Gevril

watches under $!000
Luftwafflles
Senior Member & WIS
Posts: 3056
Joined: July 9th 2012, 10:00pm
Facebook ID: 0
Location: Near the motor city..

Re: Gevril

Post by Luftwafflles » February 8th 2013, 6:55am

Thank you. My point exactly. Swimming and (hot) showers are not comparable. Oh, and Hawk, unless you have gaskets with alien technology, jacuzzis (hot ones) aren't real great either.
We called another exterminator to take care of the rat problem in the basement. This one hasn't come out either.







.
User avatar
BigCheez
ASSHAT
Posts: 5565
Joined: May 20th 2010, 10:00pm
Contact:

Re: Gevril

Post by BigCheez » February 8th 2013, 8:41am

All I know about heat and gaskets (as a non-engineer type) is that when I can't open a jar, I put it under hot water and the gasket loosens enough to be easier to remove.

But that's water a bit hotter than a swimming pool, and I'm 520 miles south of Dallas.
Image
User avatar
Hawk
ASSHAT
Posts: 10165
Joined: October 8th 2010, 10:00pm
Facebook ID: 0
Location: Orlando, FL
Contact:

Re: Gevril

Post by Hawk » February 8th 2013, 9:52am

Luftwafflles wrote:I never quote Davis, unless to show him a buffoon. And suggesting I "strain" to emulate him is a bit of an insult. I would not swim in any watch less than 100 meters wr, no matter any assurance from any "wiki". That is from personal experience, not forum research. WR is static. Human movement isn't. Never mentioned soap. Maybe I should have specifically mentioned "hot" shower, I mistakenly thought it was obvious. Many watch companies warn of not subjecting their watches to extreme heat, regardless of gasket material. And lastly, yes, we will agree to disagree.

That certainly would be an insult but that's not what I intended to say. I'm saying that the explanation sounded "strained" as in "counter intuitive".
Image
iwasbanned
Master of Time
Posts: 6071
Joined: July 13th 2010, 10:00pm
Facebook ID: 0
Location: Austin, Texas
Contact:

Re: Gevril

Post by iwasbanned » February 8th 2013, 9:56am

One of the biggest myths in the watch IDIOT savant world. A good watch will survive a sauna, a hot shower, or a warm piss. An Invicta, well, that's another story.

From: http://www.omegawatches.com/press/press-kit-text/1122

The most rigorous trials

1. High temperature
48 hours at a temperature of 160°F (71°C) followed by 30 minutes at
200°F (93°C). This under a pressure of 5.5 psia (0.35 atm) and relative
humidity not exceeding 15%.
2. Low temperature
Four hours at a temperature of 0°F (-18°C).
3. Temperature-Pressure
Chamber pressure maximum of 1.47 x 10-5 psia (10-6 atm) with
temperature raised to 160°F (71°C). The temperature shall then be
lowered to 0°F (-18°C) in 45 minutes and raised again to 160°F in 45
minutes. Fifteen more such cycles shall be completed.
4. Relative humidity
A total time of 240 hours at temperatures varying between 68°F and 160°F
(20°C and 71°C) in a relative humidity of at least 95%. The steam used
must have a pH value between 6.5 and 7.5.
5. Oxygen atmosphere
The test item shall be placed in an atmosphere of 100% oxygen at a
pressure of 5.5 psia (0.35 atm) for 48 hours. Performance outside of
specification, tolerance, visible burning, creation of toxic gases,
obnoxious odours, or deterioration of seals or lubricants shall
constitute failure to pass this test. The ambient temperature shall be
maintained at 160°F (71°C).
6. Shock
Six shocks of 40 Gs, each 11 milliseconds in duration, in six different directions.
7. Acceleration
The equipment shall be accelerated linearly from 1 G to 7.25 Gs within
333 seconds, along an axis parallel to the longitudinal spacecraft axis.
8. Decompression
Ninety minutes in a vacuum of 1.47 x 10-5 (10-6 atm) at a temperature of 160°F (71°C) and 30 minutes at 200°F (93°C).
9. High pressure
The equipment to be subjected to a pressure of 23.5 psia (1.6 atm) for a minimum period of one hour.
10. Vibration
Three cycles of 30 minutes (lateral, horizontal, vertical), the
frequency of varying from 5 to 2,000 cps and back to 5 cps in 15
minutes. Average acceleration per impulse must be at least 8.8 Gs.
11. Acoustic noise
130 db over a frequency range of 40 to 10,000 Hz, duration 30 minutes.
User avatar
Hawk
ASSHAT
Posts: 10165
Joined: October 8th 2010, 10:00pm
Facebook ID: 0
Location: Orlando, FL
Contact:

Re: Gevril

Post by Hawk » February 8th 2013, 10:03am

BigCheez wrote:All I know about heat and gaskets (as a non-engineer type) is that when I can't open a jar, I put it under hot water and the gasket loosens enough to be easier to remove.

But that's water a bit hotter than a swimming pool, and I'm 520 miles south of Dallas.

Actually I believe you'll find that the hot water causes the lid to expand slightly thus loosening it.

I'm a non-engineer type but I do have other hobbies one of which was high-power model rocketry. Cold is the enemy of gaskets - the "O" rings harden below a certain temperature. At least insofar as those specific gaskets are concerned they work better warm. (I don't know if these gaskets count as "alien technology")

http://www.aerotech-rocketry.com/uploads/11c8eef9-e32a-496f-9f1f-a807af5c9bfc_i161w_instr_insert.pdf

I don't wear watches in the shower but it's mostly because they'd probably yank out my hair while shampooing.

It seems most hobbies have some sort of urban legend.

I grow increasingly convinced that in watches the whole hot shower thing started out as some manufacturer tap-dancing his way around honoring a claim regarding a watch leaking. It was thereafter repeated on a forum or two and spread like mold thereafter.

There's no evidence to support that a shower is tougher on a seal than full immersion at 50 meters. Stationary vs movement notwithstanding.

Let's take a step back and look at it logically. Let's say it's not a watch it's just any old container. We lower it to 50 meters where it's subjected to roughly 70 psi. Let's put that in perspective. This is 15 PSI:
Image

Now, we haul this container out of the briny depths, or rescue it from our (room temperature) pressure cooker and place it in the shower. We turn on the shower, move the container around a bit, go watch TV for a minute then go back to the shower where we find the container has given up the ghost and leaked like sieve.

The emperor has no clothes. It's sufficiently counter-intuitive that I tend to believe that the legend is flawed.
Image
User avatar
Hawk
ASSHAT
Posts: 10165
Joined: October 8th 2010, 10:00pm
Facebook ID: 0
Location: Orlando, FL
Contact:

Re: Gevril

Post by Hawk » February 8th 2013, 10:20am

TemerityB wrote:Am I alone in thinking that WR ratings don't even apply when showering - and that you're never supposed to shower with a watch on, even dive styles? I'm being serious here. I don't understand why someone would want to shower with a watch on under any circumstance; it's just asking for it. And I know some brands even say not to shower with their watches on, so I get confused. After all, I'd hate to damage my Mark Namier.

My conjecture is that some brands will suggest not showering with a watch simply because they don't want it to get wet thereby putting a possibly bogus WR rating to the test.

I'd also guess that you're far from alone. I'm suggesting however that when something is that counter-intuitive it should be questioned and it's been my experience that most hobbies harbor myths of some sort.

I am, of course, assuming that most people shower as I do which doesn't involve caroming off the walls or anything too strenuous. The amount of movement I provide in the shower, barring unique circumstances, can hardly be called "movement". I can't see it compromising the integrity of a watch that can handle 50 meters even dead still at an ideal temperature.

It simply seems more logical that the water resistance rating was overstated and the Gevril in question would have leaked at .05 meters. In other words, it's not the torturous nature of the shower - it was just a shitty watch.
Image
User avatar
Falstaff
Watchlord WIS
Posts: 8082
Joined: August 31st 2010, 10:00pm
Facebook ID: 0
Contact:

Re: Gevril

Post by Falstaff » February 8th 2013, 10:25am

Gaskets, Schmaskets - I suspect at least 75% of water resistance ratings or claims are simply made up - or to be generous, are the result of computer modeling that shows that X gasket on Y crown with Z gasket on W caseback should yield a static WR of such and such. Such models taken as gospel because of the expense of actual testing result in failures such as the one cited above.
I don't shower with a watch because I think it's just plain bizarre, but have had no water penetration problems with wearing one in a sauna.
"Open the pod bay doors, Hal." "I'm sorry Dave, I'm afraid I can't do that."
rallycat
Posts: 228
Joined: January 2nd 2013, 11:00pm
Facebook ID: 0
Location: Texas
Contact:

Re: Gevril

Post by rallycat » February 8th 2013, 11:07am

Falstaff wrote: I don't shower with a watch because I think it's just plain bizarre, but have had no water penetration problems with wearing one in a sauna.

That's what she said.
Didn't we used to have water proof watches?
Maybe I'm unrealistic in thinking that any dive watch should be able to handle water exposure within limits of that which would kill the wearer though slipping in the shower and breaking one's neck is not included in this instance. Otherwise I would say that it should be called a dive-style watch. I also expect any watch I own to survive the washing of one's hands or the rinsing out of a few dishes. I'm pretty good about avoiding the scenario but it could happen. Fortunately, Jim Skelton says we don't need to rinse our dishes before loading them in the dishwasher. His wife must be thrilled.
If you're wearing your watch in the shower then how are getting that portion of your wrist completely clean, specially with any sort of close fit band? Neither time nor your wife will run away just because you removed your watch and ring before the daily ablutions.
User avatar
Hawk
ASSHAT
Posts: 10165
Joined: October 8th 2010, 10:00pm
Facebook ID: 0
Location: Orlando, FL
Contact:

Re: Gevril

Post by Hawk » February 8th 2013, 11:27am

rallycat wrote:
That's what she said.

That would be the only time a shower gets strenuous.

Tracking back myths and legends to their source is a difficult undertaking. My perfunctory research into such anecdotes tells me that "holy shit! I was hung over and stumbled into the shower with my watch on and it leaked!" type of stories do not discount the possibility that it was the first time the pos ever got wet.

Or, what I have never seen was evidence of an anecdote along the lines of "I had been diving with my new watch off the coast of Bimini for about a week. I was concerned about salt water corrosion so I wore the watch into the shower and it leaked!".

Nope - never heard of the latter. I suggest the myth dates to stories told by wandering bards and minstrels relating how the damn thing got wet for the first time ever. Somebody in the peanut gallery points out that the watch would have survived 50 meters of immersion or normal swimming when it certainly would not have survived any such thing. Thus is born the legend of the magical shower stall Mjölnir - the crusher of timepieces - all based on a faulty assumption that the watch in question would have survived a different type of not-quite-so-hot, not-quite-so-agitated trial by dunking.
Image
User avatar
3Flushes
ASSHAT & Master of Time
Posts: 8367
Joined: November 25th 2012, 11:00pm
Facebook ID: 0
Contact:

Re: Gevril

Post by 3Flushes » February 8th 2013, 1:18pm

I think this is just another aspect of the smoke and mirrors of the deceptive lingo that has become inextricably intertwined in the marketing of watches. When the average schmuck sees that a watch is marked 50 meters water resistant, the natural assumption is that such a watch would survive a swim in a pool only 10 feet deep, or, being worn in a rainstorm on the way to work. A consumer should not have to go to 5 fora, send a letter to the manufacturer, query an engineer, nor discern the technicalities of a submerged static watch vs. one in motion, or be a WIS to interpret the stated virtues of a watch they are considering for purchase.

There are unquestionably labels in the marketing of watches; Swiss Made, water resistant, shock resistant, limited edition, etc. that significantly increase the perceived value to the consumer and positively influence a buying decision. What's next, a watch that is shock resistant only if never subjected to any manner of impact?

IMO, it's all the same fraud and diminishes the industry overall.
Last edited by Anonymous on February 9th 2013, 3:20pm, edited 2 times in total.
Copyright ©️ 2020 3flushes Media.
User avatar
Irag8er
Posts: 142
Joined: December 13th 2012, 11:00pm
Facebook ID: 0
Location: Ozarkansas
Contact:

Re: Gevril

Post by Irag8er » February 8th 2013, 4:47pm

Horse Feathers wrote:I once heard a WG report that a Invcita Ghost suffered a clouded crystal while he was watching Jungle Diaries on the National Geographic Channel.
Bear Grylls should of worn a couple. He woudn't have had to drink his own pee!
Luftwafflles
Senior Member & WIS
Posts: 3056
Joined: July 9th 2012, 10:00pm
Facebook ID: 0
Location: Near the motor city..

Re: Gevril

Post by Luftwafflles » February 8th 2013, 11:11pm

Hawk wrote:
Luftwafflles wrote:I never quote Davis, unless to show him a buffoon. And suggesting I "strain" to emulate him is a bit of an insult. I would not swim in any watch less than 100 meters wr, no matter any assurance from any "wiki". That is from personal experience, not forum research. WR is static. Human movement isn't. Never mentioned soap. Maybe I should have specifically mentioned "hot" shower, I mistakenly thought it was obvious. Many watch companies warn of not subjecting their watches to extreme heat, regardless of gasket material. And lastly, yes, we will agree to disagree.

That certainly would be an insult but that's not what I intended to say. I'm saying that the explanation sounded "strained" as in "counter intuitive".
Sorry I misunderstood you Hawk. I didn't really want to get into a pissing contest anyway. Look, it's just my personal opinion that since few watch companies test every single model, I would want to err on the side of safety. Personally, I'd like at least 200 meter wr before considering submersing a watch for any length of time. Granted I do not own the upper tier watches, perhaps their wr's are more accurate.
We called another exterminator to take care of the rat problem in the basement. This one hasn't come out either.







.
User avatar
conjurer
ASSHAT & Master of Time
Posts: 31774
Joined: July 13th 2010, 10:00pm
Contact:

Re: Gevril

Post by conjurer » February 9th 2013, 4:16am

Falstaff wrote:Gaskets, Schmaskets - I suspect at least 75% of water resistance ratings or claims are simply made up - or to be generous, are the result of computer modeling that shows that X gasket on Y crown with Z gasket on W caseback should yield a static WR of such and such. Such models taken as gospel because of the expense of actual testing result in failures such as the one cited above.
I don't shower with a watch because I think it's just plain bizarre, but have had no water penetration problems with wearing one in a sauna.


Yup.
I find tv watches to be like the guys who raise their truck you need a fricken ladder to get in. It’s a attempt to look cool... that’s all.

--Hawkeye
User avatar
conjurer
ASSHAT & Master of Time
Posts: 31774
Joined: July 13th 2010, 10:00pm
Contact:

Re: Gevril

Post by conjurer » February 9th 2013, 4:16am

boscoe wrote:It has been well documented an SAN II stored in a feverish Mongo's rectum (102 degrees) performs flawlessly after being violently expelled into cotton britches.

This factoid should end all debate.


This made me laugh hard. Then I vomited.
I find tv watches to be like the guys who raise their truck you need a fricken ladder to get in. It’s a attempt to look cool... that’s all.

--Hawkeye
User avatar
Hawk
ASSHAT
Posts: 10165
Joined: October 8th 2010, 10:00pm
Facebook ID: 0
Location: Orlando, FL
Contact:

Re: Gevril

Post by Hawk » February 9th 2013, 5:35am

Luftwafflles wrote: Sorry I misunderstood you Hawk. I didn't really want to get into a pissing contest anyway. Look, it's just my personal opinion that since few watch companies test every single model, I would want to err on the side of safety. Personally, I'd like at least 200 meter wr before considering submersing a watch for any length of time. Granted I do not own the upper tier watches, perhaps their wr's are more accurate.

For my own part I certainly could have been more diplomatic in how I phrased my concerns.

I will concede that wearing a watch in the shower is unusual behavior and we're all agreed that water resistance ratings are in dire need of getting a dose of real world descriptions. I believe your treatment of such ratings is prudent.

...here's where I walk a delicate line: I'll try to do better than the last time.

It's difficult to pick out a household object that can endure immersion in 6" of water that won't endure a tour through the shower. In fact, if you have a shower door, as opposed to curtains it likely has a gasket. It lasts for years and is compressed daily.

The notion that a shower is harder on a watch with respect to leaking due to either heat or soap or whatever is a common one - in fact it is much more common that I would have guessed even a day ago.

But, at the end of the day, it is a belief held contrary to evidence because people in charge of selling watches told us so. And, beliefs held contrary to evidence because someone selling us watches said so is a geek marker. Perhaps a sufficiently distilled geek marker as to be placed in the "geek marker thread" in another sub-forum here.

And here's the rub - I respect the members here and do not wish to imply they might share a geekishly-derived belief. But the acceptance of the "shower theory of watch destruction" is, I believe, as geekish as believing Flame-Fusion is the tits. It is not born out by evidence.

I'm bagging on the theory - not those holding the theory.
Image
User avatar
conjurer
ASSHAT & Master of Time
Posts: 31774
Joined: July 13th 2010, 10:00pm
Contact:

Re: Gevril

Post by conjurer » February 9th 2013, 5:59am

The only reason I could see for wearing a watch in the shower is because one's at the gym and doesn't want his watch stolen from his locker by the towel boy.
I find tv watches to be like the guys who raise their truck you need a fricken ladder to get in. It’s a attempt to look cool... that’s all.

--Hawkeye
User avatar
Steelhead
Posts: 345
Joined: June 17th 2012, 10:00pm
Facebook ID: 0
Location: Lawn Guyland
Contact:

Re: Gevril

Post by Steelhead » February 9th 2013, 6:31am

Luftwafflles wrote:
Look, it's just my personal opinion that since few watch companies test every single model, I would want to err on the side of safety.


That depends on whether it's billed as a "diver" or not. The non-diver WR standard allows for statistical sampling, while the diver standard requires that every single piece pass the tests.
"And they will know that I am the Lord when I lay my vengeance on them"
-- Ezekiel 25:17
Luftwafflles
Senior Member & WIS
Posts: 3056
Joined: July 9th 2012, 10:00pm
Facebook ID: 0
Location: Near the motor city..

Re: Gevril

Post by Luftwafflles » February 9th 2013, 7:39am

Steelhead wrote:
Luftwafflles wrote:
Look, it's just my personal opinion that since few watch companies test every single model, I would want to err on the side of safety.


That depends on whether it's billed as a "diver" or not. The non-diver WR standard allows for statistical sampling, while the diver standard requires that every single piece pass the tests.
Okay, just so I'm comprehending your info, the literally thousands of Casio, Seiko, and yes, Invicta divers, are all individually tested to their labeled wr? If so, I definitely learned something new. But I did have a new Casio diver fail to keep out water, just during a quick swim in Lake Erie. It was rated 100 meters wr. Granted, it may have just fallen through the cracks on the day tested, but I became hesitant about believing wr's anymore. (I do know Panarai tests all their watches, I saw their assembly on "How it's Made)
We called another exterminator to take care of the rat problem in the basement. This one hasn't come out either.







.
User avatar
Steelhead
Posts: 345
Joined: June 17th 2012, 10:00pm
Facebook ID: 0
Location: Lawn Guyland
Contact:

Re: Gevril

Post by Steelhead » February 9th 2013, 10:36am

Luftwafflles wrote:Okay, just so I'm comprehending your info, the literally thousands of Casio, Seiko, and yes, Invicta divers, are all individually tested to their labeled wr?


The watches that went through the diver testing are supposed to indicate they've done so on the case or dial with "Diver's nnn Meters/nn ATM/nn Bar". (The Sub doesn't say that, but that's Rolex for you.)

It's up to the manufacturer whether to put in the added effort and expense of diver testing, with marketing playing a big role. For instance, the entire G-Shock line could very likely qualify as divers, but Casio has chosen to only have the Frogman do so, to keep the costs down and as a selling point for the Frogman.

It is theoretically possible to have a "Diver's 100m" rating, but I've never seen one. So if you see a 100m watch, it probably didn't pass the diver test.

Invicter? *pfft* If A. Owl said the sky was blue, I'd assume he was making shit up.
"And they will know that I am the Lord when I lay my vengeance on them"
-- Ezekiel 25:17
eddiea
Founding Member & Master of Time
Posts: 10652
Joined: December 25th 2009, 11:00pm

Re: Gevril

Post by eddiea » February 9th 2013, 2:06pm

Steelhead wrote:
Luftwafflles wrote:Okay, just so I'm comprehending your info, the literally thousands of Casio, Seiko, and yes, Invicta divers, are all individually tested to their labeled wr?

The watches that went through the diver testing are supposed to indicate they've done so on the case or dial with "Diver's nnn Meters/nn ATM/nn Bar". (The Sub doesn't say that, but that's Rolex for you.)

Rolex Sub's are not ISO 6425 certified, that's the reason.
User avatar
fatman
ASSHAT
Posts: 4444
Joined: February 7th 2011, 11:00pm
Contact:

Re: Gevril

Post by fatman » February 9th 2013, 2:25pm

conjurer wrote:The only reason I could see for wearing a watch in the shower is because one's at the gym and doesn't want his watch stolen from his locker by the towel boy.


That would only come into consideration if said watch was a inconflicshita, no one would want to steal a Oris, Omega, Rolex etc.

Just ask the guys that get their arms sprained by the valet wanting to look at them and then offer them 5 large for it.
HF
User avatar
TemerityB
ASSHAT
Posts: 16876
Joined: June 12th 2010, 10:00pm
Facebook ID: 0
Location: New York City
Contact:

Re: Gevril

Post by TemerityB » February 9th 2013, 2:28pm

Back to the OP: this one of my favorite Ariel Adams reviews of all time, about a GV2, because he nails it:

http://www.ablogtowatch.com/gevril-gv2-corsaro-chronograph-is-example-of-what-to-watch-out-for/

Cripes, even a cheapie Croton model got a better review at that site.
WatchGeeks will go down in watch forum history as the worst watch related site that existed. Trolls, threats, bannings, and owners and sponsors talking out of their collective asses to fleece people out of hard earned money. - Koimaster
eddiea
Founding Member & Master of Time
Posts: 10652
Joined: December 25th 2009, 11:00pm

Re: Gevril

Post by eddiea » February 9th 2013, 3:30pm

TemerityB wrote:Back to the OP: this one of my favorite Ariel Adams reviews of all time, about a GV2, because he nails it:

http://www.ablogtowatch.com/gevril-gv2-corsaro-chronograph-is-example-of-what-to-watch-out-for/

Cripes, even a cheapie Croton model got a better review at that site.

Yup...believe we had a thread somewhere here in the forum about the "Technosablier" movement, a joke. Image
Post Reply

Return to “Affordable Watch Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest