ETA 2892.A2...Most Reasonable Watch Curently Available With..
jim
Jack Denver
This one does:
$350
The giveaway is the date window at 12 - those are the Accutron autos with
2892.
"jim" <jim...@netzero.net> wrote in message
news:1191430737.7...@19g2000hsx.googlegroups.com...
> the ETA 2892.A2 is???
>
>
Jack Denver
http://www.discount-watches.com/watches/pc/viewPrd.asp?idproduct=4732
it's a steal at $200 - the movement prob. costs more.
SWG
Jack Denver a écrit :
> This one here:
>
> http://www.discount-watches.com/watches/pc/viewPrd.asp?idproduct=4732
>
> it's a steal at $200 - the movement prob. costs more.
>
Are you sure it's a 2892 ETA and not a 2824?
Jack Denver
absolutely sure. I don't know how they do it, other than they are
closeouts.
"SWG" <swissw...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1191462497.3...@22g2000hsm.googlegroups.com...
John S.
It's jusy my way of looking at things, but I would have to be excited
about how the watch looked and fit before getting worked up about
whether it had a 2892 or 2824 movement. Both are durable and accurate
movements.
Revision
"John S."
"It's jusy my way of looking at things, but I would have to be excited
about how the watch looked and fit before getting worked up about
whether it had a 2892 or 2824 movement. Both are durable and accurate
movements."
Right, in a way. Not much difference on the wrist, but .... the 2892
wholesales for about 3x what the 2892 goes for, has higher grade balance,
higher torque output, and keeps time a little better than the 2824.
Personally I would consider spending $1k on a 2892 or 2893 Fortis, but
not $1k on one of Fortis' 2824 models. But rationally the timekeeping
ability is fairly comparable.
(The Steinhart GMT here has a 2893. Not excited about acquiring multiple
examples of either one, though am always happy to find a Seiko 4S15 or
Hamilton 922B)
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
John S.
> > > it's a steal at $200 - the movement prob. costs more.
>
> "John S."
>
> "It's jusy my way of looking at things, but I would have to be excited
> about how the watch looked and fit before getting worked up about
> whether it had a 2892 or 2824 movement. Both are durable and accurate
> movements."
>
> Right, in a way. Not much difference on the wrist, but .... the 2892
> wholesales for about 3x what the 2892 goes for, has higher grade balance,
> higher torque output
Higher torque output?? To the balance wheel?
>, and keeps time a little better than the 2824.
Is the difference in timekeeping the result of more time spent in
adjusting the movement?
Jack Denver
"John S." <hjs...@cs.com> wrote in message
news:1191957934.5...@k79g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
> On Oct 8, 12:46 am, "Revision" <ttsrem...@nojunkr.net> wrote:
>> > > it's a steal at $200 - the movement prob. costs more.
>>
>> "John S."
>>
>> "It's jusy my way of looking at things, but I would have to be excited
>> about how the watch looked and fit before getting worked up about
>> whether it had a 2892 or 2824 movement. Both are durable and accurate
>> movements."
>>
>> Right, in a way. Not much difference on the wrist, but .... the 2892
>> wholesales for about 3x what the 2892 goes for, has higher grade balance,
>> higher torque output
>
> Higher torque output?? To the balance wheel?
No to the hands, or more importantly to drive a module such as a chrono
module.
>
>>, and keeps time a little better than the 2824.
>
> Is the difference in timekeeping the result of more time spent in
> adjusting the movement?
Assuming there IS a real world difference - my daily wear 2824 keeps nearly
perfect time (it's now -2, hasn't been synched for many weeks, never more
than say +/-5 in that period). Maybe in some chronometer test type
environment (heat, cold, fixed positions) the difference would show but on
the wrist it's impossible to do better than what is effectively perfect.
BTW, this is $50 ebay Gruen.
SWG
2892 is flatter by 1 millimeter and its distribution open only to
Swiss brands who have signed ETA's restricted distribution agreement.
John S.
1mm plus restrictive distribution accounts for the 3x price
difference??
Jack Denver
everyone would wear $30 Timex quartz.
Historically, the 2892 was "upscale" and sold to "better" manufacturers and
the 2824 was more middle of the road. Also keep in mind that the 2892
always come thru nicely equipped but the 2824 is sold in different grades
ranging from stripped down to chronometer.
In automobiles, think of the difference between (the now defunct) Oldsmobile
and Chevrolet. A base model Chevy had no carpet, cloth seats, cheap radio,
etc. but a fully optioned Chevy sedan was as nicely equipped as a base model
Olds (but still sold for a couple thousand less). At one time there was a
big class action lawsuit because GM put "Chevy" engines in Olds cars without
telling the customer. That a Chevy engine was no better/worse than an Olds
engine was of no consequence (to the lawyers). Olds had always promoted its
engines as being better/different so they were hoisted on their own petard.
Were they telling the truth in their marketing material where they promoted
the virtues of Olds or in court where they were swearing that an engine is
an engine? One way or the other, they were liars.
"John S." <hjs...@cs.com> wrote in message
news:1192016368.7...@r29g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
jim
You rarely know which grade components you have in a ETA 2824 powered
watch unless you purchase a COSC ETA2824.
I find that even if you ask the watch companies which grade 2824 they
use in a specific watch, they don't tell you.
With a ETA 2892.A2 you know that you always have top grade components
as it is not provided any other way but with top grade components.
John S.
> Jack's point is well taken.
>
> You rarely know which grade components you have in a ETA 2824 powered
> watch unless you purchase a COSC ETA2824.
Given that base 2824 movements in relatively inexpensive watches have
a reputation for performing to the chronometer stanard it is possible
to overstate the value of differences between them and the
considerably more expensive 289x movements.
Jack Denver
but they keep damn good time on the wrist if properly regulated. Since I
don't keep my watch in a refrigerator, etc. I don't care about the chrono
test.
"John S." <hjs...@cs.com> wrote in message
news:1192191489.1...@e9g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
John S.
important measure than performing well one time in a test lab. If I
can get the same error rate at the end of the week with a Titoni that
I can with a Rolex then for all practical purposes that little watch
from Grenchen is providing chronometer level performance.
> >> as it is not provided any other way but with top grade components.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Jack Denver
will drift more than usual if I "go off" my usual daily routine, e.g when I
travel. A chrono grade movement should stand up to the stress of a different
climate, different activity level, etc. better. Not enough to justify the
price diff. between a Titoni and Rolex, but a little better. Then again a
$10 Timex quartz will do better still, so it's clearly not "about" time
keeping any more.
"John S." <hjs...@cs.com> wrote in message
news:1192195685.9...@k35g2000prh.googlegroups.com...
SWG
Please let's compare apples and apples: mechanical watches cannot
outperform quartz watches, as the latter cannot compare to cesium and
other most technology advanced clocks.
Chronometer movements have been regulated in order to sustain the
quite harsh time keeping tests and therefore have been fitted with the
highest quality time keeping parts available (assortments, spirals,
etc), which are of course much more costly than the average quality.
The only problem with the COSC tests is that they are made on
movements alone, not yet fitted with any complication, with the
exception of some brands like Breitling, submitted the whole
chronograph movement. A great advance would be that only fully
equipped final watches would be tested. This is what the aim of the
"Fleurier" quality tests are.
People whose only interest is as an exact time keeping as possible
should select a rusty quartz watch, like some Casio models, and just
chance battery leekage and any other chip, electricity problems.
Fortunately, mankind is made out of many other feelings, prompting
those who can afford some luxury to go in ever increased numbers back
for mechanical watches with a "beating heart". :-)
See Maslow's hierarchy of needs
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maslow%27s_hierarchy_of_needs
Alex W.
Nor, indeed, are they tested when cased.
COSC tests have degenerated into a marketing gimmick, IMO.
The criteria are not stringent enough.
For that matter, I am convinced that much if not most of the
accuracy of a given watch depends on proper regulation. Get
that right, and you should be able to achieve chronometer
accuracy with most any timepiece, even cylinders or verges.
Jack Denver
the modern low end ETAs with their laser poising, etc. Although you can
regulate a watch, even a cheap one to an almost perfect average rate under
some fixed condition of temperature and position, if you vary those
conditions a non-chronometer watch will drift substantially. I have a
Russian Molnija pocket watch that I received as a gift which is one of the
most crudely built jeweled movements you could imagine. I keep it as a desk
clock - in that setting it runs just fine (after regulation) despite having
terrible amplitude, etc. But if I were to try to wear the thing (should I be
inclined to wear a watch with a hammer & sickle on the cover, which I'm
not), it would be just awful.
"Alex W." <ing...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:5n9osqF...@mid.individual.net...
Jack Denver
observes, a very inexpensive Titoni or Sandoz nowadays performs on the
wrist no differently than a Rolex (often better than a Rolex if said Rolex
has drifted out of regulation as many real world Rolexi have). In terms of
the principles of operation the Rolex movement works in exactly the same
way as a 2824 and some don't even consider the Rolex to be a "better"
movement despite the free balance, etc. because so many of the newer ones
show signs of careless workmanship. Rolex at one time had a unique "Oyster"
case but today water resistant dive watches in high quality stainless cases
are a dime a dozen . So what does the premium you pay for the Rolex name
get you today, other than the name?
"SWG" <swissw...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1192207735.8...@i13g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
SWG
> This is just not true, though we are spoiled nowadays with the excellence of
> the modern low end ETAs with their laser poising, etc. Although you can
> regulate a watch, even a cheap one to an almost perfect average rate under
> some fixed condition of temperature and position, if you vary those
> conditions a non-chronometer watch will drift substantially. I have a
> Russian Molnija pocket watch that I received as a gift which is one of the
> most crudely built jeweled movements you could imagine. I keep it as a desk
> clock - in that setting it runs just fine (after regulation) despite having
> terrible amplitude, etc. But if I were to try to wear the thing (should I be
> inclined to wear a watch with a hammer & sickle on the cover, which I'm
> not), it would be just awful.
Jack, you might be right, or you might be wrong: I do not know enough
about Rolexes, as around me very few people wear them. I just wonder
how many Rolex watches you do own and wear by yourself? Any statistics
and / or explanation upon which you are basing your harsh judgment? Or
just hearsay? :-)
Tony Stanford
wrote
>a very inexpensive Titoni or Sandoz nowadays performs on the wrist no
>differently than a Rolex
Sheesh! My Sandoz keeps to -2sec per day (2824). My Rolex would go to
+30sec/day a few months after every high $$$ service. When I complained
to Rolex, they maintained I had to have it serviced every 18 months if I
wanted accuracy. I won't mention the rotor arm falling off twice inside
the case.
--
Tony Stanford
Jack Denver
perhaps there was some defect in the microstella balance weight adjusting
screw mechanism that allowed them to slip or perhaps there was dirt in your
watch that was never properly removed by a cleaning. You had unusually bad
luck w/ Rolex - I'd say on the wrist the average Rolex does as well as your
Sandoz (which ain't saying much considering the ROlex cost 10x as much or
more).
The rotor arm falling off is unfortunately not unheard of in Rolex - they
insist on using a jeweled bearing rather than the ball bearing mechanism
used by all other modern automatics. Jeweled bearings have low friction but
not much load carrying capacity, which is why they are good for things like
watch train wheels, not so good to carry bicycle axles and heavy winding
weights.
Again, if you were to submit a (properly adjusted) Rolex to COSC testing (as
Rolex does for every watch) it would fare better under the stress of test
conditions than the Sandoz . However, on the wrist, running is distributed
between all possible positions (and roughly the same mix of positions each
day for the same wearer), temperature is relatively constant next to the
skin, the state of wind is kept high thru autowinding, so as long as the
watch is property regulated and has been properly poised at the factory then
there is very little to perturb the watch's steady rate. Computer guided
laser poising of the balance was a major breakthru, which made watches
coming off automated assembly lines almost as good as watches that go thru a
hand "adjustment" process.
If you drive say a Maserati and Kia down a smooth, straight road at a
constant 35 mph, then the differences between the 2 makes would not be that
obvious either. The COSC test method, unfortunately, has not really been
upgraded in the last 40 years, so that it's hurdles are now too low, as if
you were judging the acceleration of cars today based on the amount of HP
available in 1962. Unfortunately , ROlex, etc. have no incentive to update
the standards.
"Tony Stanford" <tonyst...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote in message
news:tqq417FL...@dsl2.net...
Moka Java
> COSC tests have degenerated into a marketing gimmick, IMO.
> The criteria are not stringent enough.
>
> For that matter, I am convinced that much if not most of the
> accuracy of a given watch depends on proper regulation. Get
> that right, and you should be able to achieve chronometer
> accuracy with most any timepiece, even cylinders or verges.
>
>
>
Agreed that COSC has devolved the the term chronometer to so much window
dressing. Are you so sure about cylinder and verge watches though?
Perhaps if made with modern materials and techniques or tighten up a
good vintage piece and upgrade the balance and hairspring a bit.
R "but is anyone willing to try?" TF
Moka Java
After the last service my 40+ year old Rolex Zephyr was eerily accurate
-- spot on for weeks. 1.5 years later it's about 3 secs. + per day. My
brother's 50+ year old Sub. is about 5 secs. + per day.
R "I should run so well" TF
Alex W.
"Moka Java" <rtwa...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:5nk5jeF...@mid.individual.net...
If Harrison can do it with a verge, why can't we? Modern production methods
with tight tolerances, temperature-insensitive balance and spring, and some
decent synthetic oils alone should ensure a performance to compare
favourably with at least some of the offerings from our friends in the East.
Moka Java
> "Moka Java" <rtwa...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:5nk5jeF...@mid.individual.net...
>> Alex W. wrote:
>>
>>> COSC tests have degenerated into a marketing gimmick, IMO. The criteria
>>> are not stringent enough.
>>>
>>> For that matter, I am convinced that much if not most of the accuracy of
>>> a given watch depends on proper regulation. Get that right, and you
>>> should be able to achieve chronometer accuracy with most any timepiece,
>>> even cylinders or verges.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>> Agreed that COSC has devolved the the term chronometer to so much window
>> dressing. Are you so sure about cylinder and verge watches though?
>> Perhaps if made with modern materials and techniques or tighten up a good
>> vintage piece and upgrade the balance and hairspring a bit.
>>
>> R "but is anyone willing to try?" TF
>
> If Harrison can do it with a verge, why can't we?
Harrison got paid a king's ransom for his chronometer.
Modern production methods
> with tight tolerances, temperature-insensitive balance and spring, and some
> decent synthetic oils alone should ensure a performance to compare
> favourably with at least some of the offerings from our friends in the East.
OK, I thought you meant to fiddle with the Tompion regulator a bit and
nail it. The current state of mechanical watches is vested in the
straight line lever escapement or some derivative thereof. It's more
compact than a verge and easier to set up and adjust than a cylinder.
Any of you watchmaker sorts out there wanna CLA a cylinder escapement
1/4 repeater?
R "c'mon, surprise me" TF
Tony Stanford
wrote
>As much as I'm not a Rolex fan, I'd say your experience is not typical
>- perhaps there was some defect in the microstella balance weight
>adjusting screw mechanism that allowed them to slip or perhaps there
>was dirt in your watch that was never properly removed by a cleaning.
Well, you may be right, but it went back to Rolex again and again, and
each time it cost me as much as a new middle-high range Seiko analogue
quartz. They never fixed it, same old problems. So I sold it to a bloke
in a pub and bought myself a Seiko.
30 years later the Seiko is still going, no problems ever, no cleaning,
just new batteries when required. Never regretted the swap.
--
Tony Stanford
Frank Adam
<tonyst...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
>On Sun, 14 Oct 2007, at 15:44:42, Jack Denver <nunu...@netscape.net>
>wrote
>>As much as I'm not a Rolex fan, I'd say your experience is not typical
>>- perhaps there was some defect in the microstella balance weight
>>adjusting screw mechanism that allowed them to slip or perhaps there
>>was dirt in your watch that was never properly removed by a cleaning.
>
>Well, you may be right, but it went back to Rolex again and again, and
>each time it cost me as much as a new middle-high range Seiko analogue
>quartz. They never fixed it, same old problems. So I sold it to a bloke
>in a pub and bought myself a Seiko.
>
Kinda sad that. It just shows to not put too much faith into the usual
service center spin about their "highly trained Swiss schooled
*technicians*".
I'm a watchmaker, more specifically a watch repairer, since i don't
actually make watches apart from the occasional parts as required and
i actually hate doing that.
I am NOT a frigging technician. Not Swiss trained either, but at a
loose guess, gone through some 50-60,000 watch services with
relatively good success.
IF i want to put my mind to it, i could make a damn crappy ST96
perform very close to COSC specs, which we indeed did have to do in
second year apprenticeship. It is all there in the watch and all it
needs is to know what to do and how to do it.
A fully jewelled watch of decent quality should run consistent. If it
doesn't, the watchmaker screwed up. It is as simple as that.
Once it's ok, twice is a bitch, but when a watch comes back the third
time with a similar complaint, you have to get that double eye glass
out and start searching for obscure stuff. That is what i have to do,
but in the case of Rolex or any service center, the situation is much
simpler as they have all the parts right there and handy to replace
any suspicious bits and see if that works.. It should be easy, right ?
Problem with the service centers is that usually there may be one or
two senior personnel, with a bunch of youngsters doing the mainstream
work. Ideally, the oldies should be working on the problem jobs,
however, it often doesn't work out that way as nobody wants to admit
that they can't fix a watch, so that problem job keeps ending up in
the finished box with a finger crossed, rather than in the oldies'
boxes to actually get fixed. Thus, nobody learns much, the youngies
will take over the oldies' jobs in a few years and you end up with a
senior who doesn't have a clue past making a stem from a block of raw
iron ore as taught by the famous "Swiss school".
I would never employ someone whose sole experience was in a service
center. My best school mate was one and he was on the phone to me just
about every frigging day when he went solo.
<phew> Now that was a good rant. I'm almost ready to finish this cuppa
and go to work on my returns. ;-)
--
Regards, Frank
SWG
Tony Stanford
<fa...@notthis.optushome.com.au> wrote
>On Wed, 17 Oct 2007 17:48:18 +0100, Tony Stanford
><tonyst...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>On Sun, 14 Oct 2007, at 15:44:42, Jack Denver <nunu...@netscape.net>
>>wrote
>>>As much as I'm not a Rolex fan, I'd say your experience is not typical
>>>- perhaps there was some defect in the microstella balance weight
>>>adjusting screw mechanism that allowed them to slip or perhaps there
>>>was dirt in your watch that was never properly removed by a cleaning.
>>
>>Well, you may be right, but it went back to Rolex again and again, and
>>each time it cost me as much as a new middle-high range Seiko analogue
>>quartz. They never fixed it, same old problems. So I sold it to a bloke
>>in a pub and bought myself a Seiko.
>>
>Kinda sad that.
Yes, lovely speech. I am sure you are right. To give Rolex their due,
though, in case I didn't explain properly, the watch did come back each
time from service within spec. But it stayed there for only a few weeks,
sometimes a few months, before slipping to +30secs per day. The rotor
arm falling off (twice), I can't explain.
Rolex maintained that the watch must be serviced every 18 months to stay
in spec.
--
Tony Stanford