# This Bulova meets specs



## wbird (Feb 25, 2015)

Since I have to do the DST thing I am going to jump the gun by 9 days and say that a Bulova model 98B210 is going to meet the 10 s/yr spec it is currently 6.8s fast after 357 days. 

Measured using photography, remember with a sweeping hand I don't have to use burst to resolve .2s. Wear pattern was very little over the winter, maybe once every 2 or 3 weeks. 

Numerous reviews on this model all over the web and I will just highlight what I and others have found. 

Size at 47.5 mm and weight of 5oz is certainly not small but due to the shape of the lugs wears a little smaller. This along with the comfortable silicone strap gives a nice feel. 

Finish of case brushed on top and polished on sides is well executed. Lume is pretty weak but the crown is 60 click unidirectional and solid. Readability of the skeleton hands is is okay under normal lighting, not so much in low light. But subdials are almost always clearly readable.

All subdials and second hand align perfectly, remember in chrono mode the second hand ticks like a traditional quartz, and it hits all the markers along the dial. 

Been in the ocean and pool and WR seems okay, and rated at 200m.

As far as the sweeping second hand it is equal or superior to any mechanical 7750, 2824-2, or a Rolex I could put beside it. The only movement that appears a little smoother might be the B 01 from Breitling. But since the B01 is a subdial I don't know if it's a fair comparison. But it's definitely better than a 7750 subdial so I don't know.

The only items left will be battery life and aging, and I will update if anything of note occurs.

Cris had a list of reasons why you might buy one, I might add the unique or just dumb cool factor. Remember these are all just watches and there just aren't any other watches with technology like it. The 1/1000 dials sole function is essentially for a drinking game start stop reaction time test. The sweeping second hand looks cool to most folks and becomes a test if you can see 1/16th of a second. If you're a traditionalist this may be irrelevant but to me and others there's always room for cool and hopefully accuracy.

If anyone has a current Bulova meeting spec, or not, feel free to add to this thread.

Not going to post any pics, I've posted plenty on this watch on various threads.


----------



## mikahe (Nov 27, 2013)

Hi, nice report! But sorry, as that movement is not TCXO nor journey'd by Siberian wolves from the heat of Kursk to the bitter coldness of Ural mountains during test, it isn't worthy of this forum


----------



## ronalddheld (May 5, 2005)

My concern with these Bulovas are in the years to come, they are unlikely to meet spec.


----------



## alexwatch (Sep 12, 2012)

Thanks for the test on your Bulova. I have just purchased the military model and hope to see similar spec. And the word unlikely is not a test. Good luck.


----------



## mr ed (Feb 28, 2016)

I have a 98b245 black chronometer for 2 months now. Worn about 2 weeks total - just under 2 seconds from reference. Use it to set my mechanical watches. 

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk


----------



## wbird (Feb 25, 2015)

Mikahe my Bulova would have welcomed that Russian pleasure trip compared to what it's seen.

It's been through the bitter cold, sweltering heat, and pizza rat on the platforms and tunnels of the NY/NJ Transit system.

Experienced the severe shock on the pot hole ridden, suspension wrecking LIE and Cross Bronx.

Been to highest point and the cheapest crappiest seats in MSG and experienced 4 quarters of Knicks basketball in the death zone. For you folks that aren't familiar with the Knicks or the quality of their team consider yourself blessed.

After all this not even 24 hours after reporting it met specs, the second reply was yeah it met specs but it will probably turn to crap. Talk about buzzkill. (Just messing with you Ronald)

But seriously I look forward to see the results of the other posters and hope their watches perform even better than mine. It would be nice to see that Bulova has addressed the problems of the past and is producing a HAQ product.


----------



## ronalddheld (May 5, 2005)

wbird said:


> Mikahe my Bulova would have welcomed that Russian pleasure trip compared to what it's seen.
> 
> It's been through the bitter cold, sweltering heat, and pizza rat on the platforms and tunnels of the NY/NJ Transit system.
> 
> ...


Wbird, your watch did not up and leave you while at the Knicks game?


----------



## wbird (Feb 25, 2015)

Ron, I'm sure my watch would've bailed if it could've found a Sherpa to help it down. As you know just like Everest most people die on the descent, and I'm sure most people think they are going to die after watching the Knicks.


----------



## Weatherman478 (Mar 8, 2016)

Hi currently running 3 Bulova's. They were all set to the atomic clock 3 weeks ago. So far the The 96G131 which was made in 2012 is 3 seconds fast. The 96b159 which was made in 2013 is 1 second fast and the 98b220 which was made in 2015 is spot on. They are all worn on various days.
I wonder if the 96G131 is the worst performer because it is the oldest or if the other watches have been revised more.


----------



## wbird (Feb 25, 2015)

Weatherman, I take it you kind of like Bulova's. I can't answer your question directly but over the course of the year you will answer a few questions if you keep measuring them.

If the oldest and least accurate one maintains that rate you could probably conclude it never was meeting spec when produced and QC or earlier designs may have been problematic with the hit and miss results people saw initially. 

Worst case scenario the rate continues increase to basic Quartz, still a nice watch just not HAQ.

The best case scenario would be as the battery is getting weaker it may be having problems electronically maintaining accuracy. I've seen this phenomena with various watches on this site. Since at three years old it is close to the end of the usual battery life, perhaps you might get super lucky and a battery change will get you back in spec.

The middle one is running close to spec and might stabilize and be fine. Really to early to conclude anything yet.

The newest one is actually kind of a nice surprise. Ariel Adams on a blog to watch wrote that the Accutron II models were a different movement from the Precissionist, they made them thinner and adjusted them to increase battery life. Because of these changes he thought that accuracy was reduced to 5s per month.

Granted I can't find anything on the web to corroborate this statement on accuracy. If your new Bulova keeps performing well that would be welcome news for you, and people interested in their designs and performance.


----------



## Weatherman478 (Mar 8, 2016)

just a quick update on this. reset all the watches n the 26/03/16. It I now some ten weeks ago and the watches are running as follows. The oldest watch the 96G131 is now running some 17 seconds fast. The 96b159 is now bout 5.3 seconds fast. The 98b220 is running 1.1 sec fast. All watches re worn on a regular cycle. 
Has anyone else found that the Accutron 11 seems to be a better time keeper then the Precisonist ?


----------



## Tseg (Mar 29, 2014)

alexwatch said:


> Thanks for the test on your Bulova. I have just purchased the military model and hope to see similar spec. And the word unlikely is not a test. Good luck.


I'm pretty pumped nearly 1 month into owning my ~$100 Bulova military... .2 slow over 27 days. We'll see if it can maintain its sub-3 SPY performance over the next 11 months.


----------



## Hans Moleman (Sep 24, 2007)

Tseg said:


> We'll see if it can maintain its sub-3 SPY performance over the next 11 months.


Great start.
Look forward to a year's data. 
Try to include some off-the-wrist data too.


----------



## Tseg (Mar 29, 2014)

Hans Moleman said:


> Great start.
> Look forward to a year's data.
> Try to include some off-the-wrist data too.


Those long flat areas in my chart are when not wearing, maybe 4 days in a row, stored face up in watch case.


----------



## wbird (Feb 25, 2015)

Well it's been another 14 weeks and since I'm wearing the Bulova more (nice sport watch in the summer) I figured I would check the accuracy.

Well it's 2.4s fast on pace to be under 10s / yr barely. Battery is well over a year old, and no sign of aging. All in all pretty boring. I'll take a look at the Certina since I went through the effort to check my references, and post it on the Certina thread.

Should also mention I haven't been wearing it much in last few months but doesn't seem to be making much of a difference.


----------



## wbird (Feb 25, 2015)

Well it's 6 months and it's 5s fast or 10 s/yr. This performance is slightly worse than last year but obviously still in spec. Could be that it is not being worn as much this year as last. Maybe 2 or 3 times a month.

Battery is well over 18 months old will see how long it lasts. Second hand is turned off most of the time, but when I wear it I turn it on now. Last year I barely turned it on.

I guess the only thing I'm curious about is how long the battery will last and if it shows the aging thing. 

I noticed even with the Bulova forum doesn't seem to be a whole lot of interest if their watch is accurate. A lot of folks bought those moon watches and no one seems to check their performance. Would have been nice to get a little more data on Bulova performance.


----------



## ronalddheld (May 5, 2005)

You know this forum might lead the world in people who are #%$% about accuracy.


----------



## tmathes (Jan 11, 2013)

ronalddheld said:


> You know this forum might lead the world in people who are #%$% about accuracy.


:-d

I bought one of the Bulova "moon watch" models in July (July 19 to be precise). While it's a bit oversized, the detail is darned nice for the price. As for accuracy, so far it surpasses my 2 Certina DS-x models (DS-8 and DS-2 chrono). The Bulova has gained approximately 1-1.5 sec. in the last 2 months; the Certinas, out of the box, were gaining approximately 1-2 seconds/month.

I'll report occasionally how it's tracking over the next year, if it ages poorly or rather well but compared to the TC ETA movements this HF quartz Bulova/Citizen is doing quite nicely so far in the time keeping department. The sweep second hand stepping in 1/2 second increments is also kind of nice too.


----------



## wbird (Feb 25, 2015)

I take it back at least a couple of moonwatch owners are interested and checking the accuracy of their watches. Nice to see that watch is performing as well as it looks tmathes.


----------



## yankeexpress (Apr 7, 2013)

Have a bunch of Bulova UHF and Precisionist, with additions to the 5 chronos pictured below. So far I have not changed a battery.

96b251










98b210










98B212










96b183










96b237


----------



## tmathes (Jan 11, 2013)

wbird said:


> I take it back at least a couple of moonwatch owners are interested and checking the accuracy of their watches. Nice to see that watch is performing as well as it looks tmathes.


I check the accuracy of every watch I have. It's the "engineer's curse" that I have to make sure everything I own is doing what it's supposed to.


----------



## tenohninethirtyseven (Oct 12, 2016)

One month in, and any differential between my new 96B158 Precisionist and my Wave Ceptor is imperceptible to the unaided eye.

Notes:
1) I have not worn it hang gliding through the mists of Angel Falls.
2) The watch was not worn during a deployment of the USCGC Healy to McMurdo Station.
3) I did not wear this watch riding a BMW R1200GS across the Kalahari Desert.
4) No EVAs while wearing this watch were undertaken during the comparison period.
5) It's basically just been an ordinary month in the suburbs. Still and all, quite promising accuracy for this 8-jewel jewel.


----------



## tmathes (Jan 11, 2013)

tenohninethirtyseven said:


> One month in, and any differential between my new 96B158 Precisionist and my Wave Ceptor is imperceptible to the unaided eye.
> 
> Notes:
> 1) I have not worn it hang gliding through the mists of Angel Falls.
> ...


No EVAs? We're quite disappointed.

Forum members expect you to try much harder next time.


----------



## Tseg (Mar 29, 2014)

A little update 150 days in. Who needs a HAQ when you can have a Bulova? Unfortunately my Bulova has reached an inflection point...gone from losing time to gaining time.

Should I return it? Nah... I'm ok with a sub-1/4 second per year watch.





Tseg said:


> I'm pretty pumped nearly 1 month into owning my ~$100 Bulova military... .2 slow over 27 days. We'll see if it can maintain its sub-3 SPY performance over the next 11 months.


----------



## wbird (Feb 25, 2015)

Since I set it to the accurate time I needed a place to record its rate. So at 32 weeks it is 6.2 seconds fast, which would put it at about 10 s/yr.

Battery is still fine, wore it probably about the same amount of time or a little less than the Certina, but it is doing a little better 10 vs 14 s/yr.

Unless it goes crazy, or I get bored, I'll measure it next time I have to adjust for DST.


----------



## rfortson (Feb 18, 2012)

I have the Moon Watch and the Military watch, both purchased in late July. Since I had to update for DST change, I figured I'd do an eyeball accuracy test vs Time.is.

The Military watch (which I used as my standard to set my mechanical watches) was just slightly over 1 second fast. The BMW was essentially dead on (well within a second). So, for less than $500 total I have some cool watches with amazing accuracy. Color me pleased. I'll check back in another 5 months (March?) when we switch back. (Why not just set it 30 minutes ahead and quit messing with the clocks?)


----------



## wbird (Feb 25, 2015)

Well it's another year with this watch and it barely missed meeting specs clocked in at 10.7 s/yr. Wear pattern in the last 4 months has been very infrequent, perhaps once or twice a month, as opposed to the first year when I wore it much more frequently and it met specs. Still waiting on that ageing thing, but looking at all those Precisionist's out there on the forums not showing it not really expecting to see it. Battery is over two years old it will probably go this year I would guess, but since I don't usually have the second hand on it may last longer.


----------



## rfortson (Feb 18, 2012)

So, a time change report on my two, the Military and the Moon Watch. The Military had gained nearly 5 seconds but the Moon Watch was dead on. 

Note that both of these were eyeball checks of Time.is on my computer. No fancy gyrations were performed. I wear each of these a couple of times per month, max.


----------



## Lemaniac40 (Oct 10, 2008)

I have had my 140th Annv. Precisionist Chronograph for over 3 months. I synced it with www.Nist.gov when I received it in mid November 2016. I checked it yesterday and it is perfect , any loss/gain not detected by the human eye. I feel fortunate to have received on of the better ones. I wore this watch at 38,000 feet on a flight to and from Taiwan in late December. It handled the heat in Asia and then back to NEW YORK.

I have also changed it from timekeeping mode to time measuring mode several times. Sometimes leaving the main second hand still at 12 o'clock waiting for my next chronograph use. Other times just letting it glide around the dial.

I bought mine new from Amazon.


----------



## DaveK12 (Mar 25, 2017)

Among 6 other watches, I synced an Accutron II Alpha with my radio atomic clock on March 12, when I was setting everything for DST. It's the only one which still agrees with it down to the second. They only said 5 SPM for the Accutron II, and it's not even off just short of 2 weeks later. I'm pretty impressed with that. The next quartz is off by -2 already and the worst is +13. The best mechanical is -1:09 and the worst is +2:42. I'm very interested in how close it is when it's time to change back.


----------



## anzac1957 (Oct 2, 2008)

Mine is one of the latest Bulova Moonwatch... haven't checked accuracy yet, by the script on caseback now has 'high performance quartz' instead of the previous 'ultra high frequency'.. I wonder if that indicates any changes in performance expectation of just marketing..


----------



## gangrel (Jun 25, 2015)

I believe they have backed off somewhat on their overall accuracy claims. Besides, the front still says 262 kHz, right? Then ultra high frequency is likely redundant...plus not accurate by the typical conventions related to frequency. "Ultra high" should be 2 steps above "high"...if one defines standard quartz as high frequency. (Fair enough.) Each step is a factor of 10...very high, then ultra high. But the precisionist freq is only 8x standard.

Beyond that, 'high performance quartz' does suggest it actually is more accurate. So, yeah, maybe marketing, but kind of informational too.


----------



## wbird (Feb 25, 2015)

Not to be confused with Breitling "super quartz" which performs about the same as ETA quartz in a Certina but in a super kind of way.


----------



## DaveK12 (Mar 25, 2017)

Mine accumulated a full second of error now, 43 days in. Most stuff runs within spec. Bulova nails the middle of spec., and I like that. Since I have to reset for time change, at this rate it should never be more than 5.5 seconds off between time changes, and about 8.5 SPY so far.


----------



## leograye (Aug 13, 2007)

I just ordered the Bulova 96B251 Moon Watch.
Interested to see if my 262 kHz movement meets these accuracy measures.
The case back in the ad states Ultra High Frequency, so interested to see when it arrives if it's only High Frequency?


----------



## Tseg (Mar 29, 2014)

Tseg said:


> I'm pretty pumped nearly 1 month into owning my ~$100 Bulova military... .2 slow over 27 days. We'll see if it can maintain its sub-3 SPY performance over the next 11 months.


I'm happy to report after a year of ownership my Bulova military still is right on the money... I navigated through one DST but after the the next hour reset months later I kind of gave up trying to time discrepancies... I can comfortably say as close as it seems to be to atomic time (i.e., identical) this watch still has to be within a couple tenths after a full year... nowhere near a second off. So what is my response? Obviously I went out and bought a radio controlled atomic watch... I figured that would be the only thing that could possibly be more accurate. And here I was convinced the Bulova cured me of my quest for watch accuracy. Any excuse to buy a new watch, I guess.


----------



## Tom-HK (Jan 6, 2015)

Tseg said:


> I'm happy to report after a year of ownership my Bulova military still is right on the money... I navigated through one DST but after the the next hour reset months later I kind of gave up trying to time discrepancies... I can comfortably say as close as it seems to be to atomic time (i.e., identical) this watch still has to be within a couple tenths after a full year... nowhere near a second off. So what is my response? Obviously I went out and bought a radio controlled atomic watch... I figured that would be the only thing that could possibly be more accurate. And here I was convinced the Bulova cured me of my quest for watch accuracy. Any excuse to buy a new watch, I guess.


I once bought an RC Citizen assuming it would be spot-on all the time but one thing you quickly learn is that 'ordinary' quartz movements (albeit regularly reset by radio signals) really can't be relied upon to keep steady time like a HAQ. My Citizen managed to drift so far from the atomic standard between its 02.00 signal reception and the subsequent evening that I was able to determine about a second's difference simply by eyeballing it. Yours might fare better than mine, of course (your Bulova certainly has).


----------



## ronalddheld (May 5, 2005)

Tom-HK said:


> I once bought an RC Citizen assuming it would be spot-on all the time but one thing you quickly learn is that 'ordinary' quartz movements (albeit regularly reset by radio signals) really can't be relied upon to keep steady time like a HAQ. My Citizen managed to drift so far from the atomic standard between its 02.00 signal reception and the subsequent evening that I was able to determine about a second's difference simply by eyeballing it. Yours might fare better than mine, of course (your Bulova certainly has).


US RC watches can be up to a second off, according to one NIST paper.


----------



## Tseg (Mar 29, 2014)

ronalddheld said:


> US RC watches can be up to a second off, according to one NIST paper.


Perhaps, luckily mine is not.


----------



## wbird (Feb 25, 2015)

Well happened to have this watch on today, and considering it's been 6 months since I set it for DST in March and a little over a year in since the prior DST last year, figured I would see how it was doing. Bottom line it's performing close to 10 s/yr the actual difference is about 5.5 s/6mo or 11 s/y in line with the year total of 11 s/yr. Granted this watch initially performed around 7 s/yr the first year, but it got a whole lot more wrist time. So I have to conclude that sitting in my watch box for most of the six months a Bulova may run at 11 s/yr not 10, and be out of spec. 

Battery is still fine, and l am starting to think that whole aging crash and burn is sort of BS.


----------



## HarpoMarx (Sep 26, 2017)

One reason Bulova may have gotten away from etching "UHF" on their watches is because 262 kiloHertz actually falls within the Low Frequency band, not the Ultra High Frequency band. The frequency spectrum bands apply to all things that vibrate, not just radio waves. Bulova clearly didn't want to etch "LF" onto their 262s .. and I think they've gotten some flak for deceptive advertising. The chart clearly shows the spectrum bands.


----------



## gangrel (Jun 25, 2015)

There is nothing related to radio frequencies going on, so the spectrum band designations don't apply.

Granted, doesn't mean they didn't get pushback. People are morons; as exhibit A, my all-time favorite line from any ad, anywhere, ever..."don't take ...... if your heart is not healthy enough to have sex." The ultimate "DUH!!!" to me. But, the fact that so many ads include such seemingly obvious disclaimers has to indicate a real fear that failing to do so, will lead to nasty legal headaches. From that, it's not at all a stretch to figure that some people misunderstand and object. 

That said, I'd also suggest they changed it to make it explicit, rather than something they felt the need to explain.


----------



## wbird (Feb 25, 2015)

Sure OK Harpomax, but deceptive? It does say UHF on a quartz watch. It's all relative to watches isn't it? Who is going to sue, NIST? A consumer? Isn't 8 times more vibrations than a standard quartz movement kind of "ultra high frequency?" 

I think you have a better shot at going after WR on all watches. A 10m watch is good for washing your hands but shouldn't be used for swimming.

It's simply marketing, maybe 262kHz sounds and looks more like science than UHF, who knows.


----------



## brandon\ (Aug 23, 2010)

HarpoMarx said:


> One reason Bulova may have gotten away from etching "UHF" on their watches is because 262 kiloHertz actually falls within the Low Frequency band, not the Ultra High Frequency band. The frequency spectrum bands apply to all things that vibrate, not just radio waves. Bulova clearly didn't want to etch "LF" onto their 262s .. and I think they've gotten some flak for deceptive advertising. The chart clearly shows the spectrum bands.
> View attachment 12558027


Oh, come on!

This is like saying a Bugatti Veyron is slow and showing a chart of the top speed of fighter jets.

Get real.


----------



## ronalddheld (May 5, 2005)

UHF maybe marketing. 256Khz is more useful(at least for us)


----------



## Tom-HK (Jan 6, 2015)

So only seven of my watches are actually HF?

Okay, I do get that the 'F's are established ranges of EM wavelengths or whatever, but if we ignore the technically erroneous use, here, of 'UHF', for a moment, I think we can all agree that it isn't wrong to talk of frequencies in other respects. The frequency of buses or trains, for example.

In mechanical watches, the oscillation of a balance wheel is, of course, sometimes represented in Hz. And by comparison to what the man on the Clapham omnibus may consider to be a relatively low frequency (even in a 'hi-beat'movement), a quartz crystal oscillating in the tens of thousands of Hz must surely be 'high' frequency and one operating in the hundreds of thousands of Hz might conceivably get away with calling itself 'very high' or 'ultra high' frequency. In fact, given trends in the vernacular of marketing departments, it wouldn't surprise me if Bulova's 'UHF' actually stood for 'über-high frequency'.


----------



## wbird (Feb 25, 2015)

Have to say its been a tough month for my Bulova. First it fails to meet specs for the first time by a second. Than its taken out of the ranks of UHF and into the low frequency world by the electromagnetic frequency table posted by HarpoMarx. 

By the way HMarx, (recognize I'm saying this with really heavy sarcasm) thanks for posting that info in this thread, and pointing out it can't meet the UHF specs for vibration either.

I also, take no solace in knowing that most of the Certina's, Grand Seiko's, Citizens, and Breitlings are in the low, or extremely low, frequency range. We will soldier on as best we can.

So gotta know HMarx you forgot to mention if your Bulove meeting accuracy specs.


----------



## wbird (Feb 25, 2015)

Well with the DST thing the measurement came in at at 7.6s, or around 11 s/yr. Pretty much doing exactly the same as the last measurement a few months back. Not meeting the 10 s/yr requirement but I'm not wearing it a lot either so maybe sitting in a usually 68 F temp is costing it a second. But not bad for a 3 year old watch.


----------



## John MS (Mar 17, 2006)

ronalddheld said:


> UHF maybe marketing. 256Khz is more useful(at least for us)


I think both designations are there for marketing. Either term adds to the sense of those watches being technically advanced and high performing without saying why.


----------



## wbird (Feb 25, 2015)

Well DST has come and gone and that Bulova is performing about the same as when I checked it in November. Measured in at almost 4s or about 12s per year. Might add that it is still running on the same battery, gets worn a few times a month.

Overall not meeting 10s per year but it's close, and might still make.


----------



## tmathes (Jan 11, 2013)

wbird said:


> Well DST has come and gone and that Bulova is performing about the same as when I checked it in November. Measured in at almost 4s or about 12s per year. Might add that it is still running on the same battery, gets worn a few times a month.
> 
> Wbird, your observations are similar to mine, I have 4 Bulovas with the 262kHz movement (lunar pilot, Curv, Surveyor, Precisionist). The L/P tracks to around +6-8 sec/yr., the Surveyor +20 sec/yr. The Curv and Precisionist are too new to say yet but both so far have been within +1 sec/month. Still, the Bulovas I own have met or surpassed my two Precidrive Certinas in my collection (+15 sec/yr, +24 sec/yr).


----------



## odd_and_vintage_fan (Dec 4, 2014)

My lunar pilot has tracked steadily at -9 sec/yr over two years of ownership. Wear pattern is about once a week on the wrist, otherwise in a box at room temperature.

To the previous conversation on frequencies, I recently picked up a Newport watch marked "Ultra High Frequency Electric" on the dial. The Ruhla 26 movement inside beats at the insane frequency of 4 Hz compared to a Hamilton 505 at 2.5 Hz. My how times change.


----------



## wbird (Feb 25, 2015)

Should add, I think based on all the data over the last few years it seems we dispelled the aging thing. I have yet to see any repeat of those initial problematic watches. Honestly I don't see any great difference or aging in any of the quartz watches I own. Perhaps the manufacturing process has improved to the point that the factors that cause aging have been reduced significantly.


----------



## mikls168 (Jul 4, 2010)

Hi All, I have this Bulova Sea King, It runs perfectly IF I wear the watch BUT leaving alone ( means: at lower temparature ) it runs faster. It seems for me, that the watch is optimised for body temperature. Anyhow I do like this watch.


----------



## Lumbo (Jun 27, 2017)

My modded Surveyor II keeps outstanding time and is the watch I use to set time for all others it is that good.


----------



## Lumbo (Jun 27, 2017)

I have had mine a year and no noted time "decay" for accuracy.


----------



## Lumbo (Jun 27, 2017)

Me too...very underrated brand imo


----------



## topol2 (Jul 12, 2016)

/


----------



## sertse (Sep 30, 2012)

Hello, long time lurker and hope you'll welcome another one to the Bulova club.

Received my Bulova Accutron II Surveyor two days ago. I have wanted one since it was announced but living in Australia, until recently was hard to find even a seller who'll ship them here without outrageous markups. 

At $120 ($160 AUD) it was an easy buy to have something near-HAQ and this is from someone who collects at the really affordable end. Most of my other watches are in the sub $100 range, mainly those discussed in the Russian forum as it typically has the largest quirkiness to price ratio. 

From reading the posts in this forum it seems the current consensus about these watches is that:

1. Early releases were of varying quality and this was made worse by Bulova overclaiming its specs into genuine HAQ territory. 

2. Once you readjust your expectations it is still many times more accurate than a regular quartz. Quality control also appears to have improved. 

3. It is much cheaper than the next HAQ-like watch. I know I have to pay almost triple this for next level up, a 3 handed Certina.

4. It is aesthetically pleasing. You still have to enjoy looking at your watch and I love the case, the blue hand and of course the sweeping gimmick. It's hypnotizing. At worst it's still an a fun unique watch to wear.

I have set my watches to time.is and hope to add my results here as time goes by. I have modest personal expectations; the traditional standard of less than 25 seconds/year with (my) regular wear. I intend this watch to be my default go to watch, with my other watches going on rotation for the rest of the time.

I had spoken too much without any results, so I'll end with a photo of the watch and my other two 'iconic' quartz which I will compare for reference. MY 1984 Seiko 7a28, the first quartz analogue chronograph and the infamous Casio F-91W.


----------



## sertse (Sep 30, 2012)

Hello,

I have the watch now for 11 days and I have started testing as I couldn't resist, although I know it's too soon to any conclusions. This post is mainly about my methods and thoughts.

I took 15 observations against time.is during the stopwatch method. Each observation is for 10 secs. I used 15 observations because I am new at this and wanted to minimise the effects of bad reaction time. The Bulova was worn on most weekdays, except when I wanted to change it up and wear the 7a28. The Casio was worn on weekends when I play sport.









I discovered that my Bulova is part of the initial 2014 batch as it is without the 262kHz branding and it has B4 on the back (Ref: Bulova Manufacture Date Charts - From the Bulova forum. I got it from ebay and it was old stock but getting a Bulova here for a reasonable price was the hardest part. What's interesting is that this watch is about 4 years old and is still running, so it appears the battery drain for the Accutron II is overstated. On the downside, the battery would be quite old and this may affect accuracy and there's speculation that newer productions than mine are of better quality.

21 sec/year for the Bulova is acceptable for me as I knew what I'm getting into and for its price and it's better than normal quartz + I like the aesthetics. The Seiko 7a28 at +8.81 sec/year is surprising as it is dated from 1984 so it has over 34 years of aging. The Seiko 7a28/38 is a cult classic known for its quality construction though so that really comes though here. The Casio is the most iconic inexpensive watch in the world, what else can you say?

That's the start and the data will only get more interesting from here.


----------



## sertse (Sep 30, 2012)

My previous report was because I was too excited to try some watch accuracy testing. Now one month in, the results should be more significant.









My watch is a 2014 production 'Factory Refurbished' Bulova Accutron II which I got a brought in May 2018. Results are taken from 15 observations each week against time.is. At the moment the projected rate is around 25 sec/year as I go into the Australian Winter. I have been wearing it often as my default watch, but not forcing myself to wear it every day. I personally find the results acceptable (with the price I paid and where I live), although slightly unsatisfying that it isn't better but those appear mainly from later productions.

I think my disappointment is that this isn't my most accurate watch!









One of my comparison watches, a 1984 Seiko 7a28 Quartz Chronograph. It's one of the options I wear when I'm not wearing the Bulova and at the moment is close enough to being dead on accurate.

Btw: As it ok to post my reports here, or should I make my own thread. I was originally posting here because thought it would be better to try and gather all the Bulova results into one thread.


----------



## odd_and_vintage_fan (Dec 4, 2014)

Give it time. My Moonwatch loses 6 seconds from the Fall to Spring DST changes, and 3 seconds from the Spring to Fall. If only going off the first half, I'd estimate 12 seconds lost per year, but the warmer temperatures swing it back.

Annoyingly, I have a standard quartz Wenger without TC or high frequency that loses only a second from Fall to Spring. It then gains 15 seconds Spring to Fall, so at least it doesn't beat the Bulova.

The best way to figure out the real-world seconds per year is to track the timekeeping for a year of use. Your personal wear patterns and even what temperature you keep your house/office at will affect a watch without thermal compensation.


----------



## wbird (Feb 25, 2015)

sertse said:


> My previous report was because I was too excited to try some watch accuracy testing. Now one month in, the results should be more significant.
> 
> View attachment 13225649
> 
> ...


Fine by me if you post here. Nice data and I'm impressed you're willing to go old school with the stop watch method. Look forward to see if you see seasonal variation, after 3 years I've yet to see much.


----------



## sertse (Sep 30, 2012)

Hello again and time for another update.

I had a work trip and holiday for the past 2 weeks and did not wear either the watches being tested. It turned out to be a good opportunity to check whether non-wear had a significant affect on the rate.

Bulova Accutron II Surveyor from 2014.









The rate appeared to have increased slightly when not wearing, however not by too much which I think is the benefit of the high frequency quartz movement. Projected SPY has increased from 25 to 27 seconds per year.

By comparison is the 'regular' quartz Seiko 7a28 but which so far has been showing better accuracy.

Seiko 7a28 from 1984.









Still showing better accuracy but the jumps have been quite erratic leading to projections from +8 PSY to 0 SPY to -12 SPY. I think it should add up still being more accurate but it really highlights the variation.


----------



## Lawrence_S (May 29, 2018)

More anecdotal, totally un-scientific impressions of Bulova UHF (Accutron II variant) timekeeping:

Accutron II 97A110 B7 purchased second-hand on April 5, 2018. Battery life unknown. Initial set from time.is. Worn sporadically but watch kept on overnight (1 to 2 times per week, stored face up) with seasonal temperature variations here in Charleston SC (gained about 5 degrees average outdoor temp since April.) I generally check the time against time.is every other day in the morning and evening. So far, running approximately .3 seconds fast from start date to present, or a quarter of a year. Intermediate deviations too small to detect with the naked eye (no timing equipment to measure UHF quartz.)


----------



## Tseg (Mar 29, 2014)

Tseg said:


> I'm happy to report after a year of ownership my Bulova military still is right on the money... I navigated through one DST but after the the next hour reset months later I kind of gave up trying to time discrepancies... I can comfortably say as close as it seems to be to atomic time (i.e., identical) this watch still has to be within a couple tenths after a full year... nowhere near a second off. So what is my response? Obviously I went out and bought a radio controlled atomic watch... I figured that would be the only thing that could possibly be more accurate. And here I was convinced the Bulova cured me of my quest for watch accuracy. Any excuse to buy a new watch, I guess.


Just an update on this Bulova well over 2 years old... mainly I wanted to report the battery is still operational even though batteries are alleged to get used up quickly due to the sweeping seconds hand. I'm not sure how long the watch was running before I bought it new?

Anyway, unfortunately I have not put it on since the last time zone change. The good news is in the 3/4 of a year since I last adjusted the time my watch is now +5 seconds. Not nearly as good as when new but I won't kick it out of bed.


----------



## sertse (Sep 30, 2012)

Another fortnight, another update.

I have worn watch for most days in the past fortnight (Say 11 out of 14 days between 1/7-14/7) as a comparison to the results in my previous post where I didn't where it at all for a fortnight (between 17/6-30/6). Weather is still typical Sydney winter so 15-20c which it has been for the entire period. Things would get more interesting in Sydney spring and summer where it'll be 25-35c.









The rate (Offset per day since last measure) looks to have slowed once I have started wearing it again and for this watch projected accuracy has also improved. Overall projected accuracy is around 26-27 sec/year which is liveable but slightly disappointing as others have reported much better results. They are the consequences of my choices however; from Australia deals for Bulovas are rare and when it came up it from a 2014 grey market 'factory refurnished' model which I got for $150 AUD. I'm ok with my results for what I'm getting but I can see why if someone paid more and expecting 10 sec/year would be dissatisfied. And I still don't know how Summer would affect my watch when it comes.

I could have paid a $100-150 more for a one of the newer "262khz" branded models which reportedly had better performance, but that's almost double the price for vague assurances. Once at the price point too, I would tell myself that for "just a little bit more" the 3-handed Certina DS-2 also comes into play or even a 2nd hand DS-2 Chrono, though the aesthetics of the Bulova are imo better (i.e. I would be willing to trade 5 secs/year for that). Then before I know it I'll be buying The Citizen and Grand Seiko.

Talk about rationalising watch purchases!









This is a comparison to my other quartz watches. The Seiko 7a28 has been mentioned before and is still my most accurate watch, but it has been getting worse each measure. The f-91w is now projected to be over a minute off and I found a generic digital watch in the cupboard that was still ticking though as the result show it keeps time as badly as a mechanical.


----------



## sertse (Sep 30, 2012)

Hello,

Here is another update on my Bulova:









Weather is slightly warmer and I am still wearing it regularly. After almost 3 months I can roughly assume that this watch will be at around 25-26SPY. Projecting the weekly rate shows a range of 19-32 SPY.


----------



## signum8 (May 3, 2018)

I bought a blue Bulova model 96B257 on Jun 1st, 2018 from Amazon, and set it via Atomic clock. As of Aug 25th, it's .53 sec fast checking with an ipad camera and my Samsung Galaxy S9 Atomic Clock app. I'm very impressed given the $130 pricetag. $164 when I checked up on the current price.

The other catch was the Grammy Bulova I got on July 1st of this year. 1.33s fast. $220 for the silicone strap model 98B294. So the 262 kHz Precisionists are a treat when $400+ HACs are out of my reach.

Amazon or whoever their vendors are, serves up the Assurion warranty instead of the Bulova one. I'm new here, so why Assurion, and is there a difference from the factory warranty?

Gene


----------



## sertse (Sep 30, 2012)

Another month, another update.









*After 4 months, this Bulova is still projected to be around 25-26 seconds a year*. The rate is very stable though at 0.07 sec /day, partly because I wear it often and the joys of temperate Sydney weather. I'm still tempted to try a more recent Bulova to see if it's more accurate, but the days of heavily discounted Bulovas appear to be over to make the risks worth it. (I personally see 4 eras - the original Precisionists, Accutron II, "262khz" branding, Lunar Pilot/Curv/Current era). The aesthetics are also getting too gaudy past the Accutron II designs, except for the Lunar Pilot but I can buy a Certina DS-2 Chrono for the same price.

















Overall, my 7a28 is likely to be the more accurate watch, but not being thermocompensated the rate fluctuates a lot more. There are also some really bad no-name generic quartz out there that can lose seconds per day.

Daylight savings would be applied next month, so I'm not sure if I could live with having my watch an hour off or if I were to make the change anyways and net it out somehow.


----------



## dicioccio (Jul 14, 2011)

Thank you sertse for your valuable data. From a mathematic/statistical point of view it is better a more consistent trend (the one of the Bulova) than a better accuracy (the one from the 7A28) because the latter is more "unstable" and "unpredictable" while the first one can be corrected (if there would be a rate trimmer) and predictable. Very interesting data !


----------



## sertse (Sep 30, 2012)

Daylight begins tomorrow so it's time for another update before I change the hour hand and restart the count.









The Bulova is turned slightly faster in the most recent update but is overall quite consistent compared to my other watches. Psychologically the projected 26.XX/year verses 25.XX/years makes me sad though.









I think it's time to throw out the generic watch.









The accuracy of the Seiko 7a28 continues to improve and consistency is all over the place. I am tempted to not change the hour hand just to see where it ends up, but summing up the gain losses between the hour changes will get me the same result right?


----------



## wbird (Feb 25, 2015)

Well got around to setting for DST, and it was running 8s fast or a little more than 12 spy. Still running on the same battery, 3 1/2 years of pretty consistent data.

I typically wear it a few times a month.


----------



## odd_and_vintage_fan (Dec 4, 2014)

Moonwatch checking in. -6 seconds from fall 2017 to spring 2018. +2 seconds from spring 2018 to fall 2018. -4 spy actual.

From fall 2016 to fall 2017 was -9 spy actual. I'm wearing it slightly less.

Original battery from March 2016.


----------



## sertse (Sep 30, 2012)

First of all, I lied. I got another Bulova since, (with my sample size of 1...), I wanted to know if 'newer' Bulovas performed better than the old series.

Welcome the Bulova Lobster Chronograph 98B252 from 2016. I mainly wanted another quartz chrono and never had a had watch with an internal bezel before.









Results after 2 months are promising. I think it should be <15 sec by the end of it. It also compares quite favourably against the earlier Accutron II.









The black line is when I reset the watch for DST. There seems to be trend where the Accutron II is performing worse in warmer weather, or it could be that it is is now 'just' another watch in my rotation and no longer my default almost-daily wear.

As my regular quartz watches.

- My 7a28 is still unpredictable as ever. I have predicated +0, -20 to +12 SPY at various stage and I won't know until the a full year has passed.
-my f91-w has entered into the optimal temp, losing 1 sec in 2 months when in the past 5 months before that it was estimated to be 60spy.


----------



## sertse (Sep 30, 2012)

Hello all, here is another update to end the year.

Bulova Accutron II Surveyor from 2014.









Bulova Accutron II 'Lobster' Chhronograph from 2016.









The Lobster at least is showing quite good results for what it is.


----------



## odd_and_vintage_fan (Dec 4, 2014)

The crystal ageing is likely real for the 262 kHz chrono movement. For the first year, my Moonwatch was -9 spy. For the second year, it was also -9 spy. This past year, it was 0 spy. It had lost 2 seconds at last fall's DST change and it has gained 2 seconds since.

Considering the battery is likely on its last legs after three years, that might be all of the continuous data to be had. Still, nice to know I can count on it for setting the other watches by.


----------



## wbird (Feb 25, 2015)

Mine clocked in at + 4s since I last set it for DST, or 12 spy. Not bad on a battery about 4 years old. 

At this point I'm more curious how long the battery will last, the accuracy has been just below or above 10 spy since I bought it, so I'm not expecting to see any crazy swings in the accuracy or ageing things. 

On average I wear it maybe once evert two weeks, and the only time the second hand is on is when I feel like looking at it or when I use the chronograph.


----------



## sertse (Sep 30, 2012)

Confession: I lost interest in watches after my last report just before the new year and did not record any further results until today, when I need to adjust the clock for the end of day light savings in Sydney. I also only wore the watches sporadically. I started tracking my watches in May last year so here for my 'almost a year' results with two regular watches for comparison.


----------



## Lawrence_S (May 29, 2018)

Lawrence_S said:


> More anecdotal, totally un-scientific impressions of Bulova UHF (Accutron II variant) timekeeping:
> 
> Accutron II 97A110 B7 purchased second-hand on April 5, 2018. Battery life unknown. Initial set from time.is. Worn sporadically but watch kept on overnight (1 to 2 times per week, stored face up) with seasonal temperature variations here in Charleston SC (gained about 5 degrees average outdoor temp since April.) I generally check the time against time.is every other day in the morning and evening. So far, running approximately .3 seconds fast from start date to present, or a quarter of a year. Intermediate deviations too small to detect with the naked eye (no timing equipment to measure UHF quartz.)


I've owned this watch for one year now and am on the same battery the watch arrived with. My egregiously inferior timing methodology comes up with +4 seconds for the year.


----------



## odd_and_vintage_fan (Dec 4, 2014)

More signs of aging on my 2016 Bulova Moonwatch. +3 spy for the past year. Still the original battery from receipt in March of 2016.


----------



## wbird (Feb 25, 2015)

Well still going at about 12 spy and still on that 4 1/2 year old battery. The accuracy is nice, but that battery life is impressive.


----------



## marklv (May 25, 2017)

Weatherman478 said:


> Hi currently running 3 Bulova's. They were all set to the atomic clock 3 weeks ago. So far the The 96G131 which was made in 2012 is 3 seconds fast. The 96b159 which was made in 2013 is 1 second fast and the 98b220 which was made in 2015 is spot on. They are all worn on various days.
> I wonder if the 96G131 is the worst performer because it is the oldest or if the other watches have been revised more.


I suspect that the accuracy deteriorates with age. Not surprising really.


----------



## BabyJoe (Jul 20, 2007)

marklv said:


> I suspect that the accuracy deteriorates with age. Not surprising really.


Why is that? Shouldn't the oscillator keep the same frequency? It doesn't break or lose material


----------



## ronalddheld (May 5, 2005)

The effects of aging of the crystal does change frequency. Preaged crystals show lesser effects.


----------



## wbird (Feb 25, 2015)

Well getting onto 5 years on this battery and again around 4s or 12spy. Guess the fact that I don't use the second hand much explains the longevity, the consistant performance is impressive.


----------



## odd_and_vintage_fan (Dec 4, 2014)

The battery on my 2016 Moonwatch finally went out last winter and the back was on so tightly that I had to send it to Bulova for a new battery. It arrived within a week of the last DST changeover. +4 seconds on the brand new battery over the summer.


----------



## Motik (May 17, 2015)

My Bulova Moonwatch, bought new last year, has been 5 s fast over 6 months. Not bad but not as good as my two 40+ years old Oysterquartz which have kept respectively +1 and -2 s in the same time.


----------



## bombaywalla (Oct 8, 2011)

ronalddheld said:


> The effects of aging of the crystal does change frequency. Preaged crystals show lesser effects.


hopefully the dudes @ Citizen know this & used aged xtals for the Lu Pi model. I sure hope so.
I've kept track of mine & see that flips between 0 sec/mon & +1.7 sec/month. I did _NOT_ change the time yesterday when we 'fell back' for the express reason that i want to monitor it for a full 12 months every 30/31 days. So far I'm liking what i see.........


----------



## wbird (Feb 25, 2015)

Still getting about 12spy on this watch, which is kind of impressive. Not seeing any aging. What is more impressive is that it is still running on the same battery for over 5 1/2 years. Clearly the ability to keep the second hand turned off most of the time, is contributing to the long battery life.


----------



## wbird (Feb 25, 2015)

Nothing remarkable about its precision clocking along at 11 spy. Wore it very infrequently, second hand was off most of this period and barely used the chronograph. Battery is now going on 6 years.


----------

