I do not think it is totally irrelevant. Here are two movements on the same price range that received alot of hype from their fans. The argument was that they outperfom the official ratings. Based on this, I bit and I got burned. They perform within specs but not better. Particularly the much beloved 6R15b let me down with its mediocre accuracy. The new 6R15c has a bigger power reserve because of the new Spron main spring but the official ratings are the same on accuracy. So I am not going to give it more credit. Similarly I am not going to give more credit to 9015 if the official rating is -10/+30.You have one example of the Seiko, one of the Orient, and 0 of the movement in question. So you have two movements totally irrelevant to the thread that have nothing whatsoever to do with the Miyota cal. 9000 that we're talking about, and you want to not only extrapolate to all Seiko 6R15s and Orient movements ever made (ignoring the fact that there's at least three versions of the 6R15 alone), but you want to extrapolate to a movement that has nothing to do with those two. There's just no sense in that.
I am sorry but you are wrong here. This is off topic but it should be clarified. A basic movement consists of a gear works, escapement, balance wheel and keyless works. These are the basics it needs in order to carry out its purpose of showing the time. Anything added on top of it is a complication. If you will ever assemble a watch you will realize the difference. You can have simple ones like the automatic winding, hacking, day, date, micro-regulator or more advanced ones like the chronograph, moon phase, perpetual calendar, repeater, turbillon, etc. Even the center seconds was considered a complication when it first appeared as it required an additional gear. About hacking, it appeared originally in military watches as synchronizing at second was critical for some activities.Hacking is not a complication. It's irrelevant in any case because both movements in question, the Cal. 9000 and ETA 2824 are all hacking. In my view, and in the view of virtually all watchmakers in the world, constituting well over 99.9% of watches made and bought, hacking is preferable.
It is not 100%. Here is a report on a 9010 that gives +20s rate. The user had to had it regulated by a watchmaker to run properly.We don't have much data, but 100% of the data we have suggests that these are very accurate. You can already read the reports in this thread and elsewhere on WUS, here's another ton of positive reviews:
Anyone know the expected accuracy of the Miyota 9015 movement?
This is more in par with the experience I had with my 6R15b.
First, I do not generalize. I just compare movements available in watches within the same price range based solely on official ratings and on my personal experience.Again, you keep thinking somehow that Japan, the country, makes one kind of movement. Seiko alone makes more than a dozen different mechanical movements at any given time, not counting spring drives. And their design is substantially different than Orient and Miyota/Citizen. And the same is true for Switzerland. It is completely impossible to compare movements by the country. And no, your 2824 isn't going to outperform my 9S85. If you're lucky, it'll keep up with my 6R24.
If you want to wait for an easier to regulate watch, just get the Cal. 0910 that has existed since 2009-2010 already that you keep leaving out. But why do you need to regulate your watch so often? If you just buy a Cal. 9000 right now, you don't have to regulate it, it'll be accurate out of the box. So I don't understand why you keep going back to these various approaches to moving a regulator. And which system? Why so much love for Etachron? Why not a swan neck? Or, better yet a Triovis? What's so magical about Etachron?
Second, let's not compare apples with oranges. Cal 0910, although shares the basic design with 9015 is a completely different breed as it is highly refined, has different balance wheel, micro-regulator and it is perhaps adjusted manually to several positions. The same goes for Seiko 9S. These are much more expensive calibers. If you want, you can compare them with a 2824-2 Chronometer but not with Standard. I have no comment to make on this category as I do not have experience with any of them.
Third, I do not care about Etachron. Any micro-regulator will do as long as it is effective.
This is exactly my point. If the movement is so good, why Miyota does not gives the guarantee of a better performance? Why me, as a customer, I have to get some risk when buying it. For the money I pay, I want a guaranteed level of performance. If there are other reliable manufacturers that guarantee better performance within the same price range I will buy their products - I will not care of the origin of the manufacture.As per waiting for better accuracy ratings, I think that's perfectly reasonable. We now know that, in general, the Cal. 9000 easily outperforms its ratings, but it is just a matter of time until someone gets unlucky, and should that be you, you won't have a warranty to fall back on. So as a matter of insurance, or risk management, that's perfectly reasonable. But risk management is an entirely different concept than how the movement is actually made and designed.
I get that you don't like the rating. Neither do I. But from everything we've seen, and I mean everything, 100% as far as I can tell, the performance is great. The consumer is taking on a bit of risk when they buy a Cal 9000 if they're expecting excellent accuracy because there's no recourse if its only mediocre. But Citizen comps you for the risk with a very low cost and excellent performance.