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

[C. Davidson]

H. Frank,

Have you taken your Submariner on similiar dives?

[WyoWatch]

[salem65]

^^^ LOL this is an entertaining thread, I agree with that!

[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.

[djhiram]

I apologize, I just couldn't resist

[Kapture1]

Originally Posted by dsio

Its absolutely true that there have been issues related to the earlier Cal 2500's, and its a well known issue with the movement that has been discussed in the past on many a watch board that people should be aware of. Being a one year old makes that somewhat less likely unless it was sitting on the dealer's shelf for several years as any problems they had were taken care of quite a long time ago.

It happens tho. I've seen Rolex watches that are a few years old with no discount.

[STEELINOX]

I'm out of popcorn !

[elevensheep]

entertaining read :)

[dieseldragon]

maybe if we knew part of the serial number we could work out the watches age and then whether it is an issue with the earlier movement or not..

[H.W. Frank]

I'm pretty sure it's one of the older 2500 movements, as I bought it NOS from Bernard in early 2010. Box looked like it had been sitting for awhile. Ran great for a year, then it just seized up. Sent it back to Bernard for warranty work, they sent it off to their watchsmith, and it ran great after that, until I took it diving. First time it was ever under. As noted, no idea what the source of the problem is, but I'm going to send it back to Omega, at my cost, so I can be sure that it is at factory specifications. Hopefully, they'll also provide some explanation. Kind of silly, in a way, because I use digital gauges for diving, and the watch runs fine otherwise, but I'd at least like to know my PO has the advertised capabilities. Besides, I've got some 325' dives scheduled for August, and think it would be slick to have it along for the ride then (may take the Sub along in a pocket, too, just so I can say it was there.)

[poppydog]

Originally Posted by H.W. Frank

I'm pretty sure it's one of the older 2500 movements, as I bought it NOS from Bernard in early 2010. Box looked like it had been sitting for awhile. Ran great for a year, then it just seized up. Sent it back to Bernard for warranty work, they sent it off to their watchsmith, and it ran great after that, until I took it diving. First time it was ever under. As noted, no idea what the source of the problem is, but I'm going to send it back to Omega, at my cost, so I can be sure that it is at factory specifications. Hopefully, they'll also provide some explanation. Kind of silly, in a way, because I use digital gauges for diving, and the watch runs fine otherwise, but I'd at least like to know my PO has the advertised capabilities. Besides, I've got some 325' dives scheduled for August, and think it would be slick to have it along for the ride then (may take the Sub along in a pocket, too, just so I can say it was there.)

Good luck with it mate, hope it works out. I was diving with mine couple of days ago (but only to 20 metres).

People on other forums have said that all POs have the 2500c, so if they're right, an earlier version seems unlikely. Despite the contradictory opinions here, I still think it may be a combination of temperature and lubrication. Hope you can find the time to let us know how it pans out as well as how the dives go in August.

[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.

[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...

[Mike B]

Sorry to hear of your Omega quitting on you like that :(

I've never taken mine diving yet, but I wouldn't want mine to fail when I'm counting on it for something.

[xjeeunitx]

My guess it's the problem with the lubrication... I'm sure Omega will take care of it hence they offer three year warranty on watches with Co-Axial movement.

[Gary.]

To the O.P.

There have been a number of reported stoppage problems with Planet Oceans (which only ever contained the 'C' revision of the 2500) and the stoppages all seem to be from watches from the early runs (a bluish AR coating will mark your watch as an early one).
Whenever they were returned, the fix has apparently been permanent, suggesting that there was a quality control issue with a specific run of watches and that Omega is aware of the fault and how to fix it. It's been speculated that it is a lubrication issue but Omega have never given an official explanation.

I have no idea if this has anything to do with this case, however.

Obviously, your watch has a problem but it is probably a fault rather than that the P.O. "can't dive". My car once had a puncture but I didn't conclude that the Golf can't be driven on roads. If some of the posters have been a little short with you, I hope you can understand why, from the way you phrased your original post, this might be.
You should really get the watch looked at and I hope you can get it repaired and working as it should have from the start.

Gary

[eah990]

I have taken my planet ocean muff diving. And it works every time. giggity giggity giggity giggity goo.

[Wisconsin Proud]

Another "co-axed" PO owner

Maybe the Unibrowed Flannel shirt wearing CEO could speak on this issue rather than blasting his US sales outlets.

[donq]

So did you find the problem? My guess
would be temperature related. Put it in the freezer and see if it stops!

[H.W. Frank]

Originally Posted by donq

So did you find the problem? My guess
would be temperature related. Put it in the freezer and see if it stops!

Bingo. Just pulled it out of 30 minutes in half-frozen water, and it had seized up just as it did on the dives. I suppose that means it's an issue of incorrect lubrication -- in this case, by the watch-smith who did the warranty work? Going to send it to an authorized/qualified Omega watch-smith to put it 100% right.

PS Dove the 1898 wreck of the steamer L.R. Doty last Saturday, 306 feet (100m) down on the bottom of Lake Michigan, water temp 37 degrees F, run-time of 131 minutes. Took the Rolex Sub along for the ride, and no problem at all. I look forward to christening the PO with the same success after it's serviced.

[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.

[spyderco10]

Originally Posted by H.W. Frank

I'm pretty sure it's one of the older 2500 movements, as I bought it NOS from Bernard in early 2010. Box looked like it had been sitting for awhile. Ran great for a year, then it just seized up. Sent it back to Bernard for warranty work, they sent it off to their watchsmith, and it ran great after that, until I took it diving. First time it was ever under. As noted, no idea what the source of the problem is, but I'm going to send it back to Omega, at my cost, so I can be sure that it is at factory specifications. Hopefully, they'll also provide some explanation. Kind of silly, in a way, because I use digital gauges for diving, and the watch runs fine otherwise, but I'd at least like to know my PO has the advertised capabilities. Besides, I've got some 325' dives scheduled for August, and think it would be slick to have it along for the ride then (may take the Sub along in a pocket, too, just so I can say it was there.)

Ah, the plot thickens. It seized up once before and had to be "fixed" (not by an Omega service center). Your watch is most likely defective somehow and the problem you experienced is not indicative that all Planet Oceans are not real divers.

[spyderco10]

Originally Posted by gary.

to the o.p.

There have been a number of reported stoppage problems with planet oceans (which only ever contained the 'c' revision of the 2500) and the stoppages all seem to be from watches from the early runs (a bluish ar coating will mark your watch as an early one).
Whenever they were returned, the fix has apparently been permanent, suggesting that there was a quality control issue with a specific run of watches and that omega is aware of the fault and how to fix it. It's been speculated that it is a lubrication issue but omega have never given an official explanation.

I have no idea if this has anything to do with this case, however.

obviously, your watch has a problem but it is probably a fault rather than that the p.o. "can't dive". My car once had a puncture but i didn't conclude that the golf can't be driven on roads. if some of the posters have been a little short with you, i hope you can understand why, from the way you phrased your original post, this might be.
You should really get the watch looked at and i hope you can get it repaired and working as it should have from the start.

Gary

+1

[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).

Originally Posted by H.W. Frank

Bingo. Just pulled it out of 30 minutes in half-frozen water, and it had seized up just as it did on the dives. I suppose that means it's an issue of incorrect lubrication -- in this case, by the watch-smith who did the warranty work? Going to send it to an authorized/qualified Omega watch-smith to put it 100% right.

PS Dove the 1898 wreck of the steamer L.R. Doty last Saturday, 306 feet (100m) down on the bottom of Lake Michigan, water temp 37 degrees F, run-time of 131 minutes. Took the Rolex Sub along for the ride, and no problem at all. I look forward to christening the PO with the same success after it's serviced.

[Mystro]

Temperature is NOT a issue with the PO. I have personally tested my PO to -10.