PO: accurate, beautiful, expensive -- but can't dive

[H.W. Frank]

Got my 2201.50 about a year ago, NIB from Bernard's gray market. Looks great, and runs super accurate -- as long as you don't actually dive with it. By way of background, I do deep Great Lakes (USA) technical wreck diving for fun. Mixed-gas diving down to depths well over 200 feet in 39 degree Fahrenheit water. Took the PO out this past weekend in northern Lake Michigan, and it seizes up as soon as it gets deep.

Starts ticking again, like nothing happened, as soon as you hit your 70' or 60' deco stops, just don't count on this "2000 ft" watch for any real diving. Good thing I had my normal instruments to get me up safely, and that the watch was just along for the ride because I meant to christen it as a real diver. It isn't.

Maybe I'll take my Rolex Sub next time.

H.W. Frank

[Gretsch]

WOW! That's certainly disconcerting. Off to Omega for service then? I always have my DC with me (not that I'm doing the technical diving that you are). Are you running tri-mix at those depths? Rebreather?

[poppydog]

Just a thought, but if the surface temp' is 39, then could it be the colder temp' at depth that is the problem? I was diving with my first PO in similar temp' water (slightly colder actually) and in-water, it would just stop dead, but start again and run fine at the surface. I'd used it before in warmer conditions and it ran perfectly (I assumed it was an issue with the lubrication thickening in the cold). It was still under gaurantee and my AD swapped it for me. I've since dived with the replacement in the same conditions with no problem. I'm certainly no expert, but I'd be suprised if it was the pressure causing the problem.

[Trev]

Sounds defective, in one way or another. Or perhaps the wrong lubricant was used.

I wonder if PO owners in (very) cold climates have experienced anything similar? Anyone from the colder parts of Canada, Russia, etc should know

[salem65]

Wow, that is some good information to post; Not very good quality control.
I would hate to purchase one and be doing a dive in our cold Northern waters, only to have my 3k watch stop working below 70'. I have done wreak dives to 130' with $100 quartz dive watches and they ran fine, so my guess would be the oil thickening too.

[Ebruner]

Originally Posted by salem65

I would hate to purchase one and be doing a dive in our cold Northern waters, only to have my 3k watch stop working below 70'.

We found the problem right there!!!

It didn't cost enough, everyone knows decent dive watches start at 5,500.00 MSRP!

-Eddie

[dieseldragon]

Originally Posted by Ebruner

We found the problem right there!!!

It didn't cost enough, everyone knows decent dive watches start at 5,500.00 MSRP!

-Eddie

I would say that decent dive watches start at around $200 with the Seiko then there , might be a gap between that and the $5500 ones...

[rolexertion]

The stopping of the balance wheel would no doubt be due to the caseback deforming under pressure and changing something to do with the friction of the geartrain. I suspect Omega could fairly easily discover what was up and put it right.

[psv]

Yepp, get a Rolex instead! (duck and run... ;-))

[dsio]

Originally Posted by H.W. Frank

Got my 2201.50 about a year ago, NIB from Bernard's gray market. Looks great, and runs super accurate -- as long as you don't actually dive with it. By way of background, I do deep Great Lakes (USA) technical wreck diving for fun. Mixed-gas diving down to depths well over 200 feet in 39 degree Fahrenheit water. Took the PO out this past weekend in northern Lake Michigan, and it seizes up as soon as it gets deep.

Starts ticking again, like nothing happened, as soon as you hit your 70' or 60' deco stops, just don't count on this "2000 ft" watch for any real diving. Good thing I had my normal instruments to get me up safely, and that the watch was just along for the ride because I meant to christen it as a real diver. It isn't.

Maybe I'll take my Rolex Sub next time.

H.W. Frank

The likelihood of depth having any effect on it, is rather laughable. The two possibilities you have are A: You didn't wind the watch fully and there was not enough movement to keep it running on your dive until you wiggled it around a fair bit to look at it on your decompression stop (Most likely by far) or B: You're running one of the early 2500A movements that have known issues and were taken care of by Omega.

The notion that your dive depth had anything to do with it, is frankly just being stupid. You've got two things in play that would have any real effect, water, and pressure.

Is it flooded, or has it been mechanically compressed or crushed? If not you're back to A and B, with an emphasis on A.

[rolexertion]

Originally Posted by dsio

The likelihood of depth having any effect on it, is rather laughable. The notion that your dive depth had anything to do with it, is frankly just being stupid.

Excuse me? Isn't that a bit of a hostile and aggressive retort to the OP? Do you have a reason for that?

[dsio]

Originally Posted by rolexertion

Excuse me? Isn't that a bit of a hostile and aggressive retort to the OP? Do you have a reason for that?

Actually it was probably your post I was directing that to rather than the original.

The notion that a 2mm thick piece of 316L stainless steel with a heavily domed edge would be deformed at 200 feet when the flat plexiglass (plastic) crystal of a 1970s datejust is safely rated to over 300 feet.

I mean forgive me for seaming hostile, but I'm just not sure how exactly to even respond to that.

The original poster's remark:

"just don't count on this "2000 ft" watch for any real diving. Good thing I had my normal instruments to get me up safely, and that the watch was just along for the ride because I meant to christen it as a real diver. It isn't."

Also had me shaking my head, but the caseback deformation explanation in 60m of water was something else entirely.

I mean seriously some person that comes here off a google search could actually take these statements as a matter of fact and truly believe that Planet Oceans are not safe to go into the water with. Or that a watch caseback made of thick steel will start to bend to the point of having an effect on the movement when taken to common recreational diving depths.

And this is all before a watchmaker has even looked at the thing.

Once again, I'm sorry for being aggressive, and you're certainly entitled to your opinion but this just seamed to be a typical case of incorrect hypothesis leading to misleading statements of fact, backed up by others with no evidence.

[H.W. Frank]

dsio:

(1) It was fully wound that morning, 80 turns+. Not my first or only mechanical, and not a new watch to me, but thanks for the hypothesis anyway.
(2) I offered no theory as to why it did this three times in a row over multiple days, only the accurate report that it did so, along with the opinion that a watch that can't handle a 200' dive isn't much of a diver.
(3) I am experienced down to 300' cold water, and that depth has never damaged any of the lights/gauges etc. that are necessary to make these dives. I can't imagine a reason how depth and/or cold could effect a watch like this, but the facts are the facts.
(4) Re your confusion [Post #10] about my comment on other instruments getting me up safely -- in this kind of diving, we use bottom and depth timers, cut our deco tables and profiles ahead of time, and then follow the stops and gas switches religiously, either stand alone or in conjunction with a trimix computer. Hope that helped clear it up for you.

All: any comments from others who have actually taken their PO's deep appreciated. My guess it's some combination of cold and pressure, but I'm not a watchsmith.

Thanks.

H. Frank
Michigan USA

[dsio]

Originally Posted by H.W. Frank

dsio:

(1) It was fully wound that morning, 80 turns+. Not my first or only mechanical, and not a new watch to me, but thanks for the hypothesis anyway.
(2) I offered no theory as to why it did this three times in a row over multiple days, only the accurate report that it did so, along with the opinion that a watch that can't handle a 200' dive isn't much of a diver.
(3) I am experienced down to 300' cold water, and that depth has never damaged any of the lights/gauges etc. that are necessary to make these dives. I can't imagine a reason how depth and/or cold could effect a watch like this, but the facts are the facts.
(4) Re your confusion [Post #10] about my comment on other instruments getting me up safely -- in this kind of diving, we use bottom and depth timers, cut our deco tables and profiles ahead of time, and then follow the stops and gas switches religiously, either stand alone or in conjunction with a trimix computer. Hope that helped clear it up for you.

All: any comments from others who have actually taken their PO's deep appreciated. My guess it's some combination of cold and pressure, but I'm not a watchsmith.

Thanks.

H. Frank
Michigan USA

I give up, just wind it next time or stick to Quartz.

[rolexertion]

Originally Posted by dsio

Actually it was probably your post I was directing that to rather than the original.

The notion that a 2mm thick piece of 316L stainless steel with a heavily domed edge would be deformed at 200 feet when the flat plexiglass (plastic) crystal of a 1970s datejust is safely rated to over 300 feet.

I mean forgive me for seaming hostile, but I'm just not sure how exactly to even respond to that.

Watches are commonly tested for water resistance by subjecting them to air pressure, as low as 1 Bar, and measuring the very real deformation that the case exhibits under that pressure, or subjecting them to a vacuum and measuring the slight expansion of the case. (There's actually a thread on the Rolex General Discussion forum with a video about exactly this phenomenon). But I suspect that there isn't a whole lot of explanation that would be meaningful to you anyway. I have found over the years that people who can't spell simple words like 'seeming' generally lack the education to comprehend even reasonably rudimentary scientific principles, however brilliant they themselves apparently think they are.

[WyoWatch]

Originally Posted by rolexertion

I have found over the years that people who can't spell simple words like 'seeming' generally lack the education to comprehend even reasonably rudimentary scientific principles, however brilliant they themselves apparently think they are.

Sorry I couldn't resist.

[dsio]

Originally Posted by rolexertion

Watches are commonly tested for water resistance by subjecting them to air pressure, as low as 1 Bar, and measuring the very real deformation that the case exhibits under that pressure, or subjecting them to a vacuum and measuring the slight expansion of the case. (There's actually a thread on the Rolex General Discussion forum with a video about exactly this phenomenon). But I suspect that there isn't a whole lot of explanation that would be meaningful to you anyway. I have found over the years that people who can't spell simple words like 'seeming' generally lack the education to comprehend even reasonably rudimentary scientific principles, however brilliant they themselves apparently think they are.

Without being an expert on the technique behind it, having a quick look at threads such as:

http://www.rolexforums.com/showthread.php?t=88740

It seems that there is a deformation in the order of a couple of microns (a human hair being around 100 microns) under that level of vacuum, with 10 bar of pressure causing a deformation of 58 microns in an old model Submariner (about half a human hair).

Given that this deformation is measured from the crystal to the caseback, and given that the sapphire crystal, solid steal case body, and caseback are not going to deform to any detectable level, its pretty safe to assume that those few microns are result of the flexible rubber seals doing their job. You can see them here: http://www.ofrei.com/page990.html

Going on what that watchmaker was saying in the video, and a quick google search, having the seals flex outward under a vacuum is a good way for them to verify that they're both correctly seated, still flexible, and uncracked. Its actually quite a cool video.

I've corrected my spelling of seem in this post btw.

[sleddog]

Originally Posted by rolexertion

Watches are commonly tested for water resistance by subjecting them to air pressure, as low as 1 Bar, and measuring the very real deformation that the case exhibits under that pressure, or subjecting them to a vacuum and measuring the slight expansion of the case. (There's actually a thread on the Rolex General Discussion forum with a video about exactly this phenomenon). But I suspect that there isn't a whole lot of explanation that would be meaningful to you anyway. I have found over the years that people who can't spell simple words like 'seeming' generally lack the education to comprehend even reasonably rudimentary scientific principles, however brilliant they themselves apparently think they are.

Your context is a little over bearing and sarcastic for my liking...
If you feel the need to belittle someone with the attitude, you know best, I suggest you re-think and readjust your attitude!!
Now I've noticed a reoccuring patter with your posting style and it's one that's not needed on these boards.!
You are, as we all are, entitled to an opinion. But there is no need to post with such outward arrogance that you have displayed here.

Take a step back and refrain from subjecting members to the rudeness you portray, or you may find an expiring membership.

[dmc]

Originally Posted by dsio

Actually it was probably your post I was directing that to rather than the original.

The notion that a 2mm thick piece of 316L stainless steel with a heavily domed edge would be deformed at 200 feet when the flat plexiglass (plastic) crystal of a 1970s datejust is safely rated to over 300 feet.

I mean forgive me for seaming hostile, but I'm just not sure how exactly to even respond to that.

The original poster's remark:

"just don't count on this "2000 ft" watch for any real diving. Good thing I had my normal instruments to get me up safely, and that the watch was just along for the ride because I meant to christen it as a real diver. It isn't."

Also had me shaking my head, but the caseback deformation explanation in 60m of water was something else entirely.

I mean seriously some person that comes here off a google search could actually take these statements as a matter of fact and truly believe that Planet Oceans are not safe to go into the water with. Or that a watch caseback made of thick steel will start to bend to the point of having an effect on the movement when taken to common recreational diving depths.

And this is all before a watchmaker has even looked at the thing.

Once again, I'm sorry for being aggressive, and you're certainly entitled to your opinion but this just seamed to be a typical case of incorrect hypothesis leading to misleading statements of fact, backed up by others with no evidence.

All of your comments are in my opinion are quite acceptable. Although a bit course to those who are easily offended. Your comments are to the point and on the mark, as far as fine watch engineering are concerned.

I can't wait to see the letter from Omega as to the problem with the watch.

[salem65]

Originally Posted by dsio

The likelihood of depth having any effect on it, is rather laughable. The two possibilities you have are A: You didn't wind the watch fully and there was not enough movement to keep it running on your dive until you wiggled it around a fair bit to look at it on your decompression stop (Most likely by far) or B: You're running one of the early 2500A movements that have known issues and were taken care of by Omega.

The notion that your dive depth had anything to do with it, is frankly just being stupid. You've got two things in play that would have any real effect, water, and pressure.

Is it flooded, or has it been mechanically compressed or crushed? If not you're back to A and B, with an emphasis on A.

I believe that variable C=Temperature would certainly have an effect as well.

[dsio]

Originally Posted by salem65

I believe that variable C=Temperature would certainly have an effect as well.

I very much doubt it. Garden variety Speedmasters withstood extremes well below that in service with NASA, with the "Alaska Project" being rated for -148° C and +260°C. In the paperwork with my Seamaster Chronograph they mention the oils currently used are entirely safe at between -20° C and 70° C. Now perhaps with the PO they stopped using that, and switched to vaseline, but I just don't see it.

The most obvious and uncomplicated explanation is the one I mentioned above, that it wasn't fully wound at the start of the dive, and wound down due to lack of significant arm movement.

[charlesvdw]

So I guess the most likely explanation is this flawed caliber 2500. What exactly was wrong with it?

[dsio]

Originally Posted by charlesvdw

So I guess the most likely explanation is this flawed caliber 2500. What exactly was wrong with it?

Earlier versions of the 2500, the 2500A and 2500B on rare occasions stopped, Omega later replaced them with the 2500C which is considered to be a fine movement. The 2500s are a lightly modified version of the ETA 2892, which is quite possibly the most widely made swiss automatic movement in current production, a handful of 2500As and Bs had issues, by all accounts the rate of failure on 2500Cs is less than the vast majority of swiss watches, and if this is one of those, its just a matter of being the unlucky statistical anomaly.

There's plenty of discussions about it on here as well as Timezone and various watch blogs, but that about sums it up.

[psv]

Perhaps, but not exactly a diplomatic way of expression your opinion...

[STEELINOX]

dsio, I too think this is operator error.


One thing I do when preparing for a dive is I manually wind my timepiece up before I enter the water; this does two things, one it winds it and two, I have to screw the crown down verifying a water tight seal...

Its kinda like this guy - why do you think he winds his timepieces up before a voyage - its not rocket science !
[Course Ed Mitchell has another thing in mind when winding...]

[gsd119]

Rolex Submariner does not fail.

[Trev]

My guess it's some combination of cold and pressure,

You're not exactly diving the Mariana Trench here. Pressure is not going to change the shape of your steel watch case at these depths.

[STEELINOX]

Originally Posted by Trev

You're not exactly diving the Mariana Trench here. Pressure is not going to change the shape of your steel watch case at these depths.

Exactly !

VTC guys buyin you a beer, heck, he's buyin everyone beers - see him in the Bar !

[Kapture1]

The PO has been known to stop, and not just on dives. I read somewhere that many PO's had some different type of lube, and it's a known issue. Send it in for service (hopefully under warranty).good luck.

[poppydog]

Originally Posted by Kapture1

The PO has been known to stop, and not just on dives. I read somewhere that many PO's had some different type of lube, and it's a known issue. Send it in for service (hopefully under warranty).good luck.

That's my understanding too, but as a theory, it doesn't appear to have much credence in this thread. Still seems the most likely cause in my view, especially in the context of my own experiences.