Automatic Watch Winding

[trando]

I have 2 automatic watches - a 2012 Rolex GMT 2 and a new IWC Portofino which I have recently bought. I wear the IWC occasionally, primarily when I'm wearing a suit, as the Rolex is a bit bulky under a shirt sleeve. My question is this: does it do any damage to either watch to have to regularly wind them up by hand?? Inevitably when I change watches, the other one has stopped...

I know I can buy a watchwinder but I am not a great fan of them, but if I am damaging either watch I will do so.

Advice please.......

[RobinBanks]

No, just wind them. No damage at all - they're designed for it. It's the best thing to do when they've stopped.

As long as you mean that you're winding them by the crown rather than shaking them vigorously to get them to start.

[PJ S]

As above, 12 or so turns, then set time and date, and then wear it. It should wind up fully over the next few hours, depending on how active you are, etc.
It's suggested, by certain watch repairers, that ETA movements are not renowned for having a robust winding system via the crown, and I can vouch for that somewhat, by saying in comparison to Seikos and Soprod, the crown stem certainly does feel noticeably flimsier – so I wouldn't hand-wind fully, regularly.

[gvij]

Ive had bond sea master chronograph have its crown stem shear off on hand winding. I would wind it one or two turns only and wear it. It will self wind fully over the day.

[trando]

Thanks all. I am using the crown (fully extended with a stopped second hand) to change the date more than i am winding to be honest. Unless I'm missing something on both watches and you can change the date without having to wind the hands?

[Vvroom]

trando said:

Thanks all. I am using the crown (fully extended with a stopped second hand) to change the date more than i am winding to be honest. Unless I'm missing something on both watches and you can change the date without having to wind the hands?

Yes. On the GMT simply pull the crown to the first position to change the date. It's quickset.

I've always shied away from winders but I have a JLC Master Calendar and it's a pain to have to set the date when I've not worn it for a while.

[Vvroom]

trando said:

Thanks all. I am using the crown (fully extended with a stopped second hand) to change the date more than i am winding to be honest. Unless I'm missing something on both watches and you can change the date without having to wind the hands?

Yes. On the GMT simply pull the crown to the first position to change the date. It's quickset.

I've always shied away from winders but I have a JLC Master Calendar and it's a pain to have to set the date when I've not worn it for a while.

[unrepentant]

Why don't you like winders? I have one of these.

http://www.ebay.com/itm/DUAL-DOUBLE-QUAD-WALNUT-AU...

Looks OK, cost bugger all and keeps my Breitling wound and running when I'm not wearing it. This one takes 2 watches, some take up to 4.

[fausTVR]

unrepentant said:

Why don't you like winders? I have one of these.

http://www.ebay.com/itm/DUAL-DOUBLE-QUAD-WALNUT-AU...

Looks OK, cost bugger all and keeps my Breitling wound and running when I'm not wearing it. This one takes 2 watches, some take up to 4.

I don't have any axe to grind, but it seems a poor trade off to have shortened service intervals just to avoid occasional resetting. I must be missing something.

Is it for when a watch is only used a few days a week and you want to keep it alive for the remainder? This I could understand.

I have two decent watches, but my idea of rotation is about two seasons apiece and then swap.

Edited by fausTVR on Saturday 11th April 15:48

[unrepentant]

fausTVR said:

I don't have any axe to grind, but it seems a poor trade off to have shortened service intervals just to avoid occasional resetting. I must be missing something.

I don't understand? Shortened service intervals?

[ExplorerII]

Increased wear and tear on the movement and oils for no reason other than not having to manually reset the time and date each time. I let mine run down for the same exact reason.

[bobbybee]

The old wear and tear myth.
The difference is nominal for a 'machine' that's designed to run 24/7.
A winder mimics daily wear, winding up and allowing to wind down, just as it would in normal use. Therefore the service intervals are not shortened at all, they are the same.

[fausTVR]

bobbybee said:

The old wear and tear myth.
The difference is nominal for a 'machine' that's designed to run 24/7.
A winder mimics daily wear, winding up and allowing to wind down, just as it would in normal use. Therefore the service intervals are not shortened at all, they are the same.

I cannot see your argument here. To use a cluncky analagy, if a car engine is kept running after a journey until it is needed again there will be more wear than if not. They are both machines designed to run 24/7 as you say and can do so, but at a cost of more frequent servicing.

[bobbybee]

fausTVR said:

bobbybee said:

The old wear and tear myth.
The difference is nominal for a 'machine' that's designed to run 24/7.
A winder mimics daily wear, winding up and allowing to wind down, just as it would in normal use. Therefore the service intervals are not shortened at all, they are the same.

I cannot see your argument here. To use a cluncky analagy, if a car engine is kept running after a journey until it is needed again there will be more wear than if not. They are both machines designed to run 24/7 as you say and can do so, but at a cost of more frequent servicing.

The car engine analogy is a terrible one as it is not designed to run 24/7, an auto watch is.
A car is serviced every 12 months or a preset mileage, so it will be serviced dependant on use. A watch is serviced at for example every 5 years, worn regularly or not. So wearing a watch all the time, or occasionally but kept on a winder, or using it sparingly the service interval is the same.

[checkmate91]

fausTVR said:

I cannot see your argument here. To use a cluncky analagy, if a car engine is kept running after a journey until it is needed again there will be more wear than if not. They are both machines designed to run 24/7 as you say and can do so, but at a cost of more frequent servicing.

Cold starts kill car engines, number of start/heat cycles and all that. For my seikos a couple of shakes to get some life into the mainspring is not the same as a cold start, oil circ and heat up in a car engine, all IMHO.

[fausTVR]

bobbybee said:

fausTVR said:

bobbybee said:

The old wear and tear myth.
The difference is nominal for a 'machine' that's designed to run 24/7.
A winder mimics daily wear, winding up and allowing to wind down, just as it would in normal use. Therefore the service intervals are not shortened at all, they are the same.

I cannot see your argument here. To use a cluncky analagy, if a car engine is kept running after a journey until it is needed again there will be more wear than if not. They are both machines designed to run 24/7 as you say and can do so, but at a cost of more frequent servicing.

The car engine analogy is a terrible one as it is not designed to run 24/7, an auto watch is.
A car is serviced every 12 months or a preset mileage, so it will be serviced dependant on use. A watch is serviced at for example every 5 years, worn regularly or not. So wearing a watch all the time, or occasionally but kept on a winder, or using it sparingly the service interval is the same.

I did say clunky. My point being how can a stopped watch suffer the same wear as a running one? After a finite amount of running time the watch will be ready for a service, to keep the watch alive during periods of disuse brings that finite point needlessly closer. Obviously there is a balance to be struck as resetting and manual winding take their toll wear wise also, in addition to the hassle.

BTW a car is designed to be able to run 24/7, although it is not expected to be doing so.

[sad61t]

checkmate91 said:

Cold starts kill car engines, number of start/heat cycles and all that. For my seikos a couple of shakes to get some life into the mainspring is not the same as a cold start, oil circ and heat up in a car engine, all IMHO.

The cold start equivalent would be manually winding on the various settings. In normal running the gears have a fairly constant movement and force applied; when adjusting you are moving the parts far faster than normal.

But, for me, the choice of a watch-winder would not be based on wear and tear (as people have said the evidence is low, and a well designed movement should be capable of regular manual adjustments or accidentally changing within the watch's self-change period) but convenience. For an auto watch with time, no I'd not bother; add day/date and it becomes a consideration as it's not something I'd want to do bleary-eyed first thing in the morning; any additional complications I would 100% get a watch-winder.

[StefanVXR8]

Guys, I've used winders for years and never had any issues, that's a mixture of Breitlings, other Swiss movements and cheaper stuff like Seiko. I have 8 autos sat on winders now, and they are cheap winders too!

They are really useful if like me you tend to wear a different watch each day, and if like the Breitling Navitimer Olympus that has a semi perpetual calendar with multiple complications that can be a right pain the arse to set!

Stef

[bobbybee]

fausTVR said:

I did say clunky. My point being how can a stopped watch suffer the same wear as a running one? After a finite amount of running time the watch will be ready for a service, to keep the watch alive during periods of disuse brings that finite point needlessly closer. Obviously there is a balance to be struck as resetting and manual winding take their toll wear wise also, in addition to the hassle.

BTW a car is designed to be able to run 24/7, although it is not expected to be doing so.

Yes you did say clunky, and you're right it was awful.
A watch mechanism is designed to run 24/7 and expected to, on or off the wrist it is still running as it's telling the time.
This is what I'm saying and you keep missing the point.
Manufacturer recommends 5 year service intervals.
Wear it all the time = 5 years
Wear it occasionally, but use a winder = 5 years
Wear occasionally = 5 years.
None of the above scenarios reduce the service period,
You may extend the period of servicing if worn less often, but then you run the risk of seals deteriorating, oils drying up (although with modern synthetics this is a none issue)
Understand me now?

[unrepentant]

fausTVR said:

I did say clunky. My point being how can a stopped watch suffer the same wear as a running one? After a finite amount of running time the watch will be ready for a service, to keep the watch alive during periods of disuse brings that finite point needlessly closer. Obviously there is a balance to be struck as resetting and manual winding take their toll wear wise also, in addition to the hassle.

BTW a car is designed to be able to run 24/7, although it is not expected to be doing so.

That's a bad analogy. We all know that the worst thing you can do with a high performance car is not drive it. If your car has a 1 year or 10,000 mile service interval you get it serviced each year whether you have done the 10,000 miles or not.