How reasonable is to expect a Rolex 1680 or Tudor 79090 to be water tight?

[502 to Right]

My current daily is a Rolex 16610. I prefer the old school look and size (not a fan of the modern fat lugs) and am confident the watch post-Rolex service is good to go in the water. I also annually get the watch pressure tested by my AD watchmaker.

I'm currently interested in going back a bit further in the catalog and getting something with a top hat acrylic crystal. Probably a Tudor 79090 in blue but also possibly a Rolex 1680.

I've always read that "vintage" watches should not be taken in the water. But in the case of a Rolex 1680 or a Tudor 79090 I wonder if that's really the case if the watch has been properly serviced and gaskets replaced.

In a worst case scenario, the crown and tube can be completely replaced with new parts. The case back, with a new gasket, should be fine unless it was damaged in the past. That leaves the acrylic crystal as the remaining possible point of failure. But crystals and retaining rings can be replaced.

So I'm wondering if in the case of a 1680 or a 79090 it's possible to have a proper water tight case. I wouldn't plan to dive with the watch, just use it for swimming primarily and perhaps snorkeling.

I'm not interested in getting a dive watch that cannot be taken in the water so if a watch of this era cannot be made water tight I will move on. I also care more about functionality than originality, so if parts needed to be replaced to ensure water tightness (e.g., crown and tube) I would not be opposed.

Any advice would be appreciated. Do you have a vintage Sub that still sees water use?

[hutch300]

Pressure test and maintenance is key. I think you'll want a caseback off picture to see if there is corrosion under that mating surface. I think 4/5 digit rolex are very charming and usable. I'd rather have the 1680 or 1675/16750 than the tudor. Love those but the prices are too high compared to their rolex brethren.

[physicist]

I have both a 16610 and an 79090 and wear them as intended without concern.

[harry in montreal]

I récently bought a 79090 that was well loved. I pressure tested it in the shower and my salt water pool; it passed. I am ok taking the chance but these are really well built. The crystal was not cracked and the crown was tight.

Just get a pressure test at a watchmaker if you have any concerns

[502 to Right]

I like what I'm hearing...

Now I just need to find an excellent example that doesn't cost an arm and a leg. I'm leaning blue 79090 since it's my favorite color and I already have black covered with my 16610.

[bullies]

Originally Posted by 502 to Right

My current daily is a Rolex 16610. I prefer the old school look and size (not a fan of the modern fat lugs) and am confident the watch post-Rolex service is good to go in the water. I also annually get the watch pressure tested by my AD watchmaker.

I'm currently interested in going back a bit further in the catalog and getting something with a top hat acrylic crystal. Probably a Tudor 79090 in blue but also possibly a Rolex 1680.

I've always read that "vintage" watches should not be taken in the water. But in the case of a Rolex 1680 or a Tudor 79090 I wonder if that's really the case if the watch has been properly serviced and gaskets replaced.

In a worst case scenario, the crown and tube can be completely replaced with new parts. The case back, with a new gasket, should be fine unless it was damaged in the past. That leaves the acrylic crystal as the remaining possible point of failure. But crystals and retaining rings can be replaced.

So I'm wondering if in the case of a 1680 or a 79090 it's possible to have a proper water tight case. I wouldn't plan to dive with the watch, just use it for swimming primarily and perhaps snorkeling.

I'm not interested in getting a dive watch that cannot be taken in the water so if a watch of this era cannot be made water tight I will move on. I also care more about functionality than originality, so if parts needed to be replaced to ensure water tightness (e.g., crown and tube) I would not be opposed.

Any advice would be appreciated. Do you have a vintage Sub that still sees water use?

As long as the bold above is true I would have no issue with swimming with those pieces

ps- my never serviced M serial 16610 still sees the water and my 2012 AP 15400 just passed a pressure test to 100m a week or two ago.

[Fredrik]

I swim with my 1680. I have it serviced regularly and I also make sure to have it pressure tested at my AD quite often.

[1675-David]

There is no question that a 1680 can perform as intended under water. The problems and costs associated with the replacement of damaged parts if, for some reason, the water tightness should fail is the rub for most 1680 owners.

[gt0279a]

Originally Posted by 1675-David

There is no question that a 1680 can perform as intended under water. The problems and costs associated with the replacement of damaged parts if, for some reason, the water tightness should fail is the rub for most 1680 owners.

Agree. I owned this beauty for several years and swam with it no problem but it was always in the back of my mind what it would cost to replace the dial and/or hands should water damage occur.

[502 to Right]

Originally Posted by 1675-David

There is no question that a 1680 can perform as intended under water. The problems and costs associated with the replacement of damaged parts if, for some reason, the water tightness should fail is the rub for most 1680 owners.

That's actually part of the reason I'm favoring getting a Tudor 79090. In addition to being my preferred color, blue, it houses the ETA 2824-2, which will be less of a hassle to service in the future due to the wide availability of ETA 2824-2 parts.

[linesiders]

Hey Teddy Ballgame,

Good condition watch, properly gone thru by competent watchmakers, you would be fine.

This 1961 Tudor Sub has been tested, and passed, to 6ATM



It could go diving for bass, or diving for beers by the Red Seat

[zapokee]

I never understand the insistence on swimming with vintage Rolexes. I get that's what they were made for, but that was before they cost tens of thousands of dollars.

Nobody expects an underwater catastrophe, but they often happen, as the recent OceanGate submarine disaster has shown.

Get a Casio for the pool.

[502 to Right]

Originally Posted by linesiders

Hey Teddy Ballgame,

Good condition watch, properly gone thru by competent watchmakers, you would be fine.

This 1961 Tudor Sub has been tested, and passed, to 6ATM



It could go diving for bass, or diving for beers by the Red Seat

Ha ha. Very few people get the reference. Ted retired 10 years before I was born but he was always my favorite baseball player. I still have "My Turn at Bat" and "The Science of Hitting" on my bookshelf--I've had them since I was a kid.

[recapt]

I am also considering a 1680 as part of a small rotation. Aside from the waterproofness question, would you say they are up for the task of being a daily driver if properly serviced?

[southtexas]

Originally Posted by recapt

I am also considering a 1680 as part of a small rotation. Aside from the waterproofness question, would you say they are up for the task of being a daily driver if properly serviced?

My wife and I rotate a 1680 red sub as a near daily so, yes, my vote is it’s up to the task. I don’t wear it in the water, it’s just not worth the risk and headache to me to have to find a replacement dial and hands in case a $1 gasket decides to fail.

[recapt]

Originally Posted by southtexas

My wife and I rotate a 1680 red sub as a near daily so, yes, my vote is it’s up to the task. I don’t wear it in the water, it’s just not worth the risk and headache to me to have to find a replacement dial and hands in case a $1 gasket decides to fail.

That's helpful context. So, I assume that hand-washing and rainy days are fine but showering is not? Is that where you personally draw the line?

[southtexas]

Originally Posted by recapt

That's helpful context. So, I assume that hand-washing and rainy days are fine but showering is not? Is that where you personally draw the line?

I’ll wear it flats fishing or offshore, but not in the pool or beach. Not sure if that tells you anything or not.

I guess I’m most concerned with submerging it for extended periods of time. Yes I know it sounds ridiculous…but I’ve looked in the back of enough old watchmakers cabinets to know loose mint dials are RARE.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[MorningTundra]

There's a big difference between getting it wet and actually going diving with them. I've been diving with 1680's without any adverse outcomes. Just rinse off the salt and service them, and you'll find them quite practical.

[Tools]

Originally Posted by 502 to Right

. . .
I've always read that "vintage" watches should not be taken in the water. But in the case of a Rolex 1680 or a Tudor 79090 I wonder if that's really the case if the watch has been properly serviced and gaskets replaced.

. . .

You don't take vintage into the water because of the risk of loss, not because it might not be as waterproof as it was when new.

Risk might be acceptable to you if you are assured the seals and sealing surfaces are sound, and perhaps 99.9% of the time you will be fine.

With vintage, however, many of the parts and valuable dials and hands cannot be fixed. They could be replaced or repaired with considerable work and expense, but they will never be "original" again - that clock cannot be reset once it is breached.

Risk needs to be evaluated accordingly with every piece you might have. The risk is not as great for a nice 1680 from later years but may be wholly unacceptable for a 1680 Red of any year.

[502 to Right]

Originally Posted by Tools

You don't take vintage into the water because of the risk of loss, not because it might not be as waterproof as it was when new.

Risk might be acceptable to you if you are assured the seals and sealing surfaces are sound, and perhaps 99.9% of the time you will be fine.

With vintage, however, many of the parts and valuable dials and hands cannot be fixed. They could be replaced or repaired with considerable work and expense, but they will never be "original" again - that clock cannot be reset once it is breached.

Risk needs to be evaluated accordingly with every piece you might have. The risk is not as great for a nice 1680 from later years but may be wholly unacceptable for a 1680 Red of any year.

That's why I'm thinking a 1990's Tudor Sub would be appropriate. I wouldn't be nervous swimming with one.

[77T]

So much of the calculus has to do with the actual Watch you buy.

Each vintage model has had its own saga to make it to the dealers who sell them in vintageland. Corroded threads, replaced OEM gaskets with generic ones, incorrect spec’d crystals, generic tubes…YMMV.

So you are in a minefield unless the dealer is one who could bring a 1680 to proper “like new” and authentic condition.

One last point - that is, how long will Rolex/Tudor make replacement gaskets, crystals, and parts for an already 30+ year old model to keep it water resistant.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

[linesiders]

Originally Posted by 502 to Right

Ha ha. Very few people get the reference. Ted retired 10 years before I was born but he was always my favorite baseball player. I still have "My Turn at Bat" and "The Science of Hitting" on my bookshelf--I've had them since I was a kid.

Hahaha. My grandfather was a big fan, particularly in the fishing side.

Mom was Yaz's occasional secretary, smokes & booze in the desk, have several Yaz signed balls & bats, etc

[Dan S]

This question is asked pretty frequently, and the answer about the risk of damage definitely resonates with me. However, from a practical perspective, I think the situation is pretty variable, and more nuanced than most of the answers given. It really depends on the watch, and what decisions you're willing to make, so here is my perspective based on my own experiences.

Some 50-60 year old Rolex Subs are still in fantastic condition, with no pitting on the sealing surfaces or corrosion on the crown tube, and the crystal is still in great shape. In that case, the watch may pass a 100m pressure test with only new seals.

However, it's not uncommon to find some things that may affect water resistance. If the watch doesn't pass a full three-stage 100m pressure test after replacing seals, you could choose to start making some changes. For example, the crystal and crown seal are often the culprits, so you can replace the crystal/seal and crown-tube/crown assembly if you are willing to compromise on originality, and that will often help. If that doesn't do it, there may be some pitting on the case-back flange, or the back of the case itself, which is pretty common on the vintage 316 SS cases. If not too bad, the seal will still give decent water resistance, but the watch may not pass a full pressure test. In those situations, swimming might be ok, but I feel it's not worth the risk. Some people will attempt a laser welding repair for the pitting, but in my experience, laser welding of porous surfaces is an inconsistent solution, and expensive.

I'll just note that "pressure test" means different things to different people. So one watchmaker may happily report that your watch passed a pressure test, while another watchmaker will report that the same watch did not pass a more thorough pressure test and provide more details.

[Harmon Rabb]

I know an older gentleman that uses his Rolex in the sauna at all times. Old vintage pieces from the 60’s including his old friend - a rail dial 1665 recently serviced by Rolex.

If a 1680 is newly serviced and cleared by Rolex that it’s waterproof with a new acrylic cristal and seals I see no problem using it while swimming in the ocean nears the beach or in a swimming pool. You could probably dive with it also without problem with tubes. Of course something can fail, but I think that risk is very narrow. I’ve been using my vintage Rolex during holidays abroad and I would rather loose a Rolex on the ocean floor than leaving it behind at a hotel safe or hidden in a shoe at the beach or for the matter locked into a rental car hidden away.

You can daily any vintage Rolex as well as a factory new watch. Some people collect watches. Others use them while collecting them and have found memories from that. I see no point in buying cars or watches and then be afraid of something happens while using them. At the end of the day it’s just a car or a watch. Enjoy them while you still can.

[Dan S]

Originally Posted by Harmon Rabb

I know an older gentleman that uses his Rolex in the sauna at all times. Old vintage pieces from the 60’s including his old friend - a rail dial 1665 recently serviced by Rolex.

If a 1680 is newly serviced and cleared by Rolex that it’s waterproof with a new acrylic cristal and seals I see no problem using it while swimming in the ocean nears the beach or in a swimming pool. You could probably dive with it also without problem with tubes. Of course something can fail, but I think that risk is very narrow. I’ve been using my vintage Rolex during holidays abroad and I would rather loose a Rolex on the ocean floor than leaving it behind at a hotel safe or hidden in a shoe at the beach or for the matter locked into a rental car hidden away.

You can daily any vintage Rolex as well as a factory new watch. Some people collect watches. Others use them while collecting them and have found memories from that. I see no point in buying cars or watches and then be afraid of something happens while using them. At the end of the day it’s just a car or a watch. Enjoy them while you still can.

Of course, Rolex will replace everything necessary, including the case, to restore water resistance. That's one approach, but it often results in shaving 50% of the value off of a highly collectible piece, and IMO the service parts destroy the vintage charm.

[Harmon Rabb]

Originally Posted by Dan S

Of course, Rolex will replace everything necessary, including the case, to restore water resistance. That's one approach, but it often results in shaving 50% of the value off of a highly collectible piece, and IMO the service parts destroy the vintage charm.

If that would be the case maybe it’s better to retire the watch from those duties.

When I had my vintage Rolex serviced nothing like that was needed to get the watches diving proof to deeper levels than I ever going to expose the watches for.

Should something fail then the watch would loose market value as it’s almost impossible to restore with period correct parts. It would be very expensive and time consuming also.

Many owning vintage pieces has bought their watches many years ago for much less money than they are worth today to be used. They might have another approach like I do. I never bought my watches for speculation. In my mind they own me nothing. They already have a worn look from years of use. Another mark doesn’t matter.

With that said I take precautious actions to avoid damaging the watches but won’t keep them totally safe at all times as I want to be able to use them. Making sure that they are tested for water so that you may use it in a swimming pool or ocean is the least you can do. I also skiing with my watches and riding motorbikes on road and track days. To be honest they are in the same condition as the day I bought them. Had it been a factory new Rolex it would have all those hairline scratches people are afraid of getting. Different times today.

[502 to Right]

Originally Posted by Dan S

Of course, Rolex will replace everything necessary, including the case, to restore water resistance. That's one approach, but it often results in shaving 50% of the value off of a highly collectible piece, and IMO the service parts destroy the vintage charm.

I totally agree that servicing a rare old watch can kill the value if parts are replaced.

I will note that in my case I am looking for a standard Rolex 1680, or more likely, a Tudor 79090. If crowns, tubes, and/or crystals need to be replaced to make it properly water resistant for my purposes, that wouldn't bother me at all. In the end I want a nice looking watch that can be used for its intended purpose. I don't care so much for originality.

[Tools]

Originally Posted by 502 to Right

. . .
I will note that in my case I am looking for a standard Rolex 1680, or more likely, a Tudor 79090. If crowns, tubes, and/or crystals need to be replaced to make it properly water resistant for my purposes, that wouldn't bother me at all. In the end I want a nice looking watch that can be used for its intended purpose. I don't care so much for originality.

There is nothing wrong with this approach.

Might I suggest that you look into the watches you like that have already had dial and hand replacements or been refurbished to the level you would be comfortable with on an everyday basis.

There are plenty around, and you would not be trading in those old parts that somebody else may want to keep as-is. You might even save a few bucks.

[502 to Right]

Originally Posted by Tools

There is nothing wrong with this approach.

Might I suggest that you look into the watches you like that have already had dial and hand replacements or been refurbished to the level you would be comfortable with on an everyday basis.

There are plenty around, and you would not be trading in those old parts that somebody else may want to keep as-is. You might even save a few bucks.

That's good advice. And that's exactly what I'm thinking. I was looking at a 79090 on ebay that clearly had a service dial and hands and I thought, "would not bother me at all."

[Dan S]

Originally Posted by 502 to Right

I totally agree that servicing a rare old watch can kill the value if parts are replaced.

I will note that in my case I am looking for a standard Rolex 1680, or more likely, a Tudor 79090. If crowns, tubes, and/or crystals need to be replaced to make it properly water resistant for my purposes, that wouldn't bother me at all. In the end I want a nice looking watch that can be used for its intended purpose. I don't care so much for originality.

An independent watchmaker would certainly be willing to do this sort of a la carte restoration. With Rolex, you are at their mercy. For example, they often require replacement of hands.