Comments:
GO Senator chronometer
So as we were talking about this fine chronometer (my friend is in love with it), we stumbled upon a debate that have lasted us forever but we haven't agreed on anything. For me, it's not a matter of opinion so would like to seek advice here. First of all, I have to say I echo some of the comments here and wish it didn't have a date but even with it, it is a chronometer to be desired!
So onto the topic of discussion. This piece has a stop seconds/reset mechanism and a precise minute synchronizing and I said that this is a neat function and that it helps with the setting of the watch precisely but only that. It doesn't help with the accuracy of the watch. My friend insists that it helps with the displaying of time and its passing of it. I didn't agree with this. We then went on to talk about the definition of accuracy and that got us going nowhere either. I still feel that this stop seconds/reset mechanism that lets you move minute by minute precisely is only for setting the starting point. The other side of it is that he feels other chronometers of high regard that do not have this mechanism could have unaligned hands which I find hard to believe. Also just for my own understanding, this stop seconds/reset mechanism and perfectly aligned minute hand has the same precision as when time is passing or only when the time is set? And to further push this idea that by having this mechanism, it tells time more accurately?
If I'm unclear on anything, please do not hesitate to ask.
Best,
Chris
So the debate continues :)
So my point is (trying to keep this as short as possible):
1) For me, "accuracy" not only confines to the actual time-keeping, but also to how the time is presented
2) Since with the SC's function for one to set time with stopped second and stepped minute adjustments (which, but the way, I didn't say is unique to GO, I was just asking if you're aware of other watches that does that because I'm curious), this makes sure that after the time is set the minute hand will continue to hit the minute marks precisely when the second hand hits 12 o'clock position.
Putting 1 and 2 together, I am of the opinion that the GO SC is considered more "accurate" than those without these functions because not only it should be achieving the time-keeping at a very precise standard, its time-setting functions also enhances this "accurateness" of telling the time - because in my eyes, if your minute hand is not at the minute marker when it's supposed to, it's not an accurate representation of time, and hence "less accurate".
Yes, one can technically try to align the minute hand oneself, but I have noticed that in a lot of watches when you push the crown down the minute hand also moves slightly (sometimes a lot) - and GO's approach eliminates that problem also, and therefore, again, makes it more accurate.
That is all 
As an owner let me share my thoughts.
And BTW I am working on a collaborative review of this exceptional piece, and we will delve into this further.
My fascination of "chronometers" started will Ulysse Nardin's ship chronometers. I learned how they were used to navigate the seas, and how paramount the timekeeping precision was to that need.
If you are going to print the word "CHRONOMETER" on your watch dial, it better be an accurate piece. My sample runs fast .5/seconds a day when it is worn (and I mean after a week of wearing and setting down at night it is +3.5 seconds). It is slightly faster if I wind it but don't wear it. I have never owned a "perfect" timekeeper in relation to an atomic clock, but this sample is as good as anything I have ever owned.
The stop seconds reset function is not only a great convenience, bet very appropriate on a "chronometer". Does it make the watch run more accurately? No, but it does make tracking things easier. To the question about whether it synchs the hands after setting it at 0 seconds, YES. In fact when the sub seconds are at 15 or 45 you can easily see the minute hand less than half or more than half between the marks, and of course precisely halfway between when the seconds are at 30. When the seconds hand hits 0 the minute hand is perfectly on top of a minute mark.
I always synch my hands on any watch as close as possible. With a JLC based AP Offshore I learned to center the minute hand between two marks when the seconds were at 0. Get the crown in the middle of the play and push it in so there is no jump. When the seconds hit 25-30 that minute hand has not budged a whisker. Gets back to 0 and it is pulling the minute hand around right over the next mark.
Rather easier on the Senator Chronometer I wish all my watches had that function.
My fascination of "chronometers" started will Ulysse Nardin's ship chronometers. I learned how they were used to navigate the seas, and how paramount the timekeeping precision was to that need.
If you are going to print the word "CHRONOMETER" on your watch dial, it better be an accurate piece. My sample runs fast .5/seconds a day when it is worn (and I mean after a week of wearing and setting down at night it is +3.5 seconds). It is slightly faster if I wind it but don't wear it. I have never owned a "perfect" timekeeper in relation to an atomic clock, but this sample is as good as anything I have ever owned.
The stop seconds reset function is not only a great convenience, bet very appropriate on a "chronometer". Does it make the watch run more accurately? No, but it does make tracking things easier. To the question about whether it synchs the hands after setting it at 0 seconds, YES. In fact when the sub seconds are at 15 or 45 you can easily see the minute hand less than half or more than half between the marks, and of course precisely halfway between when the seconds are at 30. When the seconds hand hits 0 the minute hand is perfectly on top of a minute mark.
I always synch my hands on any watch as close as possible. With a JLC based AP Offshore I learned to center the minute hand between two marks when the seconds were at 0. Get the crown in the middle of the play and push it in so there is no jump. When the seconds hit 25-30 that minute hand has not budged a whisker. Gets back to 0 and it is pulling the minute hand around right over the next mark.
Rather easier on the Senator Chronometer
I wish all my watches had that function.Thanks Michael
for taking your time to post, and it is exactly what I have in mind. As you said (and so have I) - the stop second + minute-jumping adjustment in itself does not increase the accuracy of the timekeeping of the watch, but it certainly enhances the accuracy of the display and representation of time (to perfection, in fact), which to me is the biggest PLUS for this piece of fine time piece.
For me, the GO SC has pushed the envelope of the meaning and definition of "accuracy", which should not only be confined within to timekeeping itself, but also to the naked eye of the end user through an accurate representation of time.
Thanks again Michael, very much looking forward to your review!
And a photo...
You can see here the seconds are at 20 and the minute hand is not quite halfway between the adjacent minute marks. When I post the review I will capture it at 0.
Problem solve if you have the right definition of accuracy.
Accuracy of time keeping: stop seconds/reset mechanism doesn't help in that.
Accurarcy of time displaying: stop seconds/reset mechanism does help.
Now it will be foolish to measure accuracy without proper displaying it, right?
I guess we can narrow down accuracy to only time keeping but a timing device would be pointless without a display readout.
Can we measure accuracy without both? I certainly wouldn't single them out.
Hope this help you to understand better and end the debate. Accuracy is not the main focus here but about watches we love. The SC is GO modern interpretation of a classical clock and the accuracy part is just keeping the spirit of the device. If is true accuracy seeking they will have to result to atomic clock type of timing device with digital display. Who wants that!
Do you like the watch though, that's what matters.
Regards
Tyler
Correct!!
You have nailed it Tyler!
We went on a bit more and found it looping around the definition. And in the end, the SC is great in every sense, you are absolutely correct.
It's not so much the definition of accuracy but a matter of differentiating accuracy and precision. We kept the debate going because we couldn't agree on the definition of accuracy. For me, it's time keeping accuracy (accuracy of a time piece in measuring the passing of time with relation to a true_time) and then displaying it with precision. By saying that this coveted mechanism is helping with the accuracy of the piece is in error and to me it was also in error to say it helped with displaying it more accurately as it infers improved measurement accuracy. Precise hand alignment and time setting is what GO has achieved here. And this discussion in no way detracts from the extremely impressive chronometric values of the piece.
P.S. He still insists it's accuracy
Best,
Chris
Well ... I think you misunderstood me.
As you wrote
"This piece has a stop seconds/reset mechanism and a precise minute synchronizing and I said that this is a neat function and that it helps with the setting of the watch precisely but only that. It doesn't help with the accuracy of the watch."
The accuracy of the watch depends on a few part, the power supply, the regulating organ and the display of time. Like I said it's pointless to have one without the other. We can singled out the regulating organ but in that sense we don't have a watch. Just a part of a watch.
"My friend insists that it helps with the displaying of time and its passing of it. I didn't agree with this. We then went on to talk about the definition of accuracy and that got us going nowhere either.
Here is where I see the debate took place. You can certainly stick to your choice on how to see accuracy as accuracy but your friend is talking about the watch as a whole. You guys will never have a conclusion. LOL
My honest view is that if you just want to talk about accuracy without including the display of time. I guess you can say your view is correct but if you are referring to the watch then it gets you nowhere. Because your friend argument what's accuracy if you can't read it precisely(your term) but isn't precise a synonyms accurate?
It's been a fun read but I doubt this debate is going to conclude anytime soon.
Regards
Tyler
A terrific question! Thanks very much for presenting . . .
. . . it, Chris, and also to Jeff and Michael for their contributions to this discussion.
My understanding of the design for the cal 58 movement is that the correlation between minute and seconds hands is maintained while the drive train is engaged, and not just when setting time. The visual display of time should retain the correct relationship between all hands under dynamic conditions.
I agree with Jeff and Michael that this is a significant and meaningful distinction, which in my opinion renders the Senator Chronometer a special place in the pantheon of modern wristwatches. The anecdotal evidence from both Michael and my brief experience in 2010 suggests the cal 58 is capable of a very high level of accuracy in absolute terms. The synchronization of all three hands does not in and of itself contribute to mechanical stability, but does lend consistency in rate measurement. This result is, in my opinion, meaningful.
It's the enhanced interface between watch and wearer that distinguishes the SC from other designs; the relative truthfulness of its read-out is the icing on the cake.
Thanks, all, for a truly enlightening thread!
Cordially,
Art
My understanding of the design for the cal 58 movement is that the correlation between minute and seconds hands is maintained while the drive train is engaged, and not just when setting time. The visual display of time should retain the correct relationship between all hands under dynamic conditions.
I agree with Jeff and Michael that this is a significant and meaningful distinction, which in my opinion renders the Senator Chronometer a special place in the pantheon of modern wristwatches. The anecdotal evidence from both Michael and my brief experience in 2010 suggests the cal 58 is capable of a very high level of accuracy in absolute terms. The synchronization of all three hands does not in and of itself contribute to mechanical stability, but does lend consistency in rate measurement. This result is, in my opinion, meaningful.
It's the enhanced interface between watch and wearer that distinguishes the SC from other designs; the relative truthfulness of its read-out is the icing on the cake.
Thanks, all, for a truly enlightening thread!
Cordially,
Art