COSC: Poll on how it influenced your Rolex Purchase

[Kris]

In reference to one of the other threads here, I've been having discussions with other Rolex owner's as to how much of a factor does/did the COSC rating play when selecting that very first Rolex watch.

So I'm putting up a poll on the relevance of COSC.

[Thurnau]

I have never heard of COSC

[montecristo]

I don't care for the COSC, matter of fact, I'd prefer the dial to be as clean as possible without all that superlative chronometer stuff.

If a watch is accurate, its accurate. I'd buy a seiko anyday without any second thoughts because I know they are reliable, same with rolex.

[rolexfan21]

Originally Posted by montecristo

I don't care for the COSC, matter of fact, I'd prefer the dial to be as clean as possible without all that superlative chronometer stuff.

If a watch is accurate, its accurate. I'd buy a seiko anyday without any second thoughts because I know they are reliable, same with rolex.

I always thought that the COSC was very important when buying a rolex because it shows that it has swiss movement and that it has been tested and approved. I know that not all rolexs have them (the air king i dont think has them) but most of the rolex's do have them i believe.

[Thurnau]

Originally Posted by montecristo

I don't care for the COSC, matter of fact, I'd prefer the dial to be as clean as possible without all that superlative chronometer stuff.

If a watch is accurate, its accurate. I'd buy a seiko anyday without any second thoughts because I know they are reliable, same with rolex.

Ok the "superlative chronometer". I just thought it was a Rolex brand certified inhouse test. Like a Ford Certified Preowned car that passes a Ford 156 point inspection. Or when you get an oil change and pay for the 15 point oil change, and they never seem to really check the air in the tires.

Before I came here I didn't know that +-seconds a day was an accurate watch. I would have surely thought I was getting ripped off. A watch that is certified to keep time you say? I would have never guessed!

[JJ Irani]

I think the COSC certification is important to me. Frankly, I wouldn't buy any watch that doesn't have one.

I know it's not important to the accurate working of a modern day Rolex, but to me it is!!

[mike]

Two of my most accurate watches are not COSC cretified.

[padi56]

Of know importance what so ever, today the COSC IMHO is nothing more than a marketing ploy.And with Rolex you don't even get a certificate now, and don't forget the Cal 3130 as used in the Airking, Sub Non Date, not certified. Is exactly the same movement in every shape and form as used in the Explorer.The only difference it has not been tested by a third party COSC institute.Now every bare movement tested costs around £120 + which is passed on to the buyer.All cased watches leaving the Rolex factory are computer timed,to perform to a set standard.Now as soon as they leave the factory,on route to dealer then finally the customer.That same COSC tested or non tested movement could quite easily go slightly off timing and needs to be regulated.All Rolex movement are capable of the COSC standard as with many many other brands, and ebauche movements.And although myself not too anal about timing my 15XX series 5513, 25 plus years old non COSC, runs +2.Where as a 2000 COSC SD has never got better than +3 to +4.A Rolex is a Rolex whether its tested or not,the COSC today is nothing more than a marketing ploy.But IMO in reality as far as Rolex watches are concerned mean very little today.And if none of the Rolex range was ever COSC tested,it certainly would not stop me buying a Rolex watch.Myself buy a Rolex watch because its got a lot of well proven history,over 60 odd years,well made and very reliable and a particular style,and not for a red hang tag.And I am almost 100% sure that most of you guys would love to wear, and own a vintage 6263/5 Daytona.But none of the SS ones were COSC tested,only the solid gold ones were, but exactly the same Valjoux 72 movement.Now would the lack of the COSC testing put you off from owing one of those in S.steel.?????.And today many of the most sort after Rolex and Rolex Tudor vintage watches, were never COSC tested at all.

[vcm_dj]

Well, as it is part of the traditional Rolex signature, I feel like having it's presence on the dial is of some importance(to me at least), especially if it means that the watch you're wearing did, in fact, pass that particular battery of tests... it's part of the look, the assurance, the stamp, blah, blah, blah... yeah, so what... and yet, when I see watches with the Jubilee dial, and those words aren't there... I miss them... Then again, Rolex can do what they want, and we love them for it... I love the fact that the Cellini line carries no certification, and are not automatics, and you will pay anywhere from $8K to $14K to join that club...(for a freakin' WIND UP wristwatch! - who cares what it's made of) Still... I'd love to have one of those Prince watches...
Now I'm rambling...
-V

[Dan Pierce]

COSC does not make or break a deal but is a nice bonus.
dP

[ginzo]

I bought my 2 solely on form and function as regards to style and my personality. COSC never was considered. Although I could not have expressed my feelings as well as Padi56 I totally agree with what he said.

[Rockrolex]

When I started collecting high end watches, I didn't even know about COSC. Now that I know about it, I don't care if my watches are COSC certified or not. That plays no factor in my decisions to purchase a given watch.

[colemanitis]

Originally Posted by dpierce84@insightbb.

COSC does not make or break a deal but is a nice bonus.
dP

My thoughts exactly!

[tonelar]

It'd be kinda cool if upon purchase we'd have a choice in as far as the SCOC marking on our dials. A cosc watch is a cosc watch, however, I'd rather it was engraved on the inside of the case back rather than front and center... I think the watch would definitely have a cleaner look.

[padi56]

Originally Posted by dpierce84@insightbb.

COSC does not make or break a deal but is a nice bonus.
dP

It is first necessary to distinguish between watches receiving the lesser common COSC ("Controle Officiel Suisse des Chronometres") chronometer certification and those receiving Observatory certification.The term "chronometer" started around 1715 by English watchmaker Jeremy Thacker, for a sea watch using a hand made like all in those by gone days a verge movement.John Arnold brought the word chronometer into use for his pocket-watches in 1782 for those having spring or pivoted escapements.When the Swiss designed a lever escapement with equivalent or better precision the term chronometer was adapted to all swiss watches with high grade movements.Then around 1925, the Swiss Association for Chronometry said: "A chronometer is a watch which has received a certificate from an competitions that began in Neuchatel in 1866, and Geneva in 1873, and ended in Neuchatel around 1973 and Geneva earlier around 1967 only for wristwatches, competitions ran from 1945 through 1967.Now this much stricter test took 44 days, encompassing 5 positions, 3 temperatures and 9 periods of from 1 to 5 days.Now to pass this test the watch had to perform ranging from "mean rate variation, each period" (1.5 seconds) through "mean rate variation with respect to position change" (max 3 seconds).During the entire 23 years of testing only about 64% passed the test.But only Omega and Patek entered every year.Rolex, Zenith, Longines, Movado, Vacheron & Constantin to name just a few entered but not every year.Then the Japanese came along and started to enter, Seiko with there Seiko Grand model.And after a few years began to wipe the floor in the astronomical observatory,Chronometer test.Now most of the other manufacturers entered watches specially built for the competition,but Seiko's was just off the production line.So the competition was abandoned by request of several swiss manufactures.Then in 1974 the COSC certification started, but now is strictly a commercial money making matter,and a far lower standard, than the European Din standard for watches,or the Japanese equivalent.And only two companies,in those days who could sell watches,that passed astronomical observatory authorisation Chronometer testing on dial was Seiko Grand and Giraud Peregaux.But the Seiko was tested by a higher standard again there own Japanese test

[steve-o]

Darn Rolex's are notoriously fast or slow, so it had no real bearing on my purchase.

[mikey]

I purchased Rolexes for my own reasons, but I have NEVER OWNED an accurate running Rolex in my life. They are like Steve-o said "notoriously fast or slow."

[padi56]

Originally Posted by mikey

I purchased Rolexes for my own reasons, but I have NEVER OWNED an accurate running Rolex in my life. They are like Steve-o said "notoriously fast or slow."

Thats very strange Mikey, since I have been around Rolex watches now over 35 years.Myself have never, or have heard of any, running notoriously fast or slow.Unless there was a service problem with the movement,even some I have from the 20s are still running and keeping excellent time.

[watchdawg]

When I bought my Rolex it didn't mean a thing to me just something else on the dial. Probably like someone else said a little bonus and a marketing tool today. I have never found my watch to be out of the COSC specs in 32 yrs. That is why Im reluctant to send it to RSC for service even though its been quite a long time since its been opened up, +2sec.

[Rockrolex]

Originally Posted by watchdawg

When I bought my Rolex it didn't mean a thing to me just something else on the dial. Probably like someone else said a little bonus and a marketing tool today. I have never found my watch to be out of the COSC specs in 32 yrs. That is why Im reluctant to send it to RSC for service even though its been quite a long time since its been opened up, +2sec.

I thought the same thing, Vic. If it ain't broke, don't fix it. But last week I took my '83 vintage TT DJ to an authorized Rolex service person. When he opened it up, he said it had last been serviced in 1995, but that it was dry on the inside; all the oils had evaporated. So I'm glad I took it to him.

[padi56]

Originally Posted by Rockrolex

I thought the same thing, Vic. If it ain't broke, don't fix it. But last week I took my '83 vintage TT DJ to an authorized Rolex service person. When he opened it up, he said it had last been serviced in 1995, but that it was dry on the inside; all the oils had evaporated. So I'm glad I took it to him.

Now after around 2000-2002 most of the oil used is now synthetic and don't tent to dry or emulsifier like the older mineral based oils.

[JJ Irani]

Originally Posted by mikey

I purchased Rolexes for my own reasons, but I have NEVER OWNED an accurate running Rolex in my life. They are like Steve-o said "notoriously fast or slow."

Cannot DISAGREE more. 18 Rollies under my belt over a period of 26 years....each and every one of them spot-on!!!

ROLEX doesn't muck around with accuracy. They are bloody well dead-on!!