Watches - best on the wrist?

[Thegreyman]

I'm sure there are some, like me, who don't bother checking the accuracy of their watches, or don't wear them long enough to bother doing so.

So your theory might well be right AVO, I'll never know

Like you, I don’t track what I wear from day to day, but I do keep an occasional eye on performance. When my watch was +/-0 after 9 days I hadn’t actually looked at time.is since setting it but was aware from iPad and iPhone interaction that it was about there.

I guess if I was wearing the same watch for a few days I'd check it. Thinking back, I have probably had a quick check occasionally in the past if I was away with work for a few days wearing the same watch. It is reassuring when they show some degree of accuracy. I also once sent a COSC spec watch back for regulation when it was out by 20 seconds per day....so I must care after all!

[Amor Vincit Omnia]

All of which has got me thinking. I haven’t done one of my accuracy tests for a long time.

I think I might have a week with the C5 and the Tank, alternating 24 hours on the wrist and 24 hours on the winder.

I will think about it today...

[Bahnstormer_vRS]

All of which has got me thinking. I haven’t done one of my accuracy tests for a long time.

I think I might have a week with the C5 and the Tank, alternating 24 hours on the wrist and 24 hours on the winder.

I will think about it today...

Except that they should each have enough power reserve to keep running off the wrist for 30-32 hours, that you won't need to put them on the winder.

Save the winder for your C60 Trident GMT.

Guy

Sent from my Xperia XZ Premium using Tapatalk

[Amor Vincit Omnia]

^^^I never allow logic to interfere with my actions, Guy.

[nbg]

^^^^^ I think that (other than wearing the watch and being active for the full 24 hours) 12 being active on the wrist, followed by 12 on the winder (particularly if the watch sits dial up in the winder) will likely be a better test of the real accuracy of the watch, over a period of time, rather than 24 hours wear, followed by 24 off the wrist.

Neil

[Amor Vincit Omnia]

I suppose that in the context of this thread it would make more sense to wear each one 24/7 for a set number of days, then compare results.

[nbg]

^^^^ I reckon that is correct. During a 24 hr off the wrist rest with the mainspring running down, would lead to the watch speeding up towards the end of the 24 hour off the wrist period.

I think that is why some brands that do manual watches with a long power reserve often state say 72hr PR (when it would run for probably an extra day - marked in red on the PR indicator), or a watch marketed as an 8 day movement having the power to run for 9 days.

Neil

[will52rrp]

I used to obsess about accuracy but now just don’t care. It’s style and feel and quality that matters to me as long as the timekeeping is close enough. If absolute accuracy was my main criterion I’d buy a digital watch.

[Amor Vincit Omnia]

^^^And of course you are quite right. All my main watches run pretty well so a test would not prove a great deal.

Also it would curtail my freedom to make spur of the moment decisions on what I am going to wear for the day. Don’t think I’ll bother.

[Amor Vincit Omnia]

UPDATE: took my Cartier off this morning after almost a week (Sunday night to Saturday morning) of wearing 24/7 except for showers and gym...+3 seconds overall.

Kind of bears out my theory about wearing a well-regulated watch consistently.

[Bounce]

I set my Sub last Saturday before I went away for a nice break to the Wye Valley, I have worn it 24/7 for the last week & it is running at +2 secs in 8 days.
I totally agree they definitely run better on the wrist.