Thread: Shop Apron
View Single Post
  #66   Report Post  
Robert Bonomi
 
Posts: n/a
Default

In article , George george@least wrote:

"Morris Dovey" wrote in message
...
Dave O'Heare wrote:

So, what kind of watch was it? You make a brand name
suggestion, was that what you bought?


Yes - it's a plain Rolex from the days when the company built
watches accurate enough that they could be used for navigation.
The case, stem and band are plain old stainless steel. And even
though it doesn't understand Daylight Savings Time or time zones,
it hasn't missed a tick (5.00000/sec) for over forty years.

That's better than any other machine I've ever owned.


Yet the buck three eighty quartz jobs keep as accurate time, if not better,


No, they do _not_.

A "good" digital will have a claimed error of less than 10 seconds per day.
If you're lucky, for a specific watch, it will be under 3 sec/day.
Budget brands claim 30 seconds/day. The _really_ cheap ones don't make *any*
accuracy claims whatsoever. And keep significantly "different time" depending
on the temperature.

Furthermore, I have _yet_ to see a sub-thousand-dollar quartz watch that
can be 'adjusted' for minimum error.

A reasonable quality mainspring-based watch -- e.g. Seiko, Benrus -- is
capable of accuracy that is orders of magnitude better. Mostly because
it *can* be adjusted (the technal term is "regulated"). The trick lies
*entirely* in finding a good watchmaker; one who has the proper tooling.
I have mainspring wris****ches that keep time accurate to a fraction of a
second *per*week*. If the error rate gets to around 30 seconds _per_month_,
it goes back to the watchmaker for tweaking. Typically, every 5 years or so.


Today's Rolex's *are* grossly over-priced -- they're a status symbol more
than anything else.

Back in the post-WWII days, and up into the 1960s, they sold mostly "working"
watches, with a small "showpiece" line. The 'working' watches were not
inexpensive, by any means, _but_ if you wanted a *durable*, *reliable*,
timepiece that would survive hostile conditions, Rolex was _the_ choice.
You bought a Rolex if you wanted a watch that you _knew_ would keep running
for 20 years or more -- regardless of what kind of environment it was
subjected to. One could get something "adequate" for 1/4 the money, and
haveto replace it every couple of years or so -- in a 'hostile' environment,
that is. Factoring in longevity, Rolex "Oyster" was a bargain at the
price.