Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Omega Bond watchneed help choosing between auto & quartz omega seamaster professional
Options
-
03-04-2013 1:23am#1
Comments
-
-
Personally, I would prefer a battery as I think they are more reliable, Timewise
That sums it up nicely
Battery, quartz, timely and reliable on the one hand. Cheaper too!
Auto: no battery, automatic, powered by your wrist movement, not very accurate and in many cases expensive, or even very expensive!
Most watch fans in here and everywhere else prefer non-quartz watches for silly nostalgic reasons and because of their affinity with intricate mechanics over simple electronics
0 -
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
Trigger Happy wrote: »I would not agree that they are less accurate.
Ah come on now! The best mechanisms ever made still lose/gain several seconds per week. A €500 automatic watch loses/gains several seconds per day. A €5 quartz Chinese watch will only lose/gain several seconds per month
I own 2 watches, both autos BTW 0 -
Advertisement
-
Ah come on now! The best mechanisms ever made still lose/gain several seconds per week. A €500 automatic watch loses/gains several seconds per day. A €5 quartz Chinese watch will only lose/gain several seconds per month
I own 2 watches, both autos BTW
But we are talking about a €4000 watch here. Different gravy to a €500 watch.0 -
-
-
-
Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 60,098 Mod ✭✭✭✭
Join Date:Posts: 59027
Accuracy can depend on a few things though. EG take a quartz that gains lets say half a second a day, over 4 months you're talking of a gain of a minute, 3 minutes a year. Now take a high quality mechanical, might gain 3 seconds a day on the wrist, but on the bedside table might lose 3 overnight, although less accurate in rate compared to the quartz over a year the time would actually be more accurate. I've actually got one such mechanical watch. It gains 2 -3 seconds a day but loses near enough the same amount every night. Over time it's defo more accurate than my Marathon Mil Quartz which consistently gains a few seconds a week come what may.
Quartz watches themselves can vary, even among the same model/brand, though not enough for most to get het up about. Still, truly accurate quartz watches are hard enough to come by. The most accurate non radio linked wristwatch of any sort is likely the 1970's quartz Omega Marine Chronometer* It was capable of passing marine chronometer tests. That's a rate of less than 6 seconds per year. Funny enough that makes it as accurate as one of Harrisons ships chronometers of the 18th century.
In the end accuracy IMHO is overblown, many out there rely on their phones nowadays and they can be all over the place at times. So go for the watch that suits your eye, wrist and wallet and enjoy.
*the 70's was the time for such mad accurate quartz yokes from Longines, Omeag and Rolex. Mainly cos it was the new cool tech and rich feckers were willing to pay big money for the best. Some of the movements are like jewels with really fancy electronic tech to stabilise the quartz module. The makers soon realised that most didn't really care so long as it was more accurate than the average mechanical aren't weren't prepared to pay extra. Plus those high accuracy quartz jobs chew batteries. IIRC the Omega went through one or two a year. Plus longevity was/is a factor. In a century's time few quartz modules will still be running, but even 18th century watches will.Rejoice in the awareness of feeling stupid, for that’s how you end up learning new things. If you’re not aware you’re stupid, you probably are.
0 -
-
Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 60,098 Mod ✭✭✭✭ Join Date:Posts: 59027
They can vary quite a bit U. There can be an awful lot of horsepoo talked about accuracy on both the mechanical* and electronic side. Maybe for bragging rights? Maybe because people don't generally give a care so will allow for the BS? Maybe advertisements have suckered people?In seriousness, I thought most quartz watches were much more accurate than those figures mentioned?
If you take large scale procurement bodies like the US military they look for +/- 3 seconds variance in different temps, 1 second in ideal temps a day for quartz and reckon most will pass that. Some don't mind you. Of my quartz jobs(some cheap and nasty, some originally pricey) where I've actually studied the daily/weekly/monthly rate, the best loses about 2 seconds a week and the worst gains about 5. This can vary too, with conditions. On the wrist they seem to vary slightly more.
My mechanicals vary much more. One or two could lose or gain more than a minute, at the other end the two watches I rarely had to set the time on were mechanicals. Both had big old balances and were glorified pocket watches on the wrist, plus both has some real quality balance work done on them by a real expert with 40 years experience.
Consistentcy is where it's at. If a watch gains ten minutes a day but does that to the second month in month out, it's a "better" watch than one that gains a second one day and loses 5 the next and gains 10 the next. The former can be regulated down to give the correct time. It's wildly inaccurate, but very consistent. That's how I always judged the health of a mechanical. I'd much rather one that was exactly 30 seconds slow a day than one that hovered all over the place. IMHO it shows a mechanism in better order. That's a bit of an aside mind you.
Like I said earlier, to each their own. If it suits you thats all that feckin counts. And we each have our own foibles*looks in mirror*:o:) EG I'd rather wear a 50 quid Casio than 90% of Rolexes or Breitlings or Pateks for that matter and give me some ancient old yoke over the latest superduper IWC(tho some of those are only gorge). I consider a date window a complication and a little odd. For me automatics with that feckin swinging weight(which I can feel flappin about odd bastard that I am) are a step too far and if it's not got a porcelain dial I'm suspicious.
Yet I also appreciate others and what they dig. Peasants collection and overall madness makes me feel funny in a good way inside.
TL;DR? If you like it then wear it and wear it well.
*I say mechanical, because although most "automatics" are mechanical, not all mechanicals are automatics. Put it this way I've ten odd mechanical watches, none of which are "automatics". I say electronic, because not all battery powered watches are quartz.Rejoice in the awareness of feeling stupid, for that’s how you end up learning new things. If you’re not aware you’re stupid, you probably are.
0 -
That's interesting Wibbs, I'm almost inspired now to line up my watches and set them to the same time and see what happens! As a preliminary to that though, I've a Casio Edifice radio controlled watch and a Junghans mega, so both should be super accurate (updated daily) yet there's a 17 second diffference between the two!
Edit: just checked atomic time on the Internet and the Junghans is bang on ....
Edit 2: I should have gone to work ages ago but now I'm fixated, however, not to dis the Casio, I've figured out the second hand is misaligned by exactly 17 seconds, likely again due to magnetism (I store watches in a wooden shelf/drawer but must be casually doing something maybe at work that's effected two watches now). All in all so, the casio and junghans actually do agree 0 -
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
Advertisement