IWC and Accuracy (again)
Norman M. Schwartz
4 seconds/24 hours and the second by 1.5 seconds day. Life style activity is
probably above average and both watches behave similarly when charged on
winders. IWC in Switzerland states that 10% of *all* automatics in the same
league
need to be recalibrated. True or B.S.?
Norman
Jack Denver
Adjusting the regulation of these watches will probably only throw them
further out. Stop obsessing and leave them alone. If you really, really have
a need for a watch that runs better than 4 seconds/day, buy a Casio. Do
experiment with night storage positions.
"Norman M. Schwartz" <nm...@att.net> wrote in message
news:0uw%9.19031$rq4.1...@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
Richard J. Sexton (At work)
Sounds about right. Have them regulated if this bothers you.
--
Richard Sexton | Mercedes Parts: http://parts.mbz.org
http://www.mbz.org Mailing lists: http://lists.mbz.org
250SE/C 300SD Mercedes Classifieds: http://ads.mbz.org
2 x 280SE Watch list: http://watches.list.mbz.org
Norman M. Schwartz
"Jack Denver" <nunu...@netscape.net> wrote in message
news:g7ecncA-Xev...@comcast.com...
> 1.5 to 4 seconds/day is excellent performance for a mechanical watch.
> Adjusting the regulation of these watches will probably only throw them
> further out. Stop obsessing and leave them alone. If you really, really
have
> a need for a watch that runs better than 4 seconds/day, buy a Casio.
Been there, done that. That's how I found out it's not within "spec." I own
a CasioWave Ceptor for precise time.
I have zero "need" for better than that, but only need and want to get what
I paid for.
Do
> experiment with night storage positions.
Night Storage: My Scatola del Tempo winder functions in only one position,
the watch face being vertical when looking at it i.e. a perfect right angle
(90 degrees).
Norman M. Schwartz
"Richard J. Sexton (At work)" <ric...@vrx.news> wrote in message
news:H9qsF...@T-FCN.Net...
> In article <0uw%9.19031$rq4.1...@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>,
> Norman M. Schwartz <nm...@att.net> wrote:
> >We own 2 IWCs, (1) Mark XV and (2) GST Chrono. Both run *slow* the first
by
> >4 seconds/24 hours and the second by 1.5 seconds day. Life style activity
is
> >probably above average and both watches behave similarly when charged on
> >winders. IWC in Switzerland states that 10% of *all* automatics in the
same
> >league
> >need to be recalibrated. True or B.S.?
>
> Sounds about right. Have them regulated if this bothers you.
>
It bothers me only to the extent that IWC claims, and in fact boasts,
otherwise for their product *and* one is given to understand that the
additional cost of their watches is in part due to exhaustive factory
calibration and testing before it is marketed. Additionally their watches
are claimed never to run slow! The store (Wempe, NYC) where the Mark XV was
purchased was *bothered* by it and sent it back to Switzerland. It appears
that it doesn't "bother" since you haven't bought one.
Jack Denver
it in a fixed position at night. Watches will run faster when the spring is
not at full tension. IWC takes this into account and assumes that the watch
will run down partly at night. Or else cut down on the number of turns on
the winder...just enough to keep it wound.
You are suffering from a common problem....you think that paying big money
for a watch entitles you to extraordinary performance. This is just not
so...there are limits to mechanical watch performance that no amount of
money will cure. You are getting very good performance from your watches.
True, IWC claims that their watches never leave the factory slow, but no
matter how you slice it, a watch that runs with 4 secs/day either fast or
slow is very good for a mechanical watch. You should just relax about this
and be happy that you have such a beautiful watch without worrying about
those last 4 seconds which you admit don't mean anything to you anyway.
"Norman M. Schwartz" <nm...@att.net> wrote in message
news:gvy%9.30773$zF6.2...@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
Norman M. Schwartz
> Aha...a clue. Try wearing the watch on your wrist during the day and
storing
> it in a fixed position at night. Watches will run faster when the spring
is
> not at full tension. IWC takes this into account and assumes that the
watch
> will run down partly at night. Or else cut down on the number of turns on
> the winder...just enough to keep it wound.
I've done that too. Having 5 other mechanical watches (including a
Navitimer, 2 Omega Seamaster Professional Chronographs (1 in titanium and
the other in stainless steel) and a Fortis Pilot, I can't customize the
winder for any one watch. However I have worn the Mark XV exclusively with
no night time chargeing whatsover and it's still 4 seconds SLOW in 24 hours.
>
> You are suffering from a common problem....you think that paying big money
> for a watch entitles you to extraordinary performance. This is just not
> so...there are limits to mechanical watch performance that no amount of
> money will cure. You are getting very good performance from your watches.
> True, IWC claims that their watches never leave the factory slow, but no
> matter how you slice it, a watch that runs with 4 secs/day either fast or
> slow is very good for a mechanical watch. You should just relax about this
> and be happy that you have such a beautiful watch without worrying about
> those last 4 seconds which you admit don't mean anything to you anyway.
I'm not suffering from any watch related problem at all, and have zero
interest in whether or not this be a common or uncommon problem. I expect
the watch to live up to its manufacturer's claims, regardless of its cost,
big money or small, period. If I was informed that a particular watch was
going to run an entire minute *fast or slow* within a 24 hour period, I'd
expect that to happen as well. Don't you expect the items you buy to live up
to their manufacturer's claims? Can't you understand that I truly am not wor
rying about "those last 4 seconds" AT ALL? I was hoping to learn of the
experiences of other IWC Mark XV and GST Chrono owners to be able to compare
those with mine.
Jack Denver
when they left the factory..they're so close now. One day (or a week or a
month or a year) after you get it home, it may no longer run to factory
spec...one knock, one magnetic field, one particle of dust and it's
different and IWC is not responsible...you can't send it back to Switzerland
if it runs 4 secs slow (well you can, but its not reasonable to do so). Nor
does anyone else's experience matter...all mechanical watches will drift in
regulation eventually. Every mechanical watch runs differently in different
positions and temperatures and states of wind (the overall timekeeping is
an average of all the positions and factors that the watch experiences each
day) and each person has different wear patterns, lives in a different
climate zone, etc. Some people happen to wear their watches in a way that
ties in perfectly with their regulation and so end up dead on...if you
traded watches with them and overwound them (as you sound like you are doing
and refuse to stop- btw eventually you will cause damage to the winding
barrel by winding in excess of the recommended turns) their watches would
run slow on you too.
IWC has obviously gotten itself in trouble with you over their "no watch
slow" policy. I'm sure if you insist, they will accomodate you (at least
during the warranty period) and re-regulate the watch a bit faster. They
will probably keep the watch for many weeks and when you get it back, if it
is running say +6 you will have nothing left to complain about but it will
keep worse time than before you sent it away. I reiterate again...the watch
is keeping excellent time for a mechanical...wear it and enjoy it.
"Norman M. Schwartz" <nm...@att.net> wrote in message
news:MmC%9.19499$rq4.1...@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
Matt
watch. If it ain't broke, don't fix it.
matt
"Norman M. Schwartz" <nm...@att.net> wrote in message
news:0uw%9.19031$rq4.1...@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
Matt
> Don't you expect the items you buy to live up to their manufacturer's
claims?
No, because I realize that most manufacturers "claims" are just hype and I
look at things subjectively while ignoring those "claims". Compare the
specs of your watch with an average high-dollar mechanical watch and you'll
see that they are running correctly.
Same is true with a chronometer certificate, that doesn't mean that the
watch will run within chronometer specs for its entire life, it just means
that it was running within the specs when it left the factory.
>Can't you understand that I truly am not wor
> rying about "those last 4 seconds" AT ALL?
Suuuure your not. ;)
>I was hoping to learn of the
> experiences of other IWC Mark XV and GST Chrono owners to be able to
compare
> those with mine.
Go to http://www.timezone.com/forum.aspx?forumId=iwc and ask your questions
there, it doesn't seem that there are many IWC owners here in the NG.
You'll definately be able to compare your specs with specs of other people
there on that forum.
matt
Thore B. Karlsen
>>I was hoping to learn of the
>> experiences of other IWC Mark XV and GST Chrono owners to be able to compare
>> those with mine.
>Go to http://www.timezone.com/forum.aspx?forumId=iwc and ask your questions
>there, it doesn't seem that there are many IWC owners here in the NG.
>You'll definately be able to compare your specs with specs of other people
>there on that forum.
My IWC is a Portuguese chrono, but it has the same base movement as the
GST Chrono. Mine was about one second a week too fast before I sent it
in for service. I miss it already. :( But I bought two new watches to
keep me company. :)
--
Be seeing you.
Bill
I agree. If it is advertised to "never run slow", that's the end
of the story - they should fix it. Advertising is usually very
carefully worded and checked by lawyers, etc, so any claims IWC make
regarding accuracy should be enforceable.
Body temperature, storage position, magnetic fields, cosmic rays and
voodoo aside, I would like to see it perform as advertised if I paid
for that performance.
Good luck, Bill.
Norman M. Schwartz
characteristic of it right out of the box, worn exclusively, worn day time
with winder charging at night, and winder charging alone. Wempe in NYC
dealing in many high-end watches found it to run 4 seconds slow as well.
*Wempe was not satisfied* with its performance and *Wempe decided to send it
back to Switzerland* and did so on their own and then informed me about
having done so.Wempe decided it should be recalibrated or replaced until I
had a watch (Mark XV) that runs according to IWC spec. (One of my sons has a
slow running IWC GST Chrono bought from a different NYC dealer and that is
another and different story.) He also has a Rolex GMT Master, which I bought
for him as a present, several years ago. From my very limited experience, I
have concluded that should I expect a automatic watch to perform as its
maker advertises, WHICH I DO, even though you do not, a Rolex will be my
next and perhaps last mechanical watch purchase. In any event I have many
other both expensive and inexpensive watches to wear and enjoy, and am both
learning from, AND enjoying this experience as well.
"Jack Denver" <nunu...@netscape.net> wrote in message
news:tcacnZVFqea...@comcast.com...
if you
> traded watches with them and overwound them (as you sound like you are
doing
> and refuse to stop- btw eventually you will cause damage to the winding
> barrel by winding in excess of the recommended turns) their watches would
> run slow on you too.
Sounds like? Huh? What have I written to allow such a nutty assumption?
> IWC has obviously gotten itself in trouble with you over their "no watch
> slow" policy. I'm sure if you insist, they will accomodate you (at least
> during the warranty period) and re-regulate the watch a bit faster. They
> will probably keep the watch for many weeks and when you get it back, if
it
> is running say +6 you will have nothing left to complain about but it will
> keep worse time than before you sent it away. I reiterate again...the
watch
> is keeping excellent time for a mechanical...wear it and enjoy it.
>
+6 is also not within IWC's spec and Wempe will want to send it back to them
again. If I can't get an IWC Mark XV to run according to spec they will
probably want to take it back towards a refund trade to another
manufacturer's product that will!
Jack Denver
"question: What are the rate tolerances of my IWC watch and what are they
influenced by?
Answer: Before an IWC leaves the factory, the movement is tested in five
different positions:
Crown down
Crown left
Crown up
Dial down
Dial up
The movement is adjusted in each of these positions to an average rate of
between 0 and +7 seconds per day. In other words, an IWC must never be slow
but may be fast by up to 7 seconds per day. "
So if you get it back and its running +6 or +7 you will have nothing to
complain about even though the accuracy will now be worse than before.
If you wear a watch all day, you don't need to keep it on a winder at night.
Don't believe me, but you are overwinding your watch and will shorten its
lifespan.
"Norman M. Schwartz" <nm...@att.net> wrote in message
news:z_O%9.20682$rq4.1...@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
Norman M. Schwartz
> +6 is inside the IWC spec. From the IWC FAQ at www.iwc.ch
>
> "question: What are the rate tolerances of my IWC watch and what are they
> influenced by?
> Answer: Before an IWC leaves the factory, the movement is tested in five
> different positions:
>
> Crown down
> Crown left
> Crown up
> Dial down
> Dial up
> The movement is adjusted in each of these positions to an average rate of
> between 0 and +7 seconds per day. In other words, an IWC must never be
slow
> but may be fast by up to 7 seconds per day. "
>
> So if you get it back and its running +6 or +7 you will have nothing to
> complain about even though the accuracy will now be worse than before.
At least if its my habit to tune into a radio station at a given particular
time (news 88 etc.) I won't be tuning in too late to hear a particular
report. Being early rather than late must be part of IWC's grand design from
which I hope to benefit.
> If you wear a watch all day, you don't need to keep it on a winder at
night.
> Don't believe me, but you are overwinding your watch and will shorten its
> lifespan.
It goes on the winder ONLY when I don't intend to wear it for several days
or weeks because I'm wearing a different watch, in part to see how another
of my automatics behave in comparison to the IWC, all of which have been and
are subjected to similar conditions of activity, temperature, storage,
position, etc. etc. Why don't you believe me? I regard this comparison to be
part of my fascination with the hobby, AND it's only just a HOBBY. If I were
to "worry" about it, I'd give it up. I do the same with my Breitling Old
Navitimer which I've used for over 5 years and its running fine, without
ever being serviced, and will most probably outlive me.When I wish to wear a
neat quartz watch, (having all my automatics on the winder ALL being
"overcharged") you will find me wearing my two toned Titanium Breitling
Aerospace (with "Professional Titanium Bracelet").
Urban Fredriksson
Jack Denver <nunu...@netscape.net> wrote:
>If you wear a watch all day, you don't need to keep it on a winder at night.
Agreed.
>Don't believe me, but you are overwinding your watch and will shorten its
>lifespan.
This can't be a particularily noticable effect. A winder
typically will be set up to wind the watch during a 24 h
period to run 24 h + some margin. I know of one brand
which makes 1200 turns in each direction per 24 h, which I
make out as 800 turns per night, but since it runs intermittently
different from night to night. Most watches need on the
order of 650 to 800 turns per day.
In the past I've used the rule of thumb that about 2 hours
of wearing a watch is enough to power it for 24 hours,
which seems to be borne out by other trials I've done with
350-500 turns per hour (bidirectionally winding rotors).
The abovementioned 800 turns thus seem pretty
insignificant relative to the wearer's style of life.
--
Urban Fredriksson http://www.canit.se/%7Egriffon/
A king and an elephant were sitting in a bathtub. The king said, "pass
the soap" and the elephant said, "No soap, radio!"
Jack Denver
Personally, I disagree...if you set a watch up so that it is fast in some
positions and slow in others (within the COSC tolerances) then you have a
chance of having the losses cancel out the gains and have the watch average
out to dead accurate or close to it on your wrist. If the watch is always
fast in every position, there is no chance for this cancelling effect.
"Norman M. Schwartz" <nm...@att.net> wrote in message
news:EuS%9.32103$zF6.2...@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
Norman M. Schwartz
> +6 is inside the IWC spec. From the IWC FAQ at www.iwc.ch
>
> "question: What are the rate tolerances of my IWC watch and what are they
> influenced by?
> Answer: Before an IWC leaves the factory, the movement is tested in five
> different positions:
>
> Crown down
> Crown left
> Crown up
> Dial down
> Dial up
> The movement is adjusted in each of these positions to an average rate of
> between 0 and +7 seconds per day. In other words, an IWC must never be slow
> but may be fast by up to 7 seconds per day. "
>
> So if you get it back and its running +6 or +7 you will have nothing to
> complain about even though the accuracy will now be worse than before.
>
> If you wear a watch all day, you don't need to keep it on a winder at night.
> Don't believe me, but you are overwinding your watch and will shorten its
> lifespan.
>
particular case, that you don't even have the slightest idea of what
you are talking about), IWC has found there to be something very wrong
with this watch, is replacing the entire movement and has apologized
for having allowed it to leave the factory. Perhaps you should
consider limiting your interpretations of watch problems to INVICTAS.
Norman
Al
your watch. You have to make the final judement yourself. In your case,
you did, that's good, but don't fault Jack for pointing those out.
"Norman M. Schwartz" <nm...@att.net> wrote in message
news:41b8b61b.03020...@posting.google.com...
Norman M. Schwartz
for trouble and should leave well enough alone and just be happy in being
the owner of a fine watch. The store where it was purchased recognized a
problem within no more than 12 hours, sent it back to IWC who then did
likewise and is replacing its movement. Jack would have been correct if he
indicated that the watch's performance was unusual and should be checked out
(and not just telling me I was damaging it by my use of a winder which I
indicated doing for all my automatics and haven't damaged any of them).
"Al" <nos...@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:dKw1a.669$EQ5...@news-binary.blueyonder.co.uk...
Scott A. Ekleberry
to put it on a timing machine (which I'm sure the store did) or physically
observe what it was doing ourselves. I don't have the original post, but if
the watch had a SERIOUS error then you should have taken it back to the
dealer immediately. If that watch was no more than +/- 4 seconds in any
position per day then it is within chronometer specs and there is nothing
wrong with it, PERIOD. Given your smart ass comments here the store, and
IWC, most likely realized you to be a PITA and decided just to swap in a
movement rather than put up with constant complaining for a year.
One other observation, people as a rule have been spoiled by quartz watches.
They now think EVERY watch should keep that good of time or better. NO
mechanical is going to keep as good of time as a quartz watch, just not
possible. If you are that neurotic (or anal) about time keeping buy a $40
quartz watch and live in peace.
--
Scott A. Ekleberry-Watchmaker
It's About Time! Watch Repair
www.itsabouttimeonline.com
sae...@woh.rr.com
"Norman M. Schwartz" <nm...@att.net> wrote in message
news:pdx1a.29222$rq4.2...@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
Jack Denver
gratutious insults are uncalled for and sophmoric. Your snide remarks
regarding Invicta betray your shallow snootiness. Perhaps you should wear
your IWC with the price tag attached so that everyone will know how much you
spent on it. On the level of fundamental mechanics (if not finish) the
Miyota automatic movements used in most Invictas operate on principals that
are virtually identical to those of the ETA movement in your IWC..if you
know how one works, you know how the other works, but you don't know beans
about either...all you know is dollar signs.
You orginally wrote that your IWC was running under 2 seconds slow / day.
That is completely incompatible with something being "very wrong" with the
watch - no mechanical watch that has a serious defect keeps time within 2
secs/day. I'm incline to go with Scott's theory that they said this in their
elaborately polite Swiss way just to get rid of you. I'll put a further spin
on it - how do you know that they are really swapping the movement (not that
it is really a big deal for them to swap movements between your watch and
another watch that is in for service)? And you don't have the watch back
yet. When you get it back and it runs 7 secs/fast day will you be happier?
Next time around, if it is in spec (as 7 secs is), IWC probably won't give
you the time of day (no pun intended).
"Norman M. Schwartz" <nm...@att.net> wrote in message
news:41b8b61b.03020...@posting.google.com...
Scott A. Ekleberry
should, keep better time than 1.5 to 4 seconds a day is neurotic at best. Go
buy a quartz if you need more accuracy, you'll be a lot happier and it will
give you more time to obsess about the more important things in your life.
:)
--
Scott A. Ekleberry-Watchmaker
It's About Time! Watch Repair
www.itsabouttimeonline.com
sae...@woh.rr.com
"Jack Denver" <nunu...@netscape.net> wrote in message
news:g7ecncA-Xev...@comcast.com...
Norman M. Schwartz
manufacturer's claims by telling them to go buy a Casio. I already have two
Casios, a Wave Ceptor WV-50H and a model A158W (and many other quartz
watches as well).
I expect nothing more than a product to perform as its manufacturer says it
should, regardless of any and all other considerations.
"Scott A. Ekleberry" <sae...@woh.rr.com> wrote in message
news:wfG1a.131554$i73.30...@twister.neo.rr.com...
Dave
It is possible to achieve better results than four seconds per day..,
By dynamic poising of the balance assembly - this process eliminates
positional errors.
On another point - It is simply NOT possible to overwind an automatic
watch. The mainspring is designed to slip at a certain tension.
"Jack Denver" <nunu...@netscape.net> wrote in message news:<JJGcnT2sV6H...@comcast.com>...
Simon Bryquer
post -- but I agree if a manufacture says a watch dances and does flips it
better dance and do flips. I don't know exactly what IWC says about this
particular watch but it's too easy to dismiss other people's obsession and
rationalize one's own.
Simon
"Norman M. Schwartz" <nm...@att.net> wrote in message
news:DKM1a.45185$zF6.2...@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
Richard J. Sexton (At work)
Scott A. Ekleberry <sae...@woh.rr.com> wrote:
>Ah, now I see it. Yep, anyone that thinks an automatic watch needs to, or
>should, keep better time than 1.5 to 4 seconds a day is neurotic at best. Go
>buy a quartz if you need more accuracy, you'll be a lot happier and it will
>give you more time to obsess about the more important things in your life.
>:)
Disagree. There's lots of people who have mechanical watches
that are doing better than 1/s/day accuracy, more onthe order of 1 S/ week.
EL primeros, COSC Breitlings, the new Daytonas all seem to do
this out of te box from what I've heard (although the SP's may
ned a bit of regulation to get there, and seem to be a bit difficult
to keep wound due to the 36K beat movements).
I'm sure there's many others, but these are the ones I"ve heard of first hand.
Norman M. Schwartz
price of watches. Perhaps I shouldn't have used the term "accuracy" in my
subject. Since one of my sons has a IWC GST-Chrono which also runs slow (1.5
seconds per day), I posted here to perhaps find out if other *IWC* owners
have similar experiences AND NOT to be told to buy a Casio or to attach a
price tag to my watch. I don't need anyone's opinion on what I should expect
of a mechanical watch, but simply expect the watch to run as IWC says it
should, FAST and not slow. Since it's our money and not anyone else's, our
purchases need satisfy us and neither Jack nor Scott. Moreover, I'll insist
that this happens within the warrantee period (1 year) or I'll get my money
back towards the purchase of an even more costly watch. Strange and bizarre
that someone who lauds Invictas because they LOOK LIKE Rolexes suggests that
I should attach a price tag to my Mark XV, which in fact I must according
to his preferences, because it is a very plain and ordinary looking watch
which "the man on the street" easily mistakes for a Timex and not a Rolex!
(This in fact is good since it minimizes the likelihood that I'll get mugged
or killed for my watch.)
"Richard J. Sexton (At work)" <ric...@vrx.news> wrote in message
news:HA3Lr...@T-FCN.Net...
Jack Denver
factory by automated equipment? Is it being used on the full line of ETA
movements or only the COSC grade? Is this the "secret" that allows 95% of
all submitted movements to pass COSC nowadays?
Also, the question was not whether better than 4 seconds a day was
achievable (clearly it is, based on many anecdotal reports) but whether you
would advise service or regulation on a watch that was 4 secs slow (assuming
that everything else was okay- watch in beat, etc.). Keeping in mind that
this is an IWC, which supposedly is not allowed to leave the factory slow at
all.
Regarding overwinding, would you agree that keeping an already wound watch
on a winder beyond the needed number of turns can cause additional and
unnecessary wear?
"Dave" <watch...@suissewatchservice.com> wrote in message
news:6fb260c2.03021...@posting.google.com...
> Hey Guys -
>
> It is possible to achieve better results than four seconds per day..,
> By dynamic poising of the balance assembly - this process eliminates
> positional errors.
>
> On another point - It is simply NOT possible to overwind an automatic
> watch. The mainspring is designed to slip at a certain tension.
>
>
> Dave
> suissewatchservice.com
>
.
Jack Denver
back to it. You betray yourself when say that you would return your IWC in
favor of an "even more costly" watch. You seem to be confusing cost and
quality. Next time, instead of looking for the most expensive watch, look
for the best watch regardless of price - sometimes you have to pay less in
order to get more. Also, you keep bringing up Invicta in this thread, which
has nothing to do with Invicta. I can only assume that this is because
Invicta makes some inexpensive watches that do not meet your snooty
standards, so that to you an "Invicta enthusiast" is a derogatory epithet
who is not qualified to opine to his betters. In fact, I don't mind being
labeled an Invicta enthusiast, though I own an IWC too (a lovely vintage
gold cal.89, which I like better than any of their modern ETA based
watches). I'd be willing to guess that if Invicta charged 10 or 20 times as
much as they do, you'd give their watches serious consideration and if IWC
cut its prices to O&W levels you'd lose interest in their watches in favor
of "more costly" ones.
Again I hope and pray that IWC will send you your watch back set 7 seconds
fast so that you will have nothing to complain about.
"Norman M. Schwartz" <nm...@att.net> wrote in message
news:MSP1a.45312$zF6.3...@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
Dave
> Please tell us more about dynamic poising....is this process done at the
> factory by automated equipment?
No, A skilled watchmaker performs the task of observing the errors on
a timing machine while the watch is running at a reduced amplitude and
at various positions.
>Is it being used on the full line of ETA
> movements or only the COSC grade?
Although I have visited ETA SA in Grenchen, Switzerland on several
seperate occasions, I am NOT privy to how they prepare their movements
before submitting to COSC. I can say this, An experienced watchmaker
can improve on the majority of watches released to the public,
certified or not. It becomes an issue of economics - The factory
prepares the movement to perform within guidlines set up by what they
feel the end user will accept.
>Is this the "secret" that allows 95% of all submitted movements to
pass COSC >nowadays?
Everything is relative, I guess it depends on who you know.., or where
you are! Dynamic poising is not much of a secret in Switzerland!!
> Also, the question was not whether better than 4 seconds a day was
> achievable (clearly it is, based on many anecdotal reports) but whether you
> would advise service or regulation on a watch that was 4 secs slow (assuming
> that everything else was okay- watch in beat, etc.). Keeping in mind that
> this is an IWC, which supposedly is not allowed to leave the factory slow at
> all.
LOL - Life is too short to be concerned with four seconds.., I would
reccommend to this client to purchase a "Thermo - compensated" quartz
movement which offers the user a degree of precision equivalent to or
better than 10 seconds per year!! NOTE: A quartz watch requires
periodic maintanence as well.
> Regarding overwinding, would you agree that keeping an already wound watch
> on a winder beyond the needed number of turns can cause additional and
> unnecessary wear?
No - the mainspring in an automatic watch is designed to slip -
Unnecessary wear is only caused by inadequate maintenance. When the
"jewels" are properly lubricated, they provide a nearly friction free
surface - I would not be concerned with wear in a properly maintained
watch movement.
Scott A. Ekleberry
lot (or any expensive item) it seems (they think it's great even if it is
crap, AKA MA). The same "quirk" has been noticed in sports car buyers.
People that buy $300,000 Lamborghini's love them even though the fit and
finish of the cars is often terrible, but people that buy $45,000 Corvette's
will complain about every defect and rattle (this is a proven fact folks, it
was published in I believe Road and Track about 10 years ago), go figure.
:)
--
Scott A. Ekleberry-Watchmaker
It's About Time! Watch Repair
www.itsabouttimeonline.com
sae...@woh.rr.com
"Jack Denver" <nunu...@netscape.net> wrote in message
news:IhmdnY_jVq_...@comcast.com...
Scott A. Ekleberry
take a toll. If I can get all positions within 6-10 seconds of zero I'm
happy. Also, don't give 300,000 readers of this ng the impression that EVERY
watch can be a chronometer, most can't and were never designed to be.
--
Scott A. Ekleberry-Watchmaker
It's About Time! Watch Repair
www.itsabouttimeonline.com
sae...@woh.rr.com
"Dave" <watch...@suissewatchservice.com> wrote in message
news:6fb260c2.03021...@posting.google.com...
Jack Denver
if two ideas in your mind clash (the idea that you just paid a lot of money
for something and the realization that its not very good) your brain has to
deal with the pain in some fashion. In the most famous experiment, two
groups of volunteers were given a lengthy, very dull task to do, which they
were told was some kind of psych experiment (actually the task was
completely meaningless) for which they would be paid an unspecified amount
at the conclusion. One group was well compensated at the end, the other
group was given a clearly inadequate sum in relation to the amount of time
spent. Then each subject was put in a waiting room where supposedly the next
experimental subject was waiting. Actually, this person was a shill whose
purpose was to interview the "victim". Those people who had received full
value for their time had no dissonance and so were honest when questioned -
"It was very boring - a total waste of time. " But - and here is where the
dissonance comes in - the unpaid group was completely unwilling to admit
that they had gotten nothing out of the experience. Instead, they extolled
the virtue of the meaningless task to the sky - "I learned a tremendous
amount. It was every educational. I highly recommend that you do it.", etc.
This was not just an insincere desire to have others share their suffering -
it was their brain's way of dealing with the pain of dissonance, which to
the brain's owner appears as an honestly held belief, though in fact it is
your brain playing tricks on you.
The meaning of this experiment on the buying side is that the more you have
been ripped off, the more you will defend your purchase and recommend it to
others - thus the adamant visitor to the group who defended MA so
vigorously, or even the Rolex fanatics. And you will strongly deny (and in
fact be completely unaware of the fact) that you are rationalizing in any
way, because the rationalization takes place at an unconscious level in your
brain. Ditto on the car purchasers - the $45,000 Corvette purchaser can look
at his purchase with a cool rational eye, but for the $300,000 Lamborghini
buyer every flaw becomes a "feature".
The paradoxical result of this (and other aspects of marketing psychology)
is that sometimes as a manufacturer you are better off charging MORE,
contrary to the usual supply demand curve which says that demand increases
as price declines. In another famous case, a supermarket chain found that
when it priced certain store brand products at a slight discount to brand
name items they sold better than when they were drastically marked down
(they could afford drastic mark downs because certain brand name products
such as soft drinks consist mainly of water mixed with advertising, with a
little of something else thrown in). If store brand window cleaner sold for
29 cents when Windex was 99, people assumed that it had to be an inferior
product and they avoided it. When they repriced the store brand to 89 cents
(without changing the formulation at all) people assumed that they were
equivalent products and chose the slightly cheaper one. The same thing
goes on in watches - if a brand (such as GP) is sold too cheaply or at too
great a discount, instead of increasing its desirability, it depreciates the
brand's prestige in the eyes of fanatics.
"Scott A. Ekleberry" <sae...@woh.rr.com> wrote in message
news:m%62a.137792$i73.32...@twister.neo.rr.com...
Jack Forster
>From: "Jack Denver" nunu...@netscape.net
>Date: 2/11/2003 11:17 AM Eastern Standard Time
>Message-id: <DoCdnaSQ3YW...@comcast.com>
>
>There's a lot of psychology in this - it's known as "cognotive dissonance" -
Hi Jack- interesting post; thanks. You know, I've been following the ebb and
flow of this thread, and I hope you don't object to my observing that you and
Norm seem to have gotten off on the wrong foot somehow. I definitely agree
that the performance he got out of his IWC was perfectly adequate but at the
same time, his concern didn't seem to be whether or not the timekeeping was
practically useful or accurate but simply whether the watch was performing
within the specifications that IWC itself advertises as those their watches
have to be within before they leave the factory. Your point with respect to
the unecessariness of greater accuracy is very well taken, but on the other
side of the question, surely Norm is entitled to expect the advertised
qualities? Analogously he might have ordered a car with a certain color paint,
and had it delivered a different color- the car performs exactly the same, but
it's not the product that he thought he was buying. You are surely entitled to
find the difference between the advertised performance of the IWC and its'
actual performance trivial (to some extent I agree with you) but is Norm also
not entitled to feel differently, and to be able to say that he simply wants
what he was told he'd get?
I'm honestly mystified as to how the tone of this thread turned so polemical.
I didn't at all get the impression that Norm came to this ng with any axe to
grind, but rather simply looking for information.
Jack Forster
NYS Licensed Acupuncturist
www.haelth.com
Jack Denver
I think the watchmakers all concur on this) still think that a watch that is
1.5 to 4 secs slow/day is within reasonable timekeeping for a mechanical
watch regardless of factory specs. They are just that - the specs at the
time the watch leaves the factory - the key word is factory - it is not
reasonable to expect the watch to maintain that precise timing indefinitely
(or even by the time it reaches you) regardless of price. If it does, bully
for you, but if it doesn't, don't have a cow.
Jack Forster
>Message-id: <NDGdnS-v9YX...@comcast.com>
OK, of course you are right, but I would still argue that if IWC claims that
their watches perform within certain specifications it is reasonable to expect
those specifications on delivery, since it is part of what they advertise they
will deliver. Without getting into the dimension of your exchange with Norm
that devolved into personal comments, I don't see why one couldn't allow that
the timekeeping he got on delivery was in general reasonable (quite good,
actually) while at the same time allowing that he's perfectly within his rights
as a consumer to expect the advertised performance, and to have the watch
brought to within advertised specs if it isn't. This is a commonplace for
consumer goods, after all- the question is not exclusively whether the item you
bought will be satisfactorily functional, but also whether what is delivered is
what is specified. After all, to extend the logic to what is admittedly a
reductio ad absurdum, you could argue that if IWC had sent him back a Citizen
quartz watch he would have no reason to complain (since the quartz watch would
be an excellent timekeeper.) Personally I understand your point, as I said,
but I sympathise with Norm- the man expected a watch regulated to run slightly
fast, after all.
Hope this isn't taken as an attempt to be controversial- it seems to me that
you both began with reasonable views and it seems a shame that they began to
find unreasonable expression, if I may say so without giving offense, or
ascribing blame.
Regards,
Jack Denver
maxim "be careful what you ask for, because you just might get it". If it
were my watch, I'd be concerned that after sending the watch away to
Switzerland for many weeks, it would come back running +7 (within IWC spec)
not to mention with some fresh scratches, etc., but if Norm wants to hold
IWC to the letter of their promises, he's certainly entitled.
"Jack Forster" <tcm...@aol.comspambgon> wrote in message
news:20030211195222...@mb-mo.aol.com...
Jack Forster
>Message-id: <GtqcnU2ZRON...@comcast.com>
>
>I see your points and appreciate your calm tone. Personally, I go by the
>maxim "be careful what you ask for, because you just might get it". If it
>were my watch, I'd be concerned that after sending the watch away to
>Switzerland for many weeks, it would come back running +7 (within IWC spec)
>not to mention with some fresh scratches, etc., but if Norm wants to hold
>IWC to the letter of their promises, he's certainly entitled.
Hi Jack, thanks for your very reasonable response. I would have some of the
same concerns but in my case and with the glory of my timezone.com watch school
experience fresh upon me I'd probably be tempted to just pop the caseback and
try and regulate the blasted thing myself, in which case all bets would be off!
Alex W.
How did they account for the embarrassment factor -- the
unwillingness to admit to a complete stranger that they feel
stupid for having done something pointless?
>
> The meaning of this experiment on the buying side is that
the more you have
> been ripped off, the more you will defend your purchase
and recommend it to
> others - thus the adamant visitor to the group who
defended MA so
> vigorously, or even the Rolex fanatics. And you will
strongly deny (and in
> fact be completely unaware of the fact) that you are
rationalizing in any
> way, because the rationalization takes place at an
unconscious level in your
> brain. Ditto on the car purchasers - the $45,000 Corvette
purchaser can look
> at his purchase with a cool rational eye, but for the
$300,000 Lamborghini
> buyer every flaw becomes a "feature".
Another explanation: price. At $45,000 one still expects a
commodity of sorts, something practical and everyday and
hence reliable. Pricewise it compares to other workhorse
cars. We do not put it in the same class, emotionally, as
the $300,000 object of desire.
Being an object of desire, having rattles and shakes and
other faults allows an owner to fuss and tinker over his
pride and joy. We actually derive enjoyment out of having
to talk at length to other "sufferers" and mechanics because
we are never allowed to take it for granted and get to spend
more time with our little "love interest".
Alex
Jim Wayda
better than most quartz watches and is proof that some mechanical watches
can be extremely well regulated.
-jim
Simon Bryquer
Same here. I have a EP Class that runs -+ 1 second per week. It has run
this way for more than a year, ever since I got it.
Simon
"Jim Wayda" <jwa...@cox.net> wrote in message
news:_so2a.20135$q91.2...@news2.west.cox.net...
Scott A. Ekleberry
governments have limited compensations on consumer product lawsuits I
believe. In reality I assume Norm sees nothing wrong with what he did (his
smart ass comments to Jack were uncalled for though). But given this could
ultimately lead to litigation if he still isn't satisfied with the watch,
where does one draw the line? Pain in the butt customers do nothing but
drive the cost of items up for the other 99.9% of the population that has
realistic expectations.
--
Scott A. Ekleberry-Watchmaker
It's About Time! Watch Repair
www.itsabouttimeonline.com
sae...@woh.rr.com
"Jack Forster" <tcm...@aol.comspambgon> wrote in message
news:20030211195222...@mb-mo.aol.com...
Jack Denver
the $1/$20 experiment) read this article:
http://www.afirstlook.com/archive/cogdiss.cfm?source=archther
"Alex W." <ing...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:b2d3g8$d03$1...@ngspool-d02.news.aol.com...
Jack Forster
>Date: 2/12/2003 8:45 AM Eastern Standard Time
>Message-id: <nes2a.140818$i73.33...@twister.neo.rr.com>
>
>I'll jump in here. Fixations such as Norm's are why state and federal
>governments have limited compensations on consumer product lawsuits I
>believe. In reality I assume Norm sees nothing wrong with what he did (his
>smart ass comments to Jack were uncalled for though). But given this could
>ultimately lead to litigation if he still isn't satisfied with the watch,
>where does one draw the line? Pain in the butt customers do nothing but
>drive the cost of items up for the other 99.9% of the population that has
>realistic expectations.
Well, Scott, I certainly see your point, but I think in this case, leaving
extraneous personal comments made by either party aside, Norm's wish to have a
watch that performs as advertised is not entirely unreasonable. After all
we're talking about an extremely expensive luxury item which by definition is
almost guaranteed to come under extremely close scrutiny by the purchaser. On
top of that, IWC's marketing position and brand identity relies very much on an
image of high precision- extremely high precision, as a matter of fact, and
they go to great lengths in their catalogues and advertising materials to
emphasize how much effort they actually put into making sure that their watches
perform as advertised. Considering this, and the price point, they really
can't complain if a customer holds them to the very specifications which their
entire marketing strategy hinges on boasting that they can meet. It's not as
if Norm had bought a Chopard Happy Diamonds watch you know :-). . . he bought a
watch that makes much of its' longstanding reputation for mechanical and
technical excellence, a product in which a large part of what one perceives one
is paying for is the ability perform technically. While there is probably
plenty of blame to spread around in terms of the tone the thread took, I must
say that while I personally would have been satisfied with the performance he
reported, in the context of the cost of the watch and the brand I don't think
him unreasonable for expecting adherence to advertised specifications. And
while your point about litigous consumers is very well taken, I don't get the
impression he's interested in trivial lawsuits; just in getting what he thought
he was paying for.
Just my two cents, of course.
Jack Denver
BMW. He later found out that the car had been repainted in this country
because the paint had been damaged by acid rain during shipment (which is
apparently a common industry practice in case of damage during shipment -
what are they supposed to do - junk every car that gets a scratch?). He felt
that the paint job was not as good as the factory original and sued for lack
of disclosure. He was awarded $4 million in punitive damages by an Alabama
jury (later reduced to $2 million on appeal). You can imagine that the price
of that award (and other similar cases) is included in the price of every
car.
Given the price and the profit margins on IWC, I'm sure they have plenty of
cushion to give a small percentage of their most picky customers the white
glove treatment they have given Norm so far. They can especially afford to
do so because as you say, 99% of all customers are not so picky and don't
give them a hard time, so they can afford to grease the handful of squeeky
wheels. And the cost to them of regulating the watch or even swapping the
movement (with his movement to be re-used in the next watch that comes in)
is not great. But I suspect that if he persists, they will be less polite
the next time around.
"Scott A. Ekleberry" <sae...@woh.rr.com> wrote in message
news:nes2a.140818$i73.33...@twister.neo.rr.com...
Jack Denver
Switzerland (assuming it really was). I would think that Wempe (or wherever
he bought it) would have a watchmaker in house that could regulate the watch
and if more was needed, IWC has an excellent repair facility in NY (Jack
Freedman of Superior Watch).
It's possible that Wempe gave the watch its version of the "rest cure". This
treatment is well known to auto mechanics whose customers complain of vague
ills. The car is left in the parking lot for a few days and returned with a
suitable bill.
One of the things that bothers me about some high end watch owners (many of
whom, I get the feeling, don't really have a clear idea of how their watches
work or the process of repair) is the idea that they have that only the
factory in Switzerland is capable of working on their precious toy, when in
fact any qualified watch maker could work on what is in essence a common
movement. They seem to have the idea (perhaps introduced by the
extraordinary price that they paid) that their watches are somehow separate
and apart from ordinary watches so that a whole different set of rules
applies to them. Just the thought that their watch might rest in the same
drawer overnight at the watchmakers as an Invicta or a Seiko must sicken
them - they might cross breed or something. The manufacturers do seem to
encourage that in their marketing - thus a Rolex is not just another watch
but (as it says right on the face) a "superlative chronometer". And of
course they don't mind getting the watches back for service which they bill
out at their usual high prices. The ignorant could be forgiven for not
understanding that a superlative chronometer is fundamentally no different
from any other watch.
The timezone watch school is certainly a great cure for this sort of
ignorance. Of course once the veil of mystery is lifted, one may become
extremely reluctant to pay IWC's prices for an ETA movement when there are
so many other ETA's out there that give similar performance (even if not so
highly finished).
"Jack Forster" <tcm...@aol.comspambgon> wrote in message
news:20030211231506...@mb-mo.aol.com...
Richard J. Sexton (At work)
3 reasons:
1) This is usenet
2) it's about watches
3) this is usenet