As someone new to owning multiple watches (and VERY new to this forum), I was wondering what you guys considered was an acceptable level of accuracy and whether COSC watches were generally more accurate than quality non-certified watches.
By virtue of being COSC certified you are entitled to expect a performance between -4 and +6 seconds per day. I've had non-COSC run happily within this as well (both my Damaskos do), but on the other hand I don't get worried unless they're more than 20 per day out. At that point it's a bit annoying and I'd think about getting them regulated (well, I would if I knew anyone local who could do it). I prefer them to run fast rather than slow as well.
Dave E
Skating away on the thin ice of a new day
Views will differ, I suspect. I like my mechanicals to operate within roughly +/- 10-15 secs a day, and generally it's less than that. Others won't bat an eye at +20-30 secs.
COSC certification is just that - certification. It costs money, so some don't bother. I have a non-cosc Zenith El Primero that's been very accurate over the last 12-18 months of wear. Equally, I've sent back a COSCed Breitling because it was losing 30 odd secs a day - to be fair, once regulated under warranty it has been keeping very good time indeed.
So a decent movement can be accurate whether COSC or not in my view. And accuracy can be affected if it needs a service or something.
This question actually stemmed from me wondering how much wear on a crown might result from correcting the time on a watch regularly, say, once a week. Might seem a bit naive to have to ask, but I do worry about pulling and pushing crowns in and out on a regular basis.
People worry about smaller things than that! Personally, I wouldn't be worried about correcting the time, but I do sometimes fret a bit over screw down crowns and the possibility of cross threading them. But that's not wear so much as pilot error.Originally Posted by jobseeker
Normal use wouldn't bother me at all, but others' views may differ.
It always interests me to read completely opposed opinions on things and trying to work out the thinking of each person, especially those who are completely convinced that they alone are right. In the end, of course, I guess we take the sum of other peoples knowledge and use it to refine our own after due consideration. Mind you, as a long time hi-fi enthusiast, I've seen a lot of oppositional thinking :lol:
Well, noobies opinion here. Almost all my previous watches were quartz, most of them keeping the time accurately, as expected. So when I got my Monster (running consistently +23) I was disappointed. So I regulated it painstakingly and now it's running +0.7 second a day. And that is an acceptable accuracy for a modern watch :D
You can't get much more accurate than your B-1 :lol:
Think I've altered it twice in about 4 years !
As long as it's within a few minutes I've no care .. I only set my watches if they stop & then I don't always use a source, I just make a guess.
/vince ..
Well as an even noobier noob, what is the difference between regulating and adjusting? As i understand it, on my currently accurate omega, regulating is possible in 5 sec per day chunks with about 15 - 20 seconds fast slow regulation available. If the movement was say 30 secs fast per day how do you go about 'adjusting' it?
Simon
Hants
Well, I guess there are certainly more reliable ways of getting accurate time these days.
I only reset my watch when I'm too early for everything :)
COSC is worth a pile of... IMHO of course. With stupid COSC certification, Rolex ruined their oh so nice 14060M dial lately.
I have had numerous watches which all were within or well within COSC. Still, IMHO Rolex did make probably the finest movement in the past - the cal 1575. The performance is just legendary. I have a pretty well used 1665 and it keeps time to 0 secs tolerance - if one actually wears it 12 hours, and change it through the positions when sitting during night time... When I got it, it wa s 3secs late a day - now it has zeroed again.
To sum up, i ntoday watch industry - buy what you like - performance is good everywhere - I mean even cheaper basic 7750 chronos can perform etremely well.
I'd never decide for or against a watch because of certification.
Cellphone. :lol: :lol:
About the crown, I worry only for vintages because they are made of gold, therefore a soft metal.
Better open the back some day... sure it's a 2840 or so :D
I'm not as think as you drunk I am.
I think you underestimated my noobiness! ;) I just poked around with that +/- lever under the case back, measuring against atomic clock from the net. And I haven't got the foggiest if I regulated it or adjusted. At least I didn't buggered it, that's what really counts!
Not fussed by how much so long as its seconds per day and isn't lossy, my daily wear seiko seems to be a few seconds fast only and my other watches are mostly occasional wears only so it doesn't matter as they need setting when I wear them anyway.
Upto plus 5 seconds a day would be my opinion - my SD 1665 runs about 3 secs plus per day and my GMT II Ceramic at about plus 1 - 1.5 secs per day - this is my most accurate auto watch - I have timed anything since the GMT II was new early last year - I'll get round to timinign the new Black Bond soon - but I understand you should wear them for a couple of months before complaining it's outside COSC as it gets the oils flowing and can make a subtle difference - then if it s still outside sendign back and get it regulated - Obviously if it is running about 20 secs out then don't wait! You paid for better accuracy - demand it.
No COSC is not the definative test - but it costs - not a maasvie amount for a very expensive wacth - but enough to ensure that the movment makers are generally happy with the movement and theior quality control before shipping out - I read soemwhere the costs was between £120-£140 per movement - don't know if this is true - but it means the COSC is heavily reliant on Rolex and Omega for funding.
Personally I rate Chronometer - it's a mark I understand and suggests resonable accuracy - even do a very strict quartz test as well and I understand all new breitling Auto and quartz are all COSC tested.
It's just a matter of time...
Love your Avatar !!!!. If you're that bothered by accuracy then quartz is the way to go - casio multiband G-Shock to get atomic accuracy or something like the Breitling Superquartz which is supposed to be within 15secs per year.
maseman
I had that concern initially but these watches have been on the go for 90 years with the same sort of mechanism: they must be reliable.
I've had a hand wound vintage Tudor with screw down crown. The action on that crown was amazing. Screwing or unscrewing it was buttery smooth.
So if it's well build it should tolerate daily adjustments.
Haha, you are funny - but lemme tell you - at least I HAVE a 1665. :twisted: Don't worry, mine was opened by AD and treated with new seals and verification. :)Better open the back some day... sure it's a 2840 or so :D
I sometimes wish I was like that - I tend to be a bit obssesive about accuracy, but I'm more relaxed about with some of my old hound dogs than my newer ones.
Adjusting a watch is making it keep a constant rate. Sometimes they are adjusted for position (gravity etc, affects them). So that means they keep a constant rate* in all the positions for which they are adjusted. Sometimes they are adjusted for temperature. And sometimes they are adjusted for isochronal errors, which means that they run at a constant rate* whether fully wound or only partially wound. A well adjusted watch movement need not be accurate. So, a perfectly adjusted watch could be off by, say, 3 minutes a day. But it would be consistently off by 3 minutes a day.
Regulating a watch is getting it so that it is more accurate in showing the time.
It is relatively easy to get a well adjusted watch to be accurate. If it is adjusted for, say, 5 positions, temperature and isochronism, you put in in one of those positions and regulate it so that it is running to time in that position, and since it is well adjusted, it will be running to time in the other positions.
It is possible to to get an unadjusted watch to be accurate. First, an unadjusted watch can have a constant rate in positions, etc, perhaps by accident. Second, even if its rate varies by position, for example, if one knows by how much, and how it is worn (e.g., dial up or dial down), a compromise can be made. Of course, if it is worn in an unexpected manner the timing can go to bits.
Say the watch isn't adjusted, and doesn't run as if it is. Say that there is a 2 minute difference between the rate dial up (desk work position) and the rate crown up (walking position). If you spend half your time with it crown up and half your time with it crown down, you could regulate it so that it runs +60 dial up and -60 crown up. These would compensate for each other, and the daily overall rate error would be 0. But it would still be a crummy runner. If, all the sudden, you had to spend more time at a desk, the accuracy would be lost. With a well adjusted watch, it wouldn't matter if you changed your habits.
* I'm taking a rate to be constant if it is within the range of the specification.
Best wishes,
Bob
Well, I must say that I've already learned a lot from starting this post. Well worth it !
Anything more than +/- 10 secs tends to bug me to be honest, that said it does enable me to buy Quartz again without issue as having one "always set and always accurate" watch in my collection is a personal must (for the mornings ive gotten up too late for work!)
Each to their own BUT +/- 10 secs for any watch over £250 and +/- 20 for any watch below that is an absolute max.
My 2p's worth.
As far as I am concerned, -0/+2.5 is OK. I note that Melbourne RSC has stated to me that they do not work to COSC specs of -4/+6 and they use -1/+4.
for me anything out of the -\+ 5 seconds range would annoy me. When I only had 1 auto watch I used to test it all time. It was the only watch I'd wear so would notice and major variances. since getting another auto and changing between the two it has been less important. I wear each watch for about 2-3 days so I don't notice too much if it runs fast or slow, plus I don't have a winder so I'm always setting the time on my watches anyway.
To me it's all about relative performance. The expectation of a £100k double torbillon watch is a lot higher than a £1000 eta based watch.
For a modern watch, I would want no more than a difference of 10 s/d in any position.
For a reasonably modern movement, 20 s/d. (Say post WWII.)
For really old, maybe 40 s/d difference in any position.
I would hope that they would do better, of course.
As for accuracy, I don't mind if it is within a minute or so of a hot-shot source (a radio signal or my computer). I prefer watches without seconds stops for setting, and usually set my watch by looking at my computer time, finding the watch, doing a mental calculation of how long it took me to find it, then setting the time.
Best wishes,
Bob
Thanks for the explanation, all newbies learned a lot (yes, I mean me!).
Jobseeker,
What RFrazier so well said, and knows, as regards adjusting versus regulating a watch's movement is all you need but you also might like to be aware that, as RFazier, Lysanderxiii, Xpat, Bernard, and others here could tell you far more than I, the movement you start with bears on the potential consistency of rate it is possible for a watchmaker to achieve by adjusting the critical interrelating parts alone. That is because chronometer/near chronometer grade accuracy and consistency of rate I believe requires that the balance wheel and the hairspring, and possibly other movement parts, need to be of the higher specification temperature compensating type to deal with the extremes in temperature you may encounter. A watch's casing can also be a factor if it keeps the movement well protected against sources of magnetism, as with soft iron shielding, because this as RFrazier alluded helps keep the timing rate consistent also.
Also as I understand it, the COSC itself is actually only a testing and certification program that the Swiss watch industry uses to give purchasers of the more expensive watches confidence the watch will be extra accurate in use as regards rate and consistency. In other words, COSC certification is testing resulting in paperwork and does not in itself improve the intrinsic technical accuracy of any watch movement but only verifies that the watch movement's manufacturer and the watchmakers involved have done a good job of it.
And by the way, if you are really worried about damaging, wearing out, or stripping your crown and its crown tube you might look for a watch having a screwed-in type crown tube (i.e. like Rolex's Oyster cased watches, the RGMs, all the Damaskos, and also Eddie's new PRS-22 Speedbird 3s have). This type of crown allows damaged crown tubes to be, if properly done, replaced apparently an indefinite number of times without the chance of permanently compromising the case's original level of water resistance. In contrast, I've heard that sometimes the press-fit type crown tubes cannot be replaced without losing some measure of the watch's original water resistance.
this is a great topic and some of the info really good for a newbie like me.
Can someone tell me how a swan neck is used to regulate the movement and if regulation can be done without one. Apart from it looking "pretty" in a display back i have never really known what they do :roll:
Here's a picture of the bottom of a balance.
The the balance is an oscillator. It goes one way and you get a tick. The other way, and a tock. You regulate the watch by changing the effective length of the spring. The longer the spring, the fewer times it will switch directions in a second.
Look at the picture. The blue arrow points to where the spring is attached to the balance cock. At the other end it is attached to the balance. Now look at the red arrow. At this point the spring passes between two pins. This is the regulator arm, and it can be moved from the top of the balance. The position of these pins affects the effective length of the spring. If they are moved closer to the end of the spring (the stud attaching the balance to the balance cock -- at the blue arrow), the effective length of the hairspring is greater and the watch will run slower. Further from the end, it is shorter, and the watch runs faster. So, you move the regulator arm to move the pins to change the effective length of the hairspring.[1]
A swan's neck adjuster allows one to move the regulator arm in small, controllable increments. It makes regulating the watch easier.
[1] One adjustment involves changing the width of the pins, and the placement of the hairspring with regard to the pins.
Best wishes,
Bob
PS The most interesting type of balance, on my view, doesn't have these pins, and doesn't have a regulator arm. It is called a "free balance". Modern Rolex movements have free balances, as do some nifty old Elgins, and others. These are regulated by changing the distribution of the balance's weight.
RLF
Thanks on that from me too, you make it very easy to understand.
May I also ask if you can get good function of the balance wheel itself without the screwed balance wheel weights? I ask because, while I believe many older and/or premium grade movements use that type of screwed balance, it seems most movements like the ETAs don't now, to my knowledge anyway. I also never knew before now that the weights were (primarily?) for regulating the rate but always thought before that they were for balancing the balance like one does a car wheel(?)
Also, is there any way to tell from just looking at a particular watch movement, like one of the Sea-Gulls you comprehensively examined, if it has a temperature compensating balance wheel and haispring, etc.,?
About the screws. With modern balance material, they don't matter, and modern ways of adjusting the balance (using laser cuts, etc) they don't matter. They were mostly used for temperature compensation, and new material eliminates this need. Also, the screws accumulate garbage, create wind resistance, require reducing the size of the balance wheel, etc. On the other hand, they look cool. So, some movements have them as decoration. Fair enough.
Someone might be able to tell by looking whether the hairspring is made from a temperature compensating material. I can't. Time them, put them in the freezer for a bit, and time them again. That will let you know on one side. On the other, make a heated box.
If I recollect well, the SeaGull movements I looked at did pretty well after being frozen.
Best wishes,
Bob
Thanks on that, Bob.
You know I read that great now classic post on ETA versus SeaGull movements from end to end and of very special interest to me was the temperature test you did at Lysanderxiii's request on the SeaGull 2892 movement. If I recall right it lost time at a rate of 2 seconds per day in the regular test but lost time at a rate of 22 seconds per day in the freezer test.
I've been extremely interested in the temperature compensating movement parts since owning what I think of as my first good watch, an ETA powered manual mechanical, because I noticed how temperature seemed to dramatically effect its rate. Off the wrist, pretty much any position, it seemed to consistently run fast by about +15 seconds per day in the cool of spring or fall, fast by about +25 seconds and more on a colder winter day, but slower down to about +4 seconds per day in the heat of a summer's day.
Most interestingly to me was that on the 98.6 degree Farenheit constant temperatured wrist pretty much year round, that watch seemed to run fairly consistently at a defacto chronometer class +4 to about +6 seconds per day. Because of that, I took to wearing it while I slept every night.
The point is that, while not knowing if the watch has temperature compensation as such or not, but strongly suspecting it doesn't, it always, replicateably on demand, ran faster the colder the movement was. I once carefully tested this watch in the freezer also, but twice I think and for a full 24 hour period from full wind each time, and I distinctly recall the watch had a very consistent rate gain of +45 seconds each time tested that way.
But, because cold always seemed to make my watch run fast, and seemed to similiarly effect other ETA powered watches I've had since likewise (but to a very much lesser degree of rate change compared to what I got with my first watch), that's why I was extremely curious that the Sea-Gull lost time instead of gaining it in the cold. You're probably the only one to know if there is significance in that dichotomy but I've always meant to ask about it.
Thank you again, Rollon
Actually, I haven't got a clue. ;)
Best wishes,
Bob
This thread just goes from strength to strength for us new boys .......................
Thanks again to all those who have contributed
In terms of accuracy, it all depends on how long I've had the watch! When I first get it, I'm annoyed if it's outside say, +/- 10 seconds a day. Once it's become a keeper and a daily wearer I won't even think about accuracy unless it's obviously way out.
Neil
Bob(RFrazier),
I have no idea what it would be for sure either.
Even casting about trying to think of a remote possibility, the only thing that comes to mind regards differentiated thermal expansion ratios of the interrelating SeaGull movement parts. If a possibility at all, and only as a wild guess, maybe in that because steel movement parts would expand and contract at a faster rate than the synthetic ruby "jewels" used as bearing surfaces, but at a slower rate than the copper based, etc., alloys used for other interrelating movement parts, perhaps being a new and un-broken in(?) movement suffering a bit rougher finish to the parts than the ETAs, tolerance on some bearing surfaces could I imagine tighten in the freezing cold, binding a bit on the rougher interfaces having lubrication of reduced effectiveness due the cold, and thereby slowing the movement's progression over a given time span by a bit in comparison to what the same movement tested out at room temperature.
That and/or perhaps the Chinese SeaGull factory might send their new movements out with a lower specification lubricating oil/grease on the critical parts that gums up a bit at lower temperatures in comparison to the perhaps more cold friendly lube oils/greases ETA might use on the new movements they send out, or the high quality lubes you might have used to service the movement later on.
It would be interesting to know how the same movement timed out in another freezer test after a full running break-in period and/or full 5 or 6 position watchmaker adjustment workover with properly serviced high quality lubrication.
Those were the only things I could think of that might be in any way related and I have no idea whatsover if these actually had anything to do with it.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote