Omega - 8500 variance - on-wrist - and a question

[MartynJC (UK)]

Fir the accuracy WIS: Here are results for my PO 8500 consistently +3.1sec/day - consistent with confidence level of .9921 (R2). I am impressed by the consistency which is the mark of a true Chronometer.



So - If this were yours - would you get it regulated to get rid of the +3sec per day to bring it to +0.1sec per day??

[RobDad]

No. Within Cosc and perfectly accurate for everyday use. Imagine getting it regulated and it ends up -1, which in reality is much more irritating. I used to time my watches and IMHO it just isn't worth it, unless you genuinely need to know the exact time - in which case you need an heq quartz, or an atomic g shock.

[HappyJack]

I had a period of several months, getting my Lemania 5100 Fortis down from +8 to +/- 0.5

I kept monitoring it for a month or so; taking it back to the watchmaker; getting it onto the electronic timing machine, adjustment, then monitoring for another month or so. Glad to have got it there, but there were times I wanted to wear something else for a week but felt I shouldn't take the Fortis off, lest I lose the regular trend data.

I'm probably obsessive enough to try to get it down; but in practical terms, +22/week is perfectly manageable...

[JeremyO]

I, too, used to obssess re accuracy but have now come to the conclusion that life is just too short. Much prefer my watches to be fast rather than slow but I guess that if it's within COSC that's good enough.

[seffrican]

So - If this were yours - would you get it regulated to get rid of the +3sec per day to bring it to +0.1sec per day??

Do we have a basis for believing that the movement is capable of 0.1 sec/day accuracy under varying conditions?

[MartynJC (UK)]

Do we have a basis for believing that the movement is capable of 0.1 sec/day accuracy under varying conditions?

There are a few amazing reports on timezone of 8500 powered Omegas: +1 sec in 10days, +2 sec in 12 days and so on... :

http://forums.timezone.com/index.php...=6017208&rid=0

http://forums.timezone.com/index.php...=6226652&rid=0

And another quote, "I don't think I have heard of an 8500 performing poorly. A former colleague had an Hour Vision, and he ran and skied with it, and it ran in the neighbourhood of +3 sec per week. " Mike Dowling

[robcat]

There's no doubt that the Omega Co-Ax movement seems to be capable of some pretty impressive results, especially since I generally find that my watches with longer PR's tend to be less accurate. My current champion is my GO PML - it seems to lose about 1-2s per week! It also impresses my how accurate Rolex seems to get it's 3135 and related movements. Many seem to run +1-2 no bother.

I think what will be interesting is how this accuracy varies with time. Some of my watches have been extremely accurate to begin with but all (understandably) become less accurate over the years. The true test is how long they remain accurate for. Again my Sub was impressive here - still just about COSC after 10 years, and after a service +1 or so again.

[seffrican]

There are a few amazing reports on timezone of 8500 powered Omegas: +1 sec in 10days, +2 sec in 12 days and so on... :

http://forums.timezone.com/index.php...=6017208&rid=0

http://forums.timezone.com/index.php...=6226652&rid=0

And another quote, "I don't think I have heard of an 8500 performing poorly. A former colleague had an Hour Vision, and he ran and skied with it, and it ran in the neighbourhood of +3 sec per week. " Mike Dowling

I don't doubt there are some 8500s running really well. But the manufacturing variance may be such that a few are capable of extreme accuracy, while the majority are not as good.

The Seiko 7s26 has plenty of anecdotal evidence on forums of being regulated to within COSC timings of +6/-4, but the movement is only specced for +30/-25 and that's where most of them run. Some movements got lucky at the factory, is all.

Anecdotal evidence is also self selecting, leading to obvious perception bias.

The ultimate point being, if there is no design basis for the 8500 being capable of being regulated to 0.1s/day, then it may be a pointless and probably evervating task to try.

[BSB]

My old 2500 ran consistently at +1 s/d. My current 8500 is running at +0.45 s/d consistently.

[Omegamanic]

My 8500 watches were the most consistently accurate watches I've ever owned barring Quartz.

Although I had a 16610 that would regularly be a couple of seconds out at month end - but the daily variances, although all within COSC, were a different matter.

[learningtofly]

Seems quite impressive and the 8500 certainly does seem reliable when it comes to accuracy.

I used to be obsessed with this kind of thing, but now can't even remember the last time I checked a watch over anything other than a day or so. It doesn't seem to matter really, as long is I know it's keeping reasonable time.

[burnsey66]

Seems quite impressive and the 8500 certainly does seem reliable when it comes to accuracy.

I used to be obsessed with this kind of thing, but now can't even remember the last time I checked a watch over anything other than a day or so. It doesn't seem to matter really, as long is I know it's keeping reasonable time.

Not many of us drive our car at it's top speed, in fact I'll wager very few will ever even try to get it there, so I suppose we have to trust it. But with a watch, we can check it, so we often do. It's a case of checking it works correctly after spending all that hard earned...

[TaketheCannoli]

Seems quite impressive and the 8500 certainly does seem reliable when it comes to accuracy.

I used to be obsessed with this kind of thing, but now can't even remember the last time I checked a watch over anything other than a day or so. It doesn't seem to matter really, as long is I know it's keeping reasonable time.

Me too and it drove me nuts. The watch that broke the curse is the one I'm wearing today - a 6309 7049 from the early 80s. It runs +25 secs a day but it runs like that every day so from a consistency perspective it's pretty solid. I just set it 2 mins behind and then I don't have to touch it for a week until it's 1.5 mins fast - not that I ever wear the same watch for a week so it all works for me!

[Huertecilla]

I don't doubt there are some 8500s running really well. But the manufacturing variance may be such that a few are capable of extreme accuracy, while the majority are not as good.

The Seiko 7s26 has plenty of anecdotal evidence on forums of being regulated to within COSC timings of +6/-4, but the movement is only specced for +30/-25 and that's where most of them run. Some movements got lucky at the factory, is all.

Anecdotal evidence is also self selecting, leading to obvious perception bias.

The ultimate point being, if there is no design basis for the 8500 being capable of being regulated to 0.1s/day, then it may be a pointless and probably evervating task to try.

Good objective answer.