chippyfly
778
G-P ref 7750
My 1993 G-P ref 7750 is a strange watch with regard to water resistance. Only 488 of this 34mm case reference were manufactured in all steel and steel with YG and RG unidirectional bezels, all with WR of only 30 metres. Yet they all had screw-down crowns! These watches looked sporty but really needed to be handled carefully, as I do mine.
For a watch with only 30m WR I find a screw-down crown annoying because of unnecessary wear of the crown components and the extra fiddle when adjusting the time etc. My Omega Constellation Manhattan has 50m WR without a screw-down crown. My few 100m WR watches have screw-down crowns for good reason.
To me, any WR is important against dust, skin debris, sweat and accidental hand-wash splashing. 30 and 50 metres WR will likely survive the pool fall and serious rain. Nothing less than 100 metres WR for a shower and surface swim, but I do neither wearing a watch other than my Casio as a very strict rule. If I was a diver, it would always be with wearing a greater than 200 meters WR watch.
On holiday I see lots of people swimming in hotel pools wearing their big Rolex's and think why? Screw-down crowns will then have corrosive water in their threads. It is the seals under screwed pressure that stop the water entering the watches. They will always need an annual quick service to ensure the seals and threads are safe and dry after lengthy immersions.
My views.
HAGWE!
Clive
Does water resistance matter?
Good day to all. Was just trawling through Ulysse Nardin's website recently, and if one clicks on the marine line, a whole lot of Marine Torpilleur pop up. I actually quite like the Marine Torpilleur line, and am still hoping that the thread on a special ...
I’m not entirely sure what the exact question is here but…
I don’t do a lot of diving…but I do have a boat and jet skis. I suspect anything under 15 atm is not entirely waterproof. Ok for the shower but not swimming or snorkeling. I don’t care about situation specific things like diving but I want at least one de...
Right you are - the question was more towards whether a "Marine" watch should have better water resistance.
Which, as mentioned by kesharoo later, I would think that Marine watches should have at least 10ATM / 100m water resistance, especially at that price point, I guess.
For me 10atm
This is good for swimming, ocean, water activities. As far as diving. I don't do, so no clue.
For me anything marketed as marine must have a minimum of 100m or 10bar water resistance.
It's pointless otherwise for use. 2 examples come to mind, the Speedmaster alinghi with 50m water resistance and the earlier IWC yacht chrono with 60m resistance now upgraded to 100m. I am sure there are others.
Thanks for your comments
I agree with you. So, it does make me wonder why UN would peg a Marine at 5ATM/50m. I am pretty sure it would sell better too with 10ATM water resistance.
People (or watch sites) seem to repeat the same common wisdom about water resistance without much justification.
If it says 50m it has been tested to 50m so you can swim or even dive with the watch. The "it has to be at least 100m for water activities" is nonsense to me. Either the seals are broken, and then the stated rating is irrelevant, or they work as intended....
Good point - but just the thought that one would take a "Mariner" for adventure in the ocean...50m may not be sufficient for that.
You are right in that if it is rated 50m and good enough to do the activities intended at that mark, no need to be a 100m. I guess I should have been clearer with my question - the Torpilleur being touted as a marine affiliated watch and marketed with ass...
My point is - there is no reason to think that 50m is risky in any way.
30m, 50m, or 1000m - it doesn't matter. To me "marine" is more about design than function. As in inspired by marine chronometers which were certainly not water resistant. Of course the further you go, the harder it gets in terms of engineering. So you can...
When looking into past UN catalogues ...
... the issue is simple: Only complicated and very elegant and delicate watches are rated to 30 or 50 meters, all others at least to 100 meters, all watches of the Marine collection 200 and 300 meters. But then, all sportive watches also had luminous elem...
That's what I remember too of UN...
...thanks for sharing your experience with UN as well. Time have changed, I guess. As als1678 wrote, pretty much each to his own in terms of interpreting the usefulness of something being rated to a pressure depth that one may not normally encounter.
I use the Fall/Pushed into a Pool Test
If I’m going to wear it near water and I’m pushed into the water or fall in in the water will my watch be destroyed? Will my first concern be my watch and not my safety? Can I wear this on holiday in the pool? Can I accidentally wear my watch into the sho...
While researching my answer to your question, I dug out my U-N and set it
Reminding myself of one disadvantage of its claimed 200M water resistance -- an awkwardly difficult crown to operate as the seals on the stem are pretty tight. (ok, it might be the fact that it's just before 6 am and my coordination could be faulty). Anot...
G-P ref 7750
My 1993 G-P ref 7750 is a strange watch with regard to water resistance. Only 488 of this 34mm case reference were manufactured in all steel and steel with YG and RG unidirectional bezels, all with WR of only 30 metres. Yet they all had screw-down crowns!...
Thanks for your insights, Clive.
In hindsight, I guess I should have been more precise with my question - it should have read "Does water resistance matter in relation to the UN Marine Torpilleur?", and the reason I asked the question is, as Marcus has astutely pointed out earlier, the U...
Maybe they thought: While a "torpedo" normally travels UNDER the waterline ....
... a "torpilleur" does so ABOVE, so no water tightness adapted to more contact than hand washing is necessary. The same goes for luminous elements. Marcus