All you Gents were right

[The Libertine]

Originally Posted by avega357

Unless the watch is 15 seconds fast there is no issue


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Agreed! Just not worth opening the back of a watch, and tinkering to adjust for a couple of seconds. If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it!

[Jostack]

Originally Posted by The Libertine

Agreed! Just not worth opening the back of a watch, and tinkering to adjust for a couple of seconds. If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it!

I place value in the high standard that Rolex sets. I can’t understand the mindset that dismisses their accuracy standard as ‘not worth a couple seconds’. It isn’t ‘tinkering’ when Rolex certified watchmakers open a case. They absolutely should be able to regulate and/or adjust if necessary to meet their standard.

I find it bizarre that someone could spend Rolex money and not care about the watch meeting the spec. If they aren’t held to the standard they set, what keeps them from upping their spec to +/-1spd? Or +/-0.5spd?

I don’t expect spring drive accuracy, but I do expect Rolex +/-2.

[HogwldFLTR]

So glad to see this thread. I just wear mine 24 hours a day. The thread reminded me to rest mine since it's been a few weeks. It was running 20 seconds fast. Reasonably close now.

[Rolexoman]

Originally Posted by Jostack

I place value in the high standard that Rolex sets. I can’t understand the mindset that dismisses their accuracy standard as ‘not worth a couple seconds’. It isn’t ‘tinkering’ when Rolex certified watchmakers open a case. They absolutely should be able to regulate and/or adjust if necessary to meet their standard.

I find it bizarre that someone could spend Rolex money and not care about the watch meeting the spec. If they aren’t held to the standard they set, what keeps them from upping their spec to +/-1spd? Or +/-0.5spd?

I don’t expect spring drive accuracy, but I do expect Rolex +/-2.

How many times would you send your watch back, I’m thinking after 3-4 times and several months of trying to get the +/- 2 it would wear me down and when was the +/- 2 standard set, maybe @padi56 can chime in and give us all words of wisdom.

[csaltphoto]

Also, the realistic fact is that due to tolerance stacking some watches Rolex produces will just be more inherently accurate than others. Nearly all of them will be really accurate, a few will be outside that spec and need some kind of service and a few will fall well inside and be quartz accurate.

There are plenty of precision products that follow this idea. Camera lenses come to mind. While Nikon and Canon make a very good lens, many professional photographers order a few copies of a lens and test them. One will invariably be sharper than the others. When you move up to Leica/Zeiss you get better copy to copy QC but those cost 3x the amount of Nikon or Canon. They throw more of them away and just spend more time getting them right. And when you move up to Cinema lenses (for movie cameras), you are assured that every single lens is as perfect as can be made but you might pay 10-50 times what you pay for a professional quality Nikon lens. I once used a camera lens that was insured for $250,000 US. And it was worth it for that particular project (especially since it wasn't my money)

Rolex builds watches to a price point. They are very good watches overall but there will be some copy to copy variation within that.

[Paul7]

I wouldn’t be happy with that for a Rolex still under warranty.

FWIW, my Steinhart mechanical watch is just .6 slow per day.

[JePro]

Originally Posted by joli160

Finally you got it

Just enjoy wearing it and never mind about a few seconds more or less.

For 100% accuracy you need one that syncs with a GPS and/or radio signals. Like the one on the right below, but who wants that as a daily ?

I'm lusting after that WG Smurf Sub!

[JePro]

Originally Posted by csaltphoto

Also, the realistic fact is that due to tolerance stacking some watches Rolex produces will just be more inherently accurate than others. Nearly all of them will be really accurate, a few will be outside that spec and need some kind of service and a few will fall well inside and be quartz accurate.

There are plenty of precision products that follow this idea. Camera lenses come to mind. While Nikon and Canon make a very good lens, many professional photographers order a few copies of a lens and test them. One will invariably be sharper than the others. When you move up to Leica/Zeiss you get better copy to copy QC but those cost 3x the amount of Nikon or Canon. They throw more of them away and just spend more time getting them right. And when you move up to Cinema lenses (for movie cameras), you are assured that every single lens is as perfect as can be made but you might pay 10-50 times what you pay for a professional quality Nikon lens. I once used a camera lens that was insured for $250,000 US. And it was worth it for that particular project (especially since it wasn't my money)

Rolex builds watches to a price point. They are very good watches overall but there will be some copy to copy variation within that.

Are you a Pro photographer? You seem to know a lot about photography gear.

[csaltphoto]

Originally Posted by JePro

Are you a Pro photographer? You seem to know a lot about photography gear.

Well, I'll let other people decide that but that is what I get paid to do for a living.

[imgook]

Yeah running 5+ a day would annoy the shit out of me. Especially if resting it crown up doesn't help either.

[Andad]

Originally Posted by Jostack

I place value in the high standard that Rolex sets. I can’t understand the mindset that dismisses their accuracy standard as ‘not worth a couple seconds’. It isn’t ‘tinkering’ when Rolex certified watchmakers open a case. They absolutely should be able to regulate and/or adjust if necessary to meet their standard.

I find it bizarre that someone could spend Rolex money and not care about the watch meeting the spec. If they aren’t held to the standard they set, what keeps them from upping their spec to +/-1spd? Or +/-0.5spd?

I don’t expect spring drive accuracy, but I do expect Rolex +/-2.

My 14060 came back from a service at Melbourne RSC running slightly fast (about 1 sec/day) on my wrist from 7:00am to 4:30pm but corrects to zero overnight placed 6 down.

6 down is the only position where it runs slower than zero (about -2sec/day).

It has been consistent for a few years now.

[asiparks]

Originally Posted by Paul7

I wouldn’t be happy with that for a Rolex still under warranty.

FWIW, my Steinhart mechanical watch is just .6 slow per day.

that's a sample size of 1.
There will be another Steinhart out there thats' +12 and some lucky guy will have one that's 0. someone else will have -8...
Consistency of +/-2 across 10's of thousands of units is what is difficult.

Watches run differently in the real world than they do under lab certification....as long as mine is "close enough"....

[piratfisk]

Originally Posted by csaltphoto

Well, I'll let other people decide that but that is what I get paid to do for a living.

Brilliant comment. FWIW, I'm also a phojo & can confirm your comment about Nikkor lenses (what we shoot with, exclusively) versus Leica. A coworker of mine is a die-hard Leica shooter & his glass is razor sharp.

As for the topic-at-hand: I have a Squale 30ATM Tropic Ceramica GMT (a mouthful) that I love. It's a great travel companion. Unfortunately, it is about +10/sec fast, which surprised me because I thought that the ETA movement inside was fantastic. In the scheme of things, it doesn't really matter to me all that much. It looks nice, I like wearing it & it makes me happy to look at when I'm sitting on a plane, slugging down bourbon (shout out to Alaska for never cutting me off).

My 1601 runs a *bit* slow, really, less than noticeable. It has been serviced once in its life (early 2000s, the watch is from '97, IIRC). Again, it looks great, makes me happy when I wear it, so I'll leave it as is.

Great topic, though.

[RRGHOST1]

I cant believe people are so hung up on this regulatory thing on their Rolex. Its a mechanical device and a marvel they can get the accuracy down to +2/-2 but the amount of threads covering this subject always amazes me.

[Jostack]

Originally Posted by RRGHOST1

I cant believe people are so hung up on this regulatory thing on their Rolex. Its a mechanical device and a marvel they can get the accuracy down to +2/-2 but the amount of threads covering this subject always amazes me.

The threads I’ve seen aren’t about +/-2 watches, it’s +6 watches. I think if they were in spec you wouldn’t see these threads.

[Rolexoman]

Originally Posted by imgook

Yeah running 5+ a day would annoy the shit out of me. Especially if resting it crown up doesn't help either.

Some of the newer movements seem not to be affected by orientation at rest, the DJII I currently have is my first and when it was sold as used but was never worn and had all tags and still wrapped in plastic and it was purchased new by the original owner in Nov 2017 and I received it as a gift in Dec 2018 so it sat unworn for a year, at first it ran a solid +7 a day fast so I sent it to RSC in Dallas and it came back a +4 and so far for the past week it’s been a solid +4 so I had to ask myself was it worth it to send back for 2 SPD/1 min a month and at this time I’m going to see if it settles in and test different resting positions to see if it can be improved upon but I’m not gonna sit up at night and worry about 60 secs a month as I have enough in my life to stress about

[Jostack]

My point is that if everyone accepts that it is normal for their watches to not operate in spec, then what keeps Rolex from adjusting their standard to even tighter tolerances? What if they claim spring drive accuracy? Accuracy is a selling point that they market. I just don’t get it. I understand it may be frustrating to send it in, but you are letting them off the hook for delivering a sub standard product. To me, that is frustrating.

[imgook]

yeah wear it for a couple of months first, see if it settles. My 116500 gains or losses time depending on resting position, so I can easily regulate it each night and have it keeping perfect time.

[padi56]

Originally Posted by Jostack

I place value in the high standard that Rolex sets. I can’t understand the mindset that dismisses their accuracy standard as ‘not worth a couple seconds’. It isn’t ‘tinkering’ when Rolex certified watchmakers open a case. They absolutely should be able to regulate and/or adjust if necessary to meet their standard.

I find it bizarre that someone could spend Rolex money and not care about the watch meeting the spec. If they aren’t held to the standard they set, what keeps them from upping their spec to +/-1spd? Or +/-0.5spd?

I don’t expect spring drive accuracy, but I do expect Rolex +/-2.

Look its a plain and simple fact even when regulated on a machine to this marketing spec -2+2 spec. It dont always mean it will perform exactly the same every day on the wrist just too many variables.Just like when they test cars for fuel consumption in a controlled environment.Its very doubtful the car owner will get the exact mileage every day again far to many variables.Like traffic how heavy foot on gas pedal etc,well its the same for mechanical watches on the wrist.You could set a watch on a machine too say +1 second on one persons wrist with his/her wearing habits could be possible.But same watch on another persons wrist with there wearing habits could vary slightly its all down to gravity and physics.

[brandrea]

Originally Posted by Devildog

But yes - focus on enjoying your beautful watch

There are tiny mechanical marvels.

Indeed they are

[Jostack]

Originally Posted by padi56

Look its a plain and simple fact even when regulated on a machine to this marketing spec -2+2 spec. It dont always mean it will perform exactly the same every day on the wrist just too many variables.Just like when they test cars for fuel consumption in a controlled environment.Its very doubtful the car owner will get the exact mileage every day again far to many variables.Like traffic how heavy foot on gas pedal etc,well its the same for mechanical watches on the wrist.You could set a watch on a machine too say +1 second on one persons wrist with his/her wearing habits could be possible.But same watch on another persons wrist with there wearing habits could vary slightly its all down to gravity and physics.

This explanation has been repeated ad nauseam. It is well understood. I’m not referring to watches that may be +1 on one person’s wrist and +2 on another person’s. +6 spd is significantly out of spec.

[Rolexoman]

Originally Posted by Jostack

This explanation has been repeated ad nauseam. It is well understood. I’m not referring to watches that may be +1 on one person’s wrist and +2 on another person’s. +6 spd is significantly out of spec.

Well I did not know the specs were +/-2 spd as I was shooting for the old spec of COSC standards of -4/+6 and at +4 spd mine is within the COSC standard at the +4 and maybe in a few months it will get better on its own by wearing and self regulating and if not I still have lots of the warranty left

[Amochosto]

Originally Posted by Jostack

I place value in the high standard that Rolex sets. I can’t understand the mindset that dismisses their accuracy standard as ‘not worth a couple seconds’. It isn’t ‘tinkering’ when Rolex certified watchmakers open a case. They absolutely should be able to regulate and/or adjust if necessary to meet their standard.

I find it bizarre that someone could spend Rolex money and not care about the watch meeting the spec. If they aren’t held to the standard they set, what keeps them from upping their spec to +/-1spd? Or +/-0.5spd?

I don’t expect spring drive accuracy, but I do expect Rolex +/-2.

I agree with this, my Seiko 5 Urchin is good for +4 seconds a day, at 10x the price I’d expect a new Rolex to do better. Especially after just getting a service.

*edit* correction Rolex is 100x the price of the Seiko.

[Rolexoman]

Yeah but isn’t being off say 4 SPD like 99.996% accuracy, I’m not arguing that +/-2 wouldn’t be better but dam the 99.996% is pretty dam accurate, I’m sure this subject has been beat to death and I’m one of the ones holding a whip but really
for something that hangs on you wrist swinging and only being off .004% is pretty dam good

[Brian Page]

Okay, everyone just calm down and enjoy their watches... :)

[sulttaani]

Originally Posted by padi56

Look its a plain and simple fact even when regulated on a machine to this marketing spec -2+2 spec. It dont always mean it will perform exactly the same every day on the wrist just too many variables.Just like when they test cars for fuel consumption in a controlled environment.Its very doubtful the car owner will get the exact mileage every day again far to many variables.Like traffic how heavy foot on gas pedal etc,well its the same for mechanical watches on the wrist.You could set a watch on a machine too say +1 second on one persons wrist with his/her wearing habits could be possible.But same watch on another persons wrist with there wearing habits could vary slightly its all down to gravity and physics.

This explanation should be told to every single Rolex buyer prior to selling them a mechanical watch and if it makes them unhappy then guided to buy a quartz.

[Rolexoman]

Originally Posted by padi56

Look its a plain and simple fact even when regulated on a machine to this marketing spec -2+2 spec. It dont always mean it will perform exactly the same every day on the wrist just too many variables.Just like when they test cars for fuel consumption in a controlled environment.Its very doubtful the car owner will get the exact mileage every day again far to many variables.Like traffic how heavy foot on gas pedal etc,well its the same for mechanical watches on the wrist.You could set a watch on a machine too say +1 second on one persons wrist with his/her wearing habits could be possible.But same watch on another persons wrist with there wearing habits could vary slightly its all down to gravity and physics.

Originally Posted by sulttaani

This explanation should be told to every single Rolex buyer prior to selling them a mechanical watch and if it makes them unhappy then guided to buy a quartz.

Thanks for reminding us especially me as this is my first true automatic, I’m hoping it has a long life

[Jostack]

Originally Posted by Rolexoman

Yeah but isn’t being off say 4 SPD like 99.996% accuracy, I’m not arguing that +/-2 wouldn’t be better but dam the 99.996% is pretty dam accurate, I’m sure this subject has been beat to death and I’m one of the ones holding a whip but really
for something that hangs on you wrist swinging and only being off .004% is pretty dam good

The watches are sold as +/-2. They should operate within that spec.

[Paul7]

Originally Posted by asiparks

that's a sample size of 1.
There will be another Steinhart out there thats' +12 and some lucky guy will have one that's 0. someone else will have -8...
Consistency of +/-2 across 10's of thousands of units is what is difficult.

If you read these forums you can say that about Rolex too, but from reading the Steinhart forum my positive experience seems to be the norm. Mine is more accurate than my Rolex DJ, FWIW.