Why rubber straps on non-water-resistant watches are a crime

Buffy Acacia

Ever since watches stopped being allowed to call themselves waterproof, there’s been constant discussion about what water resistance actually means. With such awareness on the benefits of water resistance and the huge leap between the splash-shy 50 metres and the swimmable 100-metre ratings, we’re also left wondering why it’s not more of a priority for some manufacturers. What is absolutely inexcusable however, is to get people’s hopes up with a rubber strap, only for the watch to be held away from water at all costs.

Looking back at the history of rubber straps, they were the obvious choice for divers. Fancy, quick-adjusting clasps weren’t around yet, so steel bracelets weren’t always convenient or comfortable to take underwater. Leather straps just disintegrate if you get them wet regularly, especially in salt water due to its corrosive nature. Since many styles of rubber strap were popularised with skin diving in the 1960s, they have been intrinsically linked with the water.

Apart from being practical, waterproof, sweat resistant, and tremendously easy to clean, there is another aspect of rubber straps which doesn’t get talked about much. They don’t always look great. That isn’t to say that a tropic strap or an integrated design can’t be the correct choice for a sports watch, but they have a gruff, utilitarian look which almost never compliments non-diver styles. Trying to get a dress watch, or even just a smart casual watch to look good on any rubber strap is going to be a herculean task. There are some rubber straps that attempt to disguise themselves, shaped like bracelet links or alligator scales, but they tend to look more like cheap imitations. Rubber-backed leather straps are out there, and they don’t sacrifice looks for comfort.

So, if rubber straps are capable pairings for sports watches, and approaching questionable aesthetics on dressier styles, why on Earth would a company put a non-water-resistant watch on a rubber strap? At best it’s a fashion faux-pas, and at worst it’s intentionally misleading customers about the watch’s capabilities. If rubber is your honest preference, whether it’s stylistic or comfort based, then I wholeheartedly support you putting whatever straps you wish on your watches. But they should never be the one and only strap option if the watch has less than 100 metres of water resistance. That’s especially true if the rubber isn’t integrated with the lugs of the watch, as it’s basically begging the customer to buy a replacement strap.

One particularly upsetting example is the Patek Philippe Aquanaut Travel Time, which actually had its water resistance reduced from 120 metres to only 30. It still looks incredible on its integrated rubber strap, but now the whole theme feels a bit deceitful. Can it be called an Aquanaut if it can’t be aquatic in any way? The case might be made out of white gold instead of steel, but A. Lange & Söhne has proven that you can still make a white gold watch water resistant to 120 metres with the Odysseus model. The solution is pretty clear. Brands should either pick a non-rubber strap, or start taking water resistance more seriously if they’re going to be making sports watches.