Jump to content
  • Announcements

    • greg_r

      RWG NEEDS YOUR SUPPORT!   04/09/17

      RWG Needs Your Support - upgrade to a VIP/Supporter membership! If you find your time here to be useful and (we hope) entertaining, we encourage you to become a VIP/Supporter member. This only costs £21 (a little under $30 USD dependent on exchange rates) per annum and all proceeds go towards our hosting costs and making RWG the best watch board around. By becoming a supporter you will also gain a number of benefits including: 1. If you subscribe during one of our VIP upgrade competitions (announced above the shoutybox on the board index page and also found in our competitions subforum), then you could win a nice watch (usually a high-quality rep). We run these competitions approximately monthly, so keep your eyes open for the next one. You will also get access to our free birthday VIP giveaways - you could win a strap, watch tools or even a watch (there have been some amazing prizes including gen Longines, Raymond Weil, Hamilton and Victorinox watches, along with various high-end reps!) 2. Early access to the Member Sales area (see the sales area for rules) and the ability to bump your sale to the top of the board periodically. 3. Access to the supporters-only section of the board. 4. Increased PM storage 5. The ability to change your displayed user name (once in a 90-day period). 6. Occasional discounts from some of our dealers (keep an eye on their subforums for special offers). PLEASE PM Greg_r to upgrade to VIP

Diver Dave

  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited


About Diver Dave

  • Rank
    Experienced Poster

Recent Profile Visitors

359 profile views
  1. Which of these engravings?

    Smaller one with the S/N. Get an extra made for me... Dave
  2. Vintage Modders?

    Invest in about $50 worth of tools and do it yourself. It's not hard, and it's all pretty intuitive...
  3. ebay dssd

    No, and I posted a full article on it entitled "waterproofing etc" if you go search for it. Dave
  4. That's actually a pretty nice watch....
  5. Where can i buy good replica of Rolex

    Wise advice. I would never buy a rep of a watch that's a copy of something I couldn't afford as a gen. Your actual socio-economic status is the fastest tell of someone wearing a rep. If you can't afford a $300 rep, don't buy any. Nobody is going to think it's a gen.
  6. The Never Ending Seikos Wristies!

    At work 14 minutes after engine start with one of the "Fleiger-Divers" I build up. Pilots and Divers love these, with some 200 out there "someplace" to date. Watch is a Seiko. Airplane is a MiG-15. Life over the Mojave Desert flying Russian Fighters for the DOD is good...
  7. When will the GS reps start to appear

    ^^ This. I build up fairly large numbers of custom Seiko watches, but I still regard them as a "non-status" brand. In fact much of what I do is to sterilize them so that you don't know they are a Seiko to start with. So although I am a fa, I'm a fan with open eyes. I think Seiko is being a bit presumptuous thinking that there's a mass of people willing to have "Seiko" on their wrist rather than (Omega, Rolex, IWC, 'fill in the blank') for the same money. People spending that sort of money want a bit of prestige. Seiko doesn't have that by any means. It's a great cheap watch. but it's a cheap watch. Dave
  8. Waterproofing testing/strength/other thoughts

    Thanks Rich, coming from you that means a lot. You of all people know the cross section of a vintage Rolex intimately, so think about what I said. On the back the seal is made outside of the threaded portion of the back, The back can bend like tinfoil but that seal isn't going to change dimension at all, and it's not going to leak. On the crystal it's the same, the area under the compression ring is the seal and even though the acrylic crystal bends, the annular seal isn't impacted as it's on a completely different plane of stress (90 degrees off). Pressure makes it seal better, not worse. Seal the tube & stem (which is easy) and it ain't gonna leak. Ever. Dave
  9. Waterproofing testing/strength/other thoughts

    Thanks Greg. There's a lot more to this than meets the eye, and a watch can be tested for waterproofing a lot more easily than most people think. My pleasure. Look at this gem. I remember this ad running in Skin Diver Magazine when I was but a pup, and I started saving mhy lunch money for a Submariner soon after. These things bend before they leak, if the seals are OK to start with. Note that the case IS NOT a Sub, It's the cheapest Oyster case they made at the time, made for an Air King or something, It's a 330 foot rated case, not a 660 foot rated one. Pretty interesting, isn't it? "In 18K Gold: $1400"... The Tudor Sub I was saving for then was $190 list price. The SS Sub/Date was $285 but could be had at the military exchange for about $250. That was when men who got their hands dirty bought watches and worked with them. It took me until 1977 to finally get my Sub, which I paid $325 for used. I thought I had "settled" for a used one, which now turns out to be a 1966 manufactured 5512 worth a small fortune. I still wear it now and then. If you understand the cross section of a watch case and a crystal sealed like a Sub, you'll understand that the part that bends isn't the part that does the sealing. I'll try to find a section view to annotate and describe.
  10. ebay dssd

    Anyone playing with watches needs one. They are so cheap as to be accessible to anyone and pay themselves back immediately. No need to be sheepish about swimming with a watch wondering if it's ok. Just test and know. And the good news is that every Sub and GMT rep that I've tested has either been watertight "as is" or after sealing the crown tube with a drop of Loctite. Takes fifteen minutes and a few tools to do
  11. ebay dssd

    I started to reply to this and it turned into a long enough reply that I posted it as a new thread in general, titled "waterproofing, etc". You might be interested in it. 4 bar testing is plenty if done correctly. The problem is that very few people do it correctly. Read my other post to see why, And you're right twice: I wouldn't touch this watch, and I don't put any watch into the water without testing it. Dave
  12. This started out as a segue in a reply that I was beginning to post on a post in "scams" regarding a DSSD and how deep it wad been tested to for waterproofing, and as I continued my thoughts I realized it would have more value as a separate thread, so here it is: The thoughts that I was responding to had to do with "how deep do you need to test" to prove that a watch can go to "x" depth. Many people think that if you want to wear a watch to, say... 100 meters, you need to test each one to that depth. Nothing could be further than the truth. So, here goes: I worked in the undersea industries for a long while, and did final waterproofing testing on instrument and electronics packages that were being taken to Benthic depths, so take the following for what it's worth: Waterproofing raises two concerns to the designers/users: 1: Physical strength, IE: "Will it be crushed physically by the pressure, or more to the point, will it be deformed by pressure to the point where the physical dimensions change sufficiently to allow the seals to be breached?" This is a matter of the physical strength of the housing, or for a watch the physical strength of the case, back, and crystal. 2: Sealing integrity: This is the concern of a nicked O-Ring, missing gasket, cat-hair across a gasket, etc etc. Basically this deals with leakage past a seal, even though the case structure itself hasn't been breached or it's dimensional changed by pressure. In a watch, the concerns of (1): above are designed into the watch, IE: "We don't get to change the thickness of the back, or the material of the case, and only rarely can we do anything about the material of the crystal". Basically, we get what we get. The good news is that our common Rolex clones are so physically similar to the Gens that they essentially piggyback on the structural engineering of the originals to the point that "crush depth" concerns are almost nonexistent. The bottom line is that it's not terribly likely that you'll ever dive deep enough to literally crush the back into the movement, stopping the watch. I'm using Rolex as a model here, but the concept is identical to other watch cases. One thing to note is that crush-depth testing on a watch will nearly always result in a back deforming to the point where the movement stops, but that the cases do not leak water. Why? Imagine the cross section of the back sealing gasket area. The sealing surface is OUTSIDE of the threaded area, while the much larger actual back is INSIDE the threaded area. You can take a case without a movement, put it into a pressure chamber, pressurize it so much that the back bends so far that it touches the crystal (an acrylic crystal will also bend in until the crystal and back actually touch each other), yet NOT cause a leak to form. This has been proven again and again. The takeaway from this ^^ is that "Full-Depth" testing (IE: To 200/1000/2000 meters) is something that tests the physical strength of the assembly. The engineering is either adequate or inadequate. You do not (likely) need to re-prove the strength margins of the case yourself. It doesn't change from example to example. And even with the differences in steel used between Gen and any reasonable quality Gen, there's no real difference in strength. Take this for what it's worth: Gold Subs have the same depth rating as a stainless one. The cheapest Chinese stainless is going to be FAR stronger than that Gen Rolex gold... Next subject: The seals of the watch are what we really need to test, both after receipt and after any servicing. Really, you're testing for the actual presence or absence of a gasket, and then you're testing for physical damage to gaskets and debris trapped across a sealing surface. Let's look at each in turn: Leak point one: 1: Absence of a gasket: In MANY of the rep watches I've seen leak, the leak is from the fact that there's no seal between the case and the crown tube. I've seen this on a LOT of the vintage Rolex rep cases, other reps might vary. The "why" is irrelevant, and the fix is easy: Remove the tube and reinstall it with a bit of Loctite sealant. The depth of test needed to see this leak is about (hold your breath here)... five feet. Yup, the leak is so bad that you "barely" need to pressurize a watch tester to find it. This would be identical to what you would see with a missing back gasket. Leak point two: 2: Damaged seals. The seals in a watch come in two types: Static and Dynamic. So let's look at these in detail: (A): Static seals are "seal it once and then it never moves", which is the type of seal that you have at the crystal and at the back. Once it's closed, it's closed and there's no further motion between the parts you're trying to seal. SOME static seals need to be lubricated with grease (silicone), but for two different reasons. On a STATIC seals we lubricate THREADED CLOSED seals (case backs) sparingly so that the friction of the rotation of the closure doesn't pull a seal by stretching it and damaging it. On seals that are not closed with a rotational effort (an underwater camera back seal for instance) modern practice is to use these seals without lubrication, as the silicone tends to collect sand and grit. The takeaway is that GREASE DOES NOT MAKE THE SEAL. Grease *prevents damage to the seal during the closure process*. Note that in every rep I've taken apart the back seals are put in dry. BUT also note that if the back seals, whether or not it was lubricated to start with is irrelevant. (B): Dynamic seals: These are seals that are moved in normal use. On a watch they are the crown seal and on a chrono the pushers. These "are moved" by the user after the watch is closed. Since in this case we have routine (or semi-routine) movement of the two metal surfaces with a gasket between the two, we ALWAYS want the seals sparingly lubricated upon assembly. And I mean SPARINGLY. The grease doesn't vanish over time, it just gets spread out on the sealing surface. A seal that looks "wet" is all it takes. Again, if a gasket is damaged, you do not need to pressurize a case terribly deep to find a leak. You're not proving anything by testing to 100 meters, if it's going to leak at 100 meters, it'll leak at 10. it just takes longer to see. Leak point three: (3): Debris in a gasket. This is the "cat hair across the gasket" leak. It's a VERY common reason for a flooded housing. Old dried lubricant not cleaned off after a reassembly, a hair across a seal, etc etc.. These also produce VERY obvious leaks that you do not need to test for at extreme depth. All of this leads up to the "how do we test then? question. Before we go there, let's look at HOW we test a watch. Watches are usually tested by a two step process; Step 1: Pressurize the watch IN THE DRY and let it "soak up" any air that might penetrate into the case by letting it sit under pressure for some time period. Step 2: Depressurize it quickly and then immerse it in water, and look for bubbles escaping from it. Any gas that went IN past a bad seal will come back OUT past that same leak. Watch testers do this by hanging the watch from a movable rod, over a cup of water, in a test chamber. You pressurize the chamber, wait, depressurize it, lower the watch into the water, and look at it. So, "How deep do you need to test?" AKA "how in the world do I have confidence in a watch only tested to 5 atmospheres when I want to use it at (20, 100, 200) artmospheres (which is silly, but work with me here). The answer is "not terribly deep". Why? 1: You do NOT need to test to extreme depth to ensure a good seal at extreme depth. The physical strength of the original engineering doesn't need to be validated at home. Assuming that a rep basically meets the original design, it'll be plenty strong. On cheap reps this may not be the case, so.... yes there's some ambiguity, but even so... forget about it. 2: You DO need to test the gasket sealing of these things. The crystal to case seal, the back to case seal, the tube to case seal, and the actual crown'stem seal to the tube, BUT!! To test these you do NOT need top test to extreme depth. Depth changes the RATE of a leak, but not "if" it'll leak. The bottom line is that a 4 atmosphere test HELD FOR AN ADEQUATE LENGTH OF TIME is far more than adequate to check a watch for use in water depth far greater than 4 atmospheres. The key is to let the watch sit at pressure for an hour or two, to give time for that SLIGHT leak in a gasket to reveal itself, and then to watch the case for leaks for another hour or two upon depressurization. The takeaway from this is that a PATIENT test to FAIRLY SHALLOW DEPTHS is a valid test for use in much deeper water. The error many people make is to not allow an adequate time period under dry pressure nor an adequate study period in the water looking for leaks after depressurization. If you hand your watch to someone for testing and they give it back to you in five minutes, you should be confident to go take a shower. Take that same pressure test but maintain it for an hour with a good result and be confident enough to go scuba diving. Bottom line: Within reason, it's the LENGTH that's more important than the DEPTH. And with that double entendre' I Ieave it for discussion. Diver Dave
  13. skx-007 new

    The slapping it on a table trick will likely work. Stuck hairspring are a possible cause of this. Don't be gentle: give it a solid thump on a table top. Really.
  14. submariner black dial date noob

    As was said in college: 1: RTFQ 2: RTFA* *Read the fucking question. Read the fucking answer. Or in this case, read the pinned FAQ's.....