zOwie Omega Discussion Forum

Chuck,

I have seen your name pop up as I have searched for info about this. Thanks so much for taking the time to answer my questions! I do know that the Speedmaster is not intended as a water watch, but I was hoping it could pull double duty. I got romanced by the stories and legends of the torture tests the thing has been through and was hoping I wouldn't be able to top whatever NASA threw at it! I knew diving was out of the question (which I don't do, anyway), but I hoped swimming was an option.

I am one of the ones who sees 30M or 50M WR rating and thinks, "GREAT! I only swim 1-2m deep, anyway. If I ever went 50M, I am pretty sure it would be due to the concrete blocks tied to my ankles. But at least they could give the still-functioning watch to my widow if they find me."

Thanks again, Chuck for the commonsense and helpful response!

Jimmy Penson

:

: Speedy Pro Water Resistance Discrepancies
: Posted By: Jimmy Penson Date: 8/18/06
: 13:49 GMT

: Hi all,

: I am new to your forum, but am a long time
: Omega owner and fan.

: Welcome Aboard! Jim!

: I am looking into getting a Speedy Pro but
: have found conflicting info regarding water
: resistance.

: Not surprising, even considering the different
: models of Speedmaster Pro, several of which
: have lower W/R ratings from Omega. Omega has
: multiple opinions on the topic, and then
: there is the peanut gallery here and
: elsewhere.

: I really want to be able to swim in the watch
: for extended periods,

: You do know that the Speedmaster Pro is not
: designed nor intended as a
: "Swimming" nor a dive watch don't
: you? The Speedmaster was designed as a
: Drivers/Pilots watch not as a water-bourne
: watch. It does have some minimal
: water-resistance, but this is not the Speedy
: Pro's forté.

: and, according to the Omega site, the
: Speedy's water resistance rating will handle
: that.

: Well, depending on the model (and mostly it's
: the Display Back models which have lower W/R
: ratings), the Speedmaster Pro's water
: resistance ratings traditionally have been
: 10 Meter's or about 30 feet, and 30 Meters
: or about 100 feet. Now I spy on Omega's site
: that on four of seven models that come up
: when searched for are now claimed to have a
: 50m water resisteance (167 feet).

: I have no idea what has prompted Omega to claim
: higher water resistance for these models,
: because to my knowledge... There have been
: no changes to the watches themselves.

: I and others have queried John Diethelm, Maria
: Mastrodonatello and Marco Richon (among
: others) for an explanation for the
: Speedmasters (rather anemic in our opinions)
: W/R rating on the Moonwatches. The answer is
: that the Steel backed models are designed
: suffeciently for Omega to claim 60m W/R, but
: they elect to be conservative in the rating
: because the watch is not intended for
: swimming or diving, and if people wish to do
: those activities while wearing an Omega,
: they really should be looking at Omega's
: Seamaster offerings.

: However, on Timezone, there is another chart
: discouraging swimming for the speedy's WR
: rating.

: Yeah, I know... I wrote and created that chart
: and am the co-author of TZ's FAQ.

: That chart was written based both on the
: feedback I and others had from Omega and
: basic common sense conservativism...

: If someone read's a Moonwatch's W/R rating of
: 10m and thinks "Gee, I'm only going to
: swim laps, I'll never go deeper than 4-5
: feet, I'll just buy a Speedmaster
: Moonwatch." and goes swimming and the
: seals fail and there's water in the
: movement, they're going to be P¡ssed off
: at me, at Omega, at the world. They just
: spent $1k, $2k, $3k and more on a moonwatch
: and it's waterlogged.

: Not to mention that Salt water, Chlorine,
: detergent, soap and rapid underwater
: direction/temperature changes do not do
: especially friendly things to watch's rubber
: seals. It also should be pointed out that
: any watchs' W/R rating is based on having
: the rubber seals (crown, caseback, pushers
: (if any) crystal, etc.) checked and replaced
: as needed every year.

: I tried to read what NASA said about water
: resistance for the moon watch, but only
: found it mentioned, not specified. Does
: anyone have any personal experience good or
: bad with ocean swimming over the years in a
: speedy pro?

: Ocean swimming over the years with a Speedy
: Pro [a heavy and violent shudder courses
: through Chuck's body] ?

: Let me put it this way: If you are willing to
: spend $1,000-$3,000 (and up) on a watch with
: minimal W/R rating, expose it to rust
: catalyst Salt Water, higher than W/R dynamic
: pressure (when moving the watch through the
: water), coral, undersea rocks, sand, and
: other dangers, that's your decision.

: If I was going water-bourne with a watch, I'd
: only do it with a watch intended for such
: use. And frankly, I'd buy an inexpensive
: Invicta 8926 for under $150 so that I
: wouldn't srew up my Seamaster, Speedmaster,
: whatever...

:

: I mean that's what G-Shocks, Ironman's and
: Invicta's are for... So you don't hose up
: your good watch!

: Any advice would be much appreciated. Of
: course, odds are excellent that I will wind
: up with a speedy pro either way (I can
: always wear my seamaster), but any help
: would be great!

: My opinion is that your Seamaster is more
: appropriate for Ocean Swimming. Seriously,
: Get your hands on an Invicta for the
: hazardous duty usage. The first time you
: screw it up it'll be a great relief that you
: only messed up a $150 watch and not a $1,500
: or $3,000 one.

: Thanks in advance,

: Jimmy Penson

: I hope this is helpful!

: -- Chuck

:

:

:

: Chuck Maddox

: Watch Article index :
: http://www.xnet.com/~cmaddox/cm3articles.html
: , Watch Links Page :
: http://www.xnet.com/~cmaddox/watch.html ,
: Watch Blog :
: http://chuckmaddoxwatch.blogspot.com/ .

: Chronographs, like most finer things in
: life, only improve with time...

: