indignantdenial
978
It's an interesting move.
The good:
WR is standardized and actually means something, unlike for 90% of other brands giving the asinine 30m WR figure.
The bad:
It seems to amount to cost-cutting for higher WR models. The excuse that 'different information is confusing to our clientele' either implies the clientele is stupid or the staff don't know how to articulate the difference between 30m WR and 120m WR, for instance. There's no reason the Aquanaut or Nautilus should suffer a reduction in WR rating if their construction is identical. It just means there's lesser testing being done on them (note I said lesser, not less).
In the newest edition of Patek Philippe's magazine there's an article about water resistance ratings.
Patek claims that now, and from now on, they are testing every watch they make (other than chiming watches) to ensure that the watch is water-proof to 30 meters/3 bar/3 atmospheres. Putting aside whether 30 meters and 3 atmospheres are equivalent, the poi...
It's an interesting move.
The good: WR is standardized and actually means something, unlike for 90% of other brands giving the asinine 30m WR figure. The bad: It seems to amount to cost-cutting for higher WR models. The excuse that 'different information is confusing to our client...
I anticipated that very criticism although I expected Big Fat Paulie to be the critic.
I think you make a valid point about the cost-cutting factor. And I’m sure it was a consideration for Patek. Still, it’s a guarantee that your watch will survive a dip in the Caribbean if you forget to take it off before heading to the beach. No one else ...
And that's what I affirmed.
It's smart because of that reason; i.e., you can just trust the rating. However, it's still a silly move in the broader sense, hence my criticism. There is good and bad; I'm not sure one outweighs the other.
Here's Omega's statement regarding their WR spec
"What is the water resistance of an OMEGA watch?What is the water resistance of an OMEGA watch? All current OMEGA watches are water resistant to the depth defined by the model specifications, provided that the components ensuring the water resistance are ...
I'd simply look for METAS certified if you want to ensure proper testing. Plus you get the exact results of your specific timepiece. This is far more than what many non-METAS timepieces are 'guaranteed'.
Tudor and Omega offer such timepieces and we know Thierry understands Tudor. I have the Master Chronometer rated ceramic case Back Bay and love it for that Spinal Tap 'none more black' look, plus the ceramic case is truly impressive imho. ...
I applaud the move!
The problem is that over the years watch "journalists" and influencers have consistently promoted the idea the meter ratings are not real without providing any evidence. Of course for Rolex and Omega it has been very convenient to stay silent on the subje...
Well, not always.
For instance, the Saxonia Thin is rated to 30m, but WatchEnthusiastLondon went into his pool with his by accident (at a depth of what, 1 to 2 meters?) and it let in a bunch of water. I think it was a 1000+ GBP service bill at least. Point is that 30m is g...
Thank you for the color - first time I hear a story like that.
Obviously not many people are running such experiments. How old were the gaskets? Did Lange do a bad job when testing individual watches? I agree that Patek being very clear about standing behind their rating is a good move.
Not very old!
He bought it in October 2020, and published his video with this account in April 2023, so it certainly was before April 2023, seeing as Lange servicing is lengthy and he has the watch back—repaired. Rubber gaskets do not fail without either encountering s...
Another point on their declining curve...
Not once I've been warned to jump into the water with my "sport" Patek. they just made it official. Its not an upgrade, it's a downgrade. Most of their watches are declared 30m, they just reduced the rating of the "active" line..
If their 30m rating is indeed worthy of its name
then this could be a good step towards greater transparency in the watch world. But for now, it’s cautious optimism, and maybe don’t go deep sea diving with your Calatrava just yet; after all, they’re not entirely responsible for this…
Thanks for the info
I think it’s a smart move and go against the watch orthodoxy of at least 100 m before even looking at the ocean / sea I swim in the ocean year round with my IWC’s 60 m. wr. IWC has always claimed that there 60 m is more than enough to swim 🏊 I’ve never ha...
Any improvement is good to take....
...... but in terms of number of automatic watches produced, 100WR has been a standard for at least the last 40 years? So it is about time. All manufacturers should do that. Even if I am not planning to necessarily swim with an expensive watch, I would be...
Since so many of their watches are quoted as 30m wr I applaud this.
I did email PP once to see if I could take a 5520p swimming. The response was the theoretically yes "But due to the level of complication and the four pushers on the external of the case, I would question whether I would want to do so."
Now you can.
There is specific mention of complicated watches being 30 meter water resistant. Although it might not apply to older pieces.
In total agreement with your last paragraph.
And I think that saving costs is behind at least a few of their decisions to play a different game than everyone else. I do think guaranteeing a true 30 meter water resistant case is good for the customer. And all you need practically speaking.
Of all the modern
watches that I own all of them have a WR rating of at least 50 meters, a couple have 100 meter ratings (DateJust) but the only watch I will wear into the water is my Submariner. Wash my hands, dishes and etc with the DateJust, absolutely but personally I ...
