The new -2+2 Rolex syndrome.

[padi56]

Originally Posted by Justinmg

Great info, thanks for sharing. I'm impressed that A bunch of gears and a spring can even be within cosc specs considering all the factors you described above. One of the things I love about mechanical watches.

Myself impressed by all mechanical watches as I do not look at the watch world through Rolex blinkered glasses.And all the ones that can run and keep time within seconds or even a minute a day, considering what they have to put up with daily on the wrist.The mechanical movement is quite a marvel in its own right and changed very little over the many decades.As most of today's mass production watch industry is highly Robotised parts are more precise, so to build a reliable accurate movement is not like it was say 50-100 years ago. But saying that the one John Harrison made 300 years his H4 watch could put the accuracy of many of today's chronometers to shame now although a carpenter by trade he was a real world watchmaker.My first introduction to mechanical watches was a Lucerne way back in the late 1950s and I loved to see how things worked.So I decided to take it apart it took quite a bit of time, but took a hell of a lot longer to put it together again and it still worked.

[gummy]

Originally Posted by padi56

Now many members have seemed to have caught this latest -2+2 syndrome plus the many others APS {Alignment point syndrome} CCTS {constant checking time syndrome}.Now regarding the latest -2+2 syndrome what in the real world does this mean.Well first the movement is tested to the Swiss chronometer standard at the COSC which is a AVERAGE of between -4+6 seconds over any 24 hour period. And when testing in the first 10 days of said test the movement could vary by 10 seconds in a single 24 hours and still pass the test.After movement gets certified and passes its shipped back to Rolex in there hundreds then stored till needed to match to a case.Now if its true Rolex must re-regulate and test on a machine to this new specification a AVERAGE-2+2. What does this mean well in the real world it was tested on a machine and passed said test at the time of testing much like the certification at the COSC. Now this test does not mean the movement will be -2+2 every single day for life.As on the wrist its a bit different to what the test on a machine,already some on forum wanting to rush out and regulate because there watch was only showing a consistent +4 seconds.So got to ask myself is these 2 seconds all that important are they life threatening in any way.Would these two seconds dramatically have a effect on anyone's daily routine if it does then I feel very sorry for them.There comes a point in life when all these OCD issues start to take the enjoyment out of wearing any Rolex watch.So guys please get rid of all these OCDs and start enjoying your watches for what they are,one of the finest mechanical watches made today. Life is far to short to worry and fret over these very minor trivialities trust me from one that knows.

Amen

[Mick P]

Chaps

The simple truth is that man has come from living in caves because they have an in built urge to improve everything and that is to be commended, not criticised.

Regards

Mick

[WhatTheDeuce]

Those who have purchased a Ferrari. Did you immediately take it to a dyno and test the out horsepower? Did you take it to the track to test the lateral gs? Or to the drag strip to test the 1/4 numbers? Or top speed? Or braking? And any failure to meet those expectations take it back to the dealership?

Just curious...


Sent from half way through the Kessel Run using Tapatalk

[peterskinner]

The basic point remains...only accurate watches are interesting; the rest are just sort of...average. I couldn't care less about the 'brand' Rolex, to me it's no better than the performance of its watches; and that must include their precision.
But, we go round in circles; there are distinct 'camps' in this thread, and not a lot of agreement. Was ever thus.

[Rondineli]

Originally Posted by superdog

Good sir. I agree with you 100%.

I would also suggest it's not worth getting upset over what other people might obsess over.

Food for thought.

x2

[Brauner Hund]

Originally Posted by jrbar-on

I agree with this post and the one that it references (PeterSkinner's). PADI states that Rolex watches are

"...one of the finest mechanical watches made today"

and, IMHO, one of the aspects that make this "one of the finest mechanical watches made today" is the ability to accurately tell the time.

Cheers,

Jonathan

Yes, rather hard to reconcile the two statements - and I find myself repeatedly bemused by the non-sequitur nature of the statements of many in this and other threads, that try to link an apparent acceptance of poor performance and/or build errors with a belief/ assertion that the same item is the 'finest made'.

Since I've found TRF, I've come to realise that rolex appreciators fall into two different camps (to paraphrase what a couple of earlier posters have said:)

- Those who care naught about how the watch performs in its core role, nor how well it's made: I have come to realise that their interest is in branded jewellery.

- Those who expect the watch to perform it's core role: Their interest is in owning the demonstrably finest & toughest precision-built mechanical watches available.

The two camps don't meet, and never will. The ethoses are entirely different.

I've learnt to try not to read the 'I don't care how it performs, or how well it's made, as long as it has Rolex written on the dial' posts, just as I try not to read the 'does it match my hair/eyes/shoes' posts, because each one I read damages my 'the best watches available for heroes and explorers' view of the marque ..............I failed here though! :)

[padi56]

Originally Posted by peterskinner

The basic point remains...only accurate watches are interesting; the rest are just sort of...average. I couldn't care less about the 'brand' Rolex, to me it's no better than the performance of its watches; and that must include their precision.
But, we go round in circles; there are distinct 'camps' in this thread, and not a lot of agreement. Was ever thus.

Well most quartz even some of the very cheap ones would be more accurate that most all mechanical movements are these interesting or sort of average?.And myself care a lot about the brand Rolex its very interesting to me, not so much for there watches now, but more for the history of the brand.And still know-one has given me a answer would any member want to rush out and get his watch regulated if it was say a consistent +3/4 seconds daily, even with this new specification -2+2.

[WhatTheDeuce]

Originally Posted by Brauner Hund

.... that try to link an apparent acceptance of poor performance and/or build errors with a belief/ assertion that the same item is the 'finest made'. ....

I don't think anybody is accepting poor performance. Since when is +4 seconds / day considered poor performance? Since Rolex stated -2/+2? I think some people just accept the fact that something mechanical can't be perfect 100% of the time because it is... Well... Mechanical. I would be more likely to complain that a Ferrari was underpowered than a watch being off by an additional 2 seconds.





Sent from half way through the Kessel Run using Tapatalk

[Dr. Prunesquallor]

Originally Posted by padi56

Well most quartz even some of the very cheap ones would be more accurate that most all mechanical movements are these interesting or sort of average?.And myself care a lot about the brand Rolex its very interesting to me, not so much for there watches now, but more for the history of the brand.And still know-one has given me a answer would any member want to rush out and get his watch regulated if it was say a consistent +3/4 seconds daily, even with this new specification -2+2.

If I was bringing it in for another reason, I would let them know. I brought in my Navi for a slightly misaligned chrono hand, and mentioned it was running 10 seconds slow. They fixed the hand and adjusted it to -2 without any question.

If Rolex advertises a standard, they should be held to it.

[Danny83]

[Abdullah71601]

Originally Posted by Brauner Hund

Yes, rather hard to reconcile the two statements - and I find myself repeatedly bemused by the non-sequitur nature of the statements of many in this and other threads, that try to link an apparent acceptance of poor performance and/or build errors with a belief/ assertion that the same item is the 'finest made'.

Since I've found TRF, I've come to realise that rolex appreciators fall into two different camps (to paraphrase what a couple of earlier posters have said:)

- Those who care naught about how the watch performs in its core role, nor how well it's made: I have come to realise that their interest is in branded jewellery.

- Those who expect the watch to perform it's core role: Their interest is in owning the demonstrably finest & toughest precision-built mechanical watches available.

The two camps don't meet, and never will. The ethoses are entirely different.

I've learnt to try not to read the 'I don't care how it performs, or how well it's made, as long as it has Rolex written on the dial' posts, just as I try not to read the 'does it match my hair/eyes/shoes' posts, because each one I read damages my 'the best watches available for heroes and explorers' view of the marque ..............I failed here though! :)

Agree there are differing views, but not quite so fashionista as you propose.

Rolex does not manufacture precision instruments. None of their watches could be used in a research environment. They are +/- 2 s/d, which means they can be 4 seconds off from day to day, which is a significant fraction of a minute and completely useless from a modern reproducibility perspective. When I was in grad school we had clocks that were within fractions of a microsecond from day to day. There just isn't anything about these watches that is especially accurate in context of modern timekeeping technology.

Those who insist that the watch should be exactly correct ignore the basic inaccuracy of mechanical watch technology. Rolex is not telling you this thing is as accurate as an atomic clock when it says it is +/- 2 s/d. And people shouldn't infer that they are or should be as accurate as modern digital standards by that standard either.

Many forum members are content that their watches are as accurate as well built 18th century technology can be. While others fret over deviation that is within the control limits advertised by the manufacturer. Neither view may be entirely correct, but the former makes the hobby much more relaxed and enjoyable than the latter from my perspective. Which, I think was Peter's point in the first place.

[Mick P]

Originally Posted by Abdullah71601

Agree there are differing views, but not quite so fashionista as you propose.

Rolex does not manufacture precision instruments. None of their watches could be used in a research environment. They are +/- 2 s/d, which means they can be 4 seconds off from day to day, which is a significant fraction of a minute and completely useless from a modern reproducibility perspective. When I was in grad school we had clocks that were within fractions of a microsecond from day to day. There just isn't anything about these watches that is especially accurate in context of modern timekeeping technology.

Those who insist that the watch should be exactly correct ignore the basic inaccuracy of mechanical watch technology. Rolex is not telling you this thing is as accurate as an atomic clock when it says it is +/- 2 s/d. And people shouldn't infer that they are or should be as accurate as modern digital standards by that standard either.

Many forum members are content that their watches are as accurate as well built 18th century technology can be. While others fret over deviation that is within the control limits advertised by the manufacturer. Neither view may be entirely correct, but the former makes the hobby much more relaxed and enjoyable than the latter from my perspective. Which, I think was Peter's point in the first place.

Abdullah

I tend to check my Rolex every 4th Saturday against the atomic clock, so I don't think I am open to accusations of being OCD. Everyone of my Rolex is usually within 20 secs over the 28 days and I am OK with that.

However I see nothing wrong with us lot kicking Rolex's postieria in a bid to further improve the accuracy. Improved accuracy is part of Rolex history and to say that what we have is good enough is nothing more than accepting second best.

Rolex is a world class company producing a world class product, so let's keep the pressure on them in order to keep them where they are.

Regards

Mick

[breitlings]

Originally Posted by padi56

Well most quartz even some of the very cheap ones would be more accurate that most all mechanical movements are these interesting or sort of average?.And myself care a lot about the brand Rolex its very interesting to me, not so much for there watches now, but more for the history of the brand.And still know-one has given me a answer would any member want to rush out and get his watch regulated if it was say a consistent +3/4 seconds daily, even with this new specification -2+2.

I might actually if it is over 4s consistently, just because if you get close to 0 you have to reset your watch less and it will more or less be very accurate.


Re quartz always beating mechanicals I used to think that. I know that is what we are told. In practice though I have seen 1 Rolex and 1 Breitling (out of my 9 autos) beat a ~$150 3 hand Casio in timing over a few months the casio was off by more than the rolex and breitling.

If you want real quartz performance over time it still needs to be a nice movement and watch otherwise water will kill it, it won't keep good time, etc. Really a nice thermocompensated quartz breitling or other swiss cosc quartz is what I think we can say is better than an automatic across the board in performance. A lot of people on breitlingsource.com say their breitling quartz's run at +1s per year. The other way around it is a radio controlled watch but I woke up one morning and found my Master of G shock Rangeman dead and when it woke up with sun it was displaying the wrong time, the Rolex still had the right time.

A normal quartz I believe is +/- 10-30s per month which is why Rolex new specification is important because it does put it very close to a non-thermocompensated and/or non-cosc quartz watch.

[Brauner Hund]

Originally Posted by Abdullah71601

Agree there are differing views, but not quite so fashionista as you propose.

Rolex does not manufacture precision instruments. None of their watches could be used in a research environment. They are +/- 2 s/d, which means they can be 4 seconds off from day to day, which is a significant fraction of a minute and completely useless from a modern reproducibility perspective. When I was in grad school we had clocks that were within fractions of a microsecond from day to day. There just isn't anything about these watches that is especially accurate in context of modern timekeeping technology.

Those who insist that the watch should be exactly correct ignore the basic inaccuracy of mechanical watch technology. Rolex is not telling you this thing is as accurate as an atomic clock when it says it is +/- 2 s/d. And people shouldn't infer that they are or should be as accurate as modern digital standards by that standard either.

Many forum members are content that their watches are as accurate as well built 18th century technology can be. While others fret over deviation that is within the control limits advertised by the manufacturer. Neither view may be entirely correct, but the former makes the hobby much more relaxed and enjoyable than the latter from my perspective. Which, I think was Peter's point in the first place.

Fair points, but I would underline that I said "Their interest is in owning the demonstrably finest & toughest precision-built mechanical watches available." -nothing about expectations akin to atomic clock standards; that assumption/leap is yours :)

[Brauner Hund]

Prompted me to check my 16710 (only a 2 day measure, normally let the sample period run a bit longer). Personally, knowing it does what it was designed, built and bought to do, and does so ruggedly, makes me rather pleased :)

[Spartacus]

Accuracy while expected, is not the most interesting aspect to me. I'm more interested in the 'how' and the artistic design or story behind the watch. Concerning one's self with accuracy results in diminishing returns of enjoyment. There is just something so sterile about perfection.

I for example prefer a naturally aspirated engine over an electric one, regardless of performance.

[Brauner Hund]

Originally Posted by Spartacus

Accuracy while expected, is not the most interesting aspect to me. I'm more interested in the 'how' and the artistic design or story behind the watch. Concerning one's self with accuracy results in diminishing returns of enjoyment. There is just something so sterile about perfection.

I for example prefer a naturally aspirated engine over an electric one, regardless of performance.

How would that analogy extend into, say, an individual paying a premium to have the 'finest normally aspirated engine in the world' only to find that they've bought one with poor finish, erratic timing and performance below that of cheaper competing normally aspirated engines? I think that's the issue at play: the finest actually being the finest.

[peterskinner]

Originally Posted by Spartacus

Accuracy while expected, is not the most interesting aspect to me. I'm more interested in the 'how' and the artistic design or story behind the watch. Concerning one's self with accuracy results in diminishing returns of enjoyment. There is just something so sterile about perfection.

I for example prefer a naturally aspirated engine over an electric one, regardless of performance.

Who on this thread has suggested that a mechanical watch is expected to be perfect? 'Good enough' is a guaranteed way to mediocrity.

[Justinmg]

Originally Posted by WhatTheDeuce

Those who have purchased a Ferrari. Did you immediately take it to a dyno and test the out horsepower? Did you take it to the track to test the lateral gs? Or to the drag strip to test the 1/4 numbers? Or top speed? Or braking? And any failure to meet those expectations take it back to the dealership?

Just curious...


Sent from half way through the Kessel Run using Tapatalk

And how many people only buy a Ferrari for performance, because I'd guess most people that buy them never use them for there intended purpose. id defiantly take it back if top speed was off by a few mph

[Abdullah71601]

Originally Posted by Brauner Hund

Fair points, but I would underline that I said "Their interest is in owning the demonstrably finest & toughest precision-built mechanical watches available." -nothing about expectations akin to atomic clock standards; that assumption/leap is yours :)

By what standard must they demonstrate that they are the finest or toughest though? The watches meet the manufacturer expectation, with rare exception. And they have proven to be quite durable with millions still in service long after other products have been consigned to the trash heap.

They aren't priced to be the finest watches available. Others are hand made to higher standards, while Rolex are mass produced. And all mechanical watches, no matter how tough, are subject to position and environmental factors. I think people have an unrealistic expectation for the mass produced Rolex.

Were they a $500 watch and not a $5000 watch I think people would be satisfied with the current state. But the price point triggers an expectation from some quarters that they should meet some mythical quality standard that they are neither designed nor built to meet.

[TK-710]

Originally Posted by Abdullah71601

Those who insist that the watch should be exactly correct ignore the basic inaccuracy of mechanical watch technology. Rolex is not telling you this thing is as accurate as an atomic clock when it says it is +/- 2 s/d. And people shouldn't infer that they are or should be as accurate as modern digital standards by that standard either.

Is expecting +-2 really the same as expecting exactly correct? I don't believe anyone is expecting digital accuracy. They may use digital device to measure how much time is lost or gained but not because they are actually expecting the same accuracy. I believe there is a difference between expecting Rolex to be as accurate as a modern digital and requesting Rolex be as accurate as their own advertised accuracy.

The argument has been made in this thread that they record that accuracy by testing and certifying in a controlled environment which is in no way representative of the real world trials and tribulations a mechanical watch is subjected to on a daily basis. True enough, but the problem with that argument is that a great many of their watches can and do maintain that accuracy in the real world. So if so many can why should someone be satisfied with one that doesn't? Should they be satisfied in the knowledge that although theirs does not keep good time others of the same model do and just owning a piece of that legacy should be satisfying enough? That maybe enough for some but In my opinion I would not be satisfied when the watch doesn't perform as advertised when clearly the brand is capable of manufacturing a watch that can.

I think the argument is as simple as this: If you and two friends bought the same model rolex, at the same time, from the same AD and both of your friends' watches were with in +-2 and yours was not would you be disappointed? If theirs were both within COSC and yours was not would you be disappointed? By seeing your friends' watches you know that yours should be capable of doing the same but it isn't. If you would not be disapointted at what point would you be? If it simply wouldn't matter to you I can accept that we will never agree on this topic, respect your opinion, and agree to disagree.

[TK-710]

Originally Posted by Abdullah71601

By what standard must they demonstrate that they are the finest or toughest though? The watches meet the manufacturer expectation, with rare exception. And they have proven to be quite durable with millions still in service long after other products have been consigned to the trash heap.

So one shouldn't complain if they have the rare exception?



They aren't priced to be the finest watches available. Others are hand made to higher standards, while Rolex are mass produced. And all mechanical watches, no matter how tough, are subject to position and environmental factors. I think people have an unrealistic expectation for the mass produced Rolex.

So expecting the watch to preform as advertised is an unrealistic expectation?

Were they a $500 watch and not a $5000 watch I think people would be satisfied with the current state. But the price point triggers an expectation from some quarters that they should meet some mythical quality standard that they are neither designed nor built to meet.

Mythical or Advertised?

Please link a thread where someone has complained because their watch is performing better than -+2 but not perfect. You appear to be arguing against an argument that has not been made.

[RHJ]

Life is far to short to worry and fret over these very minor trivialities trust me from one that knows.

Great, I'm with you!

[GEORGE505]

Originally Posted by padi56

The point I am trying to make is simply this this new specification by Rolex a AVERAGE of -2+2 seconds over any 24 hour period.Now say you had a watch a consistent 3 seconds fast would anyone want to rush out for regulation for one second out of 86400 in a day I would say many watchmakers would laugh at you.Before this new spec I think most were perfectly happy with the COSC spec of a AVERAGE OF -4+6 seconds over any 24 hour period.Now before the Swiss COSC was started in 1973 they used to have Observatory testing competitions and they were to much higher standard than today's Swiss COSC back in the 1960s it was -2+2. Now during the entire 23 years of testing these Observatory tests,just 5093 wristwatches were submitted for certification, and only 3253 were passed, about 64%, today around 96% pass the COSC test first time a big difference as most all parts are now machine made. Now truth be told today with careful regulation most any movement could pass todays COSC test.Back in the 1960-70s just a few manufacturers participated, and only Omega and Patek did so every year. The other brands were Rolex, Zenith, Longines, Movado, Vacheron & Constantin, Ulysse Nardin, Cyma and Favre-Leuba, along with numerous independent professional watchmakers.

That was until the Seiko Grand come on the scene and started to wipe the floor with the Swiss mechanical watch industry.Now in those days only 2 brands in the + 23 years of the competitions submitted movements of only serial production for retail sale(Seiko and GP).All others were specially made movements just for the competition test and not then for retail sale.

Now Seiko first entered the competition,with other watches from all over the world,including most of the Swiss high end brands.But then for a much higher standard than today's COSC,the Astronomical Observatory Authorisation Chronometer Standard (+/- 2/2 seconds/day) Out of many watches submitted only two passed this test a Seiko Grand just a production model, and Giraud Peregaux this time a specially build for the test model.And in the late 1960s there were only two companies, who could sell watches, passed astronomical observatory authorisation Chronometer in those days,just Seiko and Giraud Peregaux.As the Japanese had dominated the tests in the very late 1960s and the two preceding events the early 1970s.And in 1972 many of Swiss watch manufacturers demanded the end of the observatory competitions,and it was ended in 1973,now thats when the Swiss COSC was founded but run by the Swiss for the Swiss brands only.So its taken Rolex with there today's marketing 50 years to introduce this new -2+2 specification. So are movements made better today than they were 50 plus years ago.Well today they should be all basically the same, as Rolex production today is highly computerised and robotised in manufacture to make 900000 units a year.

Very well said and informative!

[Abdullah71601]

Originally Posted by JES77

Please link a thread where someone has complained because their watch is performing better than -+2 but not perfect. You appear to be arguing against an argument that has not been made.

Here is an example thread of somebody complaining that it has to be +/- 0 s/d. http://www.rolexforums.com/showthrea...ight=regulated

Warranties are made for the occasional deviation in manufacturing quality. If Rolex thought their standards were bulletproof they wouldn't offer a warranty at all, much less a 5 year warranty.

They are making at least 2400 watches a day (at 900,000 a year, assuming daily production). If one of these doesn't meet the expectation of its owner, the remedy is easy, exercise the warranty. This is no different than a luxury car, or any other product that is advertised as the cream of the crop.

[TK-710]

Originally Posted by Abdullah71601

Here is an example thread of somebody complaining that it has to be +/- 0 s/d. http://www.rolexforums.com/showthrea...ight=regulated

Complaining? The thread from Sept of last year? Is that the thread that prompted the necessity behind this one? Because it doesn't read as though the OP is complaining that it should be perfect. It reads to me like they are suggesting/questing whether a watch that runs at a consistent rate of accuracy could be brought to perfect with an adjustment. It's clearly a technically question as to how fine a watch can be adjusted. Which is obvious by this:

Originally Posted by Sidmind

If so then your assumption is correct that it is a simple mechanical adjustment for a watchmaker who has the tools and experience, .

Originally Posted by Brauner Hund

Thanks

Sidmind clearly answers his question.

But even after the below back and forth between you and the OP you still feel he was complaining rather than posing a technical question? Again you are arguing both here and in that thread against a point that is not being argued. He's not asking about the engineering standards for superlative. The same question they are asking could be asked of a watch with any consistent deviation +10, +4 or -6.4.

Originally Posted by Abdullah71601

Voodoo? Gravity affects mechanical watches differently in different orientations (positions). Hence, the advice to check it in all six positions.

Your watch already meets the engineering standard for superlative that Rolex ascribes to, and is running at an error of about 0.0028% per day. If you have a different standard, you should pay a watchmaker to try to attain it.

Let us know how it turns out.

Here is where he clearly clarifies what he is asking and yet you still suggest he is complaining. Not at all. He's is not even suggesting it should be perfect. He's simply hypothesizing that it could be adjusted to near perfect and if it could be why not do it.

Originally Posted by Brauner Hund

My watch has one average position: On my wrist :)

If a machine that's designed to have its error adjusted, shows a consistent average error, it should be a simple matter to adjust the error out... and those who understand that seem to agree that that's the case for this machine :)

But don't confuse that with someone saying 'there'll be no error' ;

- day to day variance will remain - but it will be around a centre value of 'zero' rather than a centre value of 'plus 2'. :)

ie if day to day variance can be represented by a gaussian curve; do you choose to have the centre point of that normal distribution over 'zero' or over 'plus 2' - personally, I'm going for a zero centre point ;)

And yet in that thread you have at least two more back and forth where you explain to him that his watch is with in spec The best posts in the thread are from Vanessa where she clearly understand the point of his question and gives him the revlevent technical answers.

Originally Posted by Abdullah71601

Warranties are made for the occasional deviation in manufacturing quality. If Rolex thought their standards were bulletproof they wouldn't offer a warranty at all, much less a 5 year warranty.

They are making at least 2400 watches a day (at 900,000 a year, assuming daily production). If one of these doesn't meet the expectation of its owner, the remedy is easy, exercise the warranty. This is no different than a luxury car, or any other product that is advertised as the cream of the crop.

Here I agree with you completely. If the owner is not satisfied they should exercise the warranty.

Which is an entirely different position then suggesting that there is nothing wrong with the watch not meeting the advertised standards and suggesting people should not voice frustration when they don't.

[GEORGE505]

Originally Posted by padi56

The plain and simple fact that while on the wrist the movement is constantly affected by the earth's gravity, metal expansion and contraction, temperature variations, subtle changes in lubrication and friction,main-spring power, shocks, and so on.The fact is that no mechanical watch made will keep perfect time, very close yes but perfect no.All Mechanical watches are noticeably affected by the gravitational pull of the earth, it only takes a performance distortion of 1/1000th % for a mechanical watch movement to be one second less accurate in a day.Now this new spec the only way they can test is on a machine and afraid wearing on the wrist does not always work the same as on test on the timing machine.The term "Superlative Chronometer" is a now trademark of Rolex and has been used for many decades. The addition of the word "Superlative" in front of the official designation of Chronometer was merely a Rolex marketing angle to give a more distinguished sound to the chronometer status of their products . As all watches that have earned the privilege of bearing the official Swiss designation of "Chronometer" have to meet the exact same C.O.S.C. standards as any other Swiss chronometer. Any words added before or after the official designation of "Chronometer" are merely more marketing which Rolex is very good at.

X2 Well said and true. A lot of these specifications for accuracy is with the watch sitting still not being worn and in a environmentally controlled room. That's why a watch may run great one week and not as good the next. Enjoy them for what they are! For the most part they went from being a tool to a mechanical engineering work of art.

[eco8gator]

I set it and forget it. If I am within a couple mins I am happy but typically I'm within a couple seconds.

The new tolerance is just something to brag about but as soon as you drop that watch all bets are off but in all honesty I am not that impressed....considering a Rolex is a now frills watch. They don't show their movements so at a minimum they should at least take the time to tune it.

I will be impressed when Rolex makes a lube free movement. Possibly get rid of the auto rotor bushing and replaces it with a ceramic bearing....like Patek. Possibly implement that fancy magnetically suspended balanced wheel like Breguet.

[Abdullah71601]

Originally Posted by JES77

Here I agree with you completely. If the owner is not satisfied they should exercise the warranty.

Which is an entirely different position then suggesting that there is nothing wrong with the watch not meeting the advertised standards and suggesting people should not voice frustration when they don't.

It took a while, but you seem to have arrived at the right answer. It has a warranty, which is there for you to use if the watch isn't meeting the standard. It was tested on a machine, but YMMV. Get it regulated and move on.

Voice your frustration. Rolex has contact info. And your AD would love to hear from you.