Very decadent, buying another one just to check the timing.
Casio make great stuf at a huge price range, bracket.
Sent from my Aquaris V using tapatalk with thick fingers, declining eyesight and a small keypad.
I bought myself a highly inexpensive holiday watch at the beginning of July. A Casio, the one on the left below. I set it to the precise time on the evening of July 4th and was surprised a few days later to see that it hadn't apparently budged.
35 days later it seems to have gained about 1/3 of a second.
I'm quite surprised by this, given that it's available new for a bit less than £7 from Amazon. By contrast the Seiko solar PADI diver that I bought at about the same time has gained about 3 seconds, which is more than acceptable of course.
So I've just bought another one to see how that does (pictured on the right). I'll let you know. I have applied a subtle distinguishing mark to the rear of the keeper, with a silver permanent marker.
Very decadent, buying another one just to check the timing.
Casio make great stuf at a huge price range, bracket.
Sent from my Aquaris V using tapatalk with thick fingers, declining eyesight and a small keypad.
Got a link for Amazon?
Sent from my ONEPLUS A6003 using TZ-UK mobile app
Is the dial white or cream?, whichever it is it looks good , nice looking watch.
Thanks! I'd say it's pretty plain white.
£6.98 on Amazon at the moment.
https://www.amazon.co.uk/Casio-Colle.../dp/B000JNKABW
Be aware though that it's a small watch, with a 35mm case. Plastic and simple but not cheap and nasty. Very light and unobtrusive on the wrist.
So - after 41 days, the first Casio is still less than half a second fast. For reference I'm using the NTP-synchronised clock on my desktop PC, and my radio-synchronised wall clock. The audible tick of the clock always matches the next second on the PC clock, so I can be sure it's a consistent and accurate source.
The second Casio by contrast is about 2/3 of a second fast after 6 days.
I'll have a more definite picture after another few weeks, but provisionally it looks like the first Casio is running presently at an accuracy of about 4 seconds per year. I think that makes it the most accurate quartz wristwatch that I own, despite costing around £7 new.
The second one, as a rough estimate, is running at about 40 seconds per year - still creditable and practical for a cheap watch.
Just proves that watch collecting is not about time accuracy.
Last edited by Tiny; 14th August 2019 at 17:52.
Checked yesterday and after 72 days, the first Casio was bang on one second fast, or as near as I could tell. Which would mean that it's running a hair over +5s per year.
I've reset the second one for travelling a couple of times and haven't bothered to measure it. I'll probably leave the first one running on BST for a few months to get a more, er, accurate picture of the accuracy.
Which doesn't serve any great purpose of course, I'm just curious. And after all I can wear the other one.
I really like these - extremely light and comfortable, highly legible and on both of them, the second hand hits the markers bang on. And cheap. Very cheap.
I have a lorus rh951hx 9 watch which ı bought last year about 25 pounds in Turkey
Watch lost 1 seconds every two months and ıt s perfect ı guest
If I only bought watches solely for the purposes of telling the time.... I'd get one.
Yes but!.
Which is really best?.
Casio v Rolex.
I'd have to admit that, given that I have quite a lot of watches that tell the time adequately well, I didn't buy these ones to tell the time. I'm not sure why to be honest. Just to have something a bit different on holiday, probably.
Good watches, I got one for my son as his first watch, just had to make an extra hole on the strap.
Ordered one! Be a good watch to wear when messing under the bonnet without worry about breaking it
Sad to report that the accuracy of this one has gone off the boil somewhat .. just checked it and over the last 76 days, it's gained a little less than 5 seconds. Thoroughly acceptable but not really remarkable any more.
Still fond of it, though. It's on a NATO now.
Just a curiosity question, for anyone who might understand these things - why would a quartz timepiece start to run faster?
I’ve just bought one of these. I’m not sure why!
Edit: bought two as the girls’ liked it...
Last edited by Kirk280; 14th June 2020 at 18:15.
The most accurate watch I own is a Casio calculator watch CA-53, was about £23 from Amazon. It rarely gets worn, but each time I reset all my non atomic digitals for DST it’s about 5 seconds fast give or take, that’s +10 a year approximately! I think there’s a bit of luck, but I have noticed the atomic solars seem to be less accurate if they don’t get a signal, even if within the +/- 15 seconds a month they are supposed to perform at. I don’t really care all that much about accuracy but it is interesting to see how much each watch has deviated and notice the cheapest one performing the best!
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
At this price you might as well buy two!
Could be a poor man’s GMT if one was to set different hour times.
Bought one of these to strap round the handlebars of my motorbike, survived soakings, direct heat & light, vibration and still accurate and working well. Not bad for the price of a couple of pints ( or one if you live in London :-) Cheers, John B4
I once regulated a £28 Vostok mechanical hand winder with only a screw driver and it took about 3 days for it to lose or gain a second comparing it to my atomic gshocks.
I don't think anyone believed me but I recorded it every few hours and noted the difference in time between the watches and listed them in a post on here.
Almost no response from anyone, I don't think people like if a cheap watch keeps up with their hugely expensive watches in accuracy
Just in case anyone else is tempted, these are £5.99 on Amazon as I type. Link in the 5th post.
They are great little watches. My girls have pinched the two that I bought and they love them!