Submariner accuracy

[Nigel_O]

having spent the last twenty-plus years with either a Seiko 7T32, or more lately, a Skagen on my wrist, I've been used to ultra-accuracy.

thanks to a lot of help and encouragement from fellow PH'ers, I've now assisted Mr D Hackett's cashflow, in return for a brand new no-date Submariner.

I set it last Monday and checked it again today (8 days) and found that it has lost just under 20 seconds. I never expected the few seconds a YEAR accuracy I got with the Seiko and TBH, I'm really not that bothered about having to reset it every couple of weeks, but I was just wondering what the acceptable range of accuracy is for a new Sub - pretty sure I've read a figure of +/- 7 seconds a day?

Any thoughts?

[z4RRSchris99]

mine loses a few seconds a day, not 7 but I wouldn't be surprised if that was in tolerance as it gets older

as a new watch I would have a word with the dealer

[Riff Raff]

-4to +6 per day. Most of the recent Rolex I've had (with the Parachrom hairspring) are within a second or two a day it has to be said, but -20 seconds over 8 days wouldn't worry me overmuch.

Edited by Riff Raff on Tuesday 27th January 14:27

[Stu R]

if memory serves, which it often doesn't, COSC certification requires them to fall with a -4 seconds and +6 seconds per day. I've yet to care enough to check, but usually find myself adjusting every couple of weeks.

[Eleven]

Nigel_O said:

having spent the last twenty-plus years with either a Seiko 7T32, or more lately, a Skagen on my wrist, I've been used to ultra-accuracy.

thanks to a lot of help and encouragement from fellow PH'ers, I've now assisted Mr D Hackett's cashflow, in return for a brand new no-date Submariner.

I set it last Monday and checked it again today (8 days) and found that it has lost just under 20 seconds. I never expected the few seconds a YEAR accuracy I got with the Seiko and TBH, I'm really not that bothered about having to reset it every couple of weeks, but I was just wondering what the acceptable range of accuracy is for a new Sub - pretty sure I've read a figure of +/- 7 seconds a day?

Any thoughts?

Your watch is COSC certified, this means that it should be accurate to between -4/+6 per day taken as an average. It's more complicated than that, but that's the basics situation. If you want to be properly anal about it see here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/COSC

Your watch is losing 2.5 seconds per day on average, so is performing within tolerances.

Personally, I prefer a watch to gain rather than lose. Two reasons for this - there is less chance of being late! 2. If a watch is fast you only need to stop it for the required number of seconds and then re-start it. Correcting a slow watch is more of a faff.

I'd wait for a few months and see how it's performing then. If it's still slow and it bugs you, get it regulated. I'm not sure what Rolex's policy is when the watch is within tolerances, but it shouldn't cost a lot even if you need to pay for it.

You may find, however, that in a few months it is more accurate.

By the way, make sure it's fully wound. Yes, it's automatic, but it may still not be fully wound. Wind it manually and see if performance improves.

[PJ S]

If you were concerned with accuracy, you'd have bought a Grand Seiko Spring Drive, but since you haven't, we'll deal with what you do have.

-2.5 secs/day is decent, especially if it's consistent – so what you should do is set the watch via your browser opened to time.is
Check it each day at the same time, and if the rate is consistently out by the same amount, then you're fine – although I was under the impression a serviced Rolex is regulated to be + rather than -.
If yours is varying in drift (isochronism) then it may need looked at, and even if it doesn't, you can still have someone regulate it so that it does run slightly fast.

Edited by PJ S on Tuesday 27th January 14:52

[yeti]

Eleven said:

Personally, I prefer a watch to gain rather than lose. Two reasons for this - there is less chance of being late! 2. If a watch is fast you only need to stop it for the required number of seconds and then re-start it. Correcting a slow watch is more of a faff.

So do Rolex. They will regulate this if you want them to even though it's well within COSC specs anyway. Better to gain 20 secs in 8 days than lose.

The flip side is of course - does it matter? (maybe you require precision for your job in which case you should have bought an atomic time controlled quartz). I never precisely time any of my watches, ever.

[Eleven]

yeti said:

Eleven said:

Personally, I prefer a watch to gain rather than lose. Two reasons for this - there is less chance of being late! 2. If a watch is fast you only need to stop it for the required number of seconds and then re-start it. Correcting a slow watch is more of a faff.

So do Rolex. They will regulate this if you want them to even though it's well within COSC specs anyway. Better to gain 20 secs in 8 days than lose.

The flip side is of course - does it matter? (maybe you require precision for your job in which case you should have bought an atomic time controlled quartz). I never precisely time any of my watches, ever.

But then a casual observation is that you have a lot of watches and wear a different one daily. I can understand why someone who has one "good" watch, worn daily, wants it to perform well.

[Nigel_O]

Thanks all

I've wound it manually a couple of times, just to be sure, but as I've only had it a fortnight, that's only once a week - I'll try winding it a little more often. I've just reset it to within about 1/4 second of the atomic clock and wound it by hand (is there a "stop" on the winding mechanism? Didn't want to over-do it)

I have a fairly sedentary office job, so it doesn't get a huge amount of movement, although it hasn't been off my wrist for more than a few minutes in the last fortnight

Having said that, I'm really not THAT precious about the accuracy - very occasionally, I'll wear my birth-year gold Smiths, which is +/- 60 seconds a day, depending on its mood. This is my first foray into a proper automatic movement, it would just have been nice to get it to within a second a day.

[Miguel Alvarez]

My sub was pretty good. It kept to a couple of seconds a day. I tended to find the only time I noticed a difference was if I didn't wear it for a day then put it on (still running of course) and even then it was minimal. If it was constantly being worn it was pretty much spot on.

My Exp 2 was a tad fast but within tolerances from memory.

[Riff Raff]

Nigel_O said:

Thanks all

I've wound it manually a couple of times, just to be sure, but as I've only had it a fortnight, that's only once a week - I'll try winding it a little more often. I've just reset it to within about 1/4 second of the atomic clock and wound it by hand (is there a "stop" on the winding mechanism? Didn't want to over-do it)

I have a fairly sedentary office job, so it doesn't get a huge amount of movement, although it hasn't been off my wrist for more than a few minutes in the last fortnight

Having said that, I'm really not THAT precious about the accuracy - very occasionally, I'll wear my birth-year gold Smiths, which is +/- 60 seconds a day, depending on its mood. This is my first foray into a proper automatic movement, it would just have been nice to get it to within a second a day.

You can't overwind an automatic. It has in effect a clutch that slips when it's fully wound. If it didn't it would break if you wore it all the time

What you could try is leaving the watch in different positions overnight. Face up, crown down etc. that will affect the timing a bit. See which works best for your watch.

[andy tims]

Modern Rolex should be within COSC tolerances. If not it may just need regulating.

[Variomatic]

As others have said, for average rate it's within COSC spec so isn't technically a fault but, at what you pay for them, I'd be really very upset if they weren't willing to tweak it into a gain.

Not least because their regulating system is supposedly "gauged" - a set angle of turn on the screws makes a set difference in seconds per day rather than the more normal shoving a regulator back and forward by trial and error! If it's consistent from day to day then a single adjustment should get it very close.

Within a second a day is probably a little much to hope for though - you might be lucky, but that really is exceptional performance for any mechanical watch!

Finally, keeping it fully wound will if anything make it lose a little more. The natural isochronal error in a balance wheel means that a watch will tend to run faster when it's low on power and slower when fully wound. That may seem counter-intuitive, but it's how it is

[Shezbo]

Let's just step back from this for a moment.

It is acceptable for a watch costing (not sure of the price of the Rolex Sub £5k?) to lose that amount of time, yet a £50+ watch will not lose anytime over a year?

Put this into the motoring context (we are on Pistonheads) a £50K car is totally unreliable yet a £9k car is faultless...it would not work.

Is it therefore worth spending the money on something that is (just vanity/look nice)not fit for purpose.

BTW - I am in the market for a Rolex/Omega - but I could NOT but something that loses that amount of time, accuracy of time must surely be a pre-request of a quality time piece??

[Eleven]

Shezbo said:

Put this into the motoring context (we are on Pistonheads) a £50K car is totally unreliable yet a £9k car is faultless...it would not work.

We run a Range Rovers and either a Mini or Fiesta as a pool car. Trust me, price is no indicator of faultlessness.

[Nigel_O]

I run an Alfa GT diesel as my daily hack and a Fiat Coupe 20VT as my weekend toy - I am very used to unreliability....

I'm happy to accept that a £5k Sub will never be as accurate as my £60 Seiko - I didn't buy the Sub for its accuracy

I simply wanted to know if my circa 2 seconds a day was normal - based on Variomatic's comments above, I'd say I'm fairly content with the timekeeping, although I may speak with my local AD to see if they will adjust

Bit miffed at putting the first scratches in the clasp though....

[Shezbo]

I think you have missed my point - the Rolex is supposed to be better?

If it's basic's function is to tell time (accurately) what is the point of having it....if it cannot do that?

Like I say I am in the market for a "nice" watch - it has horrified me that a Rolex will need adjusting each week.....that is very very poor in my book.

[sad61t]

Better, for jewellery that tells the time. But not as an accurate timepiece compared to a quartz movement (as in the Seiko 7T32). A temperature compensated quartz in a Grand Seiko is the high end of quartz timepieces, and Rolex Submariner is the entry level Swiss jewellery that happens to tell the time.

This anachronism is what triggered the crisis in the Swiss watch industry back in the seventies when cheap quartz movements hit the street. A mechanical movement will struggle to match a quartz movement and, if accurate timing is the sole criteria for buying a watch, a couple of quid disposable plastic on your wrist wins every time.

The Swiss' solution was to elevate their timepieces so that they appealed to other criteria - finely finished surfaces, precious metals, sublime musical repeaters. Humans are analogue, and the desire to be second perfect is a modern affection. This is what appeals when deciding to buy a mechanical watch.

[Nigel_O]

No - I got your point, but the analogy doesn't work. Its 'horses for courses' - some cheap watches will be better at keeping time that some expensive ones, just like some cheap cars will be better than some expensive ones - it all depends on your definition of 'better'

For example, my aged Alfa will return far better mpg than any Lamborghini AND I can get a washing machine in the back. My aged Fiat will corner and accelerate faster than any Range Rover (on tarmac, anyway...) I'm not about to claim that I'd have either of my cars over a Lambo or a RR, but in some ways, my ancient old bangers are 'better'

Its unreasonable to expect a purely mechanical movement to be as accurate as a decent quartz - I knew this when I bought it and wasn't bothered.

BTW - I won't be resetting the Sub every week - I don't see that 15 seconds out is enough to warrant a reset - on the current accuracy, I reckon I would reset once a month.

FWIW, the digital clock in my Alfa loses about five seconds a day - I only ever bother to reset it when its more than a couple of minutes out (usually measured against the 'pips' on Radio 2)

I'm struggling to think of anyone that with e genuine need of a deadly-accurate wrist timepiece, and I readily accept that if such a person exists, they probably won't be wearing a Rolex

[BRMMA]

Shezbo said:

I think you have missed my point - the Rolex is supposed to be better?

If it's basic's function is to tell time (accurately) what is the point of having it....if it cannot do that?

Like I say I am in the market for a "nice" watch - it has horrified me that a Rolex will need adjusting each week.....that is very very poor in my book.

I get what you're saying but to share your car analogy, my Maserati needs more fettling than my Citroen, obviously i still much prefer and can justify the cost of the Maserati, it's a similar thing with nice watches, a special watch is more than the sum of its parts and has qualities that are difficult to measure