Micro brands

[mycroft]

I'm surprised that people have had such problem with NH3* movements.

I've had, and still have, quite a few watches with these movements. Too many to have just been lucky.

All have had good timekeeping and beat error, some of the better watches (Helm and Nodus) which appear to have been regulated are excellent.

The NH3* is cheap because it's mass produced, but I don't believe it's fundamentally a poor movement in terms of performance.

The positive is that if/when it fails you can cheaply drop in a replacement.

M

Sent from my ASUS_X00PD using Tapatalk

I completely agree. I currently have 3 watches with NH35 movements and my experience of them has been uniformly positive. Both my Sharkey Tuna and my Borealis Scout Sniper are consistently accurate to within 10 seconds per day (which is significantly better than specification), while my OceanX lose precisely 1.2 seconds per day and has done ever since it arrived. Ironically (since it’s a homage to the DSSD) it’s more accurate than my actual DSSD which loses 2 seconds per day!

It may not be a hugely sophisticated movement but it’s clearly capable of being well regulated with a little effort, which better microbrands are clearly prepared to put in.

Simon

[huytonman]

I completely agree. I currently have 3 watches with NH35 movements and my experience of them has been uniformly positive. Both my Sharkey Tuna and my Borealis Scout Sniper are consistently accurate to within 10 seconds per day (which is significantly better than specification), while my OceanX lose precisely 1.2 seconds per day and has done ever since it arrived. Ironically (since it’s a homage to the DSSD) it’s more accurate than my actual DSSD which loses 2 seconds per day!

It may not be a hugely sophisticated movement but it’s clearly capable of being well regulated with a little effort, which better microbrands are clearly prepared to put in.

Simon

Luck clearly plays a part (it shouldnt), like you ive had countless watches with NH movements and none (no exaggeration) has failed to disappoint and to the comment about regulation, these arent easy movements to regulate, Ive tried and regardless of effort you cant regulate out the dramatic positional variation which is down to design and manufacturing failings. What I have seen is microbrands and cheaper Chinese makers lowering the beat error compared to Seikos own watches which does show that they can be improved beyond the factory offering. I said they are reliable, never had one fail, but I presume the same was true of the Trabant. Clearly millions of buyers are happy with NH based watches, I’m not one of them and wouldnt again buy a watch that uses the movement.
Keith
.

[snowman]

Luck clearly plays a part (it shouldnt), like you ive had countless watches with NH movements and none (no exaggeration) has failed to disappoint and to the comment about regulation, these arent easy movements to regulate, Ive tried and regardless of effort you cant regulate out the dramatic positional variation which is down to design and manufacturing failings. What I have seen is microbrands and cheaper Chinese makers lowering the beat error compared to Seikos own watches which does show that they can be improved beyond the factory offering. I said they are reliable, never had one fail, but I presume the same was true of the Trabant. Clearly millions of buyers are happy with NH based watches, I’m not one of them and wouldnt again buy a watch that uses the movement.
Keith
.

Countless? When did you lose count?

Failed to disappoint in what respect? Were you expecting unreasonable performance?

Surely any watch with 'dramatic positional variance' by design would not keep good time and yet many NH3* watches do.

You can personally discount anything you like, but somehow your claims that the 4R15 is a bad movement by design doesn't stack up.

There's a lot of snobbery about the NH3* movement. You may not be guilty of it, but you make some big claims there. Is there evidence to support them?

M



Sent from my ASUS_X00PD using Tapatalk