I agree with this. Beautiful dress watches with amazing dials, but very thick for my liking

 

Cases and dials yes, movements not really. Both GO and JLC generally do a much better job of finishing movements than GS does. As I've illustrated in this thread, the movement finishing on most GS is very minimal.

It combines the "worst" of both mechanical and quartz watches. It requires regular service just like any other mechanical watch (Seiko recommends every 3-4 years), yet doesn't have the accuracy of quartz even though it's a quartz watch in reality. But people are dazzled by the sweeping seconds hand for sure. Not sure if they have expanded the service network yet, or if they all still have to go back to Japan for service.

The tech is certainly interesting though, but the aesthetics are a personal thing, and they have never really clicked with me...

 

I’m so happy I have the SBGA211 Snowflake in my collection. I will say that, unlike my experience with other brands, having this one Grand Seiko satisfies my appetite and I’m not really thinking of buying any other model.

But I can honestly say that I get real pleasure every single time I look down when it’s on my wrist.

 

New SBGK005. Pieces like this indicate they are getting better.

 

I agree. Theyre getting better.

Actually, theyve been great for a long time.

My three GS matches up pretty well with my top three Swiss sports watches.

 

Some of the older Grand Seikos are bringing a premium price now. I have fallen in love with the VFA (very fine adjusted) models. Extremely well built and crazy accurate! Seiko is still somewhat of a "sleeper" in the collector market; but in my limited opinion, well worth the price!!

 

I have so many mixed feelings about Grand Seiko. I love the design and the outstanding finish on the dial and hands.

I used to own a Grand Seiko spring drive, but eventually sold it. A lovely watch, although case finishing was not that amazing, but that could also partly be because mine was a titanium model which might be difficult to polish as well as the steel models.

I sold it mainly for 3 reasons. No. 1 is that I am a watchmaker, and as interesting as the spring drive system is, after some time it really started to bug me that if the watch would ever develop a problem I would have to send it off to someone else (and probably for quite a bit of $$$, for an extended period of time).

No. 2 is that nearly all the Grand Seiko's are too thick for my taste. I wear shirts to work, and this watch never really worked well with my shirt cuffs. I feel for a high-end they make very little effort to reduce their thickness either in movement or case design (especially movement design).

No. 3. is movement finish. I wish it were different, but I have never been impressed with the movement finish of Grand Seiko watches (except for their unobtainable highly finished pieces). There is very limited finish done on the movement, and the machining finish is average. I honestly don't think it's much different from ETA produced movements (a company I highly rate!). For the continuously increasing prices, they have to do better!

I still own several Seiko pieces; a Marine Master 300, and an Emperor Tuna. Both great watches, keeping average time (timing is actually fine but their average rate is not adjusted well). Given their overall quality, they are quite fairly priced.

Seiko seems to be doing very well, so from a business perspective I don't think they have that much to change. However, from a consumer's point of view I find it hard to compare their overall package with for example JLC or Rolex. Of course it is something different you're buying. Swiss companies are 'boring', and Seiko offers a more exotic and niche product.

 

I’d be interested in seeing how these two compare.

 

Totally agree with everything you said here - I share most of your opinions, and have not owned a GS watch yet in my watch collecting journey.

One point I'd comment on is the JLC and Rolex comparison - Grand Seiko, from what I've seen, GS is significantly cheaper on average than both JLC and Rolex, both at retail and second hand. This is considerable, and kinda like comparing JLC and Rolex to Lange or Breguet or H Moser and the like. There's some overlap in pricing, but it's really a different tier.

It seems from feedback on macro shots, at least the dial finishing of GS is outstanding and better than most watches int he sub $10k range.

 

My interest in GS is confined to their vintage line. I find the modern GS rather too clunky for my tastes.

 

Whether it's the best or worst of both worlds is, of course, entirely subjective, but factually it's incorrect to say it doesn't have the accuracy of quartz - it has EXACTLY the same accuracy of quartz because it regulates time in exactly the same way as all quartz watches (by dividing out the vibrations of a quartz crystal). In reality, Spring Drive is more accurate than most non-thermally compensated quartz watches because GS make their own crystals and then electrically "age" them for 3 months before selecting them, often achieving accuracy of mere seconds per year rather than per month as specified.

From my subjective perspective, it is the best of both worlds. Having learned about the development of Spring Drive, my inner geek is very well stimulated and satisfied by the technical achievement. To create a fully mechanical yet quartz regulated movement was nothing sort of genius IMHO. Overcoming the frictional and electrical losses in the movement in order to obtain a 72 hour power reserve was an incredible feat; when you start making Nano wires with a hexagonal section rather than round so that you eliminate gaps in a microscopic coil, you are not only creating a new craft within watch making, but setting exacting new standards whilst pioneering.

And I guess that's the perspective you need to look at GS from to truly appreciate them. Like many Japanese companies, their underlying goal is precision and efficiency, not aesthetics. In fact, it was only in 1956 after they saw a window full of glittering swiss watches and thought theirs dull by comparison, that Seiko started employing any designers in order to try and capture some appeal from Western markets. In Seiko’s book “A journey in time”, their first full-time designer (Taro Tanaka) tells how much trouble he had getting his co-workers to even understand what his job was! Once they understood the goal of course, they set about the task with a typical Japanese ethic, which is why you see so many perfectly polished and precisely angled surfaces on their watches, designed to catch light with almost clinical efficiency.

For some, myself included, that is an appeal that you don’t get from any other maker. If it’s design flamboyance and flair that you want with no other underlying goal, the Swiss/French do it much better, but if aspirations of ultimate efficiency and purpose move you emotionally, then GS have it in abundance.

 

Hello Wiz and welcome to the forum. I would suggest you might want to familiarize yourself with Seiko's specs for the spring drive. Here is the page for the 9R15 movement:

https://www.grand-seiko.com/us-en/about/movement/springdrive/9R15

From that page:

"Caliber 9R15 is specially adjusted Caliber 9R65, to deliver an even higher level of precision.
Caliber 9R65 is ±15 seconds a month (equivalent to ±1 second per day), whereas Caliber 9R15 is ±10 seconds a month (equivalent to ±0.5 seconds per day)."

Looking at Omega's Work Instruction 18, this lists the rate specifications for their quartz watches. The standard quartz watch movements used by Omega (not thermocompensated) has a rate tolerance of -9 to +15 seconds per month, so this standard exceeds that of the Seiko 9R65 movement, which is +/- 15 seconds per month. So comparing say an Omega Cal. 1538, then it has tighter timekeeping tolerances than the spring drive 9R65 does, and the "specially adjusted" 9R15 is somewhat better than the Omega.

However if we look at other movements that Omega has made, some have tolerances as low as +/- 2 seconds per month (Cal. 1666 and 5666).

The other part of what you said above is that it regulates time exactly the same way - that's not true. In a standard analogue quartz watch there is a lot of technology involved, and you might want to read this thread to better understand what is going on:

https://omegaforums.net/threads/quartz-watches-some-information-some-may-find-interesting.5475/

So although there is a quartz crystal and dividing circuit in the spring drive, the spring drive uses a braking wheel to slow the advance of the hands and regulate the watch, and this is a completely different mechanical solution than in a regular quartz analog watch. It is subject to mechanical issues that a quartz analog watch is not, because the analog watch isn't try to slow anything, only telling the rotor when to tick.

Note that pretty much all but the cheapest manufacturers of quartz watches pre-age their crystals - it is common practice in the industry.

I appreciate your enthusiasm, but if you are interested in having a technical discussion, then bringing some evidence to the table would be required.

Cheers, Al

 

FIFY

 

Thanks for the welcome

Thanks, but I know them intimately, it doesn’t have any bearing on my point though.

Comparing the Seiko quoted quartz specifications to Omega’s quoted specs is entirely irrelevant to my post above because at no point did you say “it’s not as accurate as some other quartz watches” – which of course anyone would agree with.

What you actually said was that Spring Drive:

which unambiguously suggests that Spring Drive is not as accurate as quartz regulated watches in general – which is plain wrong.

Hopefully, if you take a moment to think about that, you’ll be able to see the glaring irony of saying it’s “not as accurate as a quartz watch” and in the same sentence that “it’s a quartz watch in reality”! – So it’s not as accurate as itself then?

Yes, it’s entirely true. I specifically said “regulates”, referring to the method of using the natural property of quartz to deform at a set frequency to REGULATE the movement. That isn’t the same as suggesting that method of moving the hands is the same – which it clearly isn’t. However, what you said before was:

which is very misleading if not merely wrong, as quartz watches function very differently as you subsequently explained above. However, by comparing it to a quartz movement you are missing the point of it. The idea of Spring Drive was to create a mechanical movement that would out-perform other mechanical movements, not to compete against other quartz movements (which Seiko also makes rather well).

The critical difference is that all other analogue quartz watches use stored electrical power (from a battery or capacitor) to activate a stepper motor which moves the hands; there is neither a mainspring nor a flying wheel. Spring Drive is an entirely mechanical movement with a mainspring and a flying wheel like any other mechanical movement. All the energy to power it comes from a spring, unlike any other quartz movement. The only difference being, as you said, that it uses a quartz regulated electronic brake to regulate the speed at which the flying wheel rotates, rather than an escapement, which is both much more accurate, more efficient and introduces less mechanical wear.

I agree with most of you say in your post above, however your original comment that Sping Drive “doesn't have the accuracy of quartz even though it's a quartz watch in reality.” Is entirely inaccurate on both counts.

 

Actually, I don't own a Spring Drive (yet) only two Omegas and a Breitling, but I have no doubt I end up with one soon enough and become a fanboy - with or without the kook-aid

 

Yes, that will definitely make you a fanboy.

After I got my first GS, I was even considering to sell my Omega watches. Finally I've learned to live with the inferior finishing/details on the Omega (and to not check them with a loupe), and even bought 1 new Omega since my first GS (and 2 more GS )
I still think GS gives much more value for the money, and I really like the spring drive movement.

 

So, my first love is motorcycling and when I read the first line of your reply, I thought I was on the wrong forum!

The main reason I'm looking around here is that I have saved up a budget for a nice GMT, and I'm currently stuck between the SBGE201, SBGE245 and the Seamaster Planet Ocean GMT (oreo). I know the advice is usually, "go with your gut" but to be honest, I like all equally for slightly different reasons. Help?

 

Well, the point I was addressing was this:

"Spring Drive is more accurate than most non-thermally compensated quartz watches because GS make their own crystals and then electrically "age" them for 3 months before selecting them, often achieving accuracy of mere seconds per year rather than per month as specified."

And I've proven that this is a false statement.

Indeed my writing was imprecise, as I was referring the HAQ watches when I said that. It was in response to the claim that the spring drive was "ultra accurate" and again that's not really the case. As I've illustrated the "specially adjusted" 9R15 movement doesn't come close to matching the accuracy of thermocompensated quartz movements, so the argument often made that these are "the most accurate" movements out there is completely false.

Once again, please see the Omega examples, which are more accurate than the 9R65 Spring Drive movements that power most spring drive watches.

Taken out of context I agree it doesn't make any sense. But the Spring Drive is most certainly a quartz movement, and one that is about as inefficient as you can get from a watchmaking point of view. As you have admitted, it uses the same exact quartz crystal technology for timekeeping that a regular analogue quartz watch does, but is powered via mechanical means. It fails to outperform traditional thermocompensated quartz movements that have been around for decades.

Take away the quartz crystal and it would not keep time at all, so how it can be viewed as anything but a quartz watch is puzzling. The key thing is how the timekeeping is established, not how it is powered. For example batteries have powered many different types of watches over the years, from watches with balance wheels, to watches with tuning forks, and watches with quartz crystals, but are they defined by the power source, or the method of timekeeping (the oscillator)? I don't think any rational person can argue that they should be classified by the battery, rather than the oscillator.

This is from the page I linked above:

"Its sole power source is a mainspring, which drives a series of gears. A rotor, connected to the end of these gears, generates a small electrical charge that activates an electronic circuit and quartz oscillator."

The name also defines what it is - spring drive...which says nothing about how the timekeeping is done, as that is a quartz oscillator.

Again the oscillator determines without doubt that it is a quartz movement. I know the method of moving the hands isn't the same - that was my point and is the weakness of the spring drive design. It is overly complex for what it accomplishes, requires more maintenance than a traditional quartz watch, and many traditional quartz watches (and certainly HAQ watches) outperform the spring drive in terms of accuracy. I don't pretend to be in the minds of the people who came up with this so I'm not sure how you know what their intentions were, so I can only comment on what it is rather than what you believe it was meant to be. There are other watches out there that don't require batteries, that wind through the movement of your wrist, and are just as accurate as the spring drive is - those are also quartz watches.

Look I understand that there is a natural backlash when people don't say great things about GS or spring drives. Many fans consider them unfairly criticized and sort of the Rodney Dangerfield of watches that "get no respect" or at least not as much as they deserve. In my years of being on watch forums this has lead to an enormous overreaction from Seiko fans, jumping up and down and making incredibly bold claims, in a sort of overcompensation for the perceived lack of respect. I'm not here to "diss" anyone's favourite brand, and honestly I have no dog in this hunt...I tend to take a very objective view of things from the perspective of a watchmaker. I see the good, the bad, and the ugly from watch brands every day - brands that most would hold in very high regard. I'm no fanboy of any brand really. For a look at my views on things, maybe this thread will help:

https://omegaforums.net/threads/a-closer-look-at-a-seiko.78250/#post-995528

It came out of a claim made by a Seiko enthusiast here who said it equals his higher end watches in every way - the reality is far from that as you will see.

 

Mine says hi

 

Did you check out all of them on your wrist? I'd start with that.
From this 3 I prefer the SBGE201, however I'm not a big fan of the SBGE series.