Should I get my GMT-IIC overhauled?

[acce1999]

Originally Posted by TheVTCGuy

COSC is -4/+6 seconds a day... isn't it? 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?

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

[MK25toLife]

Originally Posted by acce1999

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)

[Texsubmariner]

Originally Posted by MK25toLife

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.

[acce1999]

Originally Posted by Texsubmariner

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.

[Tools]

Originally Posted by MK25toLife

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

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....

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....

[Watchdog]

Originally Posted by Tools

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....

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

[dmc]

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!!!!

[SLS]

Originally Posted by dmc

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!!!!

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

[padi56]

Originally Posted by SLS

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.

Originally Posted by dmc

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!!!!

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.

[dmc]

Originally Posted by padi56

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.

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.

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.

[Ck8]

Originally Posted by padi56

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.

So if 300 years ago with crude tools and no computer design and John Harrison can make a watch that loose 5secs in 63 days, then why can't a modern watch be as accurate?

[Ck8]

Originally Posted by dmc

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!!!!

I totally agree with you; I had my Exp II for 10 years without a service and it ran on time for the whole period. My SS Daytona was running -3 secs/ day sent it back to RSC for regulation and now it is spot on. So it is possible to have accuracy as good as quartz and I think it depends on whether the watchmaker is prepare to spend time on getting it right.