Hello,

Chronometer rated watches with 551/561 or 564 often achieve higher prices than non-chronometer 5xx watches. Is the main reason the chronometer movement or the more expensive features of the watch case/dial (like gold medaillon on the back cover of the Constellation)?

Or in other words, are these vintage chronometer movements still more accurate than a non-chronometer movement (assuming both have been well serviced)?

Just wondering. Maybe there is no definite answer to this, but I'd be interested what your thoughts are.

Cheers,
Roger

 

At this time - 50 years after the watch has been produced - how the watch performed from new is less important than how it has been maintained. That being said, I don't believe that there should be noticeable difference from a NOS (and freshly serviced) 564 and 565 in the same condition.

 

I think I would probably put it the other way round
With a true NOS watch (serviced) you might expect a difference (but how many are out there?)
But with a serviced vintage there is likely to be minimal difference
Both excellent movements
The price difference is in the kudos of having
a) a chronometer
b) a Connie
Seamaster chronometers fetch almost the same price as Connies

 

I think you are confusing two concepts: price and performance.

Price: I think most people who purchase a vintage chronometer pay a premium because of scarcity over non-chronometers. Also, in the case of the Connie, it is a more luxurious product (case, dial, etc.) than your typical Seamaster.

Performance: A well maintained chronometer watch should still perform better than a well maintained non-chronometer (e.g. unajusted) one. Most of the time "maintained" means cleaning, lubrication, replacing worn parts. My impression* that most routine maintenance of vintage watches does not include poising (static and dynamic) and certainly not temperature adjustments, both of which would improve the performance of a non-chronometer rated watch.

* I'm speculating here...

 

Thank you all for sharing your thoughts. So, it seems that it is not performance, but rather scarcity and quality & materials that dictate the price difference between a Seamaster non-chronometer and a Constellation chronometer.

The consequence - at least for me, I am sure not everyone would share my conclusion - would be to use a Seamaster or a well-used Constellation for daily wear and keep the Constellations for storage and display or special occasions.

 

Each to their own but I wear my Connies in rotation every day

 

Me too. Looking forward to getting my 2782 back from Watchguy!

 

In my experience, condition of the movement has more to do with accuracy than if it was initially a chronometer or not. As for what is "typically" done in a vintage service I can't speak for others, but poising is a common thing I do personally. Static poising is most often done after a staff replacement, or in the case of a vintage Gruen I'm working on right now, because a screw was missing off the balance. Dynamic poising I use fairly often as needed on both vintage and modern watches - maybe not every day but at least a few times every week. Just because it's vintage doesn't mean I don't work to get it running the best I can.

What you get from a service depends on who is doing the work. Some disassemble clean, assemble, lube, push the regulator around to get it close in one position, and call it done. Not a proper service in my view, but they stay in business because customers either don't know any better, or really don't care much.

I will note that Omegas standards are fairly slack when it comes to most vintage watches, and in their eyes they don't consider older movements like the 564 to be chronometers when they do the servicing of them. So they only check to 3 positions, and the tolerances are not in line with other chronometer rated watches.

Cheers, Al

 

It is the balance from a 551 chronometer, viewed from other side.
On a balance of a 552 or any non chronometer, there is no sign of adjustment on the balance and that is the difference.

 

Hi Hoi,

No sign of adjustment on non-chronometers? Well it's an interesting theory, but balances are all poised in production, and the amount of poising needed can vary, so you will see varying numbers of poise marks on the underside. Some hardly get touched, and others look like Swiss cheese, in particular on older movements where production was a bit looser than it is today. I just shot these two photos - first a Cal. 565 balance:



And a 552:



As you can see they have both been poised, so plenty of signs of being adjusted.

Now if your are suggesting that they may receive more adjustments that a non-chronometer watch does, well yes of course they do. Often there is little difference between chronometer and non-chronometer versions of a specific caliber - sometimes it's purely the amount of adjusting done to the watch. In other cases there are physical differences like a different regulator, better finish on crown and ratchet wheels, etc, but often these have nothing to do with the performance and are just cosmetic.

In some modern calibers made by ETA, they use different mainsprings, pallet forks, balance springs, and balances for different grades. But still at the very high end an ETA Top version and a COSC version all use the same parts, and the only difference is that one has been adjusted and sent for certification, and one not.

Cheers, Al

 

As always, your insight is fantastic. Thanks for helping me learn a few new things today!

 

What's your website URL?

 

This is precisely the type of conversation I enjoy about OF, and which can't be found anywhere else these days at this level of expertise.

Art

 

Nice Al. What is the correct lift angle on the 564? Have seen some people using 49 on time graphers but want to check if that is correct or not.

Thanks,

Francisco

 

49 is correct.

 

Thanks Al