Good Morning.. as I sit here waiting for my start of the week email to arrive I thought I would court some views as to the importance of accuracy to you, especially in mechanical watches.
To me it makes the difference between keeping and returning these days as I regard it as a sign of movement quality.. for this reason alone I have narrowed my collection pieces and purchases to certain movements and manufacturers ..
I see a lot of comments on forums re accuracy not being a major concern with automatics, and im fed up with being told if you want accuracy buy a 10 pound quartz watch..as
If all I wanted was to tell the time I would not be a watch collector!!
Rolex AD local to me was not even willing to send my Explorer back to Rolex for regulation under warranty as it was running within COSC at plus 6 a day!! Even though it was sold as plus or minus 2.. Also stated the most absurd thing of the accuracy is only guaranteed in the five positions and not worn... not much use to me in a winder!! Rant over for now.
Could you also state which brands and movements have proved most accurate to you..
Mine as follows
Omega CoAxial 2500
8500 and 7750
Swatch group 7750 or 7753
Swatch Caliber 80
MicronBrand EtA 2892 and Myiota 9150 especially Marc and Sons and a Ocean 7
Least accurate for me have been the Seiko range using the 4r35 or 6r15 .. not had the pleasure yet of a Grand Seiko!!
And the Damasko and Sinn watches ive had (7) have been accurate but poorly regulated ..
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
“And the Damasko and Sinn watches ive had (7) have been accurate but poorly regulated ..”
I’m somewhat puzzled by that last statement. Surely if a watch is poorly regulated it won’t be accurate? I’m interested in the Sinn U1 blue model. However I don’t want to spend £1800 plus on something that’s not especially accurate.
Get some perspective.
+6 seconds, SECONDS a day and within COSC, I'm not surprised Rolex (or anyone really) wouldn't tinker with it.
You have to realise even at a MASSIVE 6 seconds a day, still makes the watch 99.993% accurate.
And yes if you want accuracy above anything else buying a decent Quartz watch is the way to go.
I expect accuracy of around zero to + 5 secs over a week and I nag my AD to get it to that. I won't accept anything less and neither should anyone else. I am referring purely to Rolex.
My best watch is a 1980 Explorer11 (1655) that gains 2 secs over 28 days. There is no excuse for anything less.
I agree OP. It is important within reason. I don’t want to be forever changing my watch because it is running x seconds too fast or too slow. Within COSC is acceptable but ideally 5 seconds per day fast or slow and I am happy. My omega 8500, Tudor BB 58 and Pelago in house are all working 5 seconds per day. I love mechanical watches but as you state the quality of the movement for me can be measured by accuracy as well as many other measures as well.
Short answer: yes
But if you check recent posts you can see accuracy does not correlate directly to ‘quality’ - if that correlates to price - some of the less expensive movements can be the most accurate. It probably depends on regulation more than ‘quality’.
Do you mean accuracy or precision? Some of my most precise watches are not the most accurate, some of my most accurate are not so precise.
I believe chronometer grade mechanical timepieces back in the day of sail ships had to be very precise with at least 1st order correction tables (maybe second order for greater accuracy).
For example: I have a Patek that runs precisely -4sec\day - when worn 24*7 except showers. So I could write down a correction table if I really wanted with a good degree of accuracy.
Other watches - may lose or gain in certain positions so can (over long periods) be more accurate than a quartz (as quartz base models may gain/lose 15s/month) by judicious overnight placements to nullify gains or loss during the day.
I used to create spreadsheets for watch accuracy but now use ‘WatchTracker’ app, though perhaps over time it has become less of an issue. (My therapist has helped me with this too - joke).
Martyn
I may be in a minority but my most accurate autos have been the cheapest! A Seiko 5 that runs bang on (gains a second during the day but loses it overnight) and a Miyota 8215 that's been a consistent +1s/day for the past 3 years (when worn).
I'm happy to set a watch with a non screw down crown once a week. With SDCs I prefer something a bit better.
If a watch isn't certified as COSC then it's a bit of a lucky draw. It's a mistake to equate accuracy with movement quality. I'd say all modern mechanical movements are capable of providing excellent timekeeping.
Last edited by Geralt; 26th November 2018 at 09:23.
Is Accuracy Important to You ?
At 75 years old..no.
I more concerned with whether I wake up every morning.
Mechanical watches, even the best, can never begin to compete with a decent quartz design, even one costing very little. I've had quartz models which routinely are accurate to less than 0. 5 seconds a month.
No fully mechanical watch can come close, over a period. On top of which they will vary depending on who is wearing them.
Does it matter? Not to me. As long as my mechanical watches don't need adjusting too often, it's just fine. They're pretty incredible given the challenges of heat, movement, gravity, friction and so on.
We're just a bunch of romantics, who love fine engineering.
Hahaha well good morning Sir!Originally Posted by Dave in Wales
Accuracy is important within reason. The only watch I have had that didn’t keep within COSC specs was a Seiko Turtle, which lost about 10 seconds per day. That did annoy me a little for a new watch.
That's the point....I find it so annoying if a watch requires resetting very frequently, especially given that you never need to bother with a cheapo quartz! I've only 2 mechanical watches - my Steinhart is OK as it only needs resetting (ie when it gets to around a minute slow) every couple of weeks. My other one is a Seiko 007, which runs too fast and gains around a minute a day, and that's just plain annoying.
To me, yes it is very important. I like my mechanical watches to run within a couple of seconds per day, and generally speaking, most of the Rolex, Omega and Brietling I have had meet this expectation. My Aquanaut was generally within one spd. Panerai’s that I have had were generally not fantastic ranging from 5-10 seconds - the same as my Longines.
If I am downing multiple thousands, then I am not happy with 5 spd and will gegernally move the watch on. I am a bit more forgiving with sub £1k, non COSC watches, but anything over 10 spd has to go
Edit to add - I rarely wear watches for more than a couple of days, so the resetting aspect is not a consideration. For me, it is the knowledge of a highly accurate mechanism on my wrist keeping amazing time
Last edited by mtagrant; 26th November 2018 at 10:19.
For me accuracy is very important. I started with cheap mechanicals that ran great (~1spw), then Rolex (+6spd disappointed me), finally moved to GS with their Spring Drive (ultimately couldn't even accept +0.1spd despite the incredible tech) and now settled for one of their quartz line.
Very happy camper here with 5spy accuracy, though I still keep a Rolex for special occasions where I don't mind being a few seconds late to an event
Sent from my EVR-L29 using Tapatalk
Not that important, like a previous commentator at my age a check in the obituaries first thing and if I'm not there, up for brekkers. There is obviously to me an accuracy which is unacceptable, but if the watch pref runs a bit fast and I can adjust once a week that is fine. TBH I would prefer an innacurate mech to an accurate quartz as I see mech watches as being alive.
Last edited by gettinon; 26th November 2018 at 10:48. Reason: fat finger typing
Thats exactly how I feel, we all know it is possible to have a well adjusted and regulated watch, thats why we pay more for the watches that promise that.. its not about pure timekeeping its about a piece of engineering that amazes us with how accurate a spring and a mechanical impulse can be.
So in answer to the Rolex issue.. I do expect better and it is advertised as such .. and when I sent it directly to the RSC it came back adjusted and now runs within a second a day.. so thats the reason I cant accept a higher end watch not performing to its best..not because i need to be anywhere to the second!!
As far as the Sinn issue... the watches were poorly regulated and varied greatly between positions and resting or worn.. there is a difference between adjustment and regulation..
I accept a plus 10 from a base movement as that is within spec, it is also ok if its plus ten all the time which indicates accuracy but needs a small adjustment..
Always confusing adjustment and regulation!!
The topic question is whether it matters to you as a collector and not whether its vital to your daily routine!!
As for quality of he movement I accept that accuracy and quality of the movement are not related, I meant quality of the brand putting together the timepiece.. which usually is valid.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I'm not a serious collector, especially compared to many on here. Accuracy isn't of huge importance to me. So long as it's more-or-less right. While I would be delighted if my watches only lost or gained a couple of seconds a day, it is not an obsession to achieve this.
Suggest the OP does a bit of homework. It’s worth reading what COSC really means and how the testing is carried out.
It’s also worth having a think about what really happens when a watch is worn. Putting the watch on a timegrapher illustrates an effect that is often overlooked; when the watch is being moved from one position to another the amplitude will often drop and the rate will change, settling back to stable values after a few seconds as the watch remains stationary. This tells us that the rate and amplitude are affected by movement, whilst the watch is moving the rate won’t match up to any of the conventional 6 positions. Clearly, a watch may spend much of its day in motion if the wearer is active, so it’ll spend significant time running at a rate thst isn’t easy to predict! The better watches tend to give the best overall results provided they’re in good condition and regulated correctly, that’s beyond dispute, but in most cases the reason a watch disappoints is because it isn’t regulated carefully. Indeed, careful regulation can sometimes compensate for the effects of wear with an old watch, the owner sees the overall rate performance and forms his view on this value regardless of the precision of the watch.
In the quest for consistency, leaving a watch dial-up overnight has a benefit. It may not improve the overall performance of the watch in the owners eyes, but it’ll certainly make it more consistent. It’s worth checking how the watch performs overnight dial-up and comparing that to my standard ‘16 hrs on the wrist’ test. If you’re lucky the ‘on the wrist’ rate will be in good agreement with the dial-up rate, but in most cases the rates will vary by between 2 secs/day and 12 secs/day. I’m talking about rate per 24 hrs here, not the actual number of seconds gained or lost . The rate on the wrist will show more variability because the activity pattern of the wearer is variable, the better watch will show its true colours here and give better precision, but there will still be variation. However, in my experience the biggest differences lie between the dial up rate and the mean ‘on the wrist’ figure and this applies to even the best watches.
Watch winders.....what can I say that I haven’t said before? Utterly pointless silly accesories unless you own a perpetual calendar watch. A great way to maximise wear and tear on your watch, keep it running for days on end whilst your not wearing it, and if its not set correctly you can maximise wear to the mainspring barrel too.....your vintage watch will love you for that! However, apart from the silliness aspect, how do we expect the rate of the watch to be affected by the winder? It splits its time between being rotated and sitting stationary in a random hanging position, so it’s a bit unfair to expect the rate to be consistent or to be in agreement with a normal wear pattern. Suggest the OP has a good think about this when considering whether his watch is any good or not, storing them on a winder and including this in the overall performance assessment isn’t a logical thing to do.
Many watches would benefit from a dose of fine regulation after 3 months of ownership from new, yet the current supply situation doesn’t accomodate this readily. In the old days, when watches were sold from jewellers shops with competent repairers around, it was easy to have a watch regulated and it was a comon thing to do. However, people were less demanding if their watches and it was far harder to check the rate against something reliable.....quartz watches changed all that!
To address the OPs question, I’m far more interested in the style and design of the watch than how good a timekeeper it may or may not be. I have the benefit if being able to service/regulate my watches, that allows me to get the best out if them, but if a watch is losing a few secs/day I often can’t be bothered messing around with it. I’m more concerned if the watch is running badly and needs service. I woukd never reject a watch on the basis of disappointing timekeeping, if I liked it I’d get it sorted or accept its descrepancy.
It’s been stated many times, but if absolute accuracy is your priority you’re better off with quartz, my daily beater is an old Omega quartz......and sleeping in them doesn’t affect the precision!
Paul
It is important to me.
I don't mind a relatively inaccurate watch if I'm only going to wear it for a couple of days. But if I take one on a trip for a few days or longer, I don't want the timekeeping to drift by more than a few seconds.
I don't quite understand the sentiment of expecting a mechanical watch to be accurate within a few seconds a week. It's the wrong tool for that job, even if it's attainable sometimes.
I've measured my U1 in stints of a week at a time through September, October and November and it's averaging +1.5 per day, I'm pretty happy with that.
It depends. For most mechanical watches, I'm happy if they are +/- 11 seconds. For older watches, +/- 21 seconds. For really old ones, +/- 60 seconds.
For calibration purposes (e.g., watch timing program), I'm keener to get closer to the nub, so I discipline the system time of the reference machine. This gives both reasonably accurate actual time, and reasonably accurate time signals.
chronyc> tracking
Reference ID : 50505330 (PPS0)
Stratum : 1
Ref time (UTC) : Mon Nov 26 11:32:43 2018
System time : 0.000000022 seconds slow of NTP time
Last offset : +0.000000013 seconds
RMS offset : 0.000000133 seconds
Frequency : 26.411 ppm fast
Residual freq : -0.000 ppm
Skew : 0.002 ppm
Root delay : 0.000000 seconds
Root dispersion : 0.000019 seconds
Update interval : 16.0 seconds
Leap status : Normal
chronyc>
Best wishes,
Bob
Thanks Paul for your insight.. in answer to some of your points.. ive had so many watches I can usually tell within a week if they are within tolerance, I dont store any of my watches on a winder only the two or three I use in rotation.. and if its only for a day or two the winder isnt switched on.. they are dial up..
I concur with the correlation between dial up and worn and all of my recent Omegas that are Master Chronometer are so well regulated that it has highlighted the others. After adjustment almost all of my watches have been within 3 a day worn or dial up...
But I do acknowledge the many variables but the manufacturers have continued to develop and market solutions for those.. ie silicon hairsprings, anti mag covers, co axial escapement.. new oils.. laser regulation.. new metals, they havent marketed those because they dont matter to anyone.. they are marketed as solutions to the issues with mechanical watches.. that is why I marvel and collect them.. and accuracy to me is a reflection of the effort the manufacturer has put into it. Indeed George Daniels as a watchmaker spent years developing a more accurate and robust movement, because he cared about accuracy,
Isnt accuracy the whole basis of the reason for watches, and mechanical pieces that achieve this are always sought after hence COSC, and accuracy awards .. and now METAS..
That is why it matters to me and if it doesnt matter to you that is fine ..
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
My new Tudor GMT seems to accurate to <1 sec per day wearing all day and bedside for 8 hours. Happy with that.
My old Tudor sub <>5 sec, my explorer <> 3 sec same conditions. On the winder they seem to gain more fsr.
Thank you. That’s good to know. I had a U1 with the ETA 2824 movement bought from here and it was accurate to within a couple of seconds a day, which was pretty impressive. Should have kept it.
I expect a chronometer to run within spec, but that's about it. I've plenty of quartz options for the rare occasions when accuracy really does matter but I'm far more interested in history and design. That level of precision goes out of the window with vintage timepieces, however as I rarely wear the same watch for more than a day or two I'm not bothered in the least.
This. And I will add, that I like watch to have consistent rate.
I rarely wear the same watch for more than 3 days in succession, so as long as my watch isn't too bad, I don't care or notice inaccuracy that much.
I think people get too hung over over the 'chronometer spec' and non chronometer issue. A watch that doesn`t meet COSC can usually be regulated to run better consistently between -2 and +6 secs/day but it has to be in good condition and it takes careful regulation.
It's easy to become impressed by the recent developments/improvements, but one fundamental factor that doesn`t change is getting the balance perfectly poised. It's not something the manufacturers can brag about, it lacks the marketing kudos of terms such as co-axial escapement, silicon hairspring, parachrom balance etc, but it's fundamentally important.
Despite the fact that I work on them I`m still amazed how accurate a small mechanical watch can be, given the unfavourable conditions it's subjected to. They are an anachronism, by all reasonable logic they belong firmly in the past and should've died a death when quartz technology came along. I can`t get excited about recent developments to improve a basically obsolete technology, the improvements are relatively minor and don`t justify the development effort/costs. The co-axial escapement was an innovative piece of design but I remain unconvinced that it was worth adopting for mass production, the actual benefits (as opposed to the marketing kudos) are marginal to say the least. I own one that's had a very easy life, I`ll be servicing it soon then it'll get sold. Having to drop the beat rate to accommodate the co-axial escapement seemed retrograde to me too.
I enjoy owning watches, I still have a substantial collection and all my watches keep good time by the standards I expect. Last year I overhauled a hand-wound Omega cal 613, ca 1970, and took great care to address every conceivable aspect that could impair performance, replacing parts that normally wouldn't get replaced. I also put a lot of effort into getting the balance and hairspring adjusted correctly. I did this as an exercise to see what could be achieved and the results were impressive. Positional agreement was within COSC parameters, amplitude was high and consistent, and the watch kept time to within 2 or 3 seconds/week based on daily wear and winding twice/day. The result surprised me, but I`d enjoy the watch just as much if it gained or lost 5 secs/day, it really isn`t that significant to me in the context of vintage watch collecting. I have a nice 60s Constellation that's running extremely well too, but I have others that aren`t quite so consistent because the positional agreement isn`t brilliant. I guess I could improve them by spending lots of time/effort/money but it wouldn't increase my enjoyment of owning them, I generally wear a watch for 2 or 3 days then swap to another.
The key word here is 'enjoy', if you're going to get hung up on timekeeping to the nth degree that may prove to be a struggle.
I think this thread has already proven to be a valuable insight into peoples thoughts... keep them coming as it is at the very least educational.. thanks
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
It turns out that one of my most accurate watches has a movement from around 1943. :)
It is +/- 8 seconds in 4 positions. (Haven't tested it in more, and haven't looked at changes in temperature). The movement is a Longines 12.68n. 18000 vph.
The only problem with it is that the amplitude is a bit high. Just over 320 deg dial up and dial down (not knocking, however). 280-290 stem up/down. Fully wound.
Best wishes,
Bob
Last edited by rfrazier; 26th November 2018 at 15:13.
My GO senator excellence looses about a second a day but will gain the same amount if left face down overnight so a good result beating my DJ overall. Surprisingly.
Doesn't surprise me, my Senator Excellence is probably my most precise watch, very slightly better than my Rolex. There are quite a lot of good watches around these days. Manufacturers do seem to be making an effort.
Pretty much this - as long as it’s not wildly adrift I probably won’t notice between resets anyway.
Having said that, I do appreciate great accuracy from high-end Quartz since that is one of the genre’s raisons d’être.
My current Mon-Fri watch runs very consistently at +4-5s per day, which I am more than happy with. By Fri evening it's still within half a minute and I need to reset it on a Monday morning anyway. I guess I wouldn't care if it were up to +15s per day but running slow would make me nervous as I live near enough to the train station to cut my morning arrival time pretty fine.
That said, accuracy certainly means more to me than having a movement that looks nice or has some supposed 'improvement' inside, none of which in practice seem to be able to offer any demonstrable performance benefit over a well regulated but bog standard ETA or equivalent - 'solutions' to non existent problems, cynically employed to justify the latest price hike.
If it says 'Superlative Chronometer' on the dial (and it's under warranty of course) i was under the impression that this was Rolex's guarantee that it would run +/-2 secs.
Other than that the standard COSC -4/+6 applies i guess.
Personally i always like my watches running a bit fast as it's easier to set as you just hack it for a few seconds and then resume.
Last edited by WillHarris2306; 26th November 2018 at 18:15.
I don't care about a few seconds a day here or there if it was losing mins at a time that would be different .I will generally set the time to the second at the start of the month
Sent from my Moto G (4) using TZ-UK mobile app
PP 5146 (cal 324) -1.5
PP 5712 (cal 240) + 0.5
FP Journe Octa Automatique (cal 1300.3) -3
JLC RDM 37mm (cal 938) around -5.
Rolex 1680 (cal 1575) +4
Rolex 5513 (cal 1570) +5
Rolex 16610 (cal 3135) +2
Rolex 118206 (cal 3155) +1
Rolex 114300 (cal 3132) +0.25
Zenith EP 38mm (cal 400) -3
Seiko second generation PVD Orange Monster -8
In practice, it's irrelevant because I change watches quite frequently, so they are all OK!
I agree with whoever said consistency is more important than outright accuracy.
That’s a lot of amplitude! The lift angle is 44 degrees, are you sure you’ve taken account of this? I’ve experienced problems with amplitude being too high on old watches and I put this down to replacement mainsprings being stronger than the originals. an easy problem to resolve, oil the balance pivots with 9020 instead of 9010!
I didn't take into account the angle of lift today (although your mentioning it made me remember doing so when overhauling it). About 305 dial up/down and about 260 stem up/down. That's much better. Thanks!
Best wishes,
Bob
Last edited by rfrazier; 26th November 2018 at 20:48.
Some of my watches run a little fast, some a little slow. They are all worn in rotation for 2 or 3 weeks at a time. The fast running ones are set @ 1 minute slow when put on, the slow running ones 1 minute fast, running in and out of the correct time. That's near enough for buses and trains. Of course one is always aware of just how fast or slow a watch is at any given time. The most accurate is my Datejust that I bought in 1984, gains less than a second per day.
Last edited by magirus; 26th November 2018 at 23:27.
F.T.F.A.
Well I saw the thread title, and thought, no not really. I, as many here do, wear my watches in a rotation so it's unusual if one is running for more than a week at a time. That said, I sold both my Seiko SKX divers because they kept such poor time... Gotta draw a line somewhere I guess!
It's surprising that anyone who wears different watches through the week would get overly concerned about them running around COSC level. Unless you wear the same watch all the time the accuracy isn't really an issue.
I want my watches to be accurate enough for what I am doing. Nobody ever had a problem because they were 6secs late or early for the end of a dive or for meetings at work.
Functional accuracy yes .
Hyper accuracy for its own sake no.
If I wanted it accurate enough to launch satellites I'd have an atomic clock and be into that instead of watches
Not much point in a watch that's not accurate. I don't mind if it gains a few minutes a month but it drives me nuts if it loses time.
Never really given it much thought as tend to wear watches in rotation. However, I am now curious as to how accurate mine are (with my personality I know this is something I will end up getting obsessed with! haha).
How does everyone keep track of time keeping of their wathes? I don't really want to buy a timegrapher. Are the apps you can use actually anygood?
Thanks
I use an android app called WatchCheck. It's free and simple and just logs the time against GPS/Atomic time and can calculate the gain/loss. Can save data for multiple watches too.
Sent from my EVR-L29 using Tapatalk
That's a device to drive you nuts....I no longer bother to time my mechanical watches. More relaxing that way.
Thanks! I think there is a similar app on apple called toolwatch. I can't wait to download it and drive myself insane this evening! haha. I will report back.
Exactly where my sentiments are on the subject.
I think my need for accuracy is purely as a confirmation that I have a decent watch in good condition.. not because I need to launch any missiles or satellites.. it is purely because im a collector of what Id like to think are decent watches..
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
If I need accuracy over a longer time, (a weeks or fortnights holiday etc), then I'll wear a quartz watch and not worry about it. But as I wear a different watch at home pretty much every day, (some days I'll change watches twice if the mood takes me), accuracy has less meaning than how the watch looks/appeals/history etc etc.
As someone once said to me, "when somebody asks you the time do you look at your watch and say 'it's eleven seventeen and forty two seconds' or do you say 'it's almost twenty past eleven'?"
Best Regards - Peter
I'd hate to be with you when you're on your own.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
