Sub lost an unusual amount of time overnight. Why?

[Tools]

Originally Posted by Mal H.

. . .
Again, I'm not worried and I'm definitely not planning on doing this long term. I'm just having fun with the new watch and was curious why there would be such an out-of-family reading after so many consistent days.

Get yourself a cheap time o graph, or whatever they want to name it. Some can be a phone app.

These listen to the ticks coming from the watch, then convert that into a variance over 24 hrs, displaying or giving a readout. These can be informative, and fun to watch - or they can make you a wreck when you see how wide the variance can be just by changing positions.

[Dirt]

Originally Posted by Mal H.

First, let me say I'm not freaking out or worried. I'm just curious.

I've been monitoring my new Sub for a couple of weeks now. It's gotten into a rhythm of gaining about a second a day and, when placed crown down, loses about a second over night. In other words, its precision has been perfect.

Last night, however, it seems to have lost 4 or 5 seconds. What might cause a watch to lose an unusual (but still acceptable) amount of time in such a short period?

It happens.
Sometimes a watch will run solidly for a good while then all of a sudden it can lose a few extra seconds and stay that way or return to its original timekeeping.
Simply monitor and see in the fullness of time whether it gets worse or stabilises again at another rate.

[Andad]

Originally Posted by Dirt

It happens.
Sometimes a watch will run solidly for a good while then all of a sudden it can lose a few extra seconds and stay that way or return to its original timekeeping.
Simply monitor and see in the fullness of time whether it gets worse or stabilises again at another rate.

[Gab27]

Originally Posted by Mal H.

For the record, my watch was always headed for a service regardless of its performance. RSC is closed down until the 14th, though, so it's on my wrist.

I'm no expert on this stuff by any means, but I think that is the good call even though the watch wasn't worn over its lifespan. I imagine both the gaskets and lubricants are both in rough shape despite not seeing usage.

[214270Explorer]

I believe after you test as 'tools' has stated in post #18, you are likely to discover that there is nothing at all wrong with your watch.

[padi56]

Originally Posted by watchmaker

I’m quite happy to elaborate

A timegrapher gives a snapshot of how a watch is running at the time it is tested, of particular interest is: the average rate, delta, amplitude and beat error.

Let’s assume you have a timegrapher reading which has given out some favourable looking numbers in each category. One might assume “hey, it’s all good”, when in reality there’s a good bit more information required before a watchmaker would say the watch doesn’t need (or wouldn’t benefit from) a service.

Some information I want before making a recommendation:

Automatic winding test
0hour (full power) timegrapher test
24hour timegrapher test
Power reserve check
Function test (chronograph, date, calendar, repeater, etc)
Visual inspection of movement (does it look clean, no rust/dust/metal fragments)
Oil condition and quantity still good
Water resistance test

Finally; are parts still being made for this watch. If so, you can in theory get away with leaving it until it stops. If parts are no longer available my recommendation would be to stick to a regular service cycle since you want your existing parts to last as long as possible and avoid any wear or damage.

Ultimately a watch can have good results on a timegrapher and fail multiple other inspection points that I’ve listed - in which case my advice would be the watch would benefit from a service.

Have to agree 100% scot but today some with timegraphers like to produce data for producing data sake. Most of this data has little or no reality to any watch thats worn daily on the wrist.

[saxo3]

[ndrs63]

Time for servicing


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk