# What to do if your Swiss Quartz second hand is not hitting the minute marker?



## mjnoles1 (Feb 16, 2006)

What is usually the reason for the second hand not to hit the minute marker?.....Its weird, sometimes it hits closer to the middle of the minute marker and sometimes its so off that it hits in between the past minute marker and the future minute marker. It seems like it depends on certain situations on how close it gets to the middle of the minute marker.

So, any ideas? Easy fix if I bring it in to a watch maker?


----------



## Sean779 (Jul 23, 2007)

mjnoles1 said:


> What is usually the reason for the second hand not to hit the minute marker?.....Its weird, sometimes it hits closer to the middle of the minute marker and sometimes its so off that it hits in between the past minute marker and the future minute marker. It seems like it depends on certain situations on how close it gets to the middle of the minute marker.
> 
> So, any ideas? Easy fix if I bring it in to a watch maker?


What baffles me is how often the seconds hand will hit the minute markers from, say, 12-6, and then be off the mark from 6-12. The only quartz watches I own that hit the minute markers ALL around the dial are my 3 Seiko kinetics.

Given that erratic behavior of the seconds hand on most quartz watches I can't imagine what a watchmaker could do.


----------



## Torrid (May 20, 2007)

There's a bit of lash in the movement and so it's not going to dead on hit the mark on usually half of the dial because of how the second hand sits at rest.


----------



## Sean779 (Jul 23, 2007)

Torrid said:


> There's a bit of lash in the movement and so it's not going to dead on hit the mark on usually half of the dial because of how the second hand sits at rest.


Makes sense. Is there a reason for lash in most quartz watches, or is it a QC problem? There must be other brands out there aside from Seiko that don't have this lash problem. Seiko's quartz movements are in-house, the others are Miyota, ETA, probably some others, so maybe only Seiko's got the lash thing figured out.


----------



## Catalin (Jan 2, 2009)

mjnoles1 said:


> What is usually the reason for the second hand not to hit the minute marker?.....Its weird, sometimes it hits closer to the middle of the minute marker and sometimes its so off that it hits in between the past minute marker and the future minute marker. It seems like it depends on certain situations on how close it gets to the middle of the minute marker.
> 
> So, any ideas? Easy fix if I bring it in to a watch maker?


Sometimes on very cheap models part of the reason is bad alignment in dial/movement.

However the main reason is the 'play' and the lack of tension - since the seconds hand move in 1 second steps and there is no mechanical 'permanent push' (as with real mechanical watches) the hand can stay almost anywhere from -1/2 to +1/2 of a division (and on some models even gravity can change the position). Of course that with a MUCH smaller division the problem is no longer easy to see 

The main workaround (other than having 5 or 10 steps/second) is to add a 'tension spring' - the better models have that and sometimes increasing the tension in that can help - however a tension that is too big might increase power consumption!


----------



## mjnoles1 (Feb 16, 2006)

This is a Swiss Made timepiece though, so I do not understand.


----------



## John MS (Mar 17, 2006)

mjnoles1 said:


> What is usually the reason for the second hand not to hit the minute marker?.....Its weird, sometimes it hits closer to the middle of the minute marker and sometimes its so off that it hits in between the past minute marker and the future minute marker. It seems like it depends on certain situations on how close it gets to the middle of the minute marker.
> 
> So, any ideas? Easy fix if I bring it in to a watch maker?


It's not just a swiss watch problem unfortunately. It may be lash, but since it is inconsistent I suspect it is sloppy application of markers. A watchmaker might be able to reposition the seconds hand so it hits closer to some markers, but that's really about all he will be able to do.


----------



## diaboliq (Apr 23, 2008)

What you do? 
REMOVE IT completely 

I like the legibility now 

Kronos Mission Timer


----------



## Oldtimer2 (Dec 3, 2008)

I'd like to second Catalin's comments about lack of tension being the problem. You can easily demonstrate the lash on many quartz watches by simply holding them in the vertical plane eg crown uppermost. As the seconds hand makes its way "uphill" it falls short of the minute markers and the converse happens when going "downhill"! Having said that, on occasion I've suspected there is some additional factor at play because of a consistent consecutive mark to mark uneveness - maybe related to assymetrical rotation of the steeping motor rotor? 

For my own part, I've never come across anything but perfecly scribed minute markers on dials, although obviously the seconds hand can sometimes be poorly aligned ie positioned slightly "off" when mounted.

One final word of caution: the first time I noticed this effect was on a modestly priced - but otherwise accurate - Swiss watch with an ETA movement. When I pointed out the "fault" to the AD, he was genuinely suprised - even more so when he noticed the same, to varying degrees, on his remaining stock. In due course I returned the watch to the manufacturer's appointed Repair Centre. They subsequently returned it without comment, a big scratch from their opening of the case and a new movement - which was even more "off mark" than the original!!! So it may be worth just trying to live with yours... 

As others have said, it seems to a function of a given model and despite quartz timing accuracies of one part in a million or better, not many modern watches seem capable of pointing at EXACTLY the right second!


----------



## artec (Oct 31, 2006)

Oldtimer2 said:


> I'd like to second Catalin's comments about lack of tension being the problem. You can easily demonstrate the lash on many quartz watches by simply holding them in the vertical plane eg crown uppermost. As the seconds hand makes its way "uphill" it falls short of the minute markers and the converse happens when going "downhill"! Having said that, on occasion I've suspected there is some additional factor at play because of a consistent consecutive mark to mark uneveness - maybe related to assymetrical rotation of the steeping motor rotor?
> 
> For my own part, I've never come across anything but perfecly scribed minute markers on dials, although obviously the seconds hand can sometimes be poorly aligned ie positioned slightly "off" when mounted.
> 
> ...


I think it's extremely unlikely that the minute markers will be unevenly spaced on the face of any high end watch, quartz or otherwise. And certainly, the test of holding the watch vertical first with the crown pointing North and then with it pointing East, say, and checking to see if the misalignment changes, might tell you if the cause is play in the drive between the motor and the seconds hand. However, most seconds hands have a counter-balance sticking out of the hub, 180 degrees away from the hand itself, so this will reduce the effects of gravity on the hand.

The possibility that the dial is mounted eccentrically has also been suggested. That, too, can be checked. If the dial is eccentric, say with the center hole nearer the 9, but the movement of the seconds hand is exactly even, the hand will be right at the 3 and the 9, but will lag at the 12 and lead at the 6. The misalignment will get progressively worse between 9 and 12, and shrink again between 12 and 3. Again, simply because of the way the dial and the movement are assembled, this seems extremely improbable.

It's been my experience that on several Grand Seiko quartz and several Citizen Chronomasters, that any misalignment varies as the hand cycles round the dial. On one Chronomaster I've owned, it was worst at about 8 o'clock, when the point of the hand was almost half a second ahead of the index, and least, when the hand was dead-on, between 12 and about 3. This seemed to be absolutely consistent. The only one I have now, and I'm wearing it today, is almost dead-on; the hand leads by just a hair, less than the width of the hand itself, almost everywhere round the circumference. There seem to be a few places where it's spot on and while these are always in the same place, there doesn't seem to be a pattern for where the misalignment is or is not present. This seems to point to drive irregularities rather than anything else.

On the lesser high accuracy Citizen, the Exceed, with the 510 movement, the seconds hand is perfectly aligned all the way round, all the time. I've had three of them, still have two, and all three were the same, absolutely spot-on. Since it's clear that the 510 movement has a very different drive mechanism from that of most quartz, the consistent algnment probably stems from that. Unfortunately, I don't know enough of its innards to be able to figure out why the seconds hand is so obedient. The overall accuracy of the watch is pretty amazing, too. Mine have gained or lost (one each!) about 4 seconds in six months, versus 1 second in six months by the Chronomaster.

Does anyone know what the difference is between the 510 drive mechanism and that of conventional quartz? Ppaulusz, perhaps?


----------



## DaveM (Aug 9, 2008)

I have Longines VHP master-collection. I noticed that the seconds-hand did not always stop at the minute markers, sometimes it was nearly 0.5s in advanced. I did a quick check and the error appeared to be a fuction of the dial-position (ie it was always in-step at the 2 oclock marker.

I just read this thread, and thought I would write down the error at each marker to see if there was a pattern. On several occasions the hand overshot by nearly half-an-index and then clicked back to be almost spot on. I realised that quite a lot of events did not fit in with the pattern (for example while the hand was usually spot-on at 2oclock, it was occasionally 0.3s in advance). I never saw the hand retarded.

I guess that seconds-motor is a sort of hook that strokes to index a 60-tooth wheel on the seconds-hand. These things always overshoot a bit, but they sometimes slide back so that the hook is at a tooth-edge (index start). The rest-position is a bit iffy, but anything from index-start to half-an-index is OK. If any of you are familiar with Gents or Synchronome slave-clocks it is their mechanism that I am trying to describe.

Since the seconds-hand is the 'stepper-motor output-shaft' the effect is not really backlash, it is just that while the motor must make one-step per pulse the rest-position can be quite variable. It is not a symptom of poor manufacturing, but clearly a mechanism which is always 'spot on' would be the 'rolls royce'.


----------



## DaveM (Aug 9, 2008)

DaveM said:


> I have Longines VHP master-collection. I noticed that the seconds-hand did not always stop at the minute markers, sometimes it was nearly 0.5s in advanced. I did a quick check and the error appeared to be a fuction of the dial-position (ie it was always in-step at the 2 oclock marker.
> 
> I just read this thread, and thought I would write down the error at each marker to see if there was a pattern. On several occasions the hand overshot by nearly half-an-index and then clicked back to be almost spot on. I realised that quite a lot of events did not fit in with the pattern (for example while the hand was usually spot-on at 2oclock, it was occasionally 0.3s in advance). I never saw the hand retarded.
> 
> ...


I have just looked at ETA drawing and taken apart a Rolex copy-watch. My idea about direct-drive to the seconds-hand through a 'hook and wheel' motor is wrong, the motor in the copy-watch looks like a 3-step stepper, the motor in the ETA drawing looks similar.
So there is 20:1 reduction-gear between stepper and seconds-hand & I agree that the problem is almost certainly backlash.

A mechanical watch is probably better in that the drive is :-
spring (=motor)> gears > minute-hand > gears > seconds-hand & escapement. The action of the escapement takes up backlash in the gears.
A SpringDrive should be good.


----------



## Catalin (Jan 2, 2009)

*One more observation ...*



Catalin said:


> ...
> The main workaround (other than having 5 or 10 steps/second) is to add a 'tension spring' - the better models have that and sometimes increasing the tension in that can help - however a tension that is too big might increase power consumption!


On top of that right now (hopefully only until my E510 is delivered) my most precise watch in regard to this alignment problem is a vintage Seiko caliber 7223 from 1980 - this one is for instance A LOT more precise than my Citizen caliber 0870 which is more than 20 years newer - and is almost perfect aligned, maybe with like 10% max. deviation during normal hours. However late at night when the day/date is changing the alignment also seems to be worsening a bit, resulting in something like 25% error - I am not 100% certain how this difference is generated but it seems to be there ... (0870 does not have anything like that simply since on that one there are separate steppers for almost everything).


----------



## Eeeb (Jul 12, 2007)

artec said:


> ...
> On the lesser high accuracy Citizen, the Exceed, with the 510 movement, the seconds hand is perfectly aligned all the way round, all the time. I've had three of them, still have two, and all three were the same, absolutely spot-on. Since it's clear that the 510 movement has a very different drive mechanism from that of most quartz, the consistent alignment probably stems from that. Unfortunately, I don't know enough of its innards to be able to figure out why the seconds hand is so obedient. The overall accuracy of the watch is pretty amazing, too. Mine have gained or lost (one each!) about 4 seconds in six months, versus 1 second in six months by the Chronomaster.
> 
> Does anyone know what the difference is between the 510 drive mechanism and that of conventional quartz? Ppaulusz, perhaps?


I would be surprised, pleasantly!, if technical data was available explaining this... I wonder how much we can deduce?

Supposition: The E510 is essentially a computer with a compensated time source and a digital control of hand positioning. As part of this positioning system, some method of feedback is given on actual hand position. This allows the precise second hand positioning, and minute hand positioning, that is seen in this watch.

I have never seen my exceed not to be 'spot on'...

Is this hypothesis testable? Well, for enough money and effort almost anything can be done. Short of destructive testing, I don't think we can know.

But that Exceed is soooooo spot on, it just has to be something beyond mechanical happenstance.


----------



## Catalin (Jan 2, 2009)

Eeeb said:


> I would be surprised, pleasantly!, if technical data was available explaining this... I wonder how much we can deduce?
> 
> Supposition: The E510 is essentially a computer with a compensated time source and a digital control of hand positioning. As part of this positioning system, some method of feedback is given on actual hand position. This allows the precise second hand positioning, and minute hand positioning, that is seen in this watch.
> 
> ...


Unfortunately your hypothesis does not cover all things - almost all of the newer Citizen calibers have a zero-alignment function which can be used to get spot-on at the 12 position.

IMHO what might be a more complete explanation would be your idea from above PLUS the use of a different type of stepper (like one with more permanent magnets) so that actually on any 'resting position' there is some extra 'tension' that keeps it from rotating until a current is applied.

I do not believe we can test that without opening a stepper, so maybe first time when somebody has an extra/dead module he could donate it to this research ...


----------



## Eeeb (Jul 12, 2007)

A friend of the forum who does not normally post sent me this:

_the Exceed, as with many eco-drive PC, has individual steppers for the hands. The setting clutch is also replaced by a fly-by-wire crown and another stepper for the date. This is the same basic design (with some differences as to timesetting) as many analogue Casio (crownless) and Seiko kinetic/atomic sync watches.

Such movements tend to have better alignment (in an average sample) due to the absence of a conventional gear train (and the associated problems brought about by tolerances, the setting clutch and the date mechanism). _

He also confirmed there is a system to tell the cpu when the hands are at a certain point. He states it is similar to this casio system - http://techon.nikkeibp.co.jp/english...080731/155845/


----------



## O2AFAC67 (Feb 8, 2006)

mjnoles1 said:


> So, any ideas?...


Sure. Get one of these... ;-) 
Cheers,
Ron

PS. Any misalignment you percieve in these two pics is actually parallax error caused by the pic not being shot directly head on. When the view is directly head on to the watch face the second hand splits the minute markers exactly in half all the way around the dial to a tolerance of less than eleven point sixteen nanometers... ;-) Hahahahahahaha!!! :-d


----------



## Catalin (Jan 2, 2009)

Eeeb said:


> A friend of the forum who does not normally post sent me this:
> 
> _the Exceed, as with many eco-drive PC, has individual steppers for the hands. The setting clutch is also replaced by a fly-by-wire crown and another stepper for the date. This is the same basic design (with some differences as to timesetting) as many analogue Casio (crownless) and Seiko kinetic/atomic sync watches.
> 
> Such movements tend to have better alignment (in an average sample) due to the absence of a conventional gear train (and the associated problems brought about by tolerances, the setting clutch and the date mechanism). _


That is NOT true for my EcoDrive (also pretty much 'fly-by-wire' if by that we mean that you do not have a crown that rotates the gears - Citizen caliber 0870 has no crown at all, just 4 buttons) - yet both the seconds AND the minutes show some gravitational movement - with minutes is rather very small since the distance between 2 gears is very small (it moves 3 times/min) but for seconds it is quite clear - simply the gears are not very tight


----------



## DaveM (Aug 9, 2008)

This rings very true to me.
I have Casio Wave-ceptor. The minute hand steps every 20s, so seconds hand must be separately driven. It perfectly aligns with the minute-makers.
I also have :-
>Longines VHP, it can be about 0.3 division out
>Seiko 8F32, about 0.3 division
>Hamilton with ETA 955, about 0.1 division
It may be significant that the 10-year battery perpetual calendars are significantly worse than the others


----------



## Catalin (Jan 2, 2009)

DaveM said:


> It may be significant that the 10-year battery perpetual calendars are significantly worse than the others


I think it is - having a very 'tight' gear train, eventually with a spring to tension it will very likely increase power consumption!


----------



## mjnoles1 (Feb 16, 2006)

The watch second hand hitting the minute markers vary depending on how the dial is facing. If the watch is laying on its back then it hits the marker pretty well. But, if the watch is laying on its side it misses the mark.

So, what is the problem you guys suspect?

Also, Is it worth sending it to the repair center?


----------



## larsy (May 16, 2008)

Either the mechanism is faulty (motor, stem, hands), the stem and dial are
not centered correctly, all the other errors described below, or parallax
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parallax).

Whether it's worth it depends on how much it's worth it to you:
cost of the watch, cost of shipping, cost of correction, etc.

If you paid CHF ~500.- or even more for it, I'd complain.
It just doesn't cut it to cost so much and be faulty.

Personally I hate the seconds not being spot-on.
So far I've been lucky with my Seiko SBCM023 in that regard.
My Precista PRS-10 though is off, but it doesn't annoy me as
much because it's cheaper.


----------



## TwoRotts (Feb 10, 2009)

As a long-time lurker -- and now, a first-time poster -- let me start by saying that I love this site and the HEQ forum. After being afflicted with the WIS gub several years ago, the learned discussion on this forum has opened my eyes to the wonders of HEQ and has enhanced my overall appreciation of watches.

This topic, obviously, has struck a chord with me. I suspect I have an undiagnosed case of OCD, because I've always paid particular attention to the alignment of the second hand with the marker -- even before I really started obsessing about watches.

First, some general observations from my experience: 1) I have found that Japanese watches tend to be more precise than the Swiss in terms of the second hand hitting the marks. 2) The precision with which the second hand hits the marks is not indicitive of the timekeeping accuracy of the watch. 3) A watch that hits the marks on Day One will continue to do so, and those that don't will continue to miss. 4) Cost seems to have little relationship to second-hand precision.

I have four watches that hit the mark consistently, and if there is a common thread I can't see it. They are a 2008 Breitling Colt II Quartz, a 2008 Seiko Milemaker (8F56), a four-five year old Luminox Navy Seals (original 3000 series) and a 10-year old Citizen E760 perpetual calendar. My Seiko Velatura chrono (7T62) also seems to hit the marks, but the constant seconds are on a sub-dial with only 12 markers.

The Brietling also is my most accurate timekeeper (-1 second since resetting for standard time on Nov. 3).

The Luminox Navy Seals gains about 3-4 seconds a month while hitting every mark. However, my Lumiinox Nighthawk (ETA 715Li movement) can miss the marks by as much as a half second, but it's accurate to 1-2 seconds a month.

The Seiko MileMarker gains about 2 seconds a month, but isn't worn that often.

The Citizen has been perfectly precise for its entire lifetime (due, I believe, to the fly-by-wire movement) but it gains 4-5 seconds a month.

The only tentative conclusions I can draw from this is that HEQ movements and the Citizen fly-by-wire movements may be more precise by design (in terms of hitting the marks), and that precision is not a predictor of accuracy. The vastly different precision of the two Luminox watches -- even though they have different movements -- lead me to believe that the level of precision among "regular" quartz movement is largely a crap shoot.

Thanks for the opportunity to expound on this topic. Now that I'm registered, I will try to participate regularly in these discussions.


----------



## subrosa (Dec 2, 2008)

This has been my curse with Quartz watches. I have a couple of eco-drives and a seiko ti dress watch...always miss the markers. The only watch that I can count on to perfectly hit the markers is my Luminox 3102...it does it right every time. 

Every time I look at quartz watches, this is the first thing I look at....:-! When it doesn't hit the marks it seems sloppy, so I have to admit I am a stickler about it.


----------



## Gansan (Aug 21, 2008)

I am wearing this right now. It is the "Insignia" model from TITAN. After reading this thread I observed the second hand for a couple of minutes. It hits all the minute markers squarely all round the dial. I don't notice any problem. This watch is two years old.

I will observe my other Quartz watches later tonight and post the status. I don't remember noticing this problem in any of my watches.


----------



## Catalin (Jan 2, 2009)

TwoRotts said:


> ...
> The Citizen has been perfectly precise for its entire lifetime (due, I believe, to the fly-by-wire movement) but it gains 4-5 seconds a month.
> 
> The only tentative conclusions I can draw from this is that HEQ movements and the Citizen fly-by-wire movements may be more precise by design (in terms of hitting the marks), and that precision is not a predictor of accuracy.
> ...


The E710/E760 are the non-TC versions of the E510 which was only sold in Japan - I wonder if the integrated circuit inside is the same and all what E710/E760 are missing is a thermistor and a very small flash with the compensation table ... it might even be that those are still there but are not correctly programmed/calibrated ...


----------



## Bruce Reding (May 5, 2005)

TwoRotts said:


> Thanks for the opportunity to expound on this topic. Now that I'm registered, I will try to participate regularly in these discussions.


Well, OCD or not, I'm glad that _something _ spurred you into participating. :-d I agree with your four observations, btw, and also agree that accuracy in a standard quartz watch is largely a matter of luck.

Welcome aboard, TR! :-!


----------



## TwoRotts (Feb 10, 2009)

Bruce Reding said:


> Well, OCD or not, I'm glad that _something _spurred you into participating. :-d I agree with your four observations, btw, and also agree that accuracy in a standard quartz watch is largely a matter of luck.
> 
> Welcome aboard, TR! :-!


Thanks, Bruce. Now I'm up to two posts. More to come.


----------



## RPF (Feb 28, 2008)

Catalin said:


> The E710/E760 are the non-TC versions of the E510 which was only sold in Japan


That is incorrect. The E766 is sold only in Japan but the E760 were almost ubiquitous among Citizen divers/sports watches a couple of years back, touting 4 year PR and PC. I'm not so sure about the E710 though.


----------



## Catalin (Jan 2, 2009)

RPF said:


> That is incorrect. The E766 is sold only in Japan but the E760 were almost ubiquitous among Citizen divers/sports watches a couple of years back, touting 4 year PR and PC. I'm not so sure about the E710 though.


I was trying to say that E510 was only sold in Japan and E710/E760 are "almost ubiquitous" - maybe the wording was not 100% clear ...


----------



## artec (Oct 31, 2006)

Torrid said:


> There's a bit of lash in the movement and so it's not going to dead on hit the mark on usually half of the dial because of how the second hand sits at rest.


I agree that the consistent error in the relationship between the seconds hand and the minute markers is baffling. By "consistent" I mean that it's always the same in any one quadrant, regardless of which way up the watch is. Because it's so consistent, I don't see how it can be caused by lash.

I've had three Chronomasters, still have one now, and to a greater or lesser degree, all suffered from the same disease. Several quartz GS did, too. The only watches I've had whose seconds hands were on the money were Citizen Exceeds with the A 550 movement and a Seiko "Radio Wave Solar World Time" (it's a good thing they print all that really small or it would look very busy).

I really liked (and still like) some of the GS models but I just can't see the point of a watch that accurate but without a perp cal or the ability to set the hour hand independently. So I've decided not to buy any watch that doesn't have both those abilities. This really limits the market and unless something new appears, I think I'm now stuck with what I've got, which, as far as HEQ is concerned, is the Chronomaster, the Exceed and a Breitling Aerospace Avantage.

It doesn't have a seconds hand so it is free of that ailment! It's bigger than I like, clunkier and blockier than I like, but I like its abilities and its accuracy...... and, to my surprise....... I like the repeater, too. I couldn't do with the fussy Professional II bracelet so I found one of the earlier Professional I type and put that on and find it much to be preferred. Unfortunately it's visiting its family at Breitling at the moment because its analog minute hand suddenly lost two minutes, though the digital read-out was still correct. It'll be interesting to see what Mr Breitling says and does about that!


----------



## artec (Oct 31, 2006)

mjnoles1 said:


> The watch second hand hitting the minute markers vary depending on how the dial is facing. If the watch is laying on its back then it hits the marker pretty well. But, if the watch is laying on its side it misses the mark.
> 
> So, what is the problem you guys suspect?
> 
> Also, Is it worth sending it to the repair center?


I don't think you can generalize by saying "watch second hand hitting the minute markers vary depending on how the dial is facing". It may well be true for some movements, but it's definitely not true for them all. It's not true for any of the three Chronomasters I've owned, including the one I have now and wear every day. The seconds hand arrives at its destination very solidly and its degree of error at, for example, the 8, and at every other point, on every rotation, regardless of which way up the watch is held. And I think I remember the two Grand Seikos I had being the same.


----------



## ilanpi (Mar 21, 2009)

My only HEQ watch (actually my wife's) is this Ratatouille watch she bought for 99 cents on Ebay. The second hand hits all the markers exactly:




Unfortunately, I have a video camera with automatic zoom, so you can't see it work its magic too well.

Apart from this watch, I've never personally seen a quartz watch hit all the second markers.

-ilan


----------



## rex (Feb 12, 2006)

*Buy a Japanese Citizen Chronomaster...That will resolve your problem.>>*

My 8F61 quartz driven Grand Seiko also hits every marker right on the money.


----------



## Sideshow_Bob (Nov 5, 2008)

Sorry!


----------



## ilanpi (Mar 21, 2009)

My wife and I did a tour of the big Paris department stores today to check out quartz alignment. armed with our champion Ratatouille watch, of course! This is what we found:

1. Breitling Colt Quartz II: We saw 2 models, one of which had a second hand which was way off the mark. The second model had pretty good accuracy but when it hit the 31s mark it would sort of do a "dance" in which it wiggled strangely. I've never seen a watch do that before. Of course, it failed to perform when we brought this to the attention of the saleslady. Ratatouille was so happy he had to show off. 

2. Seiko Kinetic 200m diver: We saw 2 models, second hand on first was very close to the mark and was about 1/8 off on the second. In both cases, the shift was uniform along the dial, it neither increased nor decreased. Ratatouille was getting nervous. 

The Seiko divers both had good bezel/dial alignment, much superior to the Breitlings. 

3. Seiko Kinetic Direct Drive: This watch had perfect alignment throughout the whole 60 marks. Given that the mark must be about < 1/10 width between marks, this is quite impressive. Poor Ratatouille has been put to shame, though there is a 1699.01 Euro difference in price between the two.

-ilan


----------



## ppaulusz (Feb 11, 2006)

The second hand of my thermocompensated Omega Seamaster Professional 200M is hitting the minute markers spot on all the time. That watch was made in around 1989. Must be lucky...


----------



## Catalin (Jan 2, 2009)

Quick notes - there are a number of 'possible problems':
- generic dial, movement or hand(s) misalignment - the sign is a mostly constant offset;
- 'stepper play' - the easy sign might be 'gravity differences' but also in some cases a (very) small difference might be seen when close to changing day/date (obviously when that is not on a separate stepper);
- 'imperfect teeth' - 80-90% of an hour the seconds hand will hit perfect but for a certain position/region of the minutes hand it will have some deviation (to really test for that you need to observe the watch almost continuously for 60 minutes).
So far E510 is the only one where I can not see problems with normal eyesight - however at 20x even that one is showing something (but at that magnification you can see how the solar dial is actually made  )


----------



## arnof (May 16, 2006)

I might be lucky, but each of my 3 quartz watches have the second hands aligned PERFECTLY with the marks. And the basic Luminox (mounting the lowly Ronda 515) is also incredibly accurate, gaining less than 10 seconds in the 6 months between DST changes.


























Arno


----------

