Getting a Rolex regulated in Nottingham
Discussion
bobbybee said:
As long as it's not a Sub, as he can't pressure test to the required standard.
Shouldn't be a problem. After final assembly of 300+ rated watches the Rolex authorised service procedure only vacuum tests - all the deeper testing is done on an empty case.
Which means that, the last time they open and refit the back on a 300+ meter rated watch before putting it on sale / returning to its owner, they only test it to a maximum of 1 atmosphere, or 10 meters. In practice, less than that because you can't get a perfect vacuum.
eta: Interesting write-up on the procedure here:
https://www.hodinkee.com/articles/under-pressure-a...
Edited by Variomatic on Friday 20th November 08:18
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.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".
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".
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