How accurate were Rolex watches in the 80’s?

[Nanasaka90]

Hi guys, I saw this Watchbox video where Tim and Mike were discussing Rolex in the 80’s. Around 1:33 Mike mentions that Rolex watches weren’t the most accurate at this time (I’m paraphrasing).

Is this true? If so, what we’re some of the brands that made more accurate watches than Rolex at the time?

https://youtu.be/L3yrs08OF-c


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[1665fan]

Extremely accurate…..certified chronometers cannot be not accurate lol

[Annan]

Can't speak for the 80's. Bought my first Rolex, a TT Date, in 1990. Had it for 22 years and it ran at close to +2s/day throughout its life as I recall. I had a complete service done every 5 years.

[Tools]

COSC came in around the mid 70's, specifically to put a standard on claims of watch manufactures, and by Swiss law, allow them to put "chronometer" on the dial.

So, in the 80's most Rolex watches were COSC tested.

The COSC testing standard of -4/+6 is really a 10 second swing from a reference". Rolex at the time was considered a "5 second" watch and so it easily met the COSC standard.

That's still pretty accurate, even by todays standards.

[Robf52]

Originally Posted by Tools

COSC came in around the mid 70's, specifically to put a standard on claims of watch manufactures, and by Swiss law, allow them to put "chronometer" on the dial.

So, in the 80's most Rolex watches were COSC tested.

The COSC testing standard of -4/+6 is really a 10 second swing from a reference". Rolex at the time was considered a "5 second" watch and so it easily met the COSC standard.

That's still pretty accurate, even by todays standards.

Good info. Thanks.

[911991]

Wearing this now I purchased in 1985, just as accurate as my new Rolexes, only draw back is shorter power reserve.

[Megalobyte]

I find modern Rolex to be extremely accurate. Older weren’t quite as good, but still within cosc so fairly good even then. I think part of it is, the typical wearer back then wasn’t as informed as today, and I suspect many watches that ran poorly just badly needed a service.

[padi56]

Originally Posted by Nanasaka90

Hi guys, I saw this Watchbox video where Tim and Mike were discussing Rolex in the 80’s. Around 1:33 Mike mentions that Rolex watches weren’t the most accurate at this time (I’m paraphrasing).

Is this true? If so, what we’re some of the brands that made more accurate watches than Rolex at the time?

https://youtu.be/L3yrs08OF-c


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Well depending on how they were regulated that matches the owners wearing habits as accurate as any Rolex made today.

[StanGMT]

My 1675 GMT has consistently maintained an accuracy of +/-2 sec per day throughout its life, from 1967 to now (which includes the 1980s!).

Stan.

[enjoythemusic]

Originally Posted by padi56

Well depending on how they were regulated that matches the owners wearing habits as accurate as any Rolex made today.

Exactly

[Chewbacca]

Originally Posted by Nanasaka90

Hi guys, I saw this Watchbox video where Tim and Mike were discussing Rolex in the 80’s. Around 1:33 Mike mentions that Rolex watches weren’t the most accurate at this time (I’m paraphrasing).

Is this true? If so, what we’re some of the brands that made more accurate watches than Rolex at the time?

https://youtu.be/L3yrs08OF-c


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

It’s true. But they were accurate enough for finer automatic watches of the day but the OysterQuartz was even more accurate introduced in 1977 and left the catalog in 2004. So, they clearly knew the market wanted more accurate and reliable options in a fine watch, with more convenient service at her store level (batteries) and lower ownership costs (major service intervals) until automatics got more consistently accurate and more robust with servicing.

[Jackie Daytona]

They have pretty much exactly the same capabilities as today’s. Little has changed time keeping wise.

However I think that many of owners maintenance habits didn’t help the reputation even though it lies as the the owners faults.

My father was bad about this, and apparently his friends were too. He liked watches but occasionally if he received a compliment from a fellow Rolex owner they would get to joking as to how inaccurate they were. He never serviced any of the watches he had, or possibly never even realized why they needed it. I never had a chance to discuss it.

Additionally with the addition of so many new devices emitting magnetic fields that no one really though of, there probably a few of those too. By no means am I saying this was a major issue, or epidemic but just combined with poor maintenance habits of many and new ways to mess them up it probably didn’t help.

After I traded my father a Seiko quartz for the GMT Master that was sitting in his drawer I sent it off to an independent and it’s absolutely as accurate as any of my new Rolexes ever since.

Not Rolex exactly but same story with his 60s era Seamaster. A bit different, but once serviced it was fine.

Rolex in the 80s was just as good as today, but the owners were largely pretty different and didn’t have the same support of access to info. Or even really put that level of thought into it.

[Mystro]

Mikes wrong with his ideas of Rolex accuracy in the 80’s.

[telesquire]

I'm guessing that neither of them probably owned a Rolex 32+ years ago.

[Dirt]

I can't really help here as the only Rolex I had in the 80's didn't have a Chronometer movement.
But on reflection, I can say that it consistently ran within a 4-5 seconds tolerance and on average fast by around 10 or 11 seconds, which made it capable of Chronometer precision

Peter and Larry have basically summed up the situation in the context of the period

[Kowaco]

What he said was that Rolex compared to some other watches was not most accurate. That’s probably true today. A Rolex from the 80’s is pretty much the same as a Rolex from today. Rolex just had a reputation as a very good watch and not super expensive. They were like a lot of things quality luggage, BMWs, guns, shoes, Nikon I think today a lot of items are the name only today.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[CaveDweller]

Back in the '80's, Rolex rated their accuracy at 90 seconds per month - outside that, and they'd "entertain" regulating the watch

Mine runs at +2.4s per day no matter what state it's in, always has done

But it's more to do with predictability than outright accuracy. If the watch or clock can be accurately predicted, then everything else is simple math ....

[Vesper Lynd]

3035 or 3135 at the end of the 80s are chronometers, and therefore very accurate. I have one that is at -1 second. Spectacular.

[DJ2020]

My 5513 was about as accurate as a sun dial (1982). But really didn't worry about it much. No cell phones or atomic clocks handy to reference the time. But reset it every Sunday as I recall watching the news when they announced the time.

Which was set to the minute BTW, not to the second. Then good for another week. Somewhere between 7 and 10 minutes off usually. But to be fare, It was just a watch to me and I certainly beat the crap out of it. Most likely magnetized (welded a lot). But good enough for me.

[garyk]

Poppycock!!! Always accurate. I was never late for a meeting with clients or production etc over my 40 year working career. Never...thank you Rolex...

[Old Expat Beast]

Rolex has been putting Superlative Chronometer Officially Certified on their dials since the late 1950s, and without the "Superlative" for years before that.

I'm not sure how involved or successful Rolex was in the Swiss chronometer competitions that were cancelled in the late 1960s after Omega put up quartz movements against Seiko mechanicals in an attempt to beat the Japanese.

Here's an interesting video on that subject.

Seiko at Astronomical Observatory Chronometer competitions - or - How the Swiss lost their honor

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ayUT5WfkHrA&t=3s

[Daytonaman799]

Mine were always very good

[GMT Aviator]

I’ve got 1803’s from 1972 that are +1 sec / day.

[ExplorerI]

I wore a late 60s ref 1500 for a while and it was plenty accurate. If you change time zones every so often or wear multiple watches and let it wind down every now and then you’ll set the time enough to not notice the time gain or loss.

[TheWatchmen]

I have a 1982 Day Date 18038, calibre 3055, it’s running at -3 per month. You read that right.

In my experience, this one has been more accurate than the multiple 5 and 6 digit models I’ve owned, both with 31xx and 32xx calibers…not that they weren’t also accurate, but not like the early 80s DD is.

[OrangeSport]

They were as good as anything now if serviced and regulated.

But, I think COSC is red herring - my COSC watches are not as accurate as some of my non COSC watches. Perhaps they could be, but they aren't.

[Michael T]

1985 Rolex 1500 Date here, it was 2 to 4 seconds a day off.

[inadeje]

Properly regulated there is absolutely no difference between a 1980s Rolex and one from the 2000s. In many cases the movement was virtually identical for decades. Save for added power reserve offered of late, the whole lower accuracy of the 80s is utter hogwash

[Oystersteel92]

Originally Posted by Nanasaka90

Hi guys, I saw this Watchbox video where Tim and Mike were discussing Rolex in the 80’s. Around 1:33 Mike mentions that Rolex watches weren’t the most accurate at this time (I’m paraphrasing).

Is this true? If so, what we’re some of the brands that made more accurate watches than Rolex at the time?

https://youtu.be/L3yrs08OF-c


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Maybe a little less accurate than today, in general. After all Rolex is the master of using modern technology to make something inherently old school better and better, and technology has come a long way since the 3135 was introduced in 1988. That being said, Rolex made it's name on robust and accurate movements. My most accurate watch, in terms of dial up running on a timegrapher is a 1601 Datejust that was serviced by Rolex Dallas in 2018. +1 sec per day with minimal beat error and it was manufactured in 1968 and isn't even a hi-beat movement.