I am trying find meaning and mesh "superlative" on the dials, the red hang tags...

[luger]

I am trying find meaning and mesh "superlative" on the dials, the red hang tags and the guarantee verbiage.

First, under the C.O.S.C. rubric, there are no distinctions among passing chronometer movements: they pass or fail by meeting the -4/+6 seconds/day measurement. If the movement passes, the maker can use the words "Chronometer" of the redundant "Officially Certified Chronometer" language.

So how do we get to "superlative"? The Guarantee and the Red Hang Tag espouse that after COSC certification, Rolex additionally tests the movements and cases. If the purportedly strict in-house standards are met then the word "superlative" is used in-house (i.e. without official value or indication) and on the dial for you and I to marvel over.

I have a theory that the idea of "superlative" hearkens back to the days when the old B.O.'s had a grade called "especially good [rate] results."<p>Most of us know the testing standards for a Chronometer is -4/+6.

Can anyone confirm that the Rolex in-house standard is a self imposed stricter standard of -1/+5? I have seen this claim bantered around on the forums but is it supported by any document or writing?

[The GMT Master]

I think it's purely Rolex marketing language. They're experts at promoting their products and creating the idea of luxury, I think this is just another layer of it. In all the official literature from Rolex that I've seen, it implies that they reach the -4/+6 capability and nothing more, but I'm sure with the modern materials and techniques that they utilise, a properly regulated Rolex could far outdo those stipulations. It's a nice theory you have, and clearly one that's been well thought out, but I honestly believe it's just marketing language.

[acce1999]

Originally Posted by luger

Can anyone confirm that the Rolex in-house standard is a self imposed stricter standard of -1/+5? I have seen this claim bantered around on the forums but is it supported by any document or writing?

I've been told that for calibers 3135 (and similar) the internal standard is -2 to +4 seconds. There are different standards for different calibers, but all stricter than the official COSC standard.

So -1 to +5 might be correct, but not for calibers 31XX.

I got this info from a Rolex watchmaker at a service center recently, whilst adjusting one of my watches.

Best,

A

[Lol-x]

I believe superlative is RolexSpeak so to speak

I have never seen the -1/+5 in writing, but I have been told this by a senior watchmaker at the Rolex Service Centre.

I asked the same question regarding the written evidence of -1/+5 a while ago and struck a blank

[luger]

that it is marketing hype; and I am not knocking it. I was just hoping to find some documentation that Rolex has a tighter in-house spec. that correlates to the "Red Seal" language of the "papers". I expect I will come up blank as you did on hard evidence, although one enthusiast has been posting some materials from current Rolex spec./tech. sheets. Thanks to you all.

[padi56]

Originally Posted by luger

I am trying find meaning and mesh "superlative" on the dials, the red hang tags and the guarantee verbiage.

First, under the C.O.S.C. rubric, there are no distinctions among passing chronometer movements: they pass or fail by meeting the -4/+6 seconds/day measurement. If the movement passes, the maker can use the words "Chronometer" of the redundant "Officially Certified Chronometer" language.

So how do we get to "superlative"? The Guarantee and the Red Hang Tag espouse that after COSC certification, Rolex additionally tests the movements and cases. If the purportedly strict in-house standards are met then the word "superlative" is used in-house (i.e. without official value or indication) and on the dial for you and I to marvel over.

I have a theory that the idea of "superlative" hearkens back to the days when the old B.O.'s had a grade called "especially good [rate] results."<p>Most of us know the testing standards for a Chronometer is -4/+6.

Can anyone confirm that the Rolex in-house standard is a self imposed stricter standard of -1/+5? I have seen this claim bantered around on the forums but is it supported by any document or writing?

A Swiss Chronometer is a chronometer no matter what the brand, and all pass exactly the same test -4+6 a day.Brands like say Patek although tested some dont have the word chronometer on dial.Now only the bare uncased movements are tested and the standard for all swiss tested watches is the same.The word Superlative IMHO is no more than a purely marketing word to make it more important sounding than it really is.

IMHO today the COSC test is just a pure marketing ploy as all Rolex movements since the 15XX series could pass this test so could many others.This is a direct quote from Watchbore estimates that at least 15,000 Rolex movements failed in 2001-2. According to Rolex, the rejects are re-regulated or fixed, and sent back to COSC until they pass.Rolex Quote. "We don’t use COSC to tell us how good our movements are," said a source deep inside the Wilsdorf Rolex foundation. "We test them ourselves. All we want is the chronometer certification, it’s only for marketing."... I rest my case the COSC test now just a pure marketing ploy. .

The Rolex ladies Datejust with cal 2235 is the most consistently precise and accurate movement tested by COSC.But don't forget that Rolex is the largest movement supplier for the COSC test.With the ETA 2892 Rolex Cal 3135 and the Valjoux 7750 given excellent results.The most precise machine tools are only viable in high-volume production watches.While its possible to get chronometer standards to hand crafted watches ,its very time consuming and needs a lot of adjustment and failures are quite high making more expense.But your massed produced machine made movements are far more consistent in getting though the COSC test simply because they should be all the same.

But looking at the other sign of the coin today any modern day wristwatch chronometers are, by the almost 300 year old 18Th century navigational standards imposed on John Harrison H4 watch,quite laughably inaccurate even by todays standards.How about just 5 seconds slow after 63 days at sea,not bad for a almost 300 year old watch.When you think he had very primitive tools by todays standards all hand made no computer aided help now thats a real watchmaker.

And before the Swiss COSC was formed as it is now there were Observatory testing and competitions to a much higher standard

And during the entire 23 years of testing, 5093 wristwatches were submitted for certification, and only 3253 were passed, about 64%. Just a few manufacturers participated, and only Omega and Patek did so every year. The others were: Rolex, Zenith, Longines, Movado, Vacheron & Constantin, Ulysse Nardin, Cyma and Favre-Leuba, along with numerous independent professional watchmakers.That was until Seiko come on the scene and started to wipe the floor with the Swiss watch industry.Only 2 brands in the + 23 years of the competitions submitted movements of serial production for retail sale(Seiko and GP).All others were specially made movements just for the competition.And it was ended by the swiss in the 1970s after two straight wins by the Japanese straight off the production line Seiko Grand watches.

Seiko first entered the competition,with watches from all over the world.Including most of the Swiss high end brands.For a much higher standard than the COSC,the Astronomical Observatory Authorisation Chronometer Standard.Out of many watches summited only two passed this test Seiko Grand just a production model, and Giraud Peregaux a specially build for the test model.And in the late 60s there were only two companies, who could sell watches, passed astronomical observatory authorisation Chronometer in those days. ---Seiko and Giraud Peregaux.As the Japanese had dominated in the late 60s and the two preceding events, in 1972 some Swiss watch manufacturers demanded the end of the observatory competitions,and it was ended in 1973,thats when COSC was founded.

Now this is the copy of the European Din certificate for my Dreadnought watch as you can see +0.4 seconds a day,not bad for a so called humble ETA 2824-T2 movement,less than half a second a day.The European Din is a higher standard so is Japanese equivalent -2+4 a day the Swiss COSC -4+6 and the Dreadnought cost at the time 2003 just £400 but now exchange hands for quite a bit more sometimes Rolex money.

[simoesm]

Thanks for the interesting info about COSC.

[gregdolley]

The "superlative" word is just a word for marketing - it doesn't indicate a stricter test than the COSC.

My two cents on COSC certification - it's totally overrated. I know many will disagree with me, but that's just what I think. My Rolex, a COSC certified watch, is less accurate than my Tissot (ETA 7750), a non-certified watch. The Rolex is +5s/day, the Tissot is 0s to +1s/day. Go figure...

Although I like my Rolex a lot better.

[Perdu]

I had forgotten all about John Harrison. Great write up.