WatchUSeek Watch Forums banner

1 - 2 of 2 Posts

89 Posts
Yes, I think that to anyone who knows anything about the history of chronometry the use of the word ’chronometer’ to describe cosc certified lever watches has always been something of a joke.

Of course there was a time when the mechanical boxed chronometer was a serious tool used for navigation, and it needed therefore a true and unbiased assessment of its performance.

But my understanding is that real chronometers (perhaps with a few exceptions) have not been needed since the resumption of radio time signals at the end of WWII.

On a personal note I was rather amused lately with the garish folded document from COSC proclaiming a recently acquired Breitling Navitimer a ‘chronometer’. And this without any mention of even its mean variation of rate. My only other ‘chronometer’ certificate (a copy) is for a 1970’s Omega Marine Chronometer quartz watch that does actually state some meaningful data. So apparently these days we don’t need to know what our ’chronometer’s’ performance actually is, only that it is one. Perhaps a large (and garish) poster proclaiming that ‘this is a jolly good watch’ would do just as well.

However, I have to say that my new COSC certified 2892 based Breitling has a very much tighter and smaller variation in rate than my non-certified 2892 based TAG 2000 chronograph ever had, so the Brietling does indeed seem to be a jolly good watch (though of course and with respect to present company, not as good as the Omega).
1 - 2 of 2 Posts