Is the amount of Power Reserve an indication of a movement's quality?

[dashfield]

I've been tempted by the latest Breitling Superocean Automatic range, but one of the things making me hesitant pulling the trigger is the rather lame 38h power reserve.

It's close diving competitor, the Omega Seamaster has 55h and the Tudor Pelagos has 70h. It makes the Breitling reserve look pretty disappointing in this day and age.

The reality is that 38h would probably be enough for me - I only wear a watch like this once or twice a week, but it feels like a bit of a reflection of the quality of the movement.

I'll admit that I don't get too into all the different movements so I was wondering what others thought?

Does a low power reserve in a modern watch put you off?

[walkerwek1958]

Does a low power reserve in a modern watch put you off?

No!

You see it as an issue because other manufacturers have developed movements with longer power reserve, if that wasn’t the case you wouldn’t be asking the question and you’d be happy with 38hrs. Similar argument applies to water resistance, because bigger numbers are out there people lose their sense of perspective when assessing a watch with ‘only’ 50 or 100metres......it isn’t like tread depth on tyres although it could be argued that a longer power reserve may benefit some owners. I think it’s a male thing, comparing figures and specifications to bring objectivity to what’s very much a subjective choice is what men tend to do.

You either like a watch or you don’t, personally I’ve yet to see a Breitling I’d consider owning but I’ve always been impressed by the quality if not the styles. If you like the watch buy it and don’t be put off by the fact that the alternatives offer longer power reserve!

[Grandiloquence]

No, I like longer PR but it wouldn't stop me buying a watch with a more "standard" power reserve. The Corum I acquired before Christmas has 38 hours. Didn't stop me wanting it.

[LondonNeil]

Agree it's not an indicator of quality.

38/40 is common as the ubiquitous eta2824 and all is various variations had that.... It meant the owner could take a watch off at night time, not wear over night or all through the next day and night, and it was still running the next morning. The next useful reserve amount is 60 hours which allows a watch to go two days unworn, eg a weekend. 70 hours is still 2 days, your next useful reserve is about 85 hours and that's not common yet.

Let me guess..... Is the watch your looking at powered by a selita sw200? Ie, an ETA 2824 but made by selita.

[jukeboxs]

I prefer longer (e.g. I would value 70hrs more than 38hrs, if choosing between two otherwise similar watches), partly as I'm forgetful at winding (and I can't be assed with winders) and I also partly relate a longer PR with a more modern movement (e.g. the use of silicon components) - but I accept a longer PR could also bring certain downsides (perhaps more component wear, and usually more cost). My sweet spot is 42mm so should not be constrained (sizewise) to a shorter PR (if that's a thing with larger mainsprings).

[dashfield]

Thanks for your thoughts - that's put things in perspective and helpful to bear in mind. You're right that facts and figures do help to compare watches in similar price points, but looks is one of the most important factors and that's much more subjective and harder to please.

So if I find a watch I like the look of I shouldn't be put off by average facts and figures, as long as it all still makes sense as a package.

[tertius]

Don’t you have to define what you mean by quality first?

If you were to consider a greater power reserve to be a characteristic of quality then yes it would be, but only in a circular self-defining sort of way!

Have to confess I’m not sure I know what I would consider as the defining features of a “quality” movement but I suspect that power reserve would indeed have some part to play, even if it were only to say it must have a minimum power reserve of some amount.

[amcneill]

You answered your question to a certain extent by saying " I only wear a watch like thise once or twice a week". I would be happy to reset time when the watch has stopped than having it run constantly and related wear issues with a longer power reserve.

Sent from my SM-A528B using Tapatalk

[Omegary]

Playing devils advocate you could argue that it's potentially a bad thing for the watches long term reliability.

In order to get more power more mainspring has to be shoehorned into the barrel. Two ways to do this, bigger barrels or thinner mainsprings, which most manufacturers have adopted. In the long term this may lead to more mainspring failures. Yes I know there's been advancements in materials but to be able to effectively double a power reserve means using a mainspring half the width. Other manufacturers use two barrels, which is probably the best long term solution, however this solution takes up valuable real estate in a movement.

The sceptic in me thinks this is another way to increase income from in-house servicing in future years.

Cheers,
Gary

[notenoughwrists]

I saw the same argument around the Glashutte SeaQ - 39mm model.
That has a lovely in-house movement, but only about 40hrs PR.
(The 43mm has 70 hours PR or more.)

Loads of folks lamenting the poor PR on the smaller model - but I think it would be tough to argue that the smaller GO movement was not quality.
(It certainly ought to be at £8k, lol)


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

[walkerwek1958]

Playing devils advocate you could argue that it's potentially a bad thing for the watches long term reliability.

In order to get more power more mainspring has to be shoehorned into the barrel. Two ways to do this, bigger barrels or thinner mainsprings, which most manufacturers have adopted. In the long term this may lead to more mainspring failures. Yes I know there's been advancements in materials but to be able to effectively double a power reserve means using a mainspring half the width. Other manufacturers use two barrels, which is probably the best long term solution, however this solution takes up valuable real estate in a movement.

The sceptic in me thinks this is another way to increase income from in-house servicing in future years.

Cheers,
Gary

I tend to agree, manufacturers have made changes to tease more power reserve out of their designs and the changes aren`t beneficial. Longer power reserve has become a marketing ploy, solving a problem that didn`t really need solving and compromising their designs to some extent. 40-50hrs was considered sufficient for 50+ years.

[Mick P]

I tend to agree, manufacturers have made changes to tease more power reserve out of their designs and the changes aren`t beneficial. Longer power reserve has become a marketing ploy, solving a problem that didn`t really need solving and compromising their designs to some extent. 40-50hrs was considered sufficient for 50+ years.

It is customers who dictate what they want and any manufacturer who carries on making the same old stuff regardless is destined to die.

[PhilT]

It is customers who dictate what they want and any manufacturer who carries on making the same old stuff regardless is destined to die.

Curtains for Rolex then

[RobDad]

I don’t think it’s an indication of quality per se, but it does tend to suggest that it has a more ‘modern’ movement. I’ve seen people moan that most of the Oris range costing £1k-£2k are running standard eta 2824’s or Sellita SW200’s, whereas you can get a Certina Diver or a Tissot PRX for £600 with a ‘breathed on’ version of the same movement upped to 70 hrs PR for £600. Seems a bit odd tbh, but I’m sure there are those on here who will say the original versions with a higher beat rate are better and easier to get serviced. More modern doesn’t necessarily mean better quality, it might mean cutting corners to increase profit. All very subjective. I have a Tudor BB 58 with a 70 hr PR I’ve never tested - it gets worn 6 days out of 7. My wife would like one of the mid size Black Bays with no dive bezel but that’s still running an eta 2824 but isn’t far off the price of a BB58. I’m waiting to see if they update the movement before a purchase. So I guess I prefer an in-house movement - but if I’m honest I’m so impressed by the performance of my 58 - in terms of accuracy not Power reserve - that I’d just prefer to buy another watch with the same movement and pay a few hundred more

[NickGaters]

I generally think that a low PR movement is more than likely to be a cheaper watch to service through the years, versus a bigger PR movement that might be more 'highly strung'. Seems to coincide with the fact that std ETA movements can be easily and cheaply serviced.

I remember my old Breitling Superoceans (and my sadly departed Steelfish) were mega accurate, more so than some of my later Planet Oceans with a longer PR for instance. So the corollary of my argument that lower PR is an indicator of something overall less good.

[MrBanks]

No it's not an indicator, and on longer power reserves i.e. 3 days and above I prefer more than one barrel because single barrels have a longer spring and the time keeping tends to get affected towards the end of the PR if you don't wind it. This is my experience from working with a 7 day single barrel power reserve.

[noTAGlove]

If you are a single watch owner and wear it every day, 38 hours is plenty.

[jukeboxs]

If you are a single watch owner and wear it every day, 38 hours is plenty.

Try finding one of those on here.

[MartynJC (UK)]

I've been tempted by the latest Breitling Superocean Automatic range, but one of the things making me hesitant pulling the trigger is the rather lame 38h power reserve.

It's close diving competitor, the Omega Seamaster has 55h and the Tudor Pelagos has 70h. It makes the Breitling reserve look pretty disappointing in this day and age.

The reality is that 38h would probably be enough for me - I only wear a watch like this once or twice a week, but it feels like a bit of a reflection of the quality of the movement.

I'll admit that I don't get too into all the different movements so I was wondering what others thought?

Does a low power reserve in a modern watch put you off?

You may want to read this article about the Caliber 17 within the Breitling SO and many Breitling. Its base ébauche is the well known ETA 2824-2. The article also explains about the embellishments Breitling make including, ". . . install(ing) premium-quality mainspring, balance, escapement, balance wheel, shock deflectors, micrometer regulator assembly before sending the movement to the COSC for certification."

https://swisswatchreview.com/breitli...bre-17-review/

the article (and some others ) say the pr is 42h if that helps your decision? The Breitling may not have the latest movement but you did say, "you don't get into all the different movements" - so if the movement tech is not your priority, in terms of quality they all three attain or exceed the COSC standards. Tudor and Omega do have more advanced movements but I may agree with other comments - they add complexity and maybe higher maintenance costs long term.

For me - all those brands are on a similar tier of "quality" in terms of reliability, robustness, value for money.

But the Omega and Tudor arguably have more accurate movements as Breitling stay with COSC -4 to +6 - the others have moved on to tighter tolerances.

Also consider fit and form (other measures of quality). I'd want to try all three on physically and check they work (fit) on my wrist. Check legibility and size (both width and height) is what I want.

As an aside: I do remember with fondness the 2531.50 Seamaster with base ébauche 2892-A2 modified to produce the Cal 1120. A lovely thin movement with proven bullet prove tech.

[dashfield]

Thanks everyone, I found this all very insightful and useful as always. Definitely lots of food for thought.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[NickGaters]

^ Great point above. For reference, I still have a Breitling which is now over 25 years old with the calibre 17 movement in. Serviced maybe 4 or 5 times in that period and it's still within COSC. And that's despite the fact that a watch this old wasn't ever certified to be COSC anyway.

[JGJG]

Does a low power reserve in a modern watch put you off?

Quite the contrary. Those big slab sided cases and ruinous torque of the week+ beasties… I simply don’t see the point.

A meaningless statistical one-upmanship rather than an elegant technical solution to a bona fide problem, in my view.

[LondonNeil]

I. Longer power reserve has become a marketing ploy, solving a problem that didn`t really need solving and compromising their designs to some extent. 40-50hrs was considered sufficient for 50+ years.

Try finding one of those on here.

If you are a single watch owner and wear it every day, 38 hours is plenty.

Isn't that they point though. Watches gave changed from an essential tool where most people had a single watch worn daily, to a luxury item where (those of us bought into this at least) have or aspire to have several and wear them in 'rotation'. So where once a 12 hour reserve on an auto would have kept it running over night, or a manual would be wound daily so a 30 ish hour reserve was plenty, many of us now put a watch down for a day, a weekend or longer. So a 36-40 hour reserve becomes the basic essential, a 60-70 hour reserve spans the weekend safely and if some get to 85+ then great, some of us will benefit.