Accuracy - Published vs Actual
Does anyone know why the testing that movements go through at point of manufacture, COSC, METAS, JAPANESE(!?) and the published results, do not appear to reflect the accuracy of actual wearing/use of the watch?
For example, I set my GS SLGA007 on the 8th March. So far it has lost half a second! That's compared to GS stating it's tolerance is that plus or minus per day. Same with my Rolex Explorer II 216570, only gained 2 seconds over the same period. My Speedy also out performs Omega's stated tolerances.
Both watches have been in the watchbox or on the wrist intermittently throughout.
6 comments
Sort by
Simon
Watch fan and fledgling collector. Never happier than when getting hands on and geeking over new pieces.
Essex, England
Member since
Last active: 2 months ago
The position of a mechanical watch will affect it’s accuracy. Dial up, dial down, crown down, 12:00 up, 12:00 down, etc. will give different results. Some positions may be +time. Some may be -time. The overall average should remain in the specified range.
Motion will also affect timing. Sharp motions like closing a car door or putting on a coat will cause the watch to either run fast or slow for a short period of time until the balance reestablishes its equilibrium. Again, the overall average of these effects should balance out within the specs.
If you want to see this in practice, look for a YouTube channel called Escapement & Watch. He puts every watch he reviews on a timegrapher in multiple positions so you can see these effects in real time.
In a manufactured goods environment, you are forced by regulatory fiat, as well as the ever-loving fear of tort law to always quote specs that are far, far, far worse than your expected average performance.
Here's a hilarious story:
To this day, unfortunately, this is probably the highlight of my career. Never have I since provided so much impact and value creation.
In a manufactured goods environment, you are forced by regulatory fiat, as well as the ever-loving fear of tort law to always quote specs that are far, far, far worse than your expected average performance.
Here's a hilarious story:
To this day, unfortunately, this is probably the highlight of my career. Never have I since provided so much impact and value creation.
Had I known I would have eaten more Jimmy Dean!
The position of a mechanical watch will affect it’s accuracy. Dial up, dial down, crown down, 12:00 up, 12:00 down, etc. will give different results. Some positions may be +time. Some may be -time. The overall average should remain in the specified range.
Motion will also affect timing. Sharp motions like closing a car door or putting on a coat will cause the watch to either run fast or slow for a short period of time until the balance reestablishes its equilibrium. Again, the overall average of these effects should balance out within the specs.
If you want to see this in practice, look for a YouTube channel called Escapement & Watch. He puts every watch he reviews on a timegrapher in multiple positions so you can see these effects in real time.
Thank you. This however does not answer my question.
Had I known I would have eaten more Jimmy Dean!
This is my one near brush with Internet fame:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f4RNb3tt0LM&t=1s
I worked on "SKU rationalization" for Jimmy Dean, and ended up consolidating the catalogue of offerings - package sizes and flavors of sausage. I am to blame for that complaint call! No joke, the Freakonomics podcast interviewed me like a decade ago about it all, but they never ended up running the story, because they couldn't fact check it properly.
One day, I'm going to regale my grandkids with stories of "Randy Taylor" and his Jimmy Dean Sausage woes.
Had I known I would have eaten more Jimmy Dean!
Unknowingly you did? 😉