Misaligned minute hands galore!

[SPACE-DWELLER]

Chris just posted a thread about the typical time that Rolex watches show in the Rolex catalogues:

10.10.31.

But I noted yesterday evening when I was browsing the newest Rolex catalogue (the one starring the Milgauss and SS GMT IIc) that on almost EVERY watch shown you see a misaligned minute hand.

Basically, all pics show the phenomenon that is often referred to as "play in the hands" (see the part about "Winding setting your watch" in the General Rolex FAQ's for more about play in the hands).

Ideally, when the time tells "10.10.31", the minute hand ought to stand EXACTLY between 10 and 11, but on most of the pics, the minute hand is either standing on 10 exactly or almost 11, despite the second's hand being at 31.

Also, I noted that the Daytonas shown all have THIN hands that were discontinued with the F-series!

What a bummer, Rolex!

[frostie]

Good obeservation Bo. I 've looked at rolex pics so thoroughly.

[SPACE-DWELLER]

Even the big macro pic of the Milgauss on the first pages shows the minute hand standing exactly at 10.

I wonder if Rolex made this "mistake" deliberately to make the watches appear more natural, or if Rolex indeed was a bit sloppy.

The "thin hands" on the Daytonas shown does indeed give the watch a totally different apperance that the current "Fat hands" model has. And a catalogue ought to show the models exactly as they come in real life.

[Tools]

My Speedy is perfect..



naner - naner- naner

[SPACE-DWELLER]

Nice one, Larry!

Did you get one of those Omega Anniversary pins, btw.?

[Paulie]

Originally Posted by Tools

My Speedy is perfect..

naner - naner- naner

Compare, you tell me....

[Tools]

Originally Posted by Paulie

Compare, you tell me....

WOW......

That should be over on the "Big Watch" thread...

[Paulie]

Originally Posted by Tools

WOW......

That should be over on the "Big Watch" thread...

I was thinking the same thing.

[Leighton]

Originally Posted by SPACE-DWELLER

I wonder if Rolex make this "mistake" deliberately to make the watches appear more natural, or if Rolex indeed a bit sloppy.

Could Rolex have hired an art director that wears a digital watch? Shame on them for not having a technical advisor oversee the catalogue!

Rolex should hire Jocke to shoot their next catalogue!

[StanGMT]

You're right, Bo - I'd never noticed the Rolex ads. Possibly I'm a bit of a nerd, but whenever I have adjusted the hands on my GMT I have ALWAYS made sure that the minute hand points precisely to the minute marker when the second hand is at the '12' position. It's amazing how many people (usually the arty types) don't do this - they just don't see the point in it.

Stan.

[dramsey]

Well, let's be accurate: there's a difference between a watch that's just set sloppily as oppose to a watch that _cannot_ be set so that the minute hand's on a hash mark when the second hand's at 12 all the way around the dial...

[abigsecret]

It is just because they didn't wait till the second hand hit 12 untill they set the minute hand, and then pull out the stem again exactly at 31 seconds. It has nothing to do with the alignment of the hands, it has to do with the "analness" of the person setting the time....

[chris_nor_cal]

bo. good catch

[SPACE-DWELLER]

Originally Posted by abigsecret

It is just because they didn't wait till the second hand hit 12 untill they set the minute hand, and then pull out the stem again exactly at 31 seconds. It has nothing to do with the alignment of the hands, it has to do with the "analness" of the person setting the time....

Well, since Rolex is quite anal about so many other things, precison being one of the main things Rolex cares about (COSC testing and further testings at Rolex), I would have expected them to at least get their presentation catalogue right. After all, what is it worth that a Rolex is spot on if you cannot tell the time accurately due to a minute hand that is way off?