Okay, finally read the article. This is either a paid advertisement, or is written by someone for whom the basics are not well understood.
Not ragging on the watch or the company here, as much as the article and it's real lack of clarity.
This line in particular shows a real lack of understanding of what certification is all about (and maybe what makes up watch accuracy as well).
"It is a revolutionary advancement that has the potential to reshape the future of horology. Even the importance and relevance of accuracy certifications, like COSC and METAS, could be at stake. When the final, personally preferred accuracy adjustment is up to the wearer anyway, does a watch’s certification even matter?"
This seems to imply that the only thing being checked during certification is the regulation of the final rate, which is not true at all. These certifications are also looking at positional variation, variation in different states of wind, and even temperature variation - all of these things have to meet certain standards to pass, and those things are in fact the basis of the watch being able to maintain the range of daily rates they are being certified for.
They are the backbone of the accuracy.
The article mentions "adjustment and regulation" at least once, but doesn't really tell you anything about what the difference is, or what the impacts of each are. They talk at length about the toils of regulating - it's actually not difficult or time consuming at all - on the type of calibers shown, it's just moving a lever, and it typically takes seconds to do, then a few minutes to confirm the timing change is stable, and you are done. It isn't some vastly laborious process as the article implies.
What does take time is adjusting - this is minimizing all the variations that they talk about when the watch is being worn. Again this is what enables you to regulate the watch to stay within a given accuracy range, and without it, all the regulating in the world isn't going to make your watch accurate.
This graph really makes no sense:
If the time variation goes from the very flat graph at the start of this chart, to the wild swings seen right after, then there are two possibilities. One is that the first part of the graph is representing the watch in just one position. If so, that is very misleading - the watch may be regulated while sitting in one position, but that doesn't reflect the variation the watch has over say 6 positions. So if this is what the chart is showing, it's comparing apples to oranges.
The other option is that the adjustment work done to the watch was very poorly done. When I adjust a watch, in particular a modern watch that is new or a new movement, I do not expect the
variation I see on the timing machine to be significantly different than what I get in real world tests, and when the customer wears the watch. If it is as is shown in this chart, something is wrong. So if I see a Deta of say 10 seconds over 6 positions on the timing machine, when I measure that in real life in different positions for 24 hours, or have it on the test winder, I don't see a delta that is 40 seconds - it should be 10 seconds or very close to it.
They talk about the regulator moving during transport - while that's possible, I have shipped literally thousands of watches all over the world, and I can't ever recall having a customer tell me the timing was way off when they received their watch. If you pack the watch properly, this is just not a concern. In addition, the regulator is held in place with friction, and usually that friction is enough that inadvertent knocks are certainly not going to make it move.
One the companies web site, it asks this question:
"The question is how we solve this disconnect between Regulation and Reality, whilst maintaining the values, and integrity of a purely mechanical watch."
My answer is, adjust the watch so you don't have wild swings in timing, as companies have been doing for many decades. They chose a different route, which is fine, but it's not my preferred route certainly. This will appeal to gadget lovers, but there's a reason that watches with the ability to regulate without opening were tried and fell by the way side eventually. I don't see this as some new revolution that will end all certifications, as the author of the article implies. Far from it.
The article asks the question if certifications are even necessary anymore...well here's your answer:
The movement is a chronometer...
😁
