Have been the sole owner of this watch. Just had it in for service again as it had completely stopped. Going ok now , but occasionally loses an hour overnight, never done this before. Back to repairer who told me I needed to wind it occasionally. In nearly 50 years of owning this watch I have never been told this before and have never needed to wind it ever. I wear it constantly except in the shower. Should I be winding it?

 

If the watchmaker did his job and did a full overhaul, it shouldn't be losing more than a couple of minute a day.

And if you're wearing it throughout the day, I don't think you need to wind it.

How much did you pay to service your watch?

 

Definitely something up with your Watch.
I wear my serviced Connies on rotation.
I don't wind my hidden crown versions (because it's a pain to do so) and wear them for a 'working day' -they then go on to the dressing table and are still going a couple of days later without any significant loss of time. (As do my other Connies but I usually give them a few starter winds - because I can)
Back to watchmaker I'm afraid.
-and pictures please

 

It cost £275. It is back in now 'on test'.

 

And you would find this acceptable? Losing a "couple" of minutes a day, that is.

 

Has the watch been tested of magnetisation? Other than that or something getting broken during the last service, I can't think of other reasons. The "wind it occasionally" from a watchmaker would be firing grounds for me, I'm afraid.

If the Constellation hadn't suffered abuse during its life, service and regulation should mean the watch wouldn't be more than a handful of seconds off per day...

 

That would be what I would expect too, but it's always inetresting to hear other opinions and experiences.

 

This

 

I took it into our local normally excellent jeweller (an Omega agent) in April/May, as it had completely stopped It was sent away to service and worked fine until I started walking up in the mornings an finding it was about an hour slow (I wear it in bed all night). Took it back to jewellers last week and the person I spoke to most very insistent and almost rude, telling me I should be winding it every few days. It is now ' on year's and I am expecting to hear from them this week. Thank you for your replies.

 

Back on test, that should read!

 

Not really. I personally find 30s/day my limit but I've seen other collectors being happy with 1-2 mins. Anything worse than that, I have not seen anyone being ok with it.

I just didn't want to enforce my own opinion onto him. I guess we aren't allowing others to have their own opinions.

That seems quite a lot to pay for a job half done.

 

It's not just an opinion - it is plainly wrong. A watchmaker that had "done his job" and completed a full overhaul and handed the customer a Constellation with such a poor perfomance would be one any collector would want to avoid.

 

Actually I'm wearing a chronometer rated vintage Omega just back from service today, and it has "lost" 1 minute in 12 hours......

 

If that is the case, I hope the service was cheap. I haven't had many vintage chronometers serviced, but the three I own/owned weren't more than 10 seconds off per day. The service did include regulation, but I'd expect that of all but the cheapest of services.

 

That is shocking. I don't know if you received it back by post and it's received a knock but you'd hope that these can be put back into chronometer spec. That may mean a slightly more expensive service as it takes time to set these up as well as some parts being replaced, which also adds to the cost. In general, there is nothing that you can't see during the service and resolve to bring these back in.

Here's a 565 I've just done and it's running within chronometer spec for a 561. There's no real reason that you can't get within Omega minimum specs with any of these (a 565 is allowed 25 seconds variation over three positions at full wind). There is additional testing after the watch has run for 24 hours without being touched. The two together enable you to set up the watch finally. After that, this watch runs +1 seconds/day average over a 5 day test (it's not a chronometer which has a longer test) with a max variation of 5 seconds between any two days. Here is the long term test:



And the six positions at full wind (you can see which one it is in the little box at the lower). The first three are the only ones required by Omega for a 565. The top left box shows the movement rate in seconds per day.


If you keep getting performance like you're seeing from a serviced chronometer or even a non chronometer Omega, find someone else to do your work.

Regards, Chris

 

Should have been some regulating going on yes. I'll let it run for another 24 hours and see before I contact them.

You are right, and I'm not all happy, I had better hopes when I shipped it out. It is a bumper but still.
I recieved it back by post yes, but what kind of "knock" should make it running slow I wonder?

 

I certainly would not find a loss of a couple minutes a day acceptable, a few seconds, ok, I could put up with that.

 

To be honest, a significant knock in the post is not that likely but I'm not going to be openly critical of other watchmakers without knowing all the facts and being sure what the issue really is. So, it could be that the regulator has moved slightly due to a knock, for example?

Did your watchmaker supply any performance pictures from his timegrapher? And what performance did he tell you to expect?

The Omega spec on these is pretty loose (40 seconds over three positions, as I remember at full wind) as they are old calibres and parts are not easy to come by. The equivalent value for a 565 is 25 seconds and for a chronometer rated 561, the value would be 12 seconds. Never the less, you'd expect a performance measured in seconds per day rather than minutes for a chronometer bumper... depends on the state of your movement whether it's +/- 5 seconds or +/- 15 seconds (just examples, not where I'd set a watch).

Regards, Chris

 

Just an FYI - for vintage movements Omega does not specify any of them as chronometers in their timing specs, even if they were chronometers when new. Only "modern" movements are considered to have chronometer level requirements on them according to Omega, so there is no spec for the 561 for example that requires a Delta at 12 over 5 positions at full wind.

All are specified to be measured over only 3 positions instead of 5, and none have a Delta spec at full wind as low as 12. Delta specs at full wind range from a very few at 20, to most being much more than that, with many at 40 and some even at 50 over 3 positions.

Acceptable tolerances for average rate can also get pretty large. All start at -1 on the low side, with the high side often at +16 per day, a bunch are at +21, and many others as high as +31 s/d.

Generally speaking, the performance of a vintage watch will depend on how accurate it was originally, and the condition it is in now. Of course for me the Omega specs are merely a starting point, and I always do my best to exceed them, but there are limits of what can be done within a given budget. Although it's easy to blame the watchmaker for a watch that doesn't run well, I have personally been in situations where owners didn't want to spend the money required to bring the watch back to where it should be, so it depends on the situation. If for example we are looking at a watch with little collector or sentimental value, and it needs a new balance complete many people will simply not spend the money, and that is understandable. Some balances can run as much as $1500 from Omega, so not many people are going to spend that on a watch that's only worth a few hundred dollars.

It's all about communication between the customer and watchmaker - managing expectations with regards to costs and end performance is not always an easy task. I would encourage customers to be up front with their watchmakers about what their expectations are for timing.

For the OP's situation, without knowing what movement is being referred to here, and what the scope of work was that was done, and also how active you are, it's difficult to draw any solid conclusions. It certainly sounds like the job was not done properly. I would encourage you to seek out a watchmaker in the future, rather than going through an AD - that way you can communicate directly with the person working on your watch, and not have everything filtered both ways through a third party.

Cheers, Al