Accuracy of an automatic?

Accuracy of an automatic?

Author
Discussion

Gavstar

Original Poster:

1,305 posts

239 months

Monday 7th January 2008
quotequote all
I recently bought a Seiko automatic, which is not keeping very good time. It's basically running 2 mins fast after a couple of weeks or so, and is now about 4 mins fast after a couple more. I have written to Seiko, who advise that the specification of an automatic watch is +/- 25 secs per DAY, compared to a quartz which is +/- 1 sec. I find this incredible. What's the use of a watch that keeps such bad time?

They've invited me to send it back to be recalibrated, IF i think it is outside these limits. I find that unacceptable to be honest, as what they're saying is that if it's getting 25 seconds faster per day, then they'll leave it as is. Surely something that is bought to tell them time should be more accurate otherwise it's not fit for purpose? Would you guys agree with this?

Wadeski

8,132 posts

212 months

Monday 7th January 2008
quotequote all
what model of Seiko is it?

2 minutes out sounds excessive, even for a fairly cheap one (<£100)... +/- doesnt mean it should keep on getting 25 seconds faster each day, its just a tolerance (maybe some days it gains a few, some days it will lose a few seconds). It sounds like it might need a little attention.

To be honest high-end Rolexes and Omegas can be very innacurate compared to a quartz - or they can be right on the money.

Automatic watches vary, thats why they give you a tolerance.

If you have a need for precise accuracy with no battery, consider a Seiko Kinetic (quartz), or better, a Spring Drive (automatic). I would imagine its not in the same price bracket to the one you have though!

Gavstar

Original Poster:

1,305 posts

239 months

Monday 7th January 2008
quotequote all
It's just a cheapy, but I never dreamt it would keep such bad timing. I got it thinking that having an auto would be nice.
It's one of these - http://www.chronograph.com/store/mli_viewItem.asp?...

Jolley

465 posts

234 months

Monday 7th January 2008
quotequote all
Gavstar said:
I got it thinking that having an auto would be nice.
Automatics can be a bit of a pain. How many times have I picked mine up after a few days and forgotten to check the time?!! ... then it starts up so it doesn't even cross your mind that it has stopped!!!

BTW mine keep very good time (not the same watch though).

Gavstar

Original Poster:

1,305 posts

239 months

Monday 7th January 2008
quotequote all
I think I may as well send it off to Seiko, as it's definitely gaining 25 seconds every day, rather than gaining and losing each day.

So if top end Rolexes and Omegas can also be a pain, what are u paying for, if not for an accurate movement?

Edited by Gavstar on Monday 7th January 17:21

Tunku

7,703 posts

227 months

Monday 7th January 2008
quotequote all
Gavstar said:
I recently bought a Seiko automatic, which is not keeping very good time. It's basically running 2 mins fast after a couple of weeks or so, and is now about 4 mins fast after a couple more. I have written to Seiko, who advise that the specification of an automatic watch is +/- 25 secs per DAY, compared to a quartz which is +/- 1 sec. I find this incredible. What's the use of a watch that keeps such bad time?

They've invited me to send it back to be recalibrated, IF i think it is outside these limits. I find that unacceptable to be honest, as what they're saying is that if it's getting 25 seconds faster per day, then they'll leave it as is. Surely something that is bought to tell them time should be more accurate otherwise it's not fit for purpose? Would you guys agree with this?
Sounds about right for a new automatic to me. If it is brand new, it can take up to a year to "run in" when it will usually start being more accurate in my experience.

uktrailmonster

4,827 posts

199 months

Monday 7th January 2008
quotequote all
Quartz watches generally keep better time. That's a fact. But mechanical movements are generally more shockproof and, perhaps most importantly, will work under a much wider temperature range. For example I always wear a mechanical watch when skiing, where I've known Quartz watches to temporarily stop working (due to the battery getting too cold). NASA still only approve the mechanical Speedmaster for use outside in space for the same reasons. Sometimes it's better to know the time to within a minute or so rather than not at all!

But more importantly, mechanical movements are more interesting and tend to have a much longer life.

tubbystu

3,846 posts

259 months

Monday 7th January 2008
quotequote all
uktrailmonster said:
But more importantly, mechanical movements are more interesting and tend to have a much longer life.
yes and are a work of the horological and mechanical art, rather than just another efficient battery powered convienience.

From memory, an Omega chrono is supposed to be acurate to +/- 6 seconds a day which equates at worst to 99.986% accurate - not bad for a self-powered mechanical device less than 40mm in diameter and 8mm thick after all.

On a similiar basis we would all have Toyota Prius' rather than the automotive (and less than reliable in some cases hehe ) interesting cars preferred by most members on here.

Tunku

7,703 posts

227 months

Monday 7th January 2008
quotequote all
tubbystu said:
uktrailmonster said:
But more importantly, mechanical movements are more interesting and tend to have a much longer life.
yes and are a work of the horological and mechanical art, rather than just another efficient battery powered convienience.

From memory, an Omega chrono is supposed to be acurate to +/- 6 seconds a day which equates at worst to 99.986% accurate - not bad for a self-powered mechanical device less than 40mm in diameter and 8mm thick after all.

On a similiar basis we would all have Toyota Prius' rather than the automotive (and less than reliable in some cases hehe ) interesting cars preferred by most members on here.
I quite agree, proper watches use mechanical gubbins, not electric gubbins. Maybe not quite as accurate as a battery driven one, but easily adjustable once you know how inaccurate it is. It is a ceremony to adjust the time once every two weeks or so, and get it within 30 seconds of GMT. Somehow it gives you some satisfaction to have to keep an eye on it, and listen to the time signal on the radio every so often. Very like having a proper car.

Gavstar

Original Poster:

1,305 posts

239 months

Monday 7th January 2008
quotequote all
tubbystu said:
On a similiar basis we would all have Toyota Prius' rather than the automotive (and less than reliable in some cases hehe ) interesting cars preferred by most members on here.
And here's me, a TVR driver, complaining about the accuracy of my watch wink

lowdrag

12,868 posts

212 months

Monday 7th January 2008
quotequote all
IWC expect their (much more expensive) watches to be within plus or minus 6 secs a day to give you a clue. Most of us here love mechanical watches because they aren't soulless automatons but "human". We accept the slight inaccuracy for the pleasure of owning a work of art. Yours though needs sending back!

uktrailmonster

4,827 posts

199 months

Tuesday 8th January 2008
quotequote all
For me reliability is more important than ultimate accuracy. Knowing the time of day to the nearest minute or so is good enough for me. For chronograph functions even a watch that's running 20 sec/day out will be accurate to within 0.8 sec timing over an hour.

But at the end of the day if you simply want a watch to tell the time in an everyday environment, any cheap quartz watch will do fine. Most people buy mechanical watches purely out of admiration of the quality engineering and design.

Gavstar

Original Poster:

1,305 posts

239 months

Tuesday 8th January 2008
quotequote all
uktrailmonster said:
For me reliability is more important than ultimate accuracy. Knowing the time of day to the nearest minute or so is good enough for me. For chronograph functions even a watch that's running 20 sec/day out will be accurate to within 0.8 sec timing over an hour.

But at the end of the day if you simply want a watch to tell the time in an everyday environment, any cheap quartz watch will do fine. Most people buy mechanical watches purely out of admiration of the quality engineering and design.
Very true. However, mine is gaining 20 seconds or more every day, to the point where it is 5 minutes fast after a month. This can't be right.

Mr_Sukebe

374 posts

207 months

Tuesday 8th January 2008
quotequote all
I'm told that as a mechanical watch goes through it's life that it burns away some of the oil lubrication, meaning that whilst a watch might start life running slightly fast, that over time it will gradually become more accurate.

My Zenith, with it's supposedly very high quality mechanism runs a good 10 sec a day fast at the moment.

dom9

8,040 posts

208 months

Tuesday 8th January 2008
quotequote all
I have exactly that Seiko diving watch - Bought before my Submariner as I love the design...

Mine keeps absolutely horrific time and I have to adjust it every week, if not more frequently! My Rolex on the other hand is perfect - I actually thought it would be vice versa!

I haven't bothered to send it back to Seiko as it doesn't seem worth it for a relatively cheap watch, plus I'm sick of sending watches back (see my IWC threads!)...

Lovely watch for the money though! I managed to scratch the glass, which annoyed me! I might dig it out tonight and give it a wear!

uktrailmonster

4,827 posts

199 months

Tuesday 8th January 2008
quotequote all
Gavstar said:
mine is gaining 20 seconds or more every day, to the point where it is 5 minutes fast after a month. This can't be right.
5 minutes fast over a month = 10 sec/day which is not a bad effort. I've got several expensive mechanical watches and none of them are significantly better than that. I usually reset the time every couple of weeks or so and don't worry about it. But they do tend to settle down after a year or so and can be adjusted to improve accuracy. An accuracy check is normally carried out during a routine service, which should be done every 5 years or so. Lubrication, temperature, mechanical wear, winding, using the chrono function (if it has one), even the orientation you place the watch when not worn can affect the speed slightly.

But if it really is consistently 20 sec a day fast, I'd want it adjusted to run slower.

tertius

6,838 posts

229 months

Tuesday 8th January 2008
quotequote all
I'm sure I've posted this before, but my Sinn 856 (ETA 2893 movement) was within 1 second of my time-synchronised laptop over a week of daily wear (not worn overnight) - so mechanical watches can be exceedingly accurate.

Freddie von Rost

1,978 posts

211 months

Thursday 10th January 2008
quotequote all
tubbystu said:
uktrailmonster said:
But more importantly, mechanical movements are more interesting and tend to have a much longer life.
yes and are a work of the horological and mechanical art, rather than just another efficient battery powered convienience.

From memory, an Omega chrono is supposed to be acurate to +/- 6 seconds a day which equates at worst to 99.986% accurate - not bad for a self-powered mechanical device less than 40mm in diameter and 8mm thick after all.
My Reduced Speedie Auto is becoming a lot more accurate. Very happy with 30 - 60 seconds a month. I suspect that as I have now worn it continuously for 18 months the movement has settled down and is happily beavering away. Not bad considering that it is only rated as a chronograph rather than a chronometer. Tubbystu, you are spot on. It is a piece of art. Every time I look at my Speedie I smile and think of the skills required to make something so beautiful.

And for those of us who are into watch porn:


Wadeski

8,132 posts

212 months

Friday 11th January 2008
quotequote all
A chronograph means it has little sub-dials on the face, and is not a certificate accuracy like a chronometersmile

Edited by Wadeski on Friday 11th January 09:23

Freddie von Rost

1,978 posts

211 months

Friday 11th January 2008
quotequote all
Wadeski said:
A chronograph means it has little sub-dials on the face, and is not a certificate accuracy like a chronometersmile

Edited by Wadeski on Friday 11th January 09:23
Not quite. I think you will find that the term Chronometer is applied by COSC [Contrôle Officiel Suisse des Chronomètres], the Official Swiss Chronometer Testing Institute, who certify the accuracy and precision of wristwatches. Only watches certified by the COSC may use the word Chronometer.