Brief history of waterproof watches
Like Tree4Likes

Thread: Brief history of waterproof watches

Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 15
  1. #1
    Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Location
    KL, Malaysia
    Posts
    6,095

    Brief history of waterproof watches



  2. #2
    Member lysanderxiii's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    N 32 deg, 47' 27.9168"; W 79 deg, 54' 30.3372"
    Posts
    8,781

    Re: Brief history of waterproof watches

    I just have to say something....

    [rant]
    Waterproof vs water-resistant.... both mean the same thing. Both should be qualified with a "proof" or "resistance" limit, i.e. "waterproof to 50 feet", and if unqualified, both imply unlimited ability. If some one said "this is water-resistant" (with no qualifier) it would imply that this thing can reject the entry of all water, without limit...

    Other than English, the watch world tends to use "waterproof" as the default label for watches that can reject the entry of water...

    French - étanche not "résistant ŕ l'eau"
    German - "wasserdicht" not "Wasser beständig"
    Russian - "водонепроницаемый" not "водостойкий"
    Japanese - 防水 not 耐水性 (or, ぼうすい not たいすい せい)
    [/rant]
    Nokie likes this.
    familiaritas parit contemptum; raritate admiratione wins.- Lucius Apuleius
    est necessry, accurate ad secundo? - Lysander magna
    iustum est horologium - Obscurus Genius

  3. #3
    Member dbostedo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Location
    Virginia, USA
    Posts
    4,383

    Re: Brief history of waterproof watches

    Quote Originally Posted by lysanderxiii View Post
    ... if unqualified, both imply unlimited ability. If some one said "this is water-resistant" (with no qualifier) it would imply that this thing can reject the entry of all water, without limit...
    I disagree. Things that are "resistant" are not the same as "proof". I have always taken something "resistant" to mean that it provides some resistance, but if it was permanent or complete it would be "-proof". I don't think it implies unlimited ability. That's why the "water resistant" term is always used with a depth, and watches are no longer labeled "water-proof" which would imply infinite depth (however unrealistic that is). Or for another example I've seen, something painted/treated and made "corrosion resistant" would not imply that it couldn't corrode. It would not be considered the same as "corrosion-proof".
    Breitling Navitimer Cosmonaute, Poseidon Piranha, Orient Wingman, Zeppelin Flatline 7366-3, Glashutte Original PanoMaticLunar, Epos Emotion 3390, Steinhart Ocean 2 Premium, Hamilton Khaki Field, Omega 1965 Vintage, Seiko 5 SNKK27, Seiko 1977 Vintage, Nomos Orion 38, Wittnauer 1960's Vintage, Citizen B0000-04h, Movado SL1 Chrono, Seiko SBQK085, Cyma Le Locle

  4. #4
    Member Stellite's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Posts
    6,967

    Re: Brief history of waterproof watches

    Quote Originally Posted by dbostedo View Post
    I disagree. Things that are "resistant" are not the same as "proof". I have always taken something "resistant" to mean that it provides some resistance, but if it was permanent or complete it would be "-proof". I don't think it implies unlimited ability. That's why the "water resistant" term is always used with a depth, and watches are no longer labeled "water-proof" which would imply infinite depth (however unrealistic that is). Or for another example I've seen, something painted/treated and made "corrosion resistant" would not imply that it couldn't corrode. It would not be considered the same as "corrosion-proof".
    I disagree. If you say water resistant by itself, then you would be correct. The minute you attach a number to it, like 50 meters, you have just guaranteed it's resistance to 50 meters. In essence you just stated that the watch is proof to 50 meters.

  5. #5
    Member little big feather's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    U.S.A.
    Posts
    10,848

    Re: Brief history of waterproof watches

    I thought,maybe wrong,that it was some U.S.regulation, many years ago, that required the
    wording of "Water Resistant" over "Water-proof"....The thinking was that nothing is truly water-proof if applied
    to a great depth/pressure or certain circumstances.
    Last edited by little big feather; April 27th, 2014 at 16:18.
    mikeylacroix likes this.
    Any watches posted may be seen as gifts,borrowed or found property and not as personal property of Little Big Feather.

  6. #6
    Member joseph80's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    1,571

    Re: Brief history of waterproof watches

    Great article!

    Water resistant and waterproof mean the same thing to us but not to laywers. If the watch were to say waterproof and somehow leaked the watch company would lose the law suit every time. If it says water resistant the would most likely win.

  7. #7
    Member Stellite's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Posts
    6,967

    Re: Brief history of waterproof watches

    Very good article by the way. Just read it. There has been lots of these articles over the years, but this one is a bit different.

    As for water proof. I think 10 hours across the english channel on a moving wrist kinda proves a point in 1927:




  8. #8
    Member Nokie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Northern California
    Posts
    19,810

    Re: Brief history of waterproof watches

    Nice reading and great pictures posted above.
    "Either he's dead or my watch has stopped"
    Groucho Marx

  9. #9
    Inactive
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Posts
    5,638

    Re: Brief history of waterproof watches

    Oof, eventually I gave up on the very stodgy prose

  10. #10
    Moderator Public Forum John MS's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Virginia, USA
    Posts
    17,671

    Re: Brief history of waterproof watches

    Quote Originally Posted by Stellite View Post
    I disagree. If you say water resistant by itself, then you would be correct. The minute you attach a number to it, like 50 meters, you have just guaranteed it's resistance to 50 meters. In essence you just stated that the watch is proof to 50 meters.
    Way back when the rule was implemented it was common for watches to be labeled Waterproof with no qualification. Little Timex watches were sold as meeting that and other mpossible standards. Thus it was necessary to rein everybody in.
    Last edited by John MS; April 27th, 2014 at 23:51.
    little big feather likes this.

Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

    Posting Permissions

    • You may not post new threads
    • You may not post replies
    • You may not post attachments
    • You may not edit your posts
    •