothes before doing any dirty work and take your watch off before doing anything with water. Choosing to buy something with a distinct vulnerability, for arguably little to no benefit, like a seriously low wr watch, doesn't make you superior in any way to someone who would like their watch to deal with any water they may subject it to, deliberately or not. That's like buying a car with a poor crash test rating and bragging about it because you think not caring about crash safety makes people think you're a good driver. It just makes people think you're strangely judgemental.
A lot of people, myself included, want to continue to wear their watches around water, and there are brands that respect those customers enough to create watches with adequate water resistance for us. The point of the original post was whether we get anything in return for low water resistance, which is a valid question. It wasn't an invitation to share what silly lines we tell ourselves to feed our ego and need to feel superior to other people because of what they want from and do with their watches.
I traded water resistance when i buyed a dress watch for a slimer case.
50m wr for 9.1mm thickness case, Mido baroncelli 2
My beater watch has 100m wr 13mm thick
Sounds like you never tried to have a toddler get a bath while wearing a watch before 😜
Lol give mine a bath all the time, with whatever watch I happen to be wearing.
Also just gonna leave this here....
OK, are you willing to take a 50m watch you own and swim laps around a pool? And then open the caseback to check for intrusion?
I have taken my Speedmaster in the pool more than once and never seen any water through its sapphire caseback - as expected. Omega states on their site that 50m means 50m with no activity restrictions.
I’m not going to the do the math for you or try to convince you that _you_ need to trust the rating. But claiming that moving your arm underwater multiplies the pressure by any meaningful amount is just false and disingenuous. The entire thought technology I hear from watch people that you need 30m to even consider washing your hands with the watch on or 50m for washing dishes, etc is infuriating
Cam , I am not just considering hydraulic pressure gradients I agree with you on this , more about bouncing off a reef after a wipeout or banging on a surfboard or short sharp accelerations and stops , jumping out of a plane ✈️, real world stuff too .
That’s not really related to the water pressure then 😅
That’s not really related to the water pressure then 😅
Cam it maintains its integrity by that very service factor of shock resistance also , no one wears a dive watch in a static way in the ocean ! So in a kinda sorta way we are both right !
Having a buttload of vintage watches, water resistance isn't exceptionally important to me