Discussion
Seems to be a few days since the last one, so...
Despite not really being in the market for one, I was browsing Rolexes on the web, and thought that the Yacht-master looked realy nice. I looked up the cost, and was pretty surprised at the £4,000+ list price.
Anyone on here got one, and can anyone say how they differ from the explorers, which are also nice, but cost much less.
Being a bit of a geek with respect to timekeeping (I like to get back to my seat a couple of seconds before the data release), what is the expected error on a reasonably good mechanical movement like this? I am lucky in than my old quartz watch keeps within a second a month (I must just have one that happpens to be close to bang on right), but how much accuracy do you lose with a Rolex.
Just to ameliorate the inevitable abuse, I will say again that I am not about to buy one, I am just curious, and plenty of people on here seem to have them.
Despite not really being in the market for one, I was browsing Rolexes on the web, and thought that the Yacht-master looked realy nice. I looked up the cost, and was pretty surprised at the £4,000+ list price.
Anyone on here got one, and can anyone say how they differ from the explorers, which are also nice, but cost much less.
Being a bit of a geek with respect to timekeeping (I like to get back to my seat a couple of seconds before the data release), what is the expected error on a reasonably good mechanical movement like this? I am lucky in than my old quartz watch keeps within a second a month (I must just have one that happpens to be close to bang on right), but how much accuracy do you lose with a Rolex.
Just to ameliorate the inevitable abuse, I will say again that I am not about to buy one, I am just curious, and plenty of people on here seem to have them.
Edited by northernboy on Sunday 11th March 23:15
I would expect the Yacht-master would be a certified "Chronometer" so it would in theory have passed tests that demand the watch stands up to the high standard of precision the COSC demands(Swiss Offical Chronometer Control).
As long as it is a good 'un the mechanical movement will be pretty close to perfection, which will not be 100%.
It's therefore better to look at the "mean daily rate" test for mechanical wactches. A standard men's watch mechanical movement, would maintain an accuracy within -4 to +6 seconds of variation per day that's +99.994% accuracy.
So it's not so bad. Depends if you are anally retentive on your timekeeping or not...
ETA: I don't have the watch you ask about, although I do own several mechanical time pieces in my modest collection, and if you do a bit of digging you will find Rolex and Omega, although I'm not so sure about TAG, house the same movements in their watches...
As long as it is a good 'un the mechanical movement will be pretty close to perfection, which will not be 100%.
It's therefore better to look at the "mean daily rate" test for mechanical wactches. A standard men's watch mechanical movement, would maintain an accuracy within -4 to +6 seconds of variation per day that's +99.994% accuracy.
So it's not so bad. Depends if you are anally retentive on your timekeeping or not...
ETA: I don't have the watch you ask about, although I do own several mechanical time pieces in my modest collection, and if you do a bit of digging you will find Rolex and Omega, although I'm not so sure about TAG, house the same movements in their watches...
Edited by princeperch on Sunday 11th March 23:18
princeperch said:
So it's not so bad. Depends if you are anally retentive on your timekeeping or not...
Yeah. Sadly, I really am. My job revolves around economic data releases, and I like to know exactly when to wander back up in an nonchalannt way that still sits me down just as the headlines appear.
I guess, though, that you get to learn which conditions speed and slow it, so can at least anticipate the drift.
Academic of course, as I definitely would not spend so much. No way. Nosiree. not me.
Do you think, then, that the "cheap" range has a worse movement?
princeperch said:
ETA: I don't have the watch you ask about, although I do own several mechanical time pieces in my modest collection, and if you do a bit of digging you will find Rolex and Omega, although I'm not so sure about TAG, house the same movements in their watches...
Edited by princeperch on Sunday 11th March 23:18
My TAG has a quartz movement, as I did not buy one of the more expensive ones.
Still costs 120 bloody pounds for a basic service, though, and 400 for a new strap. Cvnts.
Edited by northernboy on Sunday 11th March 23:21
northernboy said:
princeperch said:
So it's not so bad. Depends if you are anally retentive on your timekeeping or not...
Yeah. Sadly, I really am. My job revolves around economic data releases, and I like to know exactly when to wander back up in an nonchalannt way that still sits me down just as the headlines appear.
I guess, though, that you get to learn which conditions speed and slow it, so can at least anticipate the drift.
Academic of course, as I definitely would not spend so much. No way. Nosiree. not me.
Do you think, then, that the "cheap" range has a worse movement?
If you are REALLY anally retentive about timekeeping then pop over to Casio and get one of their Waveceptor watches. Synchonised to radio signals controlled by the atomic clock that controls the pips on the radio, and if you get a multi region one, can be tuned into similar atomic clock signals around the world. Quartz movement, so never very far out, resets to absolutley the correct time overnight, and even automatically changes for GMT/BST switch.
I have one.
I am very sad
I should get out more
Edited by andmole on Sunday 11th March 23:25
andmole said:
I have one.
I am very sad
I should get out more
I am very sad
I should get out more
Edited by andmole on Sunday 11th March 23:25
That's not sad, it is geekchic, which the ladies dig.
I assume so, anyway. I doubt it is my personality or looks that does it...
Edited to say that I looked, they are cool, and I must have one.
Although...
When these clocks were new, I remember seeing a coouple in a shop in Grreenwich. I said to the guy in there "Are these the clocks that use the time signal?"
"Yes" he said.
"And they are accurate to milliseconds, yes?"
"Yes, he said".
"So", I said "Why are they showing times 40 minutes apart..."
Edited by northernboy on Sunday 11th March 23:31
northernboy said:
princeperch said:
So it's not so bad. Depends if you are anally retentive on your timekeeping or not...
Yeah. Sadly, I really am. My job revolves around economic data releases, and I like to know exactly when to wander back up in an nonchalannt way that still sits me down just as the headlines appear.
I guess, though, that you get to learn which conditions speed and slow it, so can at least anticipate the drift.
Academic of course, as I definitely would not spend so much. No way. Nosiree. not me.
Do you think, then, that the "cheap" range has a worse movement?
I don’t think its got anything to do with being *cheap* or not. Anything from a bottom range Omega to a mid range Rolex could have the same movement from what I have read.
Very few watch brands actually make their own movements - most are an ETA based movement, which only really costs a few quid to produce and stick in a watch.
So if you get a watch that isn’t a lemon - it should be as accurate as any other watch that houses the same movement, unless you use it in conditions or ways that would affect it.
As for servicing, I get my local chap to sort my watches. He will do most things including resealing and pressurising, for about 30 quid. Send a watch to tag to get its battery changed, it's about 80 quid.
He has recently overhauled a mechanical watch I picked up cheap for 30 quid.
The mark up on watches is very high. Therefore I always buy (new) watches in the states to get value. The same goes for servicing and maintaining them. Send it to the big boys, and you'll be billed for it...
northernboy said:
but how much accuracy do you lose with a Rolex.
If it's an accurate rolex you are after the key is the number of diamonds set on the bezel. A standard rolex starts off losing 10 seconds a day. For each carat of diamond chip you get one that loses one second less per day. Up to a maximum of nine carats. For one which keeps time as well as the atomic clock at Greenwich you need one with leopard skin details like this little beauty.
www.stanford.edu/sep/bill/Photos/A">
HTH
ETA ok I can't code pics into threads tonight just click the link
Edited by eyebeebe on Sunday 11th March 23:33
Edited by eyebeebe on Sunday 11th March 23:35
princeperch said:
The mark up on watches is very high. Therefore I always buy (new) watches in the states to get value. The same goes for servicing and maintaining them. Send it to the big boys, and you'll be billed for it...
I will admit, though, that the shininess calls.
Not going to spend taht sort of money this year, though. I am getting my Tag repaired, and getting something cheapish, so I do not end up wearing the Tag every day and damaging the strap again.
northernboy said:
princeperch said:
The mark up on watches is very high. Therefore I always buy (new) watches in the states to get value. The same goes for servicing and maintaining them. Send it to the big boys, and you'll be billed for it...
I will admit, though, that the shininess calls.
Not going to spend taht sort of money this year, though. I am getting my Tag repaired, and getting something cheapish, so I do not end up wearing the Tag every day and damaging the strap again.
Depends if you're a magpie I guess.
I don't like bling myself, I prefer understated pieces and warm patina..
I travel a fair bit and a lot of the hotels / ships I stay at sell decent watches - and they fascinate me. The thing is, I've got a 20 year old crappy Casio. However, it keeps perfect time and never goes wrong. As such, when I look at decent watch I take my current one off, give it to the salesperson, and say "if you break my watch I'll buy a new one from you". No one has managed so far, despite some serious abuse. So I'll stick with my current one until someone manages to break it.
srebbe64 said:
I travel a fair bit and a lot of the hotels / ships I stay at sell decent watches - and they fascinate me. The thing is, I've got a 20 year old crappy Casio. However, it keeps perfect time and never goes wrong. As such, when I look at decent watch I take my current one off, give it to the salesperson, and say "if you break my watch I'll buy a new one from you". No one has managed so far, despite some serious abuse. So I'll stick with my current one until someone manages to break it.
Funny you mention old Casios.
I was on a train from Guildford to Waterloo the other day and sat next to a youngish chap wearing a bespoke chalk stripe suit, signet ring, the works, with what appeared to be high end shoes with a mirror polish...
Yet he had on a battered Casio with a dirty Velcro strap, underneath his perfect cuffs with Mont blanc cufflinks.
It not the first time I’ve seen someone who was, odds on, a city boy with a very cheap watch.
Perhaps he was old money, perhaps he didn’t give a shit, but it made me smile....
northernboy said:
Seems to be a few days since the last one, so...
Despite not really being in the market for one, I was browsing Rolexes on the web, and thought that the Yacht-master looked realy nice. I looked up the cost, and was pretty surprised at the £4,000+ list price.
Anyone on here got one, and can anyone say how they differ from the explorers, which are also nice, but cost much less.
Being a bit of a geek with respect to timekeeping (I like to get back to my seat a couple of seconds before the data release), what is the expected error on a reasonably good mechanical movement like this? I am lucky in than my old quartz watch keeps within a second a month (I must just have one that happpens to be close to bang on right), but how much accuracy do you lose with a Rolex.
Just to ameliorate the inevitable abuse, I will say again that I am not about to buy one, I am just curious, and plenty of people on here seem to have them.
Despite not really being in the market for one, I was browsing Rolexes on the web, and thought that the Yacht-master looked realy nice. I looked up the cost, and was pretty surprised at the £4,000+ list price.
Anyone on here got one, and can anyone say how they differ from the explorers, which are also nice, but cost much less.
Being a bit of a geek with respect to timekeeping (I like to get back to my seat a couple of seconds before the data release), what is the expected error on a reasonably good mechanical movement like this? I am lucky in than my old quartz watch keeps within a second a month (I must just have one that happpens to be close to bang on right), but how much accuracy do you lose with a Rolex.
Just to ameliorate the inevitable abuse, I will say again that I am not about to buy one, I am just curious, and plenty of people on here seem to have them.
I'll admit to being a bit of a wannabe watch collector. I don't have the money to be a 'proper' watch collector.
However I've owned an Explorer II, currently own a steel Daytona and a few other mechanical watches (mostly chronographs), *plus* a quartz-movement Porsche design titanium / aluminium jobby.
The PD quartz was bought because I was getting pissed off with the inaccuracy of the mechanical watches. Even the new Breguet double tourbillon, at £200k and incredible microengineering, will be no match for a quartz watch, let alone a radio-synchronised one. The PD watch keeps perfect time for me - I swap watches every so often and reset each time, so the PD never gets the chance to get more than a couple of seconds out.
For mechanical watches, firstly, IME the non-chronograph watches keep better time than the chronograph watches. The Explorer was better than the Daytona, which runs fast and is a *nightmare* when subjected to large temperature fluctuations (yeah I am silly enough to wear it on ski holidays). And yes, I've had the Daytona serviced. Don't leave the chronograph function running all the time.
Out of the mechanical watches the best timekeeping is my Omega Speedmaster (the Schumacher limited edition yr 2000, they did a 'limited edition' (around 4000 watches, not that limited
) every year he won the championship). The Explorer was a close second, but I sold that one. As to your question, the Yacht-master to me always struck me as the 'bling' end of the Rolex spectrum, with all the 'lifestyle' baggage (unless you are a keen sailor and like to show it off, I guess??) I preferred the image of the Explorer (and the styling, which isn't that far off the Daytona without the chronograph) - and if their marketing is to be believed, should be more accurate across different altitudes / temperatures...
I've only really seen the two-tone / gold Yacht-masters though, whereas I'd only ever wear a steel Rolex, so I'm prejudiced.
IMO the Explorer is a damn fine watch, not too big (current fashion is taking the piss size-wise - I love the IWC doppelchronograph but it's too damn big for my wrist and looks preposterous), cleanly styled and has its own pedigree.
If you prefer the Yacht-master style then I'd suggest a Sea-dweller... not as ubiquitous as the Submariner but with real practical credibility. Not that any of us are going to dive a kilometre under the sea of course, but it's fun
For ultimate accuracy the watches that synchronise to atomic clock signals are unbeatable. Accuracy is largely dependent on beat frequency, and a quartz crystal oscillates much faster than a mechanical movement (even the Zenith El Primero, which runs at 48k and is one of the faster ones). However cheap quartz movements can be adversely affected by temperature changes - Breitling for one specifically make an 'augmented' quartz model that compensates for that, ensuring even more accurate time.
If you must have a mechanical watch for watch-geek or status reasons, then you will need to set the time to an accurate source fairly regularly, so choose one with a hacking set function i.e. the second hand stops dead when you are adjusting the time. This makes it much easier to accurately match, say, the teletext signal. There are cool 'collectible' watches like the Seiko Orange Monster that are incredible value and great watches, but the movement doesn't hack and setting second-accurate time requires messing about for a minute or so.
If you're into the whole watch-geek thing, then get a non-automatic mechanical... you have to wind it every morning and you can set it to accurate time there and then - it will be good enough all day for any banking activity where you actually look at your watch
Spotting triple-fx-pair arb opportunities off a Reuters feed is best done by software and not by you and a fancy timepiece. 
Besides, all my banker mates reckon you have to have a Franck Muller to cut it
Vulgar FX trader bandits eh??? princeperch said:
I don’t think its got anything to do with being *cheap* or not. Anything from a bottom range Omega to a mid range Rolex could have the same movement from what I have read.
Very few watch brands actually make their own movements - most are an ETA based movement, which only really costs a few quid to produce and stick in a watch.
Sorry for previous monster post.
However this ain't correct - Omega make their own Speedmaster movement IIRC, and Rolex now make all their own movements inhouse. Rolex used to use a modified (slowed down!) Zenith El Primero in their Daytona, but since around 5-6 years ago they made their own.
Most other *chronographs* use the old Valjoux 7750 (now bought by ETA) movement, there are very few chronograph movements. Even IWC use that movement but heavily modified.
princeperch said:
Surprised IWC aren't there, then again.
cyberface said:
princeperch said:
I don’t think its got anything to do with being *cheap* or not. Anything from a bottom range Omega to a mid range Rolex could have the same movement from what I have read.
Very few watch brands actually make their own movements - most are an ETA based movement, which only really costs a few quid to produce and stick in a watch.
Sorry for previous monster post.
However this ain't correct - Omega make their own Speedmaster movement IIRC, and Rolex now make all their own movements inhouse. Rolex used to use a modified (slowed down!) Zenith El Primero in their Daytona, but since around 5-6 years ago they made their own.
Most other *chronographs* use the old Valjoux 7750 (now bought by ETA) movement, there are very few chronograph movements. Even IWC use that movement but heavily modified.
Cool.
Always happy to be educated...
cyberface said:
As to your question, the Yacht-master to me always struck me as the 'bling' end of the Rolex spectrum, with all the 'lifestyle' baggage (unless you are a keen sailor and like to show it off, I guess??) I preferred the image of the Explorer (and the styling, which isn't that far off the Daytona without the chronograph) - and if their marketing is to be believed, should be more accurate across different altitudes / temperatures...
I've only really seen the two-tone / gold Yacht-masters though, whereas I'd only ever wear a steel Rolex, so I'm prejudiced.
IMO the Explorer is a damn fine watch, not too big (current fashion is taking the piss size-wise - I love the IWC doppelchronograph but it's too damn big for my wrist and looks preposterous), cleanly styled and has its own pedigree.
If you prefer the Yacht-master style then I'd suggest a Sea-dweller... not as ubiquitous as the Submariner but with real practical credibility. Not that any of us are going to dive a kilometre under the sea of course, but it's fun
For ultimate accuracy the watches that synchronise to atomic clock signals are unbeatable. Accuracy is largely dependent on beat frequency, and a quartz crystal oscillates much faster than a mechanical movement (even the Zenith El Primero, which runs at 48k and is one of the faster ones). However cheap quartz movements can be adversely affected by temperature changes - Breitling for one specifically make an 'augmented' quartz model that compensates for that, ensuring even more accurate time.
If you must have a mechanical watch for watch-geek or status reasons
I've only really seen the two-tone / gold Yacht-masters though, whereas I'd only ever wear a steel Rolex, so I'm prejudiced.
IMO the Explorer is a damn fine watch, not too big (current fashion is taking the piss size-wise - I love the IWC doppelchronograph but it's too damn big for my wrist and looks preposterous), cleanly styled and has its own pedigree.
If you prefer the Yacht-master style then I'd suggest a Sea-dweller... not as ubiquitous as the Submariner but with real practical credibility. Not that any of us are going to dive a kilometre under the sea of course, but it's fun
For ultimate accuracy the watches that synchronise to atomic clock signals are unbeatable. Accuracy is largely dependent on beat frequency, and a quartz crystal oscillates much faster than a mechanical movement (even the Zenith El Primero, which runs at 48k and is one of the faster ones). However cheap quartz movements can be adversely affected by temperature changes - Breitling for one specifically make an 'augmented' quartz model that compensates for that, ensuring even more accurate time.
If you must have a mechanical watch for watch-geek or status reasons
I don't really go for the status thing much with wtches, having recently been wearing my "waving chairman Mau" one, or my copy of the first digital watch (which I think was £30).
I like the 200m rating in my S/EL, and was surprised that many of the rolexes don't have it (although I had to have a new face and hands on the tag after water ingress...).
The yacht master I likes was all silver, with a silver face, so not really one of the more flashy ones. I need a small faced one, too (mine is the mid-size), as big faces just look wrong on my wrist.
Anyway, it is all academic. I was just broowsing for interest, and thought that they looked nice. I will not buy one when I go to NY next week. Oh no, not me.
princeperch said:
srebbe64 said:
I travel a fair bit and a lot of the hotels / ships I stay at sell decent watches - and they fascinate me. The thing is, I've got a 20 year old crappy Casio. However, it keeps perfect time and never goes wrong. As such, when I look at decent watch I take my current one off, give it to the salesperson, and say "if you break my watch I'll buy a new one from you". No one has managed so far, despite some serious abuse. So I'll stick with my current one until someone manages to break it.
Funny you mention old Casios.
I was on a train from Guildford to Waterloo the other day and sat next to a youngish chap wearing a bespoke chalk stripe suit, signet ring, the works, with what appeared to be high end shoes with a mirror polish...
Yet he had on a battered Casio with a dirty Velcro strap, underneath his perfect cuffs with Mont blanc cufflinks.
It not the first time I’ve seen someone who was, odds on, a city boy with a very cheap watch.
Perhaps he was old money, perhaps he didn’t give a shit, but it made me smile....
Nothing wrong with Casio's
. Re the battered velcro strapped one with shiny shoes, assuming he wasn;t too young and had long hair. I would have button holed him as an Army Officer working at MoD rather than a city type myself.
Gassing Station | Watches | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff