Sunk the Red Sub……

[alwayshere]

Originally Posted by UNLVino

why not? That's what the thing is made for - the lesson learned is to always check to ensure the crown is down.

Hope OP get's it up and running and looking good again - it will have some character when complete.

I'm sorry, do you need to tell the time under the water? lols

Almost all collectors and watchmakers would advise not to go diving with a vintage Rolex submariner - even with the seals replaced.

I'm sure the OP has plenty of cabbage so can replace the dial, movement, etc but like I said, expensive lesson.

[nobbylon]

Originally Posted by alwayshere

I'm sorry, do you need to tell the time under the water? lols

Almost all collectors and watchmakers would advise not to go diving with a vintage Rolex submariner - even with the seals replaced.

I'm sure the OP has plenty of cabbage so can replace the dial, movement, etc but like I said, expensive lesson.

Why would they advise that? If all the seals are replaced and the watch is tested then what does it matter if it's new or 30-40yrs old.
This advice is purely based on watch value and not watch ability. I bought my Submariner 30 years ago and wear and forget it. Isn't that the point of a water resistant watch? Get them tested and use as intended. Sadly, collectors and investors and dare I say flippers have driven the attitude that a Rolex shouldn't be in the water because they are too worried about their watches instead of wearing them.

[GeorgeK]

Originally Posted by alwayshere

I'm sorry, do you need to tell the time under the water? lols

Not the point, While it is on my wrist, it can not get stolen from the locker.

A correctly serviced Sub should be water tight.

[Matt C]

Yes it should be water tight, but have you kept up with the service intervals? When was the last time you had it pressure tested? Hopefully you will be able to get the watch fixed.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[jmiicustomz]

I should think that with lots of very tedious work and time to lift layers of crud slowly, that that dial will look a million times better. Find an expert in restoration, like bob ridley, and prepare to lighten you wallet. I think you will be happy that you did and amazed at the results. Good luck! Keep us posted.

[azguy]

Originally Posted by nobbylon

Why would they advise that? If all the seals are replaced and the watch is tested then what does it matter if it's new or 30-40yrs old.

yeah, yeah, yada, yada....look at the above pictures and that worthless red sub. 50% of the value of the watch is in the dial which is 100% ruined.

I've heard from more than one watch expert that acrylic will never seat like sapphire and only a fool would swim with a red (as they put it)

[nobbylon]

Originally Posted by azguy

yeah, yeah, yada, yada....look at the above pictures and that worthless red sub. 50% of the value of the watch is in the dial which is 100% ruined.

I've heard from more than one watch expert that acrylic will never seat like sapphire and only a fool would swim with a red (as they put it)

Old acrylic can be brittle and is the reason I believe they don't recommend relying on water resistance. Simply replace the acrylic with a saphire and use as intended.
For me it's pointless owning a watch that says it's depth rating on the dial but leaks!
Like I said in previous posts, for some it's how valuble things are.
Isn't it strange that Rolex managed some impressive depth ratings with acrylic crystals ;)
I often hear the arguement that acrylic is better for diving than saphire as it's less prone to shatter when it's new. I'm still on my original saphire of 30 years, a few chips yes but it's still keeping water out.

[timnik]

I don't even do the washing up with my GMT on!

It's nearly 50 years old, it's in good nick etc etc.

Why tempt fate?

[SeaAndSky]

Originally Posted by UNLVino

why not? That's what the thing is made for - the lesson learned is to always check to ensure the crown is down.

Hope OP get's it up and running and looking good again - it will have some character when complete.

I couldn't agree more.

[Fleetlord]

Originally Posted by azguy

yeah, yeah, yada, yada....look at the above pictures and that worthless red sub. 50% of the value of the watch is in the dial which is 100% ruined.

I've heard from more than one watch expert that acrylic will never seat like sapphire and only a fool would swim with a red (as they put it)

Totally agreed. It's about the ramifications of failure.

You dive with a cheap watch and if its WR fails, or you forget to screw down the crown, it doesn't matter.

You dive with a valuable vintage Rolex and if it fails, it's an absolute disaster that might never be the same and will cost a fortune to repair...

Just because you can, doesn't mean you should.....

[brandrea]

Originally Posted by azguy

yeah, yeah, yada, yada....look at the above pictures and that worthless red sub. 50% of the value of the watch is in the dial which is 100% ruined.

I've heard from more than one watch expert that acrylic will never seat like sapphire and only a fool would swim with a red (as they put it)

Unfortunately I have to agree. Just because you can doesn't mean you should.

To the OP, I guess it's an expensive lesson learned. VERY sorry to hear of this.

[swish77]

Originally Posted by UNLVino

why not? That's what the thing is made for - the lesson learned is to always check to ensure the crown is down.

Hope OP get's it up and running and looking good again - it will have some character when complete.

Agreed. Lesson is to always make sure your watch (vintage or modern) is properly serviced and crown is secure when swimming. I often take my watches in the water. They're designed for that. If I have any doubt, I don't do it, of course. I feel for the OP. Let's hope the watch can be resurrected. Good luck.

[05carbondrz]

Originally Posted by nobbylon

Old acrylic can be brittle and is the reason I believe they don't recommend relying on water resistance. Simply replace the acrylic with a saphire and use as intended.
For me it's pointless owning a watch that says it's depth rating on the dial but leaks!
Like I said in previous posts, for some it's how valuble things are.
Isn't it strange that Rolex managed some impressive depth ratings with acrylic crystals ;)
I often hear the arguement that acrylic is better for diving than saphire as it's less prone to shatter when it's new. I'm still on my original saphire of 30 years, a few chips yes but it's still keeping water out.

You do know that You can't just switch to a sapphire Crystal,Right?

[1675-David]

there is a good reason for not swimming with a rare vintage timepiece even if it was designed to be waterproof. If a modern sub fails in the shower you send it in and it comes back fixed, problem solved. Get water into your precious red sub your looking at grief on a whole different scale...

[nobbylon]

Originally Posted by 05carbondrz

You do know that You can't just switch to a sapphire Crystal,Right?

I have no idea about swapping acrylic for saphire with Rolex but I do know that Seiko Hardlex is regularly swapped for saphire with no problems.
Not being a collector or investor I personally don't see the point of a Rolex dive watch unless you can dive with it. At the end of the day this thread was started by someone who obviously thought the same and It's just unfortunate thet it leaked. Once it's fixed and sealed I'd have no problm diving with it.
I wish the OP good fortune getting it fixed up but I also hope that it will get used as it was intended when manufactured and not left sat in a safe or watch box to be brought out and looked at occasionally.

[Suprageex]

Originally Posted by nobbylon

Why would they advise that? If all the seals are replaced and the watch is tested then what does it matter if it's new or 30-40yrs old.
This advice is purely based on watch value and not watch ability. I bought my Submariner 30 years ago and wear and forget it. Isn't that the point of a water resistant watch? Get them tested and use as intended. Sadly, collectors and investors and dare I say flippers have driven the attitude that a Rolex shouldn't be in the water because they are too worried about their watches instead of wearing them.

This is why:
http://www.rolexforums.com/showthread.php?t=287895

Originally Posted by nobbylon

Sadly, collectors and investors and dare I say flippers have driven the attitude that a Rolex shouldn't be in the water because they are too worried about their watches instead of wearing them.

bullcrap. Would you take your vintage Aston Martin out for a time attack at the Nürburgring? Sure, you could, but *should* you?

[mapalfa]

Originally Posted by Suprageex

Would you take your vintage Aston Martin out for a time attack at the Nürburgring? Sure, you could, but *should* you?

Having watched the Aston owners club during a track day, yes, there's lots who would and believe you should. But that's a different story.

[nobbylon]

Originally Posted by Suprageex

This is why:
http://www.rolexforums.com/showthread.php?t=287895


bullcrap. Would you take your vintage Aston Martin out for a time attack at the Nürburgring? Sure, you could, but *should* you?

Each to their own good man. I don't have an Aston but I do regularly drive an old air cooled carrera as fast as possible, legally of course and also a vintage BMW motorcycle that I max out a few times a year. Should I now leave them in a garage because they are worth high prices driven by collectors?
no way!
I really like old classic gear and think that more pleasure can be derived from using rather than watching.

[JJL]

Originally Posted by Fleetlord

Totally agreed. It's about the ramifications of failure.

You dive with a cheap watch and if its WR fails, or you forget to screw down the crown, it doesn't matter.

You dive with a valuable vintage Rolex and if it fails, it's an absolute disaster that might never be the same and will cost a fortune to repair...

Just because you can, doesn't mean you should.....

I totally agree. It baffles me that others would think differently. Why take the risk on an extremely expensive, hard to replace item? The upside is smothered by the downside IMO.

I mean don't get me wrong, I own a Red 1680 Sub and it certainly pains me to have a Submariner that I keep out of the water, but for me I accepted that going into the purchase. Maybe it's a different mindset for those who have had them for decades and just treat it like the same $250 drive watch they paid for it. Or maybe $10-15k isn't a big deal to them. Not I though :)

[alwayshere]

Originally Posted by azguy

yeah, yeah, yada, yada....look at the above pictures and that worthless red sub. 50% of the value of the watch is in the dial which is 100% ruined.

I've heard from more than one watch expert that acrylic will never seat like sapphire and only a fool would swim with a red (as they put it)

Thank you!

Finally someone who actually understands risk

[1675-David]

There is also a certain level of "taking responsibility for future generations" going on here... It's thanks to collectors who don't scuba dive, climb mountains, go to war, crash cars and take showers with there Rolexs on that there are clean well preserved pieces out there for us to covet. It could be argued that it's thanks to those who scuba dive, climb mountains, go to war, crash cars and take showers with there Rolexs on that the best examples demand such a premium but where do you draw the line? If you own an extremely rare museum piece surely there is a smidgen of responsibility not to destroy it bungy jumping if you are part of a collector/aficionado community?

[nobbylon]

Originally Posted by 1675-David

There is also a certain level of "taking responsibility for future generations" going on here... It's thanks to collectors who don't scuba dive, climb mountains, go to war, crash cars and take showers with there Rolexs on that there are clean well preserved pieces out there for us to covet. It could be argued that it's thanks to those who scuba dive, climb mountains, go to war, crash cars and take showers with there Rolexs on that the best examples demand such a premium but where do you draw the line? If you own an extremely rare museum piece surely there is a smidgen of responsibility not to destroy it bungy jumping if you are part of a collector/aficionado community?

Please........without wishing to start an arguement that is the biggest load of rubbish I've heard so far. We are talking about watches here and not the 'hanging gardens of Babylon'
All I've heard so far here is a wish to protect investment and it can definately be argued that because there are people who covet items like old Rolex, vintage cars, cameras etc that prices are over inflated. A true collector cares not for values as doesn't a user of these things. Prices are driven by people wishing to make money. I have no horse in this race, just a view that these objects are much nicer being used as intended and not parked in a heated garage or stored in dry boxes.
There is no good reason that one of these watches, serviced properly and sealed should not be used! It's unfortunate that this one leaked but it could have been prevented had it been checked and sealed.
I can see from comment that my view is lost on all but a few so I'll let the collectors worry about their investments and I'll concern myself with making sure I use what I have in ways that were intended when manufactured.
kind regards john

[dysondiver]

its a machine , anything mechanical will break ,,, be prepared for that.
never put anything into the sea that your not willing to either loose or destroy.
sorry to see your flooded watch , anything flooded is sad , i hope you get a great repair.

[RJC1]

Originally Posted by nobbylon

Old acrylic can be brittle and is the reason I believe they don't recommend relying on water resistance. Simply replace the acrylic with a saphire and use as intended.
For me it's pointless owning a watch that says it's depth rating on the dial but leaks!
Like I said in previous posts, for some it's how valuble things are.
Isn't it strange that Rolex managed some impressive depth ratings with acrylic crystals ;)
I often hear the arguement that acrylic is better for diving than saphire as it's less prone to shatter when it's new. I'm still on my original saphire of 30 years, a few chips yes but it's still keeping water out.

For you it may be pointless, but many of us save up for years to buy these watches and aren't willing to risk them. If you don't mind risking $12-15k, then by all means go for it.

It's not a big deal for me to just wear my modern sub when I know I'll be swimming and if something happens it can easily be fixed or replaced. If something happens to my red sub, game over.

As for switching out for a sapphire crystal... part of the charm of these vintage pieces is the domed plexi and the top hat crystals.

[alwayshere]

Originally Posted by nobbylon

Please........without wishing to start an arguement that is the biggest load of rubbish I've heard so far. We are talking about watches here and not the 'hanging gardens of Babylon'
All I've heard so far here is a wish to protect investment and it can definately be argued that because there are people who covet items like old Rolex, vintage cars, cameras etc that prices are over inflated. A true collector cares not for values as doesn't a user of these things. Prices are driven by people wishing to make money. I have no horse in this race, just a view that these objects are much nicer being used as intended and not parked in a heated garage or stored in dry boxes.
There is no good reason that one of these watches, serviced properly and sealed should not be used! It's unfortunate that this one leaked but it could have been prevented had it been checked and sealed.
I can see from comment that my view is lost on all but a few so I'll let the collectors worry about their investments and I'll concern myself with making sure I use what I have in ways that were intended when manufactured.
kind regards john

i'm not going to comment further than saying you can't say "without wishing to start an argument" followed by claiming someone's comment as "biggest load of rubbish i've heard so far"

anyway, internet arguments are just silly but something to think about next time you type out your opinions

[nobbylon]

Originally Posted by alwayshere

i'm not going to comment further than saying you can't say "without wishing to start an argument" followed by claiming someone's comment as "biggest load of rubbish i've heard so far"

anyway, internet arguments are just silly but something to think about next time you type out your opinions

indeed and advice we could all use ;)
It's not an argument, it's a discussion between people of different views, that's all.

[bdex75]

To the OP, I would say that on the dial keep Michael Young in HK on your list of possible "engineers". I have seen some of his work and it has been very good. I would bet the movement is salvageable with a service person with a Rolex parts account.

I do not know anyone is Australia but there are a few good vintage experts in the US that could put it back together once you had the dial re-done. Good luck on the repairs and keep us posted.

And to those of you arguing weather he should or shouldn't have worn it. He bought the watch 45 years ago, we have no idea if it was serviced regularly as the OP has not stated.
And 45 years ago what did this watch cost? Maybe he had no idea that it was as valuable as it is??

Even if he knew its current value some people do not care. They would rather enjoy their things and deal with the fallout than never wear or use them. Just like you see guys beating on vintage cobra's at the racetrack.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[strafer_kid]

Originally Posted by dysondiver

its a machine , anything mechanical will break ,,, be prepared for that.
never put anything into the sea that your not willing to either loose or destroy.
sorry to see your flooded watch , anything flooded is sad , i hope you get a great repair.

Would agree - anything man made can either be broken or fail. It all comes down to whether you wish to take the risk. Personally, great designs and builds as they are, I would not take a chance on my vintage Rolex, unless I had no option. As it stands, there are fortunately more modern Rolex sports pieces that carry less risk and that can be repaired etc. a lot easier as someone has already mentioned.

That said, the OP was unlucky but hopefeully will be able to put the watch right again-good luck!

[1675-David]

Originally Posted by nobbylon

Please........without wishing to start an arguement that is the biggest load of rubbish I've heard so far. We are talking about watches here and not the 'hanging gardens of Babylon'
All I've heard so far here is a wish to protect investment and it can definately be argued that because there are people who covet items like old Rolex, vintage cars, cameras etc that prices are over inflated. A true collector cares not for values as doesn't a user of these things. Prices are driven by people wishing to make money. I have no horse in this race, just a view that these objects are much nicer being used as intended and not parked in a heated garage or stored in dry boxes.
There is no good reason that one of these watches, serviced properly and sealed should not be used! It's unfortunate that this one leaked but it could have been prevented had it been checked and sealed.
I can see from comment that my view is lost on all but a few so I'll let the collectors worry about their investments and I'll concern myself with making sure I use what I have in ways that were intended when manufactured.

kind regards john

John, if you own one of these and you are planning to wear it to a tequila street luge event, don't let me know... I might have to organize an intervention...

[nobbylon]

Well I have to admit that I stopped wearing my old sub' for a while as I was worried about waking up having lost it to the wind after one of many 'De Ryck' fuelled evenings. I've since grown up a bit more and don't get quite so silly so I'm wearing it again.
I don't mind water, oil, scratches or scrapes however I'd probably not wear it in some of the rougher pubs I like when I'm out. All a bit daft really as I wore it 24/7 for 25 years all over the world in some quite dodgy places and never gave it a thought :)