Rolex service.

[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....

[Variomatic]

Eleven said:

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....

They're right that guaranteeing better than the COSC spec isn't viable (although many individual watches will beat it) and, according to COSC, the watch is perfectly entitled to vary within a few seconds a day from one day to the next - as long as the average remains within that range.

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.

[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?

[Variomatic]

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

[Variomatic]

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

[Jollyclub]

Is it possible you have magnetized the watch somehow?

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

[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.

[PJ S]

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.

[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.

[PJ S]

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.

[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.

[PJ S]

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.

[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.

[PJ S]

Eleven said:

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.

[Variomatic]

Eleven said:

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

[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.

[PJ S]

Maybe magnetism is happening with whomever is the courier handling the return, or you have a stray magnetic field from something in your house/work, without realising it?

[Variomatic]

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.

[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?