How to obtain excellent timekeeping over a period of several months.

[George58]

get a quartz for gods sake and free yourself

[CharlesN]

Why some people who profess to be fed up, not interested or bored with the topics of timekeeping, accurracy or precision bother to read these threads let alone post a comment in them.

[saxo3]

Originally Posted by CharlesN

Why some people who profess to be fed up, not interested or bored with the topics of timekeeping, accurracy or precision bother to read these threads let alone post a comment in them.

To denigrate all contributions they don't want and/or can't understand?

[CharlesN]

Originally Posted by saxo3

To denigrate all contributions they don't want and/or can't understand?

I think the more accurate answer is ...They can't

[alphadweller]

Self regulation using positional variance at rest is a great way to keep a watch super accurate, offsetting deviation when worn with opposite deviation at rest. I ran a test over 10 days with my 2020 Sub41 and reached a total deviation of 0.2s after 10 days, or an average of 0.02 s/d. Positive variance in horizontal dial up at rest would compensate for negative variance when worn.

Never achieved that kind of accuracy with a mechanical watch before, not even with Omega's latest METAS movement. Felt surreal.

[henryeng]

Just bought a new 40mm Yacht Master, and I've been very impressed with its accuracy. For the first 2 weeks, it was "dead-on"....within about one second after wearing for 14 days. I think it's getting 'broken-in'....now seems to run about 1/2 second slow per day. I take it off at night, dial-up, so that should help compensate. But that's quite accurate for a mechanical movement.

[saxo3]

Originally Posted by henryeng

Just bought a new 40mm Yacht Master, and I've been very impressed with its accuracy. For the first 2 weeks, it was "dead-on"....within about one second after wearing for 14 days. I think it's getting 'broken-in'....now seems to run about 1/2 second slow per day. I take it off at night, dial-up, so that should help compensate. But that's quite accurate for a mechanical movement.

Excellent result.
Congrats for the new watch and welcome to the forum with your first TRF post in this thread

[Driftwood]

Fun to do! I did this on my watches during Covid!

[Rock]

You either find this process of monitoring the timekeeping of your watches fun or you don't. I'm long retired and it amuses me to keep a daily record of how my self-winders are going. Obviously this is a passtime for people with only a couple of watches. I couldn't see myself doing it for half a dozen.
It is certainly an early-warning for any problems that arise and I have had my share of problems with my two self-winders (which is why there will not be any more Rolex in my life)

[Andad]

Originally Posted by CharlesN

I think the more accurate answer is ...They can't

We are not all as clever as you?

But some of us are trying our best.

[saxo3]

Originally Posted by Rock

You either find this process of monitoring the timekeeping of your watches fun or you don't. I'm long retired and it amuses me to keep a daily record of how my self-winders are going.

Very balanced view, it is also FUN before retirement lol. My guess 3/4 here don't like and don't care about timekeeping.

[Andad]

Originally Posted by saxo3

Very balanced view, it is also FUN before retirement lol. My guess 3/4 here don't like and don't care about timekeeping.

Very condescending E.

Most wear a watch for the time function but not all watch wearers are concerned about a few seconds/minutes plus or minus.

I like my watches to be accurate but I am not as paranoid as some?

When you made that statement you were asking for a rise so that was your first.

[Emery]

>tardiness is not acceptable
>doesn’t have a spring drive

[saxo3]

Originally Posted by Andad

Very condescending E.

Most wear a watch for the time function but not all watch wearers are concerned about a few seconds/minutes plus or minus.

I like my watches to be accurate but I am not as paranoid as some?

When you made that statement you were asking for a rise so that was your first.

You got that probably wrong E?
NO criticism at all intented.
Eveybody can do whatever he wants with his watches. Some like timekeeping others not.
I'm not asking or expecting anything here.
All the best!

[Lol-x]

Originally Posted by saxo3

Very balanced view, it is also FUN before retirement lol. My guess 3/4 here don't like and don't care about timekeeping.

The new forensic method of investigation and assessment just make a 'guess'.

[jamesbondOO7]

One very interesting post

[henryeng]

WELL...now I've had my Yachtmaster for about a month. Still very accurate, now running about 1/2 sec. slow per day. Still excellent. I suspect the reason it's gone from being slightly fast-per-day to slightly slow-per-day is temperature-related. I take it off each nite, put it on my nightstand in the bedroom. But it's been colder at night than a month ago, so that's my guess. I might try to build a simple "watch warmer" that will keep it closer to "on-wrist temperature" which is about 80 deg. F.

[Cliffnopus]

I don't know if anyone will believe it but, I decided to "time" my new Yachtsman, just for yucks. I paid NO attention to air pressure, temperature, etc., however I DID stand the watch vertically at night. I wind the watch (approx) 20-25 times in the AM when I place it on my wrist. Anyway in the 12 days of ownership - it is running 4 seconds slow. I check every day against NIST US time.

If I need any accuracy more than that - I'll put a battery in my old Accutron.

[saxo3]

Originally Posted by Cliffnopus

I don't know if anyone will believe it but, I decided to "time" my new Yachtsman, just for yucks. I paid NO attention to air pressure, temperature, etc., however I DID stand the watch vertically at night. I wind the watch (approx) 20-25 times in the AM when I place it on my wrist. Anyway in the 12 days of ownership - it is running 4 seconds slow. I check every day against NIST US time.

If I need any accuracy more than that - I'll put a battery in my old Accutron.

As you posted, you sold two beautiful watches, a DJ Turn-O-Graph (your photo below) and a Langematik, because "they did not keep good time" and then bought a new Yachtmaster? Good luck with your YM.

Anyhow, a beautiful dial (if authentic)

[Cliffnopus]

Originally Posted by saxo3

As you posted, you sold two beautiful watches, a DJ Turn-O-Graph (your photo below) and a Langematik, because "they did not keep good time" and then bought a new Yachtmaster? Good luck with your YM.

Anyhow, a beautiful dial (if authentic)

That's correct. The Datejust and Langematik were with me for at least 30 years and I ended up basically getting my money back on the lange-Rolex "trade".

Collection has dwindled to Yachtmaster and Omega Seamaster, both keep excellent time.

[LuthorCorp]

No idea these apps existed, thanks!

[jatco]

Originally Posted by Lol-x

The new forensic method of investigation and assessment just make a 'guess'.

[saxo3]

A very interesting thread start in the Watch Tech section until it got distracted. Anybody else who wants to share her/his way how to obtain excellent timekeeping over a period of several months?

[CharlesN]

I have been timing a particular watch of mine now for 60.2 days.

I am one of those who likes his watches to run with extreme accuracy and the time shown to be within a minuscule error.

I log my watches time twice in every 24 hours as a minimum.

During the wearing day (Usually around the 15 to 18 hours duration) I just wear my watch .

When I take the watch off I record the time error and lay my watch down for the night hours is the corresponding position to gain or loose the required time difference and bring the watch back to as close to a zero error as I can.

To date, After the aforementioned 60.2 days my watch has a cumulative error for the entire period of PLUS +0.3 seconds.

The accuracy and precision were between 0.0 +/- 0.3 s over the entire period also.

No doubt some people here will say I am daft (Or worse) worrying about such trivial time differences, But, to them I would, and do, say that my wanting something as close to perfection does not affect them and I get pleasure from doing the recordings etc.

Most people here have a smartphone. I personally have an Apple iPhone. I use an app to record the time and the app shows graphically as well as numerically how the watch is behaving and therefore what action needs to be taken to correct the error.

[CharlesN]

Just in case you want to see a more graphic description of how my watch is doing I have added a chart .....



And some description for you .....

The Accuracy is: +0.14 s
The Precision is: +/- 0.37 s

X-axis: Offset in seconds, compared to atomic clock
Y-axis: N is the number of measurements

[saxo3]

Excellent results. You have made great progress in data analysis and graphical representation. Obviously you did not test a Rolex watch.

[Dirt]

Originally Posted by saxo3

Excellent results. You have made great progress in data analysis and graphical representation. Obviously you did not test a Rolex watch.

Oh no.
I can't believe you just said that

Seriously though, it's certainly a beautifully set up watch and all credit due

I had 3 Rolex watches at one time(no pun intended) which ran nearly as well in the day to day of life.
They ran the same regardless of whether they were freshly serviced or not. No changes to timekeeping, just rock solid and utterly predictable/reliable. But the movements were just a little antiquated by today's standards.

[CharlesN]

Originally Posted by Dirt

Oh no.
the movements were just a little antiquated by today's standards.

Thats possible (Probably) why they "Behaved' so well.

It seems to be the 32xx movements that are the problem every time.

31xx and older are usually pretty good.

The caliber I was testing was NOT a 32xx movement obviously.