Getting a Rolex regulated in Nottingham
Discussion
Why does it need regulation? Is it because it's always been off time or has its accuracy changed over time?
The reason that matters is because, if the timekeeping's changed more than a few seconds per day 9which most people won't notice in practice), it's a sign that the watch is getting due for servicing.
That's not to say that regulation is "wrong", or that it "must" be serviced right now, but he should be wary if wherever he goes doesn't explain that before agreeing to regulate - they either don't understand why timekeeping changes or they're being less than up-front about what might be needed once it's in their care.
The reason that matters is because, if the timekeeping's changed more than a few seconds per day 9which most people won't notice in practice), it's a sign that the watch is getting due for servicing.
That's not to say that regulation is "wrong", or that it "must" be serviced right now, but he should be wary if wherever he goes doesn't explain that before agreeing to regulate - they either don't understand why timekeeping changes or they're being less than up-front about what might be needed once it's in their care.
Variomatic said:
Why does it need regulation? Is it because it's always been off time or has its accuracy changed over time?
The reason that matters is because, if the timekeeping's changed more than a few seconds per day 9which most people won't notice in practice), it's a sign that the watch is getting due for servicing.
That's not to say that regulation is "wrong", or that it "must" be serviced right now, but he should be wary if wherever he goes doesn't explain that before agreeing to regulate - they either don't understand why timekeeping changes or they're being less than up-front about what might be needed once it's in their care.
It's a newish watch that has been (I think) 6 seconds a day fast fresh from the box.The reason that matters is because, if the timekeeping's changed more than a few seconds per day 9which most people won't notice in practice), it's a sign that the watch is getting due for servicing.
That's not to say that regulation is "wrong", or that it "must" be serviced right now, but he should be wary if wherever he goes doesn't explain that before agreeing to regulate - they either don't understand why timekeeping changes or they're being less than up-front about what might be needed once it's in their care.
Good candidate for tweaking then. It'll help wherever he goes if he can get a good average for its gain over a week or so of "normal" wear. That can be used to allow for his wear pattern when adjusting.
Bear in mind that internet time (which a lot of people rely on for testing) isn't completely accurate. If you take 2 computers, side by side and on the same network, and synch them at the same time to the same internet time server you'll find there can be 1 or 2 seconds difference. A pc will also drift by as much as a couple of seconds a day in between automatic synchs depending on its internal clock accuracy.
By checking over a week (or more) and dividing by the number of days, he'll reduce the errors created to less than half a second per day or so.
Bear in mind that internet time (which a lot of people rely on for testing) isn't completely accurate. If you take 2 computers, side by side and on the same network, and synch them at the same time to the same internet time server you'll find there can be 1 or 2 seconds difference. A pc will also drift by as much as a couple of seconds a day in between automatic synchs depending on its internal clock accuracy.
By checking over a week (or more) and dividing by the number of days, he'll reduce the errors created to less than half a second per day or so.
Variomatic said:
Good candidate for tweaking then. It'll help wherever he goes if he can get a good average for its gain over a week or so of "normal" wear. That can be used to allow for his wear pattern when adjusting.
Bear in mind that internet time (which a lot of people rely on for testing) isn't completely accurate. If you take 2 computers, side by side and on the same network, and synch them at the same time to the same internet time server you'll find there can be 1 or 2 seconds difference. A pc will also drift by as much as a couple of seconds a day in between automatic synchs depending on its internal clock accuracy.
By checking over a week (or more) and dividing by the number of days, he'll reduce the errors created to less than half a second per day or so.
Agreed.Bear in mind that internet time (which a lot of people rely on for testing) isn't completely accurate. If you take 2 computers, side by side and on the same network, and synch them at the same time to the same internet time server you'll find there can be 1 or 2 seconds difference. A pc will also drift by as much as a couple of seconds a day in between automatic synchs depending on its internal clock accuracy.
By checking over a week (or more) and dividing by the number of days, he'll reduce the errors created to less than half a second per day or so.
Now do you know where he can get it regulated in Nottingham or not, because he won't go to bloody Wales.
Apologies for hijacking the thread, but its related
My Sub (bought new in January this year) has always run slow, but within the COSC specs. I've set it every Monday since the end of August and logged the results. It has lost a combined time of 243 seconds, which is 3.16 seconds a day. Its been off my wrist for one day since 31/08. The worst its ever been is 4 seconds a day and the best is 2.7 seconds a day.
Back on topic - is this a candidate for regulation or should I just live with it? (it doesn't really bother me too much, but it would be nice if it was a little more accurate)
My Sub (bought new in January this year) has always run slow, but within the COSC specs. I've set it every Monday since the end of August and logged the results. It has lost a combined time of 243 seconds, which is 3.16 seconds a day. Its been off my wrist for one day since 31/08. The worst its ever been is 4 seconds a day and the best is 2.7 seconds a day.
Back on topic - is this a candidate for regulation or should I just live with it? (it doesn't really bother me too much, but it would be nice if it was a little more accurate)
Nigel_O said:
My Sub (bought new in January this year) has always run slow, but within the COSC specs. I've set it every Monday since the end of August and logged the results. It has lost a combined time of 243 seconds, which is 3.16 seconds a day. Its been off my wrist for one day since 31/08. The worst its ever been is 4 seconds a day and the best is 2.7 seconds a day.
I've got one like that, it drives me nuts. Yours is new and consistent so it should be possible to have it regulated.In my experience, Rolexes live up to their reputation of not being very accurate. Even one that went back to Rolex four times could only eventually manage accuracy within 3-4 seconds per day. I've had much cheaper automatic watches, including those that made no claims about being accurate, that have been much more accurate than Rolex.
My experience is that they will tend to gain or lose a chunk after being re-started, then they will settle down to a steady loss or gain per day. I am sure Variomatic can explain why.
desolate said:
How does one regulate to within a second or so?
I don't think I would even notice 3 or 4 seconds a day - thats three weeks to lose a minute.
Don't know, I'm not technical, but I know that some manufacturers manage it.I don't think I would even notice 3 or 4 seconds a day - thats three weeks to lose a minute.
I had a Tag Heuer chronometer in the 90s that was returned after regulation gaining one second per week. I had a Cartier Tank Francaise (I'm not gay) that gained no more than a couple of seconds a day.
Rolex on the other hand...
GC8 said:
Happenstance.
I bought a TAG Heuer 4000 automatic in 1991 and it was serviced by Duval in 1992 under warranty. For the next year it stayed within a couple of seconds between the clocks changing!
My daily movement, rest time and resting position were obviously ideal.
It would have been 1992 that my Tag was regulated.I bought a TAG Heuer 4000 automatic in 1991 and it was serviced by Duval in 1992 under warranty. For the next year it stayed within a couple of seconds between the clocks changing!
My daily movement, rest time and resting position were obviously ideal.
I understand that Duval isn't so good these days. Or were they rubbish back then too but they were capable of regulating a watch properly?
13m said:
My FIL needs his Rolex regulating. He has tried Tarrat in Leicester but they are saying it needs to go back to Rolex.
Does anyone know where in or around Nottingham can be trusted to do the adjustment?
Simple answer, no there isn't Does anyone know where in or around Nottingham can be trusted to do the adjustment?
Depending on age it may still be under warranty, hence the need to go back to Rolex
bobbybee said:
13m said:
My FIL needs his Rolex regulating. He has tried Tarrat in Leicester but they are saying it needs to go back to Rolex.
Does anyone know where in or around Nottingham can be trusted to do the adjustment?
Simple answer, no there isn't Does anyone know where in or around Nottingham can be trusted to do the adjustment?
Depending on age it may still be under warranty, hence the need to go back to Rolex
The Leicester place, Tarrats, would have it that they haven't got anyone either.
13m said:
Not under warranty.
The Leicester place, Tarrats, would have it that they haven't got anyone either.
Shame about Tarrats, when it used to be George Tarratt's they used to have a Rolex accredited watch maker on site.The Leicester place, Tarrats, would have it that they haven't got anyone either.
But if the watch is from the Sub range or a Daytona, an AD or accredited watchmaker have to send them back to Rolex
Gassing Station | Watches | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff