Post pics of your watches Part II

Wibbs wrote: »

wouldn't surprise me. That can be a fallacy with quartz and you regularly read especially from those who don't get expensive mechanical watches(though sometimes even from those who do) that "a 20 quid quartz will be more accurate than a 10k Rolex". The technology difference between them potentially can be, but not always, or even as often as thought. Just like there'll be a wide difference between a cheap lever action movement and an Omega chronometer movement, the same applies to quartz. A 5 quid plastic no jewel quartz is a world away from a high precision quartz like you'd find in say the Grand Seiko, or the current(and past) Longines VHP. Very different animals. Of my stable of vintage quartz, my Seiko calculator from 78 would be lucky to be under a minute or maybe even two per year accuracy, whereas my two Longines VHP's would be under a minute every five years. Big difference. The Omega Marine Chronometer quartz from the 1970's was around 12 seconds per year which as they noted at the time was the same range as John Harrison's portable marine chronometers. That Harrison's purely mechanical and portable movements could attain such accuracy is unreal. And do it in the 18th century. :eek: His large clocks could better that again. One newly built from original plans example was bang to the second of atomic time after a year.

Fitz II wrote: »

At your age every second counts :pac::pac::pac:

Cyclingtourist wrote: »

And every €.

Fitz II wrote: »

Sure you cant take it with you , and Rolex is the least expensive watch you can own. You should get one, feel what they are about and if you dont like it after a few years flog it for 500 more than you bought it for tax free wasting chattel.