WatchUSeek Watch Forums banner

41 - 60 of 78 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
215 Posts
0.35 sec per day is a 127 sec per year for what is supposed to be a top notch or near top notch mechanical. A top notch quartz is 5 seconds per year at 1/10th the cost. Ergo, a good quartz is >250 times more precise per unit amount spent purchasing the watch, not to mention that you have to wait at least 2500 times longer to obtain a Rolex watch if you buy from an AD.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,077 Posts
Discussion Starter · #42 ·
A top notch quartz is 5 seconds per year at 1/10th the cost
Hmmm... a 5 s/y quartz for ~$800?? Where? From what (little) I've seen, HAQ watches that can perform at that level are in the thousands of dollars.

That said, I've got a UHF Bulova that is sub-5 s/y and was under $400. However, my other UHF Bulova is running about 18 s/y.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
215 Posts
Hmmm... a 5 s/y quartz for ~$800?? Where? From what (little) I've seen, HAQ watches that can perform at that level are in the thousands of dollars.

That said, I've got a UHF Bulova that is sub-5 s/y and was under $400. However, my other UHF Bulova is running about 18 s/y.
You can get a The Citizen watch from Japan for ~$1400.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
214 Posts
I just published a short article on this, based on my own experience. Here's a tidbit:

View attachment 15928721


Watch Accuracy: Rolex vs. Casio - The Truth About Watches
Your article was a fun read, and I completely agree with your conclusion "There's no direct correlation between watch price and watch accuracy."

Some observations and thoughts:
  1. Is there any particular reason for using a certain watch brand name to draw the readers' attention?? You could easily go with "Watch Accuracy: Mechanical vs. Quartz."
  2. You didn't mention your measurement procedure for the readers of the blog. You used a cell phone app as well as there are human measurement errors. On top of those, the position, temperature, and other measurement scenarios have not been reported. Therefore, the article should be regarded as fun facts about the watches. It's a little hard to fathom this as "the truth about watches".
  3. On a proper 3-sensors Witschi device, for eight positions measurements, the YM or even the best mechanical watch will not show this sort of accuracy. Then again, if I consider these as fun facts about the watch, your measurements are OK. My issue is they are on the "the truths about watches".
  4. The NIST did test quartz watches scientifically in 2008 and wrote a report on that, which can be found here. One of the critical aspects they looked into is accuracy vs stability. Given below are the watches tested by the NIST. Table 1 shows the accuracy, and Table 2 shows the stability.
  5. There is an interesting relationship between them. When we are talking about quartz watches like these, which have analog minute and hour hands, the accuracy of the stepper motor control plays a significant role. For the watches with digital displays, it only depends on the speed of the bit counter value (0 or 1) change and synchronising the bit counter display with the quartz vibration rates.
  6. Nowhere Casio or any other manufacturers mentioned how they are producing these quartzes and whether they use the same quartz in every watch they make. We know Seiko uses better quality quartzes in their GS line. The quality of the quartz, as well as the synchronisation capability of the control circuit, plays the main role in accuracy and stability. Both can come in the cheapest quartz watch.
  7. All the best to your next article.

15930104

15930105

15930106

Source: http://tf.nist.gov/general/pdf/2276.pdf
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,077 Posts
Discussion Starter · #45 · (Edited)
Is there any particular reason for using a certain watch brand name to draw the readers' attention?? You could easily go with "Watch Accuracy: Mechanical vs. Quartz."
Editor's choice on the title. I had some alternative titles. My original title was "Does Money Buy Accuracy?" But, yeah... there's a reason he chose what he chose. I think you know the answer to your own question. 🤭

You didn't mention your measurement procedure for the readers of the blog. You used a cell phone app as well as there are human measurement errors. On top of those, the position, temperature, and other measurement scenarios have not been reported. Therefore, the article should be regarded as fun facts about the watches. It's a little hard to fathom this as "the truth about watches".
In your rush to pedantry and semantics, you conflated your "concerns" about the point of the article with the name of the blog. 🤭 But, you were right about the first thing: Yes. The article is intended to be fun. I wrote it in that vein, not as a truly scientific tome. That should be rather obvious. And that's the Truth. So, there ya go.

I didn't specifically mention the measurement procedure in the copy, yet you figured out that I used an app. Shazam! Once again, you are correct. I used an app, which was made apparent in the images that were obviously screenshots from a phone. If you're interested in obtaining it, it is available on Google Play for Android phones: Atomic Clock & Watch Accuracy.

On a proper 3-sensors Witschi device, for eight positions measurements, the YM or even the best mechanical watch will not show this sort of accuracy. Then again, if I consider these as fun facts about the watch, your measurements are OK. My issue is they are on the "the truths about watches".
OMG! OMG! My article did not meet your criteria as a perfect match to your interpretation of the blog name? 🤣 You're on a forum called "Watchuseek," whatever that means. But, perhaps you were looking for "Truthuseek?" Perhaps you should express your dismay about the use of the vernacular, "u" instead of the proper "you." 🤪

The NIST did test quartz watches scientifically in 2008 and wrote a report on that, which can be found here. One of the critical aspects they looked into is accuracy vs stability. Given below are the watches tested by the NIST. Table 1 shows the accuracy, and Table 2 shows the stability.
While my entire education and career are based on science, I have neither the resources, nor time, nor patience to conduct a scientific study on watch accuracy. I do this ***t for.... you guessed it.... fun. And, that's the truth. 🍻

There is an interesting relationship between them. When we are talking about quartz watches like these, which have analog minute and hour hands, the accuracy of the stepper motor control plays a significant role. For the watches with digital displays, it only depends on the speed of the bit counter value (0 or 1) change and synchronising the bit counter display with the quartz vibration rates.
The purpose of the blog is to draw readers, not to cause their eyes to glaze over. ;)

Nowhere Casio or any other manufacturers mentioned how they are producing these quartzes and whether they use the same quartz in every watch they make. We know Seiko uses better quality quartzes in their GS line. The quality of the quartz, as well as the synchronisation capability of the control circuit, plays the main role in accuracy and stability. Both can come in the cheapest quartz watch.
😴

All the best to your next article.
Thanks! I don't own the blog. I'm just a writer with a real job during the day. I enjoy writing. It's a challenge to come up with subjects on a regular basis. It's a challenge to write copy and create illustrations and images that are engaging. It's a challenge to satisfy the editor / owner, who... well... edits articles to suit his vision and mission for the blog.

I've had my own blog (mostly) related to my profession for 10 years and have written over 300 articles for it. I've learned a few things. First, while I hope to satisfy my readers, I mostly write to satisfy me. Secondly, my writing won't satisfy all readers. In fact, it has angered some readers.

I have come to the conclusion that if my writing for my own blog DID "satisfy" all readers, it wasn't provocative enough. Where's the fun in that?? So, yeah.... A part of the reason I write is to provoke. Being provocative means reactions will be at both ends of the spectrum: both praise and criticism. Sometimes outright anger these days. Admittedly both reactions satisfy ME. Yep... I enjoy provoking some folks. And, that's also the truth.

Oh... one more Truth: Our watch blog has nothing to sell, unlike nearly ALL the other watch blogs and vlogs. We don't get commissions from links. We have no conflict of interest... again, like nearly all the other blogs. That's the Truth. Choose your poison, I guess.

Cheers! :cool:🍻
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,077 Posts
Discussion Starter · #49 ·
Temperature compensated. There you go.
Ah... OK. I'm abbreviation / acronym-challenged.

The "TC" HAQ watches go for a pretty penny. The UHF (ultra-high frequency) watches are quite the bargain by comparison.

Cut from the article was my section about those two things.

My Bulova Lunar Pilot (UHF / 262 kHz) and my Hamilton PSR (movement unknown) are both clocking in at 3.65 s/y (or 0.01 s/d).
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
175 Posts
Ah... OK. I'm abbreviation / acronym-challenged.

The "TC" HAQ watches go for a pretty penny. The UHF (ultra-high frequency) watches are quite the bargain by comparison.

Cut from the article was my section about those two things.

My Bulova Lunar Pilot (UHF / 262 kHz) and my Hamilton PSR (movement unknown) are both clocking in at 3.65 s/y (or 0.01 s/d).
Lunar Pilot. Sounds interesting.

I'd like to be a Mars Pilot.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,760 Posts
Nice topic. I think it’s worth echoing what others are saying, in that there’s a difference between precision and accuracy. One has to decide how they’re measuring “good timekeeping,” you know?

Most of my quartz watches do .3 spd or better, but they do that consistently. Here’s a cheap Seiko (7S26) over the past week.



I can play with its positional variance and dial in—heh—pretty good accuracy. But I’ve no illusions that it has a lot less precision with regards to position, state of wind, shock resistance, etc.

If a quartz Citizen gains .3 spd, it’s less accurate in that week than this Seiko. But the Citizen keeps on trucking at that same rate regardless.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,077 Posts
Discussion Starter · #54 ·
Most of my quartz watches do .3 spd or better, but they do that consistently. Here’s a cheap Seiko (7S26) over the past week.
True. To wit...

G-Shock G-7800. Almost a perfectly straight line (over 4 months):
15930792


Yachtmaster on a winder (most of the time), which leaves it resting in a variety of positions:

15930796


However, my Breitling can be amazingly linear (measured over 1 month), also on a winder most of the time. It seems to be less susceptible to positional variances:

15930804
 

·
Registered
Seiko auto's. Monster, Turtle, 5 Sports. Steeldive auto. G Shock. Edifice. Protrek. Casio.
Joined
·
1,000 Posts
My acceptable range for autos and quartz are..... Auto up to + or - 10 spd. Quartz up to +15 spm.
Anything outside that bugs me.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
2,612 Posts
Quartz is more precise. That accuracy will not vary as much as automatic.

On the other hand, that Rolex accuracy is only temporary. After a year or so, or based on temperature variation across seasons, or based on orientation, there will be variation.

My Omega watch was within COSC when new. Then it slowed down to more than -15 seconds per day after 10 years. After service earlier this year, it is now running around -1 second every 2 weeks. The local watchmaker did a great job adjusting the timing. However, this is only temporary and will change over time. Enjoy while it lasts.
Well Rolex guarantees -2/+2 seconds per day for 5 years. My Datejust II from 2015 still ticks at +0.7 seconds per day and is more precise after all this time than some of my Casios.

My Blancpain is 15 seconds fast, after 2 months (!!!).

Of course, I also have plenty of watches that do not keep time that well, my Vacheron looses 5 seconds a day dial up for instance….
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
2,612 Posts
My Casio's are also quite accurate.
SNIP
I noticed that the watches generally run more accurately when I wear them frequently.
Yep indeed. Quartz crystals run most accurate at specific temperatures. That’s why high accuracy quartz movements are Thermo compensated. Normal quartz watches are meant to be worn and have the skin contact. Makes a very equal temp.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
294 Posts
I just published a short article on this, based on my own experience. Here's a tidbit:

View attachment 15928721


Watch Accuracy: Rolex vs. Casio - The Truth About Watches
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.
It's indeed amazing, I didn't know they could reach below 1 spd, even more if the watch was worn and constantly running. Nor that their accuracy varied before needing service as well. Thanks for the share !

Now let's go back to our -25/+45 spd $400 average mechanicals... XD
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.
According to what i've read, the problem with UHF is that the quality of the quartz is critical, as that frequency speeds up the aging of the material. So you can get an impressive accuracy with some Bulova Precisionist ($300-400) units at the purchase, but then the accuracy would decrease proportionally much faster than a common quartz, not mentioning possible malfunctions. Yet, I do not know if their accuracy can get to be worse than regular quartz watches. I guess thermoregulated ones have the upper hand in terms of compromise, price excepted :unsure:

Anyway, about cheaper watches doing good, here's my personal beast :


It gains about 1s per month. That makes around 12 per year, and 0.04 spd, and that quite consistently. That's about 10 to 20 times more accurate than my Lancer (which is still within specs). Not bad for a $100 watch, uh ? 😆

Better than a Rolex.


Jokes aside, the movement is a simple Miyota 2315. Yet, at one hand Miyota is a brand (and an underrated one at that), and at another the case is a wooden one... and wood happens to be a good thermal insulator. So, the watch that was supposed to be a joke one, turns in fact being my most accurate one. Life is funny sometimes. ;)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,077 Posts
Discussion Starter · #60 ·
According to what i've read, the problem with UHF is that the quality of the quartz is critical, as that frequency speeds up the aging of the material. So you can get an impressive accuracy with some Bulova Precisionist ($300-400) units at the purchase, but then the accuracy would decrease proportionally much faster than a common quartz, not mentioning possible malfunctions.
Ah, interesting. I didn't know that. I've got a few years left in me, so perhaps I'll make that same observation over time. :)
 
41 - 60 of 78 Posts
Top