WatchUSeek Watch Forums banner

21 - 40 of 78 Posts

·
Registered
Seiko Turtle
Joined
·
78 Posts
Improve on -0.35 s/d?? Haha... 1/3 second per day is AMAZING for a mechanical watch. I'm quite happy with that. I wouldn't touch it!

My YM was overhauled late last year. It had stopped completely. Wouldn't take a wind. They did an amazing job of polishing the case and bracelet and servicing the movement.
Hi again Racer. Yesterday I was YouTubing “how quartz and mechanical watches work. All I can say is it’s unbelievable to me, how these tiny machines, gears, and linkages, all working together, with such accuracy that they are only off seconds a year. I’ve a brand new respect for these machines. I suppose I might becoming a WIS. I’ve always thought watches were cool, and a necessity, but now realize they are so much more. Maybe voodooo! 😀 I wonder if watchmakers avoid coffee to avoid having shaking nerves. I also kind of wonder, If watch repair is a dying art, like shoe repairs. Didn’t have anything to add really. Hey, look at the time,, I’m outta here✌⌚
 

·
Registered
Casio WVA-470
Joined
·
351 Posts
With quartz watches there are different factors in what keeps the time moving. Heat, battery strength, design of the watch, etc. I have two watches here where the batteries were replaced within a week of each other. Their times were synced to WWVB on the same day. After they have been sitting for a while, not sure how long, but I think about a month, one is now exactly 4 seconds fast and the other is exactly 4 seconds slow.

15929067


The issue I see with automatics is that yes, they can be very accurate, but they can also be not accurate with heat, magnetism, winding, loose springs, etc. For my automatics if I wanted them to stay accurate I would need to put them on a winder to keep them wound up as much as possible so they stay accurate. You also cannot stop the second hand on an automatic to synchronize it.

The most accurate watches I have found are the GPS, Bluetooth and Radio / Atomically controlled watches.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
175 Posts
As a user / consumer, I enjoy this topic.

I know this is about time accuracy of non-atomic / MB6 watches, but one of the features I like best on my atomic G-Shocks, is, precisely, their consistent time accuracy:

15929136


15929138


Which begs the question:

What "Superlative Chronometer" even means today?

"Superlative" compared to what?, other mechanical watches only?

When, as you found out, even a cheap quartz watch, can be more accurate than a 20x more expensive mechanical watch, claims about being "superlative chronometers" shouldn't be made anymore.

Things like heritage, craftmanship and quality of materials used are all very important on any item, in general. And they will define the perceived value of that item and how much people are willing to pay for it. And I don't have a problem with that.

With watches, specifically, though, time accuracy shouldn't be promoted as the number one characteristic of said watch (which for a watch, is, actually, counterintuitive, of course) unless is actually true, compared to any other watch.

Just my .02.

And so, the barrage begins.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,077 Posts
Discussion Starter · #25 ·
I do appreciate HAQ and prefer it to quartz watches that have to be tethered to another time source for accuracy. Yeah, I am a fan of "dumb" HAQ and as much as I aplreciate the Citizen Chronomasters for what they are, I'll always probably prefer the 9f and all its iterations. I think if you exclude HAQ, when it comes to price you are right, there isn't a discernible correlation between price and accuracy,
The original article did include HAQ and UHF movements, but the editor nixed it to pare the article down to bite-size. I may do another article in the future. But, yeah... HAQs can be pricey, starting in the thousands. On the other hand, UHF gets darned close, and even better than the HAQs for a much lower price point.

One of my UHF watches is tracking at 3.65 s/y. The other at a "disappointing" 18.25 s/y.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,077 Posts
Discussion Starter · #26 · (Edited)
Sure, now take the Rolex and G-Shocks and drop them a dozen times or so from, say, 6' onto a concrete sidewalk. Now which is telling more accurate time? Rolex too precious for this test? How about that Omega? How about the GS?
Next let's calculate the cost per accuracy for quartz vs. automatic.
Finally, let's test a random selection of quartz vs. a random selection of automatics across a wide cost spectrum for accuracy.
Yeah.
I imagine there are a lot of watch fans similar to me who went down the mechanical road only to discover poor accuracy, poor durability, and daily hassle all for much higher costs. Returning to quartz watches certainly limits selection, but with many, many, many other benefits.
Haha... certainly, the quartz watches - specifically G-Shocks - win the durability contest. And, I HAVE dropped my Rolex onto a tile floor from about 4 feet. Not on purpose, mind you. It did NOT fare well.

But, this was just about accuracy. And, I was surprised at how accurate mechanical watches CAN be. It was kinda fun to refute the conventional wisdom that "any cheap Casio will keep better time than a Rolex." True much of the time, but not ALL of the time, which is why "any" renders the statement absolute and therefore false.

I also refuted the notion that mo' money = mo' accuracy. That's definitely not true.

I'm not touting one brand over another. I'm not touting one type of movement over the other. That's why I have and enjoy both! 😁 My intent was not to start some silly debate over whose dog is better or who has a bigger hoo-ha.

That's why my conclusion reads, "Whether comparing mechanical to quartz, mechanical to mechanical, or quartz to quartz, your mileage may vary, regardless of the price paid. If accuracy is your thing, you can find your bliss at all price points."

But, it was fun gathering some data over several months from my varied (albeit modest) collection. I cannot claim to have reached any scientific conclusions (that would take a MUCH larger sample size than I can afford!). But, there you have it... my personal observations over the last several months with my personal collection.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,077 Posts
Discussion Starter · #27 ·
You also cannot stop the second hand on an automatic to synchronize it.
Ummm... Yes. Yes, you can. Depending on the watch. Look for "hackable."

All three of my automatics can be "hacked," which means I can stop the second hand, set the watch, and then sync it with another time source (atomic clock). That's how I've been able to track this accurately.

But, it is true that SOME mechanical watches do not have a "hacking" feature.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,077 Posts
Discussion Starter · #28 ·
As a user / consumer, I enjoy this topic.

I know this is about time accuracy of non-atomic / MB6 watches, but one of the features I like the best on my atomic G-Shocks, is, precisely, their consistent time accuracy:

View attachment 15929136

View attachment 15929138
Nice collection!
Yep. I like that, too. Atomic combined with solar charging makes for what amounts to a "perpetual motion machine." Pretty cool stuff. I've got 16 atomic watches, soooo.... 🤪 🍻
 

·
Registered
Casio WVA-470
Joined
·
351 Posts
Ummm... Yes. Yes, you can. Depending on the watch. Look for "hackable."

All three of my automatics can be "hacked," which means I can stop the second hand, set the watch, and then sync it with another time source (atomic clock). That's how I've been able to track this accurately.

But, it is true that SOME mechanical watches do not have a "hacking" feature.
Mine do not have this feature so I can only go off of what I know. I've only been able to get them "synced" close enough by waiting for them to wind all the way down, then start winding them right when the seconds hits :00. Maybe because my automatics are considered in the affordable range.

For what my own personal tastes are, most of the "luxury" brand watches like Rolex, etc have not impressed me to the point of thinking I have to have it. However, if I was Bill Gates, Jeff Bezos or Elon Musk rich I would probably consider the IWC Grande Complication at $252,000 as it truly is a work of art watch.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,626 Posts
Your point is well-made: not all quartz watches are more accurate than a high-end mechanical. I get it.

That being said, any quartz watch that gets worse than .35 seconds per day is just a s****y quartz watch IMO and is hardly worth owning.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,968 Posts
With this many watches, I’m guessing the timing runs were not performed on wrist. I think this is necessary to simulate real world accuracy, and is where cheap quartz comes into its own. I do not think I have any watches that are worse than 0.25 spd on wrist,


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,077 Posts
Discussion Starter · #32 · (Edited)
With this many watches, I’m guessing the timing runs were not performed on wrist. I think this is necessary to simulate real world accuracy, and is where cheap quartz comes into its own. I do not think I have any watches that are worse than 0.25 spd on wrist,


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Yes... to be scientific, I'd have to be far more regimented with controls and variables. So, it was a mix of on-wrist and off-wrist (for both autos and quartz). This was not intended to be a truly scientific endeavor. I have neither the resources nor the patience to conduct a proper experiment (and my entire life is based in science). This was just for fun... an extension of my hobby with a bit of data gathering.

But, how often do we hear, "Any quartz will beat Rolex for time-keeping?"

It turns out that you can find accuracy (and lack thereof) with both types of movements and at any price point. Look at my Casio Royale... $25! Super-accurate!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,704 Posts
Lucky you !!
You are a Spyderco Fan.


And I really think that any MB6 got a some kind of crappy quartz unit because it cheats with radio. :)

Why bother when MB6, BT or GPS can make it accurate. :)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,077 Posts
Discussion Starter · #34 ·
Lucky you !!
You are a Spyderco Fan.


And I really think that any MB6 got a some kind of crappy quartz unit because it cheats with radio. :)

Why bother when MB6, BT or GPS can make it accurate. :)
Spyderco and G-Shock are a great match. They should do a collab - both ways!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,077 Posts
Discussion Starter · #36 ·
That being said, any quartz watch that gets worse than .35 seconds per day is just a s****y quartz watch IMO and is hardly worth owning.
Well... my +0.48 s/d watch (which is still within - barely - the manufacturer's specs) is, by far, my coolest G-Shock: The 2008 vintage G-7800 "Super Square." So it goes... the coolest watch is the least accurate. It's still one of my favorites. So, while I am fascinated with the POTENTIAL for accuracy with watches, it's not the ONLY thing I care about.

Though, I understand the G-7800 has a "trimmer" inside that can be used to regulate the watch. I haven't ventured inside the watch, yet. But, man it's a neat watch. Wearing it today!

15929582
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,193 Posts
What's the delta (span of rates over 6 positions) on your Rolex? Any change in rate during vigorous activity?

Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,077 Posts
Discussion Starter · #38 ·
What's the delta (span of rates over 6 positions) on your Rolex? Any change in rate during vigorous activity?

Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk
Well... I didn't dive that deep for this article. But, I do have this..... not the same as a real timegrapher. Just a phone app. FWIW, the results with the phone "timegrapher" were worse than my measurements of the actual time.

15929707


What is this vigorous activity you speak of? ;) While I used to wear my YM all the time, regardless of activity, I don't anymore. If I am planning any vigorous activity, I'll likely put on one of my G-Shocks now.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,626 Posts
Well... my +0.48 s/d watch (which is still within - barely - the manufacturer's specs) is, by far, my coolest G-Shock: The 2008 vintage G-7800 "Super Square." So it goes... the coolest watch is the least accurate. It's still one of my favorites. So, while I am fascinated with the POTENTIAL for accuracy with watches, it's not the ONLY thing I care about.

Though, I understand the G-7800 has a "trimmer" inside that can be used to regulate the watch. I haven't ventured inside the watch, yet. But, man it's a neat watch. Wearing it today!

View attachment 15929582
That's why I said "hardly," haha

— but crappy accuracy bothers me nonetheless
 
21 - 40 of 78 Posts
Top