How long will a Rolex continue to keep its depth rating?

[VonSomething]

I've often heard people talk about vintage Rolexes and how they would keep them away from water.

In my opinion, shouldn't a watch continue to be as waterproof as it's rated for, as long as it's serviced and kept in good condition?

Or does steel and tolerances shift ever so slightly over generations that at one point a 100m WR rated watch will only make a 30m WR rating, even with new seals?

[padi56]

Originally Posted by VonSomething

I've often heard people talk about vintage Rolexes and how they would keep them away from water.

In my opinion, shouldn't a watch continue to be as waterproof as it's rated for, as long as it's serviced and kept in good condition?

Or does steel and tolerances shift ever so slightly over generations that at one point a 100m WR rated watch will only make a 30m WR rating, even with new seals?

As long as any Rolex at service and it passes pressure check it will be safe for whatever W/R its rated for.

[VonSomething]

Originally Posted by padi56

As long as any Rolex at service and it passes pressure check it will be safe for whatever W/R its rated for.

Padi, that's like saying a car that is driven at 100mph is able to drive 100mph. I am perfectly aware of that

[kieselguhr]

Everyone’s circumstance is different. So many variables determine the rate of wear of the seals. Environmental exposure, saltwater exposure, chemical exposure, duration of exposure, amount of exposure, maintenance routine or lack of, etc.

Using your own analogy, not everyone drives a car the same way or through the exact same environments, or the exact same mileage. The guy who redlines his car every chance he gets vs the guy who keeps his rpms below 3k will have very different outcomes.

Time by itself won’t be the most significant factor as the amount of time it will take to wear down the actual metal alloy will likely take many human lifetimes to actually cause any kind of shift. Especially with modern construction where the case is machined from a solid block.

Drop the watch from a significant height and that’s a different story. Now you actually have structural remodeling because of impact.

Meanwhile, the rubber seals that prevent water ingress degrade significantly faster. That is why they are replaced every service interval. Hence Peter’s answer.

[VonSomething]

Originally Posted by kieselguhr

Everyone’s circumstance is different. So many variables determine the rate of wear of the seals. Environmental exposure, saltwater exposure, chemical exposure, duration of exposure, amount of exposure, maintenance routine or lack of, etc.

Using your own analogy, not everyone drives a car the same way or through the exact same environments, or the exact same mileage. The guy who redlines his car every chance he gets vs the guy who keeps his rpms below 3k will have very different outcomes.

Of course.

I should have maybe added for a watch that goes through 'average' wear and tear.

"What is average?" - well for today's generation that would likely be being worn during an office job, going on a couple of holidays per year where it may or may not find itself in the swimming pool / sea water.

Normal maintenance, if something is wrong it gets fixed.

[padi56]

Originally Posted by VonSomething

Of course.

I should have maybe added for a watch that goes through 'average' wear and tear.

"What is average?" - well for today's generation that would likely be being worn during an office job, going on a couple of holidays per year where it may or may not find itself in the swimming pool / sea water.

Normal maintenance, if something is wrong it gets fixed.

Well dived regular with my early 1980s 5513 and my more modern 16600 SD from very late 1990s which done 5 long years underwater with well over 600 hours under with depths up to 60m in fresh and salt with no problems.But like I stated they were regular serviced like all watches should be thats used regular underwater.As long as all seals are good and pass rated pressure check no problems.

[Wired]

I believe WR is something that rolex takes a lot of pride in. That is why almost everything from their catalouge gets at least 100m wr and they produce watches as DSC.
Your description of average would be a non issue for WR with regular maintenance

[interestedinwatches]

Originally Posted by VonSomething

Padi, that's like saying a car that is driven at 100mph is able to drive 100mph. I am perfectly aware of that

Not sure why you're giving him sass. He answered your question. At RSC they pressure test your watch to the depths it has been marked to go to and then given back to you once successful.

[HogwldFLTR]

Originally Posted by VonSomething

Padi, that's like saying a car that is driven at 100mph is able to drive 100mph. I am perfectly aware of that

Not really, it's one thing to drive a car 100mph and find out that a wheel comes off and that you've crashed as opposed to having a simple $25 test done on a watch to verify its capabilities and knowing that it's capable before using it in a harsh environment. Watches should be tested periodically and verified as safe for their use. I don't believe it is even close to the same as you've suggested. Having a watch tested and fixed (if needed) is a much better option. On the other hand, a watch under warranty should always be fine.

[VonSomething]

Originally Posted by interestedinwatches

Not sure why you're giving him sass. He answered your question. At RSC they pressure test your watch to the depths it has been marked to go to and then given back to you once successful.

Originally Posted by HogwldFLTR

Not really, it's one thing to drive a car 100mph and find out that a wheel comes off and that you've crashed as opposed to having a simple $25 test done on a watch to verify its capabilities and knowing that it's capable before using it in a harsh environment. Watches should be tested periodically and verified as safe for their use. I don't believe it is even close to the same as you've suggested. Having a watch tested and fixed (if needed) is a much better option. On the other hand, a watch under warranty should always be fine.

I was asking if a watch eventually will lose its water resistance capabilities over time, as steel and tolerances might shift over time (perhaps this happens after 30+ years?)

His reply was: "If it passes a waterproof test, it is waterproof".

Well duh.

[77T]

Originally Posted by VonSomething

I was asking if a watch eventually will lose its water resistance capabilities over time, as steel and tolerances might shift over time (perhaps this happens after 30+ years?)

His reply was: "If it passes a waterproof test, it is waterproof".

Well duh.

At the molecular level, SS by itself doesn’t change during the short lifetime Rolexes have been around.

Stainless steel has corrosion resistance but it can and will corrode in certain conditions. That is the risk that the midcase and/or caseback could degrade to a point where the gaskets will not seat effectively.

316 SS corrodes differently than 904 when exposed to damaging chemicals, saline, grease, moisture, etc. for prolonged periods of time. This has led some to be concerned about older Rolexes made before 1985.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

[fskywalker]

Originally Posted by VonSomething

I was asking if a watch eventually will lose its water resistance capabilities over time, as steel and tolerances might shift over time (perhaps this happens after 30+ years?)

His reply was: "If it passes a waterproof test, it is waterproof".

Well duh.

Would say that it should hold rating for at least the warranty period, which is currently 5 years from original purchase. As stated by Lee a simple pressure test is all you need to check it’s integrity


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

[VonSomething]

I guess the better question should have been if anyone has a vintage watch that no longer passes a pressure test for the rating it has, even with new seals.

[enjoythemusic]

Provided the seals are maintained / working properly... forever.

Well, not really forever... as at some point planet Earth will probably go through another massive Volcanic phase (perhaps followed by the next Ice Age of sorts). So only until the next major global Volcanic event, as I don't think the case metal can handle the temps of lava.

[DLRIDES]

Originally Posted by VonSomething

I've often heard people talk about vintage Rolexes and how they would keep them away from water.

In my opinion, shouldn't a watch continue to be as waterproof as it's rated for, as long as it's serviced and kept in good condition?

Or does steel and tolerances shift ever so slightly over generations that at one point a 100m WR rated watch will only make a 30m WR rating, even with new seals?

Originally Posted by VonSomething

I guess the better question should have been if anyone has a vintage watch that no longer passes a pressure test for the rating it has, even with new seals.

WR is a mechanical function. As long as all mating parts and surfaces meet specifications, time has no bearing.

The issue with vintage watches, is the reluctance to change the original parts to meet specifications.

[DJ2020]

Originally Posted by VonSomething

Padi, that's like saying a car that is driven at 100mph is able to drive 100mph. I am perfectly aware of that

Any quality dive watch made of quality materials and passes a dry and wet test will remain watertight longer than you will be around. I have seen older watches that had pitted areas around the seals and crown that past dry test and fail/flood at 80 ft.

Breitling, Omega, Rolex, Doxa, Seiko and many other quality dive watches are built tough with a extra margin of material in critical areas to prevent distortion from impacts and added seal strength.

Always clean them after a dive, ALWAYS - no exception. Even sweat over time will degrade a inferior case. I always clean mine at least 2 times a week when wearing them. I have them "wet" tested every 2 years to the depth rating. Unless something physically changes the dimensions of the case and proper seals are maintained it will remain water tight indefinitely.

I have seen reports wear remains were recovered after being submerged for years with watches being found still water tight. One Omega and one Rolex. The date was used on the watch along with the date on the missing person report to confirm a ID. In the case of the Rolex the serial number confirmed identity. In the case of the Omega a engraving confirmed it. After date and time was noted, Both watches were wound and ran.

[kieselguhr]

Originally Posted by VonSomething

I guess the better question should have been if anyone has a vintage watch that no longer passes a pressure test for the rating it has, even with new seals.

I have worn my father’s 1601 Datejust from the 60s down to depths of 40m many times, in various oceans. No water ingress. I do pressure check my watches yearly.

[ExplorerI]

I think the problem with vintage is that the consequences of water intrusion are much worse. If a current production submariner were to flood for some reason the rsc could easily make it like new again with another dial and hands and overhaul the movement.

If you have a vintage sub with a red line dial and that dial gets ruined there’s really no replacing that dial.

[Tools]

Originally Posted by VonSomething

I've often heard people talk about vintage Rolexes and how they would keep them away from water.

In my opinion, shouldn't a watch continue to be as waterproof as it's rated for, as long as it's serviced and kept in good condition?

Or does steel and tolerances shift ever so slightly over generations that at one point a 100m WR rated watch will only make a 30m WR rating, even with new seals?

It usually has nothing to do with its waterproofness. As long as the sealing surfaces are flat and the seals are pliable a vintage will be as waterproof today as it was when it was new.

The issue is risk. Nothing is foolproof and an irreplaceable original vintage dial and handset, damaged by accident or misadventure, is much more catastrophic to value than a more modern piece.

You keep it away from water for peace of mind.

[VonSomething]

Originally Posted by Tools

It usually has nothing to do with its waterproofness. As long as the sealing surfaces are flat and the seals are pliable a vintage will be as waterproof today as it was when it was new.

The issue is risk. Nothing is foolproof and an irreplaceable original vintage dial and handset, damaged by accident or misadventure, is much more catastrophic to value than a more modern piece.

You keep it away from water for peace of mind.

Yes that makes sense. So the average wearer shouldn't worry that in 30 years the watch is no longer suitable for swimming

[inadeje]

Originally Posted by VonSomething

I've often heard people talk about vintage Rolexes and how they would keep them away from water.

In my opinion, shouldn't a watch continue to be as waterproof as it's rated for, as long as it's serviced and kept in good condition?

Or does steel and tolerances shift ever so slightly over generations that at one point a 100m WR rated watch will only make a 30m WR rating, even with new seals?

If serviced in the recommended timeframe, the watch should sustain its rating. Perished seals due to lack of service or user error (crown) are the main culprits for water ingress.

[brandrea]

Originally Posted by Tools

It usually has nothing to do with its waterproofness. As long as the sealing surfaces are flat and the seals are pliable a vintage will be as waterproof today as it was when it was new.

The issue is risk. Nothing is foolproof and an irreplaceable original vintage dial and handset, damaged by accident or misadventure, is much more catastrophic to value than a more modern piece.

You keep it away from water for peace of mind.

Exactly this

[SLWoodster]

If the community values non original dial, handsets etc almost as much as original, then this wouldn’t be an issue.

[Stan Cooper]

Having brand new seals won't guarantee water resistance if the case is corroded in the seal grooves. The Rolex service includes cleaning the case grooves, but if pitting is severe, the grooves might have to be machined or the mid-case replaced. Sweat can cause corrosion, so washing the watch occasionally with soap and water mitigates corrosion from sweat.

Case Pitting

[padi56]

Most all case pitting in the older vintage Rolex watches back in the days when they were used as real working tools, and doubt if they were properly serviced,and in the real world very seldom happens.With today's very pampered watches case pitting should never happen.But no matter the watch or age if serviced correctly it's very doubtful any case problems will happen.

[Ensign]

Originally Posted by VonSomething

I've often heard people talk about vintage Rolexes and how they would keep them away from water.

In my opinion, shouldn't a watch continue to be as waterproof as it's rated for, as long as it's serviced and kept in good condition?

Or does steel and tolerances shift ever so slightly over generations that at one point a 100m WR rated watch will only make a 30m WR rating, even with new seals?

I think collectors try to keep vintage away from the water because their watches are expensive and often get them serviced by third parties who try to keep the watch as original as possible. Meaning, Rolex will bring the watch up to specs, but will replace any part (including the case) with new. But a guy who wants his watch original would never think of replacing a case, case back, and the like.

[Tools]

Originally Posted by VonSomething

Yes that makes sense. So the average wearer shouldn't worry that in 30 years the watch is no longer suitable for swimming

That's correct, if it has been properly maintained.

The risk goes up over time for seal degradation. The best rubber/synthetics have an in-use life period.