Reply With QuoteMe either, gain a little yes, losing time is a no no for me.Originally Posted by 01101001
for the money you spent on it I would expect it not to lose anything!"
Then again though the loss is minimal, minute in fact, so you got a good 'un there.
When I changed from British summer time to GMT last month I decided to see over a month how accurate my 116610ln was. I used the watch tracker app.
I have just done a second timing run and after 30 days my watch has lost 1.5 seconds in total!
I made the mistake of telling the wife....she said "for the money you spent on it I would expect it not to lose anything!"
Last edited by 01101001; 1st December 2016 at 22:03.
Me either, gain a little yes, losing time is a no no for me.for the money you spent on it I would expect it not to lose anything!"
Then again though the loss is minimal, minute in fact, so you got a good 'un there.
Your wife's remark reminds me of my (French) partner, who upon seeing a fully restored Jaguar E-Type convertible, stared for fifteen seconds before saying: 'it has a very small boot.'
my 2015 sub loses about 1 sec per day. i prefer if they gain TBH all my other watches do
Per day, or in total? If the latter, wouldn't be especially bothered about it losing rather than gaining ;)
In total! it lost 1.5 seconds in 30 days!
Was she wrong though?
That it is superb. Personally I would be delighted with that. Keep enjoying
My Explorer's going back to RSC for a third attempt at regulation tomorrow.
New: +4 s/d
After first regulation: +4 s/d
After second regulation: +3 s/d
I'll be happy if it gets to below +2 s/d. But a deviation of just over a second per month?! That's impeccable.
Not according to my wife!
I've a pretty little vintage Glashutte from the 80s. I was very pleased that having it serviced improved it's timekeeping from losing 4 *minutes* a day to just 1 and a bit (difficult to tell with a two-hander) Wonder how many seconds a month that is....couple of thousand....
What's the standard definition for HAQ? +/-10s a month?
is it not +/-10s a Year?
I just did a timing run on my 1984 Seiko golden tuna Quartz and it has gained half a second in 59 days! (it has not been worn for more than 5 mins in that time though)
Oh yeah 😩
Quartz Chronometers are +/-25s a year, so you're within that :)
Why?
Why would I be happy if it gets to below +2 s/d? That will be within the stated performance range, is what I was expecting when I bought the watch and should be achievable given the anecdotal evidence of plenty of people.
Bought my girlfriend a new Rolex a month ago, it gains over a minute every fortnight. She's not too happy as she thought it wouldn't gain more than 2 seconds a day. It'll be going back to Rolex soon.
My Explorer is my most accurate mechanical watch. A combination of running slightly slowly on the wrist/left crown up and slightly fast when left face up means I can keep it to pretty much within a second either way of spot on over an indefinite period. I do like my watches ideally running from 0 to +2 over 24 hours.
I meant why are you taking it back a third time if it's only +3 secs per day? I know Rolex introduced the +2 standard in Feb this year, but if this is a pre-Feb watch I'd be happy with +3. If it's post-Feb why not reject it as it's clearly not performing to Rolex specification and they've had 2 chances to get it right so far.
Well, it is not a Grand Seiko, is it?after 30 days my watch has lost 1.5 seconds!
I made the mistake of telling the wife....she said "for the money you spent on it I would expect it not to lose anything!"
OK, I see your point. It's a post-Feb watch, hence the +2 standard being my expectation.
This is my first experience of owning a Rolex, and I'm happy enough to give RSC the chance to get it right. I've been uncharacteristically forgiving of their attempts thus far, and I can't really explain why. (If this was an Omega I'd not have been so laissez faire about it.)
What, what would you have done differently with an Omega?
It's just a matter of time...
I'd have kicked up a fuss with them, or Breitling, or whoever. Omega was just an example.
Don't ask me why, I know Rolex isn't anything extraordinary or deserving of special consideration; I just still have faith they'll get it sorted for some reason.
I never wear a watch continuously long enough to notice stuff like this. But I find that the newer stuff from Rolex has been remarkably accurate over shorter periods.
While this performance is exceptional and probably owes much to fortunate wearing habits, I'm not entirely surprised when I hear reports of such remarkable accuracy from a modern Rolex movement. What I find more impressive is how they tend to stay running accurately for so long between servicing.
Last edited by Belligero; 2nd December 2016 at 00:28.
They should do, and they will, but their claims about new in-house testing guaranteeing -/+2 secs per day accuracy seem to have fallen short of the reality in this instance. I would have insisted on a watch that proved their claims. You've paid enough for it so why should you be without it for weeks on end until they get it right?
All this said, I'd be comfortable with +3 secs per day
I tried a watch tracker app when I got my Seadweller earlier this year out of interest but got fed up with notifications on my phone,
So I manually timed my watch over a week or so against my GW-M5600 It worked it out to be around +2.5 secs per day
initially I was surprised/disappointed as I had expected better as this had been a 'grail' watch for me, it was only then that I looked into the COSC standards/Rolex specs and did the maths
I then realised that the time is not that that much of an issue to me and providing my watch is there or there abouts timing wise I still enjoy wearing and looking at it/them
I keep my watches on a winder and set my Rolex 30 secs fast, after a month or so it's only 30 secs out, so I just adjust at the end of month if/when the date needs changing, no Issue, I wear it and enjoy it
Recent results from my 2016 explorer 39mm - I would expect nothing less.
In my experience, you would be better sending the watch to Duncan at Genesis.
Rolex claim +/-2s a day your watch is at +3 a day, I'm happy for you that Rolex are willing to regulate it some more, but the 'whole' 1s out is probably due to how & how often you wear / rest your watch. No end of regulation and lab testing will be able to compensate for real world use.
Last edited by nunya; 2nd December 2016 at 09:23.
+/-2s a day is for "real world use." Why bother to quote specs otherwise?
Only -0.2 SPD for my twenty seven year old Oysterquartz I'm afraid.
If I wear my SD4000 for a full 24 hours it's +3, though if I wear for 16 and leave it off and sat up while I sleep it's about +1.
I've considered having it regulated to +2 or better but given that the watch's timekeeping will change in the next 10 years anyway hopefully it will improve on its own. Though it it deteriorates at all in the next five years it will go back.
They are tested in the case, no where does Rolex state that they are real world tests. How could they be? Each unit sold will be worn and treated differently by every individual owning one therefore there will be a variance in time keeping
Last edited by nunya; 2nd December 2016 at 14:21.
So why bother to quote specs if they are meaningless in the 'real world'?
My 116613LB is about the same. Superb.
This is the official statement from the manuals:
...Superlative Chronometer certificationredefined by Rolex in 2015. This exclusive designation testifies that thewatch has successfully undergone a series of tests conducted by Rolex inits own laboratories according to its own criteria, which exceedwatchmaking norms and standards. The certification applies to the fullyassembled watch, after casing the movement, guaranteeing superlativeperformance on the wrist in terms of precision, power reserve,waterproofness and self-winding. The precision of a Rolex SuperlativeChronometer after casing is of the order of −2/+2 seconds per day, ormore than twice that required of an official chronometer
Had a similar experience with my March 2015 SDc. +5 new, then still +4 after 1st regulation. For the next attempt I wrote a letter to RSC explaining exactly what I was dissatisfied with and what I wanted. SDc came back 2 weeks ago and has been running at +0.1. I have been (pleasantly) surprised at the different results from the 1st and 2nd regulations, but I guess it is down to the skill of and time taken by the individual. The slightly better accuracy is of course of pretty much no consequence, but like others, I expected better and can't deny that I'm even happier with my SDc as a result.
Oh, and a belated thanks to GrandS, whose "harsh but fair" comments on the results I reported on the first regulation were one of the reasons I pursued it further. Thanks :-)
My 2002 14060m loses a couple of seconds after pushing the crown in. But thereafter neither loses nor gains. It's my daily wearer for over a year now and i only ever have to set the time when I'm changing zones. It actually more accurate than any quartz ive ever had.
Posts like this are proof how stupid it was of rolex to lower the timing tolerances... just causes a load of nonsensical crap and warranty returns and headaches for the watchmakers. If you want accuracy to the second buy a quartz ffs...
It was certainly stupid of Rolex to lower the tolerances if they weren't prepared to change their 'can't really be arsed to do it properly' attitude to regulation.
If they employed a proper QC procedure and regulated their watches in accordance with their own standards there would be no 'nonsensical crap and warranty returns and headaches for the watchmakers'. They just need to do a better job of manufacturing their watches.
In 1964 NASA's specifications asked for +/-2s/d
Fifty years later, at 5 grand a time.....
You are very welcome sir, and your post is a refreshing break from the drivel frequently seen on this forum.
They aren't meaningless they provide information that can be used by nerdy types to gauge how rubbish Rolex are then spend endless hours on the internet telling the rest of the stupid sheeple about the super secret conspiracy for world domination through wrist wear
The QC was good enough before, they haven't changed a thing. When the new standards came into effect, they shipped out 1000s of green tags to the ADs, to replace the red ones on the watches they had in stock. Most Rolexes do run within +2-2 and have done for decades. The problem is now they draw attention to it, and when a watch on someones wrist happens to be +3, all hell breaks loose. Also, the problem is usually with the user, i.e fully wound the watch does fine within specs, but some peoples daily patterns may cause it to be a second out or two... again, much complaining and chagrin, for no reason. Just enjoy the watch and appreciate it's a mechanical, not quartz...
What's changed about their QC is that their own standards have changed. If they don't want people to send watches back to them they need to up their game. (If they've already improved and it's only old stock that doesn't make the grade then there's no problem anyway.)
How bad would the timekeeping on your new Rolex watch have to be to be unacceptable for you? How far out of Rolex's own spec would you have to be for you to not be able to console yourself that 'it's a mechanical, not quartz'? +5? +10? +15? At what point are they not delivering and when do you stop enjoying your expensive new mechanical watch?
Last edited by Tony; 4th December 2016 at 12:21.
Up to +60s is ok for me.
You'd buy a brand new Rolex that gained 60 seconds a day and wouldn't take it back?
Of course I would. But I don't check my watches daily, don't have the time ;)
I check mine about once a month, if within +60 I just leave it.
Then again I wouldn't buy a Rolex anyway
I've never ever set my watch to the second, when I pick a mechanical up I set the minute hand to match whatever is on my phone screen and wear it for weeks, never bothered about seconds personally. It would have to be 2 minutes out in a day or two for me to notice it I think.
As a watchmaker working on Rolex watches everyday, I regulate them within the tolerances specified by Rolex for the specific caliber I'm working on.
Posting Permissions
