Rolex 1601 & 1603 waterproof?

[hunz]

Are these models 1. waterproof or just 2. water-resistant?

And to what depth?

[Noonan]

The datejust is rated to 100m.

[Kokyuryoku]

Originally Posted by hunz

Are these models 1. waterproof or just 2. water-resistant?

And to what depth?

2 because watches aren't waterproof, they're either water resistant or not.

Originally Posted by Noonan

The datejust is rated to 100m.

Yep, that's what the RSC told me too Not that my 1601 goes any deeper than the sink

[hunz]

Originally Posted by Kokyuryoku

2 because watches aren't waterproof, they're either water resistant or not.:

could you explain?

[Kokyuryoku]

Originally Posted by Kokyuryoku

2 because watches aren't waterproof, they're either water resistant or not.

Originally Posted by hunz

could you explain?

Sorry, I forgot to add "these" before watches . It should have read, 'because these watches aren't waterproof, they're either water resistant or not.'

What I meant by either water resistant or not is simply that, they either keep water out or they don't. As for them not being waterproof, I'm not 100% clear on that myself, but I did read somewhere on here that only diver watches could be classified as waterproof. Here is the post (by Tools back in May 2009)

Originally Posted by Tools

Good question..

There is a standard that covers what can or cannot be called a waterproof vs water resistant watch..

Standard ISO 2281:1990 ... I'm not going to get into it, except to say that they have determined how you can mark or market certain water-resistant attributes of a watch..and specifies language......Here it is here if anybody is interested:

http://www.iso.org/iso/iso_catalogue...?csnumber=7100

Diver watches are not covered by this... they are considered differently as they are waterproof and must meet certain stiffer testing standards... ISO 6425:1996

This is the thread.

http://www.rolexforums.com/showthrea...ght=waterproof

[robsteve]

If you search this site you will find another thread where Rolex USA proved that the Oyster cases were indeed waterproof and were granted the right to use that term for their watches.

One of the members more familiar with it may be able to provide a link to the thread.

Robert

[hunz]

ok, and does the 'waterproofing' also apply to the acrylic crystal?

[rmfnla]

It does, but that assumes it is in good condition with no cracks or chips.

[Kokyuryoku]

Originally Posted by robsteve

If you search this site you will find another thread where Rolex USA proved that the Oyster cases were indeed waterproof and were granted the right to use that term for their watches.

One of the members more familiar with it may be able to provide a link to the thread.

Robert

I think this is the post you're referring to.

Originally Posted by wuzzzer

Rolex is allowed to use the term waterproof in regards to their watches. They submitted their testing procedures to the FTC in the United States and the FTC was satisfied with what they saw and allowed Rolex to use the term waterproof in the U.S.

Rolex never made a big deal out of it however.

However, I tend to agree with Larry, that's it's more semantics than anything else. Again marketing genius you could say

Originally Posted by Tools

I suppose that it's a matter of semantics.......... Is anything really "waterproof" besides solid objects........

The international standard ISO 2281 Horology – Water-resistant watches ; defines the water resistance of watches and what must be done to qualify.. Rolex goes way beyond and says that if all seals are intact, it is waterproof to the rated depth...

The standards and features for diving watches are regulated by the ISO 6425 - Divers' watches : What is interesting here is that Divers are considered watches that can dive to at least 100 meters, are tested to 125% of depth and have certain features.......... This is the same depth and testing that any Rolex Oyster watch can go to... The only things missing on a Datejust, for example or EXP II, GMT, Milgauss..etc., are the "features" such as a unidirectional bezel that keeps it from being a "diver"...

You know Potato, Potahto............

So, I guess going back to the OP's original post, then yes a newly serviced 1601 or 1603 would be classified as waterproof

[hunz]

thanks guys