#watchtest wrap up


#watchtest day 6: Timex -2, B&R stopped, GMT Homage +46, Graham -25, Longines +2, Poljot +28, Rolex +23, Seiko (#womw) -41. These are totals

#watchtest day 5: Timex -1, B&R +6, GMT Homage +70, Graham +40, Longines +2, Poljot #womw +12, Rolex +210, Seiko -36. These are total times

Ok, if I’d wanted to do this quickly – and probably more accurately – I would have asked a watchmaker to use one of those electronic testing devices they have in their workshops to test my watches. But that wouldn’t have been nearly as much fun. 

So here’s how each watch performed:

Bell & Ross 01 – 92. Because of the width of the strap, this doesn’t fit on my winder and I forgot to give it a bit of a manual wind on day 5 which meant it’d stopped by da 6. Ignoring the operator error, +6 seconds in 5 days is just under a second a day on average. Pretty good in my book. 

GMT Homage. One of the two jokers in this pack, but for a watch that cost about $100, 70 seconds in 6 days, call it 12 a day, is OK. 

Graham Oversize Chronofighter GMT Big Date. For an expensive watch, dropping 25 seconds in 6 days, or 4 a day is a little disappointing. I’d prefer it was running fast than slow: it’s always better to be early than late. 

Longines triple date chrono moon phase.  I was really surprised by the result of a gain of only 2 seconds over 6 days. This watch doesn’t perform well on my winder (heavy rotor?) and as a result I don’t wear it all that often, which somehow equates in my mind to a lack of accuracy. 

Poljot chrono. The other joker. I wasn’t expecting much from a 30 year old Russian chrono with an unknown service history. So I’m happy it only gained 28 seconds. 

Rolex GMT. A little disappointing that having been recent serviced this gained 23 seconds in 6 days. While it’s just inside the COSC allowed variation, I was expecting better. I know a certain watchmaker who’s told me “I just need the back off for 30 seconds to fix it”. 

Seiko diver. I really expected this watch to shine. I’ve got an assortment of Seikos in my collection and I find them to be good time keepers. But then I tend to only war them for a day or two, not watch their accuracy over a longer period. 

Timex Ironman. Until the last day, I thought the 1 second variance the Timex was running at was more about hand / eye error when setting the watch than poor time keeping. I know it’s quartz, but it’s a cheap quartz ($70 or so when I bought it 5 years ago) so 2 seconds in 6 days is a good result.

I was going to try to formulate “Nick’s co-efficient of accuracy & value” and try to rate the watches by cost/value and time keeping. Pointless. 

It’s pointless because you don’t really need a super high level of accuracy. I don’t know what it’s like where you live, but in Melbourne, the train timetable is there as a guide, it’s not really the time the train is going to depart. Want to listen to the 6pm news? Are you really going to wait until 5:59:58 to turn the radio on?

If your life needs that sort of accuracy, I’m sure you’ve already got the timekeeper you need. 

For everyone else, just buy a watch you want to wear. 

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s