WatchProSite|Market|Digest

Independents

agreed, and to all who might conclude, somehow, from my recent comments...

 

Hi, Spiro, Rip (from WR) others who have drawn this conclusion -

I tried to be as careful as humanly possible, short of NOT posting the actual timing results publically, that the actual results should not be the fodder for quick and easy conclusions about rate stability.

With the exception of watch 1, which showed two very strange (so strange, I HAVE to look into it) anomolies, the othe two were VERY stable within a given range of the mainspring torque curve.

All were more than a few years old, without the benefit of a recent service.

For those who are familiar with rate stability and other "accuracy" factors, we'd take a stable but fast (or slow) timepiece over one that varies all over the place, any day.

One can be (relatively) easily regulated; the other will likely require substantial tweaking/adjustments. 

And ultimately, on the wrist behaviour is what counts, for me, which I haven't done yet or shared.

These things are both far simpler than we often make them, but far more complex than most realize.

What the hell am I talking about?  I'll let John or Suitbert or the other more technically, engineering inclined to go there...

TM

  login to reply