Sunk the Red Sub……

[TimRolex]

Originally Posted by alwayshere

Reminding / advising the OP to not swim with vintage watches to prevent these incidents from happening is...our selfishness?

you just made a fool of yourself...

I like how you just glazed right over my other points and went straight to the selfish part.

Yes, in my opinion, it is selfish to come into a thread, posted by a brand new member asking for advice in restoring his already damaged watch, and rip into him for a mistake he already knows he made...just so that you can get Internet strangers to give you some cheesy little smilies toasting each other with beer. Yay for you!

Certainly you can choose to skip right past this point as well, and then call me a fool again, but I'll post it anyway:

The OP posted not for someone to "remind / advise" him not to swim with his watch, but to get advice on its salvageability and restoration from a group of people he thought might be helpful. He seemed genuinely interested in documenting the process for us and keeping us up to date on the progress, and it seemed OP might be a valuable addition to this community. He seemed genuinely appreciative for the couple dozen or so positive comments giving him useful advice and wishing him well.

But then, right after his last post (ever? I guess we will wait and see), someone decided it would be a good idea to post this...and he hasn't been back since:

Originally Posted by alwayshere

jesus

why did you go swimming with a red sub..... expensive lesson

I wonder who that could have been? Talk about making a fool of yourself...wow.

Final point: at what point in his 45 years of ownership and likely hundreds (thousands?) of times he has swum with his watch (presumably without issue) did it become vintage and therefore inadvisable to swim with it any longer? Was there a particular day he should have retired it from water duty? After a particular number of submersions? I just bought my first real dive watch last year and I intend on keeping it for a really long time, so I am genuinely curious when I should no longer swim with it.

[05carbondrz]

Originally Posted by TimRolex

I like how you just glazed right over my other points and went straight to the selfish part.

Yes, in my opinion, it is selfish to come into a thread, posted by a brand new member asking for advice in restoring his already damaged watch, and rip into him for a mistake he already knows he made...just so that you can get Internet strangers to give you some cheesy little smilies toasting each other with beer. Yay for you!

Certainly you can choose to skip right past this point as well, and then call me a fool again, but I'll post it anyway:

The OP posted not for someone to "remind / advise" him not to swim with his watch, but to get advice on its salvageability and restoration from a group of people he thought might be helpful. He seemed genuinely interested in documenting the process for us and keeping us up to date on the progress, and it seemed OP might be a valuable addition to this community. He seemed genuinely appreciative for the couple dozen or so positive comments giving him useful advice and wishing him well.

But then, right after his last post (ever? I guess we will wait and see), someone decided it would be a good idea to post this...and he hasn't been back since:


I wonder who that could have been? Talk about making a fool of yourself...wow.

Final point: at what point in his 45 years of ownership and likely hundreds (thousands?) of times he has swum with his watch (presumably without issue) did it become vintage and therefore inadvisable to swim with it any longer? Was there a particular day he should have retired it from water duty? After a particular number of submersions? I just bought my first real dive watch last year and I intend on keeping it for a really long time, so I am genuinely curious when I should no longer swim with it.

When it's worth it's worth 20 Times what You paid for it.

[TimRolex]

Originally Posted by 05carbondrz

When it's worth it's worth 20 Times what You paid for it.

So, make all decisions in life based on money. Got it.

[jedly1]

Originally Posted by TimRolex

I like how you just glazed right over my other points and went straight to the selfish part.

Yes, in my opinion, it is selfish to come into a thread, posted by a brand new member asking for advice in restoring his already damaged watch, and rip into him for a mistake he already knows he made...just so that you can get Internet strangers to give you some cheesy little smilies toasting each other with beer. Yay for you!

Certainly you can choose to skip right past this point as well, and then call me a fool again, but I'll post it anyway:

The OP posted not for someone to "remind / advise" him not to swim with his watch, but to get advice on its salvageability and restoration from a group of people he thought might be helpful. He seemed genuinely interested in documenting the process for us and keeping us up to date on the progress, and it seemed OP might be a valuable addition to this community. He seemed genuinely appreciative for the couple dozen or so positive comments giving him useful advice and wishing him well.

But then, right after his last post (ever? I guess we will wait and see), someone decided it would be a good idea to post this...and he hasn't been back since:


I wonder who that could have been? Talk about making a fool of yourself...wow.

Final point: at what point in his 45 years of ownership and likely hundreds (thousands?) of times he has swum with his watch (presumably without issue) did it become vintage and therefore inadvisable to swim with it any longer? Was there a particular day he should have retired it from water duty? After a particular number of submersions? I just bought my first real dive watch last year and I intend on keeping it for a really long time, so I am genuinely curious when I should no longer swim with it.

well said.

and having the pleasure of meeting peter and getting the restoration underway , i have to say he's a perfectly nice, normal human being , not some watch geek who spends all their time wondering how much their watch may be worth .

His watch i just a faithful tool thats been as the end of his arm for a long time , has been regularly serviced ( so you can't shoot him under that excuse either) and made the same mistake that many a well seasoned WIS has had in a mad moment when they were actually busy living their lives rather than swooning over the investment on their wrist ( or actually usually in the safe)

[highcotton]

People on this board get really upset when you use the watch the way it was intended. I have read on here where people will not carry their watch into a bathroom in their own home if the shower is running because the steam may infiltrate it.

I guess I am crazy but I do not own a watch that I do not swim with. If I am wearing it it does what I am doing that day. I have a red submariner and an underline dial 7928 that I swim and sometimes dive with. Wear it and enjoy it.

People that own classic automobiles do not worry about driving them as much as people worry about their watches. I would say the chances of having a wreck are 10 times more likely than water damage to a properly maintained dive watch.

[alwayshere]

Originally Posted by TimRolex

I like how you just glazed right over my other points and went straight to the selfish part.

Yes, in my opinion, it is selfish to come into a thread, posted by a brand new member asking for advice in restoring his already damaged watch, and rip into him for a mistake he already knows he made...just so that you can get Internet strangers to give you some cheesy little smilies toasting each other with beer. Yay for you!

Certainly you can choose to skip right past this point as well, and then call me a fool again, but I'll post it anyway:

The OP posted not for someone to "remind / advise" him not to swim with his watch, but to get advice on its salvageability and restoration from a group of people he thought might be helpful. He seemed genuinely interested in documenting the process for us and keeping us up to date on the progress, and it seemed OP might be a valuable addition to this community. He seemed genuinely appreciative for the couple dozen or so positive comments giving him useful advice and wishing him well.

But then, right after his last post (ever? I guess we will wait and see), someone decided it would be a good idea to post this...and he hasn't been back since:


I wonder who that could have been? Talk about making a fool of yourself...wow.

Final point: at what point in his 45 years of ownership and likely hundreds (thousands?) of times he has swum with his watch (presumably without issue) did it become vintage and therefore inadvisable to swim with it any longer? Was there a particular day he should have retired it from water duty? After a particular number of submersions? I just bought my first real dive watch last year and I intend on keeping it for a really long time, so I am genuinely curious when I should no longer swim with it.

No one is toasting beers - stop making assumptions of the broader group here who thinks swimming with a red sub is not recommended.

Everyone who has shared similar notion to mine (which seems the majority in this thread, mind you) have NOT ripped into the OP aside from stating its not a good idea to swim with it. Guess what? this thread will save the next person who has a vintage red sub thinking of going for a swim..and if so, i'm happy with that result.

You can swim with yours all you want and if it indeed one day becomes an expensive vintage and something like this happens to you, shoot me a message

[highcotton]

Okay, so everybody agrees you should not swim with a red sub. What is the year model sub that is safe to swim with? Red writing = no swim, matte dial = no swim, tritium dial dial = no swim, gilt dial = no swim. Just to be safe it it says Rolex = no swim.

[TimRolex]

Originally Posted by alwayshere

No one is toasting beers - stop making assumptions of the broader group here who thinks swimming with a red sub is not recommended.

Everyone who has shared similar notion to mine (which seems the majority in this thread, mind you) have NOT ripped into the OP aside from stating its not a good idea to swim with it. Guess what? this thread will save the next person who has a vintage red sub thinking of going for a swim..and if so, i'm happy with that result.

You can swim with yours all you want and if it indeed one day becomes an expensive vintage and something like this happens to you, shoot me a message

So far, it appears you're right, the majority do agree with you...by a VERY small margin: 14-13 (speaking of "making assumptions about the broader group..."). By the way, I started counting at your first post, since you were the first who thought it a good idea to greet a new member looking for advice about a damaged watch with a personal attack and insult (again, well done on that).

Another area where you're correct: everyone else who thinks its a bad idea to swim with a vintage watch "have NOT ripped into the OP...", but you DID. Stop trying to act like you're some internet hero saving others from the same mistake by being a dick. You could have just as easily accomplished that like others have in this thread: by being sorry for the OP, and explaining why you feel it was a mistake without making OP feel like a schmuck.

Every time you post in this thread you reveal yourself to be more and more unlikeable. But please, by all means, continue.

[Fleetlord]

Originally Posted by TimRolex

I think that most in this thread who feel OP shouldn't have gone swimming with his watch are forgetting a very important part of the story: he has owned his watch for decades and probably had been underwater with it hundreds of times. He made a mistake with the crown. But to call him out for swimming with a red sub (which, to him, was an "old friend" and likely not an investment) is ridiculous. If you're mad you may never have the chance to own OP's watch in original condition, too f-ing bad. The OP didn't ask for your opinions on whether he should have swam with his watch vs keeping it in some air tight safe. Keep your selfish opinions to yourself.

[Shawnnyang]

Wouldn't the same thing have happened with a new sub?

[swatty]

Originally Posted by Shawnnyang

Wouldn't the same thing have happened with a new sub?

No not with a trip lock crown .

[dysondiver]

its not a faithful tool , or it would still be water tight , its an old machine, do i red line my rc30 no ,,, its old and spares are getting hard to find , so it gets a little bit of respect ,
regarding the sea , an ounce of prevention is better than a pound of cure.
hopefully others may think twice , its not about money , its about keeping safe the things you care about , if that wasnt the case op would have sold the watch and bought a seiko etc.
once spares are not available , many things need more looking after.

[jedly1]

Originally Posted by dysondiver

its not a faithful tool , or it would still be water tight , its an old machine, do i red line my rc30 no ,,, its old and spares are getting hard to find , so it gets a little bit of respect ,
regarding the sea , an ounce of prevention is better than a pound of cure.
hopefully others may think twice , its not about money , its about keeping safe the things you care about , if that wasnt the case op would have sold the watch and bought a seiko etc.
once spares are not available , many things need more looking after.

its not water tight because he , by his own admission left the crown wide open - a very simple human error.,

Over the years I've heard many people on forums claim that a sub should we watertight with the crown unscrewed , but to date I've never met a rolex watchmaker who would make that claim, or guarantee such a thing or say it was something you should rely on for total submersion , nor something I've ever seen tested as part of a service , rolex or not . ...once done up peters watch is perfectly water tight even now when we tried it.

he had respect for it and had it serviced in 2012 to keep it working as it was meant to be.

the fault doesnt lie with the watch , or with choosing to use the watch for what it was meant to be used for , it lies with a minor piece of human error , and if we are going to start having a go at people for that , there will be an awful lot of people in that line waiting to get pelted with tomatoes in the TRF town square.

[scooba]

Originally Posted by jedly1

its not water tight because he , by his own admission left the crown wide open - a very simple human error.,

Over the years I've heard many people on forums claim that a sub should we watertight with the crown unscrewed , but to date I've never met a rolex watchmaker who would make that claim, or guarantee such a thing or say it was something you should rely on for total submersion , nor something I've ever seen tested as part of a service , rolex or not . ...once done up peters watch is perfectly water tight even now when we tried it.

he had respect for it and had it serviced in 2012 to keep it working as it was meant to be.

the fault doesnt lie with the watch , or with choosing to use the watch for what it was meant to be used for , it lies with a minor piece of human error , and if we are going to start having a go at people for that , there will be an awful lot of people in that line waiting to get pelted with tomatoes in the TRF town square.

Well done Jedley for stepping in and helping Peter , I expect he is gutted and readily admits it was his own fault , Can the dial be saved , I am really looking forward to see its return as good as new

[soundserious]

Please show a pic of the watch before this unfortunate incident.

[Man Of Breiz]

Peter, any update on the repair?
Good luck...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[scooba]

Originally Posted by Man Of Breiz

Peter, any update on the repair?
Good luck...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I don't know where he is with the repairs, But at the start we talked by PM and I advised him to mail a Australian/UK member who knows his vintage ,It seams they are now dealing with this RedSub as it should be dealt with, I expect it will be made good and hopefully they will show us how it has come out , Movement and case would be relatively simple to fix the dial is another matter ,

The owner won't make the mistake again of going swimming without checking the crown is wound down after this repair bill

[igatomic]

If this happens, I have been told to drop the watch in oil. Anything to stop the corrosion...especially if you can't get it cleaned quickly...

Any thoughts?

[highcotton]

Originally Posted by igatomic

If this happens, I have been told to drop the watch in oil. Anything to stop the corrosion...especially if you can't get it cleaned quickly...

Any thoughts?

I would think the oil would be bad on the dial and that is where the value is.

[nobbylon]

IF it happened to me I think i'd unscrew the back off and flush and fill with alcohol if i had any or failing that vodka.

[1675-David]

If it happened to me I'd just poo my pants and start crying...

[Paul_I]

Wishing you the best of luck.

[wearl]

very nice story Peter, a pleasure to read some of your story and philosophy on life

[PeterWM]

Thanks scooba no I haven't till now. It gets difficult filtering through those that are real recyclers and those running just a shop front. I had skipped past these guys. Thanks for the reminder.

Sent from my GT-I9505 using Tapatalk

[Gliderguy]

Words of wisdom. Really enjoyed. Thanks for sharing.

[PeterWM]

Cheers.

Sent from my GT-I9505 using Tapatalk

[ILuvSubs]

Great story about your watch Peter

Its obvious the value to you far exceeds any monetary or collectable value. I'm glad fellow TRFers were able to assist you and I look forward to hearing how you progress with its repair.

I love how the Red Sub has been a key part of your life and best of luck with getting it back working on your wrist again

[Man Of Breiz]

Peter, did you find a movement to use for the repair? Is you sub back on your wrist ?
If possible it would be greatly to have pics or the repair.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[shedlock2000]

What a tragic and euphoric story of heartbreak and restoration (figuratively and literally).

I was really moved by the journey this watch and this man shared together -- and the forecasting of future adventures to be encountered. What a life for a watch to lead; what a watch to share a life with.

I'm absolutely thrilled that good and skilled people have come together to help Peter recover his 'friend's' condition.

In some ways, don't we all want our watches to be part of our journey? I worry (a bit) about my 16753 and how it's able to resist my (not so tender) life, but -- even though it's new to me -- a journey has to start somewhere.

I do look forward to reading Peter's well written and compelling posts, and I very much hope that the next one contains a photo of him swimming with his red sub (crown well screwed down and new crystal installed). From what Peter has said, it seems that experiences are more important to him that financial value. We may not all agree on that, but it's his watch and I very much respect his desire to go through life with his watch on his wrist. Frankly, Peter, I rather like the cut of your jib!

Please post soon to update us on your friend's return to good health.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[scooba]

I noticed this thread was back up , I also was hoping for a update from Peter , fingers crossed it has ended well