Getting a Rolex regulated in Nottingham
Discussion
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.
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.
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?
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.
Just in case anyone is interested, I gave Rolex a bell on behalf of my FIL because I have a couple that are a bit wayward too (one at the upper end of fast, the other slow). It was St. James I called.
The chap I spoke to (in the engineers dept) said they will not regulate a watch that is running within COSC. They will send it back no fault found. The explanation was that watch mechanisms are very delicate and an intervention is as likely to make the timekeeping worse as it is better.
Which does rather beg the question, if other manufacturers can return watches running at 1-second per week error, why can't Rolex manage a couple of seconds per day fast, if that's what the customer wants?
GC8 said:
Its a combination of watch and behaviour that dictates accuracy in this respect. If your routine suits the watch then it can be unbelievably accurate, but if not it can appear to be a poor example: the watch remains the same.
I wouldn't disagree with you. I am surprised that they are reluctant to try to regulate a watch that is slow or plus 6 though.Variomatic said:
The problem with regulation (from their POV) is that, in their wisdom. Rolex don't use a regulator with index pins to lengthen / shorten the hairspring like just about everyone else. They use a free sprung balance with screws in its rim to adjust the moment of inertia of the wheel itself.
That's a technically superior system (at least on paper) but it also means there's more chance of inadvertently altering some of the other adjustments that are made as part of timing in positions.
In practical terms that's not a problem unless you're very heavy handed with the adjustment. But, when COSC compliance is King, the possibility of nudging (say) max positional error out of spec - thereby making it non-COSC compliant even if it performs better in real life - can mean a lot of extra work.
So they take the attitude "it's in spec, suck on it".
Thanks Variomatic, that explains a lot and is very interesting. That's a technically superior system (at least on paper) but it also means there's more chance of inadvertently altering some of the other adjustments that are made as part of timing in positions.
In practical terms that's not a problem unless you're very heavy handed with the adjustment. But, when COSC compliance is King, the possibility of nudging (say) max positional error out of spec - thereby making it non-COSC compliant even if it performs better in real life - can mean a lot of extra work.
So they take the attitude "it's in spec, suck on it".
Rolex, more than any other brand, sets a lot of store by COSC. Is that because they have to work hard to make their watches super accurate (for the reasons you mention), so they have latched onto a "standard of accuracy" that they can generally achieve and nailed their colours to that mast? Having done so they take the "sod off, it does what it says on the tin" line.
Would the presence of hairspring adjustment explain why my Cartier TF and Tag SEL chronometer have, when freshly adjusted, been more accurate than any Rolex I've owned?
Another question: The "other adjustments" you mention. Are any of them responsible for the phenomenon I've noticed with Rolexes whereby they do a chunk of losing / gaining when they are re-started and then settle down to a lower rate of loss or gain?
Gassing Station | Watches | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff