Should I get my GMT-IIC overhauled?
 

I have had my GMT-IIC for almost 2 years now, it has NEVER ran on time, always fast. Since I live in NYC I have taken it into Rolex 2-3 times before and they have tested it and always said there are no issues. They never kept it for testing for more than a few days.

This time around they've kept the watch for a week and 2 days and I just got a call saying that it was fine and they did not see any issues with the watch running fast. However, they did recommended that the watch be overhauled, which is basically taking the watch apart and putting it back together (correct me if I'm wrong). They would then test the watch again after this, so it's looking like another 3 weeks.

My quesiton is should I have it overhauled? Are there any drawbacks to having it overhauled? What are the benefits? I know my watch and it has never ran on time, but when Rolex tells me there's nothing wrong with it and I begin questioning myself. Would love to get everyone's opinion.

Dude, I feel your pain, and YES, get it overhauled. My less-then-two-year-old Daytona also NEVER ran on time, and was in the AD several times for adjustments. Finally, the best Rolex watchmaker in the West said he would look at it, but I had to leave it for a couple weeks, no problem. He told me that there was definitely something wrong, the mechanism was out of balance or something, but he said it had to go back to Rolex for an early overhaul. So, now, it's gone 6 to 8 weeks :crying:

I was in the same situation and nothing seemed to help, until a very knowledgable watchmaker finally agreed it was messed up and needed to be sent in, actually, I'm grateful. Once more is the AD you purchased it from should pay for it!!! Mine is!!!!

Can't really say since I don't know what "it has NEVER ran on time, always fast" means... A few seconds a day is normal............:thinking:

If they have tested it several times and don't see any issues, then you need to describe your particular issue in more detail..


If you are dissatisfied and they will overhaul it at no cost... I would go ahead...an overhaul can not do any harm whatsoever....

Sure, if it's under warranty.

Exactly what the Prof said!

Well let's say I set my watch against another digital clock at 12:00:00 exactly. In a week or two, I will begin to notice that my watch is off by anywhere from 1-2 minutes easily. So basically that's my problem. If it ran within COSC specs after 1 or 2 weeks it would be off by only -4/+6 right? Anyways, my watch is still under the Rolex 2 year warranty and it would be overhauled for free.

COSC is -4/+6 seconds a day... isn't it? :thinking: So in a couple weeks, your watch could be as fast as a minute and 24 seconds and still be within COSC.... Larry? Am I missing somethig? :thinking:

How fast is it running? If it's within within COSC, then you need to adjust your expectations for mechanical timepieces.

Edit: I didn't see your second post. Maybe the watch is magnetized, but two minutes in two weeks is too much, IMO. Maybe the watch just needs to be regulated.

if rsc will do the work under warranty for free do it now...before you have to pay!!!!

I'd do it!

Correct. Anything between 56 seconds slow (-4 x 14) to 1 min 24 seconds fast (+6 x 14) after two weeks is within COSC.

Best,

A

So after a month (30 days) if the watch up to 180 seconds (3 minutes) fast, it's ok? (30 days x 6 seconds)

Yep, that means that it is still within COSC.

Now, whether you are satisfied with that is another matter altogether. My GMTIIc was a bit outside of COSC on the slow side. RSC regulated it, and nows it runs perfectly. I don't think your watch needs an "overhaul", I think it just needs regulation.

I agree.

If there are no issues, why does it need an overhaul after only two years?

What would you say if you took your car to a mechanic who said he couldn't find anything wrong, but recommended an engine overhaul?

There seems to be a disconnect there.

However, if the service is free, why not get your watch spiffed up now instead of later?

The logic just doesn't seem to add up.

Do it!!!

If you want a watch to keep perfect time, buy a Quartz. Automatic movements will vary in accuracy based on wearing habits. As another person mentioned, a regulation is due, not an overhaul. Here is a tip, next time you bring the watch in, track its accuracy on a daily chart for two weeks and show the tech exactly what it is doing. FWIW, I like my watches to run a bit fast as it's easier to hack it back, than the other way around. IMHO, I think you are making big deal out of nothing, but at the end of the day it is YOUR watch, do with what you will....just my 2 cents.
:cheers:
Scott

I'd go for it if it's still under warranty.

When I first got my previous GMT IIc it was running about -6 secs a day.
I took it to the RSC & they adjusted it.
I wore it for a fortnight & it was still -4 secs a day so I took it back to RSC & they adjusted it again, got it to -2 secs a day which I was happy with until i sold it.

Yes, techncally that would be OK performance.. Not great performance, but within "Normal"

I see a couple of issues... You say that you set it to a "digital" clock, then a couple of weeks later you notice it is a minute or two off....:thinking:

That is not a good way to know what your watch is doing. If you are going to "calibrate" for it's known variance, you need to set it first to a known standard. One such as the USNO observatory, or Time.gov, etc., digital clocks are not always very accurate, and computer clocks are notorious for updating many times throughout a week. You must use the same standard and then check it again after a week; then divide the change by the number of days. This will give you an indication of it's variance per day..

As said, the watch is tested to vary no more than -4 to +6 seconds per day, but they typically will be around ~2 seconds fast each day. Yours sounds like it may be around 4 seconds fast each day and that is still normal..

I don't think that, based on your new information, your watch needs to be overhauled at all....

I would not do it. It's too young and it sounds like there is nothing wrong with it.

I'd listen to this guy. From my experiences here, he knows what he's talking about.:thumbsup:

:cheers::cheers:

I respectfully disagree with those of you who are telling this guy to not get his watch serviced and accept the poor accuracy of this watch.

To not have this watch serviced, Especially for free by Rolex, would be a missed opportunity in my book. The watch could have dry grease at the escapement pallets, or have depleted oil at some of the jewels, or a problem with the main spring, or a number of other possibilities.

Rolex is recommending it be serviced, you are unhappy with the accuracy, and chances are that it may be more accurate after they overhaul it. The cost of the service you are going to get will be around $500 + parts if you have to pay for it.

Its already there and your going to have to take it to someone to get it serviced in 3-5 years anyway. If you get it serviced and its still not right in a couple of months, you can seek someone who will take the time to regulate it. Or you can send it back to Rolex for regulation under the one year warranty they should provide on the service.

I think its a win win situation for the OP.

But that is just me.

By the way:

I have had my watch perfectly regulated by a watchmaker in Hilton Head, SC, and if my GMT IIC can be made to run perfectly, I would be willing to wager that this guy can at least get an accuracy of much better than COSC. And easily obtain +/- 1 second a day or better.

For example I think my watch was losing as much as 8 seconds a day when I took it in. The first time he adjusted it, he said to keep accurate records of how the watch was doing. 12 days later I took it back and told him it was gaining an average of 3.24 seconds a day. He adjusted it and told me to keep a close eye on it. I called him 5 days later to let him know that it was perfect, quartz accuracy. I am not kidding it is right on time with gmt247.com every time I check it. And I check it at least 7-10 times a day. I set my watch last Saturday at 1600 hrs and I have not touched it, It is perfectly in time with gmt247.

It can be done, by the right watchmaker. Will it be running this good 6-12 months from now? Time will tell!!!!

:cheers:

RTFT
The OP is not using the most accurate method to check his accuracy, and on top of that, the watch does not need to be serviced, if anything, it needs to be regulated.
Scott

Have to agree with you there Scott IMHO if he did a proper real accurate test his watch would be fine.


Most of you guys have no idea how a mechanical watch works your quote (I think my watch was losing as much as 8 seconds a day when I took it in).Well was it or wasn't it loosing 8 seconds a day??.You check your watch 7to 10 a day got to ask myself why,and how do you tell its a average of 3.24 seconds a day how do you measure that.And if your watch is like you say perfect on your wrist it might be different on someone else's.The main enemy to mechanical watches is gravity given the fact that the movement is constantly affected by the earth's gravity, metal expansion and contraction, temperature variations, subtle changes in lubrication and friction, shocks, and so on.The fact is that no mechanical watch made will keep perfect time, very close yes but perfect no.

Myself feel very humbled with any mechanical watch that can perform to just a few seconds a day.You guys tell me of any other purely man made thing that has the same high precision as a mechanical watch.Take mans first flight
about 100 years ago then in very flimsy so called aircraft but today man has flown to the planets.And now we take air travel around the world for granted.But if our mechanical marvel on our wrists is just a few seconds out some moan and groan about it.The COSC testing spec is a average of -4 to +6 seconds a day,and in the COSC test.The bare uncased movement without winding rotor etc could be as much as 10 seconds + or - in the testing period and still pass the Swiss COSC test.


And any modern day wristwatch chronometers are, by the almost 300 year old 18th century navigational standards imposed on John Harrison,H4 watch,quite laughably inaccurate even by todays standards.How about just 5 seconds slow after 63 days at sea,in one of the toughest environments known to man, not bad for a almost 300 year old watch.Now in those days no modern machinery no computer designs no robots,just his bare hands and crude tools.Now when you look at your watch and only a few seconds out it wont feel so bad,whats in a few seconds a day.

Scott'!!! Maybe you should read the thread.....

And maybe you should read the first line of my post. Where I said I respectfully disagree!!!!!!!

If this OP's watch is off 1 minute in a week. 60/7= -8.57 seconds a day. Thats an error of -4.28 minutes a month, I wouldn't own any alleged time keeper that kept that kind of time. Further I believe that the OP has enough sense to check his watch by a proven device.

Furthermore Rolex is recommending a full service, they are looking at parameters seen on a timing device that we aren't privy to. I wouldn't think Rolex woould recommend service on a watch that doesn't need it.

Once again I respectfully disagree.....


:cheers:

Well the OP own statement above does not demonstrate any way for the testing any watch correctly The only way to test a mechanical watch correctly is give watch a full manual wind say 40 full crown turns clockwise.Then set time with a reliable time sourse wear as normal. Check daily over 7 days with same setting time sourse then average out the loss or gain over those 7 days for a accurate result.

On 01/11/10 @1700hrs The watch was set on time by gmt247.com.

On 01/23/10 @1000hrs The watch had a error of +38 seconds in 281hrs.

38/281x24=3.24

Thats how I arrived at my conclusion. A Rather elementry analysis "Watson".

By the way I'm checking my new Sub and since Wednesday, Its gained 11 seconds in the last 43 hrs, seems to be running about +6.13 seconds a day.

The GMT is still perfect +/-0 in the last 136 hrs as I give it a cursory glance while I'm checking the Sub.:dance:

I can't imagine everyone getting so riled up about someone wanting to have an accurate watch, when it is attainable. I consider it a source of pride and a challenge.

Once again respectfully. Even though I am getting kicked in the arse for believing in excellence. Obviously I'm in the minority when I expect a watch to keep accurate time. If you are ok with a watch that is +/- 4-6 seconds a day so be it. But I still can't imagine you flaming anyone that wants better accuracy than that.

:cheers:

Well so your watch was average of 3.24 seconds a day fast and only showing a average of 99.997% accuracy,don't thing anyone could ask better from any mechanical watch Rolex or any other.But would agree that accuracy has a lot to do with regulation,and myself have done several experiments with the help of my watch maker friend and his timing machine.And the best non Roles was a $60 Seagull ST19 mechanical Chinese made movement.Now that ran well inside the COSC spec and still is a very accurate movement 4 years later, but has been re-regulated a few times to keep it so.But all Swiss mechanical chronometers are tested to the same COSC standard and for any watch to perform within that standard I would be perfectly happy.Now since the escapement of a mechanical watch pushes the gears 432,000 times. And a day has 86,400 seconds and to loose just 3.24 of those seconds thats fantastic accuracy for any mechanical watch.And if any mechanical watch was 100% accurate, does it really matter if its out by just a few seconds a day, is your life run to the absolute second.In well over 30 years of Rolex wearing I never missed a flight a appointment meeting etc because my watch was a few seconds out a day either way.

Padi let me clear the air on something.

I have read enough of your post's to know that you have more experience than I have with watches and the in and out construction and function, than I do. And I respect your wisdom, and knowledge.

That being said, I too have a passion for fine watches, and am even more obsessed with them keeping accurate time. Do I need the accuracy we have been discussing? No I don't... But if its obtainable I'm going for it.

I hope that we are on the same page, and you guys realize my intention was never to challenge anyones knowledge of Rolexes or Watchmaking. I have over the last few years been reading a lot on the subject, and probably will have a lifelong facination with mechanical things, including Rolex,Omega and other Watches.

I realize that I came very close to needing to put on my Flame Suit, and that Is not why I'm here.

Respectfully

Don