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.