Pros & Cons of Vintage Gear

[Nemrod]

I have no idea what they used in Kansas either in 1960 and as said, the two divers in Pureto Rico that had a Fenzy probably does not count. I don't really consider the Fenzy a full function BC. It had to much up around the neck and shoulders to actually function as a BC unless swimming feet down was the style.

So, with that, I think the statement that "real vintage" divers did not use a BC is accurate be it in Kansas or Puerto Rico being as there were none in general use if any even existed. As to the Scuba Pro Stabilizing jacket, nope, not vintage. It is not of the style or methods considered vintage by most but instead was the beginning of todays poodle jackets certain Maine divers like so much due to their unwarranted fear of thermal dehydration from metal BP/wings. Thus it is more accurately considered non vintage. In fact, since I don't see any sort of BC or stabilizing jacket in the New Science of Skin and Scuba editions I have seen, it could be argued that no BC of any sort is ever vintage, even in Maine.

N

 

[james croft]

We don't need no stinkin' beecees !

 

[Luis H]

I personally don't remember the Scubapro stabilization jacket being introduced in 1971, but that is what is published in many sources...but you know you can't always trust everything you read.

Timeline of Diving History

Time Line of Scuba: A Chronology of the Recreational Diving Industry

1971: Scubapro introduces the Stabilization Jacket, a combination backpack and jacket style buoyancy control device (BCD). The "stab jacket" and its imitators increase diver acceptance of BCDs. Jacket-style BCDs become the industry standard for most uses. ("Horse-collar" BCDs will continue to be popular with cave divers and others who use multi-tank dive rigs.)

Diving History & Time Line updated thru to Dec 2003 events and last update entered 3-20-2004

There are also other sources, but I haven't located a 1971 or 72 Scubapro catalog.


As I said, just because something was available, it doesn't mean it was popular at first or even accepted. Just like the back inflate wing At Pac received very little acceptance in 1972.

 

[Rick Inman]

You could be right but I do not recall seeing a real BC of any sort until the early 70s, not 60s. During the 60s we certainly used the Mae West type CO2 vests but they were NOT a BC. The first functional manual inflate BC, horsecollar, I did not recall seeing until about 1972, the At Pac concept, when did that come along at it's earliest experts out there?

N

When I was certified in 1971 my dad bought us ScubaPro BC's - oral inflate only. In 1972 he bought us At Pac's, which was the newest, latest greatest.

 

[Alex777]

A quick look in Basic Scuba by Fred Roberts, 2nd ed., 1963finds no reference at all to BCs or Buoyancy Compensators, but he does say that "many divers" wear a "flotation device" (often with a CO2 cartridge) for safety reasons. The difference, of course, is that vintage divers had to control their buoyancy without inflating and deflating a balloon around the upper torso.

 

[pescador775]

In 1972, I converted the UDT jacket to a BC of sorts. The right CO2 detonator was removed and replaced with an auto inflator which ran off my RAM. At first, I had trouble with the vest floating up and solved that by running a strap to the weight belt. The UDT is designed for purposes of floating an unconscious diver face up as was the case with the Fenzi. Both were made strictly for saving felled military divers.

I can't speak to the logic of the Fenzi other than what is obvious as I did not use them; I mean it could be used for surface flotation and lift, but the somewhat similar UDT made a decent buoyancy compensator even though it is "high floating" in design. I never noticed any trim problem perhaps due to the relatively small capacity. Routinely, my dives were made with double Navy 90's, double hose regs, as with all our wreck team. We used vest flotation or lift bags for bringing up artifacts. We also discovered that the vests could be used for making small adjustments in bouyancy which helped us avoid stirring up the bottom. We realized how advantageous this could be as visibility could be quite limited due to bottom sediment. We had found that the powerful lights with lead acid battery boxes that we carried caused occasional problems with buoyancy as did our collecting efforts (think goody bag loaded with brass).

I am sure that many other divers were finding the same thing as the that same year I became aware of some strange new devices based on the horsecollar design. The Fenzi was one of these but primarily we were seeing other companies designing big red or yellow floats with large inflation hoses accompanied by auto inflator devices. USD took the path of installing a button on the right side and some others built the inflator into the hose itself.

There was experimention with unusual forms like the Atpack which caused a big flurry of excitement but did not go anywhere until some 10 years later with the advent of "technical" diving. Now, any of these devices are effective for controlling buoyancy, even today. However, lifesaving is another matter as certain bag designs make this very iffy.

The stab jacket solved most or all problems. When I bought the stab jacket in 1977, there was a guy travelling with me, a well known California diver who had appeared in various magazines principally due to his spear fishing exploits. Of course, he was also prominent in the diving community of southern California. When I sat down with McGehee to order the stab jacket my buddy showed some moderate interest in the device which he had not seen before but I don't think it went further. I did not discuss it with others too much, I guess because I knew that I had a secret weapon. Flounder fishing with SCUBA became a whole new ball game. The instant and precise buoyancy control gave quite an advantage when climbing up and down from deep to shallow while avoiding spooking the flatties. This took place in a fairly dangerous area due to long swims, currents and boat traffic, and the vest just solved one more little problem in planning and execution. I could sling it on and off in a second. The stainless clamping mechanism was totally reliable and quick to use. I can't say enough good things about it. The arm holes were sized in such as way as to prevent riding and a crotch strap was just unnecessary. What a shame that they messed it up. First, Scubapro started adding pockets. The worst thing was making the armholes bigger and increasing the length of the skirt which made it difficult to access the stringers and attachments on my weight belt, a real bother. The new fabric was tough but stiff as a board. Too bad about that.

When diving "contemporary" I use a back inflate made by Seaquest in the 1990's. It has an unusual strap system which makes it possible to get an exact fit every time with no crotch strap. I don't like the looks of those techie wings and don't understand their popularity. Their performance on the surface is questionable at a minimum. I don't like having fabric flapping within my line of travel. The bungies and plates are excess baggage. I do like the strap system but not where a crotch strap is required. I am skeptical of the weight pockets and dump systems. I feel that this is specialty equipment which is getting a lot of hype.

IMO, the stab jacket, the original, was near perfect that first year it appeared. The only possible problem would be adapting it to different climates. A jacket which fit perfectly over a wetsuit might be too wobbly over skin. Also, a stab jacket is best used with single tanks. The increasing trend to big, double tanks could lend a certain type of logic to the "wings" as the separate strap systems can carry loads more securely.

 

[oldmossback]

Well, jeepers, I didn't think all this banter would come up on when BC's came into effect, these responses still missed my point I think, although some came close.

I used a dacor life vest from 67 until the late 70's at such time I purchased a seatec horse collar which I still have. Later, when my youngest son was ready to learn to dive, in the late 80's I purchased two sets of Zeagels wings.......very simple, with a light vest of nylon that had two small pockets attached to a plastic backplate that was common to all rigs at that time. The wings were typical clear plastic bags inside a elastic nylon skin. The pockets on the vest were useful again in saltwater, wearing just a tank, mask, fins and just swim trunks, for holding rocks...or in my sons case, two pockets of sand to hold him neutral.
I have since ditched the nylon vest and use the wings modified to attach to my twin 38's and
45's. I dive with a new Aries Reef Rider now with a single tank and that I have modified also. It is of stiff nylon that has no bag and is heaver than my old Zeagels.
My point is, the older gear, including floatation vests and early bc's were simplier and IMHO safer.
All this new stuff on the market is complicated and in a troublesome situation, complicated is not helpful.

I have dove total vintage many times, but with the shore very near. A floatation vest or BC have been prefered for that long swim back. I just think the simpler a piece of gear is, the safer.
Oldmossback

 

[pescador775]

Actually, older gear can be complex but it is not necessarily unsafe. When donning my late type MIL horsecollar vest it involves fastening a set of straps including a crotch strap. This is followed by a twin Scuba set with double hose regulator, inflator hose and small gauge console (adapted from 1975, USD miniature type), and another set of straps. However, complicated though it may be, in an emergency, it is still possible to ditch the entire SCUBA and keep the BC for that long swim back. In 1976, SDM ran a contest for ideas to reduce the strap clutter on the diver. Slightly more than a year later, SP introduced the stab jacket which eliminated all but a single waist strap. It is simpler than all but the very oldest gear but whether safer or not is open to question.

The question of what makes a vintage outfit is difficult to answer because it is not defined. For purposes of Scubaboard vintage is anything prior to 1980 which seems as good a definition as any. I don't like clutter because extra gear can be distracting and a cause for drag and unnecessary distraction resulting in extra work for the diver. We see the same thing in modern fighter aircraft which are more capable but put such a work load on the pilot it could impare safety.

It is more than safety, it is a question of fun. When, in the process of loading on 20 pieces of gear are we liking it? My preference is to make dives with a low gear count. Typically, slip on a UDT jacket and small set of doubles with RAM and constant reserve valve, plus the usual wet suit, mask/snorkel, fins, weight belt. In warm water, not even a wet suit.

 

[pescador775]

The question of whether vintage diving is safe requires a look at who we were. Diving began in Japan, France and the US. The Japanese were mostly women who harvested oysters. In France, Guy Gilpatric practically invented the art of spearfishing. The only gear involved were goggles or face plates. Simultaneously, in the San Diego Area, a dive club was formed for the purpose of adventure and supplementing food during the Great Depression. Again, only home made goggles and face plates were used. Some years later, the invention of the swim fin by Owen Churchill, and the self contained underwater breathing apparatus, the Aqualung, by J. Y. Cousteau altered the technology in a big way and began to influence the thinking among some freedivers and later, among the populace at large.

You see, divers were regarded as swimmers, individual swimmers who had mastered freediving and particularly fascinating to the public were those who had the means and ability to use the Aqualung. No instruction was necessary or requested by these divers other than a brief review of the apparatus and immediately the swimmer/freediver became an Aqualung diver. As non diving people wanted to transition directly from non-diver to the Aqualung it became apparent that the sport could only progress if a regular course of instruction were put in place.

So, vintage divers were mainly guys, including kids like myself, who never heard of SCUBA instruction and would have discounted it even if it had existed in the first place. I dove the Aqualung for 17 years before getting certified. So, why did I not get killed? Well, diving with SCUBA is not a big deal to an accomplished freediver. In today's world, the complicated gear could trip up a good diver if required to adapt to all that stuff at once and that is where the danger is. That is, to increase the work load and to instill the notion that safety is in the gear, and that learning and practicing all the intricacies of equipment are the main route to safety. In the day, the "safety" depended on the diver being comfortable in the water, being resourceful and strong, and level headed. These folks did not panic easily. Basically, if they were stranded they would swim for the nearest island. I did. However, over time, some divers did panic after becoming disorientated in caves or other Mike Nelson scenarios and this led to calls for more "safety" in the form of redundant gear, double up on this and that, and to customize courses of instruction. However, the human element remains as the primary source of error and redemption. Pushing the limits has its price no matter the equipment and in spite of the planning. Knowing limits was hardly in the language of vintage divers who were pioneers in their own right. Stuff happened, we learned the lessons but sometimes drew the wrong conclusions. One obvious error would be concluding that the previous, vintage, style of diving is less safe than the other. It depends on the person, not the vintage.

 

[duckbill]

You see, divers were regarded as swimmers, individual swimmers who had mastered freediving and particularly fascinating to the public were those who had the means and ability to use the Aqualung. No instruction was necessary or requested by these divers other than a brief review of the apparatus and immediately the swimmer/freediver became an Aqualung diver.

Are you saying this is true, or just that it was the thought at that time? I question that "no instruction was necessary." I assume it is clear now that scuba diving should never just be considered an offshoot from freediving, and that there is just concern for proper instruction. Most of the greater medical dangers from SCUBA are either impossible or highly unlikely to strike while freediving- air embolism, nitrogen narcosis, and the bends.

****************************

Anyhow, I stand corrected to a degree. I thought horsecollar BCs were well in use in the 1960s. I forgot that true horsecollar BCs were a 1970s standard. However, while accepting the words of those that were actually diving in the 1960s, I did go back and check the marketing for buoyancy compensation in the 1960s AquaLung literature.

As mentioned before, the precursor to the horsecallar BC was the snorkeling vest. The snorkeling vest is basically a horsecollar BC that was meant for surface floatation, and not for buoyancy compensation, right? That's what I thought too, until I looked at U.S.Divers' 1960s marketing. I found it interesting enough to share.

As early as 1959 the Diver's Float, or U.S. Diver's Float, was being sold as a surface floatation device.

Then in 1964 U.S.Divers came out with the Aqua Float. It was essentally the same Diver's Float snorkelers vest with the addition of a zipper for ease of don and doff. The interesting thing is that it was being marketed as a buoyancy, or "depth", compensator right from it's debut. What? What's that, you say? 1964?!

1964- "Aqua Float is the perfect divers emergency and depth compensating float."

1965- "Perfect for depth compensation as well as emergency use."

Well, I rather suspect that quite a few accidents resulted from runaway ascents, and the wise folks at USD backed off a bit and decided not to refer to them as depth compensators for a while. Even though they got smart and added an over pressure relief valve in 1969, they still refrained from calling them depth or buoyancy compensators until the next year, 1970, where USD stated, "A diving floatation device is absolutely necessary as a working piece of diving equipment for buoyancy compensation at depth, surface swimming, and resting."

So, while the snorkeler's vest was being marketed on and off in the 1960s as a buoyancy compensator, it seems the actual divers of the time didn't consider them anything more than surface floatation devices. Frankly, the divers were correct. Using a snorkeling vest lacking an over pressure device as a buoyancy compensator is a dangerous thing to do. Were they safe? Yes- when used for that which they were originally designed. Are BCs safe? Yes- if used properly. Are modern BCs safer or less safe that vintage BCs? -no. Is wearing no BC at all safer or less safe that wearing a BC?- depends on the conditions. JMO