New 3861 runs in the negative

Posts
26
Likes
5
Hi,

I bought a new speedmaster 3861. METAS says 0 to +5daily average, but I have got -0.5 daily average. I fully wind it every day. Shouldn’t it never run slow? I mean the specs didn’t say -1 to +5.
 
Posts
6,187
Likes
21,182
How are you timing it. Is it consistently .5 seconds? Is that average overall or in a certain position? Have you tried laying it down at night in a different position ( heads up, heads down, etc)?
 
Posts
1,978
Likes
2,139
Hi,

I bought a new speedmaster 3861. METAS says 0 to +5daily average, but I have got -0.5 daily average. I fully wind it every day. Shouldn’t it never run slow? I mean the specs didn’t say -1 to +5.
METAS is a laboratory condition average that doesn't necessarily reflect real-world conditions, even though it attempts to. METAS allows below-zero for some orientations, as long as the weighted average ends up between 0 and 5, which is different than 0-5 in every position. IF you are keeping the watch in its 'slow' orientation (or fast one!) for a majority of the time, it is definitely possible to end up higher/lower than METAS.
 
Posts
26
Likes
5
How are you timing it. Is it consistently .5 seconds? Is that average overall or in a certain position? Have you tried laying it down at night in a different position ( heads up, heads down, etc)?
I time it with WatchAccuracy. This is the average overall. I did try to lay it in different positions but the average overall 3 weeks has been -0.5.
 
Posts
26
Likes
5
METAS is a laboratory condition average that doesn't necessarily reflect real-world conditions, even though it attempts to. METAS allows below-zero for some orientations, as long as the weighted average ends up between 0 and 5, which is different than 0-5 in every position. IF you are keeping the watch in its 'slow' orientation (or fast one!) for a majority of the time, it is definitely possible to end up higher/lower than METAS.
Well, what is the meaning of METAS guarantee of 0-5 average if this is not what is experienced in real-world conditions? Maybe they should explicitly say 0-5 lab conditions and -3-+8 in real-world conditions.
 
Posts
1,978
Likes
2,139
They DO say 0-5 lab conditions, they spell it METAS. At no point do they advertise it as '0-5s/day REAL WORLD for every single person' conditions.

It is not Omega's fault you lack understanding of that. They cannot control for every single possible real-world situation, so they have a very strictly designed certification that uses laboratory conditions to attempt to emulate it as best as possible. If the 0.5s/day is critical to your enjoyment/use of a watch, you probably are in need of a quartz watch.
 
Posts
6,187
Likes
21,182
I time it with WatchAccuracy. This is the average overall. I did try to lay it in different positions but the average overall 3 weeks has been -0.5.
Sounds like you understand how the watch functions. Me, I'd be ecstatic with one half a second per day. But if you're not then contact Omega and see what they say.
 
Posts
29,668
Likes
76,825
Well, what is the meaning of METAS guarantee of 0-5 average if this is not what is experienced in real-world conditions? Maybe they should explicitly say 0-5 lab conditions and -3-+8 in real-world conditions.
The 0-5 seconds is a range for the AVERAGE rate. This is the average of the rates measured in 6 different positions. These positions are given equal weight in the average.

If the average rate can be zero, that means that some individual positions can run below zero…losing time. If you were to wear your watch so that it spent equal time in all of those 6 positions throughout the day, your results would match the METAS results.

But that isn’t real life. Your particular wearing habits may favour a position that runs slow, so your average is skewed to the slow side.

METAS allows the variation to be as much as 12 seconds over those 6 positions. So to give a simple but extreme example let’s assume the following:

Dial up = +6
Dial down =+6
Crown down =+6
Crown right =-6
Crown up =-6
Crown left =-6

The average rate is zero. But if you wear your watch such that your arm is down by your side all day, then it will skew fast because if you wear it on your left wrist it will be crown down a lot of the time, and if you wear it on your right wrist it will skew slow because the crown is up a lot of the time.

I hope this helps explain how the standard works.

Keep in mind that I’ve never seen anything from Omega that guarantees that the watch will never run slow, but I’ve seen others make this claim.

Cheers, Al
 
Posts
26
Likes
5
Sounds like you understand how the watch functions. Me, I'd be ecstatic with one half a second per day. But if you're not then contact Omega and see what they say.
I am ok with -0.5 but i wonder if this indicates a growing problem since i did assume it would never run sloe.
 
Posts
26
Likes
5
The 0-5 seconds is a range for the AVERAGE rate. This is the average of the rates measured in 6 different positions. These positions are given equal weight in the average.

If the average rate can be zero, that means that some individual positions can run below zero…losing time. If you were to wear your watch so that it spent equal time in all of those 6 positions throughout the day, your results would match the METAS results.

But that isn’t real life. Your particular wearing habits may favour a position that runs slow, so your average is skewed to the slow side.

METAS allows the variation to be as much as 12 seconds over those 6 positions. So to give a simple but extreme example let’s assume the following:

Dial up = +6
Dial down =+6
Crown down =+6
Crown right =-6
Crown up =-6
Crown left =-6

The average rate is zero. But if you wear your watch such that your arm is down by your side all day, then it will skew fast because if you wear it on your left wrist it will be crown down a lot of the time, and if you wear it on your right wrist it will skew slow because the crown is up a lot of the time.

I hope this helps explain how the standard works.

Keep in mind that I’ve never seen anything from Omega that guarantees that the watch will never run slow, but I’ve seen others make this claim.

Cheers, Al
What do you think resting positions that make it run a bit fast? Or maybe every watch is different
 
Posts
7,679
Likes
14,203
Never trouble trouble until trouble trouble troubles you. You are looking for an issue where none exists.
 
Posts
26
Likes
5
Never trouble trouble until trouble trouble troubles you. You are looking for an issue where none exists.
OCD…
 
Posts
9,732
Likes
54,420
If you’re that unhappy, you can get a Timex quartz. It will be very accurate and you’ll save a ton of money without the Omega.
 
Posts
26
Likes
5
If you’re that unhappy, you can get a Timex quartz. It will be very accurate and you’ll save a ton of money without the Omega.
How about you address the question and not troll like a child?
 
Posts
9,732
Likes
54,420
Ok, sure. The question was already answered. Your watch is just fine. It’s a mechanical watch. -0.5 is amazing.
 
Posts
1,978
Likes
2,139
What do you think resting positions that make it run a bit fast? Or maybe every watch is different
It is very much dependent on the material interactions between jewels, pivots, and gears. The dial up/dial down TEND to do be faster, but that is a rule of thumb, not a rule of physics.

How about you address the question and not troll like a child?
You should perhaps either learn what 'troll' means, or realize that it makes you look like a fool when you call everyone you don't like one.
 
Posts
6,187
Likes
21,182
OCD…
I can understand OCD. I'm not OCD but it isn't uncommon amongst people who like watches.

I think in this instance OCD is triggered by an incorrect expectation, which is that your watch should never run negative. But that isn't true, as Al explained. (Al is one of, if not the most knowledgeable, watchmakers on this forum.) So FWIW, if you see that your watch is acting correctly, would that help?
 
Posts
2,702
Likes
3,599
I time it with WatchAccuracy. This is the average overall. I did try to lay it in different positions but the average overall 3 weeks has been -0.5.
Do you use the timegrapher feature of that app, or compare to the Atomic clock function? I ask, because I would suspect an iPhone based timegrapher function is not that accurate (especially since it likely assumes a lift angle).

Best (and cheapest method) is to use time.gov. Take a photo of your watch next to the screen THEN compare times for the offset. This is more accurate than trying to judge the time offset visually by your eyes looking back and forth between the watch and the screen.
 
Posts
26
Likes
5
How about you address the question and not troll like a child?

Do you use the timegrapher feature of that app, or compare to the Atomic clock function? I ask, because I would suspect an iPhone based timegrapher function is not that accurate (especially since it likely assumes a lift angle).

Best (and cheapest method) is to use time.gov. Take a photo of your watch next to the screen THEN compare times for the offset. This is more accurate than trying to judge the time offset visually by your eyes looking back and forth between the watch and the screen.
I compare to atomic clock. Over a term of 3 weeks, it went 12 seconds behind from atomic time that I synced to when i first got the watch.