A Quartz Chronograph is an Oxymoron

[ref1655]

it goes without saying that Rolex Daytonas & Omega Speedmasters 'wrote the book' on classic/functional chronographs.

a sweep second hand is critical for accurate sub-second readings & a 'ticking' quartz chronograph second hand leaves much to be desired in terms of procuring an accurate reading.

while a handful of quartz chronographs utilize sweep second hands, most don't...further justifying the appeal of a traditional mechanical design.

I've always been drawn/attracted to chronographs even though I couldn't justify owning one (due to a lack of necessity). nevertheless, they are attractive designs & I am currently 'poking around' for a 6238/pre-Daytona...my personal Rolex 'grail'.

years ago (during the early 1970s), my first choice for a Rolex was a $550.00 manual-winding SS Daytona. the AD talked me out of it at the time citing the additional repair/servicing costs. I opted instead for a first-issue 1655 at $400.00...no regrets but I am still somewhat yearning for a classic multi-function timepiece. after decades of wearing/owning only one Rolex, the 'bug' has resurrected...much to the potential dismay of my pocketbook. after researching the current prices of a 6238, I'm beginning to wonder if I am simply losing my marbles.

[Jack T]

I like chronographs, but in my collection of better pieces, have tended to go for simple, clean dials. Perhaps I should reconsider.

[MovieGuy]

A large percentage of quartz chronographs I've ran across have a 1/10 second subdial that offers more accurate timekeeping than most any mechanical chronograph could do.

[landroverking]

There have been far more watch makers than Rolex and Omgea that offered really good chronographs.

[joe100]

Originally Posted by landroverking

There have been far more watch makers than Rolex and Omgea that offered really good chronographs.

Zenith. And so much so that Rolex used their movements for the Daytona until not long ago. Lemania too. I'm sure there are others but those two are the backs on which Rolex and Omega built their chronographs

[crgrbrts]

My bargain basement "daily wearer" is a Tissot PRC 200 quartz chronograph. It's been on my wrist pretty much continuously for a decade looking and functioning like new. It's certainly not a Daytona (I wish!) but it serves well.

I own two other chronographs, both mechanical. They are the Hanhart Fliegerchronograph 1939 replica and the very nearly identical Tutima Fliegerchronograph 1941 replica. They are simple in design and function and -- to my eye -- quite elegant in an understated way. And, if you can find them, they're attractively affordable.

Sure I would love to have a Daytona -- and it doesn't even have to be a Paul Newman. But, that's not gonna happen unless one of those Nigerian princes or ex-generals comes through with my $27-million. So, we do what we can...

Craig
Washington, DC

[TheVTCGuy]

Originally Posted by crgrbrts

My bargain basement "daily wearer" is a Tissot PRC 200 quartz chronograph. It's been on my wrist pretty much continuously for a decade looking and functioning like new. It's certainly not a Daytona (I wish!) but it serves well.

I own two other chronographs, both mechanical. They are the Hanhart Fliegerchronograph 1939 replica and the very nearly identical Tutima Fliegerchronograph 1941 replica. They are simple in design and function and -- to my eye -- quite elegant in an understated way. And, if you can find them, they're attractively affordable.

Sure I would love to have a Daytona -- and it doesn't even have to be a Paul Newman. But, that's not gonna happen unless one of those Nigerian princes or ex-generals comes through with my $27-million. So, we do what we can...

Craig
Washington, DC

Craig! Did you get hooked up with them TOO!?!?!? Cool!!! We're both going to be rich!

[HogwldFLTR]

Originally Posted by ref1655

it goes without saying that Rolex Daytonas & Omega Speedmasters 'wrote the book' on classic/functional chronographs.

a sweep second hand is critical for accurate sub-second readings & a 'ticking' quartz chronograph second hand leaves much to be desired in terms of procuring an accurate reading.

while a handful of quartz chronographs utilize sweep second hands, most don't...further justifying the appeal of a traditional mechanical design.

I've always been drawn/attracted to chronographs even though I couldn't justify owning one (due to a lack of necessity). nevertheless, they are attractive designs & I am currently 'poking around' for a 6238/pre-Daytona...my personal Rolex 'grail'.

years ago (during the early 1970s), my first choice for a Rolex was a $550.00 manual-winding SS Daytona. the AD talked me out of it at the time citing the additional repair/servicing costs. I opted instead for a first-issue 1655 at $400.00...no regrets but I am still somewhat yearning for a classic multi-function timepiece. after decades of wearing/owning only one Rolex, the 'bug' has resurrected...much to the potential dismay of my pocketbook. after researching the current prices of a 6238, I'm beginning to wonder if I am simply losing my marbles.

Consider Tudor chronos!!!

[zama]

Original Chronos were manual so I view the automatic ones as interlopers, personally I have no issue with any quartz chrono, they keep excellent time which after all is what a watch is there to do.

[Andad]

Originally Posted by ref1655

it goes without saying that Rolex Daytonas & Omega Speedmasters 'wrote the book' on classic/functional chronographs.

a sweep second hand is critical for accurate sub-second readings & a 'ticking' quartz chronograph second hand leaves much to be desired in terms of procuring an accurate reading.

while a handful of quartz chronographs utilize sweep second hands, most don't...further justifying the appeal of a traditional mechanical design.

I've always been drawn/attracted to chronographs even though I couldn't justify owning one (due to a lack of necessity). nevertheless, they are attractive designs & I am currently 'poking around' for a 6238/pre-Daytona...my personal Rolex 'grail'.

years ago (during the early 1970s), my first choice for a Rolex was a $550.00 manual-winding SS Daytona. the AD talked me out of it at the time citing the additional repair/servicing costs. I opted instead for a first-issue 1655 at $400.00...no regrets but I am still somewhat yearning for a classic multi-function timepiece. after decades of wearing/owning only one Rolex, the 'bug' has resurrected...much to the potential dismay of my pocketbook. after researching the current prices of a 6238, I'm beginning to wonder if I am simply losing my marbles.

The current model Rolex Daytona can only time my egg to 1/8ths of a second but the dial is graduated in 1/5ths so is a Daytona chronograph also an oxymoron?

[GradyPhilpott]

Originally Posted by HogwldFLTR

Consider Tudor chronos!!!

Indeed!

This is one of my favorite chronographs and as you can see it has a "sub-second" subdial, or whatever.

[motoikkyu]

There are a lot of great vintage chronographs out there. Don't forget to look at some of the Longines. The JLCs had Valjoux movements, and the old Heuers are great!

[robbonds]

the problem with the daytona is its missing a date..ap, vC, etc all include dates on their chronos