Is a COSC watch the Holy Grail of watchmaking.?

[padi56]

With so many today on forum with accuracy OCD its most important to remember that a "COSC certified chronometer" is not the Holy Grail of watchmaking. With the high quality of modern day robotised manufacturing, this test is not that important in reality. As today most decent modern watches from all countries even some from China like the Seagull movements, when adequately adjusted, should be able to match the performance specified by the now quite antiquated Swiss COSC test.

A chronometer certificate is not a guarantee of future accuracy for life only a certification that the bare uncased movement was tested at the COSC and passed at time of testing. Watch movements that have been certified can get out of adjustment and still perform quite poorly outside the COSC spec. Movements that are not certified could still exceed the COSC standards with just simple regulation.Many of todays manufacturers may have simply chosen to bypass the expense of the certification process its quite expensive to test every single movement. But today IMHO the COSC is little more than a pure marketing tool and means little in actual performance only the fact its been tested at that time.Now when the thousands of movements that get tested and then shipped back to the manufactures those that have passed plus the ones that fail yes some do fail even ones from Rolex.The failed movements are perhaps re-oiled tested then shipped back to the COSC to test again.Now a lot could happen to any movement on its way from being certified shipped back then stored then finally cased.In the case of Rolex they must have many thousands in store waiting to be cased then shipped around the world to the various ADs

The term "Superlative Chronometer" is a now trademark of Rolex. The addition of the word "Superlative" in front of the official designation of Chronometer is 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. Any words added before or after the official designation of "Chronometer" are merely more marketing which Rolex is very good at.There are not any different grades or levels of chronometer certification,for movements of Rolex size but Rolex would like you to think there are.


When thinking of accuracy its very important to remember that even when a mechanical watch is allowed to vary by COSC standards +6/-4 seconds per day, that does not mean it will consistently vary by that high or low amount each day. Mechanical movements that self regulate say by resting in different positions over night its very very rare for this to happen.All Mechanical watches are noticeably affected by the gravitational pull of the Earth. It only takes a performance distortion of 1/1000th of a percent for a mechanical watch movement to be one second less accurate in a day. So to get any mechanical watch to self regulate with zero tolerance is IMHO something that's very very rare maybe one it quite a few thousand or even million

Likewise, "Certified Chronometer" also means nothing different than just "Chronometer." It is a redundant phrase--since Chronometer status is the certification the certified is just more pure marketing, and you know what they say about marketing well it often baffles brains.
__________________

[james1787]

My 14060 does not have the cosc "stamp" on it, but when I brought it into Rsc for service a few years ago after 12 years it was running at +3....

[Tools]

To summarize, no, COSC in today's world of watchmaking is a marketing tool and no longer a stamp of high accuracy.

It is, however, a stamp of dedication to consistency and an independent look at each movement so stamped..

[flw]

Good points and food for thought, especially when Omega is moving to its new certification with METAS for its "Master Co-Axial" antimagnetic movements. Omega's upcoming transition to this new certification is definitely worth reading about:
http://www.ablogtowatch.com/omega-me...certification/

[sco]

Boom, nice thread. Although for some reason, it does make me feel a touch warmer and fuzzier inside knowing that my movement was tested (somewhat) strictly before ending up on my wrist. Could it be marketing... maybe

[cop414]

Good post Peter!

[brandrea]

Thanks Peter, great explanation of COSC. It helps me to understand that even though certain vintage Rolex aren't Designated chronometers, they keep as accurate time as modern day Rolex.

[bigsmall]

For my taste: any independent and third party testing is a grail. The COSC sign has been good for decades, so I trust in it.

[rmfnla]

This should be a sticky; great info, Peter...

[jjnd08]

Great explanation, Peter!

[lmcgbaj]

COSC is important to me when buying watches below a certain price point (say below 6-7k).

However, above a certain price point, I do expect the watches to perform within COSC once casted anyhow, whether they have been submitted for COSC or not.

Call me old fashion but I like my watches to be relatively precised and mechanical. Out of all the watches that I’ve had over the last 10 years (100+) a few brand have been able to performed flawleslly. JLC, Rolex and Omega have been the best out of what I have seen. I am sure there are others that perform just as well. Those brands either have extensive testing performed on their watches (example: JLC) or submit most of their models to COSC. Coincidence? Maybe.

[ragingcao]

Good read. Thanks

[Chrispare]

Thanks for this info
Very interesting

[Ferdelious]

Great post, thanks for the insight!

[Scholar]

COSC standards are incredibly low. US Railway standards a century ago were stricter and today there are much better standards as well, like JLC's testing or Grand Seiko's accuracy standard. I believe the new Omega ones are quite strict as well, though I don't know the details of it.

[Choo Yao Chuen]

I would beg to differ.

COSC to me, gives me the comfort that the watch movement is of a certain quality; but unlike other more prestige certifications such as the Geneva seal or the Qualite Fleurier, COSC merely measures accuracy of the watch movement. This is most fundamental as to me, I wear watches to keep time and not as a fashion statement.

Not all luxury watches carry quality movements. Panerai is notoriously known to be bad time keepers. I've even read bad reviews on IWCs. These brands are far better at marketing IMO. They are pretty much selling "inferior" watches at ridiculously high prices.

At the end of the day, I know with a COSC certified watch, I can always have it regulated to good timekeeping.

[anothernewphone]

Originally Posted by Chrispare

Thanks for this info
Very interesting

This info is more of an opinion than anything else.

[Friar]

I have nine mechanical watches. Three have elabore grade ETA movements, two have COSC ETA movements, one has a top hand-wound ETA movement, one Omega and two Rolex COSC certified. All keep time within a couple seconds a day. The difference I notice is that the elabore grade watches tend to change over time. All three have been regulated a couple of times in their relatively short lives. The top/COSC movements are rock solid (so far!).

[padi56]

Originally Posted by lmcgbaj

COSC is important to me when buying watches below a certain price point (say below 6-7k).

However, above a certain price point, I do expect the watches to perform within COSC once casted anyhow, whether they have been submitted for COSC or not.

Call me old fashion but I like my watches to be relatively precised and mechanical. Out of all the watches that I’ve had over the last 10 years (100+) a few brand have been able to performed flawleslly. JLC, Rolex and Omega have been the best out of what I have seen. I am sure there are others that perform just as well. Those brands either have extensive testing performed on their watches (example: JLC) or submit most of their models to COSC. Coincidence? Maybe.

Originally Posted by Choo Yao Chuen

I would beg to differ.

COSC to me, gives me the comfort that the watch movement is of a certain quality; but unlike other more prestige certifications such as the Geneva seal or the Qualite Fleurier, COSC merely measures accuracy of the watch movement. This is most fundamental as to me, I wear watches to keep time and not as a fashion statement.

Not all luxury watches carry quality movements. Panerai is notoriously known to be bad time keepers. I've even read bad reviews on IWCs. These brands are far better at marketing IMO. They are pretty much selling "inferior" watches at ridiculously high prices.

At the end of the day, I know with a COSC certified watch, I can always have it regulated to good timekeeping.

Originally Posted by bigsmall

For my taste: any independent and third party testing is a grail. The COSC sign has been good for decades, so I trust in it.

First you must understand why the Swiss COSC was founded, 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. 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%,now today around 96% of movements pass the COSC test first time thats a huge difference. Now truth be told today with careful regulation most any movement could pass today's watered down COSC test.Back in the 1960-70s just a few manufacturers participated in these tests, 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 watches like 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 (+/- 2/3 seconds over 48 hours) 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 into the 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 but for the Swiss brands only.Because of the high volume of movements tested by Rolex at the COSC Rolex has there own machine there to test there movements and Rolex is one of the biggest payee to the Swiss COSC. Now both the Japanese and the European equivalent to the Swiss COSC are to a slightly higher standard.Plus the the movements are tested in the cases that will be with the watches for the rest of its life.

[Fabrice M]

I do feel quite the opposite. I do feel that the "COSC certified chronometer" IS the holy grail of watch making, and here is why.

Before I start I want to give a little background about what I do, as to understand my point of view. I am an industrial designer, as such I deal a lot with, design, material science, engineering, manufacturing, logistics, patent issues, etc... What is remarkable about Rolex and the the COSC chronometer certification, and why no every—so called high-end watch making companies participate, isn't the specs themselves, what is remarkable is that it can be done repeatedly across millions of rolex watches every year. From a manufacturing point of view, it is extremely difficult and challenging. Anybody can do better with one watch, maybe a dozen...But doing it across millions, that, my friends, is unbelievable and an achievement that shouldn't be dismissed. And the idea the there is some "high quality of modern day robotised manufacturing" that makes it easy, isn't accurate either. Machinery such as CNC's has to constantly be adjusted and re-adjusted, there are no automatic process that self adjust... If it was the case everything we buy would have an amazing quality...
Repeatability in manufacturing is extremely hard to achieve and very costly, especially when dealing with incredibly tight tolerances, getting those COSC specs across so many watches, to me, is simply a remarkable industrial achievement few companies I have ever dealt with can accomplish. This is my opinion anyhow...

[sunshine9393]

Thanks Padi, that is valuable insight into the watchmaking industry and serves to pull back a few layers of marketing BS

[GhostInTheMachine]

Agreed, COSC is a well known standard to which some watch companies use quite a bit for marketing purposes, but some don't even bother, their in house movements are far superior to the COSC standards.

[dysondiver]

i didnt realize it was only started in 73 ,,, an interesting fact .

[Scot_3]

Great post lots of new info for me.

[james1787]

Padi, many thanks for the very interesting read!

[c0deman99]

Originally Posted by padi56

With so many today on forum with accuracy OCD its most important to remember that a "COSC certified chronometer" is not the Holy Grail of watchmaking. With the high quality of modern day robotised manufacturing, this test is not that important in reality. As today most decent modern watches from all countries even some from China like the Seagull movements, when adequately adjusted, should be able to match the performance specified by the now quite antiquated Swiss COSC test.

A chronometer certificate is not a guarantee of future accuracy for life only a certification that the bare uncased movement was tested at the COSC and passed at time of testing. Watch movements that have been certified can get out of adjustment and still perform quite poorly outside the COSC spec. Movements that are not certified could still exceed the COSC standards with just simple regulation.Many of todays manufacturers may have simply chosen to bypass the expense of the certification process its quite expensive to test every single movement. But today IMHO the COSC is little more than a pure marketing tool and means little in actual performance only the fact its been tested at that time.Now when the thousands of movements that get tested and then shipped back to the manufactures those that have passed plus the ones that fail yes some do fail even ones from Rolex.The failed movements are perhaps re-oiled tested then shipped back to the COSC to test again.Now a lot could happen to any movement on its way from being certified shipped back then stored then finally cased.In the case of Rolex they must have many thousands in store waiting to be cased then shipped around the world to the various ADs

The term "Superlative Chronometer" is a now trademark of Rolex. The addition of the word "Superlative" in front of the official designation of Chronometer is 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. Any words added before or after the official designation of "Chronometer" are merely more marketing which Rolex is very good at.There are not any different grades or levels of chronometer certification,for movements of Rolex size but Rolex would like you to think there are.


When thinking of accuracy its very important to remember that even when a mechanical watch is allowed to vary by COSC standards +6/-4 seconds per day, that does not mean it will consistently vary by that high or low amount each day. Mechanical movements that self regulate say by resting in different positions over night its very very rare for this to happen.All Mechanical watches are noticeably affected by the gravitational pull of the Earth. It only takes a performance distortion of 1/1000th of a percent for a mechanical watch movement to be one second less accurate in a day. So to get any mechanical watch to self regulate with zero tolerance is IMHO something that's very very rare maybe one it quite a few thousand or even million

Likewise, "Certified Chronometer" also means nothing different than just "Chronometer." It is a redundant phrase--since Chronometer status is the certification the certified is just more pure marketing, and you know what they say about marketing well it often baffles brains.
__________________

First off, this was an excellent read and thanks for posting.

Second, is it super rare to own a watch that literally never is wrong. Does not gain/lose a second ever.

I have an Omega PO with the 8500 movement and have had since march/april 2012 and it has only had to be rewound like 3-5 times and it has never been wrong since the day I bought it.

I guess my other question is would you ever get rid of a watch that kept time that well? I have considered flipping it for a 16613 but would you rather have a more 'valuable' watch that may not keep time as well or a really nice watch that keeps perfect time.

preference...

[Hairdude1]

Thanks for this!

[arguscanis]

The NRC attaches a "relative uncertainty" of 2.5×10 to the −11th power (limited by day-to-day and device-to-device reproducibility) to their atomic clock based upon the 127I2 molecule, and is advocating use of an 88Sr ion trap instead (relative uncertainty due to linewidth of 2.2×10 to the−15 power).Wikipedia) ....would this be close enough?

[dave_dave]

This is a good read. Thanks!

[Racerdj]

Educational as always, Peter!