It's a hypothetical question here, but I'm quite curious as to what the answer may be.

Suppose you were encouraging a friend of yours to discover for him/herself the wonder of mechanical watches. In my mind, the greatest potential turn-off for a mechanical convert would be getting a watch that didn't keep time very well. If the watch were a COSC certified chronometer, however, it would take that issue completely out of the equation. I'm more familiar with Omega watches than any other high-quality brand, and know that a stainless steel Aqua Terra would be Omega's entry-level chronometer, with an MSRP of about $US 6,000. For this hypothetical friend of mine, that seems like a pretty steep entry fee to the world of mechanical watches.

Are there other manufacturers of new, certified chronometers that might be able reduce the sticker shock for my friend?

 

Tissot powermatic cosc ~1000usd

 

Omega vintage Constellation? Lots of vintage chronometers at less than $1000 USD.

Plus, it's vintage.

 

Archimede sells a COSC version of their flieger for 895 euros w/o VAT.

 

There are many who post to this MB who own COSC approved mechanical chronometers who express displeasure that their watch doesn't keep time to the standards they expected. Perhaps their expectations are beyond COSC standards. It happens! I suggest before your theoretical associate buys a watch, he/she might consider which is more important.......mechanical or accurate! Just saying!

 

How important is the accuracy? In my case most of the time when I look at my watch it's to see how long I've got until a meeting, the next train or getting to the airport, and I use the diving bezel to time my breakfast boiled egg. I rarely need timing-pip accuracy. The RDS radio in my clapped out station car has a super-accurate clock, as does my iPhone (4 no less!) and Nokia dumbphone. I am not synchronising artillery barrages, timing an engine burn to get back to Earth, or colliding electron streams to find a boson, but I do like the idea of lots of little cogs, springs and wheels whirring about, doing their stuff with little required of me other than to move my wrist.

 

Thanks for the feedback thus far! I'm really impressed by the looks of the Tissot and Archimede watches that were suggested:

Tissot Powermatic



Archimide Pilot 42 Chronometer




For the Tissot especially, you get a lot of bang for your buck: 80 hr power reserve, date feature, plus COSC certification. Sweet!

 

Regarding the need for accurate timekeeping, that of course is just a personal preference. The first fully mechanical watch I ever owned is a Luminox Modern Mariner, with a Sellita 220 automatic movement. It consistently gains about 25 seconds per day, which for me is kind of bothersome because I know that a few days after setting the time it is seriously out of sync with the time that everything around me is running on.

 

Perhaps they should stick to battery powered wrist jewelry.....er, quartz watches..... to tell them the time - or just keep using their iPhone.

 

My Automatic Tag Heuer 2000 gains about 6-7 seconds a day, so after a month or so it is about 3-4 minutes fast. That is just little enough to adjust to, so when I look at the time I know I have a bit of leeway. Given that I need to adjust the date at the end of Feb, April, June, September and November I take that opportunity to trim the time back to where it should be. July through August is the longest it goes without a manual date adjust so by the end of September I could be running 10 minutes fast. However late August/September I usually go on holiday (vacation) to a different time zone from the UK so it gets adjusted back on my return - usually to whatever the pilot says the time is on landing.

 

Or an iwatch

Many sub $1000 seikos are fairly accurate as well.

 

Often the only difference between a chronometer and a non-chronometer is that one has been sent for testing, and the other has not. The movements are identical in build quality and parts - this is especially true with some ETA movements. The "Top" grade is exactly the same as the COSC grade, but the COSC grade has been tested.

In the hands of a good watchmaker, a decent quality movement that is in good condition can be adjusted to run within the specs commonly stated for COSC performance (that is -4 to +6 seconds per day average rate). The thing that the COSC testing does initially anyway, is give you a guarantee that it will run in those specs, and if it doesn't the maker should fix it under warranty. For a non-COSC watch it's more of a crap shoot, and depends a lot on how much time the maker is willing to put into the movement.

Some take the time to adjust the movement when they get it from the supplier, and some clearly don't - they just slap it in the case and sell it. In that case you are left to the luck of the draw how the watch performs coming from the factory.

Cheers, Al

 

There have been a lot of good points, here.

It's very important to know that decent modern watches in general are more than often than not able to perform at or near COSC because of modern build materials and practices. COSC is just a formal process of declaration.

There are plenty of companies that will guarantee a certain accuracy and precision, without getting that certification.

If your friend is worried about losing a few seconds per day, then he doesn't understand the pathos of buy mechanical watches.

 

Elsewhere on the MB, I showed my new (to me) calibre 355 Seamaster date at 6:00 which I have been wearing for the past 5 days. After returning it to running condition, and spending a bit of time tuning it, and adjusting it on my Vibrograph, it has settled in at a consistent 2 seconds per day loss. This is not a chronometer, but it's quality when made was likely only a cut below what a Constellation might have been at the time. COSC standards allow for a plus/minus range for the accuracy of new chronometers. Some one used the word luck in a previous post. For a 60-year old non-chronometer to perform like this one certainly entails a bit of luck.

Before your hypothetical friend buys a watch, he should decide how much variation he can tolerate. If he expects consistent accuracy on the order of + or - 15 seconds per month, consistently, over many years, Quartz might be the answer.

 

A tuning fork chronometer might be an acceptable compromise. Not too expensive, still really cool.

Tom

 

I'll even sell mine!

Tom

 

I may just be lucky, but as far as I can measure, my Orient Blue Mako loses about 1 minute every 3 - 4 weeks

 

Of all the mechanical watches I've owned in 7+ years of foruming, I can only remember 3 specific watches that were way above reasonable expectations for consistency. One was a Contellation Pie Pan caliber 564 from the mid to late 60's. I honestly don't remember what reference because I've had a few pass through my collection. Another was an IWC Portofino that had a print out from the timing machine that looked like a dead man's cardiograph. The last was my Tiffany's Mark Coupe. All 3 gained less than a second a day on average with no wild swings in the daily rate.

Both the IWC and Tiffany's had modified ETA 2892-A2 calibers inside. While I do miss the IWC, I can see it once a year when we make our spring training pilgrimage because a friend in Florida owns it and we have dinner with them every year. The Pie Pan..... well, if I put in the time I can find another. It's the Tiffany's Mark Coupe that I have a twinge of regret about selling - until I pull out the Audemars Piguet that eventually replaced it.

The current most accurate watch now is my AT Skyfall.

Bottom line: if you want a mechanical, expect variation of a few seconds a day. That comes with the territory. Otherwise, get a battery powered watch. Tom and gator have a decent compromise with the tuning fork solution.