+ or - spd

[nickyboyo]

Strange one folks, but as somebody who always preferred their watches to run fast, I have now converted to someone that would it rather run slow.

Not by huge amounts obviously, as a wrist watch fan who would want that.

But these days, if I know a watch runs 5 seconds a day slow, I’ll set it a minute fast and readjust in a fortnight, up to 2 minutes fast if I’m feeling a little bit reckless.

What’s your opinions on running times/specifications?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Wallasey Runner]

Someone once suggested running slow indicated the watch may need a service, but fast within reason was okay. Not sure if this is true or not, but most of the watches I have owned have tended to be fast.

I think the only watch I’ve ever owned that kept perfect time was a 10 year old Steinhart. All the Rolex etc owned have had different levels of running fast. From a second or two, to maybe 5 or 6.

Must admit, don’t wear decent watches when doing any sport or when in bed so I’m sure this has an effect.

Doesn’t bother me really, it is what it is.

[monogroover]

I prefer a mechanical watch to run fast than to run slow, if it hacks. Very easy to lose a few seconds by pulling out the crown. For a digital, I don't care either way. A handwound will sometimes run slower late in the power reserve, so you can lost a few seconds that way without hacking.

[NigeG]

Personally I prefer a watch that runs a little fast rather than a little slow for the obvious reason that it’s easy to hack when required to lose the amount of seconds to bring it back in line.

Much easier than having to set it fast in the first instance and wait for it to lose time. But whatever floats your boat.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Mj2k]

I prefer a mechanical watch to run fast than to run slow, if it hacks. Very easy to lose a few seconds by pulling out the crown. For a digital, I don't care either way. A handwound will sometimes run slower late in the power reserve, so you can lost a few seconds that way without hacking.

Thought lightly wound ran faster, until nearly dead?


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[Chris_in_the_UK]

Stopped bothering about this kind of thing a long time ago.

[nickyboyo]

Stopped bothering about this kind of thing a long time ago.

Yes me too sort of, but it’s still nice to read peoples opinions every now and then.

I still like mine running fast btw.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Stuno1]

As long as it’s 2 second plus or minus I’m good. Like the OP set 1 minute fast for my slow watch.

[Montello]

I prefer fast … but I’d prefer -1 to +6.

I like my watches to be within 15s of the actual time and track them with an app.

[monogroover]

Thought lightly wound ran faster, until nearly dead?

That's not been my experience with a Smiths PRS29A and a Speedy - in both cases they run slower later in the power reserve.

[mrbieler]

Unless I am actually timing things, I really don't give it too much thought fast or slow. I'll adjust each morning either way. If I need precision I have a cell phone. The watch is just a quick glance for a time check.

[bwest76]

Personally I prefer a watch that runs a little fast rather than a little slow for the obvious reason that it’s easy to hack when required to lose the amount of seconds to bring it back in line.

Much easier than having to set it fast in the first instance and wait for it to lose time. But whatever floats your boat.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I have never thought of doing it that way,I shall from now on (if I remember of course).

[ColDaspin]

Used to be the same as many in preferring the watch to run a little fast rather than slow, since resetting via hacking is so easy. However, I find that with a watch running a little slow, the advantage of being able to set it fast and then sit back over the course of a couple of weeks or so and forget about it means I'm ambivalent either way nowadays.

[MrGrumpy]

My Breitling Colt HAQ seems to be gaining around 2 secs per year..... so whether I prefer it to gain or lose seems a bit immaterial!

[verv]

Prefer fast but am not hugely bothered so long as its within 10s per day either way.
If its slow i set 5 mins fast and let it tick down to correct, if its fast i just set as normal and pull the crown out when it gets to 5 min fast.

[Normunds]

I prefer watch to be faster. Having said that, if I have to choose between -1spd and +5spd, I'd choose slower.

[Neil.C]

As long as it's within a minute I don't mind.

It'll be something different tomorrow.

[Montello]

Prefer fast but am not hugely bothered so long as its within 10s per day either way.
If its slow i set 5 mins fast and let it tick down to correct, if its fast i just set as normal and pull the crown out when it gets to 5 min fast.

5 minutes out 😳

[JeremyO]

I prefer that my watches run slightly fast. I tend to set them up to a minute behind and adjust by pulling out the crown when it gets a little ahead.

Much easier for me!

[Filterlab]

Always fast for me by preference. Pull the crown for a few seconds and wait for the universe to catch up.

[hughtrimble]

Definitely prefer fast. Easier to correct for by just hacking the movement and much more preferable to be early than late.

[verv]

5 minutes out 

Lol, really doesnt bother me.
I used to set my watches 5 minutes fast as a matter of course when i was a smoker as Im punctual, so setting 5 mins fast meant i always had time for a crafty cig pre work/meeting.
I think my +-5 is a hangover fromt that habit :-)

[RobDad]

I appreciate that as WIS maniacs, timekeeping can seem important - however I can’t think of any occasion where I have to know the exact time.
A couple of minutes either way makes no difference at all in real life does it?
All my most accurate watches have wandered away from their initial accuracy over fairly short periods of time - for me this kind of agonising can very nearly ruin the hobby. I’m wearing an Apple Watch Ultra 2 today and it’s absolutely bang on to the second. So what? I’m not launching a space rocket or reading the news!

[jwg663]

I used to work in a railway control office where accurate timekeeping was important. The office had three clocks which were linked to the atomic time at the NPL in Teddington. Unfortunately, my desk didn't have direct sight of any of them so upon taking duty habitually I would take a minute (!) to set my watch to the exact time displayed on the clocks & use that as a reference throughout my shift.

Now I'm retired. I have six watches that I wear regularly. I know that two (Possibly three? I'll need to look.) of them are COSC rated. Three of them are manual two-handers. Two of them (one auto, one manual) are dateless three-handers that don't hack (and yes, I do know the 'hack' to get them to, errrr, hack). One is a hacking auto with date. It gets set to the nearest minute & I don't bother about the date as I can't see it without using spectacles.

Simply put, I don't need to-the-second accuracy any more, although I can appreciate there are those that do.

[Senninha]

Always appreciate seeing this in Japan. Drivers check the time to stop at platform, time to close the doors, time to pull away from the station, all done to the second.

Some jobs still benefit from it, and often wondered if just as autobahns are said to drive German car engineering, perhaps this attention to timeliness drives the accuracy of Japanese brands

https://youtube.com/shorts/k6dHMAruSnM

[monogroover]

Always appreciate seeing this in Japan. Drivers check the time to stop at platform, time to close the doors, time to pull away from the station, all done to the second.

Some jobs still benefit from it, and often wondered if just as autobahns are said to drive German car engineering, perhaps this attention to timeliness drives the accuracy of Japanese brands

https://youtube.com/shorts/k6dHMAruSnM

That's interesting but the predominant Japanese brand doesn't make particularly accurate watches (in my experience anyway, and I think I have at least a dozen).

[NigeG]

A couple of minutes either way makes no difference at all in real life does it?

Does when the train you’re supposed to be on is just pulling away meaning a long wait in the cold until the next one


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Senninha]

That's interesting but the predominant Japanese brand doesn't make particularly accurate watches (in my experience anyway, and I think I have at least a dozen).

I was thinking of it from the perspective of GS and their focus on the 9F, getting it down to +/-5s per year. I used to wear mine around the Tokyo trains, and there's a good feeling about knowing the watch is bang on to the second, AND that the trains always pulled away bang on the second (and you could see the driver going through the short time check procedure every time before pulling away from the station).

(My reference point is Scotrail, where a morning training running at all or not is close to 50/50, and 'on-time' was classed as anywhere within a ten minute window of the planned time!)

[bwest76]

I dont have any COSC watches,but all my watches are within 5 secounds I send them back to be regulated if not, I ask for fast if possible.

10 secounds or more a day would drive me crazy.


I used to have a "job" were we had to be 10 minutes early the "boss"would most likely be 10 minutes or more late.

[TF23]

I look at this in a different way.

I don't like a watch to be too far out from the correct time, and I'd rather be fiddling about with the crown as little as possible.

Given that mechanical movements tend to vary according to position (all mine do), this means that for a watch which is reasonably accurate on wrist, you can often bring it back to the correct time (or, say, 15 seconds fast if desired) simply by varying the resting position while off wrist.

This involves a minor amount of trial and error to determine the positional characteristics of the individual watch. I believe that Rolex used to advertise this point in their brochures (face up to increase the rate and crown up to decrease it). Certainly my Submariner never needs any other form of time adjustment unless allowed to wind down. This watch is very slightly fast and benefits from being rested crown up.

As an example of how this can vary, I have a Smiths Caribbean which also requires no other form of time correction but in its case it is a little slow and needs to be rested face down to bring it back in line.

I have the impression that, as you would expect, the higher grade movements don't need as much correction - but at the same time their positional variation isn't very significant either. Whereas, if you're lucky, a watch which isn't particularly accurate on wrist may have a resting position which is sufficiently far out in the opposite direction to offset it.

Doesn't work with quartz ...

[Wallasey Runner]

This was the Rolex advice back in the day:

[nickyboyo]

This was the Rolex advice back in the day:

Sage advice Ken. I’m about to try it now as I have never, ashamedly, tried this before.

So a new experiment begins…


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Mj2k]

This was the Rolex advice back in the day:

What is a winding button? lol

[Wallasey Runner]

What is a winding button? lol

A winding button sounds more accurate than a crown. When I was a lad a crown went on your head.

[wallyuk]

+1s a day here and in my books that's A1.
PT5000 movement.

[Topcat30093]

When I first owned my first Rolex, I always thought that -4 must be much better than +6.
As that meant the watch was more accurate.
Then I remember being told that either Rolex or another manufacturer attempted to always set them fast, so the owner was never late.
For many, many years I was fastidious that the accuracy was spot on, if not better.
But now, I don't really check.
Ten seconds or so either way is fine with me.
Anything different, may suggestion that a service is due.

[Mj2k]

A winding button sounds more accurate than a crown. When I was a lad a crown went on your head.

I didn’t grow up with crowns as a common feature in our house lol.

[bambam]

I looked at one of my watches to check +\- the other day.
I had a note of the date that I last set the time and it was 54 days ago. The watch was about 3 mins fast. Dividing one by the other, I got 3.3333 secs/day over the time period.
Pretty happy with that.
Since then I’ve been experimenting with the crown position when left overnight. More from a curiosity factor than anything else but it does seem to be making a difference.

[Dame]

Fast for never being late. But slow for ease of re-sync.

[PreacherCain]

I prefer fast, for absolutely no reason that I can articulate…

Generally speaking I have become less sensitive to mechanical accuracy as I have disappeared into the depths of the hobby. Most of my watches are within -5 and +10spd and that is fine by me. My elderly Speedmaster is more like +25 but it is 55 years old so I can forgive that!

I am a bit more obsessive about quartz accuracy, weirdly. My X-33 has consistently been around +5 seconds per year and that makes me very happy indeed. Again, for absolutely no reason that I can articulate.

[NigeG]

This was the Rolex advice back in the day:

I use this philosophy most of the time. My 16610 would always run fast. Overnight I would leave it crown (winding button - LOL!) upwards to the ceiling. It would be +5s per day. If I left it dial up or dial down it would be closer to +10s.

Now it’s been serviced I need to check where it’s at over a few days.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[nickyboyo]

Fast for never being late. But slow for ease of re-sync.

That is the way I see it these days.

As for the Rolex advice, I’m still to be persuaded, unless I have got it arse about tit.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[TF23]

That is the way I see it these days.

As for the Rolex advice, I’m still to be persuaded, unless I have got it arse about tit.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I'm not quite sure why you're doubting the positional variation point. It's not just a Rolex thing - most watches run a bit faster than their on-wrist rate when rested dial up or dial down, and a bit slower when rested crown up or crown down. The exact position for the individual watch needs establishing by trial and observation.

I assume the underlying reason for this relates to the effects of gravity.

[nickyboyo]

I'm not quite sure why you're doubting the positional variation point. It's not just a Rolex thing - most watches run a bit faster than their on-wrist rate when rested dial up or dial down, and a bit slower when rested crown up or crown down. The exact position for the individual watch needs establishing by trial and observation.

I assume the underlying reason for this relates to the effects of gravity.

I know what you say is true, and I agree. I’m not sure if gravity will make that much of a difference around the globe, but I do admit gravity affects items differently depending on their position on the planet.

I think I just jumped the gun with the particular watch I’m timing- it’s new, perhaps it needs to settle in for a few months with constant wear.

I can’t believe I’m saying this about a £100 mechanical watch, but that’s just part of being a wrist watch fan I guess.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[walkerwek1958]

A freshly serviced watch will typically run at 290 degrees amplitude dial - up, dropping to 265 degrees in the hanging positions due to the additional friction in the balance
pivots. The effect on rate will be minimal for a good quality movement but it' ll be finite, anything from 2 to 10 secs/ day. As the watch ages the amplitude will fall, after a few years it will typically be 260 degrees dial up and 230 degrees in the hanging positions. The disparity in rate will almost certainly be greater, as the amplitude falls the watch will move further away from isochronism. The owner will perceive this as poorer timekeeping with the watch typically running slower.