Rolex Precision -2/+2

[Steerpike999]

Originally Posted by Jostack

Regulate it yourself. All you need is a small rubber ball, needle nose pliers and whiskey.

Is Bourbon ok?

[Jostack]

Originally Posted by Steerpike999

Is Bourbon ok?

Of course. Any kind of whiskey.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[No SUBctitute]

Originally Posted by T.Mas

If accuracy is your goal, buy a $19.99 quartz

I love how that is some members' answer to anyone who espouses a desire for accuracy in a mechanical watch. I am not impressed by accuracy alone, I am impressed by accuracy of a purely mechanical device. There is a huge difference.

Doesn't the accuracy of Rolex impress you? Would you spend $8000 on a new Rolex that lost 10 seconds per day. I wouldn't. Because a large part of the allure of Rolex to me is its engineering excellence.

Originally Posted by T.Mas

Usage, movement and environmental differences greatly affect performance

Greatly? Really? What's your definition of "greatly?" I don't think that my Rolex which operates at +1.6 s/d will start operating at -10 s/d if I put it on my friend. A well-engineered mechanical watch will minimize the effects of external forces on its performance (not eliminate, but minimize). That's why Rolex will regulate under warranty a watch that operates outside of +/-2 s/d. Now, there probably does exist some person's movements and usage that are so odd that Rolex can't regulate a watch to operate within +/-2 s/day on that person. But that would be an aberration, not normalcy.

[No SUBctitute]

Originally Posted by longimanus88

Isn't any radio-controlled watch (like a G-shock) supposed to be within those specs?

In that case, we are no longer talking about the accuracy of the movement. We are talking about a computer receiving a radio signal to adjust the time of the watch.

[brucethemanlee]

+ 30 to - 30

[seabreeze60]

24 hour iPhone stopwatch app test showed 4 second loss. 2008 Caliber 3130.

I’ll get over it!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[AlexMachine]

It has to be more than 7-8s/day. Othervise I would not bother. But happy with this one. BLNR. If wearing 24/7 it gains +2/day, but I usually put in on the nightstand over night crown up, so it's basically +-1s.

[seabreeze60]

Originally Posted by AlexMachine

It has to be more than 7-8s/day. Othervise I would not bother. IMG]

I agree



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[T.Mas]

Originally Posted by No SUBctitute

I love how that is some members' answer to anyone who espouses a desire for accuracy in a mechanical watch. I am not impressed by accuracy alone, I am impressed by accuracy of a purely mechanical device. There is a huge difference.

Doesn't the accuracy of Rolex impress you? Would you spend $8000 on a new Rolex that lost 10 seconds per day. I wouldn't. Because a large part of the allure of Rolex to me is its engineering excellence.



Greatly? Really? What's your definition of "greatly?" I don't think that my Rolex which operates at +1.6 s/d will start operating at -10 s/d if I put it on my friend. A well-engineered mechanical watch will minimize the effects of external forces on its performance (not eliminate, but minimize). That's why Rolex will regulate under warranty a watch that operates outside of +/-2 s/d. Now, there probably does exist some person's movements and usage that are so odd that Rolex can't regulate a watch to operate within +/-2 s/day on that person. But that would be an aberration, not normalcy.

The $20 quartz answer is often used because it makes sense. People buy mechanical watches and expect them to perform like their old quartz watches, which they often can’t, even if it costs $8000. I hear it often.

Yes, greatly. No I wouldn’t expect +1.6 on one person and -10 on another. We are talking a few seconds here, which would be out of tolerances for a Rolex.

[watchmaker]

Originally Posted by No SUBctitute

Greatly? Really? What's your definition of "greatly?" I don't think that my Rolex which operates at +1.6 s/d will start operating at -10 s/d if I put it on my friend. A well-engineered mechanical watch will minimize the effects of external forces on its performance (not eliminate, but minimize). That's why Rolex will regulate under warranty a watch that operates outside of +/-2 s/d. Now, there probably does exist some person's movements and usage that are so odd that Rolex can't regulate a watch to operate within +/-2 s/day on that person. But that would be an aberration, not normalcy.

A common problem (and one that is attributable to variations from the wearer) is that due to sedentary lifestyles many people do not move enough to keep their watch fully wound. Coupled with the fact they have multiple watches they rotate through the result is a watch that is constantly on the bottom end of it's power reserve and thus has timekeeping issues. These issues disappear as soon as the watch is wound and put on a timegrapher.

This sort of situation is still not 'normalcy' but is much more frequent than an aberration.

[padi56]

Originally Posted by watchmaker

A common problem (and one that is attributable to variations from the wearer) is that due to sedentary lifestyles many people do not move enough to keep their watch fully wound. Coupled with the fact they have multiple watches they rotate through the result is a watch that is constantly on the bottom end of it's power reserve and thus has timekeeping issues. These issues disappear as soon as the watch is wound and put on a timegrapher.

This sort of situation is still not 'normalcy' but is much more frequent than an aberration.

Have to agree Scot but when Rolex states -2+2 seconds many expect it to perform every singe day the same on the wrist, but you know it, I know it this is not always the case.

[Rolexoman]

For me it was a long journey to accept timing on automatics, Peter @padi56 was a huge help to me in getting me to finally realize it’s only a few seconds.

Here’s my current lineup:

Rolex DJII +2.4 SPD (+ 17 secs @7 days )
Tudor Heritage BB -3 SPD ( -21 @7 days )
Omega Seamaster AT GMT -2 SPD (+15 @ 7 days)

I pretty sure at the above times I would not send any watch in for service, I have tried different resting positions for all and it seems to not matter, as far as the Rolex when it’s off my wrist resting it is at +/- 0 but gains time wearing so as Peter stated just because it does not gain or lose time off the wrist does not mean that’s true wearing at least for me.

I only wear each watch for a week ( Sun - Sun ) then change so if a watch is 15-20 secs slow or fast after a week it’s not the end of the world for me because if I wore it everyday I would just reset it every few weeks

I don’t begrudge anyone that holds Rolex to there +/- 2 SPD but life’s to short for me to lose sleep over a few seconds

[AH0RSEY]

most of my watches are kept in a draw of the watch winder, only 4 of them can wind at any time together... In theory even if they all wind perfectly and I wanted to wear a watch outside of the winder I'd need reset it anyway....

quid pro quo....i don't care about regulation as I reset the time often enough on all my watches that it really doesn't stress me.

I like the info ref keeping, face up, crown up, crown down though.... thats a good hint i'll test out

[inadeje]

Buy more Rolex. After about 7 you’ll be in sufficient rotation that a second or two a day won't appear on the radar

[peterskinner]

Originally Posted by Oaker1

Not crazy, but my OCD does kick in a fair bit. It seems to be running at -4 spd, and is annoying me. Think I would be happier with +4spd. However, it is consistent with no evidence of any swings either way, so will leave as is for a while.

Some good advice on this forum from members, once again.. Cheers

Buy a Grand Seiko spring drive; end of problem. No Rolex will come anywhere near that level of precision. If it matters......

[beshannon]

Originally Posted by Oaker1

At what point outside of the -2/+2 per day (COSC plus Rolex certification) would you send your relatively new (28 months old) Rolex back into RSC for regulating?

When I noticed how far it was off after comparing it to a reliable time source after winding 40 full turns and waiting 24 hours to check it after enough times wearing it that it bothered me.

Or I just wear my watch

[trfChris]

Originally Posted by longimanus88

Isn't any radio-controlled watch (like a G-shock) supposed to be within those specs? I use my G-shock to correct the date (and time) every 2 months.

A radio-controlled watch is basically a remote display for an atomic clock, so it’s not really a quartz watch at that point. The atomic clock is very accurate though: it will be off by around 1 second per one million years.

[longimanus88]

Originally Posted by trfChris

A radio-controlled watch is basically a remote display for an atomic clock, so it’s not really a quartz watch at that point. The atomic clock is very accurate though: it will be off by around 1 second per one million years.

My point was that you don't need to spend thousands to get an extremely accurate non-mechanical watch (as suggested in the post before mines). Btw, I would still consider it a quartz watch since it's battery-powered.

[No SUBctitute]

Originally Posted by peterskinner

Buy a Grand Seiko spring drive; end of problem. No Rolex will come anywhere near that level of precision. If it matters......

Spring Drive is a pretty cool computer machine. But, we are talking about the accuracy of a purely mechanical device. A computer is more accurate than a mechanical device; we all know that.

[No SUBctitute]

Originally Posted by watchmaker

A common problem (and one that is attributable to variations from the wearer) is that due to sedentary lifestyles many people do not move enough to keep their watch fully wound. Coupled with the fact they have multiple watches they rotate through the result is a watch that is constantly on the bottom end of it's power reserve and thus has timekeeping issues. These issues disappear as soon as the watch is wound and put on a timegrapher.

This sort of situation is still not 'normalcy' but is much more frequent than an aberration.

Agree! Sedentary living is the biggest factor affecting mechanical watch accuracy.

Originally Posted by T.Mas

The $20 quartz answer is often used because it makes sense. People buy mechanical watches and expect them to perform like their old quartz watches, which they often can’t, even if it costs $8000. I hear it often.

Yes, greatly. No I wouldn’t expect +1.6 on one person and -10 on another. We are talking a few seconds here, which would be out of tolerances for a Rolex.

I don't know where you are hearing that "often." I would think that anyone with 100 posts here knows watches well enough to know that a mechanical won't beat the accuracy of a quartz. Most people here who post about accuracy are discussing whether or not their $8,000 Rolex--which the manufacturer claims will operate within +/-2 s/d--is accurate enough for their liking if its like say 3 seconds off per day. They don't need to be excoriated with the advice to but a $20 quartz if they want accuracy. The level of horological discussion I see here is a little above that level of understanding and discourse.

What's your definition of greatly?

Originally Posted by padi56

Have to agree Scot but when Rolex states -2+2 seconds many expect it to perform every singe day the same on the wrist, but you know it, I know it this is not always the case.

True. It is not always the case. However, I think this is the exception rather than the rule. Rolex's acceptance of watches for warranty work that don't meet the +/-2 accuracy level is implicit acknowledgement that Rolex thinks it can regulate just about any new Rolex to within +/-2 for any customer.

[Steerpike999]

Originally Posted by inadeje

Buy more Rolex. After about 7 you’ll be in sufficient rotation that a second or two a day won't appear on the radar

This is True

[Andad]

Originally Posted by peterskinner

Buy a Grand Seiko spring drive; end of problem. No Rolex will come anywhere near that level of precision. If it matters......

That is a not true.

There have been posts on the spring drive’s poor accuracy but this is also generalising.

Precision is not accuracy.