WR thingy

[rodia77]

Where I myself am inconsistent -- I usually take a leap of faith with watches rated 5ATM, but don't want to the same with ones rated at 3ATM, even though I'm pretty sure the difference between them is either non-existent or negligible.

I'm not the only one! I'm not the only one!


https://www.jswatch.com/water-resistance-guide

I still don't see much rationale behind it but at least I have company.

[tribe125]

Jaeger-LeCoultre is happy for me to swim in my 50m rated watch, as long as I don’t enter the water from a diving board.

In practice, my 50mm JLC is as waterproof as my 500m Breitling. The Breitling only becomes more waterproof at depth, and they’re equally water resistant when getting wet on land.

[CFR]

Let's fix it once and for all



Rated and laboratory tested @15,000m and actually used in real life @ 10,928m.

[skywatch]

Just in case it's raining hard outside, we can always strap on the 20,000 meter model. Ya never know ...

[crownpuller]

I've always found WR ratings quite baffling.

For example:
My neighbour is an enthusiastic scuba diver; he tells me he rarely ventures beyond 40m on a dive, and his deepest dive was 52m....
So why do 'they' tell me I need at least a rating of 100m WR just to go swimming ?.... or indeed 200m to go scuba diving ?

My criteria for most of my watches is: Do I need to take it off when I take the kids to the pool ?.... If the answer is yes, I'll change it for one that I can keep on.

[Dimman]

I've always found WR ratings quite baffling.

For example:
My neighbour is an enthusiastic scuba diver; he tells me he rarely ventures beyond 40m on a dive, and his deepest dive was 52m....
So why do 'they' tell me I need at least a rating of 100m WR just to go swimming ?.... or indeed 200m to go scuba diving ?

My criteria for most of my watches is: Do I need to take it off when I take the kids to the pool ?.... If the answer is yes, I'll change it for one that I can keep on.

Safety factors and degradation?

[tribe125]

So why do 'they' tell me I need at least a rating of 100m WR just to go swimming ?.... or indeed 200m to go scuba diving ?

If ‘they’ is a watch company, it’s probably due to product liability concerns.

The ISO standard (ISO 22810:2010) is presumably the most definitive -

[geoffbot]

In practice, my 50mm JLC is as waterproof as my 500m Breitling. The Breitling only becomes more waterproof at depth, and they’re equally water resistant when getting wet on land.

Go dive in it then

[rodia77]

If ‘they’ is a watch company, it’s probably due to product liability concerns.

The ISO standard (ISO 22810:2010) is presumably the most definitive -

It would be if the manufacturers were clearly indicating that it's what they're conforming to.

Take my fave whipping boy, Longines -- seems to be in line with what you quoted, but not exactly. They mention ISO 22810, but jump straight to 30ATM in their docs:


https://www.longines.de/uploads/cust...crew_down1.pdf


https://www.longines.com/uploads/cus...istance-en.pdf

[hayday]

Yeah, I find the WR issue to be waaaaaay over blown. If I know I'm going to get wet, I wear a watch that is designed to get wet. I don't need ANY water resistance for either my Longines Master Collection or my birth year Mickey Mouse as neither of them is going to get wet unless I fall in the water. I have a $20 novelty watch that's not going near water so WR is meaningless to this watch. I only need ask myself a simple question: am I wearing swim trunks? If the answer is yes, I wear a watch designed to get wet. It smacks of driving a truck with a metric crapton of towing capacity when one doesn't own anything needing towing.

Also, isn't it odd for watch companies to market a watch with high water resistance on a leather strap? I mean, it's not like your going to wear that leather strap when you go diving, are you? Yes, I'm being a bit facetious because you can always change the strap, but the point remains: one doesn't swim with leather straps so why market something with high water resistance on a leather strap?