Superlative vs Master Chronometer (METAS)

[deeman54]

Has anyone done third party testing on these two? Which is better? Metas seems to market their testing as superior but is it? I need answers lol


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[worldofoyster]

superlative is more accurate since it's -2 & +2, so the the difference is 4sec a day.

however, metas works better for people who doesn't want their watch to run slow.

[enjoythemusic]

METAS ... also being +/-1 second works for me :)

248898166_2282933438509691_1047766778410371085_n.jpg

[SS Oyster]

Rolex’s superlative standard gets the movement tested to COSC standards and then cases up the movement before testing in six positions, adjusting to within +/- 2 seconds per 24 hours.

METAS tests movements installed in casesto 0-5 seconds per day. They also test water resistance and magnetic fields. They test the entire watch.

METAS and COSC are different standards, but Rolex follows COSC with their own testing that exceeds METAS without having to pay METAS for their stamp of approval.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[dubins930]

Originally Posted by SS Oyster

Rolex’s superlative standard gets the movement tested to COSC standards and then cases up the movement before testing in six positions, adjusting to within +/- 2 seconds per 24 hours.

METAS tests movements installed in casesto 0-5 seconds per day. They also test water resistance and magnetic fields. They test the entire watch.

METAS and COSC are different standards, but Rolex follows COSC with their own testing that exceeds METAS without having to pay METAS for their stamp of approval.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Genuinely curious, what are the Rolex standards that exceed METAS? The magnetic field and water resistance testing?

[MRBolton]

Que the comments where people act like it's crazy for a watch that has Superlative Chronometer printed on the dial to not perform within the specs of a "Superlative Chronometer."

[Scholar]

Originally Posted by SS Oyster

Rolex’s superlative standard gets the movement tested to COSC standards and then cases up the movement before testing in six positions, adjusting to within +/- 2 seconds per 24 hours.

METAS tests movements installed in casesto 0-5 seconds per day. They also test water resistance and magnetic fields. They test the entire watch.

METAS and COSC are different standards, but Rolex follows COSC with their own testing that exceeds METAS without having to pay METAS for their stamp of approval.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I know Rolex outdoes base testing standards, but I'm not sure I would say they go beyond METAS in doing so. The accuracy testing is sort of a wash; Rolex's window is slightly narrower but on the other hand METAS's is based on not losing time.

The WR testing on a Rolex is to 125% the stated pressure. METAS is comparable and even stricter for divers.

I know Rolex movements are quite antimagnetic overall but does the base 'Superlative' standard test for 15,000 gauss? (I don't know but I don't think so.)

[Krash]

The performance of all my Rolexes are quite impressive. I don’t measure on a daily basis, nor do I strap any instruments to them. But over time (please pardon the pun), they stack up well next to my G-Shock, which calibrates with my iPhone a couple times a day. There is no evidence of any significant deviation to COSC standards. I’d notice it…


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[WatchGuy1966]

Originally Posted by deeman54

Has anyone done third party testing on these two?

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I believe COSC and METAS are both third-party testing of manufacturer movements.

[Mystro]

Omega wins this pissing match.
METAS is a harder standard series of testing. Regardless both are a higher standard than COSC. Each Omega tested watch also gets its own METAS report of how it did during the test for the owner to review. It is a very nice feature.

[Scholar]

I think perhaps part of the issue is that people think METAS is run by Omega, so it’s perceived as Rolex vs Omega.

Omega was the first company to install the machinery for the testing, but METAS itself is a Swiss government certification. It’s definitely not something they themselves granted. Case in point: they had already had a METAS spec watch (the 2014 Seamaster 300 Master Co-Axial) a year before they had their first METAS certified watch (the 2015 Constellation Globemaster Master Chronometer).

[Krash]

Originally Posted by Mystro

Omega wins this pissing match.
METAS is a harder standard series of testing. Regardless both are a higher standard than COSC. Each Omega tested watch also gets its own METAS report of how it did during the test for the owner to review. It is a very nice feature.

I love my Omega watches, but my Seamaster doesn’t seem anymore accurate than any of my Rolexes when it comes to everyday usage.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[deeman54]

Gents I didn’t intend to be a debate about omega vs Rolex. I could care less. Tudor has metas certs. I wanted to know if anyone has done a 3rd party testing against both certs. I’m curious if Rolex’s are as a magnetic as those timepieces that are metas certified.

I’m assuming they are! I can’t see Tudor (metas certified) being more technically capable than its flagship brand Rolex.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[deeman54]

Originally Posted by Scholar

I think perhaps part of the issue is that people think METAS is run by Omega, so it’s perceived as Rolex vs Omega.

Omega was the first company to install the machinery for the testing, but METAS itself is a Swiss government certification. It’s definitely not something they themselves granted. Case in point: they had already had a METAS spec watch (the 2014 Seamaster 300 Master Co-Axial) a year before they had their first METAS certified watch (the 2015 Constellation Globemaster Master Chronometer).

This….. people say rolex wins with branding but omega has swindled its customers into thinking omega = metas and vice versa :)


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[deeman54]

Originally Posted by dubins930

Genuinely curious, what are the Rolex standards that exceed METAS? The magnetic field and water resistance testing?

+1


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[SS Oyster]

Originally Posted by dubins930

Genuinely curious, what are the Rolex standards that exceed METAS? The magnetic field and water resistance testing?

Rolex tests fully cased watch to +/- 2secs per day. That's better than 0 to +5secs per day.

[deeman54]

Originally Posted by enjoythemusic

METAS ... also being +/-1 second works for me :)

Attachment 1437465

Metas isn’t +/-1 second a day. It’s 0/+5 a day. In theory your watch should never lose time but could gain 6 seconds a day


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[deeman54]

Originally Posted by SS Oyster

Rolex tests fully cased watch to +/- 2secs per day. That's better than 0 to +5secs per day.

I think it’s up to the wearer. For example sometimes I set my watch fast so I’m not late to meetings. (Personal preference) I’m sure metas works better for some people in this setting.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Scholar]

Originally Posted by SS Oyster

Rolex tests fully cased watch to +/- 2secs per day. That's better than 0 to +5secs per day.

Not really. It is a narrower window by a second, yes, but losing time is considered more of a flaw than gaining time, so those sort of cancel out.

[PenDelicate]

Originally Posted by SS Oyster

Rolex tests fully cased watch to +/- 2secs per day. That's better than 0 to +5secs per day.

Yup.

It's pretty hard to argue with: 4 < 5.

[padi56]

Originally Posted by SS Oyster

Rolex’s superlative standard gets the movement tested to COSC standards and then cases up the movement before testing in six positions, adjusting to within +/- 2 seconds per 24 hours.

METAS tests movements installed in casesto 0-5 seconds per day. They also test water resistance and magnetic fields. They test the entire watch.

METAS and COSC are different standards, but Rolex follows COSC with their own testing that exceeds METAS without having to pay METAS for their stamp of approval.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Exactly but like all tests no matter the system its at time of testing in a controlled environment movement passed test at time of testing. But on the wrist with owners wearing habits could differ slightly, its not a warranty that it will perform exactly the same every single day for life. Both are marketing tools and today marketing often baffles brains, but thank god my life was never ran to he exact seconds, and sure that most today this would be true as well.

[Daveh777]

In reality, if my life was controlled by seconds vs minutes it would drive me completely insane. Basically, all Rolex, Omega and Tudor models are fit for purpose in the real world.
I enjoy METAS, chrono certification etc more as an indicator of manufacturing and engineering excellence as opposed to anything more.
I’m also seriously considering a Quartz Grand Seiko to satisfy my latent accuracy itch; not anything mechanical.

[alphadweller]

In my experience, METAS is vastly superior, especially against the 3235 movement. My real-life measurements:

- Speedy cal. 9900 +1.5s a week, average worn+rest, after 2 years
- TT Sub41 cal. 3235: - 1s a day, average worn+rest, after 3 years
- SD43 cal. 3235: - 6 s/d, average on timegrapher, after 7 years
- YM40 cal. 3135: + 1 s/d, average worn+rest, after 9 years

[deeman54]

Originally Posted by padi56

Exactly but like all tests no matter the system its at time of testing in a controlled environment movement passed test at time of testing. But on the wrist with owners wearing habits could differ slightly, its not a warranty that it will perform exactly the same every single day for life. Both are marketing tools and today marketing often baffles brains, but thank god my life was never ran to he exact seconds, and sure that most today this would be true as well.

Well said!

[Scholar]

Originally Posted by PenDelicate

Yup.

It's pretty hard to argue with: 4 < 5.

Like I said, losing time is considered worse than gaining time, so a second wider of a window while not losing time is arguably superior, at worst equivalent.

[samson66]

I like METAS because I really prefer my watches to run a little fast vs a little slow.

[brandrea]

In practical terms they don’t make a single bit of difference to me.

Heck, my slow beat 321 is rated at -1/+11 seconds a day …

I don’t really notice a difference between it and my 32xx Rolex or my Metas Speedy

[TikTok]

Originally Posted by Daveh777

In reality, if my life was controlled by seconds vs minutes it would drive me completely insane. Basically, all Rolex, Omega and Tudor models are fit for purpose in the real world.
I enjoy METAS, chrono certification etc more as an indicator of manufacturing and engineering excellence as opposed to anything more.
I’m also seriously considering a Quartz Grand Seiko to satisfy my latent accuracy itch; not anything mechanical.

Go for it, I did and dont regret it for one second (tick).

[samson66]

Originally Posted by Daveh777

I’m also seriously considering a Quartz Grand Seiko to satisfy my latent accuracy itch; not anything mechanical.

Get a Grand Seiko Spring Drive. More accurate than a true quartz.

[TikTok]

Originally Posted by samson66

Get a Grand Seiko Spring Drive. More accurate than a true quartz.

Err! No.
Spring drive +- 10 sec/month.
Quartz +- 10 sec/year.