# Tag Heuer Aquaracer Movement?



## MUDMAN (Dec 4, 2006)

Hi guys. Can anyone tell me what's the meaning of Calibre 5 in Tag Heuer Aquaracer model WAB2010.BA0804. Is it a ETA movement or else?

Thanks in advance.


----------



## obie (Feb 9, 2006)

still deciding between the tag and the oris?:-d its a eta 2824.


----------



## ayres (Jul 30, 2008)

it is indeed an eta 2824 movement. and there are no modifications to the movement - though tag would like for you to believe that with their 'caliber 5' title. it is more or less the finishing applied to the movement. though, i am not the one to expound on tag heuer movement finishing. anyone?

ayres


----------



## MUDMAN (Dec 4, 2006)

yamahaki said:


> still deciding between the tag and the oris?:-d its a eta 2824.


Yeah. Still deciding. Thanks for answering my question yamahaki. I'm actually not familiar with automatic watch. Maybe a lot more question will be coming.
Hope u guys can be patient with me cause I'm a newbie in automatic movement and diving watch. Thanks again.


----------



## obie (Feb 9, 2006)

well post away. its your money and you need as much info as you can find. questions are the only way to get to the answers.|>


----------



## enricodepaoli (Feb 24, 2008)

I have a TAG Heuer 2000 series automatic that has that movement. I cannot see the finish since it's back is not see-thru. But I have been wearing it almost ten years daily, and it is dead on accurate and VERY reliable. I love it.

Also... it is a pretty common movement, may I need parts in the future. I do plan to keep this watch forever.


----------



## poop (Aug 31, 2008)

MUDMAN said:


> Yeah. Still deciding. Thanks for answering my question yamahaki. I'm actually not familiar with automatic watch. Maybe a lot more question will be coming.
> Hope u guys can be patient with me cause I'm a newbie in automatic movement and diving watch. Thanks again.


To save you time, the fact is automatic movement is just a fancy word for mechanical. Extremely old fashioned technology that should not even be in existence today. Delicate, old fashioned, and extremely inaccurate. Plus or minus 5 seconds a day should really have stayed put in the 1800's where that technology is from.

Do yourself a favor and get the quartz aquaracer plus or minus 15 seconds for the whole year.


----------



## Eeeb (Jul 12, 2007)

poop said:


> To save you time, the fact is automatic movement is just a fancy word for mechanical. Extremely old fashioned technology that should not even be in existence today. Delicate, old fashioned, and extremely inaccurate. Plus or minus 5 seconds a day should really have stayed put in the 1800's where that technology is from.
> 
> Do yourself a favor and get the quartz aquaracer plus or minus 15 seconds for the whole year.


I believe we call this A Troll... strident in tone, assertive and provocative.

But I'll give it a reasoned response and see what happens...

The ETA 2824 is the result of about 300 years of evolution in horology. It is a mass produced and in real terms (in the economic sense of real) is one of the cheapest mechanical movements ever made. Yet it attains accuracy on the order of single digit seconds per day with durability that will last several lifetimes if properly maintained. It represents a technological accomplishment of which we can be proud.

(BTW, this level of accuracy in a personal timepiece was not commonly attainable until the first world war... and then only in high grade pocket watches.)

The 'best' accuracy of a watch is subject to the needs of the owner. Some are satisfied with several minutes per day. Some with seconds per day. And some with seconds per year. I have watches in all these ranges. I like them all. I wear them all.

So don't be ashamed of buying a mechanical watch, or a quartz watch either. Buy what you like.

(BTW, the Aquaracer will not normally attain accuracy levels of 15 seconds per year... it is not thermocompensated nor is it a high frequency crystal.)


----------



## dtdukok (Mar 23, 2008)

Eeeb said:


> I believe we call this A Troll... strident in tone, assertive and provocative.
> 
> But I'll give it a reasoned response and see what happens...
> 
> ...


<deletion> - Owned, again. :-d [mod note: I've been sent down to restore civility to you pirates... please help!!... thanks! (Btw Talk Like A Pirate Day is coming!]


----------



## poop (Aug 31, 2008)

Eeeb said:


> I believe we call this A Troll... strident in tone, assertive and provocative.
> 
> A troll I think not. I simply stated the facts. Guess accurate time is not important to you. I sort of thought the purpose of a watch was to tell time accurately. Fact is mechanical watches are obsolete old fashioned 1800's technology. However if you get a warm fuzzy feeling owning an archaic antiquated watch, then enjoy winding your springs.


----------



## Eeeb (Jul 12, 2007)

poop said:


> Eeeb said:
> 
> 
> > I believe we call this A Troll... strident in tone, assertive and provocative.
> ...


----------



## obie (Feb 9, 2006)

I've got some thermocompensated quartz in breitlings, and a heq in the sinn ux and ezm2 hydro. both the sinns are just plain cool. other quartz watches I have are omega x-33's which seem to keep really good time. I'm not sure how accurate it is but it hasen't been reset for time yet. same with my tag f1 alarm and the chronotimer. I even have a few accutron quartz watches. I know what movements are in all of them. I find mechanical watches to be amazing in there complexity. each one has its own quirks. I have a dfreemont barcelona with a 7751 in it. very precise and complicated movement. but its noisy. the rotor clacks loudly and it ticks. pretty neat really. I have a invicta with a miyota 8215. its about +20 seconds a day. the second hand stutters. thats normal for that movment. I have every grade of eta 2824, 2892, 2836, omega 1120, 2500, 1660. all of these marvels run differently but stay pretty close to each other for keeping time. thats what I find that keeps me buying more of them. all are different but all strive to do one thing. keep time.


----------



## niles316 (Jul 23, 2008)

Eeeb said:


> It is not often you can wear an art form on your wrist without it being obvious jewelry...


Well said. I love looking at the mechanism in a mechanical/automatic watch.It's so amazing how they can put hundreds of tiny parts together n get them to work so fine.I don't consider losing or gaining a few sec/min a day inaccurate or inferior.In fact,I think it's a marvel that with so many parts involved,it takes 24hrs to notice that it's off by some seconds. Get me a toolbox and i'll still never be able to create something like that in a lifetime.Yet watchmakers in the 18th century could.If that's not an art to be admired,i don't know what is.


----------



## Drez (May 17, 2008)

poop said:


> Eeeb said:
> 
> 
> > I believe we call this A Troll... strident in tone, assertive and provocative.
> ...


----------



## poop (Aug 31, 2008)

Drez said:


> poop said:
> 
> 
> > If your going to argue the pros and cons of mechanical and quartz at least be educated on the matter. There are centainly advantages to each and most of us own both be it for accuracy or the technological marvels that they are.
> ...


----------



## niles316 (Jul 23, 2008)

It's true when Drez said,"There are certainly advantages to each..." A quartz watch is more accurate yet an automatic will only stop when you are dead.It's also true that an automatic may need servicing once in a while to ensure the mechanism will continue to work smoothly.But the battery in a quartz might leak if it is left in there and forgotten for a long time. I've also heard that it might even leak b4 the battery is flat.And when that happens,the watch is ruined.

Just 'cos a quartz is more accurate than an automatic,it doesn't mean we should dump the latter based on 1 advantage over the other. poop is probably just being very practical when he chooses a quartz over an automatic.

As for some of us,we just want to appreciate the history behind the mechanical movements or the complexity of the mechanism even if it is "antiquated". Just because there is something new,it doesn't mean we throw out the old. If poop wants to dump all things that are out-dated,he sure has the rights too but for those who wanna own a piece of history,woe betide anyone who considers it trash.


----------



## obie (Feb 9, 2006)

poop said:


> Drez said:
> 
> 
> > Mechanicle watches: Fact is this technology is antiquated. A work of art i think not. It is simply very old technology that should be eliminated, to make way for more advanced, accurate and durable quartz watches.
> ...


----------



## Eeeb (Jul 12, 2007)

Folks, we can get into a true holy war discussing "which is better Quartz or Mechanical?"... in the end, it all depends on your frame of reference.

Since no one frame of reference can define life, there can be no one definitive answer to this question. Countless threads on this topic over the years have demonstrated this.

If folks want to go on discussing it, fine. My only admonition is let us keep it respectful and civil... and I don't mean civil as in civil war :-|

But feel free to promote your frame of reference... a lively discussion can be fun. 

Just remember this: it is not polite to point out that people who disagree with you are complete idiots (even if it is true :-d). OK?


----------



## poop (Aug 31, 2008)

yamahaki said:


> poop said:
> 
> 
> > poop, these are your own words from a previous post. make up your mind.
> ...


----------



## dtdukok (Mar 23, 2008)

Eeeb said:


> Folks, we can get into a true holy war discussing "which is better Quartz or Mechanical?"... in the end, it all depends on your frame of reference.


There is no right or wrong answer to the question of 'quartz or mechanical?'
The majority of intelligent informed people realise that there is an equally warm welcome for both as they both excel within different roles.
I believe social decorum is being left at the door by the faction that ungracefully refuses to acknowledge this fact.


----------



## dtdukok (Mar 23, 2008)

poop said:


> I never wavered from my initial comments that mechanical watches should only be seen in museums. So you point is???????????


I rest my case...... o|


----------



## Drez (May 17, 2008)

poop said:


> yamahaki said:
> 
> 
> > I never wavered from my initial comments that mechanical watches should only be seen in museums. So you point is???????????
> ...


----------



## poop (Aug 31, 2008)

Drez said:


> poop said:
> 
> 
> > The problem is you have no rebuttal, your only repeating the same thing.
> ...


----------



## Drez (May 17, 2008)

poop said:


> Drez said:
> 
> 
> > There is no reason to back up my point because it is is obsolete technology. There is no argument on this subject. I simply stated the truth not an opinion. The only reason mechanical watches exist today, is because people still live in the past. Or they simply don't know any better.
> ...


----------



## poop (Aug 31, 2008)

Lets compare the aquaracer quartz and mechanical.

What does the mechanical do better then the quartz?

Absolutely nothing. It is fragile, requires winding, or daily wear, and it keeps horrible time compared to the quartz. It will also require regulation, and lots of service in comparison to the quartz.

Only down side to the quartz is a battery. Give this time and battery technology will evolve and life expectancy of the battery will improve to the point of possibly out lasting the watch and band. 

Honestly in this day and age, It truly surprises me to think mechanical watches are even being made. They are inferior to the modern equivalent the quartz watch. Two hundred years ago the mechanical was a achievement. Technology marches on, and mechanical watches should only be in museums. 

People find change hard sometimes, I suppose it is the reason these relics are even being produced at all. I find nothing romantic or charming about an old fashioned time piece. I look forward to the day the quartz watch is obsoleted and the next technological achievement occurs. I will not hesitate to move on.


----------



## dtdukok (Mar 23, 2008)

poop said:


> Lets compare the aquaracer quartz and mechanical.
> 
> What does the mechanical do better then the quartz?
> 
> ...


Please, for the love of God don't dignify this troll with a response. He is sitting in this forum with a baited hook in his hand <personal remark removed by moderator>.


----------



## Eeeb (Jul 12, 2007)

Drez said:


> poop said:
> 
> 
> > I guarantee you that people (baring a select few) don't buy mechanical watches that cost more than a cheap quartz because they "don't know better". I think you don't back up your point because you have none. Your arguments are hollow. You can't state its an obsolete technology with stating why you believe so. It's like arguing it is because you think it is.
> ...


----------



## Eeeb (Jul 12, 2007)

dtdukok said:


> Please, for the love of God don't dignify this troll with a response.


Then why did you respond? :-d

I am going to keep this thread open only for as long as we do not engage in violations of Rule Number One... That may be difficult but I hope we are up to it.


----------



## Ray MacDonald (Apr 30, 2005)

I have to agree with Eeeb here. Coming down firmly on either side of the "quartz versus mechanical" debate will just make one look silly.
Let's be realistic. The fact that a mechanical watch doesn't keep time as well as a quartz one is true - but for most practical purposes it doesn't matter. You could go around wearing a nicely restored 1830 Verge and still get to most of your appointments and not miss too many buses and trains.
And it's not the fault of quartz that it is deadly accurate, reliable and cheap. Folks who say "quartz has no soul" or something similar are missing the point that quartz technology is one of the greatest horological developments in history.


----------



## obie (Feb 9, 2006)

it would be the 1st post closed here Eeeb. a historic event!:-d I think this is the 1st time the quartz vs mechanical has shown up here. but to my knowlege of other debates on this, this would be the 1st time its been done without any facts other than the I'm right, the entire world is wrong response.
while I do enjoy getting into a heated debate with experienced members who know how to play within the rules, thats not going to be possible here. so I'll go hang out with the homies in the dwf.


----------



## Drez (May 17, 2008)

poop said:


> Lets compare the aquaracer quartz and mechanical.
> 
> What does the mechanical do better then the quartz?
> 
> ...


I'm quite enjoying this.

The troll finally made a sembalence of an argument.



> It is fragile


Hardly, one of the most popular beater watches here is a Seiko 7s26 which is neither fraigle nor does it require maintance. It's my perfect scuba watch, I let it doe and when its time to dive, I hack it, and off I go. No battery, maintanace or anything.



> Two hundred years ago the mechanical was a achievement.


 Try a hundred years ago, even 50 years ago it was. Where was your quartz in 1958? It's still an acheivment if you have any appreciation for meachanics but perhaps you've never seen a diagram for a valjoux 7750. A car is one of the most innefficent modes of transportation with respect to fuel economy AND speech of travel and yet cars that are newer and better are still considered "innovative" when they can add a new feature, increase fuel economy or incorporate another form of technology.



> People find change hard sometimes


I'm born in the generation of quartz and yet I enjoy mechanical watches. If the only people buying mechanical watches were old they would be declining at a rate much faster than quartz watches. The very fact that emerging producers (i.e. China) that previously had no history of mechanical watch making proves that there is a demand for mechanical watches above and beyond "old folk who refuse to change".

Eeeb struck the right chord is saying


> If the only object of a watch is to keep time, then even quartz is obsolescent. Solar powered Radio Controlled watches have taken that prize.


If watches were only for keeping time, then most people wouldn't even own one, they would check they're synced cell phone. If they did, a Ronald McDonald Ceriel box watch would suffice. A watch is a man's accessory, it almost akin to jewellery.

A quartz keeps better time then a mechanical, even a cheap one compared to an expesive automatic. Almost everyone here recognizes that fact.

Lets take into consideration another example in the world of Gems since its on topic int his thread already. Today's technology can produce lab created gems from a natural seed that is chemically exact compared to to a natural earth mined gem, if fact the lab stone is often superior in clarity and quality as the condition are controlled. Yet, these lab stones are worth a fraction of the cost of an original. They lack the romantic appeal that it was rare, hard to aquire and produced through natures marvels. The flaws are even viewed by some as a signature adding character much like the grains in wood.

Mechanical watches are very much the same as a natural mined stones. They are unique, they have character and they are an engeneering marval. Are they better than quartz? No they are different.

By the way, still waiting for a picture of your velcro shoes...


----------



## Eeeb (Jul 12, 2007)

yamahaki said:


> ...
> while I do enjoy getting into a heated debate with experienced members who know how to play within the rules, thats not going to be possible here. so I'll go hang out with the homies in the dwf.


I think the Pirates here can play by the rules! BTW, that is one ugly animated gif!!


----------



## Ray MacDonald (Apr 30, 2005)

> If the only people buying mechanical watches were old they would be declining at a rate much faster than quartz watches. The very fact that emerging producers (i.e. China) that previously had no history of mechanical watch making proves that there is a demand for mechanical watches above and beyond "old folk who refuse to change".


Careful Drez. Eeeb and I *are* in fact declining faster than quartz watches. I mean we can remember black and white TV. :-d


----------



## Smeg (Feb 10, 2006)

I've owned both quartz and mechanical and like things about both. 

My TAG and Eterna are both quartz and I find it convenient to wake up in the morning and throw on my watch knowing it's still telling the correct time, or near enough.

On the other hand - I've encountered nothing like the sound of the tictictictic of my old Russian mechanical, music to my ears.

I love the pain-free accuracy of my quartz watches - but the soul of a hand built mechanical just can't be beat.


----------



## Eeeb (Jul 12, 2007)

I can remember locomotives that burned coal and ran on steam! (But the clock you posted in Cafe is the only timepiece I've ever seen that ran on steam...)


----------



## Drez (May 17, 2008)

Haha, my apologies, no disrespect intended. 

I was merely suggesting that both old and new as well as those in between can appreciate fine workmanship. I'm sure it won't be long before I'm in the same boat seeing as this new generation knows nothing before instant information and the internet. The very fact I can't qualify myself with "this" generation anymore is a strange realization. 

P.S. I'm and 80's child myself


----------



## obie (Feb 9, 2006)

sure. just thought some humor was in order. besides, anytime I can get austin powers into a post, its worth it.:-d


----------



## Ray MacDonald (Apr 30, 2005)

I think there's probably more of a following for mechanicals - especially automatics - among the younger Members.
I grew up with both wind-up and automatic mechanicals and actually got away from both of them in my 20s - first I had electric watches and then got right into quartz when it first came out. I thought the one second at a time quartz "tick" was really cool and precise. :-d
I have always had pocket watches though which were and still are the best mechanical watches ever made. Ask Eeeb about his 1913 Howard Series 11. 
So I never lost my appreciation for mechanical watches. I just don't think they are the greatest examples of horological art ever. All timekeeping technology is neat.


----------



## obie (Feb 9, 2006)

I bought a illinois railroad approved pocketwatch from JMS and sent it to my father. he said it was the best gift he ever got. pretty nice watch.


----------



## Ray MacDonald (Apr 30, 2005)

JMS is a real collector and has some beautiful stuff. Anything he would sell you would be first rate. Nice guy too.


----------



## SENTRAROB (Apr 19, 2007)

poop said:


> yamahaki said:
> 
> 
> > I never wavered from my initial comments that mechanical watches should only be seen in museums. So you point is???????????
> ...


----------



## Eeeb (Jul 12, 2007)

I was going to say this is a personal attack and should not be part of the dialogue... but I decided being a member of the Geek Squad could be taken as a compliment. I would take it as such! :-d


----------



## obie (Feb 9, 2006)

you got my name in the quote. that was poops words, not mine.:-d


----------



## nitrojunky (Aug 2, 2008)

poop said:


> There is no reason to back up my point because it is is obsolete technology. There is no argument on this subject. I simply stated the truth not an opinion. The only reason mechanical watches exist today, is because people still live in the past. Or they simply don't know any better.


Actually, I live in the future. My automatic will survive the several EMP's produced by the nuclear detonations coming when skynet becomes self-aware.


----------



## Eeeb (Jul 12, 2007)

nitrojunky said:


> Actually, I live in the future. My automatic will survive the several EMP's produced by the nuclear detonations coming when skynet becomes self-aware.


:-d Did anyone wear watches in the Terminator movies??

Actually, most quartz will probably survive the EMP too... Metal dials and cases without display backs form a Faraday cage.

Of course, if your watch survives the EMP but the shock wave turns you to jelly, I'm not sure what good it did :-s


----------



## nitrojunky (Aug 2, 2008)

Eeeb said:


> :-d Did anyone wear watches in the Terminator movies??


Now I'm going to be forced to watch T2 to confirm this. I imagine most wear luminox, heh.



Eeeb said:


> Actually, most quartz will probably survive the EMP too... Metal dials and cases without display backs form a Faraday cage.


true, however faraday cages are only effective if all holes in their structure are smaller than the wavelength of incident radiation. :-d (I must admit that I ignored the surrounded-by-conductor aspect of most watches...tho I also wonder how well metal hands work as antennas for the longer-wavelength components :think



> Of course, if your watch survives the EMP but the shock wave turns you to jelly, I'm not sure what good it did :-s


Details, details.


----------



## hotscot1 (Mar 24, 2008)

As previously stated in this thread both have there followers.....only wanted to add this : 

you like a watch...you buy it...you wear it... it tells you the time...you enjoy it....you see another watch you buy it......... the cycle continues..no need to ***** enjoy this hobby/obsession that we have!!!!:-!


----------



## EMVAMPYRE (Aug 21, 2007)

Thank the gods that my 1890's technological marvel, the internal combustion engine, got me to the Rose Bowl on time for kick off today. Even my ancient tech G-SAR stayed ticking to tell me I'm not late...GO BRUINS!!!


----------



## khanzada (Sep 12, 2014)

My gosh... did the guy get his answer on the movement of an aquaracer?


----------

