This is one of those days where I had a complete WIS moment that still has me kinda shaking my head.

A client of mine came into my shop today - he's not a 'regular', but every now and then I see him, and today I noticed he had on what looked like an older date Sub though I've never noticed him wearing a watch at all before - as I usually do to anyone who comes in wearing a nice watch (we're local and frankly, small-talk is about 25% of my job, day-to-day) I said, "hey, nice watch - Submariner?"

He grinned, showed it to me for a second, said yeah, told me it was a birthday gift just after high school graduation in 1984, but then said, "...I pretty much never wear it, it keeps terrible time - but of course, they aren't known for timekeeping, are they?"

...???

I had no words that I could come up with quickly enough to not sound abrasive and suddenly found some very fascinating things about his accounts to show him...

...and now I keep thinking; that poor watch - it probably hasn't been serviced since it was given to him!

 

Did you explain the word "CHRONOMETER" on the dial?

 

I've had a family member sell off his old Submariner as it kept gaining a second a day. A WHOLE SECOND!

 

As my mates in my synchronized swimming group will attest, a second can be forever!
We only wear Omega!
(just noticed I need a shave)

 

@UncleBuck Thanks to your handle, avatar, and comment, I now have a vision of the much-missed late John Candy doing an Esther Williams type routine on loop in my head...so, erm...thanks for that?

Bahaha; you guys are great

 

Well you should have offered to trade him a quartz Casio. After all, it keeps perfect time, eh?

 

That's not an uncommon comment coming from non aficionados. I've heard similar comments about Rolex before. It always puzzled me

 

These days who wears a watch for timekeeping anyways?

 

I do. The 99-year old Longines in the picture was - 5 seconds this morning, after five days on the wrist. How long can it keep it up? Gotta wear it to find out!

 

Bought a vintage automatic omega at a pawn shop.... $8. I said is that really $8?

Guy said yeah, it doesn't run. Prolly needs a battery.

I shook it, started right up. I said sold.

 

At this rate, a Submariner from 1984 would be ~3:45h ahead of time. I can see how this could be annoying.

 

That makes me feel old

 

That watch definitely needs to be rescued - is there any way you can make him an offer?

 

Jeeze… yea because you’ve never serviced it. Rolli keep excellent time if you care for em.

 

Many people buy a mechanical watch, expecting it to keep time as well as a quartz watch does. I understand that thinking - more expensive should perform better, right? If you compare it to a quartz watch, then I would agree that Rolex is not known for good timekeeping. The most basic quartz watch will keep time better than -4 to +6...

 

My 31 year old Rolex Date-Just with the 3035 movement is within 13 seconds per month. It has done better, but it is time for a service, again.

 

This guy went as far as testing this common belief: https://thetruthaboutwatches.com/2021/06/watch-accuracy-rolex-vs-casio/

 

Sure, I could cherry pick a mechanical watch that keeps time as well as a quartz watch, but generally speaking, quartz is going to be more accurate. Want to see some examples?

+0.23 seconds per day:



+0.21 seconds per day:



+0.07 seconds per day:



+0.31 seconds per day:



+0.24 seconds per day:



+0.31 seconds per day:



0 seconds per day:



+0.15 seconds per day:



+0.22 seconds per day:



-0.12 seconds per day - finding one slow is quite rare:



+0.02 seconds per day:



+0.01 seconds per day:



+0.15 seconds per day:



-0.02 seconds per day:



+0.3 seconds per day:



+0.26 seconds per day:



+0.25 seconds per day:



I could go on, but this should illustrate the point. Now a couple of these are good quality Omega movements, but the vast majority are cheap 1 or no jewel movements that can be bought for less than $10 as replacements, and found in fashion watches that my wife would bring home from her work colleagues to me to have the batteries changed, since they knew I am a watchmaker.

A one off example does not hold water, when there are many examples of quartz watches (as shown above) that easily beat the rate of the Rolex in that story, which was -0.35 seconds per day.

Cheers, Al

 

For $20.00 or so, I could have an average quartz watch that would be accurate to seconds per month. I still prefer an average mechanical watch that is within about two minutes per week, OR an exceptional mechanical watch that is not quite as accurate as an average quartz watch.

 

All I can say is my Archer serviced Omegas - 145.022 69, 3594.50, 2298.80 - all keep "perfect" time while wearing them. I mean no observed drift from the US Naval Observatory website. Yeah, it's not quantitative but if I can't perceive a difference, I think that's perfect.