Rolex - Part III
 

SmileWavyFor the people who wear their Rolex, can you post:

1. Model
2. # of seconds in gains or loses per day.

I just want to see the accuracy/difference of each.



A few years ago, I thought my watch gains between 5-10 seconds per day. I will post mine in a few days; I'll use tomorrow as a 'sync day.'

It varies depending on your level of activity, body temp and phase of the moon ;) If you really want to dial it in, record how much gain or loss it has for you on a typicaly wear and have your watch maker adjust it to you. Rolex usually run fast on me.

I won't go into the quality of material as I would think most would agree that craftmansship is superior.

However, the fact that you can engineer a mechanical movement that has an extremely low error factor.

I.E., I loose about 1 minute/month or 60 seconds. Or....approx: 2 seconds per day.

That means that the Rolex is NEVER really accurate. BUT...a Mechanical movement that looses 2 seconds out of 86,400 seconds per day is OK with me.

Wayne..

It is all about name recognition. Like many other products, people who can (and some who cannot) afford a "big name" item will go for it regardless.

I wonder if the Yugo had been rebadged as a BMW or a Porsche how many people would defend it as being a "great little machine"!!

Mine loses about a minute a month - and it's 22 years old and has endured all sort of torture.

I just recently took it off and have replaced it with a $50 casio ediface that has not lost a second in the past two months. I wonder how it will hold up.

For ultimate performance an atomic/radio, satellite or some kind of IP based Bluetooth/WiFi watch would be the ticket.

I have not found any that look non-geeky and are made to very high standards.

There are some very high quality quartz movements made/used by by big-name watch makers, but even quartz gives way to the above mentioned methods of timekeeping.

Best,

Kurt

Funny that you could buy a $15 Timex that is more accurate than a $15,000 Rolex. Of course, it won't be nearly as pretty.

I have a Tag. It is extremely accurate. Seconds per month, at the most. And extremeley durable.

Why wouldn't a Rolex be as good?

I have one of those I wear at work... synchronizes itself to the atomic clock radio signal every night... very cool and is accurate to a tenth (or maybe a hundredth) of a second.

But yeah, it is a Casio G-shock and looks tech-geeky... okay for work although I wear my Seiko's when I go out.

They are making some more fashionable models now, I will see if I can find one and post a picture.

Sorry for the slight thread Hi jack.

BTW I also have a Tag Heuer and like it but I'm going to sell it to fund the purchase of a Tissot.

Atomic analog watches:

http://forums.pelicanparts.com/uploa...1198261248.jpg
http://forums.pelicanparts.com/uploa...1198261265.jpg
http://forums.pelicanparts.com/uploa...1198261283.jpg
http://forums.pelicanparts.com/uploa...1198261297.jpg

the most important feature of a car: to not leak oil.

oh, wait...

The Rolex guy explained to me that as long as the rate of loss is consistent, like 1 minute/month it qualifies as a "Chronometer". I've been told that Rolexes are not on the Federal Railroad Administration's list of approved watches. My submariner loses about a minute a month. I don't need to be that on time for much of anything. But point taken about accuracy versus price.

+1

2 secs / month for mine. But my TAG has a quartz movement. Battery life >4 years.

Can we also get the Rolex guys to post near the wheels on their cars. Just your arm poking out with the watch on will be great.

Ok kidding aside, I think a Rolex would be cool, but with two kids under 5, I don't see it happening for a very long time. I can rationalize the 911 turbo, it gets me to work (in good weather). I wear a Fossil that has my company logo on it during the week, and a Timex triathalonly thing on the weekend.

Bill

FWIW, chronometer spec is between -4 and +6 sec/day. I've owned three Rolex that were +/- 1 sec/day; Ref. 1575 GMT, a 11660 Seadweller, and a 116520 Daytona. My 114270 Explorer is chronometer rated and was +6 sec/day the last time I checked.

Wayne, if you can show me a non-automatic watch that looks as cool as my Breitling or Sinn, I'd love to see it. I don't think any of the Seiko Kinetics or Citizen Eco-Drives or other such watches look nearly as cool. And not having a battery means you won't compromise its water resistance to change it.

Me too; I also love my Sinn.

Solar takes care of most of the battery issue then give it a radio to receive time signals or network time from WiFi hot spots. It should also have a high-grade quartz movement, use modern alloys (maybe Ti or Sinn's Tegimented steel) and look cool, but not geeky. :D

Best,

Kurt

I don't know anyone who gives a flying frack whether their watch is accurate to two - or even twenty - seconds a month. I mean who cares?

I do care that it is 200% reliable and lasts forever. I like the fact that explorers wear them (and they do), and that mountaineers and submariners swear by them etc etc. These things are indestructable - and they feel good. That's enough for me.

You want atomic accuracy? You probably also want a little calculator and a blood pressure meter. I think Casio makes a few of those.

A lot of folks do care about accuracy, even in the seconds/day range . . . that's why there is the COSC. :p

Best,

Kurt :cool:

You're wrong.

It's buying an old air cooled Porsche. ...Runs forever... but A/C is awful, leaks oil. ...And has a mystique.

An old english car doesn't even run reliably.


IMO.

Am I banned now?