# What Wristwatches Give the Most Accurate Time?



## Roger (Feb 18, 2005)

Although not a watch aficionado the way some on this forum are, I am interested in fine watches. Unfortunately, I also value precision, and this seems to place me squarely into the quartz camp wrt today's watches. So here's my multi-part question:

1. What watch available today gives the absolute most accurate time? By this I mean staying within the smallest range of the correct time over a long time period. I read on one recent thread that a new Citizen watch was guaranteed to stay within 5 seconds over a period of a year. Is the best out there, or are there others that can match that?

2. Since the usual suspects in this department--Citizen, Seiko, Cascio, et al., fall somewhat below the threshold of desirable dress watches, are there some "better" watches that can match--or come reasonably close to--this level of accuracy? Omega, Breitling, Baume & Mercier, etc.?

3. How many others value this level of accuracy? I know that, for most activities by most people, being within a minute or two of the correct time is entirely sufficient, but there's something about this imprecision that bugs me and seems un-2006-like. What do the rest of you think?


----------



## jbmcb (Sep 7, 2005)

Atomics.

More specifically, wristwatches that listen to the public transmission of WWV on 5, 10 and 15MHz, a shortwave time broadcast station. The clock mechanisms in these can be more accurate than the display lag of the LCD display or second-hand solenoid. That is to say, much, much more accurate than you really need.

Unfortunatley they are usually a bit on the large side, and somewhat plastic and ugly looking.


----------



## DocHolliday (Apr 11, 2005)

I think we're in differing camps on this one, Roger. Somehow an atomic watch strikes me as a bit too perfect -- like guys who dress so immaculately they look like shop dummies. I have much more appreciation for an old-fashioned mechanical, even if its gears and springs can't quite manage absolute precision. Or maybe it's _because_ they can't. There's something soulless about perfection, in my mind.

It's not like I have anywhere I need to be so desperately, anyway.


----------



## Don Goldstein (Dec 25, 2005)

Here is the Citizen:


I think it is about $1300 or so. Personally, I don't think I would pay that much for a Citizen watch.

How much accuracy do you really need? Is 30 seconds per month okay?


----------



## Bertie Wooster (Feb 11, 2006)

jbmcb said:


> Atomics.
> 
> More specifically, wristwatches that listen to the public transmission of WWV on 5, 10 and 15MHz, a shortwave time broadcast station. The clock mechanisms in these can be more accurate than the display lag of the LCD display or second-hand solenoid. That is to say, much, much more accurate than you really need.
> 
> Unfortunatley they are usually a bit on the large side, and somewhat plastic and ugly looking.





DocHolliday said:


> I think we're in differing camps on this one, Roger. Somehow an atomic watch strikes me as a bit too perfect -- like guys who dress so immaculately they look like shop dummies. I have much more appreciation for an old-fashioned mechanical, even if its gears and springs can't quite manage absolute precision. Or maybe it's _because_ they can't. There's something soulless about perfection, in my mind.
> 
> It's not like I have anywhere I need to be so desperately, anyway.


Wierdly, I agree with both of you. However, purely on an accuracy front, I'd say take a look at Junghans. I rarely see them in the trade myself, however I've heard good things about their quality. The have a bit of a following I believe.


----------



## Laxplayer (Apr 26, 2006)

I inherited my grandfather's Omega, and it keeps accurate time. I don't know the exact age, but it is approximately late 50's to early 60's.


----------



## chorse123 (Apr 14, 2004)

I like the idea of having a very casual atomic watch (though I don't have one), and then a couple mechanical.


----------



## going grey (May 22, 2006)

My wife and I both bought Rolexes a couple of years ago in a fit of blingy behaviour.They're not very accurate at all and (of course) stop-when you don't wear them regularly. But then as someone else said I don't need to be that accurate about exactly what time it is.
The most vicious put-down I ever heard was to a guy wearing a chronometer with 3 small dials set into the face. The woman to whom he'd been coming on , allowed him to explain at great length how it could record intervals of a zillionth of a second etc etc. She sniffed haughtily and said it probably came in handy for timing his sexual performance.


----------



## ice (Sep 2, 2005)

Roger said:


> A
> 
> 2. Since the usual suspects in this department--Citizen, Seiko, Cascio, et al., fall somewhat below the threshold of desirable dress watches, are there some "better" watches that can match--or come reasonably close to--this level of accuracy? Omega, Breitling, Baume & Mercier, etc.?


Citizen and Seiko both make terrific dress watches. Why would you think they are less desireable? Because they are less expensive than some other designer brand?


----------



## Roger (Feb 18, 2005)

Don Goldstein said:


> Here is the Citizen:
> 
> I think it is about $1300 or so. Personally, I don't think I would pay that much for a Citizen watch.
> How much accuracy do you really need? Is 30 seconds per month okay?


Don, thanks for this. I take it that it's not one of the "atomic watches" noted in other posts. Or is it?

That's a very good question about how much accuracy I need. To be truthful, I don't really _need_ any more than anyone else--I'm not a commando involved in precisely-timed missions, after all--but I do find it annoying that a quartz watch made in 2006 will gain (or worse, lose) a 2 or 3 seconds a day, and, I would guess, an automatic much more than that. I have a vintage Omega Seamaster quartz that stays within about 6 or 7 seconds a month, which I gather is considered pretty good. This watch was made around 1980, and it surprises and bugs me that the 2006 Seamasters don't do any better wrt accuracy.

_Edit:_ Maybe I have too many Victorian "perfectability of man" notions for my own good!


----------



## Artisan Fan (Jul 21, 2006)

My Tiffany with a humble ETA movement keeps great time and so does my Rolex when its properly maintained.


----------



## m kielty (Dec 22, 2005)

jbmcb said:


> Atomics.
> 
> More specifically, wristwatches that listen to the public transmission of WWV on 5, 10 and 15MHz, a shortwave time broadcast station. The clock mechanisms in these can be more accurate than the display lag of the LCD display or second-hand solenoid. That is to say, much, much more accurate than you really need.
> 
> Unfortunatley they are usually a bit on the large side, and somewhat plastic and ugly looking.


I have an atomic and it is truly, "...plastic and ugly...", but interesting.

There is a vintage Rolex in the drawer and a couple of okay mechanicals.

I've been collecting quartz watches.
I just got an early Girard Perregaux quartz, it's very large, the movement looks like the inside of a TV set.

My everyday watch is a mid-nineties Swatch. 
It keeps perfect time.

I read recently that Seiko makes everything about their quartz movements including the screws.

Seiko makes beautiful dress watches.


----------



## Gherkins (Jul 10, 2005)

I fail to understand why someone could be interested in a quartz watch when he is esteeming handmade shoes, shirts and suits.
In the end it comes down to capabilities and love of the creator. Forget the accuracy and be pleased by the craftsmanship which was necessary to build a mechanical watch.


----------



## Roger (Feb 18, 2005)

ice said:


> Citizen and Seiko both make terrific dress watches. Why would you think they are less desireable? Because they are less expensive than some other designer brand?


Perhaps I should have elaborated a little on my use of "desirable" and "better." I was referring to watches that have a little more cachet than Citizen and Seiko, the latter usually being seen as pretty utilitarian and inexpensive timepieces. I think that most forumers would probably agree that to be wearing an IWC watch is--all other things equal--preferable to be wearing a Citizen. These watches that I've identified as "better" are the ones that have better finishing, finer lines and styling, etc. I wouldn't call them "designer" watches; I'd reserve that term for Gucci, Prada, Armani, Hugo Boss etc., watches. I was referring instead to Omega, Breitling, Baume & Mercier, JLC, IWC, Tag Heuer, etc.--excellent watches by old Swiss companies, not the bling that the "designer" brands put out. However, I do realize that the assertion that such "better" watches actually _are_ better than Citizen/Seiko can be challenged. :icon_smile_wink:


----------



## norcaltransplant (Jan 13, 2004)

Actually, if you want an exceptionally accurate mechanical, *Seiko* _is_ probably your best bet. Their new Spring Drives are a remarkable feat of engineering, and are technologically on par or superior to their Swiss and German counterparts. Pricewise, they are a little cheaper than the most pretigious brands ($3-4k at retail), but nothing like your $100 Seiko 5.


----------



## Don Goldstein (Dec 25, 2005)

About every 5 years or so, someone makes an extremely accurate quartz watch. Longines did a while back. So did Pulsar.

To be extremely accurate, the quartz has to be very precisely cut and have a thermal compensation mechanism (to deal with the expansion and contraction).

I really don't know if a regular quartz Patek Philippe will keep better time than a regular quartz Seiko.

Personally, I don't think it is too good of an idea to spend too much on a quartz watch. They probably will never have any collector value (maybe in a few hundred years).


----------



## m kielty (Dec 22, 2005)

norcaltransplant said:


> Actually, if you want an exceptionally accurate mechanical, *Seiko* _is_ probably your best bet. Their new Spring Drives are a remarkable feat of engineering, and are technologically on par or superior to their Swiss and German counterparts. Pricewise, they are a little cheaper than the most pretigious brands ($3-4k at retail), but nothing like your $100 Seiko 5.


I went to the website..beautiful watch!


----------



## m kielty (Dec 22, 2005)

Don Goldstein said:


> About every 5 years or so, someone makes an extremely accurate quartz watch. Longines did a while back. So did Pulsar.
> 
> To be extremely accurate, the quartz has to be very precisely cut and have a thermal compensation mechanism (to deal with the expansion and contraction).
> 
> ...


I'm hoping that everyone continues to throw them out, especially those Bulgari's.


----------



## lichMD (Jun 30, 2005)

Interesting question.

I'm more concerned with workmanship, esthetics and history of craftmanship.
I have a vintage Rolex GMT (accurate within 3 seconds per day), a Daytona (accurate to within 1 second per day) and a mechanical Panerai (Black seal) that is also accurate within 1 sec/day. The last has become my daily wear, the first is in the safe awaiting my eldest child 18th birthday. The Daytona comes out of the winder about once a week.
Iwouldn't worry overmuch about having the most accurate watch in the world, any COSC certified watch should do. Wear what you like.


----------



## steveincharlotte (Aug 24, 2006)

I used to be really fussy about the "correct" time, but as I get older I care less and less. I also care more and more about workmanship in watches. Unfortunately, there isn't a good correlation between accuracy and workmanship. I've had one watch (a Seiko quartz) that I wear for yard work and camping that served as my standard so that I can periodically reset all my other watches against it when they lose time or run down. Now, I simply look at my cellphone, which downloads time from the satellite. One more reason why my watch doesn't have to have atomic accuracy.

steve


----------



## Don Goldstein (Dec 25, 2005)

I think a nice dress quartz watch has a place in one's wardrobe. But spending a lot on a quartz watch doesn't make too much sense, unless you really, really like it.


----------



## GMF (Jun 28, 2006)

If you guys want to hang out where accuracy is paramount, visit the High End Quartz forum over at watchuseek.com. I was the founding moderator of that forum and it's full of good discussions about cutting edge quartz technology.

As to the most accurate wrist watch of all time, that accolade goes to the Omega Marine Chronometer from the mid 70s. The ones that were actually certified at Neuchatel observatory were accurate to within ~1 sec per year.

​


----------



## tasteful one (Oct 6, 2006)

*And the correct answer is....*

....ANY watch these days is pretty darn accurate. The state of the art is such that all watches are fairly advanced in their ability to keep accurate time and the differences between them are insignificant. Any difference between brands models, etc. is probably more due to misadjustment of that particular watch rather than the superiority 9or inferiority) of an entire brand. So, buy what you like (or want to spend), and if it's not accurate, have it adjusted.

For what it's worth, I have a NIB gorgeous Baume and Mercier copper faced rectangular quartz for sale if anyone's interested.


----------



## GMF (Jun 28, 2006)

tasteful one said:


> ....ANY watch these days is pretty darn accurate. The state of the art is such that all watches are fairly advanced in their ability to keep accurate time and the differences between them are insignificant. Any difference between brands models, etc. is probably more due to misadjustment of that particular watch rather than the superiority 9or inferiority) of an entire brand.


This is simply inaccurate (no pun intended). The typical quartz movement, be it Swiss (ETA, Ronda) or Japanese (Citizen-Miyota, Seiko) is going to be accurate to about 30 sec *per month*. When you get into high-end quartz movements like the ETA Thermoline (used in Breitling's SuperQuartz models), the Seiko 9F (used in the Grand Seiko), and the Citizen A660 (used in The CITIZEN), you're talking about thermocompensated movements that are far more technologically advanced than their lesser cousins. All of these movements are easily capable of accuracy in the 4 to 10 sec *per year* range.


----------



## tasteful one (Oct 6, 2006)

*ah, science....*



GMF said:


> This is simply inaccurate (no pun intended). The typical quartz movement, be it Swiss (ETA, Ronda) or Japanese (Citizen-Miyota, Seiko) is going to be accurate to about 30 sec *per month*. When you get into high-end quartz movements like the ETA Thermoline (used in Breitling's SuperQuartz models), the Seiko 9F (used in the Grand Seiko), and the Citizen A660 (used in The CITIZEN), you're talking about thermocompensated movements that are far more technologically advanced than their lesser cousins. All of these movements are easily capable of accuracy in the 4 to 10 sec *per year* range.


Point is, at 30 sec/month or 10 sec/year, both are 'accurate', and for just about everyone, the difference is undetectable.

I buy based on manufacturer, the history of the company, the quality of the movement (which goes beyond mere accuracy) the overall look and feel of the piece. Regardless of how many angels can dance on the end of a pin, without those other qualities, I could give a hoot about a few seconds/year...quartz pieces of any manufacture are soulless machines...regardless of how 'accurate' they are.


----------



## Newton (Oct 6, 2006)

30 seconds per month will do me just fine thanks!


----------



## harrybee (Jul 17, 2006)

Newton said:


> 30 seconds per month will do me just fine thanks!


So melbore class!


----------



## zegnamtl (Apr 19, 2005)

Edited out,

Irrelevant to the level of accuracy spoken of:

"accuracy in the 4 to 10 sec per year range"


----------



## Roger (Feb 18, 2005)

tasteful one said:


> ....ANY watch these days is pretty darn accurate. The state of the art is such that all watches are fairly advanced in their ability to keep accurate time and the differences between them are insignificant. Any difference between brands models, etc. is probably more due to misadjustment of that particular watch rather than the superiority 9or inferiority) of an entire brand. So, buy what you like (or want to spend), and if it's not accurate, have it adjusted.
> 
> For what it's worth, I have a NIB gorgeous Baume and Mercier copper faced rectangular quartz for sale if anyone's interested.


Do you, then, consider the "differences between them...insignificant," when we are comparing a mechanical (say automatic) watch that can gain 10 seconds per _day_ and one of those identified by GMF as capable as staying within 10 seconds in a _year_? To me a factor of 365:1 definitely deserves the adjective "significant"! Keep in mind you said "ANY watch these days...." Although you may not "give a hoot" about accuracy and may find quartz watches "soulless," the fact remains that some of us do give a hoot and consider any watch to be a piece of mechanical equipment whose first duty is to keep good time. Of course, most of us on this forum give a great deal of attention to esthetics as well, and to my eye, there is absolutely no esthetic difference between an Omega Seamaster automatic and the corresponding Omega Seamaster quartz if we understand esthetics to mean the appearance of something.

You also state that the "quality of the movement...goes beyond mere accuracy." Does this mean that a highly-refined mechanical movement, made by a famous company with a 150-year history, hand-polished and fitted, but which loses 3 minutes per day--and can't be made to keep better time (a not uncommon phenomenon with automatics)--should still be considered of high quality? Higher, for example, that of a cheap Cascio watch that keeps time within 10 seconds per year and does so forever? In other words, does quality exist independently of performance? In the one case above, I'd just not wear the watch--too inaccurate. In the other case, I'd probably wear it all the time, except for dressy occasions when esthetics trump performance.


----------



## Artisan Fan (Jul 21, 2006)

> I opted for the IWC, after several discussions with him and spending an evening with the people at A. Lange, it was clear that the IWC would last a life time, is a great watch, and was heads above the others in the price area I could live with. I found a slightly unique model that I was very fond of. I have never regretted the choice.


I love the IWC watches...Overstock has a deal on the Portofino which I posted a link to in my Rolex thread.

It's great that someone spent so much time with you. Those people are very rare.


----------



## Roger (Feb 18, 2005)

GMF said:


> This is simply inaccurate (no pun intended). The typical quartz movement, be it Swiss (ETA, Ronda) or Japanese (Citizen-Miyota, Seiko) is going to be accurate to about 30 sec *per month*. When you get into high-end quartz movements like the ETA Thermoline (used in Breitling's SuperQuartz models), the Seiko 9F (used in the Grand Seiko), and the Citizen A660 (used in The CITIZEN), you're talking about thermocompensated movements that are far more technologically advanced than their lesser cousins. All of these movements are easily capable of accuracy in the 4 to 10 sec *per year* range.


GMF, I'm grateful that you've joined this discussion. From what I've read so far on this thread, if accuracy truly _is_ paramount, you'd better leave the quartz watches and look at the atomics. Until I started this thread this morning, I had no knowledge of atomic watches, but through the day have done a little googling as time permitted. Bertie Wooster's suggestion of looking at the Junghans watches was a good one. They appear to make the best--at least most expensive--of the atomics. One movement that appeals to me is a solar-powered atomic (although I guess it might be slightly inaccurate to refer to an atomic as having a "movement"). These never need battery replacement and, as far as I can tell, are accurate right to the millisecond at all times.

Do you, or anyone else, know of atomic watches that are sufficiently refined esthetically to be worn as a dress watch? Some of the Junghans models are pretty nice-looking--and not too, too big (39 mm., which is, however, really larger than I'd like for a dress watch)--but certainly not up to a really beautiful dress watch.


----------



## GMF (Jun 28, 2006)

Roger said:


> GMF, I'm grateful that you've joined this discussion. From what I've read so far on this thread, if accuracy truly _is_ paramount, you'd better leave the quartz watches and look at the atomics. Until I started this thread this morning, I had no knowledge of atomic watches, but through the day have done a little googling as time permitted. Bertie Wooster's suggestion of looking at the Junghans watches was a good one. They appear to make the best--at least most expensive--of the atomics. One movement that appeals to me is a solar-powered atomic (although I guess it might be slightly inaccurate to refer to an atomic as having a "movement"). These never need battery replacement and, as far as I can tell, are accurate right to the millisecond at all times.
> 
> Do you, or anyone else, know of atomic watches that are sufficiently refined esthetically to be worn as a dress watch? Some of the Junghans models are pretty nice-looking--and not too, too big (39 mm., which is, however, really larger than I'd like for a dress watch)--but certainly not up to a really beautiful dress watch.


The only "atomic" watches I know of are just run-of-the-mill quartz watches that have a radio transmitter that periodically syncs the quartz oscilator to an atomic clock somewhere. To me, this is just a modern hi-tech way of resetting a watch against a known time standard, which is exactly what our great grandfathers did with their pocket watches 100 years ago. They just did it with the crown and their fingers, not electronics and radio signals.


----------



## m kielty (Dec 22, 2005)

GMF said:


> If you guys want to hang out where accuracy is paramount, visit the High End Quartz forum over at watchuseek.com. I was the founding moderator of that forum and it's full of good discussions about cutting edge quartz technology.
> As to the most accurate wrist watch of all time, that accolade goes to the Omega Marine Chronometer from the mid 70s. The ones that were actually certified at Neuchatel observatory were accurate to within ~1 sec per year.


Thanks for the link.


----------



## Roger (Feb 18, 2005)

GMF said:


> The only "atomic" watches I know of are just run-of-the-mill quartz watches that have a radio transmitter that periodically syncs the quartz oscilator to an atomic clock somewhere. To me, this is just a modern hi-tech way of resetting a watch against a known time standard, which is exactly what our great grandfathers did with their pocket watches 100 years ago. They just did it with the crown and their fingers, not electronics and radio signals.


Oh, is that how they work? How frequently does this resetting the watch occur? To me at least, this seems like a desirable enhancement to the quartz technology.


----------



## rip (Jul 13, 2005)

Bertie Wooster said:


> Wierdly, I agree with both of you. However, purely on an accuracy front, I'd say take a look at Junghans. I rarely see them in the trade myself, however I've heard good things about their quality. The have a bit of a following I believe.


If memory serves, most of the "atomic" wristwatches only check the time 2 or 3 times a day, and are not particularly noted for their accuracy between those times. Almost any quartz-based timepiece, properly adjusted, will keep accurate time within a very few seconds per month. If that isn't accurate enough for you, I would seriously suggest seeking professional help.


----------



## des merrion (Oct 1, 2006)

Roger,
I wear an Omega Constellation, perpetual calendar.
I bought it 6 years ago and it has had its first new battery this year. 
It keeps FABULOUS time, to the second. I have never had to reset the time once.
I have posted elsewhere regarding Rolex. 
I bought my wife one this March ( she also had an Omega ), it does not keep good time, gaining about 5 MINUTES a month. I spoke to a jeweller friend of mine, not the guy on the corner, he and his brother are involved with the maintainance, repair and research for the National Maritime Museum in the UK, he was not suprised with the Rolex. His comment was for general accuracy, you cannot beat a quartz movement, any quartz,a £2,000 Omega, or a £15 Timex.

www.desmerrionbespoketailor.com


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

DocHolliday said:


> I think we're in differing camps on this one, Roger. Somehow an atomic watch strikes me as a bit too perfect -- like guys who dress so immaculately they look like shop dummies. I have much more appreciation for an old-fashioned mechanical, even if its gears and springs can't quite manage absolute precision. Or maybe it's _because_ they can't. There's something soulless about perfection, in my mind.
> 
> It's not like I have anywhere I need to be so desperately, anyway.


I am with Doc on this one...there is an undeniable appeal to "old fashioned" mechanical watches...vintage Hamiltons are my favorite. I feel the same way with regard to my other possessions...guess some of us just miss the "good old days!"


----------



## pkincy (Feb 9, 2006)

It is ez to differ here.

Do you drive a 72 BMW 2002 ti or do you drive a BMW 330i?

I know people that have multiple 2002 tis. I know more people that drive a modern car.

The world is large enough for both. My cars are old, my watches are new.

great taste...................less filling.

Perry


----------



## Fogey (Aug 27, 2005)

GMF said:


> As to the most accurate wrist watch of all time, that accolade goes to the Omega Marine Chronometer from the mid 70s. The ones that were actually certified at Neuchatel observatory were accurate to within ~1 sec per year.


That's very interesting. Some have pointed out that 1970s, in many senses, were the technological peak of civilisation. The Concorde, World Trade Towers, regular moon walks (and the zenith of space exploration), the invention of face lifts, fiberobtics and microprocessors, the largest ships ever built - and now, apparently, the most accurate wrist watch of all time as well.


----------



## Roger (Feb 18, 2005)

eagle2250 said:


> I am with Doc on this one...there is an undeniable appeal to "old fashioned" mechanical watches...vintage Hamiltons are my favorite. I feel the same way with regard to my other possessions...guess some of us just miss the "good old days!"


Actually, I don't see myself in a different camp from you or the Doc on this--to me it's not an either/or proposition. I too like possessions with real handwork, esthetic charm, and character, and, as a result, am interested in vintage watches. I currently have three--two late-70s Omega Seamasters (one in stainless steel and one gold filled) and an early-80s vermeil Cartier. These appeal to me for all the reasons a vintage Hamilton appeals to you. In addition, however, there is a place in my watch collection and my life for something that is a technological marvel, giving almost perfect performance, although lacking the charm of lesser-performing watch-case mates. I'd wear the two examples at different times--undoubtedly never wearing the hi-tech version for dressy occasions (unless I could find one that was truly beautiful) where esthetics trumps all else. This is perhaps analogous to having leather/polyester sneakers in our shoe rack along with our EGs and JLobbs (although perhaps sitting at opposite ends from one another!). :icon_smile_wink:


----------



## tasteful one (Oct 6, 2006)

Roger said:


> Do you, then, consider the "differences between them...insignificant," when we are comparing a mechanical (say automatic) watch that can gain 10 seconds per _day_ and one of those identified by GMF as capable as staying within 10 seconds in a _year_? To me a factor of 365:1 definitely deserves the adjective "significant"! Keep in mind you said "ANY watch these days...." Although you may not "give a hoot" about accuracy and may find quartz watches "soulless," the fact remains that some of us do give a hoot and consider any watch to be a piece of mechanical equipment whose first duty is to keep good time. Of course, most of us on this forum give a great deal of attention to esthetics as well, and to my eye, there is absolutely no esthetic difference between an Omega Seamaster automatic and the corresponding Omega Seamaster quartz if we understand esthetics to mean the appearance of something.
> 
> You also state that the "quality of the movement...goes beyond mere accuracy." Does this mean that a highly-refined mechanical movement, made by a famous company with a 150-year history, hand-polished and fitted, but which loses 3 minutes per day--and can't be made to keep better time (a not uncommon phenomenon with automatics)--should still be considered of high quality? Higher, for example, that of a cheap Cascio watch that keeps time within 10 seconds per year and does so forever? In other words, does quality exist independently of performance? In the one case above, I'd just not wear the watch--too inaccurate. In the other case, I'd probably wear it all the time, except for dressy occasions when esthetics trump performance.


I think we look at watches differently. Some look at them as appliances to tell the time with secondary consideration given to esthetics. So, in absolute terms, yes 10 sec./year is significantly 'better' (i.e. more accurate) than 10 sec./day. So, by extension, the cheaper quartz $10 Casio IS higher quality. Function triumphs!

For others, a watch is more about other attributes, such as style or history, it's primarily a piece of jewelry with a function (instead of something functional with some esthetic appeal). ...they are the primary considerations in purchasing decisions. For people like that a few seconds here or there is inconsequential. Quality is defined by other factors. it's like comparing a Prius to a Maserati: Both do essentially the same thing, but yet are appreciated by different people.

Lastly, although I'd agree that most of us all share an appreciation of style (that's why we're here) how we define style, what's desirable to us is very different and unique. And sometimes nowhere more apparent are these differences than what we're wearing on our wrist...and why. I suppose that's the definition of 'taste'.


----------



## Cantabrigian (Aug 29, 2005)

tasteful one said:


> I have a NIB gorgeous Baume and Mercier copper faced rectangular quartz for sale if anyone's interested.


How could you bear to part with a quartz B&M??? :icon_scratch:


----------



## Joe Frances (Sep 1, 2004)

1. Quartz. Just about any quartz is very accurate. Spending anthing more than the cost of the cheapest Swatch for a quartz watch is a waste of money.
2. I consider the question to this inquiry generally irrelevant. The grand sweep of history, and the beauty and artisitry of the great Swiss watch makers is something great and magnificent to behold. I still marvel at the accuracy, beauty and strength of my Jaeger watches, and they are a source of pride and joy. But, a quartz watch tells time.

Joe


----------



## Roger (Feb 18, 2005)

*Irrelevant?*



Joe Frances said:


> I consider the question to this inquiry generally irrelevant.


 Irrelevant? To what? To whom?



Joe Francis said:


> The grand sweep of history, and the beauty and artisitry of the great Swiss watch makers is something great and magnificent to behold. I still marvel at the accuracy, beauty and strength of my Jaeger watches, and they are a source of pride and joy. But, a quartz watch tells time.


I wonder whether the "grand sweep of history" is _relevant_ here, since the question was about which modern watches were most accurate! Yes, a quartz watch does tell time--and does so much better than anything else--but the question was about which kept the _best_ time. Despite your indifference to this question, surely you can acknowledge that it could conceivably be of interest (and hence _relevant_) to some others. :icon_smile_wink:


----------



## tasteful one (Oct 6, 2006)

*Simple....*



Cantabrigian said:


> How could you bear to part with a quartz B&M??? :icon_scratch:


It was a gift from a someone...who wasn't aware that I favor mechanical watches....

A real treat for someone else, though..


----------



## zegnamtl (Apr 19, 2005)

Joe Frances said:


> .....I consider the question to this inquiry generally irrelevant......
> Joe


Joe,

If you find the thread irrelevant, that is fine, move on to the next thread and spare us the derogatory commentary.

Like many others, I have learned a great deal here.
None of which I am ever likely to apply, but it has been an interesting, informative and polite discussion.

GMF, 
thank you for shedding so much light on the variations of Quartz!


----------



## Artisan Fan (Jul 21, 2006)

> That's very interesting. Some have pointed out that 1970s, in many senses, were the technological peak of civilisation. The Concorde, World Trade Towers, regular moon walks (and the zenith of space exploration), the invention of face lifts, fiberobtics and microprocessors, the largest ships ever built - and now, apparently, the most accurate wrist watch of all time as well.


Don't forget shag carpeting.


----------



## drrac2 (Mar 25, 2006)

*NICE!!!*

"I fail to understand why someone could be interested in a quartz watch when he is esteeming handmade shoes, shirts and suits.
In the end it comes down to capabilities and love of the creator. Forget the accuracy and be pleased by the craftsmanship which was necessary to build a mechanical watch."

Very nice!!!


----------



## Roger (Feb 18, 2005)

drrac2 said:


> "I fail to understand why someone could be interested in a quartz watch when he is esteeming handmade shoes, shirts and suits.
> In the end it comes down to capabilities and love of the creator. Forget the accuracy and be pleased by the craftsmanship which was necessary to build a mechanical watch."


Why can't a person be interested in and appreciative of both--and own more than one watch?! Perhaps it's just a matter of some people having more strings to their bows...or arrows in their quiver...or...oh, you get the idea! :icon_smile_wink:


----------



## Roger (Feb 18, 2005)

*My New Everyday Watch*

Nearly 2 years after the last post in this thread, I've purchased what I consider to be a wristwatch that nicely addresses two passions of mine--precision and beauty: the _Citizen Chronomaster_ (yep, a Citizen watch!). This watch, also referred to as _The Citizen_, is presently the most accurate watch on the planet (I guess I should say that its movement--the Citizen A660 movement--is what is the most accurate), specified to stay within 5 seconds per _*year*_. It also meets my aesthetic requirements, being a pretty plain watch in design (albeit providing all the information I need from a watch), but really beautifully made and finished, and not overly large or overburdened by dials-within-dials, diving bezels, moon-phase sectors, or any complications beyond the date (not really a complication, I guess). Here's a picture--from an eBay listing, and not the source of mine:

This watch is part of a genre of highly-accurate, beautifully-made, aesthetically-pleasing watches--a group that includes the equally-appealing Grand Seikos. This model works well for me. I chose the black dial (and the lumed hands and hour batons) for greater visibility from a distance, but this watch is made in many color/metal configurations. Mine is titanium, thus very light. Time will tell (no pun intended) whether it lives up to its +/- 5 sec./year specs.

I also joined the High-End Quartz sub-forum over at the Watchuseek forum. It's been very informative and a lot of fun. I know that this kind of watch will appeal to a small minority on this forum, but to me, I'd take it (and did!) in a nanosecond over any Rolex that provides the +/- 5-second/*day* accuracy found with almost all mechanical watches. Much of its beauty is _inside_ the case! :icon_smile:


----------



## Relayer (Nov 9, 2005)

My casual knock-around watch is a $35 Timex Expedition. It gains about 18 seconds a year, so it's not quite as accurate as your new Citizen. Admittedly, it's not quite as nice looking either 

Seriously, though, that's a beautiful watch. It's good that you found what you were looking for.


----------



## JAGMAJ (Feb 10, 2005)

It's nice to know that one can get a mechanical watch with that kind of accuracy. Just the other day, I posted about my fairly cheap Citizen Promaster staying within 1 second/month accuracy and it's only a quartz. Given that this thread has been resurrected, I noticed that nobody seemed to answer the original question very well back then. I would still like to know which of the "high-end" mechanical watches is generally the most accurate. By "high-end," I mean something considered nicer than a Seiko or Citizen.


----------



## Roger (Feb 18, 2005)

Jagmaj, the Citizen Chronomaster is not a mechanical watch, but rather a quartz watch. No mechanical watch can come remotely close to the accuracy level of a good quartz watch--or even a cheap one. Your Citizen Promaster is a good watch, and 1 second per month is very, very good accuracy. The next accuracy level down from the Chronomaster's 5 sec./year is 10 sec./year, about what you're getting. The quartz Grand Seikos fall into that category, as do several other watches, including at least one European watch, a Breitling with a quartz EPA Thermoline movement. Almost all the watches in this very top tier of accuracy use _thermocompensated_ (meaning that they adjust for temperature differences) quartz movements. I don't think that your Promaster has thermocompensation, but its accuracy is top-drawer anyway.

As noted, no mechanical (automatic or otherwise) comes close to quartz accuracy, although now Seiko has their Spring Drive technology in some of their top-end mechanical watches. The specs for the Spring Drives are 1 sec./day, which is truly exceptional for a mechanical watch. Some would say, however, that the Spring Drives are not truly mechanical watches, although they do operate through a mainspring and regulating system. Perhaps they could be regarded as more of a hybrid.

There is a growing appreciation, I believe, for the top-end Japanese watches like the Grand Seikos and top-end Citizens, like those in their Chronomaster, Exceed, and Campanola lines. These are certainly not cheap watches, with a mechanical or Spring Drive Grand Seiko going for $6K-$7K, and top-end Chronomasters and Campanolas going for $3K-$4K. In two recent polls run (I think) on the Watchuseek forum (which has fans from all brands--European and Japanese), respondents chose a Grand Seiko over a comparable Rolex (in terms of functions/complications).

As for the "prestige" or "cachet" category (I'll eschew "high-end"), almost all the top European watchmakers make accurate quartz watches. I have two Omegas, for example, that stay within about 4 sec./month. Rolex's Oysterquartz was (I don't think it's made anymore) considered a fine and accurate watch. As noted earlier, Breitling make at least one model with a thermocompensated ETA quartz movement with specs within 10 sec./year.

But you were specifically mentioning accurate _mechanical _watches, and none of those (except perhaps the Seiko Spring Drives) can be characterized as "accurate" in the sense that horological enthusiasts understand that term. The usual rule of thumb I've seen on _Timezone_ and other places is that a mechanical can be tuned and regulated to, at best, about 3 sec./day. Official standards for "chronometer" designation require only 4 sec. loss to 6 sec. gain per day.


----------



## rip (Jul 13, 2005)

Quite obviously, you've run into the "soulless quartz" vs the "exquisite mechanical" watch debate which, of course, misses your point. There are some quite wonderful high-end quartz watches that are superb in design and extremely accurate, far moreso than any mechanical is capable of being. the ones that come immediately to mind are many of the Cartier watches, both past and present, including the all-time classic tank watch, and the Patek Philippe Ellipse Quartz-to me one of the most beautiful watches ever made-if you have the budget.


----------



## JAGMAJ (Feb 10, 2005)

Thanks for the correction. Hopefully, the whole quartz vs. mechanical debate will not be reopened as it was debated thoroughly before. Now, back to the question of the most accurate mechanical movements (other than Seiko)...


----------



## Roger (Feb 18, 2005)

JAGMAJ said:


> Thanks for the correction. Hopefully, the whole quartz vs. mechanical debate will not be reopened as it was debated thoroughly before. Now, back to the question of the most accurate mechanical movements (other than Seiko)...


From everything I've read, there's really very little variation in accuracy (operationalized as fluctuation from perfect time as revealed by the atomic clock in Colorado--for those of us in North America) among the best mechanical movements, whether these are standard ETA movements, tweaked ETA movements, or wholely in-house movements. The best can be tuned and regulated to no better than +/- 3 sec./day, and your usual mid-range Omega, Rolex, Patek, et al., watch will be considered to be doing just fine if it holds to +/- 5 sec./day. It now looks to me as though the notion of high accuracy really has very little relevance with respect to mechanical movements and really resides entirely in the quartz domain.


----------



## Roger (Feb 18, 2005)

rip said:


> Quite obviously, you've run into the "soulless quartz" vs the "exquisite mechanical" watch debate which, of course, misses your point. There are some quite wonderful high-end quartz watches that are superb in design and extremely accurate, far moreso than any mechanical is capable of being. the ones that come immediately to mind are many of the Cartier watches, both past and present, including the all-time classic tank watch, and the Patek Philippe Ellipse Quartz-to me one of the most beautiful watches ever made-if you have the budget.


Rip, if you want to see some really beautiful quartz watches, check out the Citizen Campanola series. They're (at least to my eye) exquisitely beautiful, particularly the ones with the lacquered dials and many complications included together that in a mechanical watch would run the cost up to the $50K level. These higher-end Campanolas aren't cheap, but for$2K-$5K, you do get a truly superb watch.


----------



## JerseyJohn (Oct 26, 2007)

I had a $20 Timex quartz watch that I stopped wearing. It sat in a drawer for two years. When I took it out, it was still running, right to the minute. Since in most areas, watches have to be reset twice a year for the summer time change, a decent quartz watch would seem to be as accurate as anyone would need. 

My '61 Accutron gains about a minute a week. I set it every month or so by my cell phone. If I found my life so structured I needed more accuracy than that, I'd probably shoot myself.


----------



## Roger (Feb 18, 2005)

JerseyJohn said:


> My '61 Accutron gains about a minute a week. I set it every month or so by my cell phone. If I found my life so structured I needed more accuracy than that, I'd probably shoot myself.


I don't think it's the need for structure that drives some of us to want highly precise things--at least it's not that for me. I can generally do fine time-management-wise with the lesser precision of a mechanical watch. However, outstanding precision has its own aesthetic, just as does beautiful workmanship on a mechanical watch, for example (which workmanship, strictly speaking, we don't _need_ either), or the near-perfect fit of a bespoke suit or pair of shoes, again something we don't need, but appreciate nonetheless.


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

^ +1 and quite well put, I might add!


----------



## fenway (May 2, 2006)

How 'bout the time given on your cell phone?


----------



## Mr. Knightly (Sep 1, 2005)

I don't know if things have changed in the last couple of years, but I believe that cell phones can be off by as much as a few minutes.

Regarding the Quartz/Mechanical debate:
I perfectly understand the appeal of the mechanical aesthetic, for me it's simply a question of spending a huge amount of money on something that provides relatively little utility. (Yes, I do believe that the enjoyment of a fine timepiece is a form of utility.)
I also don't think that comparing mechanicals to handmade shoes is entirely appropriate. Handmade shoes are objectively superior products. Mechanical watches are not.

I bought my quartz watch used. It was a great deal, because, as previously noted, quartzes don't hold value like mechanicals. It has no second hand, so it's impossible to distinguish from an automatic timepiece. It keeps great time, and it looks fantastic with everything from tuxes to polos. Would I prefer that my watch had a "soul?" Yeah, I would appreciate knowing that all of those little gears and springs are clicking away in there. However, that secret knowledge is not worth an extra 2 grand to a high school literature teacher.


----------



## chrstc (Jun 11, 2007)

Hello,
I was lucky enough to spend a day working alongside a curator in the Clocks and Watches department of a major UK museum a few months back. The day I joined him was the day that he went around the whole museum winding and regulating all of the clocks. There are some fabulous pieces there including an original Breguet, several Tompions and a Jaeger Atmosphere etc etc. The watch that he uses every week to regulate all of these mechanical masterpieces is a Junghans Mega Ceramic. He's had it for years and never had any problems with it apparently. He works with mechanical clocks and watches every day but, on this one day a week when he needs complete accuracy, he always wears his Junghans.

Chris.


----------



## David Bresch (Apr 11, 2004)

I think people are a little off with respect to mechanical watch accuracy. The modern standards for example I think are -4+6 to get the chronometer designation. But that just means (practically, not actually, there is no standard for regulation) the limits of acceptability vis a vis the person who regulates the watch. My mechanical Rolex has always been accurate to about 1 second/day. It ran 1 second fast, I just had it overhauled (because a part of the face broke), and now it loses 1 sec/day. I would hope a quartz watch to be considerably more accurate than that. I don't know how long it holds the regulation though, I had it for 4 years, presumably at some point it would lose that accuracy and need to be re-regulated.


----------



## Roger (Feb 18, 2005)

chrstc said:


> Hello,
> I was lucky enough to spend a day working alongside a curator in the Clocks and Watches department of a major UK museum a few months back. The day I joined him was the day that he went around the whole museum winding and regulating all of the clocks. There are some fabulous pieces there including an original Breguet, several Tompions and a Jaeger Atmosphere etc etc. The watch that he uses every week to regulate all of these mechanical masterpieces is a Junghans Mega Ceramic. He's had it for years and never had any problems with it apparently. He works with mechanical clocks and watches every day but, on this one day a week when he needs complete accuracy, he always wears his Junghans.


Chris, the Junghans Mega Ceramic (a watch I have too) is an _atomic_ watch--or more accurately a radio-controlled (or RC) watch that receives a signal one or more times a day from an atomic clock. Your curator probably picks up the signal from the transmitter in Frankfurt (although now, I believe, there is also one in the UK in Rugby); here in North America, we pick up the signal from Ft. Collins, Colorado. These are always quartz watches of just-regular quartz accuracy, but that are corrected to within +/- .20 sec. every day (usually after midnight when the interference is least). Thus, as long as the owner is receiving the signal (and all of the UK except perhaps for Western Ireland is easily in range of the Frankfurt transmitter), the watch will _always_ be within, maybe, 1/2-sec. of the exactly-correct time with no intervention whatsoever on the part of the owner.

Your curator's Junghans may also be the solar-powered version (mine is), which means that the battery never needs replacing, being constantly replenished (probably via a capacitor) from any light source. I think solar RC watches represent the currently-highest level of technical achievement we've been able to accomplish in horology with respect to wristwatches, but others are unimpressed with this level of precision and freedom from the need for any servicing, preferring instead the beautifully-made assemblage of gears, levers, and wheels--and their necessary *im*precision--found in a top-end mechanical watch. This preference seems, in some ways, analogous to the preference of some on this forum for the necessary irregularities found in bespoke, or at least fully hand-made, shirts and suits.

Interestingly, these RC watches seem to be able to fit the antennae into the case with no need for any extra room. Thus, they look exactly like other quartz watches, or mechanicals. In my opinion, that Junghans Mega Ceramic is an attractive watch--as are pretty much all of the Junghans RC watches--and is smaller than the majority of quartz and automatic mechanical watches being made today, at 39 mm. case diameter and less than 10 mm. depth. There are also very attractive RCs available from Citizen, Cascio (in their higher-end Oceanus line), and Seiko in their Spirit, Dolce, and Brightz lines. These higher-end RC watches tend to retail for somewhere in the $700-$1,200 range. Here's a link to my Junghans solar ceramic RC. Your curator's may be the white-face version:



Here's a more conventional dress-watch model from Junghans:

Here are some of the high-end Seiko Brightz models (these having a number of complications), all solar-powered and RC:

https://japwatches.wordpress.com/2007/10/06/seiko-brightz-saga001-saga003-and-saga005/

And here are some less-expensive ($450-$550) Seiko solar-powered RC watches that would look good for dress and work:

https://forums.watchuseek.com/showthread.php?t=151315

And finally, here's perhaps the dressiest of the Seiko solar-powered RC models, the Dolce:

https://translate.google.ca/transla...esult&prev=/search?q=seiko+SADZ048&hl=en&sa=G

For anyone interested in pursuing the Japanese RC models, it's important to keep a few things in mind. First, almost all of them are available only in Japan. So if you want one, you must purchase it online from one of the reliable Japanese suppliers. Two of the very best are Higuchi and Seiya (www.higuchi-inc.com; and www.seiyajapan.com). Second, since these are technically Japan-only watches, the copy accompanying the descriptions will often be wildly and hilariously translated when you request the English-language version. A lot of reading between the lines is needed! Finally and perhaps most importantly, the examples I've provided all sync to the US atomic clock, but many of the Japan-only RC watches do not; they sync only to one of the two atomic-clock transmitters in Japan. Thus, it is very important to sort this out before considering purchasing one of these. If you mistakenly get a watch that syncs only to a Japanese transmitter, it will not operate in RC mode in North America, but instead will function as an ordinary quartz watch without the daily correction feature. This caveat also applies to Junghans RC watches; some sync only to the German transmitter.

In closing off this overlong post, let me point out that there appear to be two kinds of watch-accuracy buffs in the world of horology: those who value extreme precision period and those who value extreme precision within the watch mechanism itself (without any external help). The first group love the nicer RC watches, whereas the second group are uncertain about whether they like them or not and much prefer the high-precision stand-alone developments (that is, incredible accuracy without any correction from an outside source). For those with the latter leanings, there is a very interesting sub-forum on the Watchuseek Forum devoted to High-End Quartz watches. I find myself with a foot in both camps! :icon_smile:


----------



## chrstc (Jun 11, 2007)

Hi Roger,
Thanks for the rundown on the current Junghans range. I should perhaps have added that my father also owns a Junghans Mega Ceramic Solar and that I myself have a Junghans quartz as my everyday watch. Therefore as you can imagine I am very familiar with the theory behind them. As a matter of fact I have had several arguments with my father about the "accuracy" (or not) of a watch that corrects itself every day!
I just thought that the fact that a world-renowned watch expert and repairer chose a Junghans as his reference piece was telling. Interestingly the museum also owns a Casio RC watch which receives its signal from the other atomic clock facility in the north of England rather than Frankfurt and yet is signficantly less accurate. Even in the world of RC watches there are different levels of quality it would seem.

Thank you again for the RC rundown, 
Chris.


----------



## Roger (Feb 18, 2005)

David Bresch said:


> I think people are a little off with respect to mechanical watch accuracy. The modern standards for example I think are -4+6 to get the chronometer designation. But that just means (practically, not actually, there is no standard for regulation) the limits of acceptability vis a vis the person who regulates the watch. My mechanical Rolex has always been accurate to about 1 second/day. It ran 1 second fast, I just had it overhauled (because a part of the face broke), and now it loses 1 sec/day. I would hope a quartz watch to be considerably more accurate than that. I don't know how long it holds the regulation though, I had it for 4 years, presumably at some point it would lose that accuracy and need to be re-regulated.


David, your watch is producing really exceptional accuracy for a mechanical watch, at +/- 1 second per day. It just shows, I guess, that the notion of individual differences applies to watches as well as people! You should truly treasure that Rolex. The +/- 1 sec./day accuracy level is what the Seiko Spring Drives guarantee. I've learned from the guys on Timezone that +/- 3 seconds per day is considered about all one can generally expect via a careful tuning and regulation of a good mechanical watch.

If one has a mechanical watch and it (necessarily) will be off by a few seconds, obviously it's better to have it running fast than slow. In fact, my wife purposely sets her watches to be about 2 minutes fast to ensure that she's never late for appointments, etc. So, it certainly is not the case that the kind of accuracy we've been discussing in this thread is _necessary_ at all for us to be able to function effectively time-wise. As I stated elsewhere, outstanding accuracy is its own aesthetic, treasured by some, but seldom necessary.


----------



## David Bresch (Apr 11, 2004)

I doubt the -1 second thing is that big a deal. It is a function of regulation, and then the question remains how long it will remain this well regulated. One thing I suspect helps my watch out is that it is my only watch and I wear it 7/24, so that there is no question of its running down. My understanding is that most good modern movements are capable of this accuracy.


----------



## alphadelta (Oct 2, 2007)

Seiko 9F quartz movements used in their high-end Grand Seiko Limited Edition watches are within five seconds per year. GS mechanical watches are regulated to better than COSC specs and typically within 2 - 4 seconds per day. Seiko Spring Drives will do a couple of seconds per month.

My $50 Seiko 5 runs about +2 seconds per day as does my $3,500 Omega Constellation. Just about any mechanical watch can be adjusted to give fairly accurate results -- higher-end movements are easier to adjust and are easier to keep within specs.

My dress watch is a 18k Universal Geneve hand wind. Practical accuracy for me is plus or minus one minute per ten days. My cell phone is synced to GPS time and more than accurate enough. 

Go with the style you like and don't worry too much about accuracy.

AD


----------



## Roger (Feb 18, 2005)

alphadelta said:


> Seiko 9F quartz movements used in their high-end Grand Seiko Limited Edition watches are within five seconds per year.


That's not quite correct. Seiko's most accurate quartz movements--9F and 8J--are specified at +/- 10 seconds per year and do appear in the GS watches. There has, however, been one exception. This year, in celebration of the 15th anniversary of the development of their 9F series, Seiko produced a Special Edition model (SBGT027)--with only 300 made--using the 9F83 movement, and, for these 300 only, the +/- 5 sec./year standard was offered. They sold out very quickly! In general, however, only the Citizen A660 movement falls within the 5 sec./year specification.



alphadelta said:


> Seiko Spring Drives will do a couple of seconds per month.


They're good (for a mechanical watch), but not that good! Their specs call for 1 second per day.

_Edit: _Sorry, alphadelta, I just read your wording more carefully and see that you did specify the Limited Edition Seikos. However, the only example of this is the 9F83 Special Edition quartz offering that comprised only 300 watches--all of which are now long gone.


----------



## Loose On The Lead (Dec 28, 2007)

A few scattered comments...

1. I wore one of the Junghans solar atomics for awhile, but stopped because it didn't work as well as hoped and I didn't love the way it looked. What I want to mention is that the original appeal of an atomic watch wasn't the tremendous precision. It was, as someone else suggested above, the freedom from maintenance. It's not that I cared that much about a watch being off by a few seconds, or even a minute or two, at any given time. It was that--in theory--I never had to reset it. However far off it wandered from the correct time, the radio signal would eventually yank it back. I didn't have to do anything--the watch did it for me. And with the solar power, I didn't have to replace a battery, either.

2. When I was looking for a replacement, the choice between quartz and mechanical was roughly the difference between gaining/losing a few seconds a month and a few second a day. Since I am the sort of person who might go a year or more without remembering or getting around to resetting his watch, a few seconds a day does become a problem. It isn't a trivial amount of time when you multiply it by a few hundred days.

3. There was a comment about some people seeing a watch as functional and others seeing it as aesthetic. Now, I'm not someone who typically thinks that only certain sorts of opinions are valid on style boards like AAAC, but in this case, I don't get the view of a watch as purely utilitarian. It's something you wear on your person, and others see it fairly often. How can its appearance not matter to someone on this board? Like it or not, your watch is a style accessory, and should be treated as such.

4. It is interesting to me that so many on AAAC and SF are so into the whole "sleekness" thing, yet when it comes to watches, that goes out the window. Mechanicals cannot be as sleek as quartzes can. This is a pretty minor point, but it came to mind, so I typed it. :icon_smile:

5. My next watch may very well be an automatic. I'll just have to make myself set it more often. There is just something about a smooth sweep, I guess. It will be interesting to see if I end up regretting the purchase (which is not remotely imminent).


----------



## Joe Frances (Sep 1, 2004)

1. The cheapest Swatch is the most accurate and best value for money. All quartz watches tell time exceedingly well. They have no inherent value, but they tell time.

2. To spend money for an expensive quartz watch is a total waste of money. The Baume & Mercier expensive quartz watch has no mechanical value, and no inherent value, and is essentially an expensive coffin for a quartz movement, which has no value.

3. Mechanical watches are miraculous little machines, and they have inherent value, and they tell time exceedingly well, missing Greenwich Mean Time (Zulu time) by perhaps a minute a month, maybe. 

4. Mechanical watches cost money, but an Omega Railmaster is a good compromise in a highly precise instrument at a reasonable price.

5. One step below on the price point is Oris, which in my opinion make wonderful watches that have immense cache, and are very reliable. 

6. Your choice is a basic black swatch or one of the above, or other reasonable equivalents.


----------



## Roger (Feb 18, 2005)

Joe, I'm curious about why you say that quartz watches "have no inherent value" or that a quartz movement "has no value." The Citizen A660 quartz movement, for example, is an intricate 17-jewel quartz movement that is almost entirely hand-assembled. It is the world's most accurate watch movement and would certainly be seen by most as having value. It's not available outside of some of the best Citizen watches, but if it were, it would be costly partly because of the amount of hand work in it. Many mechanical watches, on the other hand, have inexpensive movements. The ETA 2824-2 movement is probably the most widely-used mechanical movement in Swiss watches--many of these costing in the thousands of dollars. What many don't realize, however, is that the ETA 2824-2 movement, mostly machine-made, costs under $100. I've seen them listed at $86 in one place, $62.50 in another, and they are routinely available dirt-cheap on eBay. So which movement has the greater value--inherent or otherwise--the quartz Citizen A660 or the mechanical ETA 2824-2? :icon_smile_wink:


----------



## Sam Hober (Jan 2, 2005)

Roger said:


> I don't think it's the need for structure that drives some of us to want highly precise things--at least it's not that for me. I can generally do fine time-management-wise with the lesser precision of a mechanical watch. However, outstanding precision has its own aesthetic, just as does beautiful workmanship on a mechanical watch, for example (which workmanship, strictly speaking, we don't _need_ either), or the near-perfect fit of a bespoke suit or pair of shoes, again something we don't need, but appreciate nonetheless.


*Roger,*

A fantastic thread - I have learned a lot. Thank you.

I currently have 2 watches a mechanical Omega that is around 50 years old that was a gift from my father and a solar powered quartz citizen that I bought in Tokyo. I love both watches for different reasons.

I also am keeping my eye out for a new watch and you are giving me lots of ideas - thanks again.

I like everything that you do in watches and I also place personal value on water resistance and being shockproof. I often walk in the rain, swim etc..

One more thing, my watches must be easy to read. Of what use is accuracy unless you can quickly and easily read the time...


----------



## Roger (Feb 18, 2005)

Sam Hober said:


> *Roger,*
> 
> A fantastic thread - I have learned a lot. Thank you.
> 
> ...


Thank you, David. We've had this discussion about accuracy before! A few further points that might be of interest:

(a) The very best of the Japanese watches are available only in Japan (your Citizen might be an example). I gave the Higuchi and Seiya contact information a few days ago (Post #65 above), and they are both really professional and knowledgeable Japanese watch vendors. They give discounted prices and are super-easy to deal with, shipping instantly by EMS. I got my Chronomaster from Higuchi in 5 days, from Japan to Vancouver.

(b) I too value a highly-readable dial, and my aging eyes have found black dials with light-colored hands the easiest to read. One thing that both Seiko and Citizen do probably better than anyone else is apply "lume" (luminox, I think) to the hands and hour markers. This greatly enhances visibility in low-light conditions (even in actual darkness).

(c) There have been two main developments in quartz-watch technology regarding battery sustainability--the Kinetic-drive concept of Seiko and the solar-power systems of Citizen (they call their version "Eco-Drive"), Seiko, Casio, Junghans, and undoubtedly others. The Kinetic-drive method uses the wearer's hand motions--in much the same way that an automatic mechanical watch employs a rotor to keep the mainspring wound--to continually refresh the rechargeable battery. The solar-power system employs a solar cell that is located just below the dial and which picks up any ambient light (solar or otherwise) to keep the rechargeable lithium-ion battery fully charged. Solar-power watch batteries can be charged with _any_ light, and, if the battery is heavily discharged, a few hours under a lamp will restore it. Of the two technologies, I think that the solar concept (which was originally developed by Citizen) is the better in that a watch can be kept fully-charged without being worn. This might be something like the old VHS vs. Beta battle in the 80s, where VHS eventually won. My guess is that the solar technology will prevail here. With this technology--which you have in your Citizen watch--your battery will likely not need replacing for many years--probably close to 20 if you keep it topped-up charge-wise by never letting it get run down too much.


----------

