US Government standard for Water proof wristwatch

[Dr. Jon]

The Elgin watch is posted is marked waterproof. The included brochure states that "It meets all standards prescribed for your protection by the US Government" What were those standards and when were they put into place.

I have not been able to find anything on this with regular engine searches

 

[Jack_W]

Can you share a photo?

 

[Tom McIntyre]

I think he is talking about this one that he just posted. There are losts of pictures but he is trying to stay on topice.

https://mb.nawcc.org/threads/an-elgin-2401-yss-a-forgotten-masterpiece.187553/

 

[mctylr]

I'm guessing it's not Letter Circular 971 "Performance of Wrist Watches" 1950 from the US National Bureau of Standards (NBS).

The US FTC directive/ban against term "waterproof" was in the 1960s, after Federal Trade Commission v. Waltham Watch Company of 1959. So I don't expect the US government had a standard for a term, waterproof, that they attacked.

 

[Dr. Jon]

The term I quoted

"It meets all standards prescribed for your protection by the US Government" is from the instruction brochure that came with the watch in the thread I started and Tom referenced. That thread has a photo of the statement as made by Elgin.

At the time , late 1950's through 1960's almost every watch seller or expert said not to believe any watch was waterproof. The one exception I knew of was Rolex who's watches came with material that said they were truly water proof and they they should be scrubbed with soap and water from time to me to keep the watch clean.

Thanks for putting up the two documents. Two possible reason Elgin was not similarly prosecuted are:
1) They proved or were beleived tpo be able to prove they met the standard I have asked to find
2) They too were being inventive but either they were already gone or were to be next after Waltham.

The Waltham document seems to be procedural and makes no reference to standards for the the capabilities they were being charged with falsely claiming.

 

[mctylr]

One possibility is what was or became 16 CFR Part 245 Guides for the Watch Industry before it was rescinded back in 1999 (Federal Register 30898, Vol. 64, No. 110).

Unfortunately I haven't been able to yet locate the previous Guides for the Watch Industry before that date.

 

[Dr. Jon]

I found a site with a bit of information. It states that in the 1960's the Federal Trade Commission ruled that no watch is water proof and that watches can must be called water resistant and specify a test depth. This has become an an ISO standard which has been revised several times.

This suggests that there was no US standard for civilian watches, although there may have been US military specifications for dive watches.

 

[mosesgodfrey]

This has already answered a question I had. The last “waterproof” ad I have for one brand is from 1969. Then only resistant, or dive rated.

But there was an asterisk in ads (as long as stem, crown etc remain in place).

I found the US Reg—first issued April 25 1947–that covered waterproof, w resistant, dust proof, shock proof, non magnetic. Here’s listing details to find it in the code.

170.1(d) has the single test requirement for waterproof (but still must be caveated)

That last sentence... I think brand marketers, including Dr Jon’s elgin pamphlet, seem to have done this anyway

 

[Mysteron]

"It meets all standards prescribed for your protection by the US Government"
Guess it won't turn into gremlins if it gets wet at night.

I really think the hole for the stem needs some serious redesign, short of the screw-on approach of fancy divers watches.