Who has a METAS movement that is losing time?

[fakinbacon]

Mouse_at_Large

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).

Very well put - thank you for the clarification. I definitely think they should be a little more clear that the 0/+5 is by no means a guarantee of real-life performance. I'm bummed to be a part of the disappointed minority whose watches actually do lose time, especially seeing posts from people who are consistently averaging +.5 to +2/seconds per day.

Here's to hoping that a the service center can give a quick regulation to speed it up just a touch. The watch has been otherwise phenomenal so if I can stop it from losing time then it'll be just perfect.

 

[gatorcpa]

POinNY

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

Then take the Omega press release and take your watch back to the AD or Boutique. If Omega decides to do anything about it, then don't be surprised it comes back at +2 sec/day or more, just so long as it is within the METAS specifications.

Which would you rather have? My guess is a quartz watch.
gatorcpa

 

[fakinbacon]

gatorcpa

Then take the Omega press release and take your watch back to the AD or Boutique. If Omega decides to do anything about it, then don't be surprised it comes back at +2 sec/day or more, just so long as it is within the METAS specifications.

Which would you rather have?
gatorcpa

Call me crazy but I'd actually prefer anywhere up to +4/day over as little as -.5/day. I always prefer watches to run fast so that you can quickly reset it to real time by simply hacking the seconds, rather than having to adjust the minute hand.

 

[POinNY]

gatorcpa

Then take the Omega press release and take your watch back to the AD or Boutique. If Omega decides to do anything about it, then don't be surprised it comes back at +2 sec/day or more, just so long as it is within the METAS specifications.

Which would you rather have? My guess is a quartz watch.
gatorcpa

I had a feeling the quartz watch comment would be made. But, I’m fine with -1 sec per day. My issue is that Omega states the watch should never lose time, but it clearly does. Agree to disagree

 

[Archer]

POinNY

I had a feeling the quartz watch comment would be made. But, I’m fine with -1 sec per day. My issue is that Omega states the watch should never lose time, but it clearly does. Agree to disagree

Omega states that the watch will run with an average daily rate of between 0 and 5 seconds per day when measured in their testing. Again this doesn’t mean the watch will never run slow.

I’ve never seen anything in any official publication from Omega that says these watches will never run slow...

 

[fakinbacon]

POinNY

I had a feeling the quartz watch comment would be made. But, I’m fine with -1 sec per day. My issue is that Omega states the watch should never lose time, but it clearly does. Agree to disagree

Funny, originally their post didn't include the quartz comment so I took it to mean that 'you could have it regulated but be wary that it may come back gaining more time than it is currently losing' - which would be fine by me!

 

[Foo2rama]

Omega did not say that. Someone assumed something on another site. Show me where omega states it.

Like I said try resting your watch in a different position overnight and I bet you can get positive daily rate.

 

[fakinbacon]

Archer

Omega states that the watch will run with an average daily rate of between 0 and 5 seconds per day when measured in their testing. Again this doesn’t mean the watch will never run slow.

I’ve never seen anything in any official publication from Omega that says these watches will never run slow...

Hi Archer,

I've been a longtime lurker and always value your contributions so I appreciate you popping in.

Is my assumption correct that if my watch is currently averaging a second or two slow, a simple timing regulation should be all it takes to speed it up to average a gain of time? Even if it means gaining more than it is currently losing, i.e. bumping it up from -1sec/day to, let's say, +2 or 3 per day. I know it's nit-picky but I just greatly prefer gaining time since it's easier to reset via hacking and also ensures that I'll only ever be early to arrive somewhere rather than late, even if it's just by a few seconds 😀

 

[Archer]

fakinbacon

Hi Archer,

I've been a longtime lurker and always value your contributions so I appreciate you popping in.

Is my assumption correct that if my watch is currently averaging a second or two slow, a simple timing regulation should be all it takes to speed it up to average a gain of time? Even if it means gaining more than it is currently losing, i.e. bumping it up from -1sec/day to, let's say, +2 or 3 per day. I know it's nit-picky but I just greatly prefer gaining time since it's easier to reset via hacking and also ensures that I'll only ever be early to arrive somewhere rather than late, even if it's just by a few seconds 😀

Probably, but this would have to be done by Omega in order to maintain your warranty. Note that although this is “simple” as you put it, it requires specific tools and knowledge to do properly without adding positional variation, or causing escapement damage.

Cheers, Al

 

[fakinbacon]

Archer

Probably, but this would have to be done by Omega in order to maintain your warranty. Note that although this is “simple” as you put it, it requires specific tools and knowledge to do properly without adding positional variation, or causing escapement damage.

Cheers, Al

Great, mine's currently at the Swatch Service Center in Culver City so I'm hopeful that they'll be able to sort it. Thanks!

 

[gatorcpa]

fakinbacon

Call me crazy but I'd actually prefer anywhere up to +4/day over as little as -.5/day. I always prefer watches to run fast so that you can quickly reset it to real time by simply hacking the seconds, rather than having to adjust the minute hand.

Fair point. I wear vintage watches, most of which do not hack, so this matters little to me.

Also I wear them for a day or two, then move on to another one.
gatorcpa

 

[Evitzee]

The industry has jumped on this accuracy bandwagon over the last few years for marketing purposes. Patek Philippe with their own seal, watches made in Geneve have the Geneve Seal, then there is COSC and Omega with this METAS certification. Most of it puts expectations, often unrealistic, on the watch and the maker. Every Rolex I've ever owned was a poor timekeeper, always out of spec. I've learned to ignore these marketing gimmicks.

I've got a brand new ceramic Speedmaster Moon on the Orbita winder right now, its gained 2 seconds in 5 days (+0.4 sec/day), well within the specs. But the actual Omega test results for the 6 position test was +3.4 sec/day, actual performance is 8.5 times better! I'm glad it is in the more precise direction but it could've gone the other way, too. In the end what happens on your wrist will never match what a controlled test gives. Manufacturers only have themselves to blame for this accuracy war and raising expectations for their products performance in the real world.

In my experience anytime a watch is opened you run the chance of unintended consequences (dust, scratches, other probkems). Rate adjustments on these movements aren't as simple as nudging an index regulator like in the past. Unless the rate is waaaay of it just isn't worrying about. But that's just me after 40 years of watch collecting, both vintage and new.

Edited: Jan 17, 2019

 

[Foo2rama]

Evitzee

The industry has jumped on this accuracy bandwagon over the last few years for marketing purposes. Patek Philippe with their own seal, watches made in Geneve have the Geneve Seal, then there is COSC and Omega with this METAS certification. Most of it puts expectations, often unrealistic, on the watch and the maker. Every Rolex I've ever owned was a poor timekeeper, always out of spec. I've learned to ignore these marketing gimmicks.

I've got a brand new ceramic Speedmaster Moon on the Orbita winder right now, its gained 2 seconds in 5 days (+0.4 sec/day), well within the specs. But the actual Omega test results for the 6 position test was +3.4 sec/day, actual performance is 8.5 times better! I'm glad it is in the more precise direction but it could've gone the other way, too. In the end what happens on your wrist will never match what a controlled test gives. Manufacturers only have themselves to blame for this accuracy war and raising expectations for their products performance in the real world.

There are a bunch of odd requirements for the Geneve seal beyond accuracy and location.

 

[Evitzee]

Foo2rama

There are a bunch of odd requirements for the Geneve seal beyond accuracy and location.

Absolutely true, in fact in the past the Geneve seal didn't have any requirements for timekeeping but the debacle, mostly due to Roger Dubuis watches, forced them to include an accuracy requirement now. Maximum deviation of 1 minute over the seven day test. The Seal is still mainly focused finishing and construction, but with an accuracy requirement now.

 

[gatorcpa]

Evitzee

Every Rolex I've ever owned was a poor timekeeper, always out of spec.

Meanwhile, I've been wearing a 1970's vintage Omega Constellation. I just checked it against the atomic clock on my phone and it is 3 seconds slow for the past 4 days.



I don't buy any of that certification crap. Each watch is different. In my experience, accuracy is based a combination of the skill of the watchmaker working on it, the quality of the component parts and a little bit of luck.
gatorcpa

 

[fakinbacon]

gatorcpa

Meanwhile, I've been wearing a 1970's vintage Omega Constellation. I just checked it against the atomic clock on my phone and it is 3 seconds slow for the past 4 days.

Literally twice as accurate as my brand new 8800 METAS movement 🙁

 

[POinNY]

Foo2rama

Omega did not say that. Someone assumed something on another site. Show me where omega states it.

Like I said try resting your watch in a different position overnight and I bet you can get positive daily rate.

Archer

Omega states that the watch will run with an average daily rate of between 0 and 5 seconds per day when measured in their testing. Again this doesn’t mean the watch will never run slow.

I’ve never seen anything in any official publication from Omega that says these watches will never run slow...

Do you have any advice on how to gain the time lost? I mentioned in the original post that I lose around 1.5 sec during the 15 hours of the day it’s worn. It’s off the wrist for 8 hours at night. During that time it’s set crown up but only gains back maybe 3/4 of a second. This is the “fast” position but it’s not fast enough in that it doesn’t regain all the time lost during the day. So time is still in a deficit when I put it on the wrist in the morning. I think this is the only fast position as well.

Any input?

 

[noelekal]

gatorcpa

Meanwhile, I've been wearing a 1970's vintage Omega Constellation. I just checked it against the atomic clock on my phone and it is 3 seconds slow for the past 4 days.



I don't buy any of that certification crap. Each watch is different. In my experience, accuracy is based a combination of the skill of the watchmaker working on it, the quality of the component parts and a little bit of luck.
gatorcpa

Love to see the oldies hold their own against the new kids.

 

[Foo2rama]

POinNY

Do you have any advice on how to gain the time lost? I mentioned in the original post that I lose around 1.5 sec during the 15 hours of the day it’s worn. It’s off the wrist for 8 hours at night. During that time it’s set crown up but only gains back maybe 3/4 of a second. This is the “fast” position but it’s not fast enough in that it doesn’t regain all the time lost during the day. So time is still in a deficit when I put it on the wrist in the morning. I think this is the only fast position as well.

Any input?

There are 6 positions...

 

[STANDY]

Here is a thought. Try wearing it overnight 😉 You probably rest it in 4 of the 6 positions whilst your asleep.