[JonW]

Wow, a bath full of fish indeed....

Ok so I think we have the answer in here, tho its hard to find. It seems anyone can write 50m or something on a watch and suffer the warrnty hassle for the first few years but only those that are tested to an ISO standard are to be trusted to actually do what they say on the dial/caseback.... and, even then only if theyve been regularly tested.

Basically I take my watch off for showers/washing up even if theyre 300m + dive watches from a major manufacturer and have been tested... but thats cos I hate the feel of water under the bracelet for the next half hour...

Would I swim in a watch on holiday? yes, you bet. but only what I think of as a watch that Id be prepared to lose as the internet is peppered with stories of people who lost their Rolex after bashing it on a rock when diving and my other half (who is a diver) has found a watch on the bottom whilst diving.

 

[Nalu]

I'm hesitant to jump in here since it seems the waters are chummed and full of predators. Then again, I really don't give a tinker's cuss who disagrees with me or for what reason.

I have my own 'policy' on watches and water resistance that I'll state up front, everything else is beyond that is in response to what's been posted previously. This policy is based on reading multiple manufacturers' recommendations (after all, no one sees more watch failure modes than they do), my engineering background and a lifetime of being in, on and under the ocean.

1. To answer the intial question: I think 50m WR is fine for a 'sports watch' - swimming, diving, paddling, hiking, sweating, etc. That's what I would tell the person seeking our advice (who hopefully is not reading this). 50M also happens to be my minimum WR rating for a field watch, since it should be able to be hiked, dived, rained on, immmersed in a stream crossing, etc.

2. If I know I'm going below the surface (spear fishing, skin diving, etc.), I'll wear a 100-200m watch - never a 50m watch. I'd go without a watch before taking a 50m watch to depth.

3. If I have a rig on, and I do wear a watch when diving (along with a computer and a backup computer in a pocket), then I'll wear at least a 300m watch. The exception would be one of my Citizen Aqualands, which are often rated to 200m. Since they are purpose-built dive watches I'll push the envelope.

What are my other considerations? Time since the last service/seal replacement, price and replace-ability of the watch, type of dive (pass diving in Rangiroa is quite different from a reef dive in a lagoon) and how much I care about the watch. At one time in the past, I had a ladies Timex Ironman that I used for about 2 years (7-10 workouts/week). I cared more about that $20 watch (actually free - I found it in the ocean) than I do about some of the 4-figure watches I own now.

The fact that most sports divers only dive to 130' is irrelevant, IMO. Most people think a watch is solely for telling time! And most people think they'll never go below 20m when they first learn to dive. Then two years later they're advanced open water divers taking a Nitrox class and glancing longingly at a Draeger.

Firstly, there is plenty to see at 130' and below - there is an entire U/W exploration society dedicated to researching the 200-400' depths, which is entirely reachable with SCUBA units. I bought and got qualified on such a unit last summer. It cost less than a Submariner, so they're not out of the reach of 'civilian' sport divers. Narcosis is a relative risk, not an absolute one. Similarly for DCS. Plan your dive, dive your plan and you'll be safe.

Secondly, the time you most need your watch to function correctly is the time you accidentally break your dive plan and exceed your floor! It happens every day folks.

How people have sucessfully abused their watches is also irrelevant. Everyone knows someone who "never had it serviced in 23 years and it's still +/- 5 secs/day". So what? Does that mean it's the correct way to treat your watch? Should you really abuse a piece of equipment your life depends on?



Of course the manufacturer's are conservative in their recommendations - it would be irresponsible to do otherwise! Of course watches intended for extreme environments are over-engineered. Part of that overengineering is purely a safety margin, part of it is to take into account the fact that the watch won't be serviced on the recommended schedule and part of the overengineering is to take into account materials defects - not every part of every watch is delivered in spec. Some pieces (cases, for example) are expensive to inspect for defects. Much cheaper to overengineer the case so that when there is a void in the steel you still reach your spec - without having to x-ray every case.

Just my 2p, not trying to stomp on any feet. I don't know why depth ratings (and HEVs) generate so much passion, it's really pretty straightforward. Anyone for a Rolex thread?

 

[JonW]

Er.... im with you Colin... I wouldnt wanna be against you!

Seriously tho, I was going to say that I agree with everything you said except the 50m thing. And that I wouldnt want to tell a mate to spend his hard earned on a brand new watch that he will want to keep and use for outside use if it was only 50m depth and from a non watch maker and not tested etc. All because I agree its better than no WR but I would hate to see his face if it leaked and he should go up to 100 or 150m and be sure hes got something useful I reckon. But.....

Then I remebered a Timex Digital I bought for the sole purpose of providing time when I was rallying my Kawasaki KDX250SR dirtbike - you need to meet your start times for each stage or you get dropped from the running and have to go home...

I strapped this poor watch to the handlebars and there it stayed for 2 whole years. It got bashed over bumps and when the bike got dropped when I fell off - quite a bit actually! It was always covered in wet mud and other yuk (in every nook and crevice) and often got a semi bath when I forded streams and of course got jetwashed along with the bike. Needless to say it performed its task without problem and had a far harsher workout than it would on any persons wrist. Its still going strong with a new battery in it (5 year lithium as standard).... Ok so maybe I wouldnt Scuba with it but I would wear it swimming, Its a robust watch indeed.

 

[jasonm]

The fact that most sports divers only dive to 130' is irrelevant, IMO. Most people think a watch is solely for telling time! And most people think they'll never go below 20m when they first learn to dive. Then two years later they're advanced open water divers taking a Nitrox class and glancing longingly at a Draeger.

 

[Running_man]

I looked at the manual for my Polar heart rate monitor last night. That is rated at 50m and is designed for swimmers as well as runners and cyclists.

I think from now on where water is concerned, I'll never intentionally get watches wet, even if I'm washing up or taking a shower and I'm wearing the Seiko Black Monster. I'll take it off beforehand. With this in mind, any accidents shouldn't do them any harm.

A mate at work said that whilst his cheapy watch from a market stall is rated to 30m, if had 30m of water above his head, something would be very wrong and the last thing he'd be worried about was his watch!

Regards,

Andrew.

 

[raketakat]

Before taking my watches to water I ask;

1 How much did it cost?

2 How much do I care about it?

I THEN read the specifications with scepticism ( skepticism for Colin ).

Finally, I put on my £9.99 Kahuna or old G-shock and bugger it .

 

[jasonm]

Finally, I put on my £9.99 Kahuna or old G-shock and bugger it

Now THATS how to abuse a watch.....

 

[andy100]

Andy, hi, from the splashing of the fishkettle I finally saw your question. I am not wearing a Seiko5 right now, so I wont swear this true, but I will check tonight. As far as I remember, they all say "water resistant" as opposed to "water proof". Some of the later ones say "water resistant 5 atm". I am not especially active in water, but I would say I do swim at least 2 meters deep, (and sometimes thrash about quite violently when I do.) In fact I have been towed behind a bassboat, (ski-boat, I think I used to know them as in SA) not on ski's, through the bloody water after dropping off the ski's, for quite long distances by the overzealous boat operator, while wearing a 10 year old Seiko 5. I am not advocating drowning all watches, but I do believe the manufacturers "sticker" their watches with a lower rating than they test them for. And I think it is a sensible thing to do. When I design a crane hoist which is going to get a 1,5 ton rating lable, I design it for 6 ton failing strength. I think any rating on a watch, should be read as a laboratory SAFE rating. I take it as a HINT from the manufacturer. At the severe end, I think it is up to the user to make a decision if his actual activity is comparable to the manufacturer's test guarantees. And to remember that the high rating tests were probably passed with smaller margins than the low rated ones. At the low end, chances are good that the actual performance will be way over the manufacturer's stated rating. I think it is just not that easy to make a watch that will drown at 3 meters but not at two meters.

Then, as said by others, the overall condition of the watch is probably more important than the rating. I would not put a 1000m rated watch in a beerglass if the crown is rattling like teeth in a tin can.

I think you hit the nail right onthe head Marius!

And as a few other people have said, if you're bothered about ******* up your watch in water, then wear something cheap & cheerful that you don't mind drowning (the watch, not yourself!

)

Andy

 

[Bareges]

Isthmus,

Thank you for pointing out that the table I found was "way off base". If I can remember which manufacturer supplied it I will pass on some of your comments in the hope of a correction to their published facts.

All I would add is as I am not a "diver" but nonetheless an outdoors person any of these tables are more than adequate as a 'rough guide' as to what you can expect and as such they are quite adequate.

Roy's point is well made and taken - follow the manufacturer's guidelines and yes there are differences in the claimed tolerances by most if not all..............but for the mass of the population who might accidentally find themselves 6/8 feet below the surface or caught in the surf or a wave break - does it really matter?

In general conversation most people seem to be trying to establish whether, in their terms, it will leak or not. Their real interest is therefore whether they can bath/shower, swim, wash up, etc ,etc without giving the innards of their pride and joy a good washing and thereby reducing it to a pile of junk...........

Some interesting and enlightening exchanges but I feel that we all, in our respective hobbies because they are precisely that, risk becoming (out of our enthusiasm for our hobby) too anal and boring for the 'ordinary' man - yes like eveyone I have been told to 'shut up' when on favourite topics!! .

Before taking my watches to water I ask;

1 How much did it cost?

2 How much do I care about it?

I THEN read the specifications with scepticism ( skepticism for Colin ).

Finally, I put on my £9.99 Kahuna or old G-shock and bugger it .

Like it Ian,

I have a "terrain" watch @ £9.99 and that has to take whatever is dished out and do I care!!

 

[JonW]

Finally, I put on my £9.99 Kahuna or old G-shock and bugger it

Now THATS how to abuse a watch.....

ROTFL!

 

[watch lover]

Hi members,

The point of water resistent is one very dear to my heart at present.

I cant understand for the life of me why so many of you here seem to throw your consumer rights away at the drop of a hat? I have been purchasing watches for around 40 years and untill a few weeks ago, and due to watch web sites, I had NO idea at all that there was some mystic secret watch industry regulations regarding the water resistence of watches. I wrongly ASSUMED that when a watch was rated in writing on the back with "water resistent 30M, 50M, 100M, or 200M etc I expected that watch to be WATER RESISTENT to the specified depth?

Please explain to me how so many posters here spend small fortunes on a product that is CLEARLY labeld with a specification in English yet it will apparently not perform to the standard. This is a scam and needs to be addressed. I am trying to do this. I am beginning with Oris as I have this years spent thousands of pounds purchasing their watches and am furious to now learn I cant take a 50M watch even in the swimming pool as it is 'technically' only able to withstand splashes or 'moisture'. Hello? Why do the manufacturers place this highly misleading data on the back and more important how on earth do they get away with it in the EC where we thankfully have consumer protection laws. A product purchased must be of merchantable quality, perform the task is is sold to do AND respect any claims made on the product. IE a can of baked beans when opened MUST contain eadible baked beans and not peas etc.

Why do so many of you pay so much and expect so little AND allow this scam to take advantage of people like me who believe what they read and TRUST manufacturers will not mislead me in my purchase.

To date I have been unable to find ONE industry code. I see many posters here giving data, where does this data come from?. I have been in thousands of watch shops all around the globe and NEVER seen such industry data published?

I am so sorry for the long and passionate post I just feel well and truly had!!! and I dont like it, and I am trying to do something about it.

Thank you for your kind attention and best wishes to you all.

 

[JonW]

Wow, you are passionate mate. Good luck in your quest. Please do let us know how you get on.

FWIW my car speedo reads up to 180mph... my car doesnt go 180mph tho.....

 

[JoT]

To date I have been unable to find ONE industry code.

The Swiss industry follows NIHS 92-10 for water resistant watches and NIHS 92-11 for divers watches these are the same as ISO 2281 and ISO 6425 respectively.

I don't agree that I (we) have thrown our consumer rights away, also when I spend "thousands of pounds" I know what I am buying, I don't buy things then suddenly find out they can't be used in a swimming pool

I don't think the water resistant information is misleading (this implies intention) but it is confusing to the general watch buying public, especially as most are not aware of the various ISOs and how the specifications relate to real conditions. Watch companies also tend to specify what the watch can be used for in the instructions, Seiko is a good example, I can't speak for Oris as I have never owned one.

The ISO have been discussing a "less ambiguous" classification but as yet have not made any changes.

 

[Running_man]

Hi members,

The point of water resistent is one very dear to my heart at present.

I cant understand for the life of me why so many of you here seem to throw your consumer rights away at the drop of a hat? I have been purchasing watches for around 40 years and untill a few weeks ago, and due to watch web sites, I had NO idea at all that there was some mystic secret watch industry regulations regarding the water resistence of watches. I wrongly ASSUMED that when a watch was rated in writing on the back with "water resistent 30M, 50M, 100M, or 200M etc I expected that watch to be WATER RESISTENT to the specified depth?

Please explain to me how so many posters here spend small fortunes on a product that is CLEARLY labeld with a specification in English yet it will apparently not perform to the standard. This is a scam and needs to be addressed. I am trying to do this. I am beginning with Oris as I have this years spent thousands of pounds purchasing their watches and am furious to now learn I cant take a 50M watch even in the swimming pool as it is 'technically' only able to withstand splashes or 'moisture'. Hello? Why do the manufacturers place this highly misleading data on the back and more important how on earth do they get away with it in the EC where we thankfully have consumer protection laws. A product purchased must be of merchantable quality, perform the task is is sold to do AND respect any claims made on the product. IE a can of baked beans when opened MUST contain eadible baked beans and not peas etc.

Why do so many of you pay so much and expect so little AND allow this scam to take advantage of people like me who believe what they read and TRUST manufacturers will not mislead me in my purchase.

To date I have been unable to find ONE industry code. I see many posters here giving data, where does this data come from?. I have been in thousands of watch shops all around the globe and NEVER seen such industry data published?

I am so sorry for the long and passionate post I just feel well and truly had!!! and I dont like it, and I am trying to do something about it.

Thank you for your kind attention and best wishes to you all.

To be honest Watch Lover, I don't think consumer rights / goods descriptions come into it as it's not sold as a hard and fast rule and hardly ever going to be put to the test. Take for example, a basic £25 plastic Swatch watch. These are designated 30m water resistant yet who in their right mind would want to test such a watch to that depth? It just isn't going to happen. The only people who would be at that depth are divers who'd be wearing a robust professionally designed watch for the job and even then, I'm told most use dive computers these days instead.

You mentioned that you had a 50m rated Oris - unless it's a diver / sports model, why would you want to intentionally get it wet, especially if it's a dress watch? I'm currently yearning for Roy's new RLT30 which on the back says 5ATM. Yet if or when I get it, there's no way that's going anywhere near water! But at least I'll be confident of it being OK if I get pushed into the river whilst I'm wearing it!

Despite Oris labelling their watch as 50m, I reckon you'd probably lose a consumer claim if you damaged it whilst swimming as they have clearly printed in their manual that they don't recommend anything wetter that splashes or moisture. I dare say it'd be Ok if you swam in it a few times but I get the impression that manufacturers are just covering their own arses with their ratings and recommendations.

The question which inspired my original post was would a 30m designated watch survive non habitual accidental saturation such as catting caught in a torrential rainstorm or falling off the side of the bath into the water. Going off all of the replies and information given, I believe it would.

Andrew.

 

[JoT]

The question which inspired my original post was would a 30m designated watch survive non habitual accidental saturation such as catting caught in a torrential rainstorm or falling off the side of the bath into the water. Going off all of the replies and information given, I believe it would.

Andrew.

I agree Andrew

I am sure the manufacturers have some safety factor when considering recommendations for use; they wouldn't advise a certain use and open themselves to warranty claims or legal action if the watch wasn't capable of meeting their recommendations.

What that safety factor is I guess only the manufacturer will know.

I think that is where Isthmus was coming from ..... although I am glad he is in finance and not mining engineering

I would hate to think I was travelling in a shaft cage attached to a rope with a breaking strain just above the working load and not, as is usual, between 5 and 8 times working load

 

[watch lover]

Wow, you are passionate mate. Good luck in your quest. Please do let us know how you get on.

FWIW my car speedo reads up to 180mph... my car doesnt go 180mph tho.....

Hi Jon,

Thank you for your reply.

When you purchase a car there is a MASS of information on that car from magazines to online tests to goodness knows what. You also have the manufacturers hand book. If you look at your hand book it will give the top speed and acceleation for YOUR model in the handbook. The car manufacturers IN THIS INSTANT are not trying to pull the wool over your eyeys. As you well know each model is made to different specifications but only one speedo will be used in all models. No where can you find it stated that YOUR model can acheive that speed unless the hand book and car trade information tell you of this. All product information on your car is readily available and nothing is done to mislead you. I could write more about this but the point is made.

I am sorry to sing to the choir but as you raised this point I just wanted to respond.

My best wishes to you

 

[JoT]

Wow, you are passionate mate. Good luck in your quest. Please do let us know how you get on.

FWIW my car speedo reads up to 180mph... my car doesnt go 180mph tho.....

Hi Jon,

Thank you for your reply.

When you purchase a car there is a MASS of information on that car from magazines to online tests to goodness knows what. You also have the manufacturers hand book. If you look at your hand book it will give the top speed and acceleation for YOUR model in the handbook. The car manufacturers IN THIS INSTANT are not trying to pull the wool over your eyeys. As you well know each model is made to different specifications but only one speedo will be used in all models. No where can you find it stated that YOUR model can acheive that speed unless the hand book and car trade information tell you of this. All product information on your car is readily available and nothing is done to mislead you. I could write more about this but the point is made.

I am sorry to sing to the choir but as you raised this point I just wanted to respond.

My best wishes to you

Please give an example of a watch manufacturers who is trying to "pull the wool over our eyes" or mislead? The water resistance ratings are not just some arbitrary number they are determined by an ISO test

The fact that manufacturers advise owners to use the watch in a way that allows them a considerable margin of error makes perfect sense to me

 

[watch lover]

To date I have been unable to find ONE industry code.

The Swiss industry follows NIHS 92-10 for water resistant watches and NIHS 92-11 for divers watches these are the same as ISO 2281 and ISO 6425 respectively.

I don't agree that I (we) have thrown our consumer rights away, also when I spend "thousands of pounds" I know what I am buying, I don't buy things then suddenly find out they can't be used in a swimming pool

I don't think the water resistant information is misleading (this implies intention) but it is confusing to the general watch buying public, especially as most are not aware of the various ISOs and how the specifications relate to real conditions. Watch companies also tend to specify what the watch can be used for in the instructions, Seiko is a good example, I can't speak for Oris as I have never owned one.

The ISO have been discussing a "less ambiguous" classification but as yet have not made any changes.

Hi,

You appear a man of knowledge regarding the watch industry.

A layman purchasing a product is not in any way obliged to search and study the product. The product is sold under certain laws. One of the laws, not your opinion nor mine, states that goods are marked with correct and truthfull information. Now look at the back of my Oris Mark webber sport watch. It states 'water resistent 50M" it does not say splash proof, moisture proof, or any other such marking. I am so stupid to read English then apply some OTHER meaning to this label? If the product is only moisture proof or splash proof I dont have a problem with that. I do have a problem in being sold a product, any product, that is not labelled correctly.

Some watches cost 50euro some cost 100,000euro, in each case is it not the cost but the principle of the matter.

When I purchase a car I go to the showrrom and a plethora of information is available in both the cars hand book and brochures plus the sales man will tell me if asled what the performance of the car will be. To add to this the government had made the car trade print the cars fuel consumption these figures are monitored by the state.

I have NEVER been to a watch shop and found a single word on the subject of water resistence? Yet you seem to think I should just know? If the product didnt have a water rating printed on the back THIS is when I would study the problem NOT when there are clear specifications printed on the back WATER REISITENT 50m must MEAN JUST THAT?!

I have read my 10 different model watch hand books and not one of them mentions anything about the codes you write about?

It is a scam.

I wish you well and thank you for your kind reply. Please do look at this problem form the consumer point of view and not the expert like yourself.

Wow, you are passionate mate. Good luck in your quest. Please do let us know how you get on.

FWIW my car speedo reads up to 180mph... my car doesnt go 180mph tho.....

Hi Jon,

Thank you for your reply.

When you purchase a car there is a MASS of information on that car from magazines to online tests to goodness knows what. You also have the manufacturers hand book. If you look at your hand book it will give the top speed and acceleation for YOUR model in the handbook. The car manufacturers IN THIS INSTANT are not trying to pull the wool over your eyeys. As you well know each model is made to different specifications but only one speedo will be used in all models. No where can you find it stated that YOUR model can acheive that speed unless the hand book and car trade information tell you of this. All product information on your car is readily available and nothing is done to mislead you. I could write more about this but the point is made.

I am sorry to sing to the choir but as you raised this point I just wanted to respond.

My best wishes to you

Please give an example of a watch manufacturers who is trying to "pull the wool over our eyes" or mislead? The water resistance ratings are not just some arbitrary number they are determined by an ISO test

The fact that manufacturers advise owners to use the watch in a way that allows them a considerable margin of error makes perfect sense to me

Hi,

I am confussed? Please be patience with me. Does your watch have written on the back 'water reistent 30M, 50M, 100M or 200m? If the answer to this is yes, then please translate the English into Enlish? I have stupidly thought that the measurement means just what it says in plain English? Are you, question, saying that the figures dont mean what they say, in other words can a watch that has 50M written on the back be taken to 50M and resist water?

Please please dont think me being provokative nor confrontational I am genuine with my query? I know I speak for many toehr novices here as I am a member of several other forums who have simliar posts with identical problems.

To answer your question I would say all manufacturers whose product cannot perform to the label on the back are committing a scam at the consumers cost.

I think we are writing at cross purposes to a degree, can you straighten this point out for me. I thank you.

Best wishes to you and yours.

 

[Running_man]

To date I have been unable to find ONE industry code.

The Swiss industry follows NIHS 92-10 for water resistant watches and NIHS 92-11 for divers watches these are the same as ISO 2281 and ISO 6425 respectively.

I don't agree that I (we) have thrown our consumer rights away, also when I spend "thousands of pounds" I know what I am buying, I don't buy things then suddenly find out they can't be used in a swimming pool

I don't think the water resistant information is misleading (this implies intention) but it is confusing to the general watch buying public, especially as most are not aware of the various ISOs and how the specifications relate to real conditions. Watch companies also tend to specify what the watch can be used for in the instructions, Seiko is a good example, I can't speak for Oris as I have never owned one.

The ISO have been discussing a "less ambiguous" classification but as yet have not made any changes.

Hi,

You appear a man of knowledge regarding the watch industry.

A layman purchasing a product is not in any way obliged to search and study the product. The product is sold under certain laws. One of the laws, not your opinion nor mine, states that goods are marked with correct and truthfull information. Now look at the back of my Oris Mark webber sport watch. It states 'water resistent 50M" it does not say splash proof, moisture proof, or any other such marking. I am so stupid to read English then apply some OTHER meaning to this label? If the product is only moisture proof or splash proof I dont have a problem with that. I do have a problem in being sold a product, any product, that is not labelled correctly.

Some watches cost 50euro some cost 100,000euro, in each case is it not the cost but the principle of the matter.

When I purchase a car I go to the showrrom and a plethora of information is available in both the cars hand book and brochures plus the sales man will tell me if asled what the performance of the car will be. To add to this the government had made the car trade print the cars fuel consumption these figures are monitored by the state.

I have NEVER been to a watch shop and found a single word on the subject of water resistence? Yet you seem to think I should just know? If the product didnt have a water rating printed on the back THIS is when I would study the problem NOT when there are clear specifications printed on the back WATER REISITENT 50m must MEAN JUST THAT?!

I have read my 10 different model watch hand books and not one of them mentions anything about the codes you write about?

It is a scam.

I wish you well and thank you for your kind reply. Please do look at this problem form the consumer point of view and not the expert like yourself.

You could always take the watch back to where you purchased it from, citing this reason for your dissatisfaction. But the retailer would probably just reply that Oris' interpretation of 50m water resistance is described within the supplied documentation and attempt to resist giving a refund.

 

[JoT]

I totally understand your frustration, but in my opinion their isn't a court in the EU that would back your case. Most watches (Swiss certainly are) are tested in accordance with an international standard i.e. International Standard Organisation ISO2281, a 50m water resistant watch will conform to this standard i.e. will be water resistant to a specified depth using a procedure set out in ISO2281.

The fact is that wearing a watch creates so many variables that the manufacturers probably allow a considerable safety factor when formulating their recommendations for use. It would not be possible to account for all the variables that could occur in a real life situation in one test!

I do agree however that the current system is confusing, something the ISO has recognised, I have no doubt that it will change one day.

If someone was unfortunate enough to be thrown into the Thames Estuary wearing a 50m resistant watch and concrete block tied to their legs and fortunate enough to be able to free themselves at 50m I would like to bet that the watch would still be OK .... whether he could hold is breath that long is another matter. If you used a 50m water resistant watch as a swimming or diving watch I suspect that it might be Ok for a while but would inevitably fail.

I don't think it is a scam but do agree that it not an ideal classification.