Waterproofing verified with a chamber test: relevant?
As a follow-up to this excellent post, I have been wondering for a while what credit can be given to these tests :
https://youtu.be/FwNFy2A7rmU?si=m1EMaB3qXVGPsC0T
These youtubers use a chamber to simulate extreme pressures, and the result is that often watches exceed the announced expectations, and by much. Sometimes as much as 5 times the pressure that the watch is supposed to hold.
So, what can we really conclude from these tests?
Is it representative enough of real use, so we can start to worry much less than what is usually believed?
Because if all serious makers surpass the specifications, even if there is still a risk and it would not contractually stand as an appropriate use, in reality, there should be a huge tolerance window.
I am especially thinking about watches with 5 atm or 10 atm resistance, does it really make sense to say that we should be careful not to swim with them?
Welcome to my WatchCrunch profile.
I've posted on here before, my wealthy cousin regularly swims in the sea with his Speedmaster and it's not broke yet.
I wouldn't, I think he's mental 🤯😂
I would say that this is true for a new watch. As a watch ages, I would become more careful. And yes, I lost a 5 ATM watch to a swimming pool.
I would say that this is true for a new watch. As a watch ages, I would become more careful. And yes, I lost a 5 ATM watch to a swimming pool.
@hbein2022
OK, let's say then the watch is new (although on other videos of their channel, they also tested worn and quite old watches).
The point is what to think about the test results, when a watch announced for 10 atm actually reaches 100 atm !
I've posted on here before, my wealthy cousin regularly swims in the sea with his Speedmaster and it's not broke yet.
I wouldn't, I think he's mental 🤯😂
It's advertised for 5 atm, right?
If so, yeah, it takes a good pair of balls to swim with it, but it also tends to confirm that good brands probably exceed specifications.
@hbein2022
OK, let's say then the watch is new (although on other videos of their channel, they also tested worn and quite old watches).
The point is what to think about the test results, when a watch announced for 10 atm actually reaches 100 atm !
I would say that a watch in good condition will likely reach 100m without a problem. Based on my experience a watch that has an issue will fail relatively early. A friend of mine had a Submariner serviced at an independent watchmaker, and the watch turned into a saltwater aquarium after swimming the Mediterranean.
I have also seen watches that had only one gasket in the crown itself, not one on the watch stem. If you don't screw the crown all the way down, the water resistance would be compromised. (This is thankfully uncommon.)
I also had a watch that came back w/o a case gasket after a battery change. (I found out three years later.)
It will depend on the individual watch and its history. Anything of value I would pressure test.
It's advertised for 5 atm, right?
If so, yeah, it takes a good pair of balls to swim with it, but it also tends to confirm that good brands probably exceed specifications.
Yup, spot on. You get what you pay for - dunno if they "over test" by 25% like they do on dive watches, maybe.
Nonetheless, I wouldn't risk it 🤔
New watch/new gaskets, most probably survive a good dunking even a swim.
After a number of years the gaskets are worn, dirt may have gotten in between the sealing surface and gasket... You see where that could go wrong.
Manufacturer wants to keep it performing to spec even after the warranty has ran out, so they over engineer it to a point.
I have 10 year old divers that I don't want to get wet because I have no clue if they'd survive it. (Time for a service anyways)