Rolex date just losing time again

[amanbra]

Saxo I don’t think they do. They’ve listed precision and superlative chrono just like cosc and metas standards. They mean it should generally be +- 2 seconds a day.

These guys are not as flawless as you believe. They’ve messed up pretty badly on these movements.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[amanbra]

Originally Posted by 77T

A picture is worth 1,000 words…




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

This makes no sense. So a -50s per day watch that deviates only between -48 to -52s is in spec?

Come on guys.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[saxo3]

Originally Posted by amanbra

This makes no sense. So a -50s per day watch that deviates only between -48 to -52s is in spec?

Come on guys.

Hi amambra, your example does NOT confirm that such a watch is within specs.

A movement with -50 s/d - deviating between -48 and -52 s/d - not necessarily have a precision of -2/+2 sec/day!

You may not have fully appreciated what the diference between accuracy and precision is. Sorry!

[saxo3]

Originally Posted by amanbra

They’ve listed precision and superlative chrono just like cosc and metas standards. They mean it should generally be +- 2 seconds a day.

These guys are not as flawless as you believe.

I don't think so, but you may know better than me.
I never said and don't believe that Rolex SA is flawless, nobody can be 100% perfect.
There are others here who have perfectly explained in many many posts why Rolex cannot guarantee the accuracy. It can strongly depend on external conditions and owner specific wearing pattern.

[EEpro]

Originally Posted by amanbra

Saxo I don’t think they do. They’ve listed precision and superlative chrono just like cosc and metas standards. They mean it should generally be +- 2 seconds a day.

These guys are not as flawless as you believe. They’ve messed up pretty badly on these movements.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

The average rate of multiple positions taken at full wind and then again X hours later falls inside +\-2 seconds per day is what they are teaching the watchmakers in training classes.

Max deviation allowed is 10 seconds per day if I recall. I don't remember if that is absolute 10 spd or max rate minus min rate can't exceed 10.

The watchmaker at AD here seemed happy to help when I told him I was getting -3 spd worn on the wrist. Took the watch back and made it +0.4 average in my worn positions. In and out in 4 minutes.

[77T]

Originally Posted by amanbra

This makes no sense. So a -50s per day watch that deviates only between -48 to -52s is in spec?

Come on guys.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

The picture simply compares the actual definition of the two words with examples. Just poking at Rolex’s use of the word precision.

“Spec” is better defined using the word accuracy when referenced against a well-defined target. By that we really mean +/-2 of a reference (e.g., an atomic clock). If one’s watch was consistently +2 day after day, then it would be both accurate and precise.

Conversely, ask an archer to “hit that tree” without a reference to the center of the tree. Then her tight grouping of shots on the far left side of the trunk would be precise archery.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

[amanbra]

Originally Posted by saxo3

I don't think so, but you may know better than me.
I never said and don't believe that Rolex SA is flawless, nobody can be 100% perfect.
There are others here who have perfectly explained in many many posts why Rolex cannot guarantee the accuracy. It can strongly depend on external conditions and owner specific wearing pattern.

Well cosc do as well as metas and clearly Rolex were trying to be better than cosc.

I don’t think anyone finds cosc standards confusing.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[amanbra]

Originally Posted by saxo3

Hi amambra, your example does NOT confirm that such a watch is within specs.

A movement with -50 s/d - deviating between -48 and -52 s/d - not necessarily have a precision of -2/+2 sec/day!

You may not have fully appreciated what the diference between accuracy and precision is. Sorry!

Nah I think you’re having troubles. I’m just reading them charts pointing out what precision is and you folk trying to point out Rolex purposely uses that word.

We all know Rolex are saying the watch should be +- 2s per day and yes it could be a tad different to that should be wear the watch unusually ie you’re an ultra marathon runner. They’re setting a standard for themselves that’s better than cosc. Good on them. When the 32xx movements are in spec they are amazing. They just screwed up…


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[amanbra]

Originally Posted by 77T

The picture simply compares the actual definition of the two words with examples. Just poking at Rolex’s use of the word precision.

Some people here are genuinely trying to make the argument that Rolex are not indicating accuracy here.

I’m glad you were only poking at it. Sorry hard to tell over the internet.

All these chronometer certifications and new standards they come up with and here people are like “oh they purposely used the word precision” come in guys… Rolex want to be superior to cosc and be superlative. For my two 3235s they were for about 14 months.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[amanbra]

Originally Posted by EEpro

The average rate of multiple positions taken at full wind and then again X hours later falls inside +\-2 seconds per day is what they are teaching the watchmakers in training classes.

Max deviation allowed is 10 seconds per day if I recall. I don't remember if that is absolute 10 spd or max rate minus min rate can't exceed 10.

The watchmaker at AD here seemed happy to help when I told him I was getting -3 spd worn on the wrist. Took the watch back and made it +0.4 average in my worn positions. In and out in 4 minutes.

Yeah -3 is fine I suppose. Especially if you move around a lot. My Daytona is +4. I find that awesome. My op36 is +6, you won’t hear me complain.

-20s consistently not so much. It was damn precise in how consistently it lost time….. they’re not getting a pat on the back for that.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[HogwldFLTR]

Originally Posted by 77T

A picture is worth 1,000 words…




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

Originally Posted by Fred48

Could not agree more, but would not make sense to the typical watch buyer. The Rolex marketing department - not the engineers - is using "precision" to imply accuracy, as they think it's the same thing. A typical example of fuzzy understanding. Before I retired as a physicist, I encountered this all the time with non scientists.

Originally Posted by amanbra

This makes no sense. So a -50s per day watch that deviates only between -48 to -52s is in spec?

Come on guys.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I agree; marketing knows nothing about accuracy and precision!!! The target analogy is perfect with respect to the discussion of scientific accuracy and precision!!! Rolex's precision is a combination of the two; the accuracy and precision must both be within +/- 2 seconds!!!

[77T]

Originally Posted by amanbra

Some people here are genuinely trying to make the argument that Rolex are not indicating accuracy here.

I’m glad you were only poking at it. Sorry hard to tell over the internet.

All these chronometer certifications and new standards they come up with and here people are like “oh they purposely used the word precision” come in guys… Rolex want to be superior to cosc and be superlative. For my two 3235s they were for about 14 months.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Well I think the ongoing debate here, while interesting over a cup of java, makes a great example of an old saying:
The English and Americans are two peoples separated by a common language (and by extension, I might add Aussies)

So allow me a way of bringing that to bear on this convo…

If one can allow that the Swiss are also a people with multiple languages in their country. And no cantonment speaking predominantly English. Then off we go to Google translate…

Guess what?
Accurate = Precise
Precise = Precise






Interesting, no? In other words, I believe Rolex undoubtedly chose the best word decades ago to mean both.

We English-only speakers may just have a bit of tunnel vision from a language-centric viewpoint.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

[Dirt]

Originally Posted by amanbra

Well cosc do as well as metas and clearly Rolex were trying to be better than cosc.

I don’t think anyone finds cosc standards confusing.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

It depends upon who one talks to.
For my money, I would prefer it to be kept simple and easy to understand for the purposes of the consumer. After all the consumer is the one the industry should be serving.
To that, +6 to -4 should be deemed to be a measure of accuracy around + or - 0 as the ideal when measured against the gold standard reference of an atomic clock(for example).
Likewise +6 to -1 and so forth, should also be held to a standard the consumer can digest and apply in practical terms.
After all, that was the whole point of the quartz revolution.

Let's be clear about one important thing though.
It's hard to make a movement run accurately if it's not displaying a workable degree of precision. Otherwise it's a bit like trying to catch a greasy weasel.
So we idealy need a high degree of precision as a prerequisite to achieving the ideal level of accuracy. Any movement that displays a high level of precision can be easily made to run accurately