WatchUSeek Watch Forums banner

21.6k 50 hour PR vs. 28.8k 38 hour PR

  • 21.6K 50 hour power reserve

    Votes: 13 35.1%
  • 28.8K 38 hour power reserve

    Votes: 24 64.9%

Would you prefer a 28.8k version of the 6r15?

8K views 41 replies 26 participants last post by  Racontour313 
#1 ·
I wish Seiko would make an affordable 28,800 beats per hour three hand plus date (window) movement.

Assuming they could take the 6r15 and just crank the beat rate up from 21.6K bph to 28.8k, and that would cause the power reserve to be reduced to from 50 hours to 38 hours, which would you prefer?

38 is approximately 21.6/28.8*50.

Also, this poll assumes that the service interval of the higher-beat version would be 21.6/28.8 (75%) as long as whatever the 6r15's service interval is (would be worse).

Lets assume the hypothetical higher beat 6r15 would cost the same as the 21.6k (real) one.

Let's also assume that accuracy would not be affected.
 
#2 ·
They should make a it more unique from their other offerings, perhaps no date only or hand wind for slimness. That would make for some awesome vintage like slim dress watches. I enjoy the smooth sweep on my Visodate and would love Seiko to do so on their cheaper offerings.
 
#18 ·
More noticeable in hi-res macro videos that watch weenies post to youtube than in real life, IMO.

I've owned a number of 36k Zenith chronos and the difference to the naked eye is very minor. And in a h-res video you will still see the incremental steps of the sweep hand. You want super-smooth, spend $200 and buy a Bulova Precisionist. Or spend more and buy a Spring Drive.
 
#20 ·
Rolex beats at 28.8 and they go decades without a service so I'm not buying this extended service interval argument. Also, I don't agree there is no point to a higher beat. Apart from the more aesthetically pleasing smoother sweep (to me it is obvious to the naked eye), it allows for better accuracy and precision. My 6r15 watches have been all over the place in terms of precision and positional variance.
 
#27 ·
In theory, the higher beat rate in a 28.8k watch will cause the lubricants inside to break down faster. While a Rolex (or even an ETA2824 for that matter) can go longer than the recommended service interval, the increased friction as the lubricant breaks down will result in decreased accuracy and increased risk of a serious failure. The degree to which that theory translates into practice can be debated, as there are a lot of variables in play. However, I belong to the "if it ain't broke, don't fix it" school of thought. The 21.6k Seiko movements have a earned a stellar reputation for durability and longevity, and I don't feel the need to sacrifice that for a slightly smoother sweep.
 
#21 ·
Same is true for 28.8k ETA 2824 and they even only cost 1/10th of a Rolex 3135. Seiko 6R2x havn't been criticized for being fragile, too. I wouldn't be afraid of 28.8k movements because of potentially increased wear. Experience shows this is not a problem.
I like 28.8k. The smoother second hand sweep just looks nicer. However, in reality I care more about power reserve in the movement's level of quality.
 
#24 ·
I prefer the sweep of the 28k beat as well. But I like that Seiko's can be hand wound without risk vs the ETA 2824's. Seiko could create a tier within their sub-GS line (they kind of have already) with a basic featured 6R2X movement, in a "better" case (i.e what the original SARB's were), standard sapphire, better grade straps\bracelets, etc.
 
#26 ·
I don't care if Patek still makes 21.6k watches and A. Lange & Söhne still makes 18.0k. I will never want or buy either.

I also don't care if Zenith Chronos are 36k.

I think it's totally daft to bother with a high-beat movement on a chronograph when the big seconds hand normally sits there at 12 o'clock doing nothing.

I know you can choose to run the chrono all the time, but I would think that wouldn't help at all with the service interval for the more expensive to service chrono (not to mention the PR).

If I put a 3-hand, big seconds hand, 21.6k watch next to a 28.8k, the difference in smoothness of the seconds hand is obvious to me.

And the bigger (longer) and bolder the seconds hand is, the more obvious it is.

Spring drive has the ultimate smoothness, but it's only in expensive watches. And they always have a PR indicator which I don't like and think I would have little or no use for.

I also think automatic watches are for enthusaists. I think anybody who isn't a watch enthusiast should get a quartz.

I think a longer power reserve matters only if you wear only two watches.

With one watch, it doesn't really matter, and with several it doesn't matter either.

I have seven autos that I wear, not in strict rotation, but all of them get some wrist time in a month.

Even my favorite watches spend most of their time not running, so they aren't wearing out that fast regardless of the beat rate.

And a shorter power reserve means they get more time to rest.
 
#32 ·
Hypothetical discussions aside, I think what Seiko really needs to do is increase the power reserve of the 6R15. It makes sense from a sales point of view; these days you can get a Hamilton or Tissot with ETA's 80-hour PR movement for around the same price as a 6R15 Seiko, or even a 4R36 in alot of cases. If I was buying a watch and narrowed it down to a Seiko and a Hamilton, an extra thirty hours of power reserve would certainly be a decisive factor. The average watch buyer knows nothing about beat rates, but a long power reserve is a tangible benefit that he can get his head around. So it would make sense for Seiko to focus on that, rather than increasing the bph.
 
#37 · (Edited)
I really don't care for the ultra high end watches like the more expensive Pateks, AP's, A. Lange & Söhne, etc.

To me, they have a "retro decadence" vibe, like Excalibur cars.

So I don't care if they beat at whatever.

I do know that when I put my sarb033 next to my wife's Rolex that I can see the ticking on the sarb plain as day, but on the Rolex I have to look for it to see it.

I like the smoother movement of the Rolex better.

I think 28.8k bph on watches is kind of like 24 fps on video.

I think 24 fps video looks smooth to most people, and anything below that doesn't look smooth.

Actually, of all our watches, the only one I wish had a longer PR was is my wife's Rolex. Sometimes she goes all weekend without wearing it, and it stops. Then it's my job to set it.

But for myself, I rotate between my 7 autos and usually wear the same watch 2 or 3 days in a row.

My watches spend most of their time stopped, so the longer service interval of 21.6k isn't important to me.

What I really would like is to have a collection of mechanical watches all with 500 hour power reserves and perfect accuracy.

If I could get that by having 21.6k's instead of 28.8k's, then I would think it would be a good trade-off.
 
#41 ·
They can. But they lean alot on innovation.
Case in point. The spring drive.
Look at Grand Seiko especially the Snowflake. It is mechanical but has a quarts regulator that makes the sweeping second hand oh so unnaturally so awesomely buttery smooth. And that quartz pieces powered by the mechanical engine.

Here is the quandary.
Are you going to wear the watch alot, be active and religiously winding the time piece? The 2824 is for you.
Are you the type that is not watch weater diligent and do not like the hassle of winding everyday? Then the slower beat and higher power reserve is for you .
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top