When did it start?
What’s up with all these watch people NEEDing 100m of water resistance? What started that? You need that at all times, huh? You realize 50m does just fine too right? Why am I recommended to not even use water to clean my watches if they don’t have 100m of water resistance? When did this belief, not based in reality, start for watch folk? What the hell
63 comments
Sort by
Maybe like many other things it’s been a result of marketing? I feel like I need 300m of water resistantce to brush my teeth in peace and have no clue why.
For most people they like the potential of what it could do vs. what they actually do.
People buy the product they think they may need that one time, so whatever they buy has to fit all needs. Why are so many pickups sold when 99% of the time, the beds are empty?
I suspect there are several reasons for people's obsession with WR, most of them originating with influencers peddling bad information for clicks.
I also suspect a large part of it comes from people spending too much money on watches, and not wanting to take any chances that something might happen to them. I think we've all seen people say they won't wear a Sub to the beach because the salt water and sand might damage it... That feeds the notion to others, and it spirals out of control from there.
There is also the problem of anecdotes being takes as the average. One guy gets water into his Hamilton Khaki Field, so now all Hamilton watches without screw down crowns are garbage, one YouTuber gets fogging in a watch and that proves anything less than 600m WR is insufficient for short walks in a light drizzle., etc...
Don't blame me, blame the watch industry that produced this:
Don't blame me, blame the watch industry that produced this:
That isn't universal though, because some manufactures list 50m WR as good for swimming.
It is a perfect example of a nebulous chart form some website making the rounds on the internet though. What part of the "watch industry" made that chart? I'm not saying it isn't from a manufacturer, but it doesn't show/state who it's from.
This is a great question. I often find myself under the impression that a watch is absolutely going to disintegrate in the rain if it's not COSC certified and I'd love to be more confident with the reality these limitations.
That isn't universal though, because some manufactures list 50m WR as good for swimming.
It is a perfect example of a nebulous chart form some website making the rounds on the internet though. What part of the "watch industry" made that chart? I'm not saying it isn't from a manufacturer, but it doesn't show/state who it's from.
What part of the Watch Industry?
What part of the shady and mysterious timekeeping industrial complex produced this chart?
<.<
>.>
<.<
... Wouldn't you like to know...
Don't blame me, blame the watch industry that produced this:
This plus the probability argument and degradation of water resistance argument. A certified 50m could be more like 30m or less after a few years of exposure to things. The certifications are best case when new. My daily wear is 300m, and to me, that mostly means I don't have to think about it period. 200m feels the same to me. 100m without a screw down crown is beginning to feel fallible, like if I don't get the gaskets and wr checked for five years, I probably don't want to swim with that. Water is just the easiest way to "total" a movement, so I don't really want "probably fine," I want overkill.
Of course depends on what you do with a watch on and how willing you are to fuss with taking it off for something. I just like having a watch on that feels impervious to water in all the contexts I could find myself in.
100>50…and 100 is a nice round number. I don’t know, I’m making things up.
Here's another mysterious chart that's in Italian, so you know it's legit
Yep, 100m is where it's at.
Hello Mr. bobtime. I'd like to introduce you to the internet.
It's a whole new world and , unfortunately, it is responsible for a boatload of misinformation that is immediately adopted by the easily misinformed. And thank you Youtube for allowing rank amateurs to influence those new to the hobby, but not to the internet.
The new infatuation with AI designs is the newest sign of the horological apocalypse heading our way.
Now will everyone please GTFOML!!!
Funny thing both the Omega Speedmaster and Bulova Lunar Pilot have 50m WR. Thank God there is no water on the moon.
#omega #bulova
pioviggine contro 30m = NO
nebbia contro 30m = NO
alta umidità 60% contro 30m = SI
Funny thing both the Omega Speedmaster and Bulova Lunar Pilot have 50m WR. Thank God there is no water on the moon.
#omega #bulova
They only have to keep in 1 bar, so 5 bar should be good enough....
I think part of the issue is the wide variety of standards among watch brands. Some say 50m means 50m like omega while others will tell you to avoid water activities. So yeah 50m should be enough but it varies a lot. 100m in general is that sweet spot of should probably be good enough for most people even for those brands who aren’t as stringent on water resistance as say omega.
I think the biggest problem with this discussion is the focus on meters. The way more sensible way to look at it, is by using pressure. The water pressure here in Germany from a tap for example is between 2 and 8 bar. This means, that if you get your 5 bar (50m) wr watch under the tap, and a local pressure peak hits one of the weak points, that could cause water to enter the watch.
The marketing Blabla of using meters is completely misleading, because people then go around saying: I'll never dive to 100m anyway. You could, however, produce a local pressure peak of 10 bar by jumping in the water or something similar. It's a bit like using horsepower instead of kW for the power of a car, the bhp value is higher than the equivalent kW, so that's better for marketing.
So that's why I would go for a 10 bar wr watch, if I had the choice and I need it as a GADA watch. For a dresser I wear once a year, it doesn't matter.
I tried explaining this on a thread the other day. The difference between swimming gently in a pool and diving into a pool. If you dive in and the water hits the watches crown i reckon it will be more likely to let water in than just swimming normally, kind of seems pretty logicle. Another example of a specific watch. The Formex Essence has 100m wr and a push pull crown, the owners of Formex are on record ( read it on a post by Formex ) as stating they have personally tested the watch to 100m with the crown in the out position, the crown has a double gasket/seal.
I have two U1001 watches that have never seen the water… and never will. Haha
The physics behind such statements relies upon velocity adding pressure. For instance, if you are splashing around in a pool, the velocity of your wrist through the water increases the pressure exterted by the water as opposed to just sitting in water motionless. That additional pressure can exceed the presure found at the depth rating potentially allowing moisture into the case.
I have a torpedo to deliver, hand me a pocket watch and a leather strap
I don't pay any attention to the water resistance rating. Let's look at Exhibit A:
This is a dive watch case in my possession with only a gasket in the crown itself. How well it seals, if it seals, will depend on the crown being fully seated and the stem properly cut. Now, most dive watches have one or more gaskets on the crown tube itself, making it far less sensitive towards where the crown sits on the crown tube.
How old is this particular gasket in the picture? I don't know to be honest. How often do you service these gaskets? Even I have to shamefully admit that I don't. While I clean and lubricate the case gasket, I usually leave these gaskets alone, as I would have to hunt for one the right size if I damaged them.
Neither the inexpensive construction in the picture above nor the condition of the gaskets will affect the number of the dial.
Even this type of test will probably tell you more:
But the only number that matters in the end is the result of a pressure test.
Any watch seal works. It's the maintaining of the seals integrity that leads to water ingress.
3m - 300K m, if the seals are bad, watch is bad.
Non internet talking head logic is guessing that something rated at 200m, should be hardier, with thicker/better seals, thus meaning the brief sub-surface excursions 99.9999991% of the planet goes on, will not cause the watch to fail.
I do not know if the actual, real world testing backs this up, I would label it plausible.
Meantime, here's a picture of a Casio F-91W at depth, taken by a fellow WC'er, and a snowman a fellow brother made of C-4. (picture taken by another peep who has fantastic skill)
Watch didn't explode, snowman did. YMMV.
Forgot to tag @muxi1982 btws. One of the coolest pics on WC, full stop! 👌🏻
That isn't universal though, because some manufactures list 50m WR as good for swimming.
It is a perfect example of a nebulous chart form some website making the rounds on the internet though. What part of the "watch industry" made that chart? I'm not saying it isn't from a manufacturer, but it doesn't show/state who it's from.
Omega actually says the speedmaster can be worn whilst swimming if I remember correctly.
I don’t need more than 30M for normal day to day activities. Never understood why most feel they need more than that. My three most worn watches are all 30M and it’s never been an issue.
The physics behind such statements relies upon velocity adding pressure. For instance, if you are splashing around in a pool, the velocity of your wrist through the water increases the pressure exterted by the water as opposed to just sitting in water motionless. That additional pressure can exceed the presure found at the depth rating potentially allowing moisture into the case.
You would have to be splashing with a mechanical system to generate 30m water depth pressures at the surface...
I have swam in the ocean with 30m of water resistance.
If everything is working as it should then you are correct but extra water resistance gives more redundancies that in the event of something going wrong your watch is still OK. On my watch with apparently 200m wr I forgot to screw in the crown and went swimming, it was perfectly fine, I don't think it would have been the same with 50m wr. Lifts don't need brakes, the cable is far stronger than it needs to be, but would you go in a lift if the emergency brakes weren't working?
As a vintage dress watch aficionado, I have just decided that water isn't for me. I don't need more than splash resistance because I learnt a trick to make any watch more waterproof. It's not oil filling or any other gimmick and it works for all types of watches.
It's taking the damn thing off.
You would have to be splashing with a mechanical system to generate 30m water depth pressures at the surface...
Not really. The velocity of a wrist can far exceed the speed you think. Now we aren’t talking sustained pressure, just a instantaneous pressure that lasts less than a second. But that is enough for moisture penetration. It is just physics.
Not really. The velocity of a wrist can far exceed the speed you think. Now we aren’t talking sustained pressure, just a instantaneous pressure that lasts less than a second. But that is enough for moisture penetration. It is just physics.
People have done the math... It doesn't happen. If a watch fails at the surface there was a fault in the seals.
https://www.watchcrunch.com/wsjp007/posts/a-mythbusting-guide-to-water-resistance-292279
Whatever.