116500 Insane accuracy

[HorologyK]

Set it two months ago and still keeps perfect time. Lost one second over two months. Insane!! No, I’m not kidding. Totally serious.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[yuk0nxl1]

For me, the key is how you store it. My 114060 gains 0.5 s/d if stored crown down but looses 0.5s/d is stored crown up pending I wear it in both occasions. I rotate how I stored it at night and net out to be spot on. For me, this has been the most accurate watch to ever grace my wrist!

Wear your Rolex in good health!



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[schoolboy]

That is awesome


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[padi56]

Originally Posted by HorologyK

Set it two months ago and still keeps perfect time. Lost one second over two months. Insane!! No, I’m not kidding. Totally serious.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

You must have a movement in 1000000000.

[liu_watch]

That’s good to hear.

No offense to OP, but we know that accuracy is not the prime indicator we should look at. In fact it’s rather unimportant. The precision - consistency of rates over time - is much more important.

Hypothetical Scenario 1: Watch gains 5 seconds on wrist during daytime wear, then loses 5 seconds at night resting in one position. The end result is +0/day. Poor positional adjustment.

Hypothetical Scenario 2: While watch resting, it gains 5 seconds during first 24 hours, loses 5 seconds during the next 24 hours. Net is +0/day. Poor isochrononism.

Point is: From a watchmaker’s perspective, a watch that loses 5 seconds a day, consistently and in different positions, has a better regulated movement than any one of the above scenarios which has an accuracy of 0.

Therefore, rather focusing on the net accuracy (which doesn’t mean much really), I would look at the precision of the movement, and if I have too much time on hand, the positional rates.

[brian89]

Nice!

[Annan]

Originally Posted by padi56

You must have a movement in 1000000000.

Based on the number of exceptional accuracy reports that have been coming into TRF lately you might want to reassess your number Peter........maybe 1 in 1,000?

[arcentaur]

Originally Posted by liu_watch

That’s good to hear.

No offense to OP, but we know that accuracy is not the prime indicator we should look at. In fact it’s rather unimportant. The precision - consistency of rates over time - is much more important.

Hypothetical Scenario 1: Watch gains 5 seconds on wrist during daytime wear, then loses 5 seconds at night resting in one position. The end result is +0/day. Poor positional adjustment.

Hypothetical Scenario 2: While watch resting, it gains 5 seconds during first 24 hours, loses 5 seconds during the next 24 hours. Net is +0/day. Poor isochrononism.

Point is: From a watchmaker’s perspective, a watch that loses 5 seconds a day, consistently and in different positions, has a better regulated movement than any one of the above scenarios which has an accuracy of 0.

Therefore, rather focusing on the net accuracy (which doesn’t mean much really), I would look at the precision of the movement, and if I have too much time on hand, the positional rates.

This x2. Advice to OP is to run it thru a timer app like Watchtracker for a month or so to see whether the gain/loss is consistent.