Submariner accuracy
Discussion
RicksAlfas said:
Thanks. Do you think it has any effect on the accuracy?
A pal of mine is convinced his Explorer gains if he leaves it one way, and loses the other!
Yes it will make a difference.A pal of mine is convinced his Explorer gains if he leaves it one way, and loses the other!
All mechanical watches suffer from "positional errors" - running at different speeds depending on what position they're in. A big part of the struggle for accuracy over the years is the reduction of those errors, plus isochronal errors (differences between fully wound and nearly unwound rates) and temperature errors.
For chronometers COSC lays down maximum allowable positional, isochronal and temperature variations as well as the often quoted +6/-4 average rate.
The maximum allowed difference between the average vertical rate (crown up / crown down etc) and the average horizontal rate (dial up and dial down)is -6 / +8 seconds per day. Note that the difference can be in either direction, so there's no absolute rule (across different models) about which position will gain and which will lose, or by how much.
Rolex, in all their marketing genius, actually spin this error into a "feature" by providing instructions on how to position your watch overnight to adjust its overall rate.
Obviously, a really good watch company would concentrate on eliminating the error in the first place
gregf40 said:
Variomatic said:
Obviously, a really good watch company would concentrate on eliminating the error in the first place
Tourbillon. Impressive micro-engineering is the raison d'être – showmanship combined with aesthetics.
bobbybee said:
And why is that? genuinely interested btw
Because a pocket watch pretty much always finds itself in a vertical position, where gravity can take effect.Wristwatches, tend not to be similarly afflicted with the gravitational effect, and as we all know from various sources of anecdotal evidence, many a non-tourbillon equipped watch can run extremely accurately when finely regulated.
If they couldn't, then Citizen, Seiko, Rolex, Swatch Group, and Richemont, would all be battling to mass produce the tourbillon components/mechanising assembly.
If the effect on wristwatches was greater, then every manufacturer with current tightly regulated/certified models, would also have a tourbillon in their line-up as well, to show that it is an absolute necessity in order to have supreme accuracy.
PJ S said:
gregf40 said:
Variomatic said:
Obviously, a really good watch company would concentrate on eliminating the error in the first place
Tourbillon. Impressive micro-engineering is the raison d'être – showmanship combined with aesthetics.
Variomatic said:
Yes it will make a difference.
All mechanical watches suffer from "positional errors" - running at different speeds depending on what position they're in. A big part of the struggle for accuracy over the years is the reduction of those errors, plus isochronal errors (differences between fully wound and nearly unwound rates) and temperature errors.
For chronometers COSC lays down maximum allowable positional, isochronal and temperature variations as well as the often quoted +6/-4 average rate.
The maximum allowed difference between the average vertical rate (crown up / crown down etc) and the average horizontal rate (dial up and dial down)is -6 / +8 seconds per day. Note that the difference can be in either direction, so there's no absolute rule (across different models) about which position will gain and which will lose, or by how much.
Rolex, in all their marketing genius, actually spin this error into a "feature" by providing instructions on how to position your watch overnight to adjust its overall rate.
Obviously, a really good watch company would concentrate on eliminating the error in the first place
FWIW, all the Rolex (with the Parachrom hairspring) I've had measured pretty much the same across all the positions.All mechanical watches suffer from "positional errors" - running at different speeds depending on what position they're in. A big part of the struggle for accuracy over the years is the reduction of those errors, plus isochronal errors (differences between fully wound and nearly unwound rates) and temperature errors.
For chronometers COSC lays down maximum allowable positional, isochronal and temperature variations as well as the often quoted +6/-4 average rate.
The maximum allowed difference between the average vertical rate (crown up / crown down etc) and the average horizontal rate (dial up and dial down)is -6 / +8 seconds per day. Note that the difference can be in either direction, so there's no absolute rule (across different models) about which position will gain and which will lose, or by how much.
Rolex, in all their marketing genius, actually spin this error into a "feature" by providing instructions on how to position your watch overnight to adjust its overall rate.
Obviously, a really good watch company would concentrate on eliminating the error in the first place
An Explorer I for example: Dial Up +1 sec/day, amplitude 309º, beat error 0.0ms, 6 up -1, 286º, 0.0ms, 9 up -2, 287º, 0.1ms. Measured on my cheap and cheerful Chinese timing machine. That watch was astonishingly accurate on the wrist, as indeed have been the other recent-ish Rolex I've had.
Yeah, they are generally pretty good but I can take cheap shots if I feel like it
It just amuses me that someone in the marketing department obviously came up with the idea of actively promoting the residual errors as a way to "regulate" the watch - not sure if they still do, but they used to include it in their instructions.
It also (cynically) makes me wonder what else a marketing department that good is getting up to
It just amuses me that someone in the marketing department obviously came up with the idea of actively promoting the residual errors as a way to "regulate" the watch - not sure if they still do, but they used to include it in their instructions.
It also (cynically) makes me wonder what else a marketing department that good is getting up to
Lost soul said:
Shezbo said:
If the above is correct - I won't be buying a Rolex - for £5K - losing 6 seconds a day is not acceptable.
Its not just about accuracy is it , its about having a living mechanical timepiece not a computer For a purely mechanical device to be 99.9999% accurate is pretty good going by any standard.
When you buy a mechanical watch you are buying the Brand and a manufactured piece of mechanical 'art'. even then, there are watches that have the same movement and capability in £300 watches as £5000 watches the price difference is Quality control and a largest part advertising to support the brand image. there will be other differences, but these are the two major ones along with a cost to get movements COSC certified for those that do. This doesn't make the underlying movement better it just means its been regulated to a higher tolerance.
I have a COSC Breitling and a none COSC Ball. the Breitling is well within COSC standards, but Ball beats it hands down and is not COSC certified.
the ball cost 1/3rd of the Breitling new.
PJ S said:
bobbybee said:
And why is that? genuinely interested btw
Because a pocket watch pretty much always finds itself in a vertical position, where gravity can take effect.Wristwatches, tend not to be similarly afflicted with the gravitational effect, and as we all know from various sources of anecdotal evidence, many a non-tourbillon equipped watch can run extremely accurately when finely regulated.
If they couldn't, then Citizen, Seiko, Rolex, Swatch Group, and Richemont, would all be battling to mass produce the tourbillon components/mechanising assembly.
If the effect on wristwatches was greater, then every manufacturer with current tightly regulated/certified models, would also have a tourbillon in their line-up as well, to show that it is an absolute necessity in order to have supreme accuracy.
Gassing Station | Watches | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff