Water Resistance and non-screw-down crowns: Question
I see watches like the Seiko 5 Superior and Citizen Oxy Military which are marked as being water-resistant to 100m although the crowns are non-screw-down. Is this feasible? And if so, why are so many watches which have the same or lesser WR rating made with screw-down-crowns? The reason I'm asking is that these two watches seem like incredible value for money, and I'm wondering if I'm missing something. And yes, I gather that WR, as with many another x-resistant tag, is the subject of certain amount of a snake oil sales technique.
Still, I remain....
Confused.
Kamraj
Holy thread resurrection Batman!
I know water resistance has been debated to death, but I noticed that some retailers now state that you need a 1000m rating for a watch to be suitable for SCUBA diving. A 200m rating isn’t good enough for diving, e.g. Ernest Jones.
Is this marketing baloney or have water resistance ratings changed?
Water Resistance and non-screw-down crowns: Question
Quote:
Originally Posted by
sweets
At the other end of the cost/quality scale I understand Vostok relies on a pressed seal, meaning there is zero WR if you forget it.
That’s right. I know because I’ve
changed the seals myself.
Screwing in the crown does also lock the wobbly stem in place, but the stem is only loosely coupled to the rest of the movement at that point, so that doesn’t have any bearing on water resistance although it does protect the movement in the event of a bang on the crown.
I’m skipping over ‘other end of the cost/quality scale’. The flanged caseback with locking ring surely trumps the Oyster case. [emoji1787]