Checking accuracy

[Bigsykedaddy]

Originally Posted by Shichinin

Never had a watch with that accuracy. Amazing.

That is awesome. My 116610 that I just had to exchange (for a foreign matter inside the crystal) was at +/- 0 seconds after 5 days before I turned it in. My new one that just came in today is +1.5 seconds after 8 hours... I think I should have kept the other one lol. (Obviously I'm just for those that hate OCD people.)

I think it's amazing how a tiny mechanical machine can be so accurate, I love it!

[padi56]

Originally Posted by Rebel

Did Padi read this?

Yes but refuse to comment.

[nobbylon]

Originally Posted by Anthon

Nice isn't it. But you can manipulate it as much as you want by carefully choosing the resting position of your watch.

Indeed you can and I remember a thread which said regulating yourself wasn't possible with the new blue springs but it is.
I'm not OCD at all but I do love all things mechanical and if a watch is capable of such accuracy then why not make it.
A minute here or there isn't going to matter to anyone much but what's the point of having a mechanical movement if you're not going to enjoy it.
For every one person who says accuracy doesn't matter on a mechanical watch there are many who would disagree and send them off to be regulated as accurate as possible.

[nobbylon]

Originally Posted by padi56

Yes but refuse to comment.

[Anthon]

Originally Posted by nobbylon

Indeed you can and I remember a thread which said regulating yourself wasn't possible with the new blue springs but it is.

And that's why I keep pointing out that the so-called accuracy (+4 in a month!!) is highly dependent on how you position your watch at night and how/how long you wear your watch during the day.

In a different thread this was misinterpreted as somehow downplaying the accuracy of OP's watch. Quite the contrary I would say!

[nobbylon]

I would think that being able to self regulate the movement using resting position would also indicate how inconsistant the movement is or not?
My Seiko MM300 gained between 4-8 a day and wouldn't differ no matter what position it was left in. That had an 8L35 GS in it and tbh I expected better accuracy than that.
Whichever way I look at it my DeepSea is accurate.

[Old Expat Beast]

My Tudor ETA movements are much more sensitive to overnight positioning than any of my Rolex, new or old. Last year I ran my THC for about eight months non-stop (daily wear between vacations), without resetting it once, and at the end it was about ten seconds fast. I'm not OCD about it, but as mentioned above, it's enjoyable to get the best performance out of a watch, if you can.

[Anthon]

Yup. Both my Sub an Exp are consistent as a rock.
Sub: crown up will loose 2 seconds at night, crown down will gain 1 second, on the wrist gains on average 3 seconds depending on activity.
Exp: crown up -2, crown down +2, on the wrist +2

So as far as my watches are concerned, resting my watches crown up will keep very good time on average (gains and losses cancel each other out over 24 hours), whilst resting it in any other position will gain time. Same watch, same accuracy.

[padi56]

Originally Posted by Old Expat Beast

My Tudor ETA movements are much more sensitive to overnight positioning than any of my Rolex, new or old. Last year I ran my THC for about eight months non-stop (daily wear between vacations), without resetting it once, and at the end it was about ten seconds fast. I'm not OCD about it, but as mentioned above, it's enjoyable to get the best performance out of a watch, if you can.

Have to agree even a Chinese Seagull ST19 movement when regulated correctly can run a consistent +2 seconds daily cost just $60 but not sensitive to any particular resting position. But today many are very OCD about just 2 seconds out of 86400 in a day.First they use one of these not so accurate phone apps,next it will be buying a loupe then other Rolex OCDs will kick in and start taking the enjoyment of owning and wearing a Rolex watch.

[Anthon]

Padi, time websites like time.is are rock solid, they are programmed to take into account any internet lag.

Anyway, it's not fair to classify this as out of control OCD. I don't fret over scratches, my bezel rarely points to 12 o'clock, I have no idea if my cyclops has the correct magnification. But I do care for accurate and consistent mechanical time, that's one of the joys I get out of my Rolexes. That's not OCD.

If you call that OCD, then what next? Then whole idea of owning expensive Rolexes is one huge case of OCD.

[The Libertine]

Originally Posted by Anthon

If you call that OCD, then what next? Then whole idea of owning expensive Rolexes is one huge case of OCD.

Only if the owner makes it that way. Owing a Rolex and being OCD over scratches, or bezel alignment, accuracy - whatever - takes the enjoyment out of wearing one. At least in my opinion it does.

[padi56]

Originally Posted by Anthon

Padi, time websites like time.is are rock solid, they are programmed to take into account any internet lag.

Anyway, it's not fair to classify this as out of control OCD. I don't fret over scratches, my bezel rarely points to 12 o'clock, I have no idea if my cyclops has the correct magnification. But I do care for accurate and consistent mechanical time, that's one of the joys I get out of my Rolexes. That's not OCD.

If you call that OCD, then what next? Then whole idea of owning expensive Rolexes is one huge case of OCD.

Not talking about websites like time,talking about these so called timing phone apps.As none of these phone apps whether Android or Iphone are 100% accurate as they only read the daily rate, sure they will give a indication whether running fast of slow but 100% accurate I think not, and they are no way as accurate as a proper quartz timing machine.

[kauffee]

Originally Posted by Anthon

Padi, time websites like time.is are rock solid, they are programmed to take into account any internet lag.

Anyway, it's not fair to classify this as out of control OCD. I don't fret over scratches, my bezel rarely points to 12 o'clock, I have no idea if my cyclops has the correct magnification. But I do care for accurate and consistent mechanical time, that's one of the joys I get out of my Rolexes. That's not OCD.

If you call that OCD, then what next? Then whole idea of owning expensive Rolexes is one huge case of OCD.

I agree with this. The goal of watchmaking throughout history has been to create a mechanical device that keeps as close to perfect time as possible. I would venture to say that at Rolex and most high end watch companies, their engineers and watchmakers are constantly striving to make the most accurate watch possible.

It's not OCD. It's the whole point of the endeavor! While today we obviously have alternatives for keeping "perfect time," the idea of doing so with just a bunch of springs and gears gives a lot of us pleasure.

[Mystro]

It is amazing how these little mechanical engines can be so accurate. I love checking my accuracy of my watches. Its like watching your prized thoroughbred race. Sure you know the horse is fast but until you keep pushing the limits of performance, you never get better. Knowing a watch is capable of +2/-2 seconds a day and settling for -8 seconds seems too cavalier for a watch collector. I think it also may be a general way or discipline of looking at life. Some push them self for excellence in the gym, work, and life. "Good enough" or "settling" is a dirty word. I think some of these "A" type personalities are now getting into watches and want to push their watch performance as high as they can get that little mechanical engine to perform.

[Anthon]

Originally Posted by padi56

Not talking about websites like time,talking about these so called timing phone apps.As none of these phone apps whether Android or Iphone are 100% accurate as they only read the daily rate, sure they will give a indication whether running fast of slow but 100% accurate I think not, and they are no way as accurate as a proper quartz timing machine.

Ahh, those apps. I never use them, too scared to expose my watch to the iPhone speaker magnet. Now that's OCD

[dave023]

114060, -22seconds after 25 days...

[natosub]

Originally Posted by kauffee

I agree with this. The goal of watchmaking throughout history has been to create a mechanical device that keeps as close to perfect time as possible. I would venture to say that at Rolex and most high end watch companies, their engineers and watchmakers are constantly striving to make the most accurate watch possible.

It's not OCD. It's the whole point of the endeavor! While today we obviously have alternatives for keeping "perfect time," the idea of doing so with just a bunch of springs and gears gives a lot of us pleasure.

I couldn't agree more!

Originally Posted by Mystro

It is amazing how these little mechanical engines can be so accurate. I love checking my accuracy of my watches. Its like watching your prized thoroughbred race. Sure you know the horse is fast but until you keep pushing the limits of performance, you never get better. Knowing a watch is capable of +2/-2 seconds a day and settling for -8 seconds seems too cavalier for a watch collector. I think it also may be a general way or discipline of looking at life. Some push them self for excellence in the gym, work, and life. "Good enough" or "settling" is a dirty word. I think some of these "A" type personalities are now getting into watches and want to push their watch performance as high as they can get that little mechanical engine to perform.

Count me "type A"

[Andad]

Originally Posted by Anthon

Nice isn't it. But you can manipulate it as much as you want by carefully choosing the resting position of your watch.

Not as 'much as you want' and not so much with the new movements and if a movement is slightly fast or slow in all positions then positional variances will make no difference to the outcome.

Your Sub is a perfect example of a watch that can not be manipulated to 100% accuracy by positional variance.
You can improve your Subs accuracy but it will always be fast.

You own watch negates your statement.

I set my weekly wearer (14060M) about 20 seconds fast on a Monday morning and it is correct time by Friday.
Nice to have a watch whose accuracy improves each day?
Lies, damned lies and statistics.

[JacksonStone]

Just checked my green tag 116610 - it's +2s after 3 days, or +0.666s/day. I consistently get something around that (well within +1s/day) as long as I wear it daily and lay it flat (dial up) at night. Putting it on a winder or laying it on its side usually causes it to lose a little.

[Ucsd626]

That's accurate to me! My Explorer II runs -0.5s/day but my SubC runs -6s/day. Wondering if I should get the SubC checked out


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[JacksonStone]

Originally Posted by Ucsd626

That's accurate to me! My Explorer II runs -0.5s/day but my SubC runs -6s/day. Wondering if I should get the SubC checked out

-6s/day is outside of even COSC specs, to say nothing of current Rolex specs. You might want to have it regulated.

[Anthon]

Originally Posted by directioneng

Not as 'much as you want' and not so much with the new movements and if a movement is slightly fast or slow in all positions then positional variances will make no difference to the outcome.

Your Sub is a perfect example of a watch that can not be manipulated to 100% accuracy by positional variance.
You can improve your Subs accuracy but it will always be fast.

You own watch negates your statement.

I set my weekly wearer (14060M) about 20 seconds fast on a Monday morning and it is correct time by Friday.
Nice to have a watch whose accuracy improves each day?
Lies, damned lies and statistics.

Why so sceptic?
What you say is wrong. One month in and my Sub is still anywhere between +1 and +5 (+1 as we speak) using the method described. It works fine even if you think it doesn't. You see, not every day is as long, not every night as short. The 'statistics' even themselves out. Once wound I never set my watches. This can go on for months.

They are both 'new movements' by the way. Both prove my statement .