The new -2+2 Rolex syndrome.

[enjoythemusic]

I've heard that Rolex is working on an in-house movement mechanical timepiece that will see into the future. Taking their Superlative Chronometer a step further, this upcoming yet-to-be-named model will allow the wearer to see upwards of 15 minutes into the future.

[padi56]

Originally Posted by Abdullah71601

What is your definition of accurate? That's the relevant question. The crux of Peter's argument is that all mechanical watches are known to be less accurate than other available timekeepers and people should be content with the known limitation of the technology, regardless of how much they paid for their watch.

If your watch isn't meeting the advertised precision and accuracy expectation, you are quite right to want it adjusted. And Rolex will do that for free. The tradeoff is the loss of your watch for some time, plus some inconvenience while they do your warranty work. A second a day might be worth the hassle for you, but others would be unconcerned until the watch was 10-20 seconds a day. Both opinions are equally correct.

The frustration Peter expressed in the OP is that people make it sound like the watch is a lemon because it's off by a couple s/d, when that error is inconsequential to a large segment of the mechanical watch community, and can be easily adjusted under warranty.

The point I was trying to make is quite a few on forum want to get there watches regulated because of this new spec from Rolex although there watches were showing a consistent +3 to 4 seconds fast.Although it may be possible to regulate on a machine but the results are not always 100% the same on the wrist.Much like the old COSC testing the bare uncased movement to a AVERAGE of -4+6 seconds certification is for the time of testing only they are never COSC tested again unless they fail first time and sent back for testing and passed before being finally cased.Now Rolex further tests movement in the case which is good thing and a improvement over the uncased test at the COSC. But where do you draw the line say you send it for regulation average time for the RSC 4 weeks.Watch comes back its a average of +3 seconds on the wrist would anyone in there right mind send it back again because its 1 second over this new specification.

Gravity is the main enemy of all mechanical watches and over the years many things like the the Tourbillon in wrist watches have tried to overcome this. But IMHO they serve no real purpose in a wrist watch at all,only the fact the watchmakers can make them at crazy retail prices .And today you would be quite surprised how many watch HI end brands Tourbillons and cages are made China,and they make them very very well too to equal the Swiss.I sometimes wonder why there so much admiration for the Tourbillon,perhaps the unquestioned and deserved prestige of Breguet the inventor many many years ago.But the Tourbillon always work best in one position and in theory the Tourbillon is always modifying the slight timing errors in the vertical position.The Tourbillon does not correct position variations, it only prevents them being detected in the usual testing conditions. But when placed on say a Vibrograph timing machine, the Tourbillon reveals its weaknesses immediately.The Tourbillon does not correct anything,in wrist movements, it only prevents the detection of any beat errors that still exists in natural gravity with wrist movement and afraid thats the same for all mechanical watches no matter the brand.

The Tourbillon is in fact an additional mechanism that consumes energy without producing anything except misinformation.The energy it consumes is taken from the reserve destined to the balance regulator. As a result, the balance wheel with less energy will have reduced advantages.Now I agree totally the skill needed to make the cage plus Tourbillon etc is a great horological skill.But in reality any Tourbillon watch is no more accurate that several other non Tourbillon watches that cost quite a bit less.When you think of today's modern watches,with or without Tourbillons are not so accurate as one produced by John Harrison almost 300 years ago.

Gravity is one of the main causes of rate variations in watches,by creating the Tourbillon,when Breguet thought he was eliminating its effects.It looks like it was an big error on his part,he only masked them like all Tourbillons do.Now if someone could come up and counteract the effect on gravity on a wrist watch totally.Now that would be a big break through but until then Tourbillons,IMHO are just good to look at,and they are very very expensive to own,and they make them because they can.But again looking at the other side of the coin,in Breguets day a hundred plus years ago when he invented the Tourbillon and the tools he had then.And now today with modern Robot machines and computers puts a different perspective on the making side of Tourbillons and all movements today.Just wish some would be happy as most were with the COSC spec but lets be honest to fret over 2 seconds just wish thats all I had to worry about.

[Abdullah71601]

Originally Posted by padi56

The point I was trying to make is quite a few on forum want to get there watches regulated because of this new spec from Rolex although there watches were showing a consistent +3 to 4 seconds fast.Although it may be possible to regulate on a machine but the results are not always 100% the same on the wrist.Much like the old COSC testing the bare uncased movement to a AVERAGE of -4+6 seconds certification is for the time of testing only they are never COSC tested again unless they fail first time and sent back for testing and passed before being finally cased.Now Rolex further tests movement in the case which is good thing and a improvement over the uncased test at the COSC. But where do you draw the line say you send it for regulation average time for the RSC 4 weeks.Watch comes back its a average of +3 seconds on the wrist would anyone in there right mind send it back again because its 1 second over this new specification.

Apologies Peter. I didn't intend to misstate your view.