Keeping good time, what's better?

Thread: Keeping good time, what's better?

Results 1 to 9 of 9
  1. #1

    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    29

    Keeping good time, what's better?

    On keeping good time alone, which one of these watches would you prefer:

    Watch 1
    Day 1 +5 secs
    Day 2 +5
    Day 3 +5
    Day 4 +5
    Day 5 +5
    etc.

    Watch 2
    Day 1 +5 secs
    Day 2 +0
    Day 3 +3
    Day 4 +2
    Day 5 +5

    Watch 1 is more consistent, gaining exactly 5 secs every day. Watch 2 is not as consistent on a daily basis, but it has gained less time over the 5 day period, averaging a gain of only +3 secs/day.

    Which watch would you prefer on the criteria of "keeping good time" alone?

  2. #2
    Breitling Forum Moderator SnapIT's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Posts
    8,691

    Re: Keeping good time, what's better?

    Number 1.

    Consistent regulation indicates the movement has poise and will give good performance over time. The second watch, if thats the way it is performing in one position is suffering from some sort of damage and could be in need of service and lubrication.
    Cheers,
    SnapIT

    Seize the day, it ain't coming around again. . . .
    Click to check for the correct time around the world..

  3. #3
    Member rescue diver's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    1,594

    Re: Keeping good time, what's better?

    Watch number one here as well...for the same reasons

    Joern
    Even a broken watch shows the correct time twice a day

  4. Remove Advertisements
    WatchUSeek.com
    Advertisements
     

  5. #4
    Member JohnF's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Oberstedten, Germany
    Posts
    9,650

    Re: Keeping good time, what's better?

    Hi -

    Absolutely Nr. 1.

    The second watch displays rather poor isochronism and indicates that there is something not right with the watch: most likely the hairsping is dirty or has oil on it from a bad repair job, or there are serious problems with the drive train.

    In either case the deviation of the second watch will probably increase over time, resulting in more significant deviation from the magical "0" that we all want and rarely achieve.

    The first shows constant isochronism and is indicative of a very healthy watch: the hairspring is perfectly and maintaining its amplitude and there are no apparent problems with the gear train. All that this watch needs to improve its accuracy is to be regulated in five positions to reduce this further, if possible.

    Consistency is the critical thing here, not accuracy...accuracy is a fleeting thing, dependent on multiple factors. It's much better to be consistent than accurate...

    JohnF
    コスト下げ やる気も一緒に 下げられる


  6. #5

    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    29

    Re: Keeping good time, what's better?

    Thanks for the replies. The first watch in my example is a Rolex Seadweller. The second watch is a Seiko Black Monster. At 1/20th of the price, the Black Monster is well worth the value. But at least it good to know the Seadweller is outperforming.

    On a different topic: If I wanted to get my Seadweller regulated so it is +0 secs/day, can that be done? And by whom?

  7. #6
    Member JohnF's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Oberstedten, Germany
    Posts
    9,650

    Re: Keeping good time, what's better?

    Hi -

    There are two ways of regulating to achieve this sort of accuracy.

    1) Complete and total rebuild of the calibre by a master watchmaker who will then modify/refabricate any and all pieces of the drivetrain and the balance wheel so that any tolerances are under the limit of measurability, and by that I mean dimensions of the kind you find in semiconductors. Particular care would have to be taken with the escapement tolerances and also the balance wheel spring in order to maintain virtually perfect amplitude. It goes without saying that this puts the price of the watch into fairly absurd regions, given that the watchmaker will probably spend at least 2 months on the whole procedure.

    2) Replace the mechanical calibre with a quartz watchworks. Takes some work, but you save all that expensive manual labor.

    In other words, the goal of no deviation is chimerical and ultimately drives one insane.

    My best watch - a vintage Gruen from the 1950s - had a deviation of around +3 seconds per day when the master watchmaker I use did a complete overhaul of the calibre and regulated it over a period of 5 days in 5 positions (the total job cost me €175). After about a year it has settled down at -8 seconds/day, and I am not going to take it in to be re-regulated: this is acceptable for a 50 year old watch, especially a hammer-style automatic!

    The problem, of course, is that these watches are mechanical. They are a complex system of parts that will show wear and tear over time, and even the best watches, using the best possible materials, cannot overcome physics and friction. Sinn with its diapal system - key components have a diamond coating and the key friction interfaces on the escapement have anti-friction (sort of like teflon, but much harder and much smoother) coating that allows the entire escapement to do without lubrication. Even so, this means only that maintenance can be postponed, but not eliminated.

    Rolex will, of course, be happy to take your money. But that +5/s a day is very good, and I wouldn't bother.

    And if that bothers you none the less, consider a thermal-compensated chronometer quartz, such as are used in the Sinn UX, which will give you accuracy of around 5 seconds per year. That's right, *year*!

    JohnF
    コスト下げ やる気も一緒に 下げられる


  8. #7

    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    29

    Re: Keeping good time, what's better?

    I don't like alternative #1 or #2. I'll just keep my watch as is. Thanks for letting me know - albeit in a roundabout way - that there really isn't any realistic way to get the watch regulated. I thought there would be some sophisticated watch repair shops that could do it. I mean, if they can repair a Seadweller for $500 when something goes wrong, and get it to working almost like new again, why couldn't they help regulate it for about the same price? That's what I was thinking.

  9. #8
    Zenith Forum Co-moderator
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Posts
    17,074

    Re: Keeping good time, what's better?

    Watches are funny things! In theory, since you have some daily rate (watch gaining or losing per day) but zero deviation around that (mean) daily rate, it should be easy to regulate it just by moving the lever on the balance cock or, since it is a Rolex (no such lever), adjust the microstella screws on the balance. In practice, you may well get a daily rate of zero but deviations in the mean daily rate could start to creep in. Eliminating both is a long and arduous task, involving possible readjustments of the balance spring and (in a Rolex) the height of the balance bridge etc. etc. That's where your cash would be going to, even without a full service!

    Hartmut Richter

  10. #9
    Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Posts
    4,294

    Re: Keeping good time, what's better?

    Absolutely no 1 - it is the best regulated & best functioning of the two - to be plus 5 every day regardless of conditions/positions shows its working well & finely adjusted - consistency is the critical indicator. +5 is within COSC perameters which is a mechanical marvel anyway.

    I read one chap saying his $6k watch was outstanding because after a couple of months it had only gained a couple of seconds or something like that - but when pressed he admitted it gained 20 seconds one day after a hike - presumably losing time afterwards. Admitedly a watch will gain or lose the odd second depending on position at night off wrist, change in useage - sporty or sat at desk etc but a daily variance of from +0 to +5 assuming watch wearing/useage on those days is fairly consistent suggests a problem somewhere.

    Most accurate watch I ever had was Zenith Elite about +1 daily - quite amazing.


    si
    Last edited by Simon; August 28th, 2006 at 17:06.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 3 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 3 guests)

    Similar Threads

    1. Is this worth restoring?
      By Abouna in forum Vintage & Pocket watches
      Replies: 13
      Last Post: July 10th, 2006, 22:27
    2. The time has come>>>>>>>>>>>>>
      By Tony Duronio in forum Affordable watches
      Replies: 27
      Last Post: June 13th, 2006, 22:53
    3. question about world time watch
      By shockmonkey in forum Casio G-Shock
      Replies: 3
      Last Post: June 4th, 2006, 21:53
    4. DW-8400 MUDMAN users review by Hung Lo
      By Sjors in forum Reviews
      Replies: 0
      Last Post: May 5th, 2005, 12:01
    5. Replies: 0
      Last Post: May 3rd, 2005, 20:23

    Posting Permissions

    • You may not post new threads
    • You may not post replies
    • You may not post attachments
    • You may not edit your posts
    •