I think that the point is that he didn't matter if the watch fills with water, at least the watches that he knew that probably would fail. Good to know though ;)

That is correct like Melvin says. So is a great tool to use if you actually want to test your watches without to much risk.

There are two types of test, a dry and a wet. The one you refer to is the dry, and it's the safest, as you can see the air escape when it's immersed, and have a little time to remove it before damage sets in

this movie is a disaster :(

world of tanks XXX : It's the only way to test ist. If you pressurize the watch submerged, how will you know if it got water inside? By opening it you'll break the seal and you'll never know if it's still waterproof after closing the case again.

Cleaned all the shit out of it lol

Maybe u cleaned ur ears after 15 years...lol

It's letting you know it is still alive by screaming louder

❤❤❤❤beeep❤❤❤❤

Trust me, that’s not an Australian accent!

would've loved to see it.

@@John..18 he's Scottish but indeed lives in Sydney Australia.

Excuse me. Not an Aussie by a long shot. Ok bloke though

Hilarious, I thought he had lost it when he brought the Navitimer

Ha! That one would have failed the test!

DO IT JODY! ;-)

Oystersteel is softer than 316L, you know

@@thereyougoagain1280 904L is slightly softer, but the luster of 904L done well is a thing off beauty! I still think SS can look great to if done right...

@@thereyougoagain1280 True, but "Oystersteel" rolls of the tongue so much nicer. 😉

@@NathanChisholm041 Don't

Can you tell me which one is it?

@@Mountain_dude_ The 1382, looks like the casio ae1200, but with pedometer and compass.

Thanks

Agreed. This "test" doesn't really show anything other than catastrophic failure. It misses identifying whether minor leaks exist, and doesn't check the watches after to see whether water entered the watch or not,unless I missed it. Remember, in very miniscule leaks, water ingress will show up as very small droplets or minor "hazing", not just as obvious liquid water in the case. Pressuring it up underwater greatly increases the chance of water intrusion...... Aristeidis posted the correct method - Marc over @LIW did a great run through of it, along with the folks over at Esslinger (they're pretty much gurus at this stuff). Its what I followed when doing my own tests at home. Lastly (apologies if I misinterpreted) but JOMW was using the watch ticking as evidence of success....which isn't necessarily the best thing. Watches can still run with minor water intrusion....the question is more of long term damage at that point (ask me how I know 😓).

@@arvindkalipersad161the catastrophic failure would occur in either scenario. The point want really about how to diagnose water leakage but test if cheap watches confirm to their advertising, at the risk of destroying these watches. It's a wet test not a dry test, that's all.

@@philipcarr6698 yes, but other than the breakage of the glass on that datejust homage, no check was done on the other watches to verify ingress of water, or otherwise. How do we know the other watches did not have ANY water ingress? Water can migrate through failed gaskets/casebacks, without "catastrophic" failure, or significant volumes of water showing in the watch. The watch would look structurally fine. Again, this type of minor migration will manifest as a fine mist/haze which shows up either on the dial/face e.g. by gaps near the hand stem, or near date/day wheel apertures. In such a case, there isn't a noticeable "fluid" phase in the watch, just minor moisture "haze". So in short, yes, you can test as shown here, but using the watch "ticking" as a criteria for the test being passed, isnt 100% accurate IMHO. In such a case (wet test), you'd generally use a condensation check afterwards with a drop of cold water on the crystal to confirm no hint of moisture ingress. Not trying to drag this on, or be combative in anyway, but thats how I've understood the process from my own work/dabbling/whatever I should call it. Hope I gave a bit more context here.

@@arvindkalipersad161 You can't have water ingress without bubbles. Simple. Even the dry method of testing also relies on the presence of bubbles.

@@philipcarr6698 true. But that only happens when the chamber is depressured. Simple hydraulics- if the case is sealed, then even though the water pressure is boisted to 6 barg, the water can't get in, and inside the watch stays at 0barg. Scenario 1 - If the watch has a leak, and is pressured up UNDERWATER like what JOMW did, then water will enter the case. Bubbles won't come out since any air inside the case would have been at lower pressure initially...close to 0 barg (basic fluid flow hydraulics). Again, on this scenario, water enters the case, no major bubbles to speak of. Scenario 2 - HOwever if the watch were kept in the air space above the liquid when the pressure was increased, and it has a leak, inside the case gets pressurised as well with air (excess air enters the case). Thats why if the test is done correctly (watch is kept above water, then pressured up, then dunked in the water, and pressure bled off) then you'll see air bubbles escaping once the watch is dunked in the water and THEN the pressure is bled off...... if there was a leak (excess air that leaked into the case exits via whatever leak there was). JOMW has used Scenario 1, which will not result in bubbles due to a small leak, since pressuring up underwater leads to water entering the case if there's a leak. I'd suggest checking out some more experienced folk (better than most of us here) on pressure testing - again Esslinger comes to mind. They break down pretty well (and are professionals, not random hobbyists) the Scenarios I've listed above. Laters.

You have 20 seconds to comply.

Yes, ISO6425 (Divers watch specs) calls for 25% overpressure. ISO22810 (standard most used for watches which are not stamped as "Diver's" - aka the majority of watches on the market) does not call for the 25% overpressure, IIRC. Subject to correction by those more knowledgeable here.

Any extra details ? I am curious because I am interested in one (may have had one mid 90's as a teen) .

@@lebowskiunderachiever3591 I bought it in 2009; in 2020 I put it in a glass of water to take a photo, and I found water in it. The gaskets got dry and brittle. They probably should be replaced more often than every 11 years - luckily they are sold as spare parts (e.g. meranom.com or vostok-watches24.com), they are very cheap (apart from delivery), and you can change them yourself (I did that, unfortunately *after* flooding the watch...). When new, a Vostok Amphibia can stand to pressures up to 80 bar (actual test: kzfaq.info/get/bejne/fN1-edxjpp3WnYk.html )

@@lebowskiunderachiever3591 To see how well a new Vostok Amphibia holds up, look for the video titled, "How Waterproof is Vostok Amfibia Dive Watch? Deep Sea Chamber test!"

Thankfully Vostok sells new gaskets to re-waterproof the vintage watches. I’ve done that for mine, but I’m not bold enough to test it again

☝️🤣

I thought it was made in Sweden.......from the same factory as the enlarger. ;)

Might as well need Chinese water from the Yangtze River! :)

🥱🥱🥱

Exactly my thoughts... How can be shure that the water tester works correctly and shows the real atmospheres. 🤔

I almost did the Loreo, but it has a claimed 200m and a screw down crown, so I figured it would be safe. Or a massive liar!

@@JustOneMoreWatch lol well its been stress tested and passed

Well Gary at ILW did test his and his leaked...so you may have gotten lucky on yours perhaps

@@JustOneMoreWatch no your not a liar the seals are good and the crown design is also really good but will the sapphire caseback crystal hold 200m? I think so !

I guess so. The lower ratings are most likely one they can guarantee rather than what the watch could. Same goes for food expiry, the dates are just guaranteed longevity rather than how long the food item could actually last.

Cissden? Sounds like part of a toilet 🤔

Thats because they arent QC'ing thier products. Some of these manufacturers probably check only one watch out of a 100, if not 1 out of the whole batch.

@@jfilm7466 thats where they checked the water resistance..😆

No surprise, and same with the Casio; it costs more to properly test at higher pressures. I’d still appreciate it if they did, though....

I'd be stunned if the 809 can handle 5ATM, let alone 10. Not that I don't love mine, but still.

Gary from ILW had his Loreo fail.

@@waris3732 makes sense!!

I agree. Let’s crowd source this and have the best watch reviewer in the world fully kitted out!

I don't trust him operating the 60 m tester let alone a 200 m tester. God knows what I'll be shoving in there 🤕

I'm in, where's the link?

Lol

Nice one👍👍👍👍

Yes indeed.That Invictar fail was pretty destructive blowing the crystal to bits!

You beat me to it. Great suggestion, to see how this piece of equipment works.

🤣 Herman mk ll.

Credit where credit is due?

There'll only ever be one Herman.😁

Amazing!!

Truely!

Nope, still got mine....he’s got lots of brothers and sisters!

Herman’s Back!

What if you want to ruin the watch?

@@JustOneMoreWatch aaaaah, now I see the madness in you, sir. 💪🙏

Thanks for being the 3487th person to tell me I'm doing it wrong!

@@JustOneMoreWatch Lol, sorry. I looked through the comments briefly and didn't see anyone mentioning it so I thought I would.

@@JustOneMoreWatch Internet in a nutshell

Amen to that!

I think Jody's way of testing is not "wrong", it's just more SPECTACULAR than the intended use. It's the cinematic test :-)

Edit: Jody of course, I'm an idiot, wrong watch channel.

Nice to see you here Alias Anybody, I’m usually on I like Watches 🤣!

I think that tunnel is a great idea , it would give the orange marches somewhere to march that wouldn't annoy the normal folk.

I think that tunnel is a great idea , it would give the orange marches somewhere to march that wouldn't annoy the normal folk.