Master 1000 Hours Control. The content in one scan.
We often discussed the 1000 Hours Control tests, and their difference with the COSC.
I scanned the page of a 2002 Catalogue, where it is all explained.
Here it is:
Have a good read.
Nicolas
My problem with all these factory-indigenous test procedures ...
... is, that unlike the much-criticized COSC tests, the manufacturers rarely disclose the exact test criteria and limit values the watches/movements must not surpass. The text reproduced is typical for that.
"The measurement is based on tests performed in 6 different positions simulating conditions of regular wear." - what does this mean? Is the accuracy performance measured at full mainspring tension? At half? Is it repeated, how often, in which intervals? Or is the measurement based on an average value, like the COSC? What are the limit values, in all positions, and so on.
I, too, was quick to join the concert of critical voices regarding the COSC, until I realized that the only result of it is a complete loss of comparability regarding the performance of different manufacturers' products, and also a loss of impartiality. I now consider the manufacturers to be the wrong place to produce an objective evaluation of a watch's or movement's performance. Some kind of independent and objective authority has to test the watches. This needs not to be the COSC, necessarily. But until now, there is no real alternative.
Marcus
I will come back to the limit values, at least for JLC.
I will try to have more précisions on the 1000 Hours Control. As I said, this is an extract I found in a JLC Catalog.
Nonetheless, it is true that it would be better to have an external authority to do these tests. But if the outcome is less good than the COSC?
It is the story of the half empty, half full glass...
Best, Marcus.
Nicolas
The high performance of JLC's watches is beyond doubt ...
What I am complaining about is the lack of transparency, when all manufacturers strictly keep to their own individual test procedures, which might - not necessarily have - be chosen to perfectly match the characteristics of their own products. However, we have to face the fact that the huge majority of customers appears not to be interested in too much transparency either.
Marcus
Agreed about the lack of transparency. But whot would be the best solution? [nt]
Maybe we know more after Basel ...
Marcus
Hello Marcus, I agree with you to a degree but ......
in the end the best kind of independent and objective authority is the customer and this is the ultimate alternative. Is it not? I mean, we should let the watchmakers do the tests they see fit for the purpose of their products, if the customer is satisfied with the result, it is fine for me. We are not talking here about "dangerous, possible life endangering" object. (although, a friend affirms that when pressing on the chronograph pusher of a certain watch brand something may suddenly hurt one's back side
) but this is still not life threatening....I hope
If COSC is definitely not ideal nowadays, for many reasons. The main one, in my opinion, is that only the "uncased" movement is subjected to the test, which is not the case, excuse the pun! for the JLC 1000 Hours Control.
I think that the 1000 Hours Control which JLC puts its product through is a test with many merits, not the least of which is that they put their reputation on the line and in the end it gives plenty of satisfaction to the great majority of its customers.
Just my thoughts.
Cheers
Francois from Down Under
You missed...
pages 187 & 188, where JLC defends the reason for the "Master Control" test, and it wasn't just about accuracy. So, while I agree on one hand with Marcus' analysis of "loss of comparability," JLC's reputation is at stake.
It is, also, why PP abandoned the Geneva Seal (which had nothing to do with accuracy until recently). This way they can say, "It's our reputation, and we stand behind it."
-Dean
Transparency Still Has Value
Personally, there's no good reason why a company shouldn't publish the standards for its internal tests.
The only reasons would be ones that are a disservice to consumers, namely, the tests are not rigorous, or the results are not impressive.
Rolex COSC certifies most of their sports watch movements, but they still check the completed watches for COSC tolerances before shipment. If they can do this economically even on watches that cost under $10,000 USD, it seems there's no reason others cannot do the same on timepieces costing multiples of that figure.
Most agree that JLC is a fine manufacture and that its standards are rigorous, but it could bolster that reputation and remove all doubt by revealing its standards for each watch under the 1000 Hours Control. Most on these boards have timed their late model JLCs at one point or another, and the reports tend to be very encouraging with respect to accuracy. My own informal timing results bested COSC tolerances in several cases.
We know that different JLC modes at different price points are subject to different MC1000 tolerances, and that's OK, just declare it, JLC. This way, an owner and his dealer/watchmaker can verify that a JLC is within factory tolerance on delivery and throughout its service life.
For example, my EWA is a mega-tough watch. If JLC told me it's fine for it to run -10/+15, I can accept that in a watch whose principal design focus is to to survive severe uses such as mountain biking (that's what they claimed, and I tested it- confirmed!) . If I find my watch is +15 the day after something like that, I know not to call for repairs.
On the other hand, if something very fine, formal, and designed for supreme accuracy (e.g,, Duometre a Chronographe) runs -7 for a few days, I would like to know whether that's normal and be able to take action if it's not.
In summary, transparency about the 1000 Hours Control would bolster the manufacture's reputation (as it's certainly a set of stringent standards), permit buyers to make informed choices, and give consumers and dealers a reference point for evaluating proper function.
Best,
Tim
This message has been edited by Tim_M on 2014-03-20 05:53:52
Hand winding
Good one Nicolas, thank you I have learned one.....
more thing reading this article. That is, 800 rotations in two hours is not necessary the same as 400 rotations per hour!? Otherwise it would be stated
Joke aside, very interesting and from my experience, JLC "normal" wrist watches are definitely the most accurate.
Cheers
Francois from Down Under