I'm not overly bothered about watches being within COSC spec, I can easily adjust the time every few weeks - no big deal.
I bought one of the new Explorers a few weeks back now, and it's been on my wrist ever since. Through the week I started to notice when the news "pips" came on the radio I have a habit of glancing at the time. Every time the hand seemed to be more or less in unison with the pips, so I've been keeping tabs on the timekeeping a little more. As near as I can see, the watch has lost one second in the past 6 days, which I find incredible.
The Rolex bashers will say, that for over £4k it should keep bloody good time - and it's hard to disagree - but it's impressive in my eyes for what is a mass produced item.
Obligatory photo, of course.
That kind-a mirrors my experience, too - a new SD4000, bought this summer. Since I last set it, 22nd Aug, it's lost 19seconds, and I'm just fine with that. Set it a minute fast, reset when it's a minute slow 200 days later..... Not quite as good as your Explorer, OP, but I'm happy!
That is great. Very soon this is going to be my only watch.
I hate to admit this (to myself as much as anyone) but I'm considering selling all my others too. I had one sales thread drafted up yesterday and took cold feet.Originally Posted by jcoyne1
It does everything I'll ever need.
I'm a vintage fan at heart, but I'm completely smitten with this.
What happens if you only wear your Rolex at weekends, like me at present?
Read that I should wind it every few days, is this correct?
What does everyone else do, I bought the ND as at least I don't have to set the date....?
I hope when my new Explorer comes back from Rolex for regulation that it's accuracy approaches yours!
Let it run down, then give it a wind before you wear it again. There's some consensus here that keeping a watch running when not wearing it has no benefit.
Cheers that was what I was hoping to hear.
Some confusing talk on the web about wear if not worn etc.
The time keeping is spot on at present, worth waiting for one.
My newly purchased BLNR is also extremely accurate, wore it all week last week and noticed no variation over the 7 days.
Had my PRS-82 back from regulation recently, this really isn't running that much behind! I haven't bothered to work out how many times cheaper it is than the Rolex!
Act in haste ,repent at leisure
My December 2015 hulk loses about 2 seconds a day. It's only a weekend wearer
Particularly of interest to me, given my recent query here re expectations on current-spec new rolex timekeeping. Thanks for posting.
I am afraid to report my Explorer 39mm is only running at about +1s\d. It did gain 7sec over 5 days - while I recorded it on my holiday to Spain - terrible. Could be the jumping into the cold pool from the 40C heat??(I jest of course - I am quite happy with the time keeping).
My relatively fresh Datejust 36 is within 4 seconds in seven days. I don't wear it every day though.
I'm not obsessed by the accuracy but I have had my BLNR almost a year and have only had to alter the time once or twice. I wear it 11 days out of 14 and ensure it is wound on the days it is not worn. I am very impressed with it.
Not bad for a 25 year old ;)
Have Rolex done anything different with the movements to improve performance, or are they simply putting more effort into regulating the watches more rigorously? Does anyone know?
Taking a more cynical view, perhaps they've done nothing different and they're hoping they don't get caught out very often. The majority of buyers won't check rigorously, so they won't get many watches returned for regulation.
Could be a smart marketing ploy to foster the belief that they've technically upped their game when in reality they've done nothing different. My guess is they're putting more emphasis on regulation/quality control but technically I doubt whether they've done anything significantly different.
Paul
^ Could be... Assuming the (real-world) variance of all new Rolexes is normally distributed, the -4/+6 COSC standard would place many within the new standard without any changes.
Anyone know if a normal distribution is likely to be applicable?
I think it's more of a QC / regulation thing than anything else, it's even in their blurb on their website. now tested to +/-2 seconds per day in the case after COSC certification. Of course that's still on a testbed so real world applications will vary
I keep an eye on my DJ via the watchville app. It has gained half a second in the last week which is its best yet.
This is interesting; whilst I'm not too fussed about timekeeping being within a really tight tolerance, It doesn't feel like my BLNR is as accurate as the examples given above. I guess there are many factors which influence the accuracy, for example I take my watch off at night and leave it on the sideboard until I get dressed the next day, so wonder does that contribute to losing time? How do folks here measure the accuracy, via website (Time.is?) or specific equipment at home?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Guys if you didnt know, Rolex has updated their accuracy claims i think since the 5 year warranty came into place, which far surpasses the COSC, it has now been extended to a Stringent -2/+2 tolerance. Which puts it on par with the Patek Seal.
I use the Watchtracker app on my iPhone. It synchronises with an atomic clock to within a few hundredths of a second so gives a very accurate baseline. On the other hand it does rely on you tapping the screen as the second hand reaches a point of your choice, so each reading will be a few 1/10ths of a second out. This makes it pretty good for checking variation over days or weeks but not much good at any kind of instant or hour by hour measurement. The interface is pretty simple. I'm sure there are plenty of similar ones.
It's normal practice to regulate a watch to run very slightly fast, rather than the opposite. That skews things a little, but I would expect most models (prior to the recent change) to run in the 0 to +2 range anyway.
Rolex are mass producers; despite all the pomp and sense of occasion they try to create when selling, this is a mass produced product. Ensuring that each and every watch will perform to the standard they're claiming is a big ask given their scale of production. That's not to say each watch isn`t capable of doing so (providing all components are correct and the assembly has introduced no faults), but it still needs a lot of emphasis on the final regulation.
What would be really interesting, and sadly we won`t get to see it, is a comparison between the spread of performance prior to their recent change and the performance the watches now give. That would be a in interesting comparison and unfortunately we can`t see that data. Comparing odd examples from anecdotal experience isn`t conclusive, although it is interesting; seeing both data sets would be far more interesting!
If anyone buys a new Rolex and finds that it isn`t performing within the stipulated range they can now expect it to be corrected; previously that wasn`t the case because the old '-4 to +6' was the yardstick, although there have been cases where watches were regulated to get closer to the customers expectations.
In the old days, when far more ADs had repairers on site, regulating a watch for a customer wasn`t an arduous job, even though Rolex aren`t the easiest to adjust. Nowadays the watch has to be returned to a service centre with all the inconvenience that entails. A retrograde step but a sign of the times.
Paul
Last edited by walkerwek1958; 27th September 2016 at 09:33.
I have a BLNR and an SDc that were bought in early 2015, just prior to the changes in warranty and accuracy. They both run around +3 to +4 seconds a day, so within the old standard but outside the new one. By comparison, my 1984 16660 Sea-Dweller runs at +1 per day after a service late last year by Duncan/"Cannop".
Based on all that, I would say Rolex have changed the amount of time they spend regulating the watches at the factory. A minimal amount of extra effort on their part for a nice marketing strategy - classic Rolex!
But note that Rolex testing of new watches involves assumptions about the average use. Because people do vary, so will the accuracy. The same watch will produce slightly different results with different wearing patterns.
Indeed, if your activity varies a lot, the timekeeping will vary too. Probably best not to get obsessive, it's a mechanical watch.
It's all about the consistency of manufacturing of key components. Get that right and each movement will perform in a very similar manner.
It will then be a very simple operation to regulate a watch based on its starting point and it's required accuracy.
As more data is collected, it should be possible to regulate each watch subsequently to suit the wearers usage patterns.
Dave, In principle, what you're saying is correct, but in practice it's never that straightforward.
Parts are made to very close tolerances, and I don`t believe the variation will be significant between movements. However, the component that has most bearing on the watch's performance is the balance and hairspring. A perfectly poised balance with a hairspring that's fitted perfectly will reduce positional errors to the minimum practicable level that the technology can provide.......forget about co-axial escapements, it's all about the balance in my opinion. Sure, the rest of the movement has to be good, but I believe the balance is the most likely cause of variation.
I`d love to look around a production facility and see how balances are manufactured, my knowledge is lacking in this area, but the aim is to mass produce balance assemblies that require the minimum of correction.
Positional errors have to be reduced to the minimum to genuinely improve the intrinsic performance of a watch; we're talking about precision rather than accuracy and a watch that runs at +3 consistently is deemed better than a watch that gives variance of +/- 2 secs/day. Once the precision is nailed down to the best practicable result, it's all down to regulation to set the watch up.
Personal wear patterns will have an effect, but this variable can be minimised if the positional agreement is excellent. The best watch I`ve seen is the Omega 8500 Aqua Terra I sold recently; from memory the positional agreement was within 2 or 3 seconds in all positions (even crown at 9). It's no surprise that the watch ran very consistently, regardless of wear pattern. State of wind is another key variable; a good watch will give the same rate whether it's 70% wound or fully wound. The variation of rate with amplitude will be zero, or very close to zero, over the range 270° to 300°. As the state of wind falls, even the best watch will start to show variation as the amplitude drops.
Does any of this really matter?........that's for the individual to decide! The only watch of my own that I`ve put a lot of effort into regulating is my Omega SMP cal 1120, that's did +0.7 secs/day over a week's holiday. I can`t be bothered messing around with the rest; provided they're running OK (a few secs/day fast) after servicing I leave them alone. Most annoying watch was (ironically) serviced by Rolex prior to my purchase; I bought a freshly serviced Explorer 1 a few years back and it always ran approx. + 10 secs/day, or slightly more. The timegrapher showed it to be running very well, but running fast. Eventually, using a cheaper version of the Rolex adjusting tool, I bit the bullet and regulated it. This isn`t a nice job with the balance in the watch, there's scope for it ending badly and that's why I won`t touch other folks's Rolexes. Eventually I got it to run +2 secs/day and I settled at that. The Omega co-axials are just as bad to regulate, requiring little screws on the edge of the balance to be moved inward or outward......not for the faint-hearted. That's the drawback with a free-sprung balance, there's no regulator to play with so the rate has to be altered by adjusting the effective mass of the balance itself, and that's where the tiny screws play their part.
Paul
My SDc gains about +3 on the wrist during the day but loses it again when I sit it up on its bottom lugs at night.
Mar 2015 SDc (having been sent to RSC for regulation) ran at +4 s/d last time I checked. Sep 2016 GMTiic currently running at -0.2s/d. So on this extensive sampling of 2, the post +/-2 model is definitely more accurate. Not that I've ever missed the bus with my SDc. (I regulate my SDc by resting it 12 up overnight to lose a couple of secs and I regulate my GMTiic dial up to speed it up a smidge).
Hi Paul. I assumed any watch that goes in for a proper Rolex service would be regulated to within COSC by them as part of the not inconsiderable cost?
You would expect so!
The one I bought had been serviced approx. 3 months prior to me buying it.
The COSC thing is much-misunderstood. Just because a watch runs at between -4 and +6 secs/day doesn`t mean it meets COSC standard; it's more about the positional errors and the allowable range. One of my 60s Omegas has a span of 18 seconds between fastest and slowest rates, but in normal use it runs around +3 secs/day. Just because the watch is running at between -4 and +6 in regular use doesn`t make it a chronometer!
Paul
Thanks for the info Paul. I appreciate that there is more to COSC than the raw timing tolerances but, regardless of the other criteria, if your Exp36 is running +10secs then that's definitely outside of COSC and I was surprised that a freshly Rolex serviced watch would be performing that way. Phil
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
