I currently have two Omegas and two Rolex.

In order of actual accuracy since I have owned them: Seamaster 300M, Batman and Speedy tied, then Milgauss. My Worldtimer, before it left, was also more accurate than the Milgauss.

And I don't have to worry too much about my Omegas getting magnetized, which may have just happened to my Milgauss. It had been running +2 to +3 second per day since July. It has now run +8 seconds in the last 24 hours. This after running +10 seconds from Sunday afternoon to yesterday afternoon.

Also, there are like a million other brands. Being COSC and METAS puts Omegas accuracy higher than practically all other brands (Tudor has a model also METAS qualified). Figure COSC ratings are, what -4/+6 and only 5% of Swiss watches are even COSC certified.

Having said all this, I imagine this is just about pitting Omega against Rolex and watching the forums burn. That's been done, over and over again. It's okay to like both for what they bring to the table. If you don't think OMEGA is worth it, and only Rolex is, by all means....

 

And I don't have to worry too much about my Omegas getting magnetized, which may have just happened to my Milgauss.

You managed to get your Milgauss magnetized? Any idea how? The Force must be strong with you

 

COSC is -4 to +6 I believe
Metas is 0 to +5

METAS is far more strict.

Is it possible for a cosc watch toto be more accurate than a METAS watch? Of course. Just like it's possible for a Seiko to be more accurate than a Rolex.

Depends on the watch.

What matters is whether or not the watch runs within the manufacturer's spec.

 

Is it possible for a cosc watch toto be more accurate than a METAS watch? Of course. Just like it's possible for a Seiko to be more accurate than a Rolex.

Do people still believe that higher end wristwatches like Rolex are intrinsically more accurate than lower end wristwatches?

When you consider that "a Seiko" can have a quartz movement accurate to +- 10 SPY, or a GPS/radio wave watches that correct themselves by syncing to atomic clocks, I'm not sure any of the Swiss accuracy certifications, whether it's COSC or METAS (which also includes the COSC testing process), can hold a handle to "a Seiko" in this scenario.

 

To the ordinary watch buyer, it means higher quality.
COSC and Chronometers is a bit diluted now. Even affordable Tissots are chronometers.

Whether for marketing purposes, or to show off a brand's engineering or manufacturing prowess (which is actually still marketing), brands need to have a different 'label' for their products.

 

Roughly 5-6% of swiss watches are COSC certified. How does that equal diluted?

 

Both your Rolex and your Omega should run within its brands'/models' specs. There's plenty of overlap. Either individual piece could perform better FOR YOU than the other (your wear pattern is an influence). That the luck of the draw.....

Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk

 

METAS is more than just precision so it is easily arguable it is a more stringent test even if it isn't on precision alone. On the accuracy front, METAS is 0/+5 where the Rolex Superlative Chronometer is -2/+2. They along with Patek have the highest accuracy standards and the standards are for cased movements vs bare. Note Omega went to METAS first which in turn prompted Rolex to counter.

In practice, you will find current METAS movements and Superlative Chronometer movements very similar in accuracy.

 

Of cos it means somthing, if it's +/-6 second a day. Feel free to bring it back to AD and ask them for regulation into acceptance spec.

 

Who cares what it's "called"? All that matters is what it is. Look it up and decide for yourself.

 

And get off of my lawn while looking it up, grumpus.

 

Another point is that METAS claims the watch won't typically lose time while the Rolex only claims not to lose more than 2s/d. Personally, I'd rather consistently gain (the max) 5s/d than lose (the max) 2s/d.

Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk

 

Unless I'm mistaken, METAS tests in 6 positions whereas the Superlative Chronometer standard only requires adjustment to 5 positions - SPD tolerance doesn't tell the whole story.

In addition, METAS calls for ridiculous antimagnetic resistance, and that has practical real life benefits. Most people living in the 21st century are surrounded by magnets - in phones, headphones, computers, etc etc that can mess with mechanical watches.

On the other hand, that sort of antimagnetic resistance is pretty much only achievable with the use of silicon parts. If you are a purist who prefers watches to be silicon-free, you probably won't be owning a METAS watch anytime soon.

 

You didn't specify that however, and just said "A Seiko can be more accurate than a Rolex", without specifying about whether or not you were talking auto or quartz.

COSC/METAS apply to mechanicals only. So I thought it was obvious that we're talking about mechanical watches.

Omega/Rolex also have battery operated models (old and current models) that aren't included in this discussion

 

You would think it was obvious, but some people gotta push their offended soapbox into the middle of room while the adults are talking.

"seiko pioneered quartz, which is superior to mechanical."... Groundbreaking.

 

There's COSC for quartz, too.

Quartz movements | COSC

The COSC also certifies quartz chronometers. Since no international standard currently applies to the electronic quartz watch, the COSC has established a test requirement for quartz chronometers based on the ISO 3159 standard. This prescription that certifies their performance as it does for the...

www.cosc.swiss

Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk

 

On any day of the week, I'll take a watch that is 0 to +4 over any watch that has a minus accuracy at any time of the day. I'd rather be ahead than behind....

 

How do quartz watches perform in very high magnetic fields? Do they maintain their "superiority"?

Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk

 

Quartz watches can be affected by magnetic fields, too.

 

I am sure it will mean something to somebody. For me it's good to have but not must have.

 

Right

They can be +-2 or +-20 for all I care just so long as they're within spec.

If I need accuracy or dependability, I'm bringing a gshock or something.

 

Sounds nice in the Ads but doesn’t mean anything to me.

I just retired so am not timing rocket burns any more as my day job, so being +/-2spd as opposed to 10spd matters not one iota.

As others have said long as the watch is there or there abouts when it goes on after a week it is just fine, whether I like the watch is all that really matters to me.

 

Its just marketing fluff, and a justification for increased prices.

 

Does the certification really mean anything?
I'd say it metas.

 

Just cosc you say so?

 

I've had Rolexes and Omegas on my timegrapher. There's virtually no difference between them except Omegas don't get magnetised easily.

 

I like that METAS is performed on an assembled watch, not just the movement like with COSC certification. That makes the performance during the tests more representative of the watch the buyer will receive.

For what it's worth, my Seamaster is by far my most accurate and consistent watch.

 

All I know is, the difference between an Omega Seamaster 300 and a Rolex Submariner no date is about $7000.

The difference in accuracy is about 3 seconds.

That's over $2000 per second.

That's a lot of Gshocks.

 

Before you buy those GShocks make sure to take asset value into account. 😆

 

At the basis of it, it just means that the watch runs within a certain spec. But it does a little more. They also check whether a watch stays within spec when exposed to a few different circumstances such as magnetic exposure, variations in temperature, running in different positions, and when running at low power reserve.

When a watch is not METAS certified, it still may run within that same spec. It may also maintain that accuracy under normal circumstances. It is just that the manufacturer does not guarantee that it will. Typically, watches that have no COSC or other certification can run fairly accurate, but are just not regulated to do so. For these watches, there is a more variation in how accurate they are out of the box. Instead of a narrow margin the manufacturer will often indicate something like -15/+15 is expected.

 

I think Rolex as a company is trying to expose that METAS is not a big deal by sending Tudor to go and get it for their watches. Will probably see more of that coming on future Tudor models. Pretty sure any Rolex, Tudor, Omega or any well-constructed modern watch can pass METAS since they are using non-magnetic silicon, parachrom, etc hairsprings and their anti-shock mechanisms are proven to work over decades, reason why they make some of the most robust sport watches. Add to that water resistance and accuracy.. and the differences are minimal.. we are talking about great products, which is great for us.

 

METAS certification indicates high levels of performance were achieved on purpose.

 

For a brand that is newer without a track record of accuracy I think these certifications are a nice vote of confidence that it is a decent watch. Otherwise I find it to be marketing fluff. I do appreciate having some level of anti-magnetism known with METAS, since that is a real issue these days (at least in my personal experience).

As for the +/-, I am happiest with the watch that is closest to zero, whichever side of zero that resides. A watch that is -1 is far more appealing than a watch that is +5, since I will be correcting the time more often on the fast runner. My watch related tasks are not so crucial that I’m better early than late.

I’ve found if you get to “know” your watches (and don’t offend them by calling them spring powered machines 😉), you can compensate for their time variance if it is too far off zero. For example my Rolex DJ on wrist runs just shy of -1 a day, if I set it caseback down overnight it gains most of that back and is dead on by morning.

 

As for the +/-, I am happiest with the watch that is closest to zero, whichever side of zero that resides. A watch that is -1 is far more appealing than a watch that is +5, since I will be correcting the time more often on the fast runner. My watch related tasks are not so crucial that I’m better early than late.

For me the appeal in a watch that runs fast vs. slow is that it is easier and quicker to correct.

If my watch is 10 seconds fast, it takes 10 seconds to correct the time: Pull the crown, wait 10 seconds for time to catch up, push the crown back in.

If my watch is 10 seconds slow, it takes 50 seconds and more effort to correct: Pull the crown, spend 50 seconds setting it a minute ahead and waiting for time to catch up, push the crown back in.

 

I have COSC (Tudor, modern Rolex, vintage Rolex) and METAS (Omega) watches. All run between 0 and 5 seconds per day depending on position. So in my experience about the same.

The most accurate watch i ever owned was a $130 Seagull 1963 chronograph. 0 sec/day and absolutely no beat error in all 6 positions. The watch itself literally fell apart sitting in my watch box (crystal spontaneously cracked and popped off and one of the pushers fell out) but I saved the movement, it was a cracker.