If I’d sent a watch for warranty service, and the brand serviced it, I’d expect the watch to be returned to the same specifications as when new. The bare minimum of some vague “industry standards” doesn’t seem a clear, quality repair. Of course, as I shared elsewhere, my watches do not get wet in any circumstances other than rain, so being at 60 bar is never going to a scenario my watch will ever endure. Still, the watch is sold on certain spec, shouldn’t service restore it to spec?

I think people are missing the point. The test for actual water resistance is done in the initial phase of the watch. After that if the components are the same and the seals are the same the water resistance is the same

https://youtu.be/2wOsnBd_7-k?si=rL75YqJ9eYRyLstq

This video shows what most people do to test the seals after a service.

At the end of the day if they do a tune up on a truck do you worry that the towing capacity has gone down? Would you ask the dealership to test that to make sure it is still the max they say?

My respect for Bremont grows... I just wish their divers looked as good as their flyers!

OllyW wrote: ↑Wed Dec 06, 2023 4:05 pm This is what Bremont say about their servicing, I guess they don't work to industry standard.

Step 13: Water resistance testing

The watch head is pressure tested with a full depth test, encompassing overpressure ratings, designed to ensure that the watch is able to perform at the required pressure.

Water resistance testing is an emotive subject as can be clearly seen by this thread.

The reality is, unless your watch is ISO certified, my understanding is it’s up to the manufacturers discretion how it is tested.

The water resistance rating on non certified watches is a product of the design that is not necessarily tested in every watch in the production batch (I think? Others chime in if this is BS).

I can understand the logic that says if your watch is tested to 3bar, it should be good for the full rating of the watch since the test is to ensure the seals are properly seated.

I would rather my watches were tested to 3 bar every year to ensure the seal tightness rather than once every 5-10 years at service to the full pressure rating.

Ultimately, for the vast vast majority of us, water resistance ratings beyond 50m are bragging rights and serve no practical purpose. I’m totally guilty of thinking my CW C60 was “better” than a seamaster 300 or sub because it had double the water resistance.

Do I think CW are missing a trick here, totally yes! Surely they could test to 10 bar and brag about it (most commercial machines are limited to around this pressure).

johncolescarr wrote: ↑Thu Dec 07, 2023 9:34 am Water resistance testing is an emotive subject as can be clearly seen by this thread.

The reality is, unless your watch is ISO certified, my understanding is it’s up to the manufacturers discretion how it is tested.

The water resistance rating on non certified watches is a product of the design that is not necessarily tested in every watch in the production batch (I think? Others chime in if this is BS).

I can understand the logic that says if your watch is tested to 3bar, it should be good for the full rating of the watch since the test is to ensure the seals are properly seated.

I would rather my watches were tested to 3 bar every year to ensure the seal tightness rather than once every 5-10 years at service to the full pressure rating.

Ultimately, for the vast vast majority of us, water resistance ratings beyond 50m are bragging rights and serve no practical purpose. I’m totally guilty of thinking my CW C60 was “better” than a seamaster 300 or sub because it had double the water resistance.

Do I think CW are missing a trick here, totally yes! Surely they could test to 10 bar and brag about it (most commercial machines are limited to around this pressure).

BUT, if they design and produce a watch that has 600m on the dial and then subsequently set up a dedicated service centre then surely it can't be " up to their discretion" regarding testing for wr. I paid them to service one of their 600m watches so I assumed ( dangerous these days)they would do it properly and include a proper wr test. After all, who would wear a 30m rated watch in a swimming pool let alone take one on a dive.

Over the years I have almost certainly owned more CWs than most on here and have championed them as a company pretty much from their inception.

I would suggest that anyone owning one of their dive rated watches get them serviced elsewhere with someone that does the job properly and fully. I know I won't use their servicing centre again unless they sort this ridiculous shortcoming...

sclead wrote: ↑Thu Dec 07, 2023 3:52 am I think people are missing the point. The test for actual water resistance is done in the initial phase of the watch. After that if the components are the same and the seals are the same the water resistance is the same

https://youtu.be/2wOsnBd_7-k?si=rL75YqJ9eYRyLstq

This video shows what most people do to test the seals after a service.

At the end of the day if they do a tune up on a truck do you worry that the towing capacity has gone down? Would you ask the dealership to test that to make sure it is still the max they say?

Sorry but you are incorrect. At a service the seals would be changed and case opened so full wr needs to be done to check seals seal placement and torque of case closing

jkbarnes wrote: ↑Wed Dec 06, 2023 2:54 pm That explanation makes sense, I guess. I guess it also means that if you were a working diving professional, you’d need to take your watch to a specialist to have it tested to its full depth rating?

What? Immediately after getting the makers full service???

I’ve been reflecting on this and thinking about what it is that gives a watch its depth rating. What’s different about a watch rated to 600m compared to one rated at 50m?

Most of this comes down to the design of the actual watch itself. Thickness of the case and crystal, screw down crown and case back, the design of the case where it holds the gaskets so under pressure they stay in position etc.

Are gaskets rated to different depths? Can you fit a gasket of a certain size that’s rated to 600m compared to one made of the same material to the same dimensions that’s only rated to 50m?

If a watch is stripped and inspected for damage to ensure the case back isn’t damaged, screw threads are clean and intact etc. These elements that contribute to the water resistance won’t have changed.

All that has changed during service is that new gaskets have been fitted and you need to check their integrity to ensure they aren’t faulty and have been fitted correctly. The part of the watch where they are seated is exactly the same as it was before.

Therefore all you need to ensure is that they are installed correctly, so would a test to a lower rating then the entire watch prove this?

There is no need to ensure the case back won’t deform at 599m as that’s already been tested.

Maybe cashback torque comes into it?

The torque that a caseback is tightened to would be specified at the design stage based on the required water resistance and the design of how it fits into the case and the correctly sized gasket.

Assuming each case back is torqued up to the correct value using a calibrated tool then I don’t think there should be an issue.

iain wrote: ↑Thu Dec 07, 2023 1:14 pm The torque that a caseback is tightened to would be specified at the design stage based on the required water resistance and the design of how it fits into the case and the correctly sized gasket.

Assuming each case back is torqued up to the correct value using a calibrated tool then I don’t think there should be an issue.

Then surely there also shouldn't be an issue to pressure check. That is after all what checks are for. To make sure things have been done correctly

I suppose it comes down to whether there is a need rather than whether there is no issue.

If it’s not required then should CW invest in the test equipment to carry out the tests?

For companies like Bremont, who have been mentioned earlier, they use their over engineering as a sales point so they must feel that for them then there is a need.

I should caveat my comments in this thread by saying I’m not an expert here, I’m just sharing some rational thoughts.

This thread reminds me of my approach to wearing a watch in water.

nbg wrote: ↑Tue Jun 13, 2023 4:05 pm My solution for selecting a swimming watch is just to wear any watch that I have purchased new, or been serviced in the last 5 years (or last 10 if a Rolex).

Neil

Without getting into the technicalities of whether testing to 30m, for watches designed and sold as having a WR of say 300m/600m, is a sufficient indication of the watch still being good at 300m/600m…

My question for any brand is quite simple:

My watch has now been given an OEM service. Please confirm to me the specific terms of the WR part of the warranty and for how long will you stand behind it?

Neil

johncolescarr wrote: ↑Thu Dec 07, 2023 9:34 am Water resistance testing is an emotive subject as can be clearly seen by this thread.

The reality is, unless your watch is ISO certified, my understanding is it’s up to the manufacturers discretion how it is tested.

The water resistance rating on non certified watches is a product of the design that is not necessarily tested in every watch in the production batch (I think? Others chime in if this is BS).

I can understand the logic that says if your watch is tested to 3bar, it should be good for the full rating of the watch since the test is to ensure the seals are properly seated.

I would rather my watches were tested to 3 bar every year to ensure the seal tightness rather than once every 5-10 years at service to the full pressure rating.

Ultimately, for the vast vast majority of us, water resistance ratings beyond 50m are bragging rights and serve no practical purpose. I’m totally guilty of thinking my CW C60 was “better” than a seamaster 300 or sub because it had double the water resistance.

Do I think CW are missing a trick here, totally yes! Surely they could test to 10 bar and brag about it (most commercial machines are limited to around this pressure).

I get what you mean but I'd rather respect this brand, any brand, for a "No BS" mentality.

I suspect @iain is getting close to the truth with the recent comments. We are all commenting as armchair experts here (look up the Dunning-Kruger effect; we are all likely in the highest ignorance regarding this subject ).

@nbg Also hit a good point. Your watch has been serviced by CW and they stand by it, I believe for 2 years (maybe 1?). If water ingress happens after a service, it will be a warranty issue. They have the experts on staff to determine if that WR test is sufficient.