[blacke90]

Great post.

Originally Posted by karasus

You are right, most of us are used to seeing 4hz movements and assume any automatic movement is 4hz. But 4hz only makes accuracy easier to achieve from a manufacturing perspective, so you don't need as many highly skilled watch makers. I would argue that its cheaper/easier to achieve accuracy on a 4hz compared to a 3hz or lower.

When looking at a 3hz movement the errors in adjustment are over 21'600 beats while on a 4 hz the error is over 28'800 beats. 1/21600 > 1/28800 so any error a watch maker makes during adjustments will result in higher inaccuracies. Each mistake the watchmaker makes on a 3hz movement is amplified by 33% compared to a 4hz movement. Highly skilled watchmakers are expensive but making a 4hz movement instead of a 3hz costs the same at scale. Thus, over time its cheaper to produce 4hz movements and have less watchmakers. Arguably, for any non chronograph movement it is better to have a well adjusted 3hz movement over a 4hz, as the movement will have less wear over time due to less beats thus extending service periods. For the end user a well adjusted 3hz is better and there are many examples highly accurate high end movements are 3hz such as the Patek caliber 240. But these movements are more expensive to produce compared to a 4hz automatic.

That is why they (Rolex Group) can make the Tudor BB and BB58, which essentially have the same technology and build as Rolex submariners, at 1/3 of the price point. A large part of the price when buying a Rolex is the cachet of the brand/history rather than the manual workmanship involved in making the watch. There is definitely value in brand and history but with Rolex we can't expect much workmanship, its a good solid industrially produced watch with a heavy premium for the brand's recognition/value retention.

Point is, 3hz isn't a bad thing its just different from 4hz . except in chronographs where higher the hz the better if it doesn't compromise the watch's mechanics.