Rolex service.
Discussion
I bought a Rolex GMT 2 from a well-known London-based watch dealer a few weeks ago, which was away at Rolex for a service when I agreed the deal. The dealer told me it would be as new when I got it.
When I received the watch it was okay. I was a little disappointed with the finish, it wasn't as good as new, but not too bad. However, from day one it was losing up to 13 seconds a day and was extremely erratic. It was way outside the correct tolerances.
I returned the watch to Rolex under warranty and it was away for about three weeks; it came back today. As the local AD carefully and ceremoniously handed me the watch wearing white Rolex branded gloves the first thing I saw was that the case back now has a number of noticeable scratches on it which it didn't have when it went away. They don't appear to have been caused by the bracelet because the scratches run at 90 degrees to it and are quite long.
It remains to be seen whether Rolex has corrected the timekeeping (though as I type it is running very fast). However it is obvious that they didn't test the watch properly when it was serviced, if they had it would not have been sent out the way it was. It is also clear that they don't treat customers' watches with sufficient care, if they did my watch would not have been returned scratched.
I have to say that this experience has really annoyed me. On Monday I am going to try to get hold of the top bod at Rolex UK to see if he/she can rectify the situation without inconveniencing me further.
Edited to remove dealer's name. However if the watch has to go back again I will give him the opportunity to also lean on Rolex because he retailed the watch and he is being let down by Rolex as much as me.
When I received the watch it was okay. I was a little disappointed with the finish, it wasn't as good as new, but not too bad. However, from day one it was losing up to 13 seconds a day and was extremely erratic. It was way outside the correct tolerances.
I returned the watch to Rolex under warranty and it was away for about three weeks; it came back today. As the local AD carefully and ceremoniously handed me the watch wearing white Rolex branded gloves the first thing I saw was that the case back now has a number of noticeable scratches on it which it didn't have when it went away. They don't appear to have been caused by the bracelet because the scratches run at 90 degrees to it and are quite long.
It remains to be seen whether Rolex has corrected the timekeeping (though as I type it is running very fast). However it is obvious that they didn't test the watch properly when it was serviced, if they had it would not have been sent out the way it was. It is also clear that they don't treat customers' watches with sufficient care, if they did my watch would not have been returned scratched.
I have to say that this experience has really annoyed me. On Monday I am going to try to get hold of the top bod at Rolex UK to see if he/she can rectify the situation without inconveniencing me further.
Edited to remove dealer's name. However if the watch has to go back again I will give him the opportunity to also lean on Rolex because he retailed the watch and he is being let down by Rolex as much as me.
Edited by Eleven on Sunday 1st June 07:39
ecain63 said:
You could have not used **dealer's name** name in this thread. Is it his fault or Rolex? Im assuming Rolex are to blame for your issue so it might be seen ad kind of you to edit the post.
Agreed. Whilst I have sensed a bit of over-reliance upon Rolex to sort out what is essentially his problem I need not have mentioned names and have therefore edited my post. Perhaps you should now modify yours!yeti said:
ExplorerII said:
So, the GMT returns from a sevice from the RSC and is running way outside COSC specs? That is incredible for starters. BUT, even worse, is that it is returned to the RSC only for it to come back scratched, and still running fast?
None of this makes sense TBH. They service tens of thousands of watches per year with no complaints and a are lauded far and wide for their customer service and quality of their work, and they one they mess up happens to be this guy's? Twice?Hmm. I'm going into town to see this 'well known London dealer' next week, I'll have a chat.
Because I accept that he is not directly responsible for the problems I am having I have tried as far as possible to deal with things myself. Not that I am under any obligation to do that obviously.
And yes, Rolex has messed up twice. Badly. Rolex has a reputation as being a quality brand but the experience on this occasion has been far, far less than quality and has undermined somewhat my opinion of them to be honest.
Even down to small details like the watch arrived back set up incorrectly. I received it less than 24 hours after it left Rolex, it was still running and the minutes / seconds were about right but GMT was set up incorrectly and the time was 12 hours adrift relative to the date. Whilst in many circumstances a watch will need to be reset by the time that it is reunited with it's owner you'd think they'd bother to send it out set up correctly.
Here's a copy of my receipt from yesterday.
and here's a picture of the case back.
Now I accept of course that eventually my watch will end up looking like that. However I've only owned it a few weeks and during much of that time I kept the plastics on it. The remainder of the time it was looked after properly. When it went back to Rolex for the second time it certainly wasn't like that, as can be verified by the AD who always inspects closely and photographs watches before they go off. I certainly don't expect to receive it back like that!
As I type the watch is 5 seconds fast after 20.5 hours so it may just scrape into COSC tolerances, it may not, but it cannot be said that it is stunningly accurate right now even if it does.
geezerbutler said:
yeti said:
None of this makes sense TBH. They service tens of thousands of watches per year with no complaints and a are lauded far and wide for their customer service and quality of their work, and they one they mess up happens to be this guy's? Twice?
Hmm. I'm going into town to see this 'well known London dealer' next week, I'll have a chat.
Agree with yeti here - sounds a bit off. Are you sure it's actually been to Rolex or just to their own watchmaker?Hmm. I'm going into town to see this 'well known London dealer' next week, I'll have a chat.
Either way, I'd agree with ExplorerII above - refund and shop elsewhere. There's no shortage of these watches out there.
I would have to say though that whilst the Rolex customer service chaps are extremely courteous and charming they seem to be largely unable to dictate how a watch is treated whilst at the RSC.
Perhaps surprisingly I don't want a refund right now. However, I also don't really want to go to the immense hassle of sending it back to Rolex for it to chug through their system again. Which is why I plan to get hold of, if I can, the senior bod at RSC West Malling to see if I can encourage him to do the right thing and get this situation resolved super fast.
PJ S said:
Eleven – wouldn't bother with trying to get hold of someone who'll generally not want to be got hold of, if you know what I mean.
Your contract begins and ends with the AD – personally I'd strongly urge you to ask for a replacement, under the Sale of Goods Act.
Presumably you paid with your credit card, which if the case, and the AD giving you any hassle over exchanging it after quoting SOGA to them, then you are within your rights to invoke Section 75 of the Consumer Credit Act, which means your card provider is jointly liable.
You can be sure they will issue a refund so you're not out of pocket.
Goldsmiths is probably THE biggest Rolex account, so I suspect they'll not raise a fuss over you wanting shot of this one, and will take up that with Rolex, after replacing it with a new one.
The problem being I didn't buy it from Goldsmiths, they are merely the conduit for returning the watch to Rolex. I couldn't insure the watch to return it directly, I looked at sending it back to the supplying dealer but he couldn't insure incoming items.Your contract begins and ends with the AD – personally I'd strongly urge you to ask for a replacement, under the Sale of Goods Act.
Presumably you paid with your credit card, which if the case, and the AD giving you any hassle over exchanging it after quoting SOGA to them, then you are within your rights to invoke Section 75 of the Consumer Credit Act, which means your card provider is jointly liable.
You can be sure they will issue a refund so you're not out of pocket.
Goldsmiths is probably THE biggest Rolex account, so I suspect they'll not raise a fuss over you wanting shot of this one, and will take up that with Rolex, after replacing it with a new one.
Also, these watches are not available new anymore so it's not straightforward getting hold of another.
PJ S said:
Eleven said:
The problem being I didn't buy it from Goldsmiths, they are merely the conduit for returning the watch to Rolex. I couldn't insure the watch to return it directly, I looked at sending it back to the supplying dealer but he couldn't insure incoming items.
Also, these watches are not available new anymore so it's not straightforward getting hold of another.
Ah, I see.Also, these watches are not available new anymore so it's not straightforward getting hold of another.
Since when is the GMT Master II not available new any more?
Still showing on the Rolex website, and I've not read any mention of having been phased out or ceased production – since that'd leave them without a GMT to offer.
A bit of an update on this.
The watch came back last week, Rolex had repaired the damage done last time it was sent to them and said it was now running within COSC at +2 per day.
It was sent back running (I picked it up the day after they sent it) but with the wrong time on it again, so I reset it. The first day it kept spot on time, no gain at all. Since then it has consistently lost time, up to 8 seconds per day.
I contacted Rolex again and they asked me to run it for a couple of weeks to let it bed in. No problem. However, yesterday I decided to reset the watch because it was nearing 40 seconds slow. Since then it has gained time! Not hugely, but now it's a second fast.
When all is said and done if the watch is within COSC I'm happy, though I would prefer it gains time. But what intrigues me is why stopping the watch and restarting it has made it go from a loss to a gain. Anyone technical care to venture an answer?
The watch came back last week, Rolex had repaired the damage done last time it was sent to them and said it was now running within COSC at +2 per day.
It was sent back running (I picked it up the day after they sent it) but with the wrong time on it again, so I reset it. The first day it kept spot on time, no gain at all. Since then it has consistently lost time, up to 8 seconds per day.
I contacted Rolex again and they asked me to run it for a couple of weeks to let it bed in. No problem. However, yesterday I decided to reset the watch because it was nearing 40 seconds slow. Since then it has gained time! Not hugely, but now it's a second fast.
When all is said and done if the watch is within COSC I'm happy, though I would prefer it gains time. But what intrigues me is why stopping the watch and restarting it has made it go from a loss to a gain. Anyone technical care to venture an answer?
ExplorerII said:
Could you give the watch a full 30 turns on the crown, and ensure that the watch that you are benchmarking it against is accurate to the second. DO NOT wear it for 24 hours and report back your findings please?
Happy to do that, probably after the weekend.I don't benchmark one watch against the other in that sense, always against timeanddate.com. But I am running two other chronometers at the same time to see how they perform as a "benchmark".
PJ S said:
tickious said:
Many variables affect timekeeping. For example temperature. Heat makes makes the hairspring longer and so the watch will run slower, cold the opposite. And positional errors, so besides what you get upto whilst wearing it, the position you leave it in at night can make a difference.
Whilst accurate, it's also slightly misleading – a COSC certified movement is tested in 5 positions and 3 temperatures, over 15 days, so as to reduce variances such as you describe.If the OP's watch is not performing within -4 to +6 secs/day, then it needs regulated or something isn't working 100%, and is causing the wayward timekeeping.
I'd suggest the OP speaks with Duncan @ Genesis Watchmaking – he may be able to sort it, and bill Rolex – rather than the OP having to deal only with Rolex directly for a 3rd time.
I've sent watches off to other manufacturers in the past for service or regulation and had no problems at all in terms of condition or performance. Though these have tended to be watches with modified ETA movements - are they inherently easier to get right perhaps?
Variomatic said:
The simple answer is lot of things - some related to the "stopping and starting" and some coincidental. Never rule out coincidence!
Setting the time will affect the balance amplitude, and it may not stabilise again for quite a while. If the watch has a bad isochronal error (variation of timekeeping wih amplitude) then that can cause a few seconds gain or loss in a matter of an hour or so after setting, which then settles back to its "normal" rate. If you're checking after a day then that initial gain or loss appears to be part of its normal rate. It'd be unusual for that to make an 8 sec / day difference (it would have to have gained about 8 seconds after setting) but not impossible.
If the watch has a bad positional error then it's usually hopeless to try and work out its rate in use because it will vary (possibly by a lot) depending on what you're doing that day. It might keep great time through the week while you're going to the office doing the same-old-same-old, gain badly on a Saturday when you're on your yacht, then loose time in church on Sunday. That's why COSC testing involves steady positions for fixed lengths of time. If this is what's affecting yours then it'd be coincidence that it varied after you set the time, but it's still a fault for a newly serviced chronometer.
Web based GMT resources are also not 100% reliable thanks to latency - you're actually better off using a good local quartz clock or watch that you know the timekeeping of. Choose your "standard" piece and set it against a web source. Then check it after a month or so and work out its daily rate. That way any internet related inaccuracies are averaged out over a month and become unimportant for any practical matters. Or invest in a cheap r/c digital alarm clock - less than a tenner if you hunt and they'll be within a second at all times.
If you want to get some idea of where the problem may lie you can test reasonably accurately yourself:
Wind it fully and set the time. Leave it sitting dial up and undisturbed. Check it after 4 hours and note any difference in sec / day. Check it again after 12 hours, and again after 24. Compare the difference between the "top", "middle" and "bottom" parts of the wind. You should find that the first two are pretty similar but the last might tail off a bit in either direction.
If there's a big difference (more than a couple of seconds a day) between the "top" and "middle" then it's liable to be noticeable in use - you'll reach the middle of the power range after a couple of hours of watching TV, sitting at a desk, or overnight. In daily use you'll probably never reach the low power range but it's useful to have an idea of how it affects your particular watch.
Now wind it fully again and leave it on its side "crown down". Don't reset it for this - just remember to allow for the error from the first day Take a 24 hour reading and compare it with the full 24 hour reading from the first day. Any more than about 6 - 8 sec / day difference between these two suggests a positional error that's on the high side for a chronometer.
A full COSC test basically follows that pattern but with rates averaged over several days in each position, and with carefully controlled temperatures. They also don't take partial daily readings because isochronal errors will simply cause a fail (they increase positional errors because the balance amplitude is naturally different in each position) and the COSC test isn't designed to diagnose why it fails.
eta: This is a lot easier with a timing machine btw, becase you can take spot readings of daily rate at various levels of wind and position instead of waiting for hours and doing the sums
I know a few c ollectors who have no intention at all of opening their watches but have bought one of the Chinese timegrapher units off ebay and now wouldn't live without it!
Thanks for a thorough reply Variomatic. I will try what you suggest but am going to let it run on my wrist for a few days. It seems to have settled down to a loss of 1-3 seconds per day. I will see if it settles still further.Setting the time will affect the balance amplitude, and it may not stabilise again for quite a while. If the watch has a bad isochronal error (variation of timekeeping wih amplitude) then that can cause a few seconds gain or loss in a matter of an hour or so after setting, which then settles back to its "normal" rate. If you're checking after a day then that initial gain or loss appears to be part of its normal rate. It'd be unusual for that to make an 8 sec / day difference (it would have to have gained about 8 seconds after setting) but not impossible.
If the watch has a bad positional error then it's usually hopeless to try and work out its rate in use because it will vary (possibly by a lot) depending on what you're doing that day. It might keep great time through the week while you're going to the office doing the same-old-same-old, gain badly on a Saturday when you're on your yacht, then loose time in church on Sunday. That's why COSC testing involves steady positions for fixed lengths of time. If this is what's affecting yours then it'd be coincidence that it varied after you set the time, but it's still a fault for a newly serviced chronometer.
Web based GMT resources are also not 100% reliable thanks to latency - you're actually better off using a good local quartz clock or watch that you know the timekeeping of. Choose your "standard" piece and set it against a web source. Then check it after a month or so and work out its daily rate. That way any internet related inaccuracies are averaged out over a month and become unimportant for any practical matters. Or invest in a cheap r/c digital alarm clock - less than a tenner if you hunt and they'll be within a second at all times.
If you want to get some idea of where the problem may lie you can test reasonably accurately yourself:
Wind it fully and set the time. Leave it sitting dial up and undisturbed. Check it after 4 hours and note any difference in sec / day. Check it again after 12 hours, and again after 24. Compare the difference between the "top", "middle" and "bottom" parts of the wind. You should find that the first two are pretty similar but the last might tail off a bit in either direction.
If there's a big difference (more than a couple of seconds a day) between the "top" and "middle" then it's liable to be noticeable in use - you'll reach the middle of the power range after a couple of hours of watching TV, sitting at a desk, or overnight. In daily use you'll probably never reach the low power range but it's useful to have an idea of how it affects your particular watch.
Now wind it fully again and leave it on its side "crown down". Don't reset it for this - just remember to allow for the error from the first day Take a 24 hour reading and compare it with the full 24 hour reading from the first day. Any more than about 6 - 8 sec / day difference between these two suggests a positional error that's on the high side for a chronometer.
A full COSC test basically follows that pattern but with rates averaged over several days in each position, and with carefully controlled temperatures. They also don't take partial daily readings because isochronal errors will simply cause a fail (they increase positional errors because the balance amplitude is naturally different in each position) and the COSC test isn't designed to diagnose why it fails.
eta: This is a lot easier with a timing machine btw, becase you can take spot readings of daily rate at various levels of wind and position instead of waiting for hours and doing the sums
I know a few c ollectors who have no intention at all of opening their watches but have bought one of the Chinese timegrapher units off ebay and now wouldn't live without it!Edited by Variomatic on Saturday 5th July 12:45
The loss has tended to be less than 3, with an 8 and 5 on consecutive days about a week in.
Eleven said:
Variomatic said:
The simple answer is lot of things - some related to the "stopping and starting" and some coincidental. Never rule out coincidence!
Setting the time will affect the balance amplitude, and it may not stabilise again for quite a while. If the watch has a bad isochronal error (variation of timekeeping wih amplitude) then that can cause a few seconds gain or loss in a matter of an hour or so after setting, which then settles back to its "normal" rate. If you're checking after a day then that initial gain or loss appears to be part of its normal rate. It'd be unusual for that to make an 8 sec / day difference (it would have to have gained about 8 seconds after setting) but not impossible.
If the watch has a bad positional error then it's usually hopeless to try and work out its rate in use because it will vary (possibly by a lot) depending on what you're doing that day. It might keep great time through the week while you're going to the office doing the same-old-same-old, gain badly on a Saturday when you're on your yacht, then loose time in church on Sunday. That's why COSC testing involves steady positions for fixed lengths of time. If this is what's affecting yours then it'd be coincidence that it varied after you set the time, but it's still a fault for a newly serviced chronometer.
Web based GMT resources are also not 100% reliable thanks to latency - you're actually better off using a good local quartz clock or watch that you know the timekeeping of. Choose your "standard" piece and set it against a web source. Then check it after a month or so and work out its daily rate. That way any internet related inaccuracies are averaged out over a month and become unimportant for any practical matters. Or invest in a cheap r/c digital alarm clock - less than a tenner if you hunt and they'll be within a second at all times.
If you want to get some idea of where the problem may lie you can test reasonably accurately yourself:
Wind it fully and set the time. Leave it sitting dial up and undisturbed. Check it after 4 hours and note any difference in sec / day. Check it again after 12 hours, and again after 24. Compare the difference between the "top", "middle" and "bottom" parts of the wind. You should find that the first two are pretty similar but the last might tail off a bit in either direction.
If there's a big difference (more than a couple of seconds a day) between the "top" and "middle" then it's liable to be noticeable in use - you'll reach the middle of the power range after a couple of hours of watching TV, sitting at a desk, or overnight. In daily use you'll probably never reach the low power range but it's useful to have an idea of how it affects your particular watch.
Now wind it fully again and leave it on its side "crown down". Don't reset it for this - just remember to allow for the error from the first day Take a 24 hour reading and compare it with the full 24 hour reading from the first day. Any more than about 6 - 8 sec / day difference between these two suggests a positional error that's on the high side for a chronometer.
A full COSC test basically follows that pattern but with rates averaged over several days in each position, and with carefully controlled temperatures. They also don't take partial daily readings because isochronal errors will simply cause a fail (they increase positional errors because the balance amplitude is naturally different in each position) and the COSC test isn't designed to diagnose why it fails.
eta: This is a lot easier with a timing machine btw, becase you can take spot readings of daily rate at various levels of wind and position instead of waiting for hours and doing the sums I know a few c ollectors who have no intention at all of opening their watches but have bought one of the Chinese timegrapher units off ebay and now wouldn't live without it!
Thanks for a thorough reply Variomatic. I will try what you suggest but am going to let it run on my wrist for a few days. It seems to have settled down to a loss of 1-3 seconds per day. I will see if it settles still further.Setting the time will affect the balance amplitude, and it may not stabilise again for quite a while. If the watch has a bad isochronal error (variation of timekeeping wih amplitude) then that can cause a few seconds gain or loss in a matter of an hour or so after setting, which then settles back to its "normal" rate. If you're checking after a day then that initial gain or loss appears to be part of its normal rate. It'd be unusual for that to make an 8 sec / day difference (it would have to have gained about 8 seconds after setting) but not impossible.
If the watch has a bad positional error then it's usually hopeless to try and work out its rate in use because it will vary (possibly by a lot) depending on what you're doing that day. It might keep great time through the week while you're going to the office doing the same-old-same-old, gain badly on a Saturday when you're on your yacht, then loose time in church on Sunday. That's why COSC testing involves steady positions for fixed lengths of time. If this is what's affecting yours then it'd be coincidence that it varied after you set the time, but it's still a fault for a newly serviced chronometer.
Web based GMT resources are also not 100% reliable thanks to latency - you're actually better off using a good local quartz clock or watch that you know the timekeeping of. Choose your "standard" piece and set it against a web source. Then check it after a month or so and work out its daily rate. That way any internet related inaccuracies are averaged out over a month and become unimportant for any practical matters. Or invest in a cheap r/c digital alarm clock - less than a tenner if you hunt and they'll be within a second at all times.
If you want to get some idea of where the problem may lie you can test reasonably accurately yourself:
Wind it fully and set the time. Leave it sitting dial up and undisturbed. Check it after 4 hours and note any difference in sec / day. Check it again after 12 hours, and again after 24. Compare the difference between the "top", "middle" and "bottom" parts of the wind. You should find that the first two are pretty similar but the last might tail off a bit in either direction.
If there's a big difference (more than a couple of seconds a day) between the "top" and "middle" then it's liable to be noticeable in use - you'll reach the middle of the power range after a couple of hours of watching TV, sitting at a desk, or overnight. In daily use you'll probably never reach the low power range but it's useful to have an idea of how it affects your particular watch.
Now wind it fully again and leave it on its side "crown down". Don't reset it for this - just remember to allow for the error from the first day Take a 24 hour reading and compare it with the full 24 hour reading from the first day. Any more than about 6 - 8 sec / day difference between these two suggests a positional error that's on the high side for a chronometer.
A full COSC test basically follows that pattern but with rates averaged over several days in each position, and with carefully controlled temperatures. They also don't take partial daily readings because isochronal errors will simply cause a fail (they increase positional errors because the balance amplitude is naturally different in each position) and the COSC test isn't designed to diagnose why it fails.
eta: This is a lot easier with a timing machine btw, becase you can take spot readings of daily rate at various levels of wind and position instead of waiting for hours and doing the sums
I know a few c ollectors who have no intention at all of opening their watches but have bought one of the Chinese timegrapher units off ebay and now wouldn't live without it!Edited by Variomatic on Saturday 5th July 12:45
The loss has tended to be less than 3, with an 8 and 5 on consecutive days about a week in.
Since returning from Rolex, for the third time, timekeeping has looked like this (Rolex told me it was running +2):
Date Day Loss / Gain
18/6/14 1 0
19/6/14 2 -1
20/6/14 3 -2
21/6/14 4 -3
22/6/14 5 0
23/6/14 6 -2
24/6/14 7 0
25/6/14 8 -2
26/6/14 9 -3
27/6/14 10 -3
28/6/14 11 -8
29/6/14 12 -5
30/6/15 13 -3
1/7/14 14 -1
2/7/14 15 -3
3/7/14 16 -2
Reset to zero
4/7/14 17 -1
5/7/14 18 -2
6/7/14 19 -3
7/7/14 20 -2
8/7/14 21 -1
9/7/14 22 0
10/7/14 23 -1
11/7/14 24 0
Reset to zero
12/7/14 25 0
13/7/14 26 0
14/7/14 27 0
15/7/14 28 -1
16/7/14 29 +1
17/7/14 30 +1
18/7/14 31 +2
19/7/14 32 +1
20/7/14 33 +2
21/7/14 34 +1
22/7/14 35 +1
23/7/14 36 +2
24/7/14 37 +1
25/7/14 38 +1
Reset to zero
26/7/14 39 +7
27/7/14 40 +7
Variomatic's testing:
Reset to zero to test resting dial up
After 4 hrs +3
After 12 Hrs +6 (+3 +3)
After 24 Hours + 12 (+6 +6)
Wound fully and rested crown down for 24 hrs
After 24 hours +7
So, initially the watch was running slow but within COSC, it then corrected to an acceptable gain within COSC, but stopping and re-starting the watch has made it run much too fast in both dial up and crown down positions.
Variomatic, what do you think is going on?
Jules360 said:
I am astonished that 2 seconds a day is so important that you spend 6 full weeks testing the watch. As long as i know it's "about 6:20", that's usually good enough for me.
I can only conclude that you have too much time on your hands (or towards the start of the test period, too little)
2 seconds isn't important. If the watch is 2 seconds adrift either way it's fine. But if it is inconsistent or gaining 7 seconds a day as it is currently it is a problem. Two reasons for this; Firstly the watch is a chronometer and should be running at an average of -4 to +6 seconds per day as well as being consistent (especially as it has just been serviced by the manufacturer). Secondly I bought the watch for travelling and it needs to be fairly accurate and consistent. Buying a COSC rated watch and keeping it serviced should ensure this.I can only conclude that you have too much time on your hands (or towards the start of the test period, too little)
It's a question of horses for courses really. I am wearing a quality watch today that isn't a chronometer and it hasn't been recently serviced. I don't much care if it's a minute or so a day inaccurate. Accuracy is not what it's about, so it doesn't matter.
Variomatic said:
It's a tricky one with those figures - they're not within spec, but they're not really bad enough to suggest a particular fault. Apart from the odd -8 and -5 (which could be freak values), it could be regulated back a couple of seconds to leave it just about within COSC spec overall.
The isochronism is excellent with a steady gain acrosss the whole power range but the 5 s/day positional error is a little on the high side. Could be he balance very slighly out of poise, the hairspring slightly off centre, or almost negligible wear on a balance pivot.
If the first 40 days were measured in use rather than static it could be enough to account for most of the variation.
Yes, the first 40 days were on the wrist. The tests you suggested were obviously static.The isochronism is excellent with a steady gain acrosss the whole power range but the 5 s/day positional error is a little on the high side. Could be he balance very slighly out of poise, the hairspring slightly off centre, or almost negligible wear on a balance pivot.
If the first 40 days were measured in use rather than static it could be enough to account for most of the variation.
When the watch went from a loss to a gain I assumed that it had settled down to the rate that Rolex had set it at, and that would be it. That it has speeded up significantly after restarting has been disappointing.
I put it in the safe "12 down" this morning to test another position but it fell over to "dial down". I checked it this evening and it's gained 9 seconds after 10 hours. I'll check in the morning to see what it's done after 24 hours.
It's looking like the watch is going to be going back to Rolex, again, doesn't it!
A side note. I picked up a K series GMT II a couple of days ago which was serviced at Rolex within a month of the watch in question here. It's been running +10s/24hrs dial up for the past 2 days....
PJ S said:
Eleven said:
I put it in the safe "12 down" this morning to test another position but it fell over to "dial down". I checked it this evening and it's gained 9 seconds after 10 hours. I'll check in the morning to see what it's done after 24 hours.
It's looking like the watch is going to be going back to Rolex, again, doesn't it!
No disrespect to Variomatic – I don't know if he's (formerly) Rolex accredited – but get in touch with Duncan at Genesis Watchmaking (think he's in Bristol?) and have a chat.It's looking like the watch is going to be going back to Rolex, again, doesn't it!
I'd be insisting on Rolex letting Duncan look at it and correcting the problem – and letting them deal with his reimbursement.
It'll do no harm to discuss it, and make sure you're compensated with at least the 2-yr service warranty starting from its return. It may be a few weeks before he can book yours in, so the time lapsed should be credited back.
Having now got another freshly Rolex serviced watch that's also keeping poor time I am wondering whether Rolex is struggling to do a quality job within their new improved turn-around times. I'm not sure why that should be the case though because other manufacturers seem to manage.
desolate said:
Eleven said:
No. And at the moment it's gaining about 7 seconds a day which is too much for a chronometer.
Over the course of the test period how much was it out then? desolate said:
Eleven said:
There have been several and the answer varies depending upon the one you're referring to. Which is the problem. A consistent error can be corrected with regulation, inconsistent timekeeping cannot.
OK. I was going off the list on the first page. Personally I would just reset the time every couple of weeks but if you can't tolerate it being out a minute or so per week I would sell the watch and get something different.
In my judgement the timekeeping is acceptable, particularly considering it was bought used.
Gassing Station | Watches | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff