Forums Latest Members
  1. Spike Mar 19, 2015

    Posts
    386
    Likes
    1,479
    I’ve often seen 'for sale' Ad's with the words ‘keeps good vintage time’ which is rather subjective to say the least.

    What would you say a 50-60yr old quality Omega/Longines watch should keep time wise over a 24hr period (averaged out over say a weeks use) when worn continually?

    All of my watches when purchased (ok, I’ve only got 9 vintage pieces!) go to my retired watch guy where he checks or services them according to their needs and regulates them to within +30sec’s over a 24hr period with the watch in the 5 various positions (dial up, crown up etc etc). He’s influenced me to accept that it’s better to have a watch running up to 30secs a day fast rather than say 10sec per day slow as he says that a mechanical watch will almost always eventually slow down over the years……..My 1966 Constellation Chronometer runs at +7sec a day fast which is fine by me, would anyone expect better from a watch of that age?

    Obviously I’d expect a more modern Automatic watch to do better which brings me back to my original question, what do you consider ‘good vintage time’ to actually mean in time keeping over a 24hr period?
     
  2. dsio Ash @ ΩF Staff Member Mar 19, 2015

    Posts
    26,749
    Likes
    32,466
    It depends on the watch really if its an old non-chronometer they can have quite a bit of positional variation too, one of my Seamaster bumpers has about a 30s difference between dial up and crown down
     
  3. Tony C. Ωf Jury member Mar 19, 2015

    Posts
    7,346
    Likes
    24,030
    I own a '70s Girard-Perregaux high-frequency chronometer that, over a ten day testing period with my watchmaker after servicing, averaged +0.8 seconds/day!

    While obviously an extraordinary outlier, it does underscore that top-class vintage movements are well-capable of keeping very accurate time irrespective of their ages.

    In any case, the seven seconds a day mentioned in the original post should make anyone happy.
     
  4. Spike Mar 19, 2015

    Posts
    386
    Likes
    1,479
    0.8 seconds?!!

    Well that shows the difference between modern technology and what my 76 year old guy (think 'Doc' from Back to the Future, white coat, shock of white hair and nutty as a fruit cake) uses! I don't know what his timing machine is (I almost said 'time machine') but it ticks away upstairs and he comes down with a 3 foot strip of paper about an inch wide with a load of lines on it. He shows it to me and I nod approvingly when he tells me how well the watch is running...........I don't have a clue what he's talking about!

    0.8 seconds over a 10 day period?.......as we say down here in South London "you're 'aving a giraffe"..........
     
    cristos71 likes this.
  5. ulackfocus Mar 19, 2015

    Posts
    25,983
    Likes
    26,968
    Had a caliber 564 Constellation that had an average variation of only 1 second per day in all positions. The line on the timing graph was as flat as a dead man's cardiograph.
     
  6. Tony C. Ωf Jury member Mar 19, 2015

    Posts
    7,346
    Likes
    24,030
    It is, of course, very unusual to find such accuracy on any mechanical wristwatch, let alone that is 40+ years old. But bear in mind that the GP HF chronometers were designed for exceptional accuracy, and won plenty of Observatory awards to confirm the successful design.

    For example, they took the first FIVE places at Neuchâtel in 1970 (see ad below), and when sold were guaranteed to accuracy to within two seconds a day!

    [​IMG]
     
    Spike and pitpro like this.
  7. pitpro Likes the game. Mar 19, 2015

    Posts
    3,073
    Likes
    3,552
    [​IMG]
    It's a special watch that hasn't got the collector recognition it deserves.
     
    Spike and Hijak like this.
  8. Archer Omega Qualified Watchmaker Mar 19, 2015

    Posts
    26,337
    Likes
    65,031
    To get an average +1 second per day - measure watch in one position and it's +102 seconds per day. Measure watch in second position and it's -100 seconds per day. Average of those is 102-100 = 2, then divide by number of days so 2 = +1 second per day. :)

    Also if I test it over 10 days in the same position, well I would hope it would be pretty close. ;)

    Average rate doesn't mean a lot...the above example may seem extreme (and it is), but you would be surprised how often it happens that you have a bunch of wild variations in different positions, but when averaged they end up to be quite close to zero. Not saying your GP or whatever is not running well, but for me when someone talks about how the average rate is, that doesn't tell me much.

    The Delta over a number of positions is a far more useful thing to know when determining how accurate a watch is or can be. Just sayin...

    Also, how accurate the watch was when new really doesn't have as much impact as people think. Certainly it had to be a decent movement in the first place to be accurate 40+ years down the road, but given that the movement wasn't complete junk when new, condition is far more important than things like being COSC or what the beat rate is.

    I have had watches that were COSC certified when they were new time out terribly because they were worn out, and watches that were not adjusted at all when new time out way better than COSC. Condition is the key, so what is acceptable might be +/- 60 seconds per day, or it might be well within COSC specs - it depends.

    Cheers, Al
     
    GoldenHour and Spike like this.
  9. Fritz genuflects before the mighty quartzophobe Mar 19, 2015

    Posts
    3,817
    Likes
    15,989
    most of my better stuff keeps time within 5 seconds a day.

    the ones that don't are slated for service!

    a good quality watch, like an Omega or an American railroad grade watch, properly cared for, should keep excellent time. The term "keeps good vintage time" is ebay speak for a clapped out piece of junk.

    or a new Timex......