WatchUSeek Watch Forums banner

1 - 20 of 21 Posts

·
Pil-Mil, Breitling Forum Moderator
Joined
·
13,376 Posts
Discussion Starter · #3 ·
Nice watch, for sure.

Do you have any actual accuracy measurements over time that would verify its status as HAQ?

TIA
Here is some detail regarding the piece...

B-1 HAQ 1280X800S by o2afac67, on Flickr

And from our "Articles" section above the main Breitling forum, exact detail regarding HAQ and COSC ... https://www.watchuseek.com/f39/breitling-quartz-superquartz-cosc-certification-accuracy-907034.html

In actual measure practice, my B-1 pictured all over WUS typically gains or lose a little less than 2 seconds every six months which I note every time I reset the time for standard or daylight savings time. Hope this helps... ;-)

Best,
Ron
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
7,700 Posts
Here is some detail regarding the piece...

B-1 HAQ 1280X800S by o2afac67, on Flickr

And from our "Articles" section above the main Breitling forum, exact detail regarding HAQ and COSC ... https://www.watchuseek.com/f39/breitling-quartz-superquartz-cosc-certification-accuracy-907034.html

In actual measure practice, my B-1 pictured all over WUS typically gains or lose a little less than 2 seconds every six months which I note every time I reset the time for standard or daylight savings time. Hope this helps... ;-)

Best,
Ron
If conformance to COSC specs = HAQ, then yes, that info would be very helpful; but it does not.

So all I can discern from your answer is that you have casually observed accuracy visually when changing time every six months. Certainly not a substitute for more accepted ways to measure HAQ performance, like those discussed in this thread (https://www.watchuseek.com/f9/methods-determining-accuracy-watch-382752.html), but better than nothing.

Thanks for the info.
 

·
Pil-Mil, Breitling Forum Moderator
Joined
·
13,376 Posts
Discussion Starter · #5 ·
If conformance to COSC specs = HAQ, then yes, that info would be very helpful; but it does not.

So all I can discern from your answer is that you have casually observed accuracy visually when changing time every six months. Certainly not a substitute for more accepted ways to measure HAQ performance, like those discussed in this thread (https://www.watchuseek.com/f9/methods-determining-accuracy-watch-382752.html), but better than nothing.

Thanks for the info.
You are most welcome for the info. Apologies in advance for only having casually observed a few six month accuracy checks. However casual, I agree, they were better than nothing. More importantly, they were satisfactory for my purposes of using and enjoying the watch. I simply don't have the level of interest you have in more "accepted" ways to measure HAQ performance. Your needs and interest may differ...
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
9,463 Posts
gaijin, if we are gonna accept the PreciDrives, which often are only noted as being COSC, then we accept this.

He didn't have to mention it was COSC. It has chronometer indicated on the dial, which implies COSC, or similar certification. And that is sufficient by longstanding practice here.

MANY of us are not interested in actively testing. Please let's not get back into minutiae and nitpicking that wrecked the forum.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
7,700 Posts
gaijin, if we are gonna accept the PreciDrives, which often are only noted as being COSC, then we accept this.

He didn't have to mention it was COSC. It has chronometer indicated on the dial, which implies COSC, or similar certification. And that is sufficient by longstanding practice here.

MANY of us are not interested in actively testing. Please let's not get back into minutiae and nitpicking that wrecked the forum.
That's fine by me!

I guess I'm still caught up in what the difference is between a nice quartz watch and a HAQ. Honestly, if all that's required to classify a watch as HAQ is COSC certification, then I'm all in. And if all that's required of other quartz watches is to demonstrate performance within COSC specifications (i.e. +0.20 sec/day or +73.05 sec/year @ 8 DegC, +0.07 sec/day or +25.57 sec/year @ 23 DegC and +0.20 sec/day or +73.05 sec/year @ 38 DegC) that's fine with me as long as that is how we are defining HAQ.

What happened to the +10 sec/year requirement for HAQ that I'm sure I saw talked about?

If that's dead, and the bar for entry into HAQ is COSC specs, then OK. But, is that really where we are?

I'm really not trying to stir up anything, just seeking clarification.

HTH
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
766 Posts
If conformance to COSC specs = HAQ, then yes, that info would be very helpful; but it does not.

So all I can discern from your answer is that you have casually observed accuracy visually when changing time every six months. Certainly not a substitute for more accepted ways to measure HAQ performance, like those discussed in this thread (https://www.watchuseek.com/f9/methods-determining-accuracy-watch-382752.html), but better than nothing.

Thanks for the info.
With all due respect, the article seems to be more concerned with a pedantic devotion to process, rather than outcome. Not counting GPS, phone, or other external controls, I have a hard time not accepting 4spy as HAQ.
 
  • Like
Reactions: O2AFAC67

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,202 Posts
I guess I'm still caught up in what the difference is between a nice quartz watch and a HAQ. Honestly, if all that's required to classify a watch as HAQ is COSC certification, then I'm all in.
Yeah, even though I'm not into splitting hairs on 10spy vs. 15 for barrier to HAQ entry, the COSC standard is about 6 seconds/month. Just about any decent quartz movement can achieve that, so I don't see that as being anything special in terms of performance.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
288 Posts
Bomber said :-
>It typically gains or loses a little less than 2 seconds every six months which I note every time I reset the time for daylight savings.
Gaijin said :-
>Certainly not a substitute for more accepted ways to measure HAQ performance
I do not agree with Gaijin, checking time every 6 months gives a more robust rate measurement than most of the 'clever' methods described in the forum. From a purely practical point of view Bomber has a good watch (never out by more than 2s) and he is a good owner (has a procedure that maintains this performance with minimal effort.

The elephant in the room is temperature.
Dwalby said :-
>Just about any decent quartz movement can achieve 6 seconds/month, so I don't see that as being anything special in terms of performance.
The COSC standard asks for 6 seconds per month at 8 and 38C
This is 'something special'
Here is my test result for a 'decent' (Trend-line ETA) quartz movement which is similar to results in the 'textbook' thermocompensation thread
Hamilton.png

The rate changes by 16 seconds per month between 14 and 24C. This is a fundamental defect of the 'standard' 32KHz tuning-fork xtal.
The rate is also out by about 16 seconds per month at 23C, COSC require about 2 seconds per month.
Any decent quartz movement can achieve 2 seconds/month at a constant 23C, but many will not.

Mr moderator said :-
>Mr. Moderator is using 10 s/y offset for modern HAQ watches. That is by measurements not manufacturer's specs.

I think that most manufacturers have a 'marketing' spec and a 'technical department' spec.
E64.511 is a nice ETA Flatline (premium ) movement which is made in Precidrive (good for COSC) and not-precidrive (any decent quartz)
For Precidrive they say :-
>10 spy Initial rate with a normal wearing between 20° C and 30° C
This is the 'marketing department' number with the 'normal wearing' safety exit, but for 90% of customers may well be achieved

They then give maximum and minimum rates :-
> within 2 seconds per month at 23C
> within 6 seconds per month at 8 and 38C
As these are the maximum errors accepted by COSC I believe that they will be achieved to a good degree of certainty.

For the 'no precidrive' = 'no thermocompensation' and 'no careful rate adjustment' they say:-
> between -9 and +15 seconds per month at 25C, no values for other temperatures.

I am interested in the technology of HAQ rather producing a legally rigorous definition, but so long as it is applied as a 'soft standard' I am happy with the COSC specification.
My thermal-cycling oven will not go below 12C, so I test between 14C and 36C.
Even over this range 10spy is very demanding, the thermal compensation has to 'remove' about 90spy and small changes in the xtal thermal-curve will 'blow it way off course'.
 
  • Like
Reactions: O2AFAC67

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
7,700 Posts
Bomber said :-
>It typically gains or loses a little less than 2 seconds every six months which I note every time I reset the time for daylight savings.
Gaijin said :-
>Certainly not a substitute for more accepted ways to measure HAQ performance
I do not agree with Gaijin, checking time every 6 months gives a more robust rate measurement than most of the 'clever' methods described in the forum.
I think you misunderstood my point which was not that more measurements are required, but when "measured" it should be more than simply looking at the watch and declaring it to have gained or lost a little less than 2 seconds.

HTH
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
9,463 Posts
Not trying to be negative but we haven't been rigidly restricting to 10 SPY for several years. We have had no issue accepting COSC, which is basically 25 SPY. We talk about Precisionist, where extensive anecdotal evidence suggests they're not consistently at this standard...and don't have TC, which is going to mean it works great most of the time...but has its limits.

We've had this ongoing discussion for 2 years at least. The pedantic demand for "proven 10 SPY" has been ignored so much that it's unreasonable to assert it is the 'forum standard.'
 
  • Like
Reactions: O2AFAC67

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
9,463 Posts
Yeah, even though I'm not into splitting hairs on 10spy vs. 15 for barrier to HAQ entry, the COSC standard is about 6 seconds/month. Just about any decent quartz movement can achieve that, so I don't see that as being anything special in terms of performance.
The COSC quartz standard is 0.07 seconds per day, or about 2 seconds a month.

Most normal quartz is 15 to 20 seconds a month by spec. Sure, individual samples do better...happened to glance at one of my Eco Drives. Haven't worn, ergo set, it in months. It's maybe 30 seconds off...it's only a 2-hander so it's a little hard to tell. But in...I wanna say, 18 months? That's JUST fine, thank you, for a regular quartz.
 

·
Pil-Mil, Breitling Forum Moderator
Joined
·
13,376 Posts
Discussion Starter · #17 ·
I think you misunderstood my point which was not that more measurements are required, but when "measured" it should be more than simply looking at the watch and declaring it to have gained or lost a little less than 2 seconds.

HTH
Hmmm... :think: Well, let me think about my "procedure" for my COSC certified thermocompensated timepiece to be "measured" every six months... :-s Even though not a valid substitute for a more "accepted way" to measure... as accurately as I can with the arthritically assisted precision of a finger depression, I "set" the watch the precise instant (surely within no more than 2 or 3 femtoseconds) I observe the seconds digits hit double zero on the NIST website. Naturally I have taken into account all the possible network delays and any other potential aberrations ehich might potentially cause disturbing variations in measurement and have recorded all data points utilizing my Cray Supercomputer and my own finely tuned software. :-! In the future and in the interest of far better quality conrtol which will assure an even better "way to measure", I have decided to offer member gaijin a consulting position in my laboratory at a starting salary of $50,000 USD/month. |> On second thought... :think: I'll probably just save the money and try to be satisfied with the way I've done it for the last fourteen years of of ownership which IMHO has served me quite well. ;-):)
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
7,700 Posts
Hmmm... :think: Well, let me think about my "procedure" for my COSC certified thermocompensated timepiece to be "measured" every six months... :-s Even though not a valid substitute for a more "accepted way" to measure... as accurately as I can with the arthritically assisted precision of a finger depression, I "set" the watch the precise instant (surely within no more than 2 or 3 femtoseconds) I observe the seconds digits hit double zero on the NIST website. Naturally I have taken into account all the possible network delays and any other potential aberrations ehich might potentially cause disturbing variations in measurement and have recorded all data points utilizing my Cray Supercomputer and my own finely tuned software. :-! In the future and in the interest of far better quality conrtol which will assure an even better "way to measure", I have decided to offer member gaijin a consulting position in my laboratory at a starting salary of $50,000 USD/month. |> On second thought... :think: I'll probably just save the money and try to be satisfied with the way I've done it for the last fourteen years of of ownership which IMHO has served me quite well. ;-):)
No need to be rude - HAQ isn't for everybody.

Merry Christmas!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,146 Posts
No need to be rude - HAQ isn't for everybody.

Merry Christmas!
You're probably right, HAQ is not for everybody, and based on the requirements you suggest that would eliminate Omega also. They only spec their watches to -0.5 to 0.7 per day due to temperature variation. It's on their web site. Same as COSC, and that Breitling.

If you have a watch that out performs those specs, that you measure meticulously, great. Doesn't mean any other watch of that brand and model will perform as well. Likewise I have a non descript Citizen that performs very well, does that make it HAQ because I set it and measured it precisely. Of course not.

Just saying if I am buying a watch the manufacturer will stand by his specs and I use that in making my choice. If I buy a watch based on the measurements here, well no one will refund me if it doesn't perform as well as theirs.

It seems the New Year is coming in like the old one went out.

Great watch OP, I measure mine pretty much the same way you do, a quick set of photos in front of the atomic clock twice a year. I could probably just eyeball it at this point.
 
1 - 20 of 21 Posts
Top