WatchUSeek Watch Forums banner

"Consumer Reports" for mechanical watches?

5K views 23 replies 17 participants last post by  WTSP 
#1 ·
Has there ever been a "Consumer Reports" type of publication or what not with regards to watches? Like which brands are good in terms of reliability, which ones to avoid due to poor service, etc...?

Just curious if anything ever existed as I can't seem to find anything with regards to watch reliability, quality of service...
 
#2 ·
Once upon a time Consumer Reports, Popular Mechanics and other similar magazines did periodic reviews of nothing but mechanical watches. These days you have several printed magazines like Watch Time. And of course a handful of blogs. To be honest I think forums like WUS are a more comprehensive and better source of information.

Mechanical watches are a mature proven design, so I don't think there is much of a story to tell about long term reliability.
 
#20 ·
I’m reviving this thread because it think the subject is very important. There are more and more complicated new movements being designed by people who have less connection with past teams of experienced watchmakers. Meanwhile the cohort of service people who was trained in the hay day of mechanical watches has basically all retired. What we are too often stuck with now is non viable exotica. See the thread in my signature for details.




I don’t agree that reliability of mechanical watches is a given. New movements are being created at a higher rate than in the past thirty years and their reliability to cost ratio is far worse than in the past in my opinion, and not just because mechanical watches used to be cheaper.

It's pretty safe to say that people who buy mechanical watches don't have reliability and accuracy as their chief concerns. As noted above the forums are probably one of the better aggregates of information on watch quality. I suspect watch magazines are hesitant to print negative reviews for fear of pissing off their sponsors, as is the case with many niche hobby magazines.
I disagree with this as well. More and more watch buyers are being faced with months of waiting and ever increasing cost for servicing. Not to mention non viable products being released that don’t function properly

I would argue the opposite. For those of us who are into watches, the advent of all sorts of in-house movements calls into question accuracy and reliability, especially since prices often go up on watches with in-house movements.
Amen, totally agree.

Who in their right mind would rely on Consumer Reports in regards of anything?

Once in blue moon when I get bored and go read the CR, I have more entertainment than I ever need and while reading, for the sake of example, the tire reports where some moron idiot complains about D load rated tire thread mileage with vehicle/loads requiring E load rating.

Too many, if not all those is way too subjective as people lacks the ability to be objective.
Personally I’ve found that the Consumer Reports automobile reliability review section is extremely valuable. Anybody that doubts its accuracy can look at how well they correlate to real world results. Taxi drivers want to own Toyotas because of their comparatively reliability. Poor performers like the Chrysler group are forced to offer larger discounts to move vehicles. Who needed the biggest bailouts during the 2008 financial crisis? Poor reliability performers like GM and Chrysler. Who was in comparatively better health? Ford, whose reliability stats are the best of the American manufacturers.

Between Rolex and Omega, which one offers better reliability and which one has better value retention? Between Breitling and Zenith? Breitling can offer decent servicing as an independent. Zenith is suffering with poor service and reliability outcomes as part of LVMH. I’d love to see a Consumer Reports publication to validate that sort of thing.
 
#4 ·
It's pretty safe to say that people who buy mechanical watches don't have reliability and accuracy as their chief concerns. As noted above the forums are probably one of the better aggregates of information on watch quality. I suspect watch magazines are hesitant to print negative reviews for fear of pissing off their sponsors, as is the case with many niche hobby magazines.
 
#5 ·
It's pretty safe to say that people who buy mechanical watches don't have reliability and accuracy as their chief concerns.
I would argue the opposite. For those of us who are into watches, the advent of all sorts of in-house movements calls into question accuracy and reliability, especially since prices often go up on watches with in-house movements.
 
#7 ·
Who in their right mind would rely on Consumer Reports in regards of anything?

Once in blue moon when I get bored and go read the CR, I have more entertainment than I ever need and while reading, for the sake of example, the tire reports where some moron idiot complains about D load rated tire thread mileage with vehicle/loads requiring E load rating.

Too many, if not all those is way too subjective as people lacks the ability to be objective.
 
#9 ·
I think CR is fairly accurate when it comes to cars. However, the one thing they seem to lack is the longevity and durability ratings going into the future. They can only tell you how something is operating now, not how it might operate 10 years from now, which is exactly the information WUS members might want when purchasing a watch.
 
#11 · (Edited)
Who said "only"? The fact is, the era of the shared movement is starting to dwindle. When you had a watch with a particular ETA movement or a sellita movement, you knew what you were getting. The fact that companies are asking consumers to pay more for something untested in real life settings, and people like you not really questioning the value, is really rather odd.
I don't know how you could possibly say that the market for supplied or shared movements is dwindling. Look at all the product that Seiko, Seagull, Casio and Citizen supply. Not to mention smaller players like Sellita and other Chinese makers. Which specific movements are being produced and sold that are untested. I'm not aware of any.

I don't take my watches apart to stare at the movement, so any value in personalizing a movement is silly, but any improvements in durability, reliability, or accuracy of an otherwise imperfect overall approach is welcome. The art of watch making isn't just about pretty looking parts. It should be about the process of continual improvement. It doesn't matter whether an automatic will never be as robust or accurate as a quartz, especially for a company like rolex that only makes automatic watches. Objective improvements are ALWAYS welcome.
There have really not been any significant improvements to the mechanical watch movement since 1949. The spring powered, rotor wound, balance wheel governed movement is a mature, proven and reliable design. No matter who makes it.

Based on what, exactly? Have you studied all of the current crop of in-house movements? I also love the "as a group" argument. It's pretty meaningless for individual consumers. What I'm gathering here, is that there's no value in in-house movements. However, in the other thread about various levels of in-house movement, most people seem to get a significant chub when it comes to in-house movement. If there's no objective value and everything's the same, why does everyone care? In contrast to what you're saying, most seem to feel that there is some sort of special value to a movement designed and engineered by a particular company for their watches. If all movements are the same, they are all equally reliable, and they are all equally accurate, why doesn't everyone just go out and use Sellita movements and call it a day?
Mechanical watch movements continue to deliver accuracy measured in seconds per day with power reserves counted in hours. There have been no breakthrough improvements to bring mechanical watch performance any closer to quartz movements. Which new crop of untested in-house movements are you concerned about anyway?

I've concluded from the countless prior threads on in-house vs out-house movements that an in-house designation allows some purchasers to feel good about their watch and justifies paying a higher price. I have yet to read of any measurable improvement in performance or durability..
 
#13 ·
Mechanical watch movements continue to deliver accuracy measured in seconds per day with power reserves counted in hours. There have been no breakthrough improvements to bring mechanical watch performance any closer to quartz movements. Which new crop of untested in-house movements are you concerned about anyway?
Not true. Vaucher's new movement, with a very high-beat movement and 100 day power reserve. Not released, but far enough along to be shown at SIHH, if memory serves, in a Parmigiani-built prototype.

I've concluded from the countless prior threads on in-house vs out-house movements that an in-house designation allows some purchasers to feel good about their watch and justifies paying a higher price. I have yet to read of any measurable improvement in performance or durability.
Rolex's new calibers are being certified as, IIRC, about 2 seconds per day. Granted, still in the seconds per day, but that is an improvement. Omega's METAS certified movements that are also highly resistant to magnetism.

Mechanical watches improve in an evolutionary manner, most of the time...not a revolutionary one. The Vaucher movement might be an exception, but that remains to be seen.

Mind you, I agree that in-house qua in-house is not that meaningful.
 
#17 · (Edited)
Not true. Vaucher's new movement, with a very high-beat movement and 100 day power reserve. Not released, but far enough along to be shown at SIHH, if memory serves, in a Parmigiani-built prototype.

Rolex's new calibers are being certified as, IIRC, about 2 seconds per day. Granted, still in the seconds per day, but that is an improvement. Omega's METAS certified movements that are also highly resistant to magnetism.

Mechanical watches improve in an evolutionary manner, most of the time...not a revolutionary one. The Vaucher movement might be an exception, but that remains to be seen.

Mind you, I agree that in-house qua in-house is not that meaningful.
A 100 day power reserve is peanuts compared to the competition. I would imagine isochronism is not well controlled. And 2 seconds per day is humdrum. The watch I'm wearing right now runs circles around the Rolex.

BTW, what are all the untested movements that are causing problems for consumers?
 
#18 ·
Nothing of this sort exists, as far as I know. Ownership experience tracking would make for a great online project - ownership costs, initial failure rates, service turnaround time, etc.

Have seen online self-reporting for cars (TrueDelta), but it might be difficult to sign up enough users to enter their watch data for the results to be statistically significant.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
#19 ·
Even the car magazines rarely test a car beyond 40,000 miles, which is not a lot if you're really testing reliability. And there's a lot more demand for cars than there are watches, so I doubt you're going to find anyone anytime soon willing to test watches in any appreciable scale. Even the tests in the watch magazines tend to be standardized tests or wearing it for a couple of weeks, which is nothing given how many questions we get here about watches lasting for generations and how long can a watch last unserviced.
 
#21 ·
I have to agree regarding both more movements from people with less and less experience and that we have fewer and fewer well trained and experienced watch makers in the community to provide service. I never had a bit of trouble with genuine ETA 2824 movements (and I’ve had a fair few) but I have had to have the SW200 clone serviced after <1year of use for a widely known issue. Even copying a well tested design appears harder than asserted by many here.
 
#24 ·
I addressed that in the first sentence of this post.
 
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