View Single Post
Old 7 April 2023, 01:44 AM   #3823
HiBoost
"TRF" Member
 
HiBoost's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: USA
Posts: 1,560
Quote:
Originally Posted by saxo3 View Post
... seems to be a noteworthy observation?
Name:  ss1.jpg
Views: 341
Size:  30.9 KB


Though noteworthy, I think your observation is still orthogonal to the chronic issue. If anything, it lends support to the notion that this caliber is "designed" to run at lower amplitudes than we have seen with previous generations of Rolex calibers. I.e. in order to achieve a +0 s/d rate, amplitude will come in the 255-265 range, versus, say, 285-295 of a 31xx. And the caveat of course is this is a sample size of 1, so we shouldn't get too confident.

That said, if a lower-than-normal amplitude were the only oddity we'd not be having this conversation. None of us really care whether our watches achieve 255 or 285, right? The problem is when the 255 becomes 235 and the 235 becomes 195 and so on. Or to put it another way, there's no reason to believe that a watch regulated to achieve 290 amplitude would somehow be immune to the long-term decay we see, it might just take a few months longer to hit a low enough amplitude where the timekeeping is completely gone.

So what I propose is that you buy 20 GMTs, regulate 10 of them to +5s/d and 10 of them to +0s/d. Let's track that over the next 2 years and THEN we'll really have some answers
HiBoost is offline   Reply With Quote