Holy horology Batman, I think I found my next watch

[Sean C]

Originally Posted by Platapus

-Chronograph
-Titanium case with 100m WR
-Altimeter
-Compass
-Barometer
-Temperature sensor

I have a Casio digital with all of the above features. I wore it daily for a few years and I still really like it. It also has a relatively large case, but - being made of titanium - it is still one of the lightest watches I own. I never actually used any of these features*, but I did enjoy playing around with them from time to time. Just keep in mind that, if the Trume is similar to the Casio, the altimeter works by measuring barometric pressure - so it needs to be calibrated based on the current local conditions. Otherwise, it really only shows the difference in altitude between locations, as opposed to accurate absolute ASL altitude.


The compass is also sensitive to interference from any nearby magnetic material. (As is any magnetic compass.) So you need to be aware of any potential sources of interference. This includes large deposits of iron in the surrounding area. You will also need to be aware of the magnetic declination in the area you intend to use the compass. (My Casio has the option of manually correcting for declination.) The compass could be re-calibrated fairly easily by the user, though.



I have also been interested lately in watches which update via GPS. The potential shutdown of WWVB being the primary reason. (I own several watches which use this signal.) However, I think it is ultimately unlikely that the station will be shut down, given that most [if not all] radio updated clocks in the U.S. use this signal. Also, one thing I have discovered is that receiving the GPS signal seems to be a big drain on the battery. My Casio is solar powered (and still going strong after several years), so I never had to worry about the battery.


I must say though: the Trume is a very smart looking watch. And if it makes you happy ... go for it. I love all of my watches - for different reasons - but still, I love them just the same.

Originally Posted by Commander Wallace

The watch looks like a great watch but how well does it keep time ?

This was my primary reason for buying the watch I currently wear: a Bulova Precisionist. When it was first introduced, Bulova claimed an accuracy of ± 10 seconds per year. They later backed off of that statement a little - changing it to something like "seconds per year" (i.e. less than a minute). Careful observation of my own Precisionist indicates a constant rate of about +0.2017 seconds per day ... or about +1m13s per year. Still pretty good if you ask me. And keep in mind this is without radio or GPS updates.


*I did use the barometer - rather successfully - to get an idea of the weather in the near future.

[Sean C]

Oh ... one more thing: also keep in mind that if you want to measure the temperature of the air where you are - you will have to take the watch off and leave it sitting for some time before taking the reading. Otherwise, you will be taking the temperature of your wrist ... which is not very useful.

[Jimbuna]

Nice looking watch but I guess I'll stick with the one my wife gave me for Christmas (Seiko 7T92).

[Onkel Neal]

Nice watch, Plat. That's some crazy good tech and quality. I also like the black face model. Wouldn't do for me, though, it would get all beat up and I would end up hanging myself.


Does it light up in the dark like a Timex Indiglo where you can read it?






I like the idea of a Trume, though. I can see where it would be handy. Say I got into a heated discussion with someone, I could pull back my sleeve and show the watch, they would fall to their knees in submission. Nice!

[Platapus]

Originally Posted by Onkel Neal

I like the idea of a Trume, though. I can see where it would be handy. Say I got into a heated discussion with someone, I could pull back my sleeve and show the watch, they would fall to their knees in submission. Nice!

Unfortunately, you would have to get in to the habit of wearing the Trume on alternate wrists. That way both arms get a workout!

But seriously, the only practical use of this watch is being able to walk in to a horology meeting, push a button and then tell all the people who have multi-thousand dollar mechanical watches:

"Hey dudes, just for your information, this IS the correct time, Bye!"

[Onkel Neal]

Originally Posted by Platapus

Unfortunately, you would have to get in to the habit of wearing the Trume on alternate wrists. That way both arms get a workout!

But seriously, the only practical use of this watch is being able to walk in to a horology meeting, push a button and then tell all the people who have multi-thousand dollar mechanical watches:

"Hey dudes, just for your information, this IS the correct time, Bye!"

Yeah, but this is a pretty cool thread, thanks for starting it.

[Platapus]

This is what I am wearing now. Omega Seamaster 2254


To me, it is one of the nicer looking watches that Omega made. I was looking at getting one of the new co-axial Seamasters, but I just don't like the skeleton hands. I much prefer the "sword" hands on the 2254. Omega stopped making the 2254 about 10 years ago.

If they could take the 2254 and put the new co-axial movement inside it would probably be one of those

"Shut up and just take my money!!


Moments.

Friends don't let friends get into watches. It is a terrible mental illness.

[Aktungbby]

MY FIELD WATCH ON DUTY AND WORLD TRAVEL COMPANION IS THE GEORGE J VON BURG 'TRIPLE DATE' WITH CHRONO, MOONPHASE DATEHAND AND 24-HOUR AND SMALL SECONDS HAND AT THE 9 O'CLOCK POSITION-11 FUNCTIONS ON A MECHANICAL WATCH ! ON A FABULOUS VALJOUX 7751 MOVEMENT. I'M ALREADY INTO IT FOR ONE MAINSPRING ($700) REPLACEMNT AND RECENTLY HAD TO REPLACE THE DOUBLE- STITCH CROC BAND WITH A SLIGHTLY INFERIOR ONE AFTER OVER A DECADE OF CONSTANT WEAR. THE GERMAN FLIERGER STYLE HANDS ARE EASY TO READ AT NIGHT AND THE WHOLE PIECE JUST 'SINGS TO MY WRIST'! ONLY FIFTY WERE EVER MADE. FRANKLY IT SAVES ME MONEY; I SEE OTHER WATCHES OF INTEREST THAT MAKE ME DROOL HOROLOGICALLY BUT THEN SENSIBLY CONCLUDE "I'M ALREADY WEARING IT" THE OTHER OF MY FAVORITES WAS GIFT FROM A LOCAL JEWELRY SHOP OWNER WHO LEFT THE KEYS IN HER SHOP'S FRONT DOOR ABSENTMINDEDLY. IT IS MY '60'S WAKMANN ON A VENUS 178 MOVEMENT. WHAT IS CHARMING ABOUT THIS ONE IS THE THREE SUBHAND-DIALS ARE ALL DIFFERENT! THEY DON'T DO THAT LITTLE STUFF ANYMORE. < THIS PUPPY SITS BY THE COMPUTER AND GET WOUND MANUALLY ....EVERY DAY! I TEND TO FROWN ON ALL THE NEW APPLE WATCHES NOT BEING ENTIRELY A 'MAN OF THE 21ST CENTURY' BUT I WOULDN'T HESITATE TO WEAR ONE IF ENTERING A SAUDI EMBASSY

 

https://www.cnbc.com/2018/10/15/khashoggi-apple-watch-recording-in-saudi-embassy-nearly-impossible.html Two senior Turkish officials revealed the existence of an object that may provide important clues to the fate of Jamal Khashoggi, a Saudi journalist who disappeared in Istanbul last week: The black Apple watch he was wearing when he entered his country’s consulate.
The watch was connected to a mobile phone he left outside, Reuters quoted the Turkish officials as saying on Oct. 10.

[Platapus]

Originally Posted by Nathaniel B.

Oh ... one more thing: also keep in mind that if you want to measure the temperature of the air where you are - you will have to take the watch off and leave it sitting for some time before taking the reading. Otherwise, you will be taking the temperature of your wrist ... which is not very useful.

That's why the temperature function is only available with the bluetooth models that come with that rather silly external sensor pack.

[Platapus]

Originally Posted by Nathaniel B.

I have a Casio digital with all of the above features.

The Casio G-Shock line is probably the best value watch if you are looking for function. I just don't care for how a lot of the Casio hybrid watches look, but that's just a personal preference. The MTG is a nice one too.

If it were not for the looks, I would have no issue buying some of the Casio's. They are very good watches.

Concerning the Bulova Percisionist, They are using a quartz frequency that is about 8 times faster than more traditional quartz watches. Faster frequency means that individual variations are more easily "averaged" out. It is a less expensive way to get close to the thermally compensated quartz watches in the HAQ (High accuracy Quartz) family of watches.

HAQs are more accurate, but also more expensive. Longenes VHP will run you about $800 and that is about as cheap as you can get for HAQ's of any quality.

Watch accuracy is a constant leapfrog of technology.

The best mechanical watch for tens of thousands of dollars can be less accurate than the worst quartz watch for a few dollars.

But what does accuracy really mean?

Accuracy only applies when compared to an external source. What people generally consider accuracy is actually variance. How many seconds does the watch vary from day to day.

The terms are often used interchangeably but they are, in fact, different concepts.

Your best mechanical chronometers will have a variance of -2/+2 seconds per day when new. A traditional quartz watch will have a variance of about -15/+15 seconds a month. Temperature has the biggest effect on the variance of quartz movements. HAQ's use a thermal compensator to mitigate the variances due to temperature changes.

Higher end quartz movements (Sometimes referred to as "culled and cooked") have a variance of about -5/+5 seconds a month.

HAQ have a variance of about -10/+10 seconds a year. The Longenes VHP claims -5/+5 seconds a year and testing seems to support this.

The practical aspect of variance is how long can your watch operate between synchronization to another source (time signal for example) and therefore remain "accurate".

All watches are accurate just after synchronization

If you could sync a watch every second, any cheap watch on the market would be accurate. But syncing that often is difficult and counter productive.

The advent of the radio and GPS updated watch is to make it easier to sync the watch. That's what that technology does for you.

Something to keep in mind. A radio or GPS watch is not more accurate than any other quartz watch. It is just that a radio or GPS watch is easier to sync more often. If you manually sync a mechanical or quartz watch as often as a radio or GPS watch, the relative accuracy will be about the same, depending on the quality of the quartz or mechanical movement.

Manually syncing a watch is .. ahem.. time consuming and not alway convenient.

For example, the Seiko Astron uses a traditional quartz movement and has a variance of -15/+15 seconds a month
The Citizen Satellite wave watch uses a "cooked" quartz movement and has a variance of -5/+5 seconds a month.

That means that if, for some reason, both watches are synced at the same time on the first of the month only, by the end of the month, the Astron has the potential of being less accurate than the Satellite wave.

But of course the whole idea of a GPS watch is to be able to either automatically sync or manually sync to the GPS signal quickly and easily.

Some of the GPS watches can update the time only in about 3-6 seconds which is pretty quick and easy. You can sync your watch every time you walk from your car to your building....I can't imagine why, but you could.

After syncing, both watches will have the same accuracy. As long as each watch can sync every few days, the differences in the variance between the two watches will be insignificant.

Trapped in an endless staff meeting, and both of these expensive GPS watches will be just as accurate at more traditional and less expensive watches.

(TLDRBHCPIAPJAJWSU*) Variance only effects how often you need to sync your watch in order to keep it accurate enough for your purposes.

Radio and GPS watches are not more accurate but are more easily synced.


*TLDRBHCPIAPJAJWSU - Too long Didn't Read Because Holy Crap Platapus Is a Pompous Jerk And Just Won't Shut Up!

[Sean C]

Originally Posted by Platapus

Accuracy only applies when compared to an external source. What people generally consider accuracy is actually variance. How many seconds does the watch vary from day to day.

The terms are often used interchangeably but they are, in fact, different concepts.

I find this very interesting. I'm no horology expert, by any means - but I have never heard the term "variance" used in connection with timekeepers of any sort. The term I have heard used in this sense is "rate" - usually in connection with a ship's chronometer. The "rate" of a ship's chronometer (i.e. the amount of seconds fast or slow per unit of time) is usually determined every three years or so (the recommended interval of time between adjustments) by a qualified individual and then recorded and reported to the user of the chronometer so that they may make the necessary adjustments to their observations.


In my experience, the "accuracy" of a chronometer refers to the consistency of its "rate". In other words, when the Board of Longitude was looking for an "accurate" timepiece (or some other solution to the longitude problem), they weren't necessarily looking for a chronometer that would always show the correct Greenwich time. What they were looking for was a timepiece that could be corrected by a known [and stable] rate - such that the actual time at Greenwich could be determined by applying the necessary correction. A very difficult problem when considering that the only technology available at the time was mechanical and subjected to the pitching and rolling of a ship. This highlights the genius of John Harrison and his designs.



But, of course, this is all just semantics. What really matters is that we all understand that what we mean when we are using these terms. A much more common confusion occurs when discussing "accuracy" vs. "precision".


This leads me to an odd side note about my current everyday watch - the Bulova Precisionist. Bulova [at one time] was well known for their "Accutron" watch. This watch used a tuning fork instead of a balance wheel to regulate the timekeeping. It was a revolutionary technology at the time which made the Accutron more - well ... accurate than the average watch. The technology was so iconic that Bulova adopted the tuning fork as their logo.



Fast forward to today and we have the "Precisionist". This watch uses a three-pronged quartz crystal to achieve a more stable "rate" (or variance) than the average watch. And for the first runs, Bulova included the tuning fork logo on these watches - even though these watches did not use the same tuning fork technology as the Accutron watches. But now, in a well publicized move, Bulova has decided to remove the tuning fork logo from all of its watches except for the Accutron series - which presumably still uses this technology.


However, my Precisionist still bears the tuning fork logo at the top of the uppermost sub-dial (where the word "Bulova" appears in my picture) whereas the "Bulova" designation resides at the bottom of said sub-dial. Perhaps this is why I was able to purchase the watch at 60% off the recommended retail price at JacobTime.com. Or maybe not ... IDK.


Anyway ... cheers!


-Nathaniel

[Platapus]

Thank you for pointing out that in my long bombastic post I neglected to drone on about the third factor that can affect what is considered accuracy in a watch -- Loss/gain. Yikes, that's a pretty important thing to leave out. So let me repair with an even longer and more bombastic post. That' will learn ya!

Accuracy is an absolute instantaneous comparison to an external source. That source can be anything which is why whenever the term accuracy is used, it needs to be followed up with either to what extent or to what. With watches is is ass-umed to be accurate when compared to an atomic time signal, but that is not always a safe assumption. Nothing can be accurate with regard to itself. That concept is called variance which I will cover next.

Accuracy is an instantaneous absolute value. For example: At this instant, my watch is -4 seconds from the NIST time signal. The next time I check, my watch may be +3 seconds from the NIST time signal. Like any set of absolute values, I can take a Mean, Median, and Mode to create all sorts of statistics. But it is incorrect to use the commonly used phrase "My watch is accurate to +/- 5 seconds." A lot of people do it including watch people, but it is not actually the correct way to express it. I can, however report that my watch is on the average (mean) +3 seconds from the NIST time signal. I can say that my watch's median (center) is -2 seconds and that the mode (majority) may be 0 seconds. I can even calculate standard deviations of this data if I want to ensure of never being invited out to parties.

Variance, on the other hand is an internal measurement. It is a measurement of how repeatable is the precision of the watch movement. Mechanical watches are often measured in Beats per Hour. An hour was chosen many years ago as a good period of representation. A specific watch's balance wheel may operate at 28,800 BPH. This is actually a common BPH. This translates down to 8 beats per second or 4 hertz.

So a 28,800 BPH watch "ticks" at 4 ticks per second. You can see this if you can look carefully or better yet record the movement and slow it down. You should see four tiny jumps between each second mark.

Generally speaking higher BPH CAN result in some variance being "averaged out". However, a well made 2.5 hz watch will be better than a poorly made 5 hz watch. How does this relate to variance?

No watch beats at exactly 28,800 beats per hour every hour. But they get close. Sometimes it beats at less than 28.8k and sometimes it beats more than 28.8k and sometimes it beats exactly 28.8k. This being a mechanical watch full of mechanical stuff, position, movement, and gravity are only three of about a million things that can affect the precision of a watch movement.

The range of these values is called variance. This has nothing directly to do with accuracy. This is just how predictable does the watch movement .. well.. move.

Variance is reported out as a range. This range may be centered over zero as in this watch has a variance of +/- 5 seconds a day (aka the range of between -5 and + 5 seconds). But it can also be centered over another number. For example some METAS certified watches have a variance of -0/+5. (centered over 2.5) But just to keep the math easy, let's just consider a watch that has a variance of -5/+5 seconds a day.

Let's take this watch and sync it to the NIST time signal or some other other recognized "correct time" reference. After 10 days what will the accuracy of this watch? (show your work)

Pencils down

It will be somewhere between -50 seconds and + 50 seconds from the time reference. -5 seconds per day times 10 days is pretty close to -50.

Assuming no other factors, it will be a Gaussian distribution around the reference zero. This is why it is important to know what the center reference is and it is mostly but not always zero.

Unfortunately, with anything mechanical, the phrase "assuming no other factors" is a fantasy as there are always external factors. But watch engineers work very hard to mitigate these factors. But let's continue in our fantasy world of no external factors to keep the numbers easy. That's the great thing about math -- you can create fantasy worlds where numbers work easy. Engineers have to deal with reality.

This means that there is a tiny chance this watch will be -50 seconds and an equally tiny chance that this watch will be +50 seconds and a much larger chance it will be closer to zero difference. Now a watch with a smaller variance will have a greater chance of being close to zero than a watch with a wider variance. But at any one instant, a watch with a narrow variance may be less accurate than a watch with a larger variance!

But the odds are better with a smaller variance. Which is why watches with small variances are more difficult to make and are often more expensive. Adjusting the variance on a watch is a complicated process and often requires the disassembly of the mechanism.

Then there is the item I neglected to write about in my previous post.

Loss/gain. A loss/gain is a cumulative change in the accuracy of a watch over a period of observation. It is in one direction. A watch either gains or loses time. If a watch both loses and gains time, that is variance. The cumulative change in the accuracy is affected by the variance of the watch. The variance is not affected by the loss/gain.

HUH?

Here is an example I had with my watch.

My watch is a COSC certified chronometer that has a design variance of -4/+6 seconds per day. That's 10 seconds not centered at zero! Note that it is a design variance. Whether my watch actually has a variance of -4/+6 will have to be determined.

My watch had a loss of about 11 seconds a day. This loss was cumulative. One day after syncing, it was 11 seconds slow. The next day it was 22 seconds slow, the third day 33 seconds slow. Since this was a cumulative loss over a period of time, it is often called a Gain Rate or Loss Rate.

This being a loss and not a variance, there was no countering "+". This meant that my watch was experiencing a loss as opposed to an undesired variance.

True to Swiss precision, my watch was almost exactly 11 seconds slow. The actual variance values were between -2 and +4 according to my spreadsheet.

What? You don't keep a spreadsheet of the variances of YOUR watches???

This was actually good news as the variance was supposed to be -4/+6 but was actually -2/+4. This meant that my watch was very precisely inaccurate. If you are going to be wrong, at least be precisely wrong.

Let's say for a counter example that my watch's accuracy varied thusly:

Day 1: -11 seconds
Day 2: -4 seconds
Day 3: +1 seconds
Day 4: +20 seconds

This would not be an indication of gain/loss but an indicator of the variance being out of specs. That would be an expensive fix

But my watch was, with great precision losing about 11 seconds a day. This meant that the repair consisted of demagnetizing the movement and performing what is called a regulation which is often (and in my case was) a simple physical adjustment of the watch. Omega did it for free (yea) but took three weeks to do it (boo). If it was a problem in variance, it would have taken about $600.00 MINIMUM and about 12 weeks to fix.

So we have three separate, but often commonly confused concepts that affect what is called accuracy.

Accuracy - Instantaneous absolute comparison to an external reference
Variance - Continuous changes, over a period of observation, of the repeated precision of the movement
Gain/loss - Cumulative change over a period of time of the accuracy.

Of course, in the real world, your watch is affected by all of these at the same time. Actually all clocks are affected by this.

Even the venerated Cesium clocks have variance. Very very tiny variances that have mostly insignificant impacts on reality, but they are there. This is why UTC is actually a group effort involving multiple atomic clocks from all around the world or across the flat world depending on your beliefs. It is actually a Time that is Universally Coordinated.

My rant about the misuse of the term UTC will have to wait for another bombastic post.

[mapuc]

Thank you Platapus and Nathaniel B.

Well one thing is what you like or prefer when it comes to wrist watch another thing is what you can afford

Markus

[Platapus]

Well a watch is both a tool for representing time and a piece of jewelry.

Everyone makes a decision on a watch by balancing these two against cost.

To some, the way a watch looks is more important than accuracy. Many of the fashion watches are like this. You can buy a fashion watch with a quartz movement and no indices on the face. So you precisely know, within a variance of +/- 15 seconds a month that it is somewhere about 10 minutes past the hour??? Yikes. The Frau is like this.

There are people who buy Rolex watches and never bother to sync them. They just wear them. Double yikes

Then there the other idiots who fixate on accuracy and variance and deny the fact that most people in the world don't operate at high accuracy times. The meeting starts at 10:00 so plan on arriving at 9:55. If you show up at 9:59:59.9 you most likely will have to sit at the table as all the good seats are taken. Since we have no actual friends, we bicker to ourselves that the meeting should have started 22 seconds ago.

Sad

These people buy a watch based more on variance than appearance and are the ones that keep rich Swiss/Japanese watch makers rich.

Double sad

More normal humans want something that is accurate enough, good looking enough, and inexpensive enough. While horologists look down on these people, the people don't notice as they are busy going out with girls and actually enjoying life!

At least I can spend my time on the internet looking at Time.gov and syncing anything I can including the cat.

Protip: The variance of a cat makes syncing rather pointless. But that does not mean that I stop trying.

I don't have a watch problem. Other people think I have a watch problem.

[Platapus]

I like this guy and his other watch reviews are pretty good and most entertaining.