Forums Latest Members
  1. smithrjd Apr 3, 2016

    Posts
    267
    Likes
    49
    What would be considered acceptable accuracy for an automatic watch? I have three that I compared to the atomic clock for a two day period;
    Zodiac caliber 86 36000BPH that has just been serviced.
    Eterna ETA 2892-2a that has just been serviced.
    A Fortis Chronograph with a four dial (24hr dial) C.O.S.C. certified Chronometer with an unknown service history.
    Wondering what folks consider acceptable/hoped for accuracy..
     
  2. Muttley Apr 3, 2016

    Posts
    149
    Likes
    285
    I'm happy with +/- 10 sec per day, as I don't wear autos for accuracy. I have digital watches or a cellphone if I need accurate timekeeping, plus most of my daily tasks don't actually need me to be anywhere down to the minute anymore. I have heard it said many times that a good watchmaker should be able to regulate most movements to within COSC specs - that would be more than satisfactory for me on any of my autos.
     
    Jminchoi and Foo2rama like this.
  3. ulackfocus Apr 3, 2016

    Posts
    25,983
    Likes
    26,968
    Hey Ron, glad to see you're back with us.

    I don't stress over accuracy anymore. While I find it nice that my two modern watches (Omega Aqua Terra and Breitling Chrono Cockpit) are less than a minute or two a month off, it wouldn't bother me if they were worse. Every other month you have to reset the date anyway, so while the crown is out it's no big deal to adjust the time a little. I think my AT is incredibly accurate because I don't care - like some kind of reward from the Watch Gods for not being OCD. Most of my dress watches don't have a second hand anyway.
     
  4. smithrjd Apr 4, 2016

    Posts
    267
    Likes
    49
    The 40+ year old Zodiac is well within 10 seconds a day, running a tad fast. The Eterna about 15 seconds slow a day. The Fortis needs to go in for a service, running a minute + slow a day. Not really concerned, but wondering what folks consider accurate. Haven't really been gone, just lurking.
     
  5. Canuck Apr 4, 2016

    Posts
    13,371
    Likes
    37,515
    For precise timekeeping, you need a watch that is capable of accuracy, a watchmaker who can bring out the best from it, and an appetite for the expense that will be involved. Buy quartz! Great accuracy for the price, and when a battery doesn't make it run, turf it and buy another!
     
  6. Spike Apr 4, 2016

    Posts
    386
    Likes
    1,479
    I'm a lot calmer on accuracy recently regarding my 'vintage' watches after a period of stressing if they weren't running inside +15 secs a day......
    Of course I'm talking about watches that are 50-60 years old, if I'd spent a lot on a modern automatic Omega I'd be expecting it to keep time to its specifications, nothing more, nothing less.

    Wearing vintage watches on rotation a few days at a time, I'm fairly happy now if the timekeeping is running within 30-40 secs fast a day. Of course they could/should be able to run closer to exact time if I wanted to keep taking them in for tweaks to the regulation but I must be mellowing now, it's just not that important for a watch not worn as a daily wearer.

    My old watchmaker told me once that an automatic watch from the 50's & 60's, say a Longines or Omega (non Chronometer) bought new at that time had a factory spec of anything up to + or - 60 secs a day over a 24hr period when worn. He said they use to get them a lot more accurate than that but that was the spec that they were advised to work to..........he gets slightly 'tetchy' with me when I take him a 50yr old watch that is running 35secs fast a day and say it's not very accurate!
     
  7. JimInOz Melbourne Australia Apr 4, 2016

    Posts
    15,398
    Likes
    32,153
    Accuracy for vintage watches is a relative thing.

    Fifty or more years ago, the average Joe just wanted to know when to catch the bus/train, knock off for lunch or catch a mate for a beer. So the average watch had "acceptable" accuracy.

    Where more precise timekeeping was required (pilots/navigators/hookers) of course the need for greater accuracy resulted in watches that were tuned and calibrated for the required task, the result is a number of great vintage watches that can still keep time to seconds a day.

    Accuracy was also enhanced by the daily ritual of watching the time ball drop from the tower and setting your watch to that signal.

    We now have quartz, phones, Fitbits, GPS navigators etc, but I'd still like to do the old fashioned thing with my vintage watches if I knew where an actual time ball tower still operated.
     
    Nitzbar and ConElPueblo like this.
  8. Alpha Kilt Owner, Beagle Parent, Omega Collector Apr 4, 2016

    Posts
    16,003
    Likes
    140,915
    Bit of a hike for you Jim ;) http://www.royalobservatorygreenwich.org/articles.php?article=910 Never visited but seemingly the mechanism is all there, maybe you could get it working again ???
     
    JimInOz likes this.
  9. Muttley Apr 4, 2016

    Posts
    149
    Likes
    285
    Sadly we lost ours, one of only 5 operating in the world, and very close to me, in the 2010/11 quakes :(
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lyttelton_Timeball_Station
    But apparently they're going to rebuild it so we may yet see the ball fall...
     
  10. JimInOz Melbourne Australia Apr 4, 2016

    Posts
    15,398
    Likes
    32,153
    It'd be great to see it up and running again. The timeball was the most accurate time syncronysation device until the advent of modern methods.

    All ship navigators watched the ball and as it fell, they started or re-set their chronometers.

    As it was a LOS (Line of Sight) device, and light travelled at the same speed (relatively) for all observers, all timepieces were the same. As to their ongoing accuracy from that moment, who knows?
     
  11. Jones in LA Isofrane hoarder. Apr 4, 2016

    Posts
    4,701
    Likes
    40,421
    Without conscientiously setting out to do this, I now find myself with a little fleet of four modern Omega chronometers (all manufactured within the last two years). Here's a snapshot of their current day-to-day time-keeping performance:

    Cal. 8500 +3.5 sec/day

    Cal 8500 +5.5 sec/day

    Cal 8500 -1.5 sec/day

    Cal 2500 +7.5 sec/day

    All of the Cal. 8500s show COSC-like timekeeping performance, but this particular Cal. 2500 does not. The Cal.2500's current performance does not actually bother me since its timekeeping (as well as all the Cal.8500s) has been very steady day-to-day, week-to-week, month-to-month.

    For the watches that are gaining time, I re-synchronize them with a timekeeping standard when they get to be running about one minute fast. For the one watch that loses time each day, I set it one minute fast when I synchronize it with a timekeeping standard and then re-synchronize it (and set it one minute ahead) when it has drifted backward to more or less the correct time.

    I thought this recent Hodinkee article was an interesting take on the subject, and it provides a good explanation of my lack of concern about my Cal.2500 watch's timekeeping performance.

    http://www.hodinkee.com/articles/accuracy-what-is-it-and-does-anyone-actually-care
     
    Edited Apr 4, 2016
    ISAKOFF likes this.
  12. ISAKOFF Apr 4, 2016

    Posts
    64
    Likes
    51
    Id rather gain a couple per day then lose a couple.
     
    Jones in LA likes this.
  13. Taddyangle Convicted Invicta Wearer Apr 4, 2016

    Posts
    4,817
    Likes
    31,395
    At this point I change watches so often it really does not matter much if they are not as accurate as I like. I use to time them, and I think the best I had was +2 seconds on a speedy that had been serviced recently. Most in my collection seem to be +3-6 seconds.
     
  14. ConElPueblo Apr 4, 2016

    Posts
    9,587
    Likes
    26,961
    I think this little gem needs some more time in the spotlight :D :D
     
  15. Jones in LA Isofrane hoarder. Apr 4, 2016

    Posts
    4,701
    Likes
    40,421
    Yes, me too.

    I'm fairly obsessive-compulsive about having the minute hand and seconds hand properly synchronized. Even with a watch that has a hacking seconds feature, I often try multiple times to get the "perfect" synchronization of hands. Thus, I really hate to have to manually move the position of the minute hand when I synchronize a watch to a time standard.

    For a watch that is running fast and that has a hacking seconds feature, all I have to do is stop the watch for the appropriate amount of time to re-set it, and don't have to mess with the minute hand at all :)
     
    Riviera Paradise likes this.
  16. arkstfan Apr 4, 2016

    Posts
    441
    Likes
    525
    I don't have a winder and rarely wear the same watch more than two days in a row.
    Unless a watch is off a minute or two per day I'll never know.
     
    Muttley, Jminchoi and gostang9 like this.
  17. gostang9 Apr 4, 2016

    Posts
    2,668
    Likes
    7,103
    +1
     
  18. Jminchoi Apr 4, 2016

    Posts
    162
    Likes
    68
    I'm not anal enough to actually check my watches accuracy to know if I am running fast or slow. If I notice that my watch is off by 5 minutes at the end of the week, I just set it back to what the atomic clock says and I don't bother syncing the seconds. If I needed extreme accuracy I'd just wear my quartz casio that syncs with the atomic clock nightly.