That's not methodology. Methodology is how they take their readings. I don't think a single independent watchmaker does it the same way as the COSC.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.
Meaningful test or marketing gimmick?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][/SUP] "Ébauche" parts (i.e. higher quality hairsprings, mainsprings, balance wheels; regulators, etc.) all aimed at the coveted chronometer certification.[SUP][/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][/SUP]
Mechanical Quartz Average daily rate: −4/+6[SUP][/SUP] Average daily rate at 23 °C: ±0.07 Mean variation in rates: 2[SUP][/SUP] Rate at 8 °C: ±0.2 Greatest variation in rates: 5[SUP][/SUP] Rate at 38 °C: ±0.2 Difference between rates in H & V positions: −6/+8[SUP][/SUP] Rate stability: 0.05 Largest variation in rates: 10[SUP][/SUP] Dynamic rate: ±0.05 Thermal variation: ±0.6[SUP][/SUP] Temporary effect of mechanical shocks: ±0.05 Rate resumption: ±5[SUP][/SUP] Rate resumption: ±0.05 n/a Residual effect of mechanical shocks: ±0.05;200 shocks equivalent to 100 g (981 m/s², 3,217 ft/s²)
all units in seconds unless specified
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.
His methodology would be acceptable for ISO 3159, if he met all the other requirements.
In my mind, if Archer did his testing to all the requirements of ISO 3159, in a fully assembled watch, timed using his current watch timing method, this would be superior to what COSC does. 'ISO 3159 Chronometer' might not have the ring of COSC, but it removes the BS Swiss control over 'chronometers'.