ROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEX

kyle L · 2 April 2010, 01:46 AM

I timed my Explorer to time.gov, and I averaged out all my times and it came out to +10 a day. Is it time for a regulation? That means it would be over 48 minutes fast a year!

TheBluePrince · 2 April 2010, 01:53 AM

Only you can decide that. Does it bother you enough to want it more accurate?

Tools · 2 April 2010, 02:02 AM

Everybody should have their own threshold for what they feel is satisfactory..

My personal standard for a Rolex is +5... I know that it can be regulated to better timekeeping; so If one exceeds that, I have it regulated.....

kyle L · 2 April 2010, 02:08 AM

Thanks for the responses, it's starting to bug me so I think I will send it in.

Alsey · 2 April 2010, 02:09 AM

It would bother me to have to reset it too often. Also as you know they are capable of much better performance.

bayerische · 2 April 2010, 02:54 AM

On a non COSC watch I would be OK with +10/sec a day, but not on a COSC certified...

dmc · 2 April 2010, 02:58 AM

+10 per day would drive me nuts. Are you sure it hasn't become magnetized? Place it near a compass and see if it has any effect on it.

I would have to send it in, or find a reputable watchmaker to regulate it.

I got lucky and found a guy 45 min from my home that has done a steller job on two of my Rolex watches.

Call an RSC and they will send you a shipping container if you want to ship it to Rolex.

Renoir · 2 April 2010, 03:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kyle L

Thanks for the responses, it's starting to bug me so I think I will send it in.

Good call

....10 secs per day exceeds COSC specs. Plus you've got the Seamaster to tide you over!.

kyle L · 2 April 2010, 03:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Renoir

Good call

....10 secs per day exceeds COSC specs. Plus you've got the Seamaster to tide you over!.

So far the Seamaster is doing better, it's 5 seconds behind.

Renoir · 2 April 2010, 03:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kyle L

So far the Seamaster is doing better, it's 5 seconds behind.

JBat · 2 April 2010, 03:34 AM

Ya, the Expy is capable of much better timekeeping than that. The good news is that it's running fast, not slow, but personally I'd send it in.

bayerische · 2 April 2010, 03:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kyle L

Is it time for a regulation? That means it would be over 48 minutes fast a year!

It would be about 61 minutes fast a year. Too much I say.

mpkRolex · 2 April 2010, 03:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kyle L

I timed my Explorer to time.gov, and I averaged out all my times and it came out to +10 a day. Is it time for a regulation? That means it would be over 48 minutes fast a year!

Kyle, From what I understand if the watch is more than +/- 5 secs per day it means the oils in the movement may have started to dry out and it is a good time to get the lube/service. No hard and fast rule - no different than when you start seeing your engine oil in the car turning dark it is time for an oil change.

Or a balance wheel adjustment might be the answer.

kyle L · 2 April 2010, 03:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mpkRolex

Kyle, From what I understand if the watch is more than +/- 5 secs per day it means the oils in the movement may have started to dry out and it is a good time to get the lube/service. No hard and fast rule - no different than when you start seeing your engine oil in the car turning dark it is time for an oil change.

Or a balance wheel adjustment might be the answer.

It is a Y series, so it's around 2002. I guess I will have to send it in!

f16570 · 2 April 2010, 04:35 AM

I would have it regulated and monitor it.

therolexguy · 2 April 2010, 05:13 AM

I probalby would send it in too, Kyle.

DRAWTOOL · 2 April 2010, 05:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kyle L

It is a Y series, so it's around 2002. I guess I will have to send it in!

2002 till Now! Kyle that's 48 dog years!

rfknauss · 2 April 2010, 07:18 AM

Kyle, if that is a COSC certified model, then Rolex should be able to regulate it within the spec. Keep in mind that +6 seconds is still within the spec.

HL65 · 2 April 2010, 08:12 AM

Agree--Although Kyle--knowing you are a perfectionist by your photos--send it in--especially if it bugs you!

Colnago · 2 April 2010, 08:29 AM

Kyle.....lots of discussion on here over the time I have been a member about this type of thing....first thing I would say is are you sure?....might sound like a stupid statement but honestly, I have trouble accepting computer times as accurate all the time.....times displayed on your PC can be pulled from within the PC or they are not actually broadcast "live" from wherevever you get them from.....set a quartz clock or watch at the same time you set your Explorer and check it against that after a couple of days.....you never know, it might be ok.....hope so....but if it's not, get it in and it'll be sorted......let us know how you get on

SSD · 2 April 2010, 10:34 AM

If it were me, I'd have both regulated closer to COSC specs. And I really would rather have a watch running slightly faster than slower. Each is capable of far greater accuracy than what you are reporting. JMO.

padi56 · 2 April 2010, 09:35 PM

If watch is from 2002 then its time for a service it will be re-regulated as part of normal service.But for simple regulation any good watchmaker could do it, takes around 20-30 minutes hardest part getting back off and re-pressure test

goldminer · 2 April 2010, 09:40 PM

10 seconds fast wouldn't bother me 15 seconds would. What does bother me is that my Milgauss GV is running 0.5 seconds a day slow .... I can't stand watches that run slow!!

padi56 · 2 April 2010, 09:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by goldminer

10 seconds fast wouldn't bother me 15 seconds would. What does bother me is that my Milgauss GV is running 0.5 seconds a day slow .... I can't stand watches that run slow!!

Try different resting positions when off wrist try flat dial up first.

nauticajoe · 2 April 2010, 10:17 PM

I'd rather be early for a client meeting.

Watch Professor · 2 April 2010, 10:31 PM

If it hasn't been serviced since 2002 I would send it in for a complete service. I would get it regulated if it is more than +- 2 sec./day. But, I'm obsessive.

Rippin · 2 April 2010, 10:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kyle L

So far the Seamaster is doing better, it's 5 seconds behind.

That's not bad at all, but just a tad out of COSC spec, but nothing to be concerned about.

goldminer · 2 April 2010, 11:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by padi56

Try different resting positions when off wrist try flat dial up first.

Yes I know, it is on my wrist it runs 0.5 slow which I appreciate is pretty damn good but it minus 0.5 and not +0.5

mfer · 3 April 2010, 12:26 AM

10 sec wouldn't bother me, but what does bother me is 2002 watch without service! Yikes!

acce1999 · 3 April 2010, 01:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mfer

10 sec wouldn't bother me, but what does bother me is 2002 watch without service! Yikes!

I pretty much agree, although I waited eleven years to service my Explorer (and it was still within two seconds then...). Let the Explorer enjoy a well deserved service (or get an estimate at least).

Best,

A

2 April 2010, 01:46 AM	#1
kyle L "TRF" Member Join Date: Feb 2009 Location: USA Watch: Rolex Explorer I Posts: 10,278	10 Seconds Fast I timed my Explorer to time.gov, and I averaged out all my times and it came out to +10 a day. Is it time for a regulation? That means it would be over 48 minutes fast a year!

2 April 2010, 02:02 AM	#3
Tools TRF Moderator & 2024 SubLV41 Patron Join Date: May 2007 Real Name: Larry Location: Mojave Desert Watch: GMT's Posts: 43,494	Everybody should have their own threshold for what they feel is satisfactory.. My personal standard for a Rolex is +5... I know that it can be regulated to better timekeeping; so If one exceeds that, I have it regulated..... __________________ (Chill ... It's just a watch Forum.....) NAWCC Member

2 April 2010, 02:54 AM	#6
bayerische "TRF" Member Join Date: Nov 2009 Real Name: Andreas Location: Margaritaville Watch: Smurf Posts: 19,879	On a non COSC watch I would be OK with +10/sec a day, but not on a COSC certified... __________________ Yeah, well, you know, that's just, like, your opinion, man.

2 April 2010, 02:58 AM	#7
dmc "TRF" Member Join Date: Dec 2009 Real Name: Don Location: SE USA Watch: Rolex GMTIIC Posts: 392	+10 per day would drive me nuts. Are you sure it hasn't become magnetized? Place it near a compass and see if it has any effect on it. I would have to send it in, or find a reputable watchmaker to regulate it. I got lucky and found a guy 45 min from my home that has done a steller job on two of my Rolex watches. Call an RSC and they will send you a shipping container if you want to ship it to Rolex. __________________ R.I.P. JJ Rolex GMTIIC M Rolex GMTIIC V TRF Rolex 16610 M Rolex 116610 G Omega SMP Live Free Or Die

2 April 2010, 04:35 AM	#15
f16570 "TRF" Member Join Date: Jan 2007 Real Name: F Location: Scotland Watch: Exp II White Face Posts: 4,272	I would have it regulated and monitor it. __________________ Why have what's new when you have what's best. f

2 April 2010, 01:53 AM	#2
TheBluePrince "TRF" Member Join Date: Dec 2009 Location: London Posts: 2,081	Only you can decide that. Does it bother you enough to want it more accurate?

2 April 2010, 02:08 AM	#4
kyle L "TRF" Member Join Date: Feb 2009 Location: USA Watch: Rolex Explorer I Posts: 10,278	Thanks for the responses, it's starting to bug me so I think I will send it in.

2 April 2010, 02:09 AM	#5
Alsey "TRF" Member Join Date: Nov 2009 Location: Bangkok Watch: GMT II C Posts: 217	It would bother me to have to reset it too often. Also as you know they are capable of much better performance.

2 April 2010, 03:34 AM	#11
JBat "TRF" Member Join Date: Dec 2007 Real Name: John Location: Washington Watch: 16710, 16610, DJ Posts: 7,329	Ya, the Expy is capable of much better timekeeping than that. The good news is that it's running fast, not slow, but personally I'd send it in.

2 April 2010, 05:13 AM	#16
therolexguy 2024 SubLV41 Pledge Member Join Date: Jun 2008 Real Name: Todd Location: US Posts: 3,528	I probalby would send it in too, Kyle.

2 April 2010, 07:18 AM	#18
rfknauss 2024 SubLV41 Pledge Member Join Date: Nov 2009 Real Name: Richard Location: Macungie, PA Watch: 5513 Sub, LV Sub Posts: 14,497	Kyle, if that is a COSC certified model, then Rolex should be able to regulate it within the spec. Keep in mind that +6 seconds is still within the spec. __________________ *"Few things in life give man as great a pleasure as wearing a Rolex!"* TRF's "AFTER DARK" Bar & NightClub Patron

2 April 2010, 08:12 AM	#19
HL65 TRF Moderator & 2024 SubLV41 Patron Join Date: Dec 2007 Real Name: Ken Location: SW Florida Watch: One on my wrist. Posts: 63,989	Agree--Although Kyle--knowing you are a perfectionist by your photos--send it in--especially if it bugs you! __________________ *SPEM SUCCESSUS ALIT*

2 April 2010, 08:29 AM	#20
Colnago "TRF" Member Join Date: Apr 2009 Real Name: Bill Hart Location: Richmond, NY, UK Watch: Rlx=3, Tdr=3, Om=3 Posts: 3,053	Kyle.....lots of discussion on here over the time I have been a member about this type of thing....first thing I would say is are you sure?....might sound like a stupid statement but honestly, I have trouble accepting computer times as accurate all the time.....times displayed on your PC can be pulled from within the PC or they are not actually broadcast "live" from wherevever you get them from.....set a quartz clock or watch at the same time you set your Explorer and check it against that after a couple of days.....you never know, it might be ok.....hope so....but if it's not, get it in and it'll be sorted......let us know how you get on __________________ Bill "There's only three kinds of people in this world....those that can count....and those that can't" TRF's "JJ's" Bar & NightClub Patron

2 April 2010, 10:34 AM	#21
SSD "TRF" Member Join Date: Jul 2007 Real Name: Jamie Location: Georgia Watch: Stainless Sub Date Posts: 3,023	If it were me, I'd have both regulated closer to COSC specs. And I really would rather have a watch running slightly faster than slower. Each is capable of far greater accuracy than what you are reporting. JMO. __________________ SUBMARINER OWNERS' CLUB ESTABLISHED 1953 TRF Member # 5464

2 April 2010, 09:35 PM	#22
padi56 "TRF" Life Patron Join Date: Jun 2005 Real Name: Peter Location: Llanfairpwllgwyng Watch: ing you. Posts: 53,035	If watch is from 2002 then its time for a service it will be re-regulated as part of normal service.But for simple regulation any good watchmaker could do it, takes around 20-30 minutes hardest part getting back off and re-pressure test __________________ ICom Pro3 All posts are my own opinion and my opinion only. "The clock of life is wound but once, and no man has the power to tell just when the hands will stop. Now is the only time you actually own the time, Place no faith in time, for the clock may soon be still for ever." Good Judgement comes from experience,experience comes from Bad Judgement,.Buy quality, cry once; buy cheap, cry again and again. www.mc0yad.club Second in command CEO and left handed watch winder

2 April 2010, 09:40 PM	#23
goldminer Member Join Date: Jan 2010 Real Name: John Location: London, England Watch: 5513 Posts: 278	10 seconds fast wouldn't bother me 15 seconds would. What does bother me is that my Milgauss GV is running 0.5 seconds a day slow .... I can't stand watches that run slow!!

2 April 2010, 10:17 PM	#25
nauticajoe "TRF" Member Join Date: Feb 2010 Real Name: Joe Location: PA Posts: 14,774	I'd rather be early for a client meeting.

2 April 2010, 10:31 PM	#26
Watch Professor "TRF" Member Join Date: Oct 2009 Real Name: Myron Location: New York Watch: GMT IIC; Sub Date Posts: 3,166	If it hasn't been serviced since 2002 I would send it in for a complete service. I would get it regulated if it is more than +- 2 sec./day. But, I'm obsessive.

3 April 2010, 12:26 AM	#29
mfer "TRF" Member Join Date: Mar 2007 Real Name: Mik Location: USA Posts: 13,723	10 sec wouldn't bother me, but what does bother me is 2002 watch without service! Yikes! __________________ member#3242

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)