WatchUSeek Watch Forums banner

How is it that the AP Royal Oak is a Sports watch?

10K views 55 replies 26 participants last post by  GrouchoM 
#1 ·
You may laugh but just up until Monday I found out the AP Royal Oak was only 50m of water resistants. I've always thought in order for a watch to be considered
A sports watch it needs or has to be a minimum of at least 100m?

Nautilus 120m = 393ft
VC Overseas 150m = 492ft
Omega AT 150m = 492ft
IWC Ingenieur =120m? 393ft
Royal Oak 50m =164ft
Blancpain Aqualung 100m = 328ft

So wouldn't this make the AP Royal Oak a dress/casual Watch instead of a Sports Watch?
 
#2 ·
While I agree with the fact that the RO is not exactly the sportiest watch of its category, I would put it mostly on the account of the polished surfaces that make it so easy to scratch. It is such an elegant piece that I don't really consider it a sports watch.
However, the 50m water resistant is plenty for anyone who isn't going to actually scuba dive with it.

It handles snorkeling easily, and just like IWC pilot watches or the Omega Speedmaster at 6 bar and 5 bar respectively, you can swim and snorkel just fine with a RO. 100m is overkill for swimming, and the most important factor to take into account is the last service/pressure test/impermeability check. According to the big brands, most watches brought to service for water damage are actually divers which haven't been checked/serviced recently, as people assume they will be fine under water.

As long as it's a watch from a respected high end manufacturer, you can trust the WR rating, they generally test them with a 15% to 20% safety margin.
 
#7 ·
100m is overkill for swimming, and the most important factor to take into account is the last service/pressure test/impermeability check. According to the big brands, most watches brought to service for water damage are actually divers which haven't been checked/serviced recently, as people assume they will be fine under water.
A little bit derailing from the topic, but this is something I find misleading on watch manufacturers' part. I have a Planet Ocean, which is a pure dive watch, rated to 600m. And I do scuba diving. However, I was never able to use it while diving because of this thing you mentioned.

If they manufacture a dive watch, and if the service interval is 7-10 years, then that watch should be used underwater for the whole of that time interval. But, a lot of people recommend getting it pressure checked everytime going diving. Well, then am I going to have to get it checked every year, since I do a bunch of dives each year? It is just inconvenient, costly and defeats the purpose of a dive watch.

I really like the dive watch styling and I wanna acquire more pieces; but since I cannot use them while diving I just end up feeling duped and not buying any new ones.
 
#3 ·
You may laugh but just up until Monday I found out the AP Royal Oak was only 50m of water resistants. I've always thought in order for a watch to be considered
A sports watch it needs or has to be a minimum of at least 100m
?

Nautilus 120m = 393ft
VC Overseas 150m = 492ft
Omega AT 150m = 492ft
IWC Ingenieur =120m? 393ft
Royal Oak 50m =164ft
Blancpain Aqualung 100m = 328ft

So wouldn't this make the AP Royal Oak a dress/casual Watch instead of a Sports Watch?
Why would you think this, when was the last time you swam deeper than 164ft deep? Either way, the Royal Oak is a 'Sporty' watch, not a 'sports' watch, just like the Nautilus. They both house semi-delicate movements that can't handle true sports shocks but either watch is fine for swimming or daily life in a sporty looking package, if you want a real sports watch then get a Rolex.
 
#6 ·
Think “Sports” as in “Sports Jacket” not “Sports athletics”.

They were meant to be more casual watches of the 70s and 80s for the elite as opposed to gold cased dress watches. So they were tougher, steel, and had “extra” WR. But they were not mean to be rugged outdoor tough watches like the Submariner or FF.

They served their purpose well and although initially unpopular, grew in demand.
 
#8 ·
Think "Sports" as in "Sports Jacket" not "Sports athletics".

They were meant to be more casual watches of the 70s and 80s for the elite as opposed to gold cased dress watches. So they were tougher, steel, and had "extra" WR. But they were not mean to be rugged outdoor tough watches like the Submariner or FF.

They served their purpose well and although initially unpopular, grew in demand.
+1. Think swimming in the Alboran, off a yacht, before dinner at the Marbella club with Gianni Agnelli, not exploring the Yucatan with Cousteau.

A little bit derailing from the topic, but this is something I find misleading on watch manufacturers' part. I have a Planet Ocean, which is a pure dive watch, rated to 600m. And I do scuba diving. However, I was never able to use it while diving because of this thing you mentioned.

If they manufacture a dive watch, and if the service interval is 7-10 years, then that watch should be used underwater for the whole of that time interval. But, a lot of people recommend getting it pressure checked everytime going diving. Well, then am I going to have to get it checked every year, since I do a bunch of dives each year? It is just inconvenient, costly and defeats the purpose of a dive watch.

I really like the dive watch styling and I wanna acquire more pieces; but since I cannot use them while diving I just end up feeling duped and not buying any new ones.
I'm not familiar with anyone who says this but, if they do, I'd imagine its about vintage watches where seals and pitting are always at risk of changing the water resistance. Modern gaskets have service lives of roughly 20 years and, if your watch is correctly sealed and tested once, you should not need to retest until it gets serviced again. feel safe to dive with a modern PO!
 
#13 ·
Most, if not all brands and watchmakers, recommend pressure testing prior to diving. Gaskets last until they fail... whether due to lacking lubricants, premature decay, a 'small' impact causing the gasket to slip or deform. While these issues are rare, when they happen and one submerses their (pricey) timepiece, the repair is far worse than a quick pressure test....which are inexpensive or free.
 
#14 ·
You may laugh but just up until Monday I found out the AP Royal Oak was only 50m of water resistants. I've always thought in order for a watch to be considered
A sports watch it needs or has to be a minimum of at least 100m?

Nautilus 120m = 393ft
VC Overseas 150m = 492ft
Omega AT 150m = 492ft
IWC Ingenieur =120m? 393ft
Royal Oak 50m =164ft
Blancpain Aqualung 100m = 328ft

So wouldn't this make the AP Royal Oak a dress/casual Watch instead of a Sports Watch?
It's a gentleman's sports watch.
 
#20 ·
I think the sports jacket analogy nails it.. it’s a sports watch because it looks like a sports watch just as a sports jacket is a sports jacket because of its looks rather than it’s performance in sporting activities. Hence it’s merely a descriptor of a certain aesthetic. To me this represents any watch on a metal bracelet which is not a true tool watch . It could range from a Datejust to Cartier Santos.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
#24 ·
it's merely a descriptor of a certain aesthetic
This.

In a time when most watches were dainty golden affairs, more rugged models came to be known as sport watches. Today it is a pretty broad term, you could even say that anything that isn't a 'dress watch' is a 'sport watch' (and even some of today's 'dress watches' were yesterday's 'sport watches'). For most of us though it generally implies 'casual, maybe slightly rugged looking'.
 
#21 ·
You may laugh but just up until Monday I found out the AP Royal Oak was only 50m of water resistants. I've always thought in order for a watch to be considered
A sports watch it needs or has to be a minimum of at least 100m?

Nautilus 120m = 393ft
VC Overseas 150m = 492ft
Omega AT 150m = 492ft
IWC Ingenieur =120m? 393ft
Royal Oak 50m =164ft
Blancpain Aqualung 100m = 328ft

So wouldn't this make the AP Royal Oak a dress/casual Watch instead of a Sports Watch?
Sport "stuff" is a very broad category of goods. Watch firms categorize watches as either dress or sport.

In the elite circles that gave rise to that taxonomic model in high-end retail, sport is anything that isn't dress, hence a sport coat, a Rotal Oak, Nautilus, a wetsuit, loafers, and garb for equestrian and other field activities are all examples of sports attire or watches.

I can't say when Western culture came to forbear for dress use items that once it would not have. I just know that, in the main, it has.
 
#22 ·
Thought exercise for the thread: of the following two watches, which one do you trust more to swim with?

A) a watch with a stated 100m WR, with a pull-out crown, from a reputable brand, where the manual says the watch is suitable for surface water sports
B) a watch with a stated 50m WR, with a screw-down crown, from a reputable brand, where the manual says the watch is suitable for surface water sports
.
.
.
So...there are three factors in play here: 1) what is the WR? 2) what is the crown type, and 3) what does the manufacturer have to say?

What everyone pays attention to is #1; the "all-important" water resistance. Crown type? Never gets questioned, even though a pull-out crown - if dislodged - sets your WR to functionally zero. So you would *think* it would be important consideration, but for some reason, it isn't even part of the equation for most folks. Equally, you would think that what the manufacturer has to say about their watch would matter too; in fact, you might be inclined to think that it's ALL that really matters, right? But again, you've got a crowd that insists that if it's not 100m, not only should you not swim with it, but it fails the qualification to be a daily wearer. And no, I'm not being facetious; I've seen more than a handful of people here say they won't even consider a watch for daily wear unless it's 100m+. I wonder sometimes how much water those folks encounter on a daily basis.

Furthermore, there are two ways you can interpret water resistance testing: either A) the manufacturer tested it to the point of failure and put the last successful test down as the official WR, or B) the manufacture tested it to what they felt like testing it to, and called it day, even though the watch could have tested much higher. For some reason, people seem to think A is the true representative here, which is more than a little funny, since they then completely ignore the actual rating provided and then re-interpret what each rating "really means," as if a WIS knows more about a watch's water resistance than the manufacturer that made it.

30m? DON'T GET IT WET!
50m? WASH YOUR HANDS ONLY!
100m? NOW YOU CAN WEAR IN THE SHOWER!

And even worse than that? There's this unspoken school of WIS thought that says, "Well...I don't get my seals checked regularly, but if I buy a watch with more WR than I need...then I should still be okay, because the degrading seals won't have lost enough WR that I need to worry." As if the seals on a 3yo 300m watch will gracefully degrade linearly over time so that at the 5 year mark you can do mental gymnastics and figure you still have a "at least" 200m or so, so you're still good to wash your hands with it.

*facepalm*

Of course, this entire line of thinking - from doubting the manufacturer to trying to forecast where your seals are at - is entirely crap; if you haven't pressure tested the watch, you really have NO IDEA what your water resistance is. But that's a WIS for you.

TLDR: WIS are funny people. We really are.

Regards,
Alysandir

P.S. - Oh, BTW, the two watches in the thought exercise? A) is my Omega Globemaster; B) is my Royal Oak. Call me a lunatic, but I've showered with both, tempting the fates.

P.P.S - On the subject of "minimum required water resistance in order to be a sports watch," I'm genuinely curious why people seem to care more about water ingress versus what's on the inside. For example, I would consider a full balance bridge to be a more important requirement for a true sports watch than water resistance, because while I may come nowhere near a swimming pool or large body of water over the course of a *year,* my watch is receiving shocks every time I wear it. So I think it funny that the VC Overseas is considered more of a true sports watch than the Royal Oak because of its superior water resistance (150m vs 50m), even though the Royal Oak has a full balance bridge vs the VCO's balance cock. Go figure.
 
#29 ·
…. For example, I would consider a full balance bridge to be a more important requirement for a true sports watch than water resistance, because while I may come nowhere near a swimming pool or large body of water over the course of a *year,* my watch is receiving shocks every time I wear it. So I think it funny that the VC Overseas is considered more of a true sports watch than the Royal Oak because of its superior water resistance (150m vs 50m), even though the Royal Oak has a full balance bridge vs the VCO's balance cock. Go figure.
On that last point, is there definitive proof that the RO's design is inherently more shock resistant than the Overseas'?
 
#27 ·
This. Exactly. So many people refer to screw down crown as the absolute necessity to swim, but honestly I don't have a single watch that's easy to pull out by mistake.
Let's not spread disinformation and focus on the essentials: the trust in the manufacturer's rating (based on reputation, testing and experience) and the frequency of services/checks for WR.
 
#46 ·
Not all athletic activity involves swimming. Serena Williams, the tennis star, is known to wear a Royal Oak. She needs enough water resistance to wash the watch, or survive a rainstorm / ice bucket. She doesn't need to dive to the bottom of the ocean. So, it is perfectly suitable for sports. I personally agree that it is a sports watch - it is far more suitable for land-based sports than a gold watch on a leather strap.
 
#51 ·
I’m wearing my SS Breguet Marine on the rubber strap. I think it’s considered a “luxury sports watch.” With 100 mtrs of wr, I’m very comfortable taking it into the pool, maybe tennis..not golf, skiing, fishing, bike riding, or even light hiking/rock climbing.

ii take the “sports watch” description to be more akin to a “sports jacket” title..a level of formality...not intended for actually playing sports.

i do wear my Rolex for all of the above sports, x rock climbing..and sometimes wear a beater when biking.

i think with “sport watches” thy are using the term to distinguish from “dress watches.”

I’m comfortable “banging around” my Rolex. I’m right handed and wear my watch on left hand, so the watch will take some shock when I hit a golf ball..not so with tennis. Rolex”seems” better suited for that than Breguet. I have no research or evidence to back this up..just feels that way

I’ll add that Breguet is considered “high end” and Rolex is not..so for actually playing sports, I really don’t like the idea of beating the crap out of My HE watches.
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top