It is no fair*sighs*

 

Still have to repair the day adjustment and to find one pusher dor chronostop... Thanks

 

Dibs! Love these - would like to add one to the collection at some point

Know how you feel...

 

Dandy little Bellmatic. My first. I love freaking people out who wonder why my watch is buzzing. My name is Bond, James Bond.

 

That looks like a seller I know from the Philippines Don't buy it. You can buy beater divers but not Bellmatics. They are frankenwatches. I say this as a Bellmatic fan.

 

Anyone owns a 6139-7080 chronograph? Is this a good watch?

 

I found these two recently..Seiko military, Gen 1 and Gen 2..Awesome watches!

 

Good eye, you're right. But I can't complain. $80 delivered, all works, and as far as accuracy see for yourself below. That guy sells a ton of watches.

 

The watch may run accurately in that one position, but that alone doesn't tell you much. As an aside, you should really consider looking at more than just the rate. If you learn how to use the machine properly, so finding what the correct lift angles are and set them appropriate to the movement, and learn what adequate balance amplitude is, this will help you judge the condition of the movement much better than just looking at the rate number.

Even with correcting the lift angle, the amplitude is very low on this watch if it's fully wound, even for a Seiko. The watch may run accurately in that one position, but it appears to be badly in need of servicing.

Cheers, Al

 

Actually, it tells me a lot:

It gives me factual data, infinitely more than I had without it.
It tells me it is consistent (little variation over time)
It tells me it is reasonably accurate (close to parity with real time, seconds not minutes)
It tells me the mechanism isn't major out of wack (above, plus consistent, reasonable BE)

More importantly, it tells me I got my $80 worth and it gives me confidence it is a wearable watch.

Nobody is going to claim a static test of any kind can duplicate the real world. BUT, it is far better than nothing to assess the basic aspects.

I've only had the Timegrapher a few months, but I've seen that its findings are pretty darn close to reality. The face up position simulates my use better than any (seated at desk in front of computer most of day).

I debated whether to get the Timegrapher (as they say, some truths are better left unsaid). Dove in anyway and got a dose of reality, some ugly...some beautiful. In direct comparison, my Seikos of all vintages are far more accurate and consistent than the Rolexes and Omegas(Heresy!). The Rolexes and Omegas are like dating a model, nice to look at but after a while you start to wonder where the money went. The Seikos are more like the girl I'd want to marry. Nice, steady, attractive, affordable.

 

Even a stopped watch is wearable, and right at least twice a day....

It doesn't appear you are interested in learning how to use the machine properly, but if you change your mind let me know. I'm willing to help those who are able to learn.

Cheers, Al

 

I said nothing of the sort. Its simply time vs benefit. I dove into all aspects after I bought it. Studied the expert instruction on its use, watch mechanics and function, all of that. What I learned was that some basic readings tell the most, the rest is incremental value. The time spent testing all positions and getting settings just so is substantial, and still only tells me static measurements.

On thing I have learned, which I found most interesting, is how long it takes some watches to "settle down". Some are good to go right off, some need a moment or two to get into a rhythm(as much as a minute). THAT I would like to understand better....if your willing, I am your student.

My guess is that those that are more erratic before settling down, will show a greater variation between real world and static testing. I have yet to take the time to test this theory.

 

Can I ask where the expert instruction came from that you studied? I find it odd that lift angle and balance amplitude are being relegated to being only incrementally useful. If you studied these things in detail, it should be clear that this is a critical item in determining the health of a movement. It's much more important than the rate or beat error in determining how "out of whack" the movement is, and would be the very first thing a watchmaker would look at when putting a watch of unknown condition on a timing machine. If the amplitude is poor, then really not much else matters if you are deciding if a watch is in need of service or not.

Also, the information you studied on the use of the machine should have covered what stabilization time is for between readings. Very briefly, when a watch is moved it causes a disturbance of the balance, and it takes time for the balance to come back to it's normal stable rate. How quickly this happens can be determined by a number of factors, such as the inertia of the balance itself, the beat rate of the watch, and of course the condition of the watch (again back to balance amplitude). So some of this is designed into the movement, and some is based on the condition.

If your focus is almost exclusively on timekeeping as it appears to be, it's a very narrow focus in terms of what the machine can tell you. It's like using a telescope that can study the stars to look at the grass in your back yard...

 

Well, yes, I am sort of focused on timekeeping primarily. Kind of the point of having a watch. In my opinion, the rest really speaks to design and condition. I'm not trying to get my PhD in horology. I dug in for a while on all the details, and perhaps gesticulating it back now I've gotten a bit of it wrong, but the Timegrapher is immensely valuable for what it tells me in just keeping time.

I can look at the sky and see the moon, I can use binoculars to see the features, but am I going to set up a telescope and adjust all its settings to see each ridge and crater?...No. Did that years ago, and learned the most value comes from just looking up at night and appreciating the wonder of it all.

Re the stabilization time, I have a Ball that has basically zero stabilization time...steady as a rock from first second. Surprising to me when compared to other 'superior' brands. Each watch seems to be different, yes, but this puppy beats all others hands down. Honestly I don't whether that is impressive or not, or if it matters in real world, but it does seem a good thing in the pure sense.

 

Perfect analogy to tell me where you are - some are happy looking up and seeing what they see, and others want (or more accurately, need) to know more.

If you get to a point to fully understand that timekeeping is only an end result, then you may want to revisit all this, but until then, enjoy your watches.

Cheers, Al

 

For me, yes, and I do have incredible appreciation for the complexity of it all, but my life only has so much bandwidth.

In an odd contrast, I collect antique firearms and the most interesting part to me is what's inside...the lockwork, sear engagement, spring tension, timing. So you see, we are not so different, but rather just a choice to indulge the majority of my free time in a related but different passion.

 

Word time =)

 

You mised a letter.

 

SSo dids yous buts the mans iss rights!

Tharts irs a worrld timerR

 

Me too!

Picked this up recently and love it.