Beware Timsons pressure test !!
I took a beater in (WR 10 bar) to get it tested before a holiday.
The bloke was friendly so I asked if I could see how he did it / equipment - it was the wet type of tester.
Watch goes into the vessel, lid on, pressure pumped up - so far, all well and good
BUT :
1. The max pressure on the vessel was only 5 bar (going by the gauge) - almost useless
2. The bloke only took the test up to 3.5 bar and declared the watch waterproof !!! - definitely useless !!
I stood there gobsmacked.
I gently explained (he was doing it for free) about WR and that 3 bar was next to useless but I'm not sure he was convinced.
So, if you do use Timsons to do a WR test, you need to check the max pressure rating on the vessel and how high a pressure they'll use.
Despite that, I've found Timsons to be very helpful - the same shop has opened a couple of cases before I got myself a Jaxa opener and gave me a tube of silicon grease
James
Last edited by oldandgrumpy; 16th July 2014 at 12:13.
I went and had my Helson tested (when there was a rumour they weren't water tight). Think they did (or were supposed to do) to 5bar in one of those dry belljar type things. Obviously not a great test but better than nothing and proved it at least it had some resistance. Timpsons always helpful and polite as you said though.
I my opinion they should stick to repairing shoes. Then again they are not very good at that.
ismaaeel
That's an interesting point, because if I were to get my Helson serviced, is there even a pressure tester that can test it up to the rated 2000m? I imagine most watchmakers might be set up to test to a typical diver's 200m, but ten times that?
Of course, I'm not planning to send it to the bottom of the Challenger Deep, but one likes to know whether things are as waterproof as the dial says they should be...
Its always made me chuckle when I see the sign in every Timpsons advertising watch battery replacement. They use a large photo of a Seiko auto diver (SKX007 I think).
Made me chuckle too and yes it's a 007. I wouldn't touch them tbh. I went in once for bracelet link removal on my new Sumo (back in the day when I couldn't do those things myself).Originally Posted by EdHughes1
The customer in front of me was having the same thing done and in the time I stood there the bloke bent one pin and lost another. I walked straight over the mall to Beaverbrooks.
^^^^This^^^^
I will never understand why, someone would take their cherished watch, to an outfit like this.
With the "automatic" text photoshopped out no less!
To be fair, its an advert for watch repairs not battery replacements.With the "automatic" text photoshopped out no less!
Spoiler
I once took a Seiko mod I'd put together to Timsons for a pressure test. They refused to do it because it said 150m on the dial and their tester was only capable of up to 100m/10bar. They said it would have to be sent to their main office for testing at a cost of £60 odd but that price would also include a new battery (it was an auto) and gaskets if required. I explained that I was happy with a 100m test but they still refused as it was against company policy.
I think communication (or lack of) was the issue here. Yes, the watch was pressure tested, but not to 10bar. Not sure why the OP thinks testing to 3.5bar is useless; agreed, it isn`t 10bar but does his watch really need to be waterproof to 10bar? It's a beater, it's going to keep the water out adequately (unless he goers diving in it) so I can`t see the problem. Maybe the guy should've clarified the fact that he couldn`t test to 10bar and was therefore unable to confirm that the watch still met it's design figure.
I have concerns about using a wet tester and I use mine very carefully. It's far too easy to blow the glass out of the watch if there's a problem, you have to think carefully what you're doing with these things.
Paul
Timpsons make much of the fact that they employ many rehabilitated ex-convicts to run their stores, claiming proven success with this policy over a number of years. This is a magnanimous employment strategy which the liberal in us might celebrate.......but it might deter some from entrusting their watches or jewellery to such a store. "Can I just take your address madam.......?"
Haywood M
<chortle>
I once worked for a business that supplied equipment to NACRO for use by the 'ex' offenders. We had to keep on re-supplying as it was always being stolen.
Yes, I'd agree there was a lack of communication.
Did the watch need to be tested to 10bar ?
Well, it was going to be a wet holiday - rafting, canoeing, coasteering - understandably, I really didn't want to take anything decent with me - it was a late purchase, used, needed a new battery (which I did) but what I wanted was to check the WR.
The watch was clearly labelled 10bar - I assumed that it would be tested accordingly - if that figure wasn't possible, surely the bloke should have told me.
As I said earlier, it passed 3.5 bar - well I still took the watch (after all, it was bought for the purpose and I didn't have anything else I wanted beaten up) and yep, it leaked - not the first time it got a dunking but at some point - so yes, I did need to get it tested closer to 10bar.
Not the end of the world but I've now got a more WR reliable Vostok Amphibian to do the job.
If the watch passed a pressure test up to 3.5bar it should've been fine, no way should it have leaked.
Paul
Well it did
Push crown so no finger trouble there.
OP, you do realize that most brands don't test new watches to the rated depth either, right?
Some like Rolex, Omega, and ISO rated Seikos are tested all the way up to the rated depths, but most are not.
Last edited by Foodle; 17th July 2014 at 02:47.
I took my Tag Heuer (20 Meters) in to Timpsons in Selfridges London in 2008, to change the battery.
They charged me the same price as it would of cost in the watch department in Selfridges (£60), after putting on the backcase they put my watch into the pressure bell jar and tested it to 50 meters.
When I asked the serviceman why he didn't do it up to 200 he said we don't really go past a quarter of what stated on the watch because most watches are passed their guarantee and therefore the higher the pressure test the more likely the crystal will blow/crack, you have paid for a battery change the pressure test is free and is only to make sure the caseback has been sealed properly.
They did all the work in front of me, where as when I had the battery changed before (in the watch department in Selfridges) it was behind closed doors.
I wouldn't use Timpsons again as they did not "do the work" in a dust free/clean working environment and they damaged the crown which I did not notice until I got home.
Just a side note the original battery lasted 8 years, the Selfridges battery lasted 2 years, the Timpsons battery lasted 3 years, the current battery (4 years & counting) was changed by an ex watch repairer and only charge me £5 for the battery and lubrication for the watch.
Many moons ago, I worked on an assembly line installing button cell batteries into low power electronics. How you handled the battery had a huge effect on the battery life. A mis-handled battery (usually shorting between the two terminals with the fingers) could drastically reduce the battery life. Any battery we mis-handled had to be tossed in the bin. Battery aging was also a concern. Both factors could change the battery life by a significant amount. I'm guessing Timpsons wasn't very careful about either.
Last edited by Foodle; 17th July 2014 at 02:10.
That is very interesting. Did you find that simply holding a battery between thumb and forefinger could short it?
Yup, if any of us did that, the battery had to be binned. The human body has pretty high overall resistance (about 1M-ohm), but even so, it was enough to reduce the battery life to the point where we were not allowed to ship the product. These were small battery powered integrated circuits rated for ~10 years in the field
Thanks, that is very informative. It would go a long way to explaining why watch battery life often seems so variable. I shall be much more careful in future about changing batteries.
Last edited by markrlondon; 17th July 2014 at 03:11.
I`ve had a good think about the way the wet pressure testers work and I think they're flawed.
Consider a watch that will leak at 3.0 bar gauge. Prior to going into the pressurised airspace the watch is at the same pressure as the surrounding atmosphere. As the pressure increases to 2.0 bar, the pressure difference (between the watch and the airspace) is 2.0 bar because the watch hasn`t leaked yet. On reaching 3.0bar the watch just starts to leak; as the pressure increases further (say 3.5bar) the watch continues to let air into the case. However, the inside of the case won`t reach 3.5bar; the watch will stop leaking when the pressure differential reaches 3.0bar, because the watch is capable of sealing at this pressure differential. The will leave the inside of the watch pressurised to 0.5 bar, with the external (airspace) pressure at 3.5bar.
If the pressure in the airspace is dropped slightly (say to 3.0bar) and the watch immersed in water, no bubbles will be seen to leave the case. As the pressure is reduced, you may expect to see bubbles when the external pressure falls below the pressure inside the case (0.5bar). However, the watch is capable of sealing at a pressure differential of 3.0bar when the internals of the case are at reduced pressure, so it doesn`t necessarily follow that the watch will allow air out when the pressure inside the case is slightly positive relative to the external. As the pressure reduces to zero in the tester the watch case is now at +0.5bar relative to the water it's immersed in, but the seals are holding pressure and the watch isn`t releasing bubbles. All appears well, but the pressure of 0.5bar acting on the inside of the case is sufficient to press the glass off it's seal and the glass blows out.
I'm reluctant to use my wet tester on watches that contain the movement. When a watch is stripped down I pressure test the case with the glass, caseback and crown in place. If all appears well I allow the case to dry thoroughly, then inspect the inside to check there's no water present; prior to this I look for the tell-tale misting up of the glass.
I firmly believe that the logic behind wet-testing is flawed, but I`m happy to be proved wrong if someone can offer a better explanation. I`d be happier trusting the thing than not trusting it!
As for the OP's watch, which appeared to pass a 3.5bar test yet leaked when subjected to water, I still can`t explain that. The water-resistance must've been almost zero, in which case the internals of the watch would've reached almost 3.5bar during the test. This should've produced a stream of bubbles as the pressure fell or blown the glass out of the watch. Possibly, the test was conducted too quickly and the leak didn`t allow sufficient air to enter the watch to give a high enough pressure inside the case to overcome the weak spot when the pressure was released.
Paul
Last edited by walkerwek1958; 17th July 2014 at 08:03.
Hmmmm..... don't think I'll be using them to cut my keys in the future. :-(
Might bring a new meaning to a "home collection" service !
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote