Is beat rate important to you?
Some relationships in my life have sent my heart into a tachycardial spin…while others have slowed it to near failure. In most cases (though wrenched) I have escaped with a mostly-intact ticker.
So the question is posed with a movement’s beat rate: does it affect performance, accuracy and longevity…or is its appeal skin-deep by the flow of its sweep around the dial? Does 28,800BPH satiate the senses while 19,800BPH is merely a bowl of gruel for the masses?
Does beat rate matter to you? Why do we weirdos muse about such a thing in the first place?
31 comments
Sort by
Darin
Time dictates my linear path to its bitter end. My watches keep me one step ahead of time…and one foot out of the grave.
West Jordan, UT
Member since
Last active: 58 min ago
18.42 cm
I don't care one way or the other.
I like 28800 but TBH I don't know why as I don't notice it.
I don’t mind. I once thought higher beat rate meant better overall movement but after some research I learned there are some benefits to a lower rate like longer service intervals and less strain on the parts - with exceptions. Higher beat rate has become a highlighted selling point. In the end I believe there’s no distinct winner just a different array of pros and cons.
Higher beat rate means a smother sweep of the second hand, which is visually pleasing at the cost of less longevity. Personally, my automatics are all much smother than my quartz watches, so while a smooth sweep is nice, it is not essential.
I like 4hz/28800 and higher for sure, but I am oddly a fan 2.5hz/19,800 of Vostoks. Omega and Longines 3.5hz/25,200 are great too. It doesn't really matter though as I have plenty of 3hz/21,600 Tissot and Seikos - which I think seems to have an almost stutter beat for some reason.
Higher beat rate means a smother sweep of the second hand, which is visually pleasing at the cost of less longevity. Personally, my automatics are all much smother than my quartz watches, so while a smooth sweep is nice, it is not essential.
I'm in the minority that gives watches a fleeting glance to determine the time and does not pore over the whole dial looking for something actually going on, the seconds hand being the only perceptible such thing. I also don't notice quartz second hands that land anywhere.
I'm in the minority that gives watches a fleeting glance to determine the time and does not pore over the whole dial looking for something actually going on, the seconds hand being the only perceptible such thing. I also don't notice quartz second hands that land anywhere.
The seconds hand is only usefull in letting you know that the watch is running.
Why swatch group doesn't use the powermatic 80 in Omega watches?
Why swatch group doesn't use the powermatic 80 in Omega watches?
The Omega Caliber 8800 and 8900 are a totally different level of movements in terms of tech, design, and finishing.
The Powermatic models modified versions of the workhorse ETA 2824 that extends power reserve. It's like comparing a high performance luxury car's engine to a fuel-efficienr base motor of mainline brand.
I prefer 28800 as the seconds hand sweep is smoother
If the watch works I couldn’t care less. Most vintage is low, so yeah, not bothered.
The Omega Caliber 8800 and 8900 are a totally different level of movements in terms of tech, design, and finishing.
The Powermatic models modified versions of the workhorse ETA 2824 that extends power reserve. It's like comparing a high performance luxury car's engine to a fuel-efficienr base motor of mainline brand.
Exactly my point. Cheap movements run 3 Hz, luxury movement 4Hz. Exeptions exist.
My older “classic” watches are mostly slow beat but they are reliable & keep good time which is more important than beat rate to me. I imagine most of us focus on the bit you can see first rather than what’s inside. Long winded way of saying no doesn’t matter.
Blatantly borrowed from GearPatrol:
"But there are benefits to having a “high-beat” watch with a fast-ticking movement — most notably higher precision (especially in chronographs) where the watch can read out in smaller fractions of a second. Less technically, higher-beat watches have a smoother second hand"
There is a great article about this in much more depth over on Chrono24.
I don’t mind. I once thought higher beat rate meant better overall movement but after some research I learned there are some benefits to a lower rate like longer service intervals and less strain on the parts - with exceptions. Higher beat rate has become a highlighted selling point. In the end I believe there’s no distinct winner just a different array of pros and cons.
That’s sound.
I'm in the minority that gives watches a fleeting glance to determine the time and does not pore over the whole dial looking for something actually going on, the seconds hand being the only perceptible such thing. I also don't notice quartz second hands that land anywhere.
I can appreciate that. Though oddly I lament a quartz watch who’s second hand just misses its designated marker. I suppose that stems from the neurotic tendencies of the many elementary school teachers we had to endure.
The seconds hand is only usefull in letting you know that the watch is running.
This be true.
I prefer 28800 as the seconds hand sweep is smoother
I suppose that to be the main appeal to many of the Spring Drive.
If the watch works I couldn’t care less. Most vintage is low, so yeah, not bothered.
Wouldn’t it be great to own an old Hamilton Electric with a stuttering tick?
My older “classic” watches are mostly slow beat but they are reliable & keep good time which is more important than beat rate to me. I imagine most of us focus on the bit you can see first rather than what’s inside. Long winded way of saying no doesn’t matter.
I know that was true with my ex-wife🤓.
I like a slow beat rate. Many of my watches beat at 18 000 A/h, which is a nice round number for me. Five ticks a second, 1/5 of a second.
Maybe I just tell myself that because I collect vintage.
Wouldn’t it be great to own an old Hamilton Electric with a stuttering tick?
Nope. Got a Seamaster “Hummer” and that is an economical disaster.
I generally don’t care, but I will say the smooth second hand sweep of a 5hz beat rate is quite pretty.
I have watches that almost span the gamut beat rates, now that you mention it; hadn't really thought about it. I have 3 Hz (Seiko, Orient, Hamilton, Nomos), 4 Hz (Sellita, Miyota, la Joux-Perret, the Peacock inside the Atelier Wen), 5 Hz (Grand Seiko Hi-Beat), 8 Hz (Bulova Precisionist), 0 beat (Spring Drive). I don't have the odder beat rates, like the Omega 3.5, or the slower rates of old pocket watch style movements.
Does beat rate matter? Probably not, but what about watches really does? It's one of the things that makes watches interesting. I don't think I get all that excited about the difference between 3, 4, and 5 Hz. They all tick. But once you get to 8 Hz, 16 beats a second, and it looks almost as perfectly smooth, the smoothest of course being the Spring Drive, which doesn't beat at all.
Now I gotta get me an Accutron, with a 360 Hz beat rate.
By the way, why is beat rate normally stated in beats per hour, which results in awkward and unmemorably large numbers? Hertz or beats per second seem so much more sensible.
Beat rate is important to me if there is a second hand.
As long as it's automatic or mechanical I'm good. Even the Seiko VK quartz movement that ticks 4 beats per second I can live with - unfortunately it's too light; I like a little heft in my watches.
I prefer 4Hz, but not a deal breaker (have a bunch of Seikos). I actually been wanting to add a 3.5Hz to my collection, for no other reason than I don't have one. I also have a King Seiko from the 60's that runs at 5Hz, and love putting it to my ear to listen to that high beat.
Pretty low on the list behind craftsmanship, interesting design, accuracy, and power reserve
Oo....love that Wenger.
Oo....love that Wenger.
Many thanks! They put out some beautiful watches.