Rolex service.

[Eleven]

desolate said:

Eleven said:

You think that because it was bought used it need not comply with COSC tolerances when it returns from a service by the manufacturer?

If COSC is -4/+6 then for your test period it performed within spec for practically every day.

I would accept that level of performance certainly.

COSC is a bit more involved than that, but for some time it complied. Right now it's running at +7 which means that it is running outside spec. It should be running consistently. Rolex agrees with me by the way, they just seem to be unable to resolve the problem.

[Eleven]

desolate said:

Eleven said:

COSC is a bit more involved than that, but for some time it complied. Right now it's running at +7 which means that it is running outside spec. It should be running consistently. Rolex agrees with me by the way, they just seem to be unable to resolve the problem.

Personally I think you are searching for the golden rivet.
It complied for a 6 weeks and is now a second per day out or spec. In my experience that is totally normal for a Rolex (indeed most non quartz watches)

As I, and others, have said I think its perfectly acceptable.

I don't recall anyone else saying it's acceptable.

I should also probably add that before the figures mentioned above the watch was losing lots of time and went back to Rolex for that - those figures are not included.

But I am interested in your experiences of Rolexes chronometers running like this routinely. Seriously.

[Eleven]

desolate said:

Eleven said:

I don't recall anyone else saying it's acceptable.

I should also probably add that before the figures mentioned above the watch was losing lots of time and went back to Rolex for that - those figures are not included.

But I am interested in your experiences of Rolexes chronometers running like this routinely. Seriously.

2 others did, but on reflection one was being flippant so I think that was mainly my internal monologue.

Currently got a Sea Dweller, Explorer 1 and non-chronometer no date sub. Other watches, COSC and not
Have had other Rolex COSC.

I can't think of one that's been bang on.

I wouldn't have accepted the watch in the first place due to it being described "As new" and it having case damage, but I would be happy with the timekeeping.

I think you have the wrong end of the stick, the damage was caused when it went back to Rolex for the second time, it was not present when I bought it.

Have you ever had your watches regulated? My experience of mechanical movements both COSC and not is that when healthy any error tends to be consistent. I have a TAG chronometer which was accurate to a second a week or better when new. My chronometer Sub is my benchmark and it runs very consistently at between -1 and -2 per day.

[Eleven]

Grandfondo said:

You are very lucky with your TAG because mine is poor and that is after a service also.
My Daytona and my Tudor chronograph are worn occasionally so accuracy is not so important and if I was buying a watch for everyday use and accuracy was important then it would be a quartz!

I am quite happy with COSC accuracy, no need for quartz. But if it says chronometer on the dial it needs to perform as a chronometer should. Not too much to expect from a newly serviced watch surely.

[Eleven]

Grandfondo said:

Eleven said:

Grandfondo said:

You are very lucky with your TAG because mine is poor and that is after a service also.
My Daytona and my Tudor chronograph are worn occasionally so accuracy is not so important and if I was buying a watch for everyday use and accuracy was important then it would be a quartz!

I am quite happy with COSC accuracy, no need for quartz. But if it says chronometer on the dial it needs to perform as a chronometer should. Not too much to expect from a newly serviced watch surely.

I agree but if it performs to the outer limits of COSC it will still be out by 30mins in a year!

Agreed. Whilst I will tolerate the watch if it performs consistently within COSC I would PREFER it to be more accurate. I can see no reason why it shouldn't run 1-2 seconds fast every day if set up properly.

[Eleven]

Grandfondo said:

Eleven said:

Grandfondo said:

Eleven said:

Grandfondo said:

You are very lucky with your TAG because mine is poor and that is after a service also.
My Daytona and my Tudor chronograph are worn occasionally so accuracy is not so important and if I was buying a watch for everyday use and accuracy was important then it would be a quartz!

I am quite happy with COSC accuracy, no need for quartz. But if it says chronometer on the dial it needs to perform as a chronometer should. Not too much to expect from a newly serviced watch surely.

I agree but if it performs to the outer limits of COSC it will still be out by 30mins in a year!

Agreed. Whilst I will tolerate the watch if it performs consistently within COSC I would PREFER it to be more accurate. I can see no reason why it shouldn't run 1-2 seconds fast every day if set up properly.

Good luck with that!

Well my Sub runs that accurately, albeit minus 1-2 so I know Rolex can do it. It just remains to be seen whether Rolex service can do it...

[Eleven]

guindilias said:

My Air King Date (1964 I think) loses about a minute a day - but then it hasn't been serviced in 14 years! Inherited from my Dad who was given it for his 18th, and I have better things to spend £400 on as long as it keeps working!

Your watch sounds great and with its history, age and (I suspect lack of chronometer rating) who cares if it loses a minute a day? When it comes to servicing it though I would keep it away from Rolex - you want a sympathetic hand, not an attempt at returning it to new.

[Eleven]

Variomatic said:

The watch represents their company and all the marketing hype that's led to so many people associaing their (very good) mass produced pieces with "the best in he world".

Well, my GMT is currently sending the message "Rolex service quality is rubbish" It's gained 15 seconds a day for the last two days and prior to that it's been all over the place. Rolex has emailed me this morning to ask if they can have it back. Again. That will be the 4th time in 5 months they've had it.

I need to have a good think about what to do now. I can sell the watch back to the dealer I bought it from. I bought another 16710 last week, again newly serviced by Rolex, but firstly it's an older variation and secondly that is also gaining a lot of time. It's certainly nowhere near running within COSC spec.

Say what you want about watches with ETA movements, but I never had this sort of hassle with any watch with an ETA-derived calibre.

[Eleven]

Grandfondo said:

What would happen if you bought a NEW Rolex and it was losing/gaining 15 seconds a day, would/could you ask for your money back?

Good question. Technically I would think yes. They are all chronometers now, and if it's +15 it's not performing as a chronometer. The shop could argue that falling out of COSC is due to the customer's wear patterns and that a regulation should be allowed. If it then came back still outside COSC I don't think the retailer would have a leg to stand on.

But let's be clear about this, if the 16710 was still available new mine would have gone back to the dealer weeks ago. It's only because I will struggle to get another one the same that I've put up with this crap until now.

[Eleven]

Variomatic said:

Just to rub it in a little, got a Breilting Navitimer here that came in for a check and regulation. It was fairly well out (well over 30 s/day) but giving zero posiional error across 5 positions and +1 s/day isochronal error (still wih no positional variation) from fully wound to almost-stopping.

Now regulated and running at a consistent +1.5 s/day


eta: Incidentally, those positional and isochronal figures are exceptional and will have been more down to luck than judgement on the part of Breitling!

Edited by Variomatic on Monday 4th August 18:50

Bugger off.

[Eleven]

Riff Raff said:

Variomatic said:

Just to rub it in a little, got a Breilting Navitimer here that came in for a check and regulation. It was fairly well out (well over 30 s/day) but giving zero posiional error across 5 positions and +1 s/day isochronal error (still wih no positional variation) from fully wound to almost-stopping.

Now regulated and running at a consistent +1.5 s/day


eta: Incidentally, those positional and isochronal figures are exceptional and will have been more down to luck than judgement on the part of Breitling!

Edited by Variomatic on Monday 4th August 18:50

One of the things I've noticed is that recently manufactured watches I've bought seem to vary less across the positions than ones I bought ten or fifteen years ago ( and it isn't down to wear and tear on the movement, as some of these pieces don't come out the safe from one year to the next). I can only surmise that modern movements are manufactured to much tighter tolerances than used to be the case.

I don't know about that but Rolex has told me today that my 16710 is unlikely to run within 2 seconds of zero because the calibre tolerance is -4/+6 and it hasn't got a Panachom spring. Presumably everyone with a pre-Panachrom watch that does fall within 2 seconds is just very lucky....

[Eleven]

Variomatic said:

The timing figures you gave acually aren't all that bad apart from being biased high. I'd be tempted at this point to time it (in normal use) over a week or so, work out its daily rate on your arm, then ask them to regulate it to allow for that figure.

Say, for example, you find it's gaining 10 sec / day on average, then they'd slow it down by maybe 8 s/day on a "spot" reading and that'll bring the average close to where it should be (without risking an average loss, which no-one likes!). Quick, easy and relatively painless

At that point you're unlikely to notice, or worry, if it gains a couple of extra seconds one day then looses them again the next.

Things have moved on a bit since I posted up the figures. The past week has been:

+12
+7
+9
+8
-3
+15
+15

Bear in mind that two weeks ago it was averaging about +1.5 and two weeks before that about -1.5.

Upon which week do I get it regulated?

[Eleven]

Jollyclub said:

Is it possible you have magnetized the watch somehow?

Or would this lead to more erratic timekeeping than +15 secs per day?

I wondered this. Trust me, I have wondered if I am somehow to blame for TWO newly serviced Rolexes being way off with regards to timekeeping. I've looked at where they are stored, where I use them and how I use them. I honestly cannot think of any way in whioh I could be responsible. Added to that, I've got a Submariner that is bang on consistent every day and that gets treated exactly the same as the other two.

[Eleven]

Variomatic said:

On that I'd ask them to slow it down by 10 s/day which should leave it with a pretty good average :-)

You're being a little tinker aren't you Variomatic.

[Eleven]

PJ S said:

Spoke with Duncan – I was wrong about him being able to intervene at this point.
He's suggested you send it back to be looked at and fixed, and if it's still not right after that, then the refund option is open and having him treat it as a new service rather than attempting to correct someone else's work.

So rather than waste more time getting wound up about it – you've all the timings you need (and then some) to highlight there's a problem beyond just regulation – get on to them and book it in and have them address the problem they've overlooked on the two previous visits to them.

Thanks for asking the question PJ S.

Yes I think I have enough data to make it clear that this isn't a regulation issue. In fact I had that fairly early on and it appears that all Rolex did was try to regulate it.

What I am chewing over in my mind is whether I can be bothered with all of this any longer. On the plus side the watch is a tidy one and just what I wanted when I bought it. On the downside it has probably been in Rolex's possession for longer than it has mine. Now they want it back for extended testing, so it's going to be away for a lot longer.

[Eleven]

PJ S said:

You paid for a service, they've partially done that to your satisfaction – either persevere or opt for a full/partial refund based, bearing in mind the Sale of Goods Act doesn't just apply to physical items being bought.

The watch was purchased sight unseen whilst it was being serviced. The dealer I bought it from paid Rolex.

[Eleven]

PJ S said:

Fair enough then – don't know if you made that distinction in the op or subsequent posts, of which there's been a lot and I haven't absorbed every morsel of what you've written.

I'm offended. Pay more attention next time I write something.

[Eleven]

Bit of an update on this.

The watch went back to Rolex again, gaining about 15 seconds a day. It had been running at an acceptable +1 - +2 per day but I stopped it to reset it and suddenly big gains occurred daily.

Rolex has just called and said they continue to test it, but the watch was magnetised. After de-magnetisation it was back at +2.

I don't do anything involving strong magnets so this is a bit of a mystery to me.

There was also some mention of cylinder measurement which I cannot fully recall, but it was within tolerances.

Magnetism, to my mind, doesn't explain the problem. Stopping and restarting the watch isn't going to magnetise it.

I've asked them to keep it a bit longer and test it more.

An aside - I am wearing a K series 16710 whilst it is away and that too is way outside COSC, and again it's a watch fresh back from Rolex service.

It's all very odd.

[Eleven]

Variomatic said:

Magnetism can cause all sorts of odd behaviour from watches. In a way, modern "antimagnetic" ones can be worse than older ones. With old style steel hairsprings they'd usually start gaining like crazy (literally 10s of minutes per hour) if they got magnetised but newer ones are affected far less.

Modern balances and springs are basically unaffected by magnetism (ie: they can't be magnetised themselves) but, if any of the steel parts (wheel arbours and most of the handsettig work) become magnetic then you have a fast rotating metal balance wheel in a magnetic field. That generates electrical eddy currents in the balance and hairspring, which turns them into electromagnets while they're moving.

Unlike old magnetised hairsprings you wouldn't normally notice the effects but, if you're checking to close to COSC standards, it can easily show up as apparent random errors.

Any reason why my 14060M isn't affected? It's a 2012 model.

I cannot think of anything remotely magnetic around here (apart from my personality). Nothing of speaker magnet type strength anyhow. Unless a laptop could do it?

[Eleven]

Variomatic said:

Laptop shouldn't, but it could have happened on its way back to you or it could have been some freak magnetic field you happened to walk through in a shop, drove through in your car, got exposed to by a faulty petrol pump, or whatever.

The steel parts of watches tend to be made of high carbon steel, which magnetises very easily - it only takes a fraction of a second in the right conditions for them to become magnetic. The stainless steel case will protect against it to a certain extent but not completely.

So if it was magnetism why did it only take effect when I restarted the watch to reset it? Prior to the reset +2, afterwards +7 day immediately and +12 to +15 per day thereafter.