Why isn't Water resistance given more importance?

[Syed117]

I find that water resistance isn't given enough importance by luxury watchmakers.

One of the things I truly respect about rolex is how well sealed their cases are.

I'm not saying that every watch has to be the deepsea, but it seems like 100m of water resistance shouldn't be too difficult for these companies to manage if every $100 seiko can.

It's frustrating to see speedmasters, royal oaks, and many other watches with 50m or less ratings. I doubt anything would happen with normal use and 50m is probably fine but most recommend not swimming or getting watches with less than 100m resistance too wet.

So what is it exactly? Rubber seals add too much thickness? It's just not a priority?

[lapince]

I agree and have also wondered about this, especially for Richard Mille watches which, as far as I know please correct me if I am wrong, have a 30m WR, of course not their diver models, but they are the ultra top notch in sport watches and really don't get why they don't make a WR with which you can swim, as 30m is clearly not swimmable, it's the WR of most Patek dress pieces, at least the ones which have WR as many don't, so the "best" sport watches by far, RM, having a measly 30m, that for me is the most incredible example and something I really don't understand, I get that most people won't go for a swim with a 100K watch, even if it has 100m WR, but for me it should be a must in all modern watches, especially sporty ones, to have 100m.

As for thickness the Patek Nautilus 5711 which is ultra thin has 120m WR, so if they want they can do a good WR while still being very thin…

About the necessary WR to actually swim it's hard to really know at which one you can swim, my 5712 has 60WR and I've heard/read contradictory statements, some say yes, others say no, hard to be sure, in any case since I got the AP diver not hard guessing which watch will be on swimming duty

[GB-man]

Not all watches are designed for water use. That said, I strongly prefer a swimable WR. I swim with all my watches, sans 1815. That might be next on the block as I don't like taking my watch off.

[lapince]

Originally Posted by GB-man

Not all watches are designed for water use. That said, I strongly prefer a swimable WR. I swim with all my watches, sans 1815. That might be next on the block as I don't like taking my watch off.

I understand when it comes to true dress watches, but for sport watches my opinion is that you should be able to swim with them, the 30m WR of RM's isn't gonna stop me getting one some day if I can but if they did 100m it would be a clear plus

[T. Ferguson]

The only thing that comes to my mind is the companies like Rolex and Omega etc. that built their reputations as rugged tool watches come with 100m as a given basically. I don't think RM and certainly Patek consider themselves tool watch makers as their main reputation. But it is a bit surprising for RM in that they've got athletes like Watson and Nidal playing sports with their watch on the wrist so they do seem to want to convey a sport/tool watch type vibe.

[lapince]

Originally Posted by T. Ferguson

The only thing that comes to my mind is the companies like Rolex and Omega etc. that built their reputations as rugged tool watches come with 100m as a given basically. I don't think RM and certainly Patek consider themselves tool watch makers as their main reputation. But it is a bit surprising for RM in that they've got athletes like Watson and Nidal playing sports with their watch on the wrist so they do seem to want to convey a sport/tool watch type vibe.

RM is clearly the ultra modern sport watch IMO, it's ultra high tech horology sport watches, but in no way a tool watch, well at least that's how I perceive them

[capote]

I agree that WR should be a priority. I have a vintage Longines with a snap-on back and I feel like I have to plan ahead when I'm wearing it.

[el1125]

I swim with my RM 11 all the time. No prob 👍

[josephvman]

Is 30m truly not swimmable? I realize it's not a dive watch but is a 30m watch not capable of pool time or swimming laps? I just bought a 30m Omega and the dealer indicated this was okay for a 30m watch, and only mentioned not to use the pushers.

[slcbbrown]

WR is a big deal to me. I've got a bunch of watches that I like that have poor (less than 100m or good enough for swimming). I traded away a Speedy, in part, because as a large, sporty watch it had dress watch WR.

[ronin_ph]

I live in 'the islands', and virtually all leisure/vacation revolves around beach/pool/jacuzzi/tub/etc.
Hence, I also tend to stick to diving watches which I can do anything, anywhere. Eg. wear fishing or on jet ski then wear to dinner.
Have stayed away from speedmaster for this reason.

Sent from my SM-G9250 using Tapatalk

[Andad]

It comes down to Standards.

A watch rated to 10 metres should be capable of that depth + a margin.

Unfortunately some are usually only recommended for washing your hands.

Even Omega seem to be one level behind?

To me 30, 50 & 100 metres should be better than just 'submersion in water' - that should include scuba diving to their rated depth.
Not many can freedive to 120 - 150 metres?

How many divers do I know who have scuba dived to 200 metres......none.

[HL65]

Rolex makes sports watches for the most part not every luxury watchmaker focuses on sports watches. Why would anyone want to swim with a nice dress watch on a leather strap let alone even wear it to the beach or pool?

[srvrf]

Originally Posted by HL65

Rolex makes sports watches for the most part not every luxury watchmaker focuses on sports watches. Why would anyone want to swim with a nice dress watch on a leather strap let alone even wear it to the beach or pool?

I agree, but think that watches marketed as sports watches should at least be suitable for swimming/showering/beach. Those with rubber straps and/or sporty looks would fall into this category. Pretty much every brand makes dedicated diving watches with 300m WR, but a lot of the iconic sports watches have only a 50m rating. Examples include the following:

Richard Mille (many including 010, 011)
Omega Speedmaster (original) - but I guess it is because there is no water in space
AP RO, ROC - my 25860 would probably be my everyday watch if it weren't for the poor WR rating.
IWC Yacht Club (3902, 3905: 60m) - really? So you can be on your yacht with it, but not in the water?
JLC Reverso Squadra - only for real polo, not water polo.
Breitling Navitimer - I know the rotating bezel and leather strap make it a land-only watch, but I could picture it on rubber as a sport watch

I'm not sure how much extra effort/engineering would be required to make some of these icons have more WR. I guess it goes to say that there is no single perfect watch that suits all occasions - well maybe a Nautilus but that's for another thread

[watchwatcher]

Probably just not a priority...my guess.

[GradyPhilpott]

I personally like for my watches to be able to survive washing my hands or a sudden downpour.

I know that dress watches don't need to measure up to sports watches, but I've always shaken my head when I read the water resistance of Jules Audemar watches.

Here's a beautiful specimen with a water resistance that doesn't even make most charts.

http://www.audemarspiguet.com/en/wat...C.OO.A002CR.01