Aside from the Rolex oyster case, a few others had really pretty decent water resistance, such as the Mido Multifort, but it was, by far, less common than simple snap together cases. But, these are far more water resistant than most people realize. I wear a lot of 30s and 40s watches, and don't hesitate to wear them walking in the rain, or worry about them when washing my hands. They're fine for anything that doesn't involve absolutely drenching them or complete immersion.
this post was submitted on 19 Nov 2023
1 points (100.0% liked)
Watches
0 readers
1 users here now
A community for watch & horology discussion.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
What was the WR rating on those watches?
The 1926 Rolex Oyster had 100m WR. Most dress watches of the era didn't use screw down casebacks, though.
Yet today we consider 3ATM to barely be able to survive a splash.
That's just marketing from brands with an interest in selling dive watches
For anyone wondering my daily is a Must de Cartier XL which is 3ATM, but I don’t shower or swim with it. If I’m doing anything exceptionally dangerous to the watch I switch to a G shock.
Most people don't actually ever go further than 5 meters deep with their watch, but a modern watch rated only 5m has been made with absurdly low specs, and AFAIK unless we're talking about a certified divers watch, then specs are more of a 'manufacturer's suggestion' than an actually proven depth rating. So a modern watch rated 5m, when they easily could have slapped 50m on it... even if 5m is the deepest you'd actually go its basically the manufacturer suggesting to keep it away from water. Pointless and confusing but that's the way it is
3 - 5 atm is probably the range. More water resistant than water proof. The reason people think 3 atm can't handle a splash is largely marketting. Ya, maybe don't swim or shower with it on, but I wouldn't be worried about wearing it anywhere above the waterline.