cl11 wrote: ↑Mon Sep 23, 2019 7:16 am i have my C60 for 2 years now. Since 2 months ago, I have been going to the pool every Saturday with my infant for a 20 mins swimming lesson, wearing the C60. after the lesson, i would just shower with warm water wearing the c60, and holding my infant. i don't take special care of my c60. perhaps i'm naive, but I expect a 600m water resistant level watch should hold up with such underwhelming water activity.

The OP has a C65 (rather than a C60) which has a WR of 150m but nevertheless should be up to the task for which it was used.

neilj568 wrote: ↑Mon Sep 23, 2019 7:52 am

cl11 wrote: ↑Mon Sep 23, 2019 7:16 am i have my C60 for 2 years now. Since 2 months ago, I have been going to the pool every Saturday with my infant for a 20 mins swimming lesson, wearing the C60. after the lesson, i would just shower with warm water wearing the c60, and holding my infant. i don't take special care of my c60. perhaps i'm naive, but I expect a 600m water resistant level watch should hold up with such underwhelming water activity.

The OP has a C65 (rather than a C60) which has a WR of 150m but nevertheless should be up to the task for which it was used.

right. my pt is there shouldn't be any need to soak the watch in tap water after going to the pool.

My understanding is that it is good practice to rinse in clean water after exposure to salt water, shower products etc etc - no need to soak though

cl11 wrote: ↑Mon Sep 23, 2019 8:18 am

right. my pt is there shouldn't be any need to soak the watch in tap water after going to the pool.

SOP for divers is to thoroughly rinse all gear on egress from the sea or pool (training). Taking a shower probably works well enough if just wearing a watch.

neilj568 wrote: ↑Mon Sep 23, 2019 8:28 am My understanding is that it is good practice to rinse in clean water after exposure to salt water, shower products etc etc - no need to soak though

The watch was full of water before I left the beach. I very much doubt rinsing in fresh water would have achieved very much.

cl11 wrote: ↑Mon Sep 23, 2019 8:18 am

neilj568 wrote: ↑Mon Sep 23, 2019 7:52 am

cl11 wrote: ↑Mon Sep 23, 2019 7:16 am i have my C60 for 2 years now. Since 2 months ago, I have been going to the pool every Saturday with my infant for a 20 mins swimming lesson, wearing the C60. after the lesson, i would just shower with warm water wearing the c60, and holding my infant. i don't take special care of my c60. perhaps i'm naive, but I expect a 600m water resistant level watch should hold up with such underwhelming water activity.

The OP has a C65 (rather than a C60) which has a WR of 150m but nevertheless should be up to the task for which it was used.

right. my pt is there shouldn't be any need to soak the watch in tap water after going to the pool.

Soak it, run it under a tap. wear it in the shower - means all the same thing, i.e. just wash off the chemicals/salt from the external surfaces. In the OP case it wouldn't have made any difference as the water had got INTO the watch but the above is suggested advice for a watch with a good WR that is actually intact.

UNIONmagazine wrote: ↑Mon Sep 23, 2019 9:55 am

neilj568 wrote: ↑Mon Sep 23, 2019 8:28 am My understanding is that it is good practice to rinse in clean water after exposure to salt water, shower products etc etc - no need to soak though

The watch was full of water before I left the beach. I very much doubt rinsing in fresh water would have achieved very much.

Quite - my point was that this is the accepted "after immersion" treatment required - if you have a watch with a fully functioning WR...

Really bad news the state of your watch!! I feel for you UNIONmagazine! I would be devastated!!

I do think that this watch should have easily stood up to what you were doing when the unfortunate occurrence happened. A 150m WR watch should be ok to swim in. I also think you need to ask CW to make good your watch under the warranty, as you may have been unlucky with a watch which may not have met the usual standard - and therefore may not have been fit for purpose.

But I also think that the watch may have been up to standard and was fit for purpose, but the crown may have been accidentally caught and pulled out.

We all wear watches differently and treat them differently. I am to the extreme of being scared of getting most of my watches anywhere near water and wouldn't dream of wearing a watch I'd even paid £10 for to do any work such as gardening or fixing the car! However, I have worn my £100 ISO diving certified Seiko SKX007 whilst swimming in the sea a couple of times and that's been fine. But I wouldn't wear a watch like the C65 GMT in the sea for two main reasons:

1.) The £1k cost - I could just about cope with an item worth £100 needing replacing. Many people that do actually dive in the sea have a relatively expensive watch to wear most of the time and wear such as a cheaper Seiko to dive in.

2.) It doesn't have a screw down crown - water pressure is increased a lot from moving your arm in the water and the pressure of waves, and a crown that doesn't screw down can easily get accidentally pulled out!

peterh wrote:

MarkingTime wrote: ↑Sun Sep 22, 2019 9:54 pmYou could soak the watch in angels tears for all the good it would do. The salt will be in the movement and it will need to be stripped to flush it out. In fact, it would be far easier and more cost effective to junk the internals altogether and start afresh in the original case.

I am talking about the original case, and about the bracelet! You and I and most everyone else here know that the movement is a goner. Fixing that would be way more expensive than just dropping a new one in.

Sure, but, at the same time, prolonged soaking in even more water would potentially cause even more damage (I.e. certain elements that did not need replacing might now need to be) and, more importantly, would be damage caused by the owner in the knowledge that his watch was potentially faulty. That opens up a whole new can of worms when talking about faults, causation and responsibility.

If I had a busted watch, I wouldn't do anything to aggravate or cloud the issue, but would flag immediately with the company and leave it as is.

OP acted perfectly reasonably, IMHO.

(Your broader point about rinsing any and all equipment after contact with salt water is one on which we can agree, however )

Sent from my SM-G960F using Tapatalk

EddieTheBeast wrote: ↑Mon Sep 23, 2019 12:39 pm

2.) It doesn't have a screw down crown - water pressure is increased a lot from moving your arm in the water and the pressure of waves, and a crown that doesn't screw down can easily get accidentally pulled out!

While not wishing to pick an argument with the sentiment of your post as I do agree in general, this point is an urban myth. 150m depth for water resistance is exactly that and no amount of arm/wave movement will alter it. See my reply to Kip in this thread: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=51537&p=763576 for the calculations.

While it is just possible that the crown on the OP's watch was not seated, a push in crown is perfectly adequate for good water resistance while OTOH screw down crowns come with their own disadvantages.

This is absolutely not a comment aimed at the other person, or a reason for him not to have CW deal properly with the issue.

My personal view on luxury water resistant watches, divers or not. Whenever I bought something that was a "diver", or had 100m plus water resistance and it was expensive (£1000 plus, I simply didn't wear it in the water (unless I forgot). I certainly didn't wear it in the sea....if I did accidentally it would be rinsed off as quickly as I could. I used to wear my Rolex sea fishing but I always rinsed it with fresh water when I got home, just because of the potential exposure to salt air and spray..

If I needed to wear a watch in the sea, swimming pool, jacuzzi etc.. Out came my trusty Casio tough solar atomic, £40 quids worth and if it leaked...meh, so what. It never leaked, has been factory sealed from new and still doesn't leak. If you really want a watch for diving, or water sports buy a cheap one to use for that purpose...a beater. If I am a diver, I will use a proper diving computer and perhaps a cheap quartz diver as a backup.

Luxury watch brand divers might well be fine, but why on earth would anyone want to use them in the sea. Very few of us dive, but we all like the Divers watch style, the bigger sometimes the better and a helium valve for when we go saturation diving which for almost all owners is never. I know if you buy something to be waterproof to 200m then it should be and all that...really though, buy what you like and if it's a lot of money see the rating as an insurance if you forget to take it off, or fall in the water.

I would never wear my C65 in the water, it costs too much for that, water resistance I see as accident/forgetfulness insurance, something that won't fog up in wet weather, where I can wash my hands without looking like a surgeon operating....nothing more. I suspect most people will disagree but it's something I was told a long time ago.

From the CW website, quote,
"Although its appearance draws influence from the look of many iconic 1960's dive watches, the C65 Trident GMT's ability to track three separate time zones ensures it's as at home above the clouds as it is comfortable beneath the waves."

So simply put the watch isn't fit for purpose and should be repaired or replaced under guarantee unless there is some small print somewhere excluding usage in water.

I would be seeking trading standards advice if CW are being awkward.

Tim.

I am aghast at this shambolic episode, although not totally surprised.

However, this seems pretty simple to solve (I hope for the OP) - You have 6 months by UK law for a full refund (detailed here).

https://www.which.co.uk/consumer-rights ... ty-product

Clearly CW's abysmal response to this issue is their way of saying "we don't really want you as a customer any more, you're too fussy". I highly recommend the OP simply demand a full refund through it being not fit for purpose and never return to their website again to avoid temptation. CW's subsequent communications to the customer are clearly the new 'Mike France' approach to customer satisfaction. After all, he had promised he was dealing personally with all after sales issues.

CW have turned into the Dixons of the watch world (for those UK forum visitors who are as old as me!!). Lots of nice sales patter, but heaven help you if you want some after sales service, and if you DO, then we are going to rip you off good and proper. But Mike France won't worry about you, as there are plenty of other potential customers around the corner. Every bank on the high street operates in a similar way, and it works for them to sustain their business, so this approach will work for any company with enough attractive products.

Here on the forum though, we should be wise enough and old enough to learn from all the mistakes we read about. I value my hard earned money, and my peace of mind, and my time, to never spend a single 'cent' with them ever again (had my fair share of shocking exchanges with them), but I stick around here for the hope that some of the watches that I have a desire for pop up in the Sales Corner!

TimB wrote: ↑Mon Sep 23, 2019 2:03 pm
...I would be seeking trading standards advice if CW are being awkward.

I admire your very polite way of saying "...if CW are being downright disrespectful to the customer"!

CW doesn't have to so anything for free because the warranty is on the movement only. And clearly, this is not a movement issue and any other parts of the watch do not have a warranty at all.

However if it was me in the big corner office in Maidenhead.. replacement/manufacture cost for the entire watch is only $350. The OP's watch should be totaled/scrapped and a replacement new watch be sent with apologies from the CS Manager.