If you are going particularly fast on the water skis and take a dive, that's a lot of pressure. Others have different opinions than I do about water resistance. They're not wrong. Splashing around a little doesn't really require so much WR. My watches see a lot of water time and I've not had too many failures. But having seen it happen, I tend to err on the side of caution. I've been diving for 17 years and really appreciate having enough WR for each job that I do not have to even consider the possibility of failure.fishman wrote:All I want to do swim in the pool, lake or Ocean which includes snorkeling and water skiing.nbg wrote:There are plenty of threads on watch forums about WR on watches and whether there is a difference between a watch just sitting at a given depth or the supposed extra pressure exerted from thrashing around in the water.
Paul (Stefs) I am with you on this one. I would go as far as to say if it's a decent watch 100m WR is more than sufficient. I am not really aware of any recreational divers going anyway near that depth!
Neil
The C65 Vintage is calling to me.
Re: The C65 Vintage is calling to me.
Matthew
Has everything you've said today been true?
Has everything you've said today been true?
-
- Senior
- Posts: 195
- Joined: Thu Jun 16, 2016 4:20 am
- CW-watches: 4
- Location: North Carolina, USA
Re: The C65 Vintage is calling to me.
That reminds me of seeing those Acapulco cliff divers jump off tall sheer cliffs on TV into water less than 20 feet deep. It would make for interesting marketing if a watch maker could advertise how their watch could be safely worn by one of those performers.Sandman wrote:stefs wrote:.....If someone is comfortable swimming with it, they may not think twice about jumping into the water from a high dive and ruining their watch.
- stefs
- Trusted Seller
- Posts: 5952
- Joined: Fri Jan 07, 2011 2:40 pm
- CW-watches: 2
- Location: Sunny Tiptree, Essex
Re: The C65 Vintage is calling to me.
I did not say that...NOT my quoteWatchamacallit wrote:That reminds me of seeing those Acapulco cliff divers jump off tall sheer cliffs on TV into water less than 20 feet deep. It would make for interesting marketing if a watch maker could advertise how their watch could be safely worn by one of those performers.Sandman wrote:stefs wrote:.....If someone is comfortable swimming with it, they may not think twice about jumping into the water from a high dive and ruining their watch.
Cheers now, Paul
Re: The C65 Vintage is calling to me.
[...]lot of comments about watches moving in water and pressure[...]
Guys, I read an blog post (unfortunately in German and I can't really find it anymore) but if I recall it correct the pressure from moving the watch inside the water is not really an issue, it is much more the change in pressure that is applied to the gaskets when the watch enters the water....just wanted to add this thought and hope I remeber this right.
Cheers
Guys, I read an blog post (unfortunately in German and I can't really find it anymore) but if I recall it correct the pressure from moving the watch inside the water is not really an issue, it is much more the change in pressure that is applied to the gaskets when the watch enters the water....just wanted to add this thought and hope I remeber this right.
Cheers
Re: The C65 Vintage is calling to me.
That's all I want to do, too, but I live in Wisconsin, and besides, I have to work.fishman wrote:
All I want to do swim in the pool, lake or Ocean which includes snorkeling and water skiing.
Gregory
Re: The C65 Vintage is calling to me.
Does that make sense? I would have thought that pressure is pressure, no matter how it is applied to the gasket. Unless they were talking about helium release valves or some such?TonyS wrote:the pressure from moving the watch inside the water is not really an issue, it is much more the change in pressure that is applied to the gaskets when the watch enters the water...
Cheers
Gregory
Re: The C65 Vintage is calling to me.
Helium buildup enough to pop the crystal only happens when you dive deep. So you won't really run into an issue there. And pressure is pressure. The changing pressure from going in and out of the water, or going deep, certainly does a number on the gasket seal. But ultimately, maxing out the pressure, moving or not, will cause a failure.Psalty wrote:Does that make sense? I would have thought that pressure is pressure, no matter how it is applied to the gasket. Unless they were talking about helium release valves or some such?TonyS wrote:the pressure from moving the watch inside the water is not really an issue, it is much more the change in pressure that is applied to the gaskets when the watch enters the water...
Cheers
The article sounds practical, but perhaps a little misleading.
Matthew
Has everything you've said today been true?
Has everything you've said today been true?
Re: The C65 Vintage is calling to me.
The sensible decision is to buy a watch that's specifically designed for use in water, whatever the conditions and obviously the Trident C60 fits that description. Given that my water related activities will exclude diving, I have to ask does it make sense to buy the 600 series or the 300 series that's much less expensive? I do like that the 600 is an auto and has a lot of other improvements, but the thickness is still a bit of an issue for me. Maybe I'm being a bit stubborn about that.
Re: The C65 Vintage is calling to me.
Don't argue with the part of you that knows what you want. You'll lose.fishman wrote: the thickness is still a bit of an issue for me. Maybe I'm being a bit stubborn about that.
Gregory
Re: The C65 Vintage is calling to me.
Buy both & return the one you like the least.fishman wrote:The sensible decision is to buy a watch that's specifically designed for use in water, whatever the conditions and obviously the Trident C60 fits that description. Given that my water related activities will exclude diving, I have to ask does it make sense to buy the 600 series or the 300 series that's much less expensive? I do like that the 600 is an auto and has a lot of other improvements, but the thickness is still a bit of an issue for me. Maybe I'm being a bit stubborn about that.
Sent from my ONE A2003 using Tapatalk
Re: The C65 Vintage is calling to me.
Solid advise, thank you.Psalty wrote:Don't argue with the part of you that knows what you want. You'll lose.fishman wrote: the thickness is still a bit of an issue for me. Maybe I'm being a bit stubborn about that.
Re: The C65 Vintage is calling to me.
C60 300 is a fine watch and will take whatever aquatic adventure you throw at it. It's the size you want, the function you want, and a lower price. Might be a good call. Of course you can always wait for a sale on a 600 here or at CWL website. .fishman wrote:The sensible decision is to buy a watch that's specifically designed for use in water, whatever the conditions and obviously the Trident C60 fits that description. Given that my water related activities will exclude diving, I have to ask does it make sense to buy the 600 series or the 300 series that's much less expensive? I do like that the 600 is an auto and has a lot of other improvements, but the thickness is still a bit of an issue for me. Maybe I'm being a bit stubborn about that.
C60 600, has some great features that I consider to be worth the difference in price. Mostly, being an automatic and that ceramic bezel. The extra WR is something that I might use, but you likely won't. The bezel is similarly functional in aluminum or ceramic. 300 will keep better time and be smaller. 600 will be more "special".
Matthew
Has everything you've said today been true?
Has everything you've said today been true?
Re: The C65 Vintage is calling to me.
I think you're right about the special part. At some point, there will be a sale and I'm in no hurry. It's between the red or black bezel with the rubber strap, leaning towards the red.
Re: The C65 Vintage is calling to me.
I got black on black, but I keep looking back at that red. It's really nice.
Re: The C65 Vintage is calling to me.
I know, right? That red bezel is a watch that I would like to wear on particular occasions, but not one I wish to see on my wrist every day, because it would start to make sartorial demands. I don't collect watches - typically, I wear one all the time – but I might have to have another.Sandman wrote:I got black on black, but I keep looking back at that red. It's really nice.
Dang it.
Gregory
-
- Similar Topics
- Replies
- Views
- Last post