Does the cost of a watch dictate the quality of the movement and accuracy of its timekeeping? Should it?
I think it's a reasonable assumption that there should be a correlation between price and accuracy. I was in a conversation about this recently and it was really obvious that the non-WIS strongly believe this to be the case. I explained that sometimes a £150 automatic watch can comfortably out-perform a £3000+ watch, a comment that was met with derision and not a small amount of mocking.
So I thought I'd do a small experiment within the £2k price range - I'm not made of money!! So, did I fall on my backside by being completely wrong and retreat into my cave?
I bought / tested four watches costing between £334 and £1850, all brand new. I set and fully wound them (all got 50 winds) and tested their timekeeping over three durations of 24 hours having worn them indoors in the same way and all were left dial up[ overnight.
Purchase #1
Tag Heuer Aquaracer with Calibre 5 movement at a cost of £1850.
Performance: gained between 17 and 25 seconds per day.
Purchase #2
Squale 1521 with ETA 2824-2 at a cost of £799.
Performance: gained between 12 and 17 seconds per day.
Purchase #3
Timefactors Speedbird III with Sellita SW200-1 'Top' at a cost of £485.
Performance: gained a consistent 5 seconds per day.
Purchase #4
Seiko SRPE99 PADI Turtle with 4R36 a cost of £344.
Performance: no deviation.
I obviously didn't expect that set of results! I must say even after all my years of owning automatic watches that this is a surprise. I'd suggest that only the Speedbird performed as expected. The TAG was a disgrace. I got the salesman patter about "you're buying a Ferrari of the watch world here". Honestly the whole buying experience was nauseating. I was embarrassed for them.
The Seiko on the other hand could be mistaken for a quartz.
You can make of this what you will but I hope you at least found it interesting.
Reply With Quote