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?

[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.

[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....

[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

[Nigel_O]

I accept that Tag and Omega are involved with the timing of various sports events, but I can guarantee that the devices used are not a mechanical wristwatch - they are selling their association with their involvement, not the actual devices that are used.

I'm a complete newbie at this mechanical watch malarkey, but I rather doubt that any automatic-movement Tag or Omega is notably more accurate than a Rolex

I imagine that if you walked into any high-end watch retailer and demanded accuracy of a second a week, or even better, you'd be recommended a quartz

[Nigel_O]

It sounds very much like you won't be buying ANY mechanical watch - if you're after <1sec/day, your only route would appear to be quartz

However, this doesn't make any of us right or wrong, it just makes us different

[Nigel_O]

@ Shezbo - I understand your viewpoint and I'm not disagreeing. However, given your need for such accuracy in a watch, why are you interested in classic cars, particularly the Merc 300SL? I'd be the first the accept that they're a lovely car, but I don't think many would argue that they are the last word in precision and accuracy. There are certainly several cars available that do EVERYTHING better than a Merc 300SL, for less initial outlay and less ongoing running costs. In fact - name ANY attribute of a Merc 300SL and I'm fairly sure I'll find another car that does it better (unless the attribute is "being a Merc 300SL....)

therefore, its safe to assume that you have one because you like them, and not because its the best at what it does. You may have one because it has the potential to increase in value. You may have one because other people like them. You may even have one because you THINK that other people think better of you (which is not an uncommon reason for buying a posh watch). Quite simply, you have one for whatever motivator was right for you.

Exactly the same as me and my Sub... I could have bought cheaper, better, more functional, more accurate - any number of qualities, but I wrestled with all the reasons for wanting a Sub, and I bought one.

Accuracy is not the only measure of a watch, in the same way that (say) speed isn't the only measure of a car

[Nigel_O]

Quick update - accuracy seems to be improving a little - I last reset the Sub sometime during this thread (estimate 26 - 28 Jan)

I've just reset it again today as it was 30 seconds slow - not bad for around three weeks (only been off my wrist when taking a shower - can't get out of the habit....)

So - down to about 1.5 seconds a day, which I'm more than comfortable with

[Nigel_O]

Variomatic said:

Also, showers tend to produce a lot of steam / vapour and all those freely moving individual water molecules are far better at getting through small seal imperfections than when they're all tied together in liquid form

Daft, isn't it, that I've been placing my £60 non-water-resistant Seiko on the bathroom window ledge for the last twenty years when showering, often coming back to it with a thin film of condensation on the crystal, case and bracelet. Now that I have a watch that purports to be 1,000ft waterproof, I put it in a clean sock to keep it safe.....

Having said that, I agree with the above about soaps and shampoos - my chosen hair-care product specifically mentions that it might stain some stainless steel products....

Perhaps I should put the Sub away in its box for twenty years, just to be extra-safe.....

[Nigel_O]

RicksAlfas said:

Here's a question - when you are not wearing your automatic watch, does it matter if you place it face down, resting on the crown, not resting on the crown, etc??

In the case of the Sub, or any watch with a screw-down crown, I'd be amazed if any damage could be caused. However, if I ever get round to taking mine off for more than a ten-minute shower, it'll be bracelet-down / face up, just to minimise possible scratches to the case & crystal (which I'd suspect is also a pretty remote possibility)

[Nigel_O]

can't imagine there were very many fakes in 1977, but either way, that's a pretty good advert for durability