Bad experience with Invicta, a couple of questions.
MP
A few months ago, I bought an Invicta # 8926 automatic dive watch. I was
mildly disappointed in the accuracy, +17 sec/day, and thought of having it
regulated, but then decided that I was expecting too much from a cheap
watch, and that I'd just live with it. I didn't want to try regulating it
myself when it was under warranty, especially since I'd never done that
before.
Then it turned out that the date would stick between two of the dates and
had to be advanced manually. I sent it back to Invicta under warranty, and
asked them also to have a look at regulating it.
An interjection here. While the watch was gone, I looked up some
instructions on the Internet for regulating watches. It seemed fairly
simple, as long as it was just a regulation, and not a full adjustment. I
have two inexpensive Seiko automatics. One is fairly new, and still good to
about 5 sec/day. The other was much older, out of warranty, but almost
never worn, and gaining 25 sec/day when it was worn. I took a stab at
regulating the old one myself, and after much trial and error, got it down
to -3 sec/day (for now). So I know that even a cheap automatic *might* be
reasonably accurate.
Okay, I just got the Invicta back, and it was unbelievable. In the first
two hours after I set it, it gained 8 (eight!) full minutes, and was up to +
20 minutes when I stopped bothering to look at it. This works out to over
an hour and a half per day. I called Invicta back; they said send them the
watch, and they would send me a brand new replacement, instead of making me
wait for this one to be fixed. Just mailed it back this morning, and
hopefully this will get resolved.
This model has a display back. I didn't open it , but I had a look through
it at the regulator, and it looked like it was about centered, not jammed
all the way over to one side. Which leads me to my questions, finally.
1. Is there any possibility that this degree of inaccuracy could be caused
by misadjustment/misregulation, or is it just that something broke? (maybe
in shipping)
2. About how far off *could* a mechanical watch be just by faulty adjustment
of the regulator?
Recall that I only have the most basic idea of how a mechanical watch works,
so please try to keep the technical jargon simple :)
Thanks,
MP
Revision
is generally a reliable movt.
If my 8926 were 17 s/d off, I might regulate it, or not. And yes with a
little luck you might well find one that would turn in a steady +2 s/day.
I think the balance coils got tangled during shipping. Some deft prodding
with a small screwdriver might have corrected that; not recommended if you
haven't done it before.
Another thing is the rubber gasket. If you decide to regulate it, or once
the watch is keeping good time, it is a good idea to have a jeweler replace
the gasket in the back so that the watch can go in the pool.
Move the regulator in increments of 1/100 inch.
"MP"> 1. Is there any possibility that this degree of inaccuracy could be
caused
> by misadjustment/misregulation
Simple answer is no.
or is it just that something broke? (maybe
> in shipping)
>
> 2. About how far off *could* a mechanical watch be just by faulty
> adjustment
> of the regulator?
Wild guess about 5 minutes a day.
> MP
** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **
Revision
would have moved the watch from +17 to -17, which is why I might not have
bothered, and the watch was basically functioning normally. Well except for
the problem with the date.
Even some of my better watches that keep time to +1 on the wrist will wander
ten sec/day when left on a table. So for me, +17 in an Invicta is not
horrible.
Miyota does a rough time check at the factory, and Invicta takes the movt
out of the shipping container and puts it in the watch.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/23594131@N08/2696949322/sizes/o/
MP
but the date works, I won't worry about it. Particularly since, as you
wrote before, I might be compromising the water resistance if I opened it.
The Seiko that I managed to regulate is a dress model that's only specified
for 3 ATM water resistance anyway.
MP
On 7/23/08 4:57 PM, in article 402bb$48879b31$12...@news.teranews.com,
Jack Denver
to sell for $100 a watch that is in some (not all) respects comparable to a
$5,000 Rolex Submariner is that they they cut a lot of corners. One of the
corners that they cut is quality control - they take the movements that they
buy from Miyota and put hands and a dial on them and case them up and ship
them to you, as is. Now Miyota (Citizen) is a pretty good Japanese firm so
probably 99.9% of the movements are working fine when delivered but in the
process of casing up they can get damaged. Miyota purposely sends the
movements out around 20s/day fast - they tend to slow down a little as they
break in and a slightly fast watch is better than a watch that is slow to
any degree. Also, for this price they cannot afford to put a lot of skilled
watchmaker time into fixing a watch. So either the watch comes back the same
as before (they give it the "rest cure") or if you complain a second time
they send you a new watch - either way is cheaper than actually fixing a
broken one.
"MP" <wara...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:C4AD000C.53D3%wara...@yahoo.com...
andre...@aol.com
Send it back again. Its a pain but they'll take care of it. Regarding
the 17 second inaccuracy, if you can live with it, it is not too bad.
Just adjust it once a week or so. They may get it back to you pretty
close or it may still be 17 seconds off. Once they'll get it back to
you working properly, it will be a tough reliable long lasting watch.
MP
cadfb6cc-1701-4b00...@d1g2000hsg.googlegroups.com,
"andre...@aol.com" <andre...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> Send it back again. Its a pain but they'll take care of it. Regarding
> the 17 second inaccuracy, if you can live with it, it is not too bad.
> Just adjust it once a week or so. They may get it back to you pretty
> close or it may still be 17 seconds off. Once they'll get it back to
> you working properly, it will be a tough reliable long lasting watch.
Well, the replacement watch has been here almost a month. For anybody who's
interested, here's the rest of the story. For anyone who's not, quick
summary:
New Invicta 8926 diver had sticking date. Accuracy +17 sec/day (not really
a problem in itself). Sent it back to manufacturer asking them to fix the
date and regulate it. It came back in much worse condition. They sent a
replacement, but it had a broken band and was gaining a lot of time. In the
end, everything got resolved, and it's a pretty good watch, considering the
price.
The band on the replacement watch had a broken locking clasp; a broken
rivet, not an easily replaceable push pin. So I put it aside for the time
being, and used a $5 rubber strap that I had sitting around. I called
Invicta, they said send them the broken band and they would replace it.
Sure enough, they did; the new bracelet arrived yesterday.
Next, to see how this one was running. It gained eighty seconds the first
day, within the range where it ought to be adjustable, but still very
disappointing. I really did not want to send this back to Invicta yet
again, and paying a local watch repairman another $20 to $30 to regulate a
new $99 watch just didn't sit right. I started thinking of doing what I
previously said I wouldn't, regulate the darn thing myself. What clinched
it was when I tried to clean a speck of something off the transparent
display back, and discovered that it was on the inside.
Heck with it. I opened it up, removed the speck, and gave the regulator a
nudge. I acknowledge that in doing this, I have invalidated the warranty,
and compromised the water resistance, specified at 200m. As far as the
latter goes, I've done my best to be careful, and if the watch leaks during
normal swimming, I'll write it off to experience. I don't scuba dive, just
one of those wannabes who like the style of a diver's watch.
From what I've been reading, perhaps I should have let it run for a week or
two first, but I didn't. It took some trial and error, overshooting quite a
bit in both directions. I'm not trained on this at all, and don't have a
watch rate recorder. Then I got lucky. It's actually pretty amazing. Set
it on August 9th, and it's gained a total of 10 seconds since then. Even
that's a bit misleading. It gained most of that it the first few days, and
leaving it in a different position one night added on another 3. Since
then, it seems to have settled into a cycle of losing a couple of seconds
overnight, and gaining them back during the day, with almost no net gain.
I'm actually having trouble accepting that a mechanical is doing this well,
and of course, it was blind luck, not skill.
Sending back the broken bracelet added the final $1.68 to my postal bill on
this watch. When I sent the watch back the first time, there was a
mandatory $20 S&H fee even for warranty repair. (not unusual). They didn't
make me pay this the second time (I should hope not), but of course, I still
had to pay my own postage. All told, I paid an extra $33.95 to get all the
issues resolved.
Bottom line, I've ended up with a pretty nice looking automatic watch that
keeps good time, for a total of $132.95. It was a lot more hassle than it
should have to get everything resolved, and would have cost more if I'd been
sensible and let a professional handle regulating it. On the other hand,
Invicta did eventually resolve the most serious issues.
There are little imperfections with the appearance, e.g. the date magnifier
on the crystal isn't quite centered on 3 o'clock. Still, for the price, it
really does seem to be good quality. When you buy a $99 watch on Amazon,
you can't expect all that much.
I don't intend this as particularly pro or anti Invicta, just the facts in
my case. Wanting to own one more decent quality automatic, but not wanting
to shell out for something like a Tag Heuer or an Omega, I decided to take a
chance on a bargain brand. There are plenty of reviews out there on this
model, which is what got my attention in the first place
MP
John S.
> On 7/31/08 12:16 PM, in article
I'm glad that it ultimately worked out to your satisfacion.
Given the Invicta reputation for spotty quality and poor customer
service I would not consider doing business with them. I must take
issue with the statement about low expectations for $99 watches.
Seiko and many other watch companies have successfuly produced good
quality watches well below that price. I've seen Seiko automatics for
well under $100.00 and the venerable SKX779 can be had for $150 It
can be done.
Twug Storn
MP
On 9/3/08 12:07 PM, in article
a585092a-5dac-483f...@d45g2000hsc.googlegroups.com, "John S."
<hjs...@cs.com> wrote: . . .
>
> I'm glad that it ultimately worked out to your satisfacion.
>
> Given the Invicta reputation for spotty quality and poor customer
> service I would not consider doing business with them. I must take
> issue with the statement about low expectations for $99 watches.
> Seiko and many other watch companies have successfuly produced good
> quality watches well below that price. I've seen Seiko automatics for
> well under $100.00 and the venerable SKX779 can be had for $150 It
> can be done.
I'm sure you're right. Certainly I expect *any* new watch to be free from
gross defects. It's just that, for lower priced automatics, I don't have
extraordinary expectations for finish, or out-of-the-box accuracy. I could
be wrong.
My best automatic is a Seiko Yellow Diver. Got it for $167.00 from Amazon,
although I think they cost more now. No failures, and the accuracy is about
+5 sec/day without being subjected to my inexpert ministrations.
And of course, I have very cheap quartz watches with great accuracy, and
sub-$100 G-Shocks that claim 200m WR.
MP
Jack Denver
"John S." <hjs...@cs.com> wrote in message
news:a585092a-5dac-483f...@d45g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
I'm glad that it ultimately worked out to your satisfacion.
Given the Invicta reputation for spotty quality and poor customer
service I would not consider doing business with them. I must take
issue with the statement about low expectations for $99 watches.
Seiko and many other watch companies have successfuly produced good
quality watches well below that price. I've seen Seiko automatics for
well under $100.00 and the venerable SKX779 can be had for $150 It
can be done.
Seiko makes some very nice and inexpensive watches, but there is no Seiko
automatic diver to be had for $99 that has a case and bracelet as nice as
the Invicta auto diver. Plus the Invicta is a dead ringer for a Rolex Sub
at a distance (but is not a "fake"). You might or might not like that, but
some people do. The Seikos tend to have their own "unique" styling which
sometime verges on weird. I also happen to like the Miyota movement, with
its crown winding, a little better than the Seiko 7S.
Rather than pay to deal with Invicta, my recommendation is to deal with a
reputable seller. If the watch arrives as a lemon, send it back and get
another. Some of the dealers will even regulate the watches before
shipping.
If you happen to hit the regulator setting spot on, it's almost scary how
well modern inexpensive automatics perform on the wrist. Because their
gains and losses tend to cancel out (while quartz tends to drift in one
direction) , long term average can actually be better than what you get from
quartz.
John S.
> On 9/3/08 12:07 PM, in article
Yes, I think the Seiko automatic divers are really the best way to
go. Quality is throughout is excellent and most of their designs are
original. Watches from the so-called monster line are quite a deal
imho.
Moka Java
The Seiko Monster is a bargain for sure but a bit big and uncomfortable
on my wrist. If I was looking for an auto to play hard with in the
water Seiko has it all over Invicta. O&W makes a good tough watch with
an ETA 2824 for not a lot of $ but I would have a watchmaker re-seal and
pressure test before getting it really wet.
Fraser Johnston
After owning an Invicta 8926 and a Seiko Monster I have to say I love
the Monster more. It was a small amount of money more but for the extra
it is a much better watch. I must be one of the few people that
actually wear it diving and I have to say it has never had a problem.
The exhibition back on the Invicta seemed to mysteriously crack one day.
I still don't know how it happened. Either way both are great
watches for the money and both have been better than my Breitling in
terms of build quality.
Fraser
Norman M. Schwartz
> After owning an Invicta 8926 and a Seiko Monster I have to say I love
> the Monster more. It was a small amount of money more but for the
> extra it is a much better watch. I must be one of the few people that
> actually wear it diving and I have to say it has never had a problem.
> The exhibition back on the Invicta seemed to mysteriously crack one
> day. I still don't know how it happened. Either way both are great
> watches for the money and both have been better than my Breitling in
> terms of build quality.
>
Wow! Are you sure someone didn't stick you with a fake Breitling? ;-)
> Fraser
Fraser Johnston
Nope. But I haven't really been happy with it. It is an Aerospace and
I've had a rider tab fall off and the crown go rusty inside. Pretty bad
for a $3000 watch.
Fraser
Norman M. Schwartz
I totally agree with you in that the Invictas and Seikos represent great
value for the money. I'm pleased with my Aerospace, but certainly would be
pissed if my experience matched yours. Did you approach Breitling in regard
to your issues?
> Fraser