WatchUSeek Watch Forums banner
Status
Not open for further replies.
101 - 120 of 134 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
558 Posts
Comment and and question , not to throw a wrench in the game, but....I recently got a Shaumburg Bullfrog. Sellita SW50A (Sw500/ 7750 equivalent ) and I got to tell you its not a Chronometer but keeping time well within that spec. Does it matter what a particular watch Company does to modify the movement as to whether or not it performs better than its grade would have you believe?
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
23,134 Posts
I have to admit that I too am annoyed when people refer to the -4/+6 spd as COSC level performance, since that can be achieved for a watch that has a very regular wearing pattern and resting position by just regulating the movement. To me, a big part of a chronometer level performance includes a small positional variance (or positional delta), and low dependence of the rate on the level of power reserve (isochronism). These two aspects are important for having a watch perform reliability irrespective of the wearing pattern of the specific owner.

Complicating all of this is the fact that COSC testing is performed on the uncased movement, and there is no consistent standard for how the watch performs when it is actually cased and worn. Different manufacturers specify what are considered acceptable accuracy levels and positional variance for their chronometer level watches, and my understanding is that Al uses these internal standards when saying that the watches that he has serviced performs to (or exceeds) the factory service standards.

But, what this discussion illustrates is that there is the COSC test for the uncased movement, the manufacturer's accuracy standards for the cased watch, and our informal notion of "COSC level accuracy," and the term COSC is thrown around without much care, and used to mean different things depending on the poster and the context.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
558 Posts
Yes, yes!!!! . It's not to say that the same watch would continue running within COSC spec if it were put through the "exact COSC " tests,. but it is right now!
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
2,198 Posts
Comment and and question , not to throw a wrench in the game, but....I recently got a Shaumburg Bullfrog. Sellita SW50A (Sw500/ 7750 equivalent ) and I got to tell you its not a Chronometer but keeping time well within that spec. Does it matter what a particular watch Company does to modify the movement as to whether or not it performs better than its grade would have you believe?
There's a matter of longevity or stability of the timing. The component upgrades basically tighten up the precision capability of the watch by reducing the effects of the base materials.

A good watchmaker, as Archer shows, can tighten up the timing of a lower grade watch to meet the more important positions of ISO 3159 requirements. But materials that reduce the negative effects of temperature, magnetism, and corrosion make it easier, especially years later.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
12,737 Posts
I have to admit that I too am annoyed when people refer to the -4/+6 spd as COSC level performance, since that can be achieved for a watch that has a very regular wearing pattern and resting position by just regulating the movement. To me, a big part of a chronometer level performance includes a small positional variance (or positional delta), and low dependence of the rate on the level of power reserve (isochronism). These two aspects are important for having a watch perform reliability irrespective of the wearing pattern of the specific owner.

Complicating all of this is the fact that COSC testing is performed on the uncased movement, and there is no consistent standard for how the watch performs when it is actually cased and worn. Different manufacturers specify what are considered acceptable accuracy levels and positional variance for their chronometer level watches, and my understanding is that Al uses these internal standards when saying that the watches that he has serviced performs to (or exceeds) the factory service standards.

But, what this discussion illustrates is that there is the COSC test for the uncased movement, the manufacturer's accuracy standards for the cased watch, and our informal notion of "COSC level accuracy," and the term COSC is thrown around without much care, and used to mean different things depending on the poster and the context.

I have to completely disagree with this. 99.999999% of members know exactly what COSC test entails. Dimman stated, which I've NEVER seen or read that there are members talking about their Seiko 5 watches being a COSC watch. Please show me one post where anyone with the smallest amount of grey matter has posted this comment. If anyone is flinging crap around, it's Dimman. All I'm saying is that there is nothing wrong with stating that a non COSC watch holds it's timing within COSC timing standards. That is not saying it's a COSC watch. For the life of me, I have no idea why this is so hard to understand.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,560 Posts
Different manufacturers specify what are considered acceptable accuracy levels and positional variance for their chronometer level watches, and my understanding is that Al uses these internal standards when saying that the watches that he has serviced performs to (or exceeds) the factory service standards.
Can you give us an example or two? Because I was under the impression that they all just stick with the COSC specs.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
2,198 Posts
I have to completely disagree with this. 99.999999% of members know exactly what COSC test entails. Dimman stated, which I've NEVER seen or read that there are members talking about their Seiko 5 watches being a COSC watch. Please show me one post where anyone with the smallest amount of grey matter has posted this comment. If anyone is flinging crap around, it's Dimman. All I'm saying is that there is nothing wrong with stating that a non COSC watch holds it's timing within COSC timing standards. That is not saying it's a COSC watch. For the life of me, I have no idea why this is so hard to understand.
It's because you seem to not understand things such as methodology, and specifics of terminology. Nor that COSC testing targets aren't internal, but based on ISO 3159 chronometer requirements.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
558 Posts
Semantics! I personally would rather spend less and get more, ie. a non COSC watch preforming within COSC specs based on daily wearing habits. Many have "Chromoter " on the dial and are disappointed when their watch doesnt perform as advertised.
Here's a pic just for the heck of it!!
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
23,134 Posts
I have to completely disagree with this. 99.999999% of members know exactly what COSC test entails. Dimman stated, which I've NEVER seen or read that there are members talking about their Seiko 5 watches being a COSC watch. Please show me one post where anyone with the smallest amount of grey matter has posted this comment. If anyone is flinging crap around, it's Dimman. All I'm saying is that there is nothing wrong with stating that a non COSC watch holds it's timing within COSC timing standards. That is not saying it's a COSC watch. For the life of me, I have no idea why this is so hard to understand.
I doubt that most people know that COSC testing is performed on an uncased movement and makes no representation about how accurate the movement is when cased, and that it pertains to the daily rate, positional variance, and isochronism of the movement.

For most people on this forum, the only thing they know is the -4/+6 spd specification. You have defined "COSC timing standards" to mean the -4/+6 spd specification, and I understand that it is consistent with how the term is understood typically on the forum. I am also aware that you make a distinction between the full battery of COSC testing and the daily accuracy requirement, but I am saying that most people are not aware of that distinction. As such, this sloppy use of the term is bothersome for people who care about the precise use of language, and it further perpetuates the myth that -4/+6 spd is all there is to COSC testing.

However, as I have said before, it tells you only how well the watch is regulated and not how well the watch is adjusted, at least if the person reporting that accuracy has a very regular pattern of wear and is consistent about the position which the watch is placed in at night.

The problem I have with this usage is that it implies a higher level of reliability of the rate than is justified by the measurement being reported. At this point, I feel the need to post this picture illustrating the difference between accuracy and precision. Put another way, I would much rather have an extremely precise watch, that has a consistent rate that is mostly independent of position, temperature, and power reserve, than a watch that is extremely accurate by the daily rate metric for a particular individual with a very consistent wearing pattern.

 

·
Registered
Joined
·
12,737 Posts
It's because you seem to not understand things such as methodology, and specifics of terminology. Nor that COSC testing targets aren't internal, but based on ISO 3159 chronometer requirements.
I completely understand the methodology and testing targets. What you are doing is playing a game of semantics and trying to either discredit an excellent watchmaker or just to piss off the entire forum. Get over yourself, we know what COSC means and how they arrive at certifying a watch as a COSC timepiece. I own several of them and have read all sorts of information regarding this very topic, so please don't assume I don't know what I'm talking about. Not too tough to follow.


MechanicalQuartz
Average daily rate: −4/+6[SUP][13][/SUP]Average daily rate at 23 °C: ±0.07
Mean variation in rates: 2[SUP][14][/SUP]Rate at 8 °C: ±0.2
Greatest variation in rates: 5[SUP][15][/SUP]Rate at 38 °C: ±0.2
Difference between rates in H & V positions: −6/+8[SUP][16][/SUP]Rate stability: 0.05
Largest variation in rates: 10[SUP][17][/SUP]Dynamic rate: ±0.05
Thermal variation: ±0.6[SUP][18][/SUP]Temporary effect of mechanical shocks: ±0.05
Rate resumption: ±5[SUP][19][/SUP]Rate resumption: ±0.05
n/aResidual effect of mechanical shocks: ±0.05;200 shocks equivalent to 100 g (981 m/s², 3,217 ft/s²)
COSC Standards
all units in seconds unless specified
Meaningful test or marketing gimmick?[edit]There is a debate among watch enthusiasts as to whether the COSC chronometer certification for a Swiss watch is a meaningful test or a simple marketing gimmick. On the one hand, when a watch maker intends to submit a movement for COSC testing, they frequently employ additional jewelling (i.e. to the barrel) and better quality[SUP][22][/SUP] "Ébauche" parts (i.e. higher quality hairsprings, mainsprings, balance wheels; regulators, etc.) all aimed at the coveted chronometer certification.[SUP][23][/SUP] On the other hand, it is likely that most good quality movements on the market today are capable of being tweaked, and timed to fall comfortably within the benchmark -4/+6 average daily rate criteria of the COSC. However, movements so submitted to COSC are more likely to be submitted with better quality parts in order to be confident of a successful test, and as a consequence may be more likely to maintain better timekeeping rates over the service life of the time piece.[SUP][24][/SUP]
Therefore, some of the ″Haute Horlogerie″ Swiss Watch Manufacturers have created on 5 June 2001, ″The Fleurier Quality Foundation″ to establish new aesthetic and technical criteria dedicated to the certification of finished watches. Their certification meets a normative requirement for the market and the final customer to have a better definition of quality watchmaking, adapted to today's demands and technological advances. Geneva's have created along similar criteria the Geneva seal.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
12,737 Posts
Semantics! I personally would rather spend less and get more, ie. a non COSC watch preforming within COSC specs based on daily wearing habits. Many have "Chromoter " on the dial and are disappointed when their watch doesnt perform as advertised.
Here's a pic just for the heck of it!!

My thoughts exactly!
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
23,134 Posts
Can you give us an example or two? Because I was under the impression that they all just stick with the COSC specs.
You have to ask Al for that, but I think he mentioned an Omega standard in one of his earlier posts on this thread. I assume that part of the reasoning for a tighter specification is the fact that the daily rate is an average based on a synthetic approximation of a typical wearing pattern, and as such actual performance on a given individual's wrist could differ from what the synthetic testing yields.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
558 Posts
It would probably surprise most, here on WUS, that Invicta sends the most movements for COSC testing. That's right, Incivcta.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
12,737 Posts
It would probably surprise most, here on WUS, that Invicta sends the most movements for COSC testing. That's right, Incivcta.
Invicta is way down on the list.

.

  • Rolex 799.000 (751.000) +6,4%
  • Omega 526.000 (509.000) +3,3%
  • Breitling 157.000 (154.000) +1,9%
  • Mido 61.000 (49.000) +24%
  • Tissot 50.000 (7000) +614%
  • Panerai 29.000 (34.000) -15%
  • Chopard 23.000 (29.000) -21%
  • Enicar 16.000 (17.000) -6%
  • Titoni 15.000 (21.000) -29%
  • Invicta 10.000 (0) –%


They don't even show up on this list.

 
101 - 120 of 134 Posts
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top