[Bruce Reding]

This sticky will be for posting our monthly results for our accuracy challenge. This will run to the end of '07. You should set your watches now to time.gov, and report drift relative to time.gov at the beginning of each month.

Unlike in previous challenges, pics of the watch next to a time.gov screen will not be required. A simple statement of performance will do. Pics are welcome, though.

As in previous challenges, the prize will be bragging rights. (Ain't I generous? :-d )

Let the games begin!!!

 

[MJH]

My "The Citizen" is 1.64s ahead of time.gov at the time of starting the challenge. 1.64s is the total difference in 21 months of me having it without resetting it in between. Typically I wear it 24/7.

 

[Bruce Reding]

1.9s is the total difference in 21 months of me having it without resetting it in between. Typically I wear it 24/7.

That's rather good. |>

 

[artec]

This is intended to be a test of my ability to post a photo, so that I can show the watches whose accuracy I am posting. Time will show whether it works!http://i124.photobucket.com/albums/p15/artec540/IMG_3900.jpg

 

[artec]

Well that didn't work, let's try this:
]http://s124.photobucket.com/albums/p15/artec540/img_3900.jpg[IMG]

Sorry, that didn't work either.......any ideas anyone?

 

[artec]

Try this:

 

[Bruce Reding]

Nice "stable"! FYI, the first worked too. Also, you can upload a pic (it will show as a thumbnail in your post) by using the "manage attachments" button in the "Additional Options" section below the "Reply to Thread" section.

 

[artec]

If the first one worked, I don't understand why it isn't visible? Thanks for the suggestion about thumbnails. I'll try it next time. Should one use the first code under the down-loaded picture or the third, as I did for the last attempt? I'll get there in the end!

 

[Bruce Reding]

If the first one worked, I don't understand why it isn't visible?

It isn't visible, but provides a working link to the picture.

Thanks for the suggestion about thumbnails. I'll try it next time. Should one use the first code under the down-loaded picture or the third, as I did for the last attempt? I'll get there in the end!

Not sure I know what you're referring to here.

 

[artec]

You say that the code provides a working link to the picture. I understand the words but what use is the working link if we ain't got no picture?
About the thumbnails............... Under each photo in photobucket, there are three codes. The first one is the URL and that's what I used the first time (because I had read somewhere that that was the one to use) but I used the third code and previewed it the time the picture showed up. What I'm asking is "To produce the thumbnails, should I use the first (URL) code or the third one which has IMG at each end?
Thanks!

 

[Bruce Reding]

You say that the code provides a working link to the picture. I understand the words but what use is the working link if we ain't got no picture?

In the first of your three attempts (#4 in the thread), when I clicked on the link, it opened a new window that showed your picture.

About the thumbnails............... Under each photo in photobucket, there are three codes. The first one is the URL and that's what I used the first time (because I had read somewhere that that was the one to use) but I used the third code and previewed it the time the picture showed up. What I'm asking is "To produce the thumbnails, should I use the first (URL) code or the third one which has IMG at each end?
Thanks!

I don't use this method, so perhaps someone could correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe that you should use the one that has IMG at each end.

Also, when I was talking about your pic being a thumbnail, I was referring to the fact that you can directly upload your picture to the forum from your computer, rather than uploading it to photobucket then referencing the URL. (This is what I do.) You do this by pressing the "Manage Attachments" button on the bottom half of the reply screen.

 

[CFR]

Try this:

Artec, could you tell me how you did this? I haven't been able to figured out the code to put full-size images directly into posts. The standard "img src" html code doesn't seem to work for this. Thanks!

 

[artec]

Artec, could you tell me how you did this? I haven't been able to figured out the code to put full-size images directly into posts. The standard "img src" html code doesn't seem to work for this. Thanks!

This is a classic case of the blind leading the blind. I had been trying to find out how to put a photo into a post for some time and this was the first success!
The photo was uploaded onto Photobucket. Once successfully uploaded (and that was another adventure), the photo appears in your album. Under the photo are three codes. If you click on the lowest of these, you are supposed to get a brief yellow based message saying copied. If you don't, right click on the code and select copy. Then go to the forum, start your post and when you reach the point where you want to put the photo, right click and hit drop or copy or whatever seems appropriate, or hit the combination of keys that you normally use to select from the clipboard. Then hit preview and you should be in business. That's what I did, but I've only done it once!
Good luck. Let me know if it works!
Fran

 

[artec]

January 31, 2007
Seiko quartz Alpinist, gained 2 seconds +
Grand Seiko no perceptible change
The Citizen Chronomaster no perceptible change
Omega Constellation Double Eagle Perpetual Calendar no perceptible change

 

[ppaulusz]

My Longines Conquest VHP Perpetual Calendar lost about 0.5 second in the past 30 days (the watch was worn for about 6 hours during that period).
3 months ago I had re-calibrated that watch as it was about 5-6 seconds fast (per year). I told the watchmaker what I wanted but it was obvious to me that he was not too interested in my "project". The result speak for itself: instead of getting to within +/-2 seconds per year now the watch is late by about 5-6 seconds (per year). The last calibration was free as the watch was still under warranty. I have a feeling that next time they might do a better job as it will be a paid (by me) job... I know it takes time to do a proper calibration on high-accuracy watches but one should expect more empathy from the watchmaker... I was told that I "would not be late on my next meeting if the watch is late by 6 seconds per year". In my reply I pointed out the fact that I could have bought a 5 dollar plastic watch if I was not interested in very high accuracy... Pathetic...

 

[Bruce Reding]

Here's my report ...

The Citizen: 0.4 seconds fast
Omega MC 2400: 2.0 seconds fast
Rolex OQ: 12 seconds fast
Citizen PMT: 5.5 seconds fast

Time reference: Time.gov w/ no more than 0.2 seconds error. Note that I goofed in starting up. In early January, I zeroed my watches using my atomic clock, not time.gov. (Yes, I'm a doofus.) The amount of error in my atomic clock can be a significant fraction of a second depending on when it last got its "fix". Therefore, the above nums might have a small error. The drift rate assessment over the months will be reliable, though. Also, this subtlety doesn't have a lot of significance for my Rolex. :roll:

Conditions: I wear none of these more than twice a week, and usually only once. (Too many nice watches, darn it!) Our room is typically mid sixties. (I used to say I was cheap. Now I say that I'm reducing my carbon footprint. :-d )

I'll be including the Citizen PMT even though it's not thermocompensated just out of curiosity to see how it will do. It should show marked winter-to-summer cycling.

The Rolex obviously needs an adjustment. I won't do it for this year, though, just to be able to better chart its winter-to-summer cycling. Even though it's the poorest performer, I'm at the moment liking it the best. I love the styling, and, let's be honest, the performance is good enough for practical use. (Gasp! I didn't just say that, did I??!! :-d )

 

[retep102]

My citizen chronmaster + 1/6 sec since 1 january
i own 3 oysterquartz,all are in for service at the moment

 

[allanvalle]

Seiko Marine Master Spring Drive is running +1sec after 1 month to reference time.nist.gov

 

[Stanford]

My Omega MC 2400 has lost 1 sec.
It was worn every day until a week ago - until then it had lost less than 1 sec.

 

[MJH]

Since January, no change in difference between my The Citizen and time.gov - as determined with a DV camera. time.gov reported accuracy of 0.4s. watch worn 24/7. Bruce, anything special to explain your The Citizen "inaccuracy" in January? Not worn very often, zeroing to your atomic clock, anything else?