Watches-Let;'s talk about accuracy

C

Costas

Joined
Feb 22, 1999
Messages
485
I have been wearing analog chronograph watches for many many years, and all my watches use electronic movement (I need the split function and the 1/10th measurement).

I have two TAG-Heuer watches, a 2000 series and an F1, and I also have a Breitling Colt ChronoOcean.
The two TAGs gain about 4seconds/month, and the Breitling loses about 4secs/month as well.

BUT a friend of mine who fancies himself as a watch connoisseur, recently told me that his "super-engineered-high-performance-genuine-swiss-movement-AUTOMATIC-chronographs" are really accurate, they don't lose more than 4seconds/DAY!!!!!!!

There should be a fairly long acronym (like LOL) for what happened to me after I heard this!
Now that I have laughed my heart out, can I please ask you for the accuracy of your watch, just to see what is normal and what is not?
 
I've got a Citizen quartz that's as reliable as a sundial on a cloudy day, which is why I'm chopping it for a mil watch.
smile.gif
 
If you go to www.watchuseek.com and then click on 'links', you'll find a bunch of info on the accuracy of both quartz and mechanical watches.

Basically, quartz watches are more accurate, averaging around +/- 20 seconds a month. CHRONOMETERS, which most of the higher end watches are, are highly accurate mechanical watches that deviate by no more than -4/+6 seconds a day.

Go to the site, read and absorb!!
 
Costas,

It really isn't fair to compare quartz to automatic movements. Quartz movements are way more accurate then automatics- you mention loss/gain of seconds a month for quartz and loss/gain of seconds a day for automatics.

For an automatic to lose 4 seconds a day, it is considered excellent accuracy.
Even amongst the quartz watches some movements are more accurate than others.

Having said all this, how accurate does your watches need to be? I have several quartz and automatic watches and I just enjoy them.

Right now I am wearing a Bell & Ross Bomb Squad- quartz, with a very accurate movement.

 
I own a Rolex Submariner but when I want accuracy I wear a Casio G-Shock!

------------------
Hoah! (Its an Army thing!)
 
You guys are probably familiar with the clocks made by Oregon Scientific that update themselves daily by receiving a signal broadcast from the U.S. Atomic clock facility in Colorado. I believe Oregon Scientific is going to be making wristwatches with the same technology available soon (if they haven't already). You can't get much more accurate than that.
smile.gif


------------------
Semper Fi

-Bill
 
Hey Costas, Tom and I swear by our Chronosport UDT. I like the Chronosports, but some models are hard to find here. I bought several in Japan.
 
This is my area of specialty. It is unfair to compare a mechanical watch versus a quartz. A watch operates on it's oscillating frequency. A mechanical movement rely solely on springs and cambers, while a quartz operate on one of nature fastest vibrators. Any quarzt watch would rival the likes of an Audemars Piguet "Audemars Special" which retails for around $400,000. But it is the art of the maker that these watches cost so much. As for absolute accuracy, nothing beats an atomic clock, or if independency is required, a high oscillating quartz watch. Such as the Omega X-33 or Breitling Aeronauvelle. These high oscillating watches range in the $1000+ category, still a good buy considering the next most accurate thing lies in Greenwhich. And to be frank, a swiss army Auto (mechanical movement) is hardly accurate. The most accurate mechanical watches on earth are the ship chronometers which range around $10,000. The most accurate wristwatch must incorporate a devide called a tourbillon, don't worry, you won't see one below $50,000. Buy a watch for it's function and beauty, not because it's gold or diamonds.
 
For the price, I really don't think the Casio G-Shock watches can be beat.
I have one on my wrist right now, and three others sitting in my "watch box", and they ALL have the SAME time.
smile.gif
.

------------------
Dann Fassnacht
Aberdeen, WA
glockman99@hotmail.com
ICQ# 53675663



[This message has been edited by glockman99 (edited 01-15-2001).]
 
Ah Glockman, that's music to my ears. (Do tortoises have ears?) All my timekeepers (watches, car clocks, microwave, VCRs) read the same. It soothes the voices in my head. I used to hate reading one time off my wrist, then walking to the car and finding several minutes had apparently appeared/disappeared. So now I just keep an eye out and adjust accordingly. It's much cheaper than therapy.
biggrin.gif
 
I just checked the time.gov site and my G-Shock was right on. To the second. We use Atomic clocks at work and I set my G-Shock once a week or so.

Time.gov is a great site.

------------------
Hoah! (Its an Army thing!)
 
My Bulova Marine Star is accurate to about one-quarter second per month. I set it several months ago (last year
biggrin.gif
) and it seems to be one second fast today. It is water resistant to 100 meters and solar powered.

Of importance to me, is that it is titanium. I for instance liked my digital Casio Fish-en Time watch but had to stop wearing it as I found I had an allergic skin reaction from the nickel. There must be a plastic watch out there with a plastic back, but I have not seen one. If one invests in a Titanium watch for allergy reasons, make sure to get tone that IS Titanium and make sure there is no gold trim touching your skin, as some gold trim/plating can have nickel.
 
I just checked my old Seiko (10 years old)Dive Master ($100 in 1991)and it was 31 seconds off. I think the last time I set it by the Atomic Clock was about 3 months ago and it was about 90 seconds off (slow) I think this is accurate enough to get me to dinner on time. Weldonk
 
I'm not trying to stir the pot or anything, but why do you guys need timepieces that accurate? I've flown/driven/walked missions in the Army and we always did a "time hack" before mission execution. This was sufficient to keep everything synchronized until mission completion. Why would you need to keep track of time to the level of accuracy you guys are talking about? I understand the need for the atomic clock time standard but other than that, practical applications escape me at the moment.

------------------
Danny
aka "kuma575"
 
Atomic clock standard is too much, but I am talking about real, practical accuracy. I find it hilarious that very expensive mechanical (automatic) watches boast about being "chronometer certified", if they manage to lose "only" 4 seconds per day!!!

It is now January 22, and I just checked my Breitling Colt ChronoOcean (quartz movement, not a top-of-the-line poser's piece): it is about 3.5 seconds late, and I remember setting it on New Year's Eve. If I had a "superlative chronometer" top-of-the line automatic watch, it would read about ninety seconds off, i.e. a minute and a half! In my opinion, this is unacceptable, given the hype surrounding such very expensive "timepieces".
 
Danny,
I think you've got us here. Nobody "needs" this kind of accuracy. Nobody needs a 300m water resistant watch. Nobody needs a car that goes 150 mph. You get the idea... It's just that as gadget freaks, IF you can get this level of accuracy, speed, whatever, then of course we crave it.
 
Funny I just had a conversation about this with a jewler the other day. My analog watch is quartz and like most others is accurate to about 10-15sec/mo. My jewler friend told me it is possible to get down to 4-5sec/year or better now, but such watches cost $1000 and more, too much for my pocket book.

I've seen the solar watches (no more battery worries), and I've seen clocks that sync to the atomic clock (though I haven't yet seen watches that do this). I'll start saving my pennies for the combination!

 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top