Old or new wreck ? What's best?

[Emily J]

Hi!
We're planning a big travel in Asia and looking forward to dive almost every where, when time and money allows!

I stumbled on an article on the www.scubadiving.com web magazine (here actually : New Purpose-Sunk Wrecks For Scuba Divers) which was mentioning newly sunk wrecks and there's one apparently just of Sabah and as we are going to go on Borneo, we might want to explore the wreck... And, this brought the question : old or new wrecks ? What's best ? What are the differences... If we could gather some recent testimony of wreck divers about like how old are the wrecks you dive and stuff that would be great!

By the way, we will be newly wreck ceritifed as we plan to do our training on Bali and then somewhere along the road head to Borneo and precisely Kapalai Kapalai, Sabah Travel Tips – Malaysia Things to do, Map and Best Time to visit Kapalai, Sabah as we may want to splurge a bit and spend time on the resort :O Any idea on this ?

Thank you

 

[AZNetEng]

I personally like old wrecks but that is because they have had time for coral to grow. You get a feel for how the environment is taking it over. It does depend on the environment though. The new wrecks I have explored were dive attractions only and not near reefs. I'm not sure what they will look like in a few years time.

 

[Rechno]

I think the most important difference between old and new is the state of decay. Newer Wrecks tend to be more intact and less overgrown, whereas older wrecks are often (not always) suffering from decay on the one hand, but have often turned into a beautiful artificial reef.

What I personally do not like are purposely sunken wrecks for scuba divers, that are sanitized. I prefer them to have a "history".
Ideally for me the wreck combines an interesting history, enough intactness to identify things and get a feeling for the ship it has been and at the same time showing some overgrowth and the beginning or mid-stage of being taken back by nature.

 

[boulderjohn]

I have done a lot of wreck dives over the years, and I have some I greatly prefer over others. Interestingly enough, I prefer different ones for different reasons.

• One I like a lot was purposely sunk last July, so it is sanitized and brand spanking new, with no growth and no history. I like it because it is big, with lots of inner places to explore.
• Several, especially in Chuuk, were victims of WWII, and that history--along with the artifacts of war--is very much a part of my preference for them.
• Some have been down long enough to develop beautiful coral throughout, so exploring the wreck is like going through a beautiful maze.

In summary, I cannot tell you what I prefer because each wreck has a unique set of qualities, and it is the combination of those qualities rather than one quality in particular that makes the difference for me.

 

[DevonDiver]

New wrecks are ok for training, but lack any historical perspective that brings the dive 'alive'.

Depending on the location, wrecks can also attract vast amounts of marine life... acting as an artificial reef. Generally, the older the structure, the more established marine life on the wreck.

The best wreck to dive is always the 'virgin' wreck... the one that you find and identify

 

[snowdog61]

It's only 'new' once. I think it would very interesting to see the progressive takeover of the marine life on a freshly scuttled site. Sure, it's not as pretty as an aged one and doesn't have the historical significance but who hasn't been on wrecks that are so far gone as to be barely distinguishable from the rest of the surroundings? While not a wreck, in Florida's Key Largo, within the Pennekamp MP area there is the Christ of the Abyss statue. When I first started diving, it was fairly pristine with very minor coral growth. Divers would often touch the face and hands which kept most of the coral growth to a minimum (there must have also been actual cleaning dives since it was placed there in the mid 60's). Even after many years, it was still easily recognizable and smooth in those places. It was decided however, being that it was in fact it within a marine sanctuary and part of the 'reef', that touching was no longer acceptable and that fact was made part of the dive briefing. I haven't dove Christ of the Abyss in more than a few years as my desire to see waned with all the overgrowth that happened. Still interesting to see how the fan corals have taken hold. I'm sure it'll eventually be an unrecognizable blob but it's still kind of cool to see. Dive them all.

 

[boulderjohn]

It was decided however, being that it was in fact it within a marine sanctuary and part of the 'reef', that touching was no longer acceptable and that fact was made part of the dive briefing.

You may have missed part of the reason that you are told not to touch it. Some operators, in fact, have a standard bit of humor in the briefing, telling you that if you want to meet Jesus, go ahead and hug the statue, because it's got fire coral all over it.

 

[Neilwood]

I think I prefer "middle aged" wrecks. Old enough to have nature encroaching but new enough to be structurally sound and recognisable.

Having a history as to why it is there as well adds to the enjoyment of the dive.

 

[Vicko]

How old?
I never dived a sanitized wreck, my "newest" one was from 1993, nice dive on a fishing trawler. My oldest one is 2000+ years old, and is largely made out of the anchors it was transporting and pottery, also quite nice.
In the middle there is a 500 yeat old British smuggler, the only thing left of the wrecks is an anchor and a couple of rocks/canons. Best part of that dive was doing the deco in ripping current, hopeing that the boat anchor holds or one of us is going to have to blow off 20+ minutes of deco and save the boat.
What i mean to say by this is that it depends on a wreck, but my favorite ones are from ww2, or close to it, as they offer a great chace to explore the wreck while still being overgrown enough to enjoy the dive without actualy going into the wreck.

 

[nolatom]

The comments above are spot on.

I like ships, and maritime history, so I prefer "real" wrecks, because they have a "real" and often dramatic story as to how they got there. That said, any wreck is fun for me.

But given a choice, I'd rather see a piece of history. So even though I haven't dived outside the US, I have valued seeing wrecks up close, like the coastal tanker CHESTER POLING off Gloucester Mass, which split in two and sank 40 years ago in a hellish under-predicted winter storm, Coast Guard saved 6 of 7 crew at great risk to themselves. You can see the steel edges where the hull split, and the empty lifeboat davits. I was a desk-driver in the Coast Guard in Boston then, but knew a couple of the rescuers.

Or closer to home nowadays, the "Russian freighter" off Pensacola, was blown up and sunk during WW2 in a secret test of a remote-control bomb-loaded boat. So one side of her is way more flattened than the other, presided over by three huge circular very-old-school boilers.

With very few exceptions (meaning floating museum ships), ships of this age exist only underwater. The rest became "razor blades"-- recycled steel.

I may be an outlier in this regard. But wrecks, intentional or accidental, make otherwise boring sand into someplace special.