Wetsuit/drysuit.

When is a drysuit not a drysuit?  Usually, it seems.  Almost everybody I know has trouble with their suit.  I took mine in for repair the other day and mentioned that I was looking forward to having a watertight suit, and the guy fell about laughing.

If it's not the zip, it's the seals; failing the seals, it's a problem with the seams - either the stitching or the seam seals.  Or the fabric's worn at the knees.  Or the boots are not properly attached.  Or... or....  There always seems to be something.  I know divers who've sent their new suits back three or four times because they're getting damp inside.

When you're diving in the North Sea it matters.  It's a chilly place and often chillier up top between dives.  A surface interval which adds tipping rain to the miseries of damp (or worse) thermals is no fun.  But we persist in buying the things and in referring to them as "dry".  Why?

Back in the '70s everybody dived in wetsuits and it was normal to get a bit chilly.  Then the drysuit came along; now we've gone soft, and complain about getting wet.  A friend of mine decided this was a silly and expensive game with no winners and bought herself a semi-dry suit.  She expects to get a bit damp and carries a jacket and hat to wear between dives.  I think she may have made a sound choice.  It cost her under £200, instead of £400+ for the illusion of dryness.  Mind you, she hasn't dived in winter in that kit.

I'm looking forward to getting my suit back when the zip and the wrist- and neck-seals have been replaced.  It should arrive in time for me to go on a weekend of shore dives at Ballachulish later this month.  I wouldn't want to do that in a wetsuit, however thick the neoprene, not in mid-November.  Call me a softie if you like....

Perhaps I should have asked for a furry lining while I was at it!