Forums Latest Members

Who has a METAS movement that is losing time?

  1. POinNY Jan 17, 2019

    Posts
    87
    Likes
    28
    I’m looking for some feedback from those who have PO 8900s/8800s and SMP 8800s and notice their watches losing time over 24 hour periods.
    I've had a total of 3 Planet Ocean 8900s: two of them were -0.5 and -1 sec per day and one was +1 sec per day. All were bought new. Because two of these lost time after 24 hours, I'm chalking it up those two having much tighter tolerances than the other one that gained. When I registered these watches on the Omega website and looked at the individual performance results, the two watches that lost time over a 24hr period always had an average that was closer to 0, while the one that gained had an average of 4.6 sec per day in a range of 0-5 seconds.

    I'm think the loss might be normal because my first PO 8900 that lost time, I sent it over to Omega for diagnostics and testing. They had it for a week and reported that it was within METAS specs, but on my wrist that was never the case. I've seen numerous other people here and watchuseek.com with METAS movements post about how their watches lose time in a 24 hour period, usually ranging from -2 to -0.5. I find it odd because theoretically a METAS movement should never lose time. But I also know that if the watch spends most of its time in a slow position, that will skew the accuracy.

    With my latest PO 8900 purchased only a week ago, I notice it'll lose 1.5 seconds over 15 hours of wrist time. When I set it at night, crown up, it'll gain 0.5 seconds back so the total loss over 24 hours is 1 second. I think crown up is the "fast" position for this particular watch, but the only issue is that it doesn't make up for what it lost fast enough. I'm hopeful this will improve since it's still a new watch, but I've been reading that "settling in" and "break in" periods for mechanical watches are just myths.

    Is there anyone else with a METAS movement noticing a loss over 24 hours?
     
    Edited Jan 17, 2019
    NomDeLaNom, flw and FlyOnDaWall like this.
  2. gatorcpa ΩF InvestiGator Staff Member Jan 17, 2019

    Posts
    12,168
    Likes
    15,625
    Under normal use, you are saying that the watch is accurate to within 1 sec/day as worn on your wrist? Remember that results in a laboratory setting and those on your wrist can and will be different.

    Perhaps @Archer would have more information on the METAS standards? All I could find was this:

    https://www.omegawatches.com/planet...certification/#advantage_MasterChronometer/01
    gatorcpa
     
  3. MrJKLFoams Jan 17, 2019

    Posts
    539
    Likes
    3,270
    I got the moonphase metas with cal. 9904 and so far as per my metas testing results online It is on the dot and accurate. Always use my phone to compared minutes seconds and hours no probs.
     
  4. Woodlands Jan 17, 2019

    Posts
    33
    Likes
    40
    Hi.

    I have the new Diver 300M with the 8800 caliber. Three months in I’m about +1 to +2 seconds a day.
     
  5. fakinbacon Jan 17, 2019

    Posts
    63
    Likes
    196
    I purchased 39.5mm Planet Ocean 600m with the 8800 movement last month and noticed it was losing about 1.5 seconds per day. Like you, I was under the assumption that a METAS movement shouldn't lose any time at all, so I was really disappointed by this. I particularly hate it when my watches lose time, rather than gain, since losing means that you can't just simply 'hack' the seconds to reset it to real time; I'd honestly prefer for a watch to gain upwards of 5 seconds/day over losing even just .5 seconds.

    Since mine is under warranty, I decided to send it to my nearest Swatch service center in Culver City last week with the request that it be regulated within the METAS specs to no longer lose time. I noted that I had tracked the time myself over the past few weeks, and even had my local watchmaker verify that it is running slow. I'm following the progress on the customer service info portal (pretty neat!) and the latest update is that 'a partial service is required to adjust the timing of your watch' and that it is 'waiting for parts' for 'water resistance service'. Seems unnecessary but I definitely don't mind them popping in some fresh gaskets and verifying the water resistance, as long as they regulate it as well.

    Got my fingers crossed that they'll be able to speed it up a bit... should be back before February and I'm happy to give you an update if you're curious on how it goes.
     
    GrouchoM and 4011021 like this.
  6. POinNY Jan 17, 2019

    Posts
    87
    Likes
    28
    That’s great feedback. Would love an update when you get it back

    Did Omega agree that it needed to be regulated to run faster or did they say “per their testing” it was still in METAS specs but that they’ll adjust anyway on the faster end?

    Did they happen to say if anything was physically wrong with the movement or just that it’s a matter of regulation?
     
  7. Foo2rama Keeps his worms in a ball instead of a can. Jan 17, 2019

    Posts
    17,044
    Likes
    25,209
    You guys realize that it’s the average in all positions right? At least that’s the simple way to explain it. Leave the watch in a different position overnight and you will most likely get a different result.
     
  8. fakinbacon Jan 17, 2019

    Posts
    63
    Likes
    196
    Here is a screenshot with all the info I've gotten so far:
    [​IMG]
    Not entirely sure what to make of it, but since they've done a 'technical diagnosis' and noted that 'a partial service is required in order to adjust the timing', I'm hoping that they agree that it is out of spec and will adjust accordingly. I'll be sure to keep you posted, though.
     
  9. POinNY Jan 17, 2019

    Posts
    87
    Likes
    28
    Completely understand it’s an average. But if that’s the case, why does Omega state that METAS movements should never lose time? It’s like their assuming everyone’s wearing habits will mirror the testing that yielded that average rate
     
  10. Evitzee Jan 17, 2019

    Posts
    6,248
    Likes
    11,546
    To me as long as the watch is consistent (even if losing) I don't fiddle with it, too much opportunity for problems when any watch is opened up for an intervention. No big deal to just reset the watch forward every week or so. Trying to be an accuracy freak with a mechanical watch is just something I'm not interested in.
     
  11. Foo2rama Keeps his worms in a ball instead of a can. Jan 17, 2019

    Posts
    17,044
    Likes
    25,209
    Post your metas data from the website.
     
  12. fakinbacon Jan 17, 2019

    Posts
    63
    Likes
    196
    Here's mine. (Actual average daily rate = -1.5 seconds/day)

    [​IMG]
     
    Commisar and iatacs19 like this.
  13. Foo2rama Keeps his worms in a ball instead of a can. Jan 17, 2019

    Posts
    17,044
    Likes
    25,209
    There you go... average precision ....

    @POinNY where does Omega state “ they should never loose time”?
     
  14. POinNY Jan 17, 2019

    Posts
    87
    Likes
    28
     
    3AD54145-9475-435B-8F25-D4E55D2A04E1.png
  15. Foo2rama Keeps his worms in a ball instead of a can. Jan 17, 2019

    Posts
    17,044
    Likes
    25,209
    Average precision is 1.8 a day says it right there.
     
    Commisar likes this.
  16. POinNY Jan 17, 2019

    Posts
    87
    Likes
    28
     
    38A07F2E-DE9F-44C4-B2C6-0A74666DADCC.jpeg
    Flyguy, 4011021 and Commisar like this.
  17. Mouse_at_Large still immune to Speedmaster attraction Jan 17, 2019

    Posts
    2,015
    Likes
    5,247
    For those that really want to go into detail, here is the official METAS testing criteria. Without doing a detailed analysis (I'll leave that to those whose brains are more properly wired for that sort of thing) one thing that stands out to me is that the expected accuracy is an average of the watch tested in 6 positions, each of which it stays in for exactly the same amount of time. In the real world, nobody's watch is subject to those conditions, whether on the wrist or sitting off the wrist on a winder or in a static position overnight. Therefore, if I was to speculate, I'd say it was possible for a watch that's METAS standard to lose time if it habitually sits in a position that causes it. Putting it in another position (or taking it to extremes - the five other positions for equal amounts of time) should bring it's real-world performance back to spec.
     
    Edited Apr 19, 2019
    Commisar and Foo2rama like this.
  18. POinNY Jan 17, 2019

    Posts
    87
    Likes
    28
    You’re not getting it. There’s a big difference between the -1 in seeing and the +1.8 Omega listed. I’m ADMITTING that the wearer’s habits will influence this but if that’s the case Omega should not make a strong stratement that METAS movements should not lose time
     
  19. fakinbacon Jan 17, 2019

    Posts
    63
    Likes
    196
    Except that neither POinNY or I's watches have demonstrated that supposed average... and if this is indeed normal behavior, then it just seems misleading to say that the METAS calibers are "tested with precision criteria of 0/+5 seconds per day". Doesn't that seem to indicate that your watch should run within those specs?

    As I mentioned earlier, I'd totally rather my watch gain 4 or 5 seconds per day rather than lose just half a second. The fact that the real world performance of the watch is outside of what it is supposed to be certified for is quite frustrating, especially given the additional premium for a METAS/Master Chronometer watch.
     
    Commisar likes this.
  20. Mouse_at_Large still immune to Speedmaster attraction Jan 17, 2019

    Posts
    2,015
    Likes
    5,247
    I'm afraid that this shows the difference between standards met in artificial lab testing situations and real life usage. Where Omega have not been particularly smart is raising the expectations in their customer base that in real-life usage there is an absolute guarantee that their Master Chronometer timepieces will run within the lab test standards.

    I'm pretty much sure the vast majority will, but it's the disappointed minority whose expectations have not been met that will generate a lot of media traffic (and it's their right to do so).