WatchUSeek Watch Forums banner
Status
Not open for further replies.

Current perception of Sellita?

14K views 133 replies 42 participants last post by  Bradjhomes 
#1 ·
I have been debating whether my next watch would be a Ball or Longines, but I saw the new ProPilot and I like that more than any other watch.

I looked into it and apparently Oris has gone 100% with Sellita. As far as I can tell all their watches are running Sellita.

I am aware of the gear issue with the 200 that was supposedly fixed in the 200-1.

Usually people tell me, they're both exactly equal. Sellita used to build movements for ETA. There is no difference.

But when I press them on it they admit, if given the choice they will choose the watch with ETA. That they command a higher price tag new and used. That they will choose ETA and if there's no choice for ETA they would rather just go with a Japanese watch than to choose Sellita.

All the threads I found are from 2009-2011 about this Sellita vs ETA. That the Sellita hasn't priven itself they said.

So what's the word now? Should I iust buy the Oris because I like it? Or should I stay away from Sellita and possible breakdowns?

I don't want to pay $1,400 for a watch and have it break down within the first year.

Another question, if this is still a controversial issue, about Sellita and its "geargate" fiasco, then is being an independent watch maker good at this point it is joining the Swatch Group better in order to get the ETA movements instead of going outside?

Just wondering how many people don't buy a specific watch because they don't trust the movement.

Buy Oris or stick with ETA? What's your opinion?
 
See less See more
#77 ·
Interesting conversation. Maybe, if we were talking about in-house movements, the movement is a primary factor in my purchasing decision. In the case of Oris, I own two and have a third on the way. I trust Oris as a proven brand with top quality, in their price range. If Oris is willing to trust their brand to Sellita quality, that works for me.

When buying from micro brands or less known brands, I pay attention to the brand/type of movement. When buying from an established company with a history of producing quality (who have much to lose if they compromise their brand-quality perception), the type of movement is not a primary concern.
 
#86 ·
#132 ·
Again, back to Sellita:

How is it that it's a big deal now, even though a ton of ETA stamped movements have been assembled by Sellita over the years and no one was the wiser?
Again, back to Sellita:

Is there any way to differentiate an older Sellita-assembled ETA movement from an ETA-assembled ETA movement?
Well I've been trying to stay on topic.

More important for others how 'ignorant' I am for pointing out how misuse of terminology that has specific meanings. Because a good watchmaker is allowed to not present things correctly, contributing to the existing massive forum misinformation regarding COSC, because he is a 'legend'.

I think I get what you guys are about now.

Sooo...

About the Sellita points?

- Sold lots of what they made to Hong Kong

- Have been assembling ETA movements for years and nobody noticed.

- Can anyone tell the difference between ETA/Sellita and ETA/ETA?
 
#91 · (Edited)
This thread needs more pics.....my Sellitas, all run well.









To pummel a dead horse some more, those who think some of their watches have ETA movements may actually own Sellita made under contract. Also many ETA have Sellita made parts in them.
 
#101 ·
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?
 
#104 ·
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.
 
#102 ·
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.
 
#106 ·
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.
 
#125 · (Edited)
I'm not sure how to translate it into a machine learning context, since recall and precision in machine learning has more to do with binary classifiers, whereas accuracy and precision seems to make more sense when you have measurements on which you can define a distance.

Accuracy has to do with the mean of the measurements agreeing closely with the true value, and precision has to do with the deviation when the same measurement is performed repeatedly.

Edit: In retrospect, I guess you might make the kind of analogy you were proposing, but it is not a perfect one. High precision in machine learning could be said to be conceptually similar to precision, since it means that the algorithm returns mostly relevant items, which are close together in some sense. But recall doesn't seem to map quite as well to accuracy.
 
  • Like
Reactions: blowfish89
Status
Not open for further replies.
You have insufficient privileges to reply here.
Top