stang Posted March 21, 2007 Report Share Posted March 21, 2007 I was just reading the thread about He purge valves on diver watches (in the Knowledge Base forum) and it got me thinking about the value, if any, of high water resistance. Although most "diver" watches will probably never see debths greater than the deep end of a swimming pool (and many won't even see a shower) ... can the debth rating be used to judge the relative build quality of the watch? I don't think a human can dive beyond 250 feet using scuba tanks and 250 meters is probably the max for saturation diving. (I don't really know) so watches H2O resistant to 300, 600, 1000 meters or more don't seem to make much sense apart from marketing strategy. Even for professional divers. OR, does it?..... I assume that a watch has to be assembled with greater precision/tolerances/machining/skill to withstand 500 meters of pressure than a watch resistant to 100 meters. Therefore, can the water resistance rating be used to assess the build quality of a watch even though it will never be used at its max debth? I'm curious what people think about this since I consider the WR rating a fairly good indicator of build quality. (probably why there aren't too many 300M Timexes). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Watchmeister Posted March 21, 2007 Report Share Posted March 21, 2007 But there are 1000m Seikos. They are encased in a titanium alloy. One seller describes it as a tuna can watch because it does look like a tuna can. On gens it is a safe bet that the build quality is better on the higher (lower?) depth rated watches. They also cost more. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stang Posted March 25, 2007 Author Report Share Posted March 25, 2007 On gens it is a safe bet that the build quality is better on the higher (lower?) depth rated watches. They also cost more Kruzer00, Exactly, this is what I'm alluding to ... that greater water resistance is somewhat indicative of the build quality of a watch. I'd bet that 99.99 % of Steelfishes or Planet Oceans will never see water pressures greater than a dive to the bottom of a pool, yet their WR of 1000 or 600 meters respectively indicates a high level of build quality/precision/materials/etc. Furthermore, the WR rating is usually based on static, best-case conditions (slow pressure buildup & no movement). Conversely, a water/jetskiier who drags his watch through the ocean at 30 mph is probably exposing it to conditions requiring 300M of WR. I always look for WR ratings 3-4 times the debth I may experience to account for rigorous activity. On a side note, many good diver watches come w/ screw-down pushers to lock the gaskets tightly against the case. This seems like a good idea and makes logical sense to me. However, there are many 200-300 (or greater) WR watches which don't have screw-down pushers ... so I'm wondering how they manage to withstand the 300 (+) meter ratings they claim. Are there any diver members or watch experts who can explain the need/utility/requirements for screw-down pushers? Why do some watches have them and some don't and how much of a difference do they really make? Just curious. Thanks. Jeff Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Logan Posted March 25, 2007 Report Share Posted March 25, 2007 Yes its to do with build quality.. well more accuratly its down to the tolerances allowed for in the threads, and the smoothness and fit of the o-ring surfaces. Also the design plays a large role, for example thicker case backs and crystals are required as depths increase and the design and o-ring placement in crowns, helium valves etc. Speaking of helium valves. I always place a good drop of epoxy over the inside of any replica helium valve to seal it shut permanantly. The are often the first part to leak Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stang Posted March 30, 2007 Author Report Share Posted March 30, 2007 Speaking of helium valves. I always place a good drop of epoxy over the inside of any replica helium valve to seal it shut permanantly. The are often the first part to leak Logan, Interesting and helpful input. My SMP chrono has a He valve and I didn't realize it was a weak link in the water resistance of the watch. I read a review of the SMP 300M Chronograph Rep by Gioarmani. He had the watch tested by a dealer and it was supposedly good down to 300 feet (whether or not it was tested to 300M and/or if it passed I don't know). Similarly, he actually submerged the watch himself at 60 foot debth & it was OK ... so I'm assuming I can wear my SMP in the pool or shower (?). BTW, how bad it the He valve seal on your watch(s)? I would prefer a less permanent solution to sealing the He valve better ... perhaps by using some sort of clear silicone gasket material on the threads? Also, I'm still very curious about the need/utility/purpose/effectiveness of screw-down pushers on a chronograph. The pushers seem to be the "weak-link" in the case sealing on this type of watch since the crown & caseback typically seal very well (tightly). Do the pushers only protect against accidental bumps while submerged or do they also serve to press the internal gaskets tightly against the interior of the case? Just seems like a good idea on a WR chronograph so I'm wondering why a lot of "diver" chronos don't have them (?) .... Jeff Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.