I think halting movements where you apply a little back pressure to stop the mechanism is more practical, with a hacking movement I try to stop the seconds at 0, calibrate the minutes position, then push the crown at the right second and hope it doesn't move the minute hand when I do

The halting Omega movements seem more practical, just halt it, wait, then gently push the crown as it doesn't require as much effort as a halting movement to push it

I guess one step further is a watch without a seconds hand, no need to worry about the precision or the position of the minute hand at all

 

Yeah, funny how so many of the Pateks and VC don't have second hands to create this worry. I have a couple with hacking and several with the halting ability you refer to but I set to the nearest minute and don't worry about getting it on the exact second. I did at one time, and then I got into vintage watches. I no longer reset the time until it is off by several minutes.

 

I prefer the hacking seconds.

 

Several of my watches back hack very easily.
At first I would back hack these every morning to make up for the few seconds they would gain laying dial up on a shelf over night. These days I generally just set them at a 12 o'clock up position and let them self regulate for a few hours before wearing them.
This way I may not have to reset them at all for months at a time when wearing them regularly.
I've also come to accept a vintage watch being off a few seconds per day and if it gains time I just set it a few seconds slow and not bother resetting till it has gained 20 seconds or so, which might take a week or more. Same but opposite order if the watch loses a few seconds.

One of my Russian watches consistently loses only 2 seconds per week, checked by a 28 day test, if left dial up but is no where near that accurate when worn on the wrist.
I may take it out and do some more tests and adjust as needed for best accuracy when wearing it.

Another Russian watch , a early ZIM, is dead on for weeks at a time but it has a defective second hand drive. Its an odd duck of a movement converted from a French pocket watch design with central second hand drive added to the design by the Russians. The second hand runs smoothly and accurately while laying face up but flops around in a 25 second arch when the watch is in any other position. I've considered removing the second hand but I'd just as soon ignore it till I find a way to fix it. Got it for $6 years ago as a curiosity so its of low priority.
The sub seconds of the Pobedas are so small one tends to ignore them , only purpose they serve is to let you know the watch is running.

 

Some watches here are extremely accurate. Some aren't. Some watches here hack. Some don't. I'm unconcerned with testing extreme accuracy with the watches nor am I planning any operations requiring such timing precision so can't be bothered with a hacking feature.

 

What about the Glycine hacking? Pin that pops out at 24:00. Very cool. Too lazy to try and get a pic of mine.
From the web:

 

Nifty neato!

I've long wanted to add a Glycine Airman to the menagerie here.

 

I just purchased a Speedmaster .006 and actually have a question about “halting”.

I’m accustomed to the hacking feature of my Seikos and, while used to that method of setting my time to the second, I accidentally discovered this halting effect today while setting my new Speedmaster.

At the risk of asking a stupid question, am I putting any damaging pressure on anything or causing other ill effects by putting back pressure on my Speedmaster’s crown to stall progression of the second hand?

Thanks in advance.

 

I prefer hacking seconds, as I find it more accurate. Sometimes when you release the pressure on a "halting" movement, it does not immediately start (at least for me).

 

I’ve read about this question and asked various watchmakers and the general answer is it’s fine to do.

However, I do notice on some watches that the “halting” approach only works for most of one where the power reserve is low.

 

I never knew “halting” was an actual feature or term. But if not it sounds pretty catchy and should be!

I prefer hacking because I find that “halting” only works on some watches if I let the power reserve is low.

But hacking or halting will not make a big difference to me buying a piece that speaks to me.

 

Last week when resetting my Midland with 2453 Movement the second hand stopped dead when I pulled out the crown, then restarted immediately when I pushed the crown in as the NIST time came into sinc. The mainspring pressure was very low at the time.
It never did that before and I haven't tried to repeat this.

The 2453 movement seems to have been very popular for high end dress watches of its day. I've noticed Hamilton used these.
I'm tickled pink with my Midland. I paid something like $11 USD for it, less than $20 shipping and all, and its run like new in the years since I got it, though it took a lot of effort to regulate it.

 

I assume halting is safe too, but I vaguely remember reading something negative about running watches in reverse which sometimes happen when I assume when more than necessary pressure is applied, but not so much that it moves the hand backwards

 

Halting is also dependent on the ability of your cannon pinion to perform. I wish more of mine were in perfect order.

 

Hacking is great with a chronometer movement, since I don't have to set the time as often. But, I find it's more of a pain to try to set non-chronometer hacking movements since you've still got to wait for 0 otherwise for the first day or two it'll be imprecise. But I use my watches to tell time so ymmv

 

Hacking for me, got to have that minute to second (near-perfect) alignment.