Forums Latest Members
  1. Sgt_Bilko Feb 26, 2016

    Posts
    520
    Likes
    2,501
    I just wondered if there are any thoughts about whether a watch needs time to settle following regulation over a period of days and weeks or should it just be correct from the start?

    The reason I ask is because I have a vintage Eterna that was serviced last year and initially came back running at about +10 seconds per day. I was fine with that but over a few months that basically come down to +1 second a day and I marvel at the accuracy from this elegant dress watch. I also have an Omega Constellation with a chronometer Cal 564 movement that is arguably much better quality than the Eterna. It was recently regulated by a watchmaker and initially came back running at +14 seconds per day but after a week ran at +20 seconds.

    I asked the watchmaker to take another look and was assured it was now running correctly. Indeed it was tested on the machine as -1 second per day. After 2 days of normal use I can see it is now running at +14 seconds per day and slowly accelerating. It should be said that both watches had to travel through the post but I would have thought that a chronometer should be better equipped to handle that without losing accuracy. Nearly all my watches are from the mid 60s and I just wonder what we should realistically expect.
     
  2. Deafboy His Holiness Puer Surdus Feb 26, 2016

    Posts
    2,167
    Likes
    6,115
    I'm a relative newbie to watches but here's my take:

    1) following service (cleaning/lube/adjustment) there might be a delay before the watch settles but I have no idea how long.
    2) following regulation (i.e. adjustment of the regulator) I would say instant, no delay.
    3) A single measurement of rate doesn't say much of the condition of the watch. Rate is position dependent (say dial up is adjusted to +1 s/day but a vertical position could have something very different) and amplitude dependent (e.g. level of wind). Also, the Connie could be magnetized and needs to be demagnetized. A chronometer grade movement in good condition should be better than what you are obtaining (rate and change of rate). My 551 Connie is a few seconds/day slow but consistent.
     
    Edited Feb 26, 2016
  3. Sgt_Bilko Feb 26, 2016

    Posts
    520
    Likes
    2,501
    A chronometer should be regulated in various positions and maintain consistently good accuracy. At the moment this Connie is the least accurate watch I have but in theory it should be the best as a chronometer. Yes it is possible the watch has been magnetised but I thought watchmakers demagnetised watches as a matter of course when regulating them. I suppose it's possible the watch has been magnetised going through the post again but if that happens every time it's a lost cause.
     
  4. Archer Omega Qualified Watchmaker Feb 26, 2016

    Posts
    26,343
    Likes
    65,050
    You did fine for a noob!

    After servicing, I usually let the movement run in for 12 hours (overnight for example) for things to settle before doing final adjusting and regulating. This is the only "break in" I have ever seen personally and it is very short in duration, so hours rather than days, weeks, or months.

    Pretty much - any disturbance of the balance wheel takes some time to settle, but we are taking about a couple of minutes here if that.

    Lots of good in here. The OP doesn't say when the watch was last serviced, only that it was regulated, so regulating a watch that is not in top condition is a pretty pointless exercise - not saying this one is but we don't know the state of the movement. To fully understand what is going on it would require confirmation that the movement is in good condition, then perform timing checks in somewhat controlled conditions to understand positional variation, isochronism, etc.

    Just because a watch is a certified chronometer (or was when it was new) doesn't mean it will always be that way.

    Cheers, Al
     
    OMTOM likes this.
  5. Sgt_Bilko Feb 26, 2016

    Posts
    520
    Likes
    2,501
    The watch was last serviced less than a year ago but by another watchmaker. Nothing was said that would indicate there were any problems or reason why it should not keep good time. I received a phone call on Monday from the head watchmaker to say it had been tested by two of his watchmakers over the weekend and he was happy that it was now running correctly but I was really expecting it to be quite a bit better than this. According to the machine readout it should be accurate to within 1 second per day.
     
  6. Archer Omega Qualified Watchmaker Feb 26, 2016

    Posts
    26,343
    Likes
    65,050
    What machine readout is this you are referring to? Is this an average rate, or just one reading in one position?

    Just some general comments, and some more specific to this situation...

    First, the last 2 weeks I have received a number of watches that were serviced very recently by other watchmakers - in some cases we are talking within 2-3 months of being serviced. Some of the work I have seen is atrocious, so there's service, and then there's proper service. The fact that within a year of being serviced you had to have it regulated indicates to me that the service is possibly not up to par. So one quick question - when the service was done a year ago, what parts were replaced? If it was "none" then that is a red flag for me. It's very rare that I get a watch from this family of calibers that doesn't have worn parts in it that would affect performance.

    So the second thing is about what the specs are for this movement. You say it is a 564 chronometer version, but as far as I know, there were no changes made to the materials used in the movement to obtain chronometer certification, so no upgraded balance spring, balance wheel, mainspring, etc.. So did these just receive extra tweaking at the factory? Did they get just pick the watches that happened to have the best performance, and submit only those for certification? I don't know, but one thing I can say is that when I look at Omegas current timing specs for all movements past and present, there is no version of the 564 that is listed as a chronometer by Omega. The 564 has the following rate specifications:

    Measured over 3 position, not 5 as a chronometer would be. Average daily rate should fall between -1 and +16 seconds per day, with target rate at +8 seconds. Positional variation can be as much as 25 seconds at full wind, and 35 seconds at full wind -24 hours.

    A COSC watch would look a bit different, so measured over 5 positions, average daily rate between -1 and +6 seconds per day, with target rate at +3 seconds. Positional variation can be as much as 12 seconds at full wind, and 15 seconds at full wind -24 hours.

    Omega doesn't consider your watch a chronometer, so would not apply those specs to your watch if you sent it to them. Certainly these watches can run within those specs identified for a chronometer, even if they weren't chronometers in the first place, but this requires a proper service and possibly a lot of work to get there.

    Hope this helps.

    Cheers, Al
     
    OMTOM likes this.
  7. Peemacgee Purrrr-veyor of luxury cat box loungers Feb 26, 2016

    Posts
    5,127
    Likes
    7,836
    Wow - that's news to me Al
    I thought Constellation 564s were chronometer grade movements
    Forgive my ignorance but the bridge on my 564 Connies states adjusted to 5 positions
    Is this intentionally misleading branding by Omega?
    Philip
     
  8. Archer Omega Qualified Watchmaker Feb 26, 2016

    Posts
    26,343
    Likes
    65,050
    Not at all.

    "I don't know, but one thing I can say is that when I look at Omegas current timing specs for all movements past and present, there is no version of the 564 that is listed as a chronometer by Omega."

    Current Omega specs do not differentiate any 564 as a chronometer movement is all I've said...
     
  9. Peemacgee Purrrr-veyor of luxury cat box loungers Feb 26, 2016

    Posts
    5,127
    Likes
    7,836
    I'll breath (some sort of) a sigh of relief then for now....
     
  10. Deafboy His Holiness Puer Surdus Feb 26, 2016

    Posts
    2,167
    Likes
    6,115
    I think what Al is inferring is that Omega has more relaxed specs for a 50 year old watch even though it was certified a chronometer when new. This is possibly not to spend too much labour and parts servicing old watches to original specifications.
     
    Edited Feb 26, 2016
  11. Deafboy His Holiness Puer Surdus Feb 26, 2016

    Posts
    2,167
    Likes
    6,115
    Here's an idea if you are not too computer illiterate. Download and try out this software to measure watch parameters. What microphone to use? I used an old Apple microphone plugged to my laptop microphone input. Make sure the microphone is not magnetic transducer because you could magnetize the watch. I taped the watch to the microphone. Measure rate for each position of the watch. The lift angle parameter (in the upper left) is for correct amplitude measurements and not necessary if you just want to measure rate.

    IMG_1044.jpg
     
    ahartfie likes this.
  12. vbomega Feb 26, 2016

    Posts
    4
    Likes
    0
    Hi Al,

    What about 561? Same deal?
     
  13. Archer Omega Qualified Watchmaker Feb 26, 2016

    Posts
    26,343
    Likes
    65,050
    Yes, same for all the 55X, 56X, and 75X movements.

    Cheers, Al
     
  14. Peemacgee Purrrr-veyor of luxury cat box loungers Feb 27, 2016

    Posts
    5,127
    Likes
    7,836
    Now that makes me happier...
    So which Omega movements are designated chronometer spec?
    Is it just the modern movements?
     
  15. wsfarrell Feb 27, 2016

    Posts
    2,440
    Likes
    4,129
    What movements does Omega consider as chronometers?
     
  16. Pvt-Public Feb 27, 2016

    Posts
    2,282
    Likes
    3,043
    I'm guessing the 30t2rg and 30t2sc rg were both considered chronometers by Omega
    image.jpeg image.jpeg
     
  17. Archer Omega Qualified Watchmaker Feb 27, 2016

    Posts
    26,343
    Likes
    65,050
    Yes it's just the more modern movements. Nothing that we here consider vintage watches have specs that are equivalent to their current COSC timing specs. When I look at the list of movement no longer used in production, the first one that jumps out at me as being COSC specs is the 1109, which is an early Omega version of the ETA 2892 (even that one allows the average daily rate to be between -1 and +9 seconds per day, so a little looser than the current movements are). If you go back to the 1010 or 1020 era and earlier, none are listed with COSC level specs.

    Cheers, Al
     
    Peemacgee likes this.
  18. Deafboy His Holiness Puer Surdus Feb 27, 2016

    Posts
    2,167
    Likes
    6,115
    The 1109 came out in 1993, 23 years ago. My guess is that Omega guaranties their chronometer specifications for 25 years.
     
  19. Pvt-Public Feb 27, 2016

    Posts
    2,282
    Likes
    3,043
    Provided that all work performed on the watch during the warranty period was by Omega. My guess is that after the warranty is up there is no longer any guarantee of any watch meeting COSC specs. Over 25 years of use, who knows how many times it has been dropped, bumped, banged into things. And that's not to mention if it has been serviced correctly/regularly, by competent watchmakers.
     
    Edited Feb 27, 2016