Recent posts
Easylink
Recent Comments
Ignoring my vintage watches I’ve got a couple of 41’s and I think they’re the cat’s pyjamas. My beater is 43 but that doesn’t really count. I just got a “39” with an overhanging dive bezel, so maybe a thin 40? and I’m thinking it’s a bit small.
Interesting video! Thanks! Sounds like my point remains, that the watch, if in new condition and not a lemon, will withstand the rated static depth pressure. But the reason it’s not recommended to use to that depth are other peripheral factors (although apparently not movement through water!) So the recommended uses are based on the recommender’s risk tolerance and assumptions. So if you were somewhere that water temperature was close to air temperature and the immersion and resurfacing were done slowly to avoid thermal and pressure shock you’d probably get there and back?
Sadly I don’t actually think luxury watch manufacturers care about watch collectors who have a valid perception of value. Their bread and butter is selling to folks to whom price is no object.
I read a good article on water resistance which of course I can no longer find to cite. However the gist of it was that water resistance ratings are probably true for the rated depth IF that’s the only force acting on them. But say you are swimming in 1 meter of water and your stroke arm with your watch on it is driving through the water… so the induced pressure from the force of your swimming action is representative of the static pressure of much more depth.
So someone does some math or observations to come up with a practical table like the handy one just posted which reflects the usual pressure forces acting on the watch.
I found this explanation helpful to make sense of why depth ratings, particularly at the smaller end of the scale, seemed to not relate well to the recommended activities.
So it’s not that watch makers put on bogus depth ratings, but that they don’t quite mean what we think.
