Grand Seiko Spring Drive, should Rolex follow?

[TheVTCGuy]

I purchased my first Seiko last week, will use it as a “beater” and for some travel, but it was my first exposure to the brand. So, before you ask: “Why are you posting this in the Rolex section?” Let me explain.

I did not purchase a Grand Seiko, but did have the opportunity to see one in person. It was a very nice watch but the most impressive part to me was watching the second hand, and learning the accuracy. I am not going to do a very good job of explaining, but the watch is actually mechanical, in that the movement of your arm powers a spring. And it has quartz used for time reference, but it is not your typical quartz of. Tick-tick-tick at one second intervals. Instead, the second hand practically glides over the dial like the old-fashioned electic ones did, but it is still a mechanical movement. From what I understand the spring that you wind by movement of your arm powers a wheel that produces an electric charge that is used for the quartz time-keeping component, and the movement of the the time keeping hands, but the movement is so fast that it looks like a continious sweep.

OK, now that I have completely screwed up the explanation, Bas or Tools will have to clear it up, but the point is it is still a “mechanical” watch, in that the movement is all mechanical and the electricity produced is only for time reference with the quartz, and the accuracy is suposedly incredible. Seiko says something like one second a day but in reports, it’s more like one a week. (And to be honest, watching that second hand circumnavigate the dial with such a smooth movement was pretty cool). For us automatic enthusiasts I have a couple questions:

A. Do you consider it a TRUE automatic, since the wound spring does produce an electical charge, even if it is not used to power the hands?

B. Should Rolex strive for something similar? The accuracy is better and again, watching that smooth movement of the second hand was impresseive IMHO.

I had heard Rolex applied for a patent years ago for some kind of movement that has the same results, but nothing (that I know of) since. What do you guys think?

[Mystro]

I doubt Seiko is even on the Rolex radar as being any competition.

[tmo8320]

Nah,

Rolex does Rolex.
In the same way they don’t do exhibition backs (save for that one Celini) because their movements are unadorned work horses, I don’t think Rolex should pursue such a complication because it would mess with Rolex’s legendary service intervals.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[ashbaug2]

Originally Posted by tmo8320

Nah,

Rolex does Rolex.
In the same way they don’t do exhibition backs (save for that one Celini) because their movements are unadorned work horses, I don’t think Rolex should pursue such a complication because it would mess with Rolex’s legendary service intervals.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

To be fair, Rolex service intervals are nothing compared to Seiko's... The Seiko 6105 divers of the late 60's-to-mid 70s are notorious for having water damage because their crown was designed so that the gasket was internal to it, thus requiring it to be replaced at service; unfortunately, they ran so well, that hardly anyone serviced them, thus far too many have been water-logged. That is only one example, of which I'm very familiar, as my dad's daily driver was a 6105-8119 that he wore every day for over 35 years without a service. He only stopped wearing it because the crystal was too scratched to legibly read the time.

I don't think Rolex should do anything with quartz or SD technology, simply because that sort of innovation is what defines Seiko for so many people. Spring Drive is part of what makes them special. And in my opinion, I think it's amazing that you can buy a $200 SKX007, a $2,000 SBDX017 MarineMaster 300, a $10,000 Grand Seiko SBGH255 Hi-Beat diver, and anything in between, all from the same manufacturer. Finishing may be different throughout, but quality is high no matter which piece you get.

My 2 cents...

[challer]

The Grand Seiko is very impressive. The fit and finish is much better than Rolex. It Seiko has $10 watches and so the word never gets out.

[Vinyasa]

I purchased a GS last month, but it's the 9S65A movement, not the Spring Drive. I specifically chose this movement because I prefer the traditional horological approach.

I agree that the finish and detail are amazing, and I look forward to wearing it. The movement exceeds COSC specs already and, Spring Drive - while incredibly accurate - doesn't interest me... at least, right now.

Rolex, with the Superlative Chronometer specs of +/- 2 seconds/day, is pretty incredible without Spring Drive technology.

[Peter99]

Originally Posted by challer

The Grand Seiko is very impressive. The fit and finish is much better than Rolex. It Seiko has $10 watches and so the word never gets out.

Unfortunately it’s still a ‘Seiko’! You know what I mean?

[Wools]

Originally Posted by Peter99

Unfortunately it’s still a ‘Seiko’! You know what I mean?

That shouldn’t be used as a slight, as Seiko & Grand Seiko are an incredible watchmaker & show up some of the Swiss classics.

I do hate how snobbery infects people’s opinions, watches from all walks of life are incredible in 2018 and the complications and technology that power them would stun people from 20 years ago, let alone 50.

I’m sure there’s an R&D team who’ve tried a similar technology at Rolex and favoured against it. As someone else said, do we know how reliable these Spring Drive movements are, over 5-10 years?

[PJ S]

Originally Posted by Wools

…

As someone else said, do we know how reliable these Spring Drive movements are, over 5-10 years?

You’re free to ask me how mine is after 12 years since first being assembled.
It’ll be purely anecdotal, but at least it’ll be a starting point.

[Green Arrow]

I've been wearing Rolex since 1982. But I just ordered a Seiko SRPC44 ($325 low end mechanical watch with Hardlex crystal), and have been seriously considering adding a Spring Drive Diver in SS to my TT Rolex Bluesy (the model of watch I've owned most since 2004 and own now).

If one doesn't limit themselves to brand snobbery there are amazing watches around in all price levels. When my Seiko comes in I'll have an Isobrite 501 for its T100 tritium capsules which cannot be beat for lume by ANY watch after around 4 hours, a Rolex 166113 which apparently is part of my watch DNA, and a new gold colored, silicone banded Seiko "Turtle" for all kinds of knock around use in and on the water, combined with excellent lumibrite.

Sometimes I think us "Rolex" people need to broaden our horizons. We have great watches, but we aren't the only ones.

[Doc Savage]

Originally Posted by PJ S

You’re free to ask me how mine is after 12 years since first being assembled.
It’ll be purely anecdotal, but at least it’ll be a starting point.

Ok, cool. How is it doing after 12 years?

[rolexpatek363]

Originally Posted by PJ S

You’re free to ask me how mine is after 12 years since first being assembled.
It’ll be purely anecdotal, but at least it’ll be a starting point.

Hi PJ, which model do you have?

I owned a Spring Drive for a couple of years, but reluctantly sold it because it was a bit too big/thick on the wrist for my taste.

Watching the second hand glide around is very therapeutic.

[MILGAUSS88]

Originally Posted by Wools

I’m sure there’s an R&D team who’ve tried a similar technology at Rolex and favoured against it. As someone else said, do we know how reliable these Spring Drive movements are, over 5-10 years?

I really doubt Rolex has tried anything similar.

And the spring dive has been in use since 1999 in various Seikos and 2004 in the Grand Seiko. So, I would say Yes, to your second question.

[pickettt]

Originally Posted by Peter99

Unfortunately it’s still a ‘Seiko’! You know what I mean?

SMH. A tell tale sign as to why people buy what they buy.

[the_natural]

Originally Posted by pickettt

SMH. A tell tale sign as to why people buy what they buy.

x2

[Old Expat Beast]

Originally Posted by pickettt

SMH. A tell tale sign as to why people buy what they buy.

x3

[HL65]

Originally Posted by Old Expat Beast

x3

x4

[twitch54]

Originally Posted by Peter99

Unfortunately it’s still a ‘Seiko’! You know what I mean?

big ego, little.......

[dubins930]

Originally Posted by Peter99

Unfortunately it’s still a ‘Seiko’! You know what I mean?

At least these types of people do a nice job at separating themselves from the rest of us. Classic Rolex sub owner

[johneh]

Legendary service intervals? Please, if there was an eye roll emoji I'd use it here.

@TheVTCGuy - the mainspring does in fact power the movement of the hands on a spring drive. The explanation is fairly complicated, but I am sure you will get it. First off, instead of a balance wheel, the SD movement has a glide wheel. When you first start up a SD watch the glide wheel will spin freely, causing the second hand to move way too fast which fires up the electricity required to power a circuit and the quartz oscillator. The quartz oscillator acts as a reference point and tells an electromagnetic brake to slow down the glide wheel. The way a spring drive works is that it's always trying to go fast, and the brake slows it down.

In easy to understand terms: The mainspring powers the hands, which power a tiny generator inside the watch, which controls a little computer that tells the watch to go slower.

[Jim Smyth]

My Grand Seiko gets the majority of my wrist time the last 2 years. Its accuracy blows away my Rolex. Its so accurate I never need to check it any more, just set it and forget it. But then again so is a quartz watch.

I have a new Lum-Tec Quartz inbound as I type. I am not a movement snob. However most here will only be a only mechanical type person. I dont see Rolex moving away from what they are currently doing unless they have to compete some day in the smart watch arena.

[lenfried29]

Originally Posted by johneh

Legendary service intervals? Please, if there was an eye roll emoji I'd use it here.

@TheVTCGuy - the mainspring does in fact power the movement of the hands on a spring drive. The explanation is fairly complicated, but I am sure you will get it. First off, instead of a balance wheel, the SD movement has a glide wheel. When you first start up a SD watch the glide wheel will spin freely, causing the second hand to move way too fast which fires up the electricity required to power a circuit and the quartz oscillator. The quartz oscillator acts as a reference point and tells an electromagnetic brake to slow down the glide wheel. The way a spring drive works is that it's always trying to go fast, and the brake slows it down.

In easy to understand terms: The mainspring powers the hands, which power a tiny generator inside the watch, which controls a little computer that tells the watch to go slower.

If it has electronics in the watch I'm not consider it. IMO, it defeat a whole purpose of mechanical watch.

[johneh]

Originally Posted by lenfried29

If it has electronics in the watch I'm not consider it. IMO, it defeat a whole purpose of mechanical watch.

Personally I think they're great and I would like to own one. Different strokes for different folks.

[cajunron]

Originally Posted by lenfried29

If it has electronics in the watch I'm not consider it. IMO, it defeat a whole purpose of mechanical watch.

Well said. To me, it's almost a quartz watch.

[cda555]

Originally Posted by lenfried29

If it has electronics in the watch I'm not consider it. IMO, it defeat a whole purpose of mechanical watch.

I could be wrong, but spring Drive is battery free, right? Isn’t that the whole purpose of a mechanical watch? I think GS makes awesome stuff, and I can’t wait to own one some day.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[|404|]

Originally Posted by cda555

I could be wrong, but spring Drive is battery free, right? Isn’t that the whole purpose of a mechanical watch? I think GS makes awesome stuff, and I can’t wait to own one some day.

There is no battery, it is fully mechanical just a quartz crystal to regulate the mechanical speed to make it perfectly accurate.

It is also automatic - meaning self winding, you don't have to wind it. It has a rotor that spins with movement and winds the mainspring.

Originally Posted by rolexpatek363

Jura Watches, London

Thank you, I will check them out, as I want to go see one in real life! But expect an incoming post here soon!

[Rolexavidfan]

Originally Posted by |404|

There is no battery, it is fully mechanical just a quartz crystal to regulate the mechanical speed to make it perfectly accurate.



It is also automatic - meaning self winding, you don't have to wind it. It has a rotor that spins with movement and winds the mainspring.







Thank you, I will check them out, as I want to go see one in real life! But expect an incoming post here soon!

Are you sure if there is no need to wind it? In my other automatic, I can merely shake the watch and it will start ticking. But for an SD, you need to wind it first before it will starting functioning. No ticking sound for an AD.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Fredrik]

Originally Posted by cda555

I could be wrong, but spring Drive is battery free, right?

There are plenty of electronic watches that are battery free too, that is not the point. Electronics can be powered by batteries, capacitors, solar panels and a main spring for instance.

The integrated circuits in the spring drive is powered by the main spring and probably also helped by the large capacitor on the circuit board. See the picture above.

It is basically a mechanical watch with electronic regulation.

[GB-man]

No I don’t think Rolex need follow suit as they are doing just fine and it would seem like they are copying Seiko. One of the cooler aspects of the spring drive is the story of its development over decades. If Rolex just came out with something similar it wouldn’t be as cool.

[benlee]

They are very different but both great brands individually.