# Acceptable watch accuracy?



## RA40 (May 4, 2006)

As a casual watch wearer, down to the second accuracy hadn't been a concern. So a couple weeks back, I set my the Casio to an atomic clock and went along merrily. When I checked it 15 days later, I discovered that it had gained about 1 second every 22 hours. Manufacturer spec is +/-30 seconds a month so it's within basic tolerance. 

What do you consider as good? I've been thinking of a Marathon TSAR next. 

My wife's Rado though it does not have a seconds hand yet seems to keep excellent time. She hasn't had to mess with it unitl we have daylight savings change-overs.


----------



## paulr (May 4, 2006)

Just about every Casio I've ever had has gained a little under a second a day. That's completely typical. They must be adjusted like that at the factory. Some fancy watches are fairly consistently within 5 seconds a month or so, but for a typical consumer watch, if it's within 15 sec/month it's doing pretty good. A few decades ago watches were mechanical and were doing pretty good to stay within 15 seconds a DAY.


----------



## powernoodle (May 4, 2006)

I have a couple of Seikos I wear, and like to set them precisely with an atomic clock (you can also use the hourly chime on network tv or radio). It takes several days for them to get a few seconds off - don't know exactly what it is, but its close enough for Powernoodle. I don't find much use for a watch that isn't pretty accurate.

cheers


----------



## chimo (May 4, 2006)

I have had great luck with my Seiko. According to the atomic clock, it seems to gain about a second per month. 

Paul


----------



## bjn70 (May 5, 2006)

I'm more into mechanical watches and almost never wear a quartz watch. I have about a dozen watches that I wear regularly, so each one isn't worn for very long. If I just wear a watch 5 days or so, its accuracy isn't that critical to me. Most of my watches are relatively inexpensive models so if they do better than 15 seconds per day I'm happy. Good mechanical watches can easily do much better than that, but I'm not rich enough to buy them.


----------



## felder (May 6, 2006)

+/- 1 sec per day is pretty reasonable for a quartz watch. I have a mechanical that gains about 5 sec per day, which is pretty reasonable for a relatively inexpensive mechanical.

I also have a junghans radio controlled quartz which sets itself to the atomic clock in Colorado. It's always accurate within a fraction of a second and never needs to be set.

If I were going to get a casio, I'd get one of the solar waveceptor ones. Don't need to change the battery and never need to set it.


----------



## cy (May 6, 2006)

I'm getting .7 sec per month or better from my TSAR. Had to change times for daylight savings or it would be running longer without disturbing. 

Another TSAR owner is getting aprox. 12 sec per month. spec's on TSAR says .7 sec per day. Just got in a new marathon sterile field watch with same .7 sec per day spec's.


----------



## ACMarina (May 6, 2006)

I typically lose about 8 seconds a month on my Traser..


----------



## Wong (May 6, 2006)

Please check out this Citizen quartz " The Citizen " It rated +/-5 second per year  no need to worry the timing and only check the timing yearly not monthly 
http://citizen.jp/the-citizen/index.html


----------



## Metro (May 7, 2006)

My new Traser is gaining approx 1 second every 4 days.


----------



## mobile1 (May 7, 2006)

My Omega Seamaster (Quartz) is gaining about 2 seconds a month... very happy with that TI watch


----------



## BF Hammer (May 7, 2006)

In the days before I bought a couple of radio-controlled clocks for my home, I depended on my watch to be my time reference. I set the other clocks in the home to that watch. The Wenger I was using then typically gained 30 seconds between daylight savings time changeovers, about 5 seconds a month. That was easily good enough. It was harder to sync a watch back then, requiring calling the "correct time" number that the phone company had, or using a shortwave radio and tuning to WWV.

Now I have a radio-controlled alarm clock by my bed, so winding one of my "inaccurate" mechanical watches and setting to correct time is a matter of a few seconds now, and no dialing a phone or tuning a radio required. The watch may gain 15-30 seconds in a day rather than in 6 months, but it's way too easy to set again in a couple of days.

If you really are picky about having exactly correct time without setting regularly, either get a radio-controlled watch or ditch the watch and use your cellphone as a timepiece.


----------



## savumaki (May 7, 2006)

Yep, that's what I use- the cellphone; never did get around to buying a new bat. for the watch (actually BOTH of them)
Oh well 

Karl


----------



## iced_theater (May 21, 2006)

I have a Casio Wave Ceptor atomic watch. It claims it's off 1 second every billion years or something like that. Seems pretty good even if it's only good for every 1000 years


----------



## cy (May 21, 2006)

several users for watches that calibrate regularly to atomic standards, report inaccurate readings between updates. 

generally quartz watches are pretty accurate. what means more to me is ability to be rugged and reliable over a span of time. 

traditionally mechanical watches are more rugged/reliable than quartz watches. but new (to me) generation of quartz watches are doing both. 

Marathon TSAR has taken over EDC duties from my Rolex Submariner. TSAR has been on my wrist 7x24 for going two months now. really getting along great with TSAR. 

TSAR is a substantial watch, ie built like a tank!
here's a pic of TSAR with field watch just given to my 13yr boy. 










iced_theater said:


> I have a Casio Wave Ceptor atomic watch. It claims it's off 1 second every billion years or something like that. Seems pretty good even if it's only good for every 1000 years


----------



## Phil_B (May 21, 2006)

The biggest pain in the backside is a watch that looses. All mine gain 5-10 per month. This gives you a few seconds to reset the date at the end of the month.Nice.
My TAG auto gains most, Citizen Quartz ECO-DRIVE gains the least.
That said, I have one dead watch that is spot on, twice a day!
HTH, Phil.


----------



## RAF_Groundcrew (May 21, 2006)

The thing about mechanical watches, is that you can adjust them (or have it done for you by a jeweller) using the +/- slider in the mechanism, although this means opening the watch back, so I'd only recommend doing it if you're confident in your abilities.

I almost entirely wear mechanical self winding watches, I've got 7 at the moment, mostly Seiko. I also have an old silver pocket watch, my great grandfather's, which needed a new spring and glass when I got it, and now that it's working, it is very accurate indeed.


----------



## charliek (May 21, 2006)

I'm a royal pain when it comes to watch accuracy... I have clock that syncs with the atomic clock, and I regularly check tthe accuracy of my timepieces.... if a watch wanders around too much, I'm very unhappy with it. That being said.......

I'm VERY happy with my Citizen. It wasn't very expensive ( I paid just under $100 for it ) and it keeps great time. The date has to be reset on months that don't have 31 days ( a minor annoyance) and it's rarely more than a second off when I'm re-setting it.

The WORST accuracy I have ever encountered was with Casio digital watches. I won't even *think* about buying another one.. no matter how many cool gadgets there are inside. the second to worst was my Timex Datalink. if I didn'y sync it every day with my PC to get the time right ( even the sync wasn't reliable to within a second or two) I was drifting all over the place.

The sole purpose for a watch is to keep good time... and do it fashionably ( or ruggedly, or waterproof-ly) Poor accuracy = poor quality IMHO
No matter how much Gold, Titanium, Silver or Diamonds you throw at it.. if it doesn't keep good time, it isn't a good timepiece.

This is what I look for in a watch.... It has to keep good time... it has to be rugged and reliable, at least 100m water resistant, easy to read day and night, comfortable band (or bracelet) and have a nice masculine look.... I don't really for got the wispy thin dainty-looking watches.


----------



## picard (May 21, 2006)

How do you set quartz watch to match atomic clock?:help:


----------



## cy (May 21, 2006)

get a program like atom time, it syn's up your computer time to atomic clocks. 

then hack your watch hand to stop at 12:00. wait for split second to come around. press stem in to start watch. if you are careful, one can syn pretty close.


----------



## markdi (May 21, 2006)

my casio data bank came with an aged crystal.

it gains 4 seconds every month.

too bad I screwed up one of the band atachment points on the case.

I will send it to casio - for 35 bucks it will look like new.


----------



## charliek (May 22, 2006)

picard said:


> How do you set quartz watch to match atomic clock?:help:




You pull out the stem, set the time, and when the seconds match on the atomic time, you push the stem in (retsatring the sweep second hand).

The error depends on your reflexes....


----------



## charliek (May 22, 2006)

cy said:


> get a program like atom time, it syn's up your computer time to atomic clocks.
> 
> then hack your watch hand to stop at 12:00. wait for split second to come around. press stem in to start watch. if you are careful, one can syn pretty close.




You can also just go here: http://www.time.gov/
It's fairly accurate.


----------



## charliek (May 22, 2006)

http://www2.oregonscientific.com/shop/product.asp?cid=1&scid=3&pid=422

I have an older model of this clock.

This is what I measure everything else against.


----------



## stockae92 (May 22, 2006)

for me, i'll be a happy man if:

my 7S26 movement Seiko Diver gain no more than 20 sec / day

my G-Shock gain no more than 15 sec/ month (and of course my atomic solar is gaining 0 sec / day when recieving signal)

and i only want my watches to go faster but not slower


----------



## ATVMan (May 22, 2006)

My Casio Wave Ceptor is atomic so i dont have to worry about it


----------

