Rolex accuracy?

[JacksonStone]

Originally Posted by timedate

yes, but why would you not like such accuracy? Thats the name of the game, and its still a mechanical watch, amazing

It's not that I don't like accuracy. I do like my mechanicals to be as accurate as possible, but I want them to be fully mechanical. I don't see Spring Drive as a true mechanical watch. I get that the underlying movement is mechanical, but the increased accuracy isn't from the mechanical components: it's from the quartz crystal and electronics that regulate the timekeeping. What's so amazing about that? Once electronics enter the equation, we've left the realm of purely mechanical. But it's also not as accurate as full quartz. So again, I just don't see the point.

Maybe I've got a defect in my WIS DNA coding.

[darkside7]

What type of timegrapher is everyone using? Are most just using apps or the a real timegraher?

[Andad]

Originally Posted by JacksonStone

It's not that I don't like accuracy. I do like my mechanicals to be as accurate as possible, but I want them to be fully mechanical. I don't see Spring Drive as a true mechanical watch. I get that the underlying movement is mechanical, but the increased accuracy isn't from the mechanical components: it's from the quartz crystal and electronics that regulate the timekeeping. What's so amazing about that? Once electronics enter the equation, we've left the realm of purely mechanical. But it's also not as accurate as full quartz. So again, I just don't see the point.

Maybe I've got a defect in my WIS DNA coding.

If you want the best Rolex watch consistant accuracy not buy an OQ and meet this issue half way.

My ‘88 OQ runs at about +3/month and is more mechanical than quartz.

Movement looks ok.

[timedate]

Originally Posted by JacksonStone

It's not that I don't like accuracy. I do like my mechanicals to be as accurate as possible, but I want them to be fully mechanical. I don't see Spring Drive as a true mechanical watch. I get that the underlying movement is mechanical, but the increased accuracy isn't from the mechanical components: it's from the quartz crystal and electronics that regulate the timekeeping. What's so amazing about that? Once electronics enter the equation, we've left the realm of purely mechanical. But it's also not as accurate as full quartz. So again, I just don't see the point.

Maybe I've got a defect in my WIS DNA coding.

fair enough viewpoint

[Boaters]

My SD43 has been really good +2 sec in 5 days i am happy..

[Sucuri]

My two years old GMT is amazing, spot on forever it seems. I’ve been wearing it the last two weeks 24/7 and he has not lost or gained a second. Truly incredible. My Explorer 1 on the other hand...

[padi56]

Originally Posted by breitlings

Older Rolexes before like 2015 ish would be under COSC standards. So the midsize is out of COSC, +6/-4 per day, and the big one seems to be within +6/-4 per day. Newer Rolexes are regulated and guaranteed to be +2/-2 during warranty.

All the bare uncased movements are still tested at the COSC to a AVERAGE -4+6 seconds over any 24 hour period to get the COSC certification at time of testing only.Then Rolex retests the returned movements after being perhaps stored for weeks, months, on longer in the watches case to this new spec -2+2, and the amount of watches sold by Rolex each year around now 8500000 they must have some sort of machine that tests many at a time.Yes on a machine in a controlled environment they could pass this -2+2 test.But on the wrist could be different as there are many many variables in a uncontrolled wrist wearing environment.Like constantly affected by the earth's gravity positions on wrist, metal expansion and contraction,mainspring power-reserve, temperature variations, subtle changes in lubrication and friction, shocks plus many others.And for any mechanical watch to run to the COSC spec seeing there are 86400 seconds in a day truly is a mechanical marvel.

[rowlecks]

Originally Posted by darkside7

What type of timegrapher is everyone using? Are most just using apps or the a real timegraher?

Watch Tracker is the app that's been shown in some of the screenshots.

[GarbanzoNegro]

I think it is unacceptable and they must regulate it to the specs (+/-2) that they advertise. Period.

[timedate]

Originally Posted by GarbanzoNegro

I think it is unacceptable and they must regulate it to the specs (+/-2) that they advertise. Period.

thankyou

once i leave rolex ownership, i wont come back because of the subject in question, i am not leaving yet, i will be sending it to rolex london in the new year, but i will, nothings forever regarding possessions, plenty more choice out there.

[peterskinner]

Originally Posted by timedate

thankyou

once i leave rolex ownership, i wont come back because of the subject in question, i am not leaving yet, i will be sending it to rolex london in the new year, but i will, nothings forever regarding possessions, plenty more choice out there.

Where have Rolex ever 'guaranteed' that spec? What they say is that it met those parameters in factory tests....not on the wrist.
Unhappy people might be better-off buying a good quartz watch, or a spring-drive.No mechanical watch will meet such a tight spec in all wearing conditions. Quite unrealistic.

[Genevapics]

I bought a Z serial 14060m in 2007. Its never been serviced. If I wear the watch 24/7 (which I usually do) it loses one second (-1.0 sec) per day. If I take it off at night and lay it dial up, it will gain one second (+1.0) per day.

I find this remarkable for a mechanical watch! I will be sending it in for service in 2019 with the hope that it returns in the same running condition.

I use Time.gov as my source for checking accuracy. Hope this helps.

[AK DeepSea]

Originally Posted by peterskinner

Where have Rolex ever 'guaranteed' that spec? What they say is that it met those parameters in factory tests....not on the wrist.
Unhappy people might be better-off buying a good quartz watch, or a spring-drive.No mechanical watch will meet such a tight spec in all wearing conditions. Quite unrealistic.

My Omega begs to differ.

[wBrah]

My Sub loses about 0.5 sec by the evening so I leave it face up overnight. It's dead on in the morning.

[timedate]

Originally Posted by peterskinner

Where have Rolex ever 'guaranteed' that spec? What they say is that it met those parameters in factory tests....not on the wrist.
Unhappy people might be better-off buying a good quartz watch, or a spring-drive.No mechanical watch will meet such a tight spec in all wearing conditions. Quite unrealistic.

the testimony on here shows that your post is invalid,

many on here are saying their rolex more than meets the accuracy claim by rolex ,and that they are delighted, some are almost up there with spring drive accuracy,

on the other hand there are many like me who are not getting this type of rolex, we are getting below par performance from the 'worlds greatest watch brand'

for you to say i am being unrealistic to expect better than plus 10 is ridiculous, no one has said that there may be a quality control issue at the factory,


p.s i have my quartz thankyou.

[MikeyV]

Just to add to this, I got a DJ41 new in June 2018. Worn 14 hours a day, not wound by hand in 2 months, it gained about 20 seconds, or .3 a day. It seemed to gain about the same each day.
Then I gave it a full wind, and just like that, it now loses about 2-2.5 seconds a day, consistently. So in the 8 days since I've wound it, it's lost about 19 seconds.

Close enough for me. But I find the sudden change strange. But it's error (fast or slow) seems to be nearly the same day to day, so that's nice. I won't be sending it in, don't want it opened, and I can't be without it for weeks.

[darkside7]

I think people needs to take it to a shop and get a real reading instead of just using an app. You need a real solid base line. Just my thought.

[Sebastian5]

Originally Posted by darkside7

What type of timegrapher is everyone using? Are most just using apps or the a real timegraher?

I use Watchtracker app. Not as reliable as a imegrapher because you have to tap when a certain time is reached. So there's a bit of reaction time. But with enought data points it's probably quite reliable.

[GarbanzoNegro]

Originally Posted by peterskinner

Where have Rolex ever 'guaranteed' that spec? What they say is that it met those parameters in factory tests....not on the wrist.

Unhappy people might be better-off buying a good quartz watch, or a spring-drive.No mechanical watch will meet such a tight spec in all wearing conditions. Quite unrealistic.

First, it was via COSC. I have been enjoying my Explorer for more than 15 years within these specifications (precisely, approx. + 1 or 2 spd).

Second, Rolex states a precision of -2/+2 spd.

A look at the source is always helpful. You are welcome. ;-)

[77T]

4 different threads started on this YM and how it’s working. Try to be happy knowing there’s nothing really wrong with that YM.

You get +4s/day instead of +2s/day...

Enjoy the watch and you’ll always be early for meetings, appointments and engagements.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

[padi56]

Originally Posted by 77T

4 different threads started on this YM and how it’s working. Try to be happy knowing there’s nothing really wrong with that YM.

You get +4s/day instead of +2s/day...

Enjoy the watch and you’ll always be early for meetings, appointments and engagements.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

Have to agree and if any watch is regulated on a machine like this new -2+2 SPEC at time of testing in a controlled environment,but in a uncontrolled environment results on the wrist could be different.I have seen many posts on forum saying there watches have not lost or gained a second in days, weeks,or even a month plus. IMHO some of these posts the owners must live on fantasy island or have a movement in a 100000000.

[peterskinner]

Originally Posted by timedate

the testimony on here shows that your post is invalid,

many on here are saying their rolex more than meets the accuracy claim by rolex ,and that they are delighted, some are almost up there with spring drive accuracy,

on the other hand there are many like me who are not getting this type of rolex, we are getting below par performance from the 'worlds greatest watch brand'

for you to say i am being unrealistic to expect better than plus 10 is ridiculous, no one has said that there may be a quality control issue at the factory,


p.s i have my quartz thankyou.

' invalid' really ? I beg to differ; there are , literally, hundreds of thousands of Rolexes out there. Of course some will be more precise than others. Statistically, some will be amazingly accurate, for a while. But , overall, you can't guarantee this level of precision on the wrist. There are too many variables.
There's a natural statistical spread. That isn't evidence of 'quality control issues at the factory.'
But, if unhappy, send it back.

[JacksonStone]

Originally Posted by peterskinner

' invalid' really ?

Well, essentially Rolex does guarantee it, insofar as they post the specs on their website, which is an open invitation for anyone to get their watch regulated under warranty if it doesn't perform to that standard. And while I can't say that a Rolex, or any other mechanical watch, would perform to that standard under all wearing conditions, I can say mine exceeds that spec under all the wearing conditions to which I expose it. I don't know that that invalidates your statement, but it does suggest it might be a bit overbroad. Perhaps I'll eat my words years down the road, if its performance degrades and can't be brought back to spec, but after two years, it's as accurate as it's ever been.

[Dirt]

Originally Posted by JacksonStone

It's not that I don't like accuracy. I do like my mechanicals to be as accurate as possible, but I want them to be fully mechanical. I don't see Spring Drive as a true mechanical watch. I get that the underlying movement is mechanical, but the increased accuracy isn't from the mechanical components: it's from the quartz crystal and electronics that regulate the timekeeping. What's so amazing about that? Once electronics enter the equation, we've left the realm of purely mechanical. But it's also not as accurate as full quartz. So again, I just don't see the point.

Maybe I've got a defect in my WIS DNA coding.

I admire the Spring drive from a technological stand point.
It effectively eliminates the main weakness or deficiency with a purely mechanical movement.

It's a sort of hybrid between mechanical and quartz.
Perhaps with the best of both worlds.
But it may be another answer to a question that nobody has really bothered to ask.

It just may simply be better to have a quartz movement if one is after accuracy along with simpler servicing requirements and be done with it. Change the battery as required.

[brandrea]

Originally Posted by directioneng

If you want the best Rolex watch consistant accuracy not buy an OQ and meet this issue half way.

My ‘88 OQ runs at about +3/month and is more mechanical than quartz.

Movement looks ok.

[Frank80]

Originally Posted by MikeyV

Just to add to this, I got a DJ41 new in June 2018. Worn 14 hours a day, not wound by hand in 2 months, it gained about 20 seconds, or .3 a day. It seemed to gain about the same each day.
Then I gave it a full wind, and just like that, it now loses about 2-2.5 seconds a day, consistently. So in the 8 days since I've wound it, it's lost about 19 seconds.

Close enough for me. But I find the sudden change strange. But it's error (fast or slow) seems to be nearly the same day to day, so that's nice. I won't be sending it in, don't want it opened, and I can't be without it for weeks.

If the watch hadn't been manually wound in two months then the mainspring was probably wound down. Watches speed up as they get to the end of their wind. When wound completely a watch should run at its slowest. Think of half wound as the perfect medium.

[timedate]

how often should you wind your rolex if like me you never take it off?

[Frank80]

My watch is around 2 secs slow daily when fully wound. I wear it about 15 hours a day and am fairly active during the day (I work as a server so always on the move). I check my watch timing once every couple weeks and when I find it's gained a minute instead of losing time, I give it a wind. I usually don't reset the time since I'll lose 2 secs a day for a while after that.

[JacksonStone]

Originally Posted by timedate

how often should you wind your rolex if like me you never take it off?

From the standpoint of keeping the power reserve up, maybe never. If you find the timekeeping a bit off, you could try topping it off once a week.

From the standpoint of keeping the stem in working order, it wouldn't be a bad idea to wind the watch monthly. We had a member here who, like you, never took his watch off, and went a very long time without winding it. At some point, he did need to wind it, and the action had become quite rough. He sent it in for service, and it turns out the oils had migrated away from the stem from lack of use. It was recommended to him he wind the watch monthly after that, just as a precaution.

[Jamie1111]

Originally Posted by timedate

yours is outside the spec aswell then,

i think there are many, many people with the same issue that just live with it,
i would'nt have mentioned it but someone started a thread, i mean they are the worlds greatest watches right, 3 times the price and all that......

maybe if i sleep on my other side it might improve

Minus point five is certainly well within specs...