WatchUSeek Watch Forums banner

161 - 180 of 358 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
362 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
475 Posts
Only thing preventing it from being a true gada is water resistance. If it had at least 100m of water resistance sure it can be a gada.

Other than that, it really is a gada.
That depends on what your needs are. Fifty meters is about 165 feet. Do you really expect to go below that? NASA astronauts trained in pools and splashed down in oceans wearing Speedmasters. I always get a kick about how people on the forums who never go deeper than a backyard pool insist on having 300m water resistance. Presumably they plan to dive to 1000 feet and be able to tell the time just before their lungs blow up!
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
1,189 Posts
I believe that's short for "go anywhere, do anything."
Yes, just not near water...so no it's not the ultimate GADA watch. I like and own Speedmasters but to me its not an adventure watch despite its space program affiliation.

Sent from my SM-G960U using Tapatalk
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
1,189 Posts
For me I can't wear black dialed watch with brown shoes or brown belt. Maybe I am weird... I also can't do brown strap on a black dialed watch. So that for me, doesn't make it a GADA. But a GADA is truly a myth, just like grail watches.

Water resistance could be an issue, but I am sure it's fine for most people.
Black is not a color in the same way green or pink is. Do you have brown dial watches??

Sent from my SM-G960U using Tapatalk
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
561 Posts
Title says it all!
Not at all. Water resistance and no date. I’d personally take the robustness of my sub with the date over it anyday. On top of that classic looks, good water resistance, anti magnetic, automatic movement, I’ve never actually needed a chronograph for anything the 60 minute timer does the trick and I use it nearly daily.

so to me. Not even close the more I think about it. Great watch and I have one which I love but for a single watch deal I wouldn’t choose it.
 

·
Registered
testing testing something pizza
Joined
·
23,005 Posts
That depends on what your needs are. Fifty meters is about 165 feet. Do you really expect to go below that? NASA astronauts trained in pools and splashed down in oceans wearing Speedmasters. I always get a kick about how people on the forums who never go deeper than a backyard pool insist on having 300m water resistance. Presumably they plan to dive to 1000 feet and be able to tell the time just before their lungs blow up!
I remember older WUS threads in which we pondered whether astronauts wore their Speedys on the outside of their suits in the training tank, but I don't think we found a clear answer. They wouldn't have been terribly necessary anyway.

And splashdown isn't worth thinking about because that's the end of the mission. Though NASA's requirements included waterproofness, probably because (at least partially) Carpenter's Navitimer flooded after splashdown.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,710 Posts
Which science, though, is the question. Psychology says that the vast majority of people are never going to accept that 50m of WR is adequate for swimming because it's far less than a diver and because most 50m watches don't look suitable for aquatic activities. After all, "common sense" says that more WR is better, and it's not entirely wrong. And "perception" confirms that for many people.
Maybe the majority of speedy owners think like that but the majority of people who buy a watch that has 50m WR and the manual states it's suitable for swimming will most likely take it swimming. They're not going to over think it like some here do. I think hesitancy comes into play when the watch is uncomfortably expensive to begin with and/or they've fallen down a WIS rabbit hole and become convinced that only a 300m or 500m WR ISO 6425 compliant dive watch can be worn in the shower.

I suspect for divers who would have relied on a watch while diving, they would have chosen one that met all the criteria necessary to be considered a dive watch. But I see no reason why they would subsequently choose to not believe that a non-dive watch couldn't be worn while just swimming (I would bet that if a person used Brand Z dive watch then they would likely have been comfortable with the reliability of Brand Z watches across all styles and activities).

I have a Bulova quartz with 50m WR that states very clearly in the manual that it is good for swimming and I have used it in the pool regularly over the last couple of years; I have a Tissot T Touch with 100m WR and the manual very clearly states it can be used for swimming, I will be wearing it in the pool in the next few weaks (once the pool is opened and the heater turned on). But then some people still fret over splashes from the faucet and the ever present risk of catastrophic flooding due to dynamic pressure.

I can replace any of my watches that I might take into the pool and not fret about it and I think that is the main issue with WR; loss. There are a lot of photos of rolex owners wearing their $10-15K watches under water and yet some other rolex owners (in posts here in WUS) have stated they wouldn't wear their submariner because...that's what their g shock/seiko/orient is for. And more than a few Omega owners have expressed the same sentiment. So in the end I think it has much less to do with psychology or failure rates or dive vs non-dive and all to do with how expensive a watch is to a particular owner. If you own five or six rolex then you may not be worried about it. If you own a speedy that you had to save for and replacing it would be financially taxing then by all means, claim that the WR is unreliable.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
12,791 Posts
Opinions vary! As do suits, as do offices!

Edit: As do gshocks!
Of course! Which is why what works for you as a GADA might not work for others. So the G-shock, as good as it is for what it does, isn't the "ultimate" for everyone.
 

·
Registered
testing testing something pizza
Joined
·
23,005 Posts
Maybe the majority of speedy owners think like that but the majority of people who buy a watch that has 50m WR and the manual states it's suitable for swimming will most likely take it swimming. They're not going to over think it like some here do. I think hesitancy comes into play when the watch is uncomfortably expensive to begin with and/or they've fallen down a WIS rabbit hole and become convinced that only a 300m or 500m WR ISO 6425 compliant dive watch can be worn in the shower.
Yup. I also think that if a watch costs so much and the manufacturer says it's okay, then by golly, it'd better live up to its price tag and survive what it's rated for.

Shoot, my $400 Apple Watch is good for 50 meters, too, right?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
895 Posts
As has been stated many times here and on other threads, it’s mostly the seals and not the presence/absence of a screw down crown that’s important for water resistance. Casein point, a PO chronograph is rated to 600m, can be used underwater, and does not have screwed down pushers.
You're right, but the fact is most chronographs don't have pushers with seals that allow them to be operated underwater. For those chronographs that don't, including some diver chronographs, it's important that the pushers can be secured against accidental depression. If they cannot be secured, the watch is not suitable for use underwater.

The reason for a screw down crown is to prevent accidental pulling of the crown, which although unlikely, is still a possible hazard. Without that, you are at risk of ending up in a state where the WR is unknown. A crown guard, like on a Panerai Luminor/Submersible, serves the same purpose as a screw down crown — to keep it from being accidentally pulled out.

This is very similar to why the bezel on a dive watch is unidirectional and can only be turned in a direction that shortens your dive, not lengthens it. That's why you don't use a bidirectional pilot bezel for diving, not because it doesn't (necessarily) have a WR rating for the depth you plan to go (because it could) but because of lack of fitness for purpose. Lack of a screw down crown (or similar protection) and lack of securable chronograph pushers when the chronograph function isn't designed for underwater use is a lack of fitness for purpose.

This is why a Speedmaster Professional ought not be used underwater; lack of fitness for purpose. And that's why it doesn't qualify as a GADA watch in my opinion. A GADA watch must have fitness for purpose when you are "doing anything", otherwise, while it might survive, it ought not have gone there.

A Planet Ocean is also definitely not a GADA watch because it simply ought not go "anywhere".
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
895 Posts
You missed the "😝".

As someone who regularly designs things that have pressure ratings (burst and collapse) that exceed 10,000 psi (690 bar) I can assure you that Psychology doesn't factor into my calculations.
No, but it might factor into your decision to stay in the room or not while the item is being pressure tested.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
895 Posts
So in the end I think it has much less to do with psychology or failure rates or dive vs non-dive and all to do with how expensive a watch is to a particular owner. If you own five or six rolex then you may not be worried about it. If you own a speedy that you had to save for and replacing it would be financially taxing then by all means, claim that the WR is unreliable.
That sounds an awful lot like psychology. ;)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
895 Posts
That depends on what your needs are. Fifty meters is about 165 feet. Do you really expect to go below that? NASA astronauts trained in pools and splashed down in oceans wearing Speedmasters. I always get a kick about how people on the forums who never go deeper than a backyard pool insist on having 300m water resistance. Presumably they plan to dive to 1000 feet and be able to tell the time just before their lungs blow up!
What's the WR if you depress the pushers?
 

·
Registered
testing testing something pizza
Joined
·
23,005 Posts
As has been stated many times here and on other threads, it’s mostly the seals and not the presence/absence of a screw down crown that’s important for water resistance. Casein point, a PO chronograph is rated to 600m, can be used underwater, and does not have screwed down pushers.
Wait -- it doesn't? They look like screw-down pushers to me...

15863865
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
12,791 Posts
Even the manufacturers disagree on what WR rating is sufficient for what activity. It's a never ending discussion.
I'm guessing here, but I think the difference in WR rating from different manufacturers may stem from the different ratings they put on their watches and how confident they are with the watches specified.

Seiko used to rate their 5 atm watches (particularly their dressier watches) "good for everyday use" as in rain and whatnot. Never submerge.
Their latest ratings changed apparently, and they are now good for swimming and showering.

With their divers that was never the case, 10 atm meant good for diving.

Point I'm trying to make is, I don't think anyone is more qualified to state what activities the watches can or cannot be used for than the manufacturer itself. Regardless who that manufacturer is.

That said, I never swam with my Grand Seiko despite it's 100m WR rating, I have other watches that I feel more comfortable with to wear for such activities. But if I had only that one watch, I wouldn't hesitate.
 
161 - 180 of 358 Posts
Top