Forums Latest Members

Should vintage watches have less accurate time than modern watches?

  1. Perrier Jun 21, 2016

    Posts
    236
    Likes
    182
    Let's say I have a watch from the 1950s or 1960s. Should I expect it to only lose/gain a few seconds per day, or is it 'normal' for vintages watches to be less accurate due to age? If so, what is an acceptable level of loss/gain for vintage watches?
     
  2. tyrantlizardrex Jun 21, 2016

    Posts
    8,881
    Likes
    27,410
    I suspect it depends upon the levels of accuracy that were originally claimed for said vintage watches, their mechanical condition (level of service etc).

    For example, if you had a 1960's speedmaster that hasn't been serviced for the last 30 years, it would probably be unreasonable to expect it to keep accurate time...
     
  3. Horlogerie EU based Professional Watchmaker Jun 21, 2016

    Posts
    306
    Likes
    523
    As already mentioned, the original design specs of the movement are the deciding factors. Is it "Adjusted" and if so to how many positions.

    You can't service into a movement quality or accuracy, despite what some customers believe.

    I have had many high quality vintage watches, some 100+ years old, that after servicing kept amazing time, and I have also had more modern ones, that despite my best efforts kept horrible time.

    Vintage, that has been maintained and is not worn or damaged, can be expected to keep good time. At least to the original standards it was designed and built to achieve.

    Rob
     
  4. ulackfocus Jun 21, 2016

    Posts
    25,983
    Likes
    26,968
    What would you say if I told you I owned a late 60's Constellation that ran -1 / +0?

    A vintage watch from the 50's or 60's isn't really that old in the grand scheme of mechanical timekeeping devices. As mention just above, if it has been maintained properly and was accurate to begin with, it's reasonable to expect the same performance unless some crazy wear issues happen to key components.
     
  5. Archer Omega Qualified Watchmaker Jun 21, 2016

    Posts
    26,343
    Likes
    65,049
    Initial quality of the movement has an impact to a degree, but I am assuming we are referring to well made Swiss movements such as those made by Omega, and not some cheaply made junk. For me personally, the number of positions it was adjusted to when it was made is irrelevant, as I check and adjust everything I service to 6 positions.

    The biggest impact on accuracy for a vintage watch of good initial quality is the condition of the movement. If you have a bunch of worn parts inside, then don't expect great accuracy, but if the parts are in good condition, and there are no major faults, getting good timing results (equal to or very often better than what the manufacturer requires) is expected. For example getting a non-chronometer watch to meet or exceed the specs for chronometer watches is something I do all the time...

    Cheers, Al
     
    Mad Dog, blubarb, italy1861 and 2 others like this.
  6. cicindela Steve @ ΩF Staff Member Jun 21, 2016

    Posts
    15,047
    Likes
    23,789
    Now would seem the appropriate time to discuss "Time"

    From the Scientific American publication:

    Michael A. Lombardi, a metrologist in the Time and Frequency Division at the National Institute of Standards and Technology in Boulder, Colo., takes the case.
    In today's world, the most widely used numeral system is decimal (base 10), a system that probably originated because it made it easy for humans to count using their fingers. The civilizations that first divided the day into smaller parts, however, used different numeral systems, specifically duodecimal (base 12) and sexagesimal (base 60).

    Thanks to documented evidence of the Egyptians' use of sundials, most historians credit them with being the first civilization to divide the day into smaller parts. The first sundials were simply stakes placed in the ground that indicated time by the length and direction of the resulting shadow. As early as 1500 B.C., the Egyptians had developed a more advanced sundial. A T-shaped bar placed in the ground, this instrument was calibrated to divide the interval between sunrise and sunset into 12 parts. This division reflected Egypt's use of the duodecimal system--the importance of the number 12 is typically attributed either to the fact that it equals the number of lunar cycles in a year or the number of finger joints on each hand (three in each of the four fingers, excluding the thumb), making it possible to count to 12 with the thumb. The next-generation sundial likely formed the first representation of what we now call the hour. Although the hours within a given day were approximately equal, their lengths varied during the year, with summer hours being much longer than winter hours.

    Without artificial light, humans of this time period regarded sunlit and dark periods as two opposing realms rather than as part of the same day. Without the aid of sundials, dividing the dark interval between sunset and sunrise was more complex than dividing the sunlit period. During the era when sundials were first used, however, Egyptian astronomers also first observed a set of 36 stars that divided the circle of the heavens into equal parts. The passage of night could be marked by the appearance of 18 of these stars, three of which were assigned to each of the two twilight periods when the stars were difficult to view. The period of total darkness was marked by the remaining 12 stars, again resulting in 12 divisions of night (another nod to the duodecimal system). During the New Kingdom (1550 to 1070 B.C.), this measuring system was simplified to use a set of 24 stars, 12 of which marked the passage of the night. The clepsydra, or water clock, was also used to record time during the night, and was perhaps the most accurate timekeeping device of the ancient world. The timepiece--a specimen of which, found at the Temple of Ammon in Karnak, dated back to 1400 B.C.--was a vessel with slanted interior surfaces to allow for decreasing water pressure, inscribed with scales that marked the division of the night into 12 parts during various months.

    Once both the light and dark hours were divided into 12 parts, the concept of a 24-hour day was in place. The concept of fixed-length hours, however, did not originate until the Hellenistic period, when Greek astronomers began using such a system for their theoretical calculations. Hipparchus, whose work primarily took place between 147 and 127 B.C., proposed dividing the day into 24 equinoctial hours, based on the 12 hours of daylight and 12 hours of darkness observed on equinox days. Despite this suggestion, laypeople continued to use seasonally varying hours for many centuries. (Hours of fixed length became commonplace only after mechanical clocks first appeared in Europe during the 14th century.)

    Hipparchus and other Greek astronomers employed astronomical techniques that were previously developed by the Babylonians, who resided in Mesopotamia. The Babylonians made astronomical calculations in the sexagesimal (base 60) system they inherited from the Sumerians, who developed it around 2000 B.C. Although it is unknown why 60 was chosen, it is notably convenient for expressing fractions, since 60 is the smallest number divisible by the first six counting numbers as well as by 10, 12, 15, 20 and 30.

    Although it is no longer used for general computation, the sexagesimal system is still used to measure angles, geographic coordinates and time. In fact, both the circular face of a clock and the sphere of a globe owe their divisions to a 4,000-year-old numeric system of the Babylonians.

    The Greek astronomer Eratosthenes (who lived circa 276 to 194 B.C.) used a sexagesimal system to divide a circle into 60 parts in order to devise an early geographic system of latitude, with the horizontal lines running through well-known places on the earth at the time. A century later, Hipparchus normalized the lines of latitude, making them parallel and obedient to the earth's geometry. He also devised a system of longitude lines that encompassed 360 degrees and that ran north to south, from pole to pole. In his treatise Almagest (circa A.D. 150), Claudius Ptolemy explained and expanded on Hipparchus' work by subdividing each of the 360 degrees of latitude and longitude into smaller segments. Each degree was divided into 60 parts, each of which was again subdivided into 60 smaller parts. The first division, partes minutae primae, or first minute, became known simply as the "minute." The second segmentation, partes minutae secundae, or "second minute," became known as the second.

    Minutes and seconds, however, were not used for everyday timekeeping until many centuries after the Almagest. Clock displays divided the hour into halves, thirds, quarters and sometimes even 12 parts, but never by 60. In fact, the hour was not commonly understood to be the duration of 60 minutes. It was not practical for the general public to consider minutes until the first mechanical clocks that displayed minutes appeared near the end of the 16th century. Even today, many clocks and wristwatches have a resolution of only one minute and do not display seconds.

    Thanks to the ancient civilizations that defined and preserved the divisions of time, modern society still conceives of a day of 24 hours, an hour of 60 minutes and a minute of 60 seconds. Advances in the science of timekeeping, however, have changed how these units are defined. Seconds were once derived by dividing astronomical events into smaller parts, with the International System of Units (SI) at one time defining the second as a fraction of the mean solar day and later relating it to the tropical year. This changed in 1967, when the second was redefined as the duration of 9,192,631,770 energy transitions of the cesium atom. This recharacterization ushered in the era of atomic timekeeping and Coordinated Universal Time (UTC).

    Interestingly, in order to keep atomic time in agreement with astronomical time, leap seconds occasionally must be added to UTC. Thus, not all minutes contain 60 seconds. A few rare minutes, occurring at a rate of about eight per decade, actually contain
    61.

    Mmm, I think my 30T2RG just ticked off 61 seconds, must be very accurate :thumbsup:
     
  7. Peemacgee Purrrr-veyor of luxury cat box loungers Jun 21, 2016

    Posts
    5,127
    Likes
    7,836
    IIRC I read that 60's Constellations (or chronometer grade movements per se) with 'exceptionally high results' were spec'd to 6 secs/day
    but 'standard' Omegas were around 30 secs/day
    however, as @ulackfocus says, after service my Connies all run at between 0 to +3 secs/day
    (but you have to be a real WIS to time them at home anyway....)
     
  8. OMGRLX a RolexBear in disguise Jun 21, 2016

    Posts
    1,151
    Likes
    2,989
    Would that be a 564 mov't? I'd expect nothing less. Quite possibly the best vintage mechanical mov't made by anyone, anywhere. :thumbsup:
     
  9. Horlogerie EU based Professional Watchmaker Jun 21, 2016

    Posts
    306
    Likes
    523
    By chance have you covered that topic in detail in a prior post? (I wasn't able to find it if it was...)

    If not, I would expect that it deserves your attention and detailed analysis and I expect that a post would be of great interest to the members, especially the steps that are needed for the adjusting of the errors in various positions. I am sure that most readers are completely unaware of what is required when 'adjusting' a watch beyond the beat and rate that we are all familiar with.
     
  10. ulackfocus Jun 21, 2016

    Posts
    25,983
    Likes
    26,968
    It was in that particular watch. However, I've had very similar rates from other watches, both modern and vintage.

    I'll put it on the pedestal, but maybe not the gold medal spot. It would have to beat out some stiff competition from IWC (854x) and Longines (29x) and they're all too close to call.
     
    OMGRLX likes this.
  11. igatomic Jun 21, 2016

    Posts
    247
    Likes
    278
    I've always thought that my 1030 cal Rolex from the 50's was far superior to the movements they were pumping out in the early 2000's. I could be mistaken, but my "older" watches always seem to keep better time with the same level of servicing than the newer ones...
     
    OMGRLX likes this.
  12. Archer Omega Qualified Watchmaker Jun 21, 2016

    Posts
    26,343
    Likes
    65,049
    Have I tried to condense the material that authors like DeCarle, Purdom, Jendritzki (and I'm sure others) wrote entire books about with hundreds of pages of text and diagrams in them, into a forum post? Well no I haven't. :)

    I'll get right on that...
     
    dougiedude likes this.
  13. M'Bob Jun 21, 2016

    Posts
    6,344
    Likes
    17,956
    Always heard that the Rolex cal. 1500 series were even better than the impressive 1030's.
     
  14. tyrantlizardrex Jun 21, 2016

    Posts
    8,881
    Likes
    27,410
    If you could just start putting some effort in and stop slacking so much Al... ;)
     
    ConElPueblo likes this.
  15. Archer Omega Qualified Watchmaker Jun 21, 2016

    Posts
    26,343
    Likes
    65,049
    I know, I'm a lazy fecker apparently...:)
     
    ChrisN and tyrantlizardrex like this.
  16. ulackfocus Jun 21, 2016

    Posts
    25,983
    Likes
    26,968
    I love this place. :p Normally I'm the sarcastic one, but here I'm just another tree in the forest. ;)
     
    kkt, heavenscloud, ahartfie and 4 others like this.
  17. Horlogerie EU based Professional Watchmaker Jun 21, 2016

    Posts
    306
    Likes
    523
    I guess that means 'no', oh well, I tried...make of it what you will. :taunt:

    Had to run and put some livestock to bed...back to the conversation...

    I wasn't suggesting or asking to re-write or condense all the written material, where you gleened that from is beyond me.

    How about a simple 1 watch example, where the timing in say 3 of the 6 positions was off, speak about and show what adjustments were needed/carried out that brought the timing back to specs. That is surely not too much to ask?
     
    Edited Jun 21, 2016
  18. Horlogerie EU based Professional Watchmaker Jun 21, 2016

    Posts
    306
    Likes
    523
    I have had professional training in how to dish it out, both during my military career (unfortunately I can't share it at the risk of being banned...) and as well as the other half of my working career as an government inspector in the aviation sector. Forum banter is a joke, hopefully no one takes anything here seriously? Seriously. :D
     
    kkt, ConElPueblo, blubarb and 3 others like this.
  19. llstv1 Jun 21, 2016

    Posts
    127
    Likes
    52
    That is not true. I have own a Omega Speed Master pre moon and my friend got a Speed Master 1861 but the 1861 go off more than my pre moon which is seriously vintage watch could keep time better or depending on the watch.
     
  20. OMGRLX a RolexBear in disguise Jun 21, 2016

    Posts
    1,151
    Likes
    2,989
    The 1035 in my old datejust is amazing (has a power reserve of almost 48hrs, can you believe that for an almost 60-yo mov't ??)
    Per my watchmaker, the 1500 series are equally good, but easier to service, as they're newer, hence more parts available..I've never had a 1960-70s datejust, so can't tell you..