# Precisionist 96B153 Accuracy Tracking



## gaijin

Following the "Accuracy Tracking" threads in this forum has been fascinating. Being a retired engineer, it's fun to observe the level of detail, careful thought and interesting discussion that surrounds this topic.

As an initial foray into this regime, I humbly offer my ongoing test of a recently acquired Bulova Precisionist.

It is a model 96B153 which is from the second "wave" of Precisionist models to be released. Previous models did not appeal to me enough to purchase one because I could not get past the design element of a non-rotating outer bezel. Even though the promise of +10 s/y was attractive, the idea of having a timing bezel that could not be used as such was a deal breaker. Well, along came the 96B153 with its fully functional rotating bezel.

Here is a stock photo from Bulova:










Admittedly, with all the carbon fibre inserts it is a butt ugly watch, at least I can use the bezel as intended.

My test protocol is very simple. Once a week I boot up the Atomic Pro app on my iPad and measure the difference from that reference with a stopwatch. I have no idea what the SD of my measurement technique is, I'm not really that interested. All I care about is after a year, how many seconds, fast or slow, is my watch. Since we are talking about a total variation at the end of the test on the order of 10's of seconds, if I can measure within a half-second or so (I think I am much better than that) the end number will be meaningful.

The only extrapolation I have allowed myself (as I do not like to compound errors by magnifying them through time) is the incorporation of a linear trend line on my tracking graph.

The graph was drawn with Excel and shows the measured value of the difference between my reference time and the Precisionist in seconds, the linear trend line for those measurements calculated by Excel, and the +10 s/y and -10s/y limit lines of the watch's specification.

Here is the graph after 8 weeks:










Current trend is for a little more than +6 s/y - we'll see how it goes.

Watch is worn sometimes, mostly stored at RT which at this time of year is about 21 DEGC.

HTH


----------



## webvan

Thanks for sharing, you might want to post that in the existing Precisionist Accuracy/Aging thread so we can group our observations : Bulova Precisionist Aging

As a side note, my Claremont was spot on for about 3 months before "going down the drain" and it's now stabilized at +60spy...


----------



## gaijin

webvan said:


> Thanks for sharing, you might want to post that in the existing Precisionist Accuracy/Aging thread so we can group our observations : Bulova Precisionist Aging
> 
> As a side note, my Claremont was spot on for about 3 months before "going down the drain" and it's now stabilized at +60spy...


You're welcome. Think I'll keep my results separate because I have a hypothesis, obviously not proven by any means, that this "second wave" of new releases from Bulova - of which the 96B153 is one - has benefited from some "tweaking" by Bulova/Citizen to improve performance over the "first wave" models of which your Claremont is one. In other words, we may be dealing with two populations of Precisionist movements which could result in a bi-modal data population at best and just more confusion at worst.

We'll see how it goes over the course of the next 44 weeks. Hopefully mine will not go "down the drain" as yours unfortunately did. ;-)

HTH


----------



## everose

Gaijin,

A Very interesting read and an even more interesting idea about a possible tweaked/improved mvt.


----------



## ronalddheld

It is a good point to let use know which "wave" you have.


----------



## gaijin

ronalddheld said:


> It is a good point to let use know which "wave" you have.


As best I can determine, there was the initial release of Precisionist models, and then a more recent second release.

First release models are:

96B127, 96B128, 96B129, 96B130, 96B131,
96B133, *96B144**, 96D110, 96M108, 96P115,
96R140, 96R141, 97B110, 97M104, 98B140,
98B141, 98B150, 98M106, 98R140, 98R141

Second release models are:

96B132, 96B155, 96B156, 96P124, 96P125,
96R153, 96R154, 98B142, 98B143, 98B152,
98B153, 98P129, 98R152, 98R153

**Note:* Model 96B144 is no longer listed on the Bulova Precisionist web site - possibly already discontinued? Model is still readily available on usual online sources like Amazon, Princeton and Blue Dial.

Of course, if there were any "tweaks" before the second release, it would be great if ALL new releases benefited; but knowing how inventory control works, there probably is some bleed through of old into new. So, model numbers alone are probably not enough to distinguish any significant differences.

I have only one Precisionist model, so it's hard to analyze what may be different, but on my caseback I have the following notations around the circumfrence:

C977691

12334691

B1

STAINLESS STEEL

WATER RESISTANT 300M

The last two are obvious, but I would be curious what others have on their casebacks in place of the other three. One is probably a serial number, another a model number, but what is that enigmatic "B1?" And why do the first two numbers end with the same three numbers (691)?

Perhaps a key for all of us in determinig any evolutionary changes lies in these numbers.

HTH


----------



## webvan

Any good reason at this point to think that the movement was tweaked or is it pure speculation/wishful thinking?

I'd posted pictures of the movement of my Claremont here if you want to compare it with yours : Bulova Precisionist Movement Pictures and Info - P102, 8 jewels « BestofWatch

Here's one :


----------



## gaijin

webvan said:


> Any good reason at this point to think that the movement was tweaked or is it pure speculation/wishful thinking?
> 
> I'd posted pictures of the movement of my Claremont here if you want to compare it with yours : Bulova Precisionist Movement Pictures and Info - P102, 8 jewels « BestofWatch


Pure speculation at this point. Absolutely no evidence pointing to it being the case other than my conjecture that Bulova/Citizen may not have been pleased with the performance of their movement after its first ever large scale public release.

I'm not up to removing the caseback yet, but definitely will after the one-year test is over.


----------



## gaijin

webvan said:


> Any good reason at this point to think that the movement was tweaked or is it pure speculation/wishful thinking?
> 
> I'd posted pictures of the movement of my Claremont here if you want to compare it with yours : Bulova Precisionist Movement Pictures and Info - P102, 8 jewels « BestofWatch
> 
> Here's one :


Thanks for the pic.

Can you share what is printed around the circumfrnce of your caseback?

Thanks.


----------



## everose

Gaijin quote:

" Second release models are:

98B132, 96B155, 96B156, 96P124, 96P125,
96R153, 96R154, 98B142, 98B143, 98B152,
98B153, 98P129, 98R152, 98R153"

You state "98B132" which is a Bulova Marine Star Orange Dial and afaik is lacking the Precisionist mvt.

I do not see the Precisionist model i recently purchased in your list which is 96B132 (CF dial,Ti case,blued sec hand with Cordura ballistic strap).....Perhaps you meant to state 96B132 instead of 98B132??

Photo from Bulova.com of 96B132











Anyway here is my case back info for 96B132 (purchased in UK December 2011)

*B1*
*C877700*
*12275691
*

I agree about the rotating Bezel annoyance...it put me off for a long while,but i am a sucker for CF dials and blued sec hands and so i eventually caved in.:-d


Slightly Off-Topic....
Does your model with rotating bezel have a flatter crystal? I cannot imagine how it is possible to have a rotating bezel with such a curved crystal with versions like mine?

Thanks.


----------



## gaijin

everose said:


> Gaijin quote:
> 
> " Second release models are:
> 
> 98B132, 96B155, 96B156, 96P124, 96P125,
> 96R153, 96R154, 98B142, 98B143, 98B152,
> 98B153, 98P129, 98R152, 98R153"
> 
> You state "98B132" which is a Bulova Marine Star Orange Dial and afaik is lacking the Precisionist mvt.
> 
> I do not see the Precisionist model i recently purchased in your list which is 96B132 (CF dial,Ti case,blued sec hand with Cordura ballistic strap).....Perhaps you meant to state 96B132 instead of 98B132??
> 
> Photo from Bulova.com of 96B132
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Anyway here is my case back info for 96B132 (purchased in UK December 2011)
> 
> *B1*
> *C877700*
> *125691*
> 
> I agree about the rotating Bezel annoyance...it put me off for a long while,but i am a sucker for CF dials and blued sec hands and so i eventually caved in.:-d
> 
> 
> Slightly Off-Topic....
> Does your model with rotating bezel have a flatter crystal? I cannot imagine how it is possible to have a rotating bezel with such a curved crystal with versions like mine?
> 
> Thanks.


Thanks for the info!

Yes, my mistake, I meant 96B132 not 98B132 - original post has been corrected.

The crystal on mine is perfectly flat, no curvature or doming at all.

Maybe with some more caseback info from older models as well as newer ones we will be able to decipher some meaning. ;-)

So far we have:

98B153 (November 2011 - Second "Wave")
*C977691
12334691
B1*

96B132 (December 2011 - Second "Wave")
*C877700
12275691
B1

*
HTH


----------



## everose

Sorry Gaijin...now i have a correction to make!!


"12275691" is correct!!......a loupe does help,...darn it,i must be getting old!!:-d




BTW The C877700 was always correct.

I am so very sorry about that! I have amended and corrected my previous post.


----------



## gaijin

everose said:


> Sorry Gaijin...now i have a correction to make!!
> 
> "12275691" is correct!!......a loupe does help,...darn it,i must be getting old!!:-d
> 
> BTW The C877700 was always correct.
> 
> I am so very sorry about that! I have amended and corrected my previous post.


Got it! No worries - thanks. ;-)


----------



## gaijin

webvan said:


> Any good reason at this point to think that the movement was tweaked or is it pure speculation/wishful thinking?





gaijin said:


> Pure speculation at this point. Absolutely no evidence pointing to it being the case other than my conjecture that Bulova/Citizen may not have been pleased with the performance of their movement after its first ever large scale public release.
> 
> I'm not up to removing the caseback yet, but definitely will after the one-year test is over.


Well, no longer pure speculation that there are indeed two populations of Precisionists out there.

Of course, speculation is the germ that spawns a good hypothesis, so nothing wrong with speculation per se. However, it's always nice to gradually uncover hard evidence that supports one's hypothesis.

My hypothesis is that Bulova has made some hardware change(s) with the introduction of a second "wave" of new models. It is further proposed that these changes will manifest themselves in accuracy performance more reliably within the promised spec of + 10 seconds/year. I am currently tracking my second wave Precisionist to see how it performs and whether its performance supports the hypothesis.

I have been trying to find if there is any external difference between first and second wave models. To this end, I have examined web pictures (mostly on Amazon) of the casebacks of currently available models to see if anything is different. Outside of "WATER RESISTANT" and "STAINLESS STEEL" on the backs, there are three data fields. These fields adhere to the following format and I believe they bear the following significance:

For example, my model 98B153 has the following on its back:

C977691 - A specific model or design number
12334691 - A serial number
B1 - Hardware version

Based on a limited population of 17 watches (you all are welcome to weigh in with the info onyour watches ;-)) I have drawn the following tentative conclusions:

1. If your Precisionist is one of the First Wave models and has a serial number <12xxxxxx (i.e. beginning with 10 or 11) then it will carry the Hardware version B0.

2. If your Precisionist is one of the Second Wave models and has a serial number beginning with 12, then it will carry the Hardware version B1.

Since one of the Second Wave watches examined, a model 98B142, had a serial number beginning with 10 and a hardware version of B0, I cannot say for sure that the 98B142 should really be a first wave model or if it is old inventory of B0 hardware being used until all inventory is used up.

In any event, data loves company. If you want to help out, you can post info about your Precisionist here in the following format:

Model Number (98B153)
Design Number (C977691)
Serial Number (12334691)
Hardware Version (B1)
Date Purchased (November 2011)
Observed accuracy (+6 s/y)

Don't worry if you don't have accuracy results yet, any and all info is helpful and appreciated.

HTH


----------



## dwjquest

Model Number (96B130)
Design Number (C877654)
Serial Number (11605627)
Hardware Version (B0)
Date Purchased (Dec, 2010)
Observed accuracy (+7 s/y at purchase, +46 s/y at 01/18/2012)


----------



## gaijin

dwjquest said:


> Model Number (96B130)
> Design Number (C877654)
> Serial Number (11605627)
> Hardware Version (B0)
> Date Purchased (Dec, 2010)
> Observed accuracy (+7 s/y at purchase, +46 s/y at 01/18/2012)


Thanks, dwjquest. With just that info I think we have confirmed that the Cxxxxxx number is indeed a design number. Your info also conforms to the hypothesis that serial numbers starting with 11xxxxxx will be version B0.

FYI, the info I have for another 96B130 is as follows:

Design Number (C877654) Same as yours
Serial Number (10102224) Earlier than yours
Hardware Version (B0) Same as yours

It is also becoming fairly evident that the first two digits of the Serial Number are the Model Year for that watch - 10 = 2010, 11 = 2011, 12 = 2012. It also appears that Model Year 2011 watches were available in late 2010 and Model Year 2012 watches were available in late 2011.

HTH


----------



## azsuprasm

Gaijin, here's my info. Just got the Ti version with the fixed bezel.

Now that I've confirmed it's an original (the Chineese Copies for this model are just now appearing), 
Here are my #'s:

*96B132* (Purchased January 2012, prbly Oct/Dec '11 mfg)
*C877700
12251792
B1

*Love the watch, but the band is too long. Will post pix once I get the Royal Blue F1 band on it.


----------



## gaijin

azsuprasm said:


> Gaijin, here's my info. Just got the Ti version with the fixed bezel.
> 
> Now that I've confirmed it's an original (the Chineese Copies for this model are just now appearing),
> Here are my #'s:
> 
> *96B132* (Purchased January 2012, prbly Oct/Dec '11 mfg)
> *C877700
> 12251792
> B1
> 
> *Love the watch, but the band is too long. Will post pix once I get the Royal Blue F1 band on it.


Thanks! All info helps.

What it's looking like now is regardless of Model, if the Serial Number is greater than 11698924 a Precisionist will have the newer B1 hardware version.

Fresh tracking info will be posted tomorrow.

HTH


----------



## gaijin

gaijin said:


> Thanks! All info helps.
> 
> What it's looking like now is regardless of Model, if the Serial Number is greater than 11698924 a Precisionist will have the newer B1 hardware version.
> 
> Fresh tracking info will be posted tomorrow.
> 
> HTH


And here it is:










Now tracking at a little more than +5 s/y.

Anyone else have any performance data on a their Precisionist with the B1 hardware?

HTH


----------



## gaijin

Update for week 10:










Now tracking at a little more than +4 s/y.

If anyone can contribute accuracy data for the B1 Second Generation Precisionists it would be very welcomeas they seem to be performing better, so far, than the First Generation B0 versions.

HTH


----------



## webvan

It's really too early to tell, mine was fine for 3 months, as for B1 being the sign of a hardware revision...I've been thinking about it and today it went "tilt" ;-) This is in fact the old Bulova tradition of coding the year the watch was made in, B0=2010, B1=2011...

In the 60s it was Mx, in the 70s it was Nx, etc...they just did a reset in 2000, with A0 (My 7750 28C05 is an A6 for 2006).

Doesn't mean they didn't fix the drift/aging problem of the first models, but the B0/B1 difference would not be an indication of that.


----------



## gaijin

webvan said:


> It's really too early to tell, mine was fine for 3 months, as for B1 being the sign of a hardware revision...I've been thinking about it and today it went "tilt" ;-) This is in fact the old Bulova tradition of coding the year the watch was made in, B0=2010, B1=2011...
> 
> In the 60s it was Mx, in the 70s it was Nx, etc...they just did a reset in 2000, with A0 (My 7750 28C05 is an A6 for 2006).
> 
> Doesn't mean they didn't fix the drift/aging problem of the first models, but the B0/B1 difference would not be an indication of that.


Could be, but that doesn't square with the Serial Number data I have gathered so far.

I have Serial Numbers which I believe represent 2010 model year, 2011 model year and 2012 model year. They are:

10xxxxxx

11xxxxxx

12xxxxxx

In the database is a 96B129 Serial Number 11599502 with B0. Also there is another 96B129 Serial Number 11698924 with B1. I read this as both watches manufactured in the 2011 Model Year, the earlier one with B0 version hardware and the later one with B1 version hardware.

It just seems too coincidental if the first two digits of the Serial Number do NOT represent the Model Year that they would be 10, 11 and 12 sequentially.

Further, ALL B1 models found to date have Serial Numbers greater than 11698924 and ALL B0 models have Serial Numbers less than 11607631.

Admittedly, I'm working with a lot of (so far) unproven assumptions here; but thinking logically, it makes sense that Bulova would use these Serial Numbers to keep track of the three Model Years offered so far (2010, 2011 and 2012) and some other designation to track any hardware changes - this designation, I suggest, is the B0/B1 designation on the caseback.

You could be absolutely correct and all my assumptions could prove to be nothing more than nice coincidences. What we need are more data.

FYI, the earliest model in my database so far is a 97M104 Serial Number 10099367 (B0) and the latest is my 98B153 Serial Number 12334691 (B1).

HTH


----------



## webvan

Er...yes, there is absolutely no doubt whatsoever that Bulova have been putting a letter and a digit in the back of their watches (a great way to find a watch of a specific year for a birthday present) for decades, since the 40s according to this site » Vintage Watches: » Information about Bulova Watches, with some letters skipped for some reason. Quite logically they went back to A for 2000 and moved on to B for 2010.

Your example just shows that the cut-off between 2010/B0 and 2011/B1 occurred somewhere between serials 11599502 and 11698924. The first B2 watches should soon be popping up.

Again that doesn't mean they didn't do some tweaking to fix the aging/drifting problem, as an HAQ fan I'd be delighted if they had, and I would have one more reason to send mine back to them so its movement can be swapped out, but the B0 and B1 codes cannot be taken as sign they have.


----------



## gaijin

webvan said:


> Er...yes, there is absolutely no doubt whatsoever that Bulova have been putting a letter and a digit in the back of their watches (a great way to find a watch of a specific year for a birthday present) for decades, since the 40s according to this site » Vintage Watches: » Information about Bulova Watches, with some letters skipped for some reason. Quite logically they went back to A for 2000 and moved on to B for 2010.
> 
> Your example just shows that the cut-off between 2010/B0 and 2011/B1 occurred somewhere between serials 11599502 and 11698924. The first B2 watches should soon be popping up.
> 
> Again that doesn't mean they didn't do some tweaking to fix the aging/drifting problem, as an HAQ fan I'd be delighted if they had, and I would have one more reason to send mine back to them so its movement can be swapped out, but the B0 and B1 codes cannot be taken as sign they have.


Sounds very reasonable.

So, going forward, let's see if we can gather more data on the performance of the "newer" versions to see if, as a group, they perform any better than the less than stellar examples that were first out of the gate.

And, of course, hope that their design department gets a plentiful dose of better taste for future models. ;-)

Interesting link to the Alphanumeric designations. The last 5 listed are:

T5=1995
T6=1996
T7=1997
T8=1998
T9=1999

I just looked at my two VX-200 Accutrons which were probably manufactured in 2006 and they both carry the "A6" designation (also both have serial numbers starting with 10xxxx). Is it your understanding that we could continue the designations going forward from those provided in the link as follows:

A0=2000
A1=2001
A2=2002
A3=2003
A4=2004
A5=2005
A6=2006
A7=2007
A8=2008
A9=2009
B0=2010
B1=2011
B2=2012
B3=2013

If so, then sounds like we are on the same page.

HTH


----------



## stratct

gaijin said:


> Thanks for the pic.
> 
> Can you share what is printed around the circumfrnce of your caseback?
> 
> Thanks.


That's the movement? Dang. I was expecting some crazy 300,0000,000 jewel thing lol.


----------



## gaijin

Update for Week 11:










Now trending at a little less than +4 s/y. I'm pleased with the results so far, just hope it continues. ;-)

HTH


----------



## v76

I have a recently purchased Bulova Pecisionist Claremont 96B127, with the following details ...

Model Number: 96B127
Design Number: C877648
Serial Number: 12210579
Hardware Version: B1
Date Purchased: December 2011
Observed Accuracy (thus far): +/- 0s/y

Week 1: 0s, Week 2: +1s, Week 3: 0s, Week 4: -1s and Week 5: 0s (the figures are time gained or lost in that particular week, addition for all 5 weeks is a net gain/loss of 0s)!


----------



## everose

Interesting progress Gaijin.

Can you give us more details about wear patterns and temps?

I wish i could monitor my B1 but unfortunately i am not in a position to do so at the moment.


----------



## gaijin

v76 said:


> I have a recently purchased Bulova Pecisionist Claremont 96B127, with the following details ...
> 
> Model Number: 96B127
> Design Number: C877648
> Serial Number: 12210579
> Hardware Version: B1
> Date Purchased: December 2011
> Observed Accuracy (thus far): +/- 0s/y
> 
> Week 1: 0s, Week 2: +1s, Week 3: 0s, Week 4: -1s and Week 5: 0s (the figures are time gained or lost in that particular week, addition for all 5 weeks is a net gain/loss of 0s)!


Thanks for the data!

Yours is the first 96B127 in the database. So far, the B1 batch of watches is looking pretty good.

;-)


----------



## gaijin

everose said:


> Interesting progress Gaijin.
> 
> Can you give us more details about wear patterns and temps?
> 
> I wish i could monitor my B1 but unfortunately i am not in a position to do so at the moment.


Thanks, everose!

I try to wear the Precisionist at least 3 days/week, 18 hours/day. The rest of the time it sits in a watch box at ambient temperature which at this time of year is about 20 DEG C / 68 DEG F.

Given the noise in my data, it's very hard for me to say whether there is any correlation between rate and wear pattern. If I had to force some kind of tentative conclusion, it would be that it tends to speed up a little if I do not wear it.

HTH


----------



## gaijin

Here are the results for Week 12:










At Week 0 when I started this test, my first measurement was +0.13 seconds. Now, after 12 weeks, my measurement was +0.58. That's +0.45 seconds in 12 weeks or +0.0375 seconds/week, or +1.95 seconds/year.

The Trend projection on my graph shows <+3 seconds/year.

Either way, I'm very happy with the results so far. Will be back next week with the next installment, so stay tuned - same Bat Time, same Bat Channel ... ;-)

HTH


----------



## Eeeb

gaijin said:


> ...Will be back next week with the next installment, so stay tuned - same Bat Time, same Bat Channel ... ;-)
> 
> HTH


Jeepers, Bruce!!


----------



## ronalddheld

Next I expect to read about going to the Bat cave.


----------



## gaijin

ronalddheld said:


> Next I expect to read about going to the Bat cave.


Dug the Precisionist out of the Bat Cave and put the Bat Stopwatch to her once again. One half second fast after 13 weeks:










On pace for two seconds fast per year - I can certainly live with that. ;-)

HTH


----------



## hans caravan

That is great news about your timekeeping gaijin! It also excites me to know that there is an affordable HEQ. Now if only Bulova would come out with a design that isn't so bold...


----------



## everose

Sir, have you checked out the more conservative Precisionist lines such as Claremont and Longwood?


----------



## hans caravan

everose said:


> Sir, have you checked out the more conservative Precisionist lines such as Claremont and Longwood?


I was seriously considering a Precisionist a year ago. Two things got in the way: 1- almost every member on this site mentioned accuracy out of the quoted specs; 2- the designs were all too modern; unusual case/crystal designs, oversized. And they still are.


----------



## v76

Week 6: 0s and Week 7: 0s, looks like the cumulative gain or loss after 7 weeks is still 0s!


----------



## gaijin

v76 said:


> Week 6: 0s and Week 7: 0s, looks like the cumulative gain or loss after 7 weeks is still 0s!


That's for your 96B127 with the B1 Hardware Version. Looking good. ;-)


----------



## gaijin

Still looking good for +2 seconds/year!










All together now ... "The beat goes on ..."

;-)


----------



## v76

+2s/y would be phenomenal, even for a HAQ watch!


----------



## ronalddheld

My EZchrono is under 2 s/y at the last measurement.


----------



## gaijin

Still looking good:










Funny thing is, the more accurate the tracking, the more I want to wear it ...

HTH


----------



## sidecross

I think I read that the watch uses a lithium 2016 battery and because of the sweeping second hand battery life is over a year.

For me this is not a problem since I have the watch tools and knowledge to open the back and change batteries.


----------



## gaijin

After 16 weeks it's still running less than 0.5 seconds fast:










This week I found that I could observe the daily drift of my RC wall clock over the course of a day when comparing it to my Precisionist. ;-)

This is definitely the most accurate watch I have ever owned.

HTH


----------



## v76

9 weeks on, and my Precisionist is less than 0.2 seconds fast. At this rate, about 1s/yr gain :-!

Looks like the B1s are performing well, gaijin ...


----------



## gaijin

v76 said:


> 9 weeks on, and my Precisionist is less than 0.2 seconds fast. At this rate, about 1s/yr gain :-!
> 
> Looks like the B1s are performing well, gaijin ...


Thanks for the update - that's good to hear! ;-)


----------



## gaijin

Week 17 and it is now trending at <+1s/y:










;-)


----------



## v76

Week 12, and it's now +0.1s - trending less than +1s/y as well! :-!


----------



## gaijin

Still chugging along at a linear trend predicting <+1s/y:










I forgot to mention last week that I did NOT adjust for DST, so I have to imagine myself one hour ahead while wearing it. ;-)

HTH


----------



## v76

Week 13, and +0.15s cumulative ... fantastic!


----------



## gaijin

v76 said:


> Week 13, and +0.15s cumulative ... fantastic!


Thanks for the update! Good to know I'm not alone in enjoying a Precisionist that is performing even better than the +10s/y spec. ;-)


----------



## gaijin

Week 19 sees our first dip into negative territory ... must be a sure sign of Spring 










I like the looks of that trend line! ;-)


----------



## gaijin

It has been suggested by webvan that some more meaningful data might be obtained if I were to refrain from wearing the watch. This would show what the rate is at Room Temperature.

I agree, so as of today, the 98B153 is off my wrist. Not a great burden, as I was getting tired of remembering it still shows time one hour behind since I did not change the time for DST. ;-)

This will probably require a new rate chart to keep the data separate, but we'll see.

HTH


----------



## Goose

Gaijin...
Thanks for doing this. Interesting to me. 
I have a 1st gen BP. Know it's not within the +-10 sec claim. But, I like the sweep


----------



## Eeeb

Goose said:


> Gaijin...
> Thanks for doing this. Interesting to me.
> I have a 1st gen BP. Know it's not within the +-10 sec claim. But, I like the sweep


Tuning forks has a smoother sweeping second hand!


----------



## v76

Week 14, and still +0.15s cumulative. I wear it perhaps not more than 8-10 hours/week, rest of the time it's in my watch drawer.


----------



## gaijin

Eeeb said:


> Tuning forks has a smoother sweeping second hand!


May be, but the Precisionist is still pretty sweet.

One second:










Five seconds:










;-)

Are there any brand new, still in production tuning fork watches out there that one can buy for a couple hundred bucks?

HTH


----------



## Eeeb

gaijin said:


> ...
> Are there any brand new, still in production tuning fork watches out there that one can buy for a couple hundred bucks?
> 
> HTH


Oh come on. You know the answer to both questions.

But for others, No and Yes. No they are no longer made. Yes you can buy those that exist quite often for a couple of hundred US dollars.

And the hummers almost all look a lot better than the models in the Precisionist line... but that is just my opinion.


----------



## gaijin

Eeeb said:


> And the hummers almost all look a lot better than the models in the Precisionist line... but that is just my opinion.


No argument there - my 98B153 looks like it was designed by a committee of design team rejects with Hypoxia. :-(


----------



## gaijin

Week 20 starts off with a change in format for the graph and a change in conditions for the watch.

I will not wear my Precisionist 98B153 for the rest of the 52 week testing period - it will stay in its watch box at Ambient Temperature. This is to test the accuracy at lower temperatures than those experienced while wearing.

Since I am still interested in continuing the accuracy study begin 20 weeks ago, I will keep that data intact. I also did not reset the watch at the beginning of the "off wrist" portion of the test. As a result, the beginning of this new phase of testing is not starting at 0.0 seconds, but rather at -0.08 seconds - the last reading before I took the watch off. This zero offset should not matter much as we go forward, but for you sticklers out there (you know who you are ;-)), please keep this offset in mind.

There are also two new spec lines on the graph, these start at Week 19 and progress forward at +10s/y. These are added so one can easily compare the ongoing accuracy results including wearing of the watch started Week 0, and the accuracy of just the "off wrist" portion of the test started at Week 19.

Hope you find the results interesting as we go forward.

So, without further ado, I present to you the Bulova Precisionist 98B153 Accuracy Tracking Graph for Week 20:










HTH


----------



## v76

Week 15, and it's off by +0.1s. Same wear pattern as before.


----------



## gaijin

v76 said:


> Week 15, and it's off by +0.1s. Same wear pattern as before.


Thanks for the update! ;-)


----------



## Goose

Wonder what the change(s) were for the newer versions of the guts. My 1st gen is not even close to this test subject. 
Does anyone know?


----------



## gaijin

Goose said:


> Wonder what the change(s) were for the newer versions of the guts. My 1st gen is not even close to this test subject.
> Does anyone know?


Unfortunately, no. We are not even sure there were any changes. Just too little data to say for sure.

HTH


----------



## gaijin

After one full week of not wearing the Precisionist, and storing it at room temperature (approx. 70*F), it gained 0.57 seconds - putting outside the +10s/y limit line. If this trend continues, then obviously this watch needs to be worn in order to conform to the +10s/y spec from Bulova.










HTH


----------



## Goose

Thanks again, Gaijin.
I've synced my BP to the atomic clock. Don't recall the last time I did that. Posting here will serve as a record for me when I check it moving forward.


----------



## gaijin

Goose said:


> Thanks again, Gaijin.
> I've synced my BP to the atomic clock. Don't recall the last time I did that. Posting here will serve as a record for me when I check it moving forward.


You're welcome. Glad you found the info useful.

Do you plan on wearing yours "moving forward?"


----------



## Goose

No. It just sits next to the bathtub (see pic a few posts earlier).

My least worn watch. Have thought of selling it. But, someday, I can say I have a first run vintage Precisionist, sitting next to the bathtub.


----------



## v76

Week 16, and it's off by +0.2s. Still wearing it not more than about 8 hours per week (no change in wear pattern).


----------



## gaijin

Week 22 of the test - third week in a row just sitting in the watch box unworn:










Still less than one second fast overall, but gaining at a rate of approximately 25 s/y.

Preliminary conclusion: If you buy one of these as a safe queen and never wear it, it most probably will not meet the 10 s/y spec. If, on the other hand, you actually wear the watch periodically, it most probably will meet the 10 s/y spec.

HTH


----------



## Goose

gaijin said:


> ...
> 
> Still less than one second fast overall, but gaining at a rate of approximately 25 s/y.
> 
> ...
> 
> HTH


OUCH!
Thank you for the report, Gaijin.

Speaking of "gaijin", this Nihon umare hapa is heading to the San Francisco Cherry Blossom Festival today. Sayonara, Gaijin.


----------



## dicioccio

All the data are very interesting and, according to that, it seems a very good result for a non temperature compensated watch. It also seems that this movement is slightly better than the Seiko 8Fxx that had a claimed accuracy of 20spy if worn 50% of the time.

Also the consistency is not bad so I hope they will release new models with a more classic design and a smaller case.


----------



## gaijin

Goose said:


> OUCH!
> Thank you for the report, Gaijin.
> 
> Speaking of "gaijin", this Nihon umare hapa is heading to the San Francisco Cherry Blossom Festival today. Sayonara, Gaijin.


Ah ... urayamashii. Nihon bijin takusan iru desyoo - kyoo tsukete, ne. ;-)


----------



## v76

Week 17, and it's off by -0.1s. First time it's spent in negative territory!


----------



## gaijin

Week 23 overall, week 4 off the wrist:










It's summer here now, so indoor ambient temp is around 78*F during the day and about 72-74*F at night.

See you next week. ;-)


----------



## gaijin

Week 24 overall, week 5 off the wrist:










It is becoming clear that if NOT worn, it would be hard to meet the +10s/y Bulova spec.

It is also clear, however, that if worn, the +10s/y spec should be easily attainable.

After all, after 24 weeks the watch has gained only 1.28 seconds! Still very respectable in my book. ;-)

HTH


----------



## gaijin

Week 25 overall, week 6 off the wrist:










Wear it regularly - it runs well within spec.

Leave it in the safe - it will run slightly out of spec fast.

Still, after almost 6 months it has gained less than 2.0 seconds. Pretty good in my opinion. ;-)

HTH


----------



## stratct

gaijin said:


> Week 25 overall, week 6 off the wrist:
> 
> Wear it regularly - it runs well within spec.
> 
> Leave it in the safe - it will run slightly out of spec fast.
> 
> Still, after almost 6 months it has gained less than 2.0 seconds. Pretty good in my opinion. ;-)
> 
> HTH


It's not TC right? Cuz that would explain everything lol. I can get my ESA 555.411 to run witting that spec (20spy) at one temp using the trimmer. Now if I put it on my wrist it will change. Most quartz watches are meant to be most accurate on wrist anyway.


----------



## gaijin

stratct said:


> It's not TC right? Cuz that would explain everything lol. I can get my ESA 555.411 to run witting that spec (20spy) at one temp using the trimmer. Now if I put it on my wrist it will change. Most quartz watches are meant to be most accurate on wrist anyway.


No, it is not TC - that is obvious. And yes, the point of the "On Wrist / Off Wrist" measurements is to show the difference caused by temperature when worn on the wrist (warmer) and when off the wrist (cooler).

One use to which one might put the data I offer is to decide how much one must wear a Precisionist to achieve the desired accuracy. Running fast? Wear it more. Running slow? Wear it less.

HTH


----------



## PeterG_SVK

gaijin said:


> ...Running fast? Wear it more. Running slow? Wear it less.
> HTH


Isn't that called a synchronisation??? ;-) I can do so with automatic (or any) watch and will get the same precision :-d.


----------



## gaijin

PeterG_SVK said:


> Isn't that called a synchronisation??? ;-) I can do so with automatic (or any) watch and will get the same precision :-d.


No. You can't. ;-)

HTH


----------



## PeterG_SVK

I'm sorry if I make you sad, but I surely can and already did so!;-) You check the watch agaist precise clock and then either slower it of make it faster (it doesn't matter how) - this is SYNCHRONISATION by principle. Btw, I can keep my automatic watch within 1s per month by changing wearing pattern (e.g. it is going slightly faster, if stored vertical, 3o'clock down and slightly slower, if stored horizontal, dial up).


----------



## gaijin

Week 26 overall, week 7 off the wrist:










Half a year in and it is less than 2.0 seconds fast. I'm liking it! ;-)

HTH


----------



## gaijin

Week 27 overall, week 8 off the wrist:










Still behaving as expected - well within the 10 sec/year spec.

HTH


----------



## Goose

April 14th was when I synced to the atomic clock.
I'm 9 sec off in a month??? Only sitting on a table. No wrist time.

I must've synced wrong or my BP is way off.

Just reset to the Ft. Collins to see what's up.

Can't recall if there's a battery low feature. Hard to imagine given the sweep feature.

Gaijin, do you recall the batt life expectancy? I bought mine Christmas 2010.


----------



## gaijin

Goose said:


> April 14th was when I synced to the atomic clock.
> I'm 9 sec off in a month??? Only sitting on a table. No wrist time.
> 
> I must've synced wrong or my BP is way off.
> 
> Just reset to the Ft. Collins to see what's up.
> 
> Can't recall if there's a battery low feature. Hard to imagine given the sweep feature.
> 
> Gaijin, do you recall the batt life expectancy? I bought mine Christmas 2010.


Sounds like you need a more reliable/accurate time source. ;-) Try this site: The official US time (NIST & USNO)

If memory serves, Bulova rates the battery at 2-3 years, but I don't know anyone who has run one that long. Odds are your battery is already two years old.

HTH


----------



## everose

Goose said:


> Can't recall if there's a battery low feature.


There is no eol batt indicator on Precisionist models.


----------



## webvan

I was the first one to get one here in late September 2010 and it's still running fine, albeit at its pathetic +65 spy rate after being spot on for a couple of months. Goose's + 72spy drift, if confirmed, is not that far.



> Still behaving as expected - well within the 10 sec/year spec.


Overall yes but not if you'd had it at room temperature since the beginning. For others it will run ok at room temperature and be too slow when worn (difference is going to be around 20/25 spy by design).


----------



## gaijin

webvan said:


> I was the first one to get one here in late September 2010 and it's still running fine, albeit at its pathetic +65 spy rate after being spot on for a couple of months. Goose's + 72spy drift, if confirmed, is not that far.
> 
> *Overall yes but not if you'd had it at room temperature since the beginning.* For others it will run ok at room temperature and be too slow when worn (difference is going to be around 20/25 spy by design).


One could wonder why accuracy is at all important to someone who never wears the watch ... ;-)

Mine, at room temperature, has gained 2.27 seconds over the last 7 weeks. That works out to +16.9 seconds/year.

When regularly worn, it ran pretty much between dead on and +1 second for 19 weeks. That's a more meaningful indicator of the "real world" accuracy potential of my example of the Precisionist at least.

Sorry, but my data do not confirm your statement about what others will experience. My data clearly show that it will run OK when worn and be too fast when only stored at room temperature.

HTH


----------



## webvan

Of course it does, if v76 starts wearing his Precisionist 14 hours a day it will slow down by about 20spy vs the 0 spy he has wearing it 8/10 hours a week and I'll have to remind you that I was the one who had to explain repeatedly that your Precisionist would not perform the same at room than when worn and that it would speed up by about 20 spy (ref : https://www.watchuseek.com/f9/bulov...not-standard-quoted-664261-2.html#post4897848) to your credit you did change your testing pattern and it turns out this is exactly what happened and proves (again) that Bulova's 10 spy claim is BS, and they know it since they don't stand by it as someone found at the hard way here : https://www.watchuseek.com/f9/bulova-precisionist-timekeeping-not-standard-quoted-664261-2.html


----------



## gaijin

webvan said:


> Of course it does, if v76 starts wearing his Precisionist 14 hours a day it will slow down by about 20spy vs the 0 spy he has wearing it 8/10 hours a week and I'll have to remind you that I was the one who had to explain repeatedly that your Precisionist would not perform the same at room than when worn and that it would speed up by about 20 spy (ref : https://www.watchuseek.com/f9/bulov...not-standard-quoted-664261-2.html#post4897848) to your credit you did change your testing pattern and it turns out this is exactly what happened and proves (again) that Bulova's 10 spy claim is BS, and they know it since they don't stand by it as someone found at the hard way here : https://www.watchuseek.com/f9/bulova-precisionist-timekeeping-not-standard-quoted-664261-2.html


I agree that there appears to be about a 20 s/y difference (closer to 17 s/y in my case, but close enough) between on wrist and off wrist rates - the on wrist rate being slower by about 20 s/y.

The difference we have observed appears to be the "base" rate for different examples. My example has a base rate of approx. +0 s/y when worn, and approx. +17 s/y when not worn. As such, it will be well within spec when worn, but if never worn, it will be out of spec fast.

Bulova's 10 s/y claim is valid, IMHO, for a watch that is worn at least 50% of the time.

Any watch that is not TC - and the Precisionist is definitely NOT TC - is going to exhibit rate changes with temp changes. Maybe I'm just lucky in having received an example that performs well within spec when worn, but I certainly would support Bulova's claim of 10 s/y if one wears the watch. Stick it in a watch box for a year and never wear it and yes, it will run out of spec. If that is "BS" in your opinion, then I guess we will just have to agree to disagree.

BTW, as Summer temps kick in here, my RT will rise - so I expect my test watch rate will slow down some until Fall when it will start speeding up again.

HTH


----------



## ronalddheld

Any news on future models and technical upgrades?


----------



## gaijin

Week 28 overall, Week 9 off the wrist:










Nothing talks like data. ;-)

HTH


----------



## The Naf

Hey there. After having sold my precisionist earlier this year I've somehow come full circle and am embarking on the purchase of yet another precisionist. In my defense the purchase is more for the sweeping second hand than for the accuracy. Anyway just wanted to confirm with webvan if he's was also B1 (I.e.2011) model. Seem to recall him saying so. Also does anyone have any idea of the difference between B0 and B1 models other than perhaps quality control. Seem to recall someone mentioning a slight delay in the start up of the second hand once the crown was pushed in on the older models... Any ideas?


----------



## gaijin

Week 29 overall, Week 10 off the wrist:










HTH


----------



## gaijin

Week 30 overall, week 11 off the wrist:










No surprises. Still well within the +10 seconds/year spec. ;-)

HTH


----------



## gaijin

Week 31 overall, week 12 off the wrist:










Warm summer temps here with resultant rise in RT seems to be helping, but still well within the +10 sec/year spec. ;-)

HTH


----------



## gaijin

Week 32 overall, week 13 off the wrist:










Don't mind me ... just having fun updating my own thread ... ;-)

HTH


----------



## The Naf

Any issues with the leap second?


----------



## gaijin

The Naf said:


> Any issues with the leap second?


When I measure it next week, I will see the effect of the leap second. ;-)


----------



## The Naf

Hey there...Just went through the entire thread again and I know you chose to test the precisionist off the wrist after a couple of suggestions. Might I suggest that it has already become abundantly apparent from this as well as other examples that the precisionist will likely not meet the +/-10s/yr claim if it is not worn. The debate as to whether or not it will meet these standards if worn relatively regularly is still very much alive. What I propose is to start wearing the watch again and observing if there is any change from the excellent results you achieved previously. The reason I propose this is because I remember webvan saying that his precisionist performed well up until about 3 months and than the effects of aging eventually lead to a pathetic 65s/year. If after 32 odd weeks the precisinist still exihibits the same sort of accuracy on the wrist as it did when you initially started testing it we may very well start to suggest that better pre-aging in the newer models might have taken place...just a thought....


----------



## gaijin

The Naf said:


> Hey there...Just went through the entire thread again and I know you chose to test the precisionist off the wrist after a couple of suggestions. Might I suggest that it has already become abundantly apparent from this as well as other examples that the precisionist will likely not meet the +/-10s/yr claim if it is not worn. The debate as to whether or not it will meet these standards if worn relatively regularly is still very much alive. What I propose is to start wearing the watch again and observing if there is any change from the excellent results you achieved previously. The reason I propose this is because I remember webvan saying that his precisionist performed well up until about 3 months and than the effects of aging eventually lead to a pathetic 65s/year. If after 32 odd weeks the precisinist still exihibits the same sort of accuracy on the wrist as it did when you initially started testing it we may very well start to suggest that better pre-aging in the newer models might have taken place...just a thought....


For the past 13 weeks off wrist, the Precisionist has been trending at +12.4 sec/year. Definitely outside the +10 sec/year spec, but not by much. ;-)

For the prior 19 weeks worn regularly, it averaged +0.56 seconds.

Judging by the consistency of the data, it is not unreasonable to expect the watch to maintain about +0.5 seconds from then current value when worn regularly again. Certainly there is no evidence that any "aging" has degraded performance to anything close to "a pathetic 65s/year."

After all, even though the watch has not been worn at all for a full quarter year, it is still well within the +10 sec/year spec!

I do, however, appreciate your point. It could not hurt to have data confirming a return to closer to +0 sec/year when worn regularly again - there's just no evidence to support that it won't.

Looking at the data so far, it is obvious that there is no thermocompensation in this movement. Further, it is obvious that in the temperature range we have observed so far, i.e. normal wear and storage temps, the warmer the watch is the slower it will run. Conversely, the colder the watch is the faster it will run.

There is already enough evidence to state that if worn even two or three days per week, it will run within spec.

I don't want to wear the watch now because the time is an hour (and a couple of seconds ;-)) off because it is still set for Standard time and we are in Daylight Saving time. Having to constantly remind myself that my watch is an hour off is just not worth it. How about this? When we switch back to Standard time this Fall, I'll start wearing it again and we'll see if its accuracy returns.

In any event, thanks for your interest.

HTH


----------



## The Naf

Sounds good to me. And I agree that from the data you have provided there is no evidence that any aging has taken place. Your data seems to indicate a consistent trend whilst worn regularly and a consistant, albeit different, trend when off the wrist. It would be nice to have data confirming this though.

Incidentally I have a B2 model with a serial no. beginning with 14. I intend to begin observing it from today. Not gonna draw up any tables or anything like yourself (dont have much time these days) but will definately keep an eye and see if it is performing within spec. If so than that would make 3 of us on here with B1 or newer models which are performing within spec and only 1 B1 model that is not and even that of one that probably wasn't worn regularly. Would definately provide an interesting reference for speculation hehe. At this stage two things a very apparent:

1. The precisionist definately performs better than your average quartz and so the addition of the third prong does appear to improve performance
2. The precisonist, if tweaked properly and worn regularly, is is capable of running within the +/-10s/year specifications for at least some period of time.

I must say I *am* glad a bought another one after having initially sold my first Precisionist. At the very least the movement is unique and interesting in a HAQ sense...I think few of us here would purchase it based purely on styling lol


----------



## The Naf

Hey shane I'm having some trouble viewing the pictures/references you posted. Any chance of posting it in a different format?

Cheers


----------



## gaijin

Week 33 overall, week 14 off the wrist:










Please note that since the Leap Second went into effect during this last week, one second has been subtracted from the actual measurement for plotting purposes. The actual measurement will be shown in parentheses.

HTH


----------



## The Naf

Still looking good


----------



## gaijin

Week 34 overall, week 15 off the wrist:










Current rate = +5.03 Seconds/Year

HTH


----------



## chcmuzza

Folks

I have had my divers style Precisionist for just on two months. I had been hankering for an HAQ for a couple of years but was smitten by sweep second hands. Enter the Precisionist!

Anyway, 

Model = C860962
Rev = B2
S/N = 13476492

I remove the watch from my wrist for less than 10 hours per week, normally only 1 hour per week. It is my tool watch.

I set the time two months ago against the USNO Clock. Including the allowance for the leap second the watch has lost just over one second in this time.

The method I use may not be very scientific but I figure if I compare the watch to USNO on a weekly basis any variations in internet latency (I refresh the USNO page to get a consistant differential) and me 'eyeballing' the watch will, over time, become normalised.

So far I am really pleased.

Cheers


----------



## gaijin

chcmuzza said:


> Folks
> 
> I have had my divers style Precisionist for just on two months. I had been hankering for an HAQ for a couple of years but was smitten by sweep second hands. Enter the Precisionist!
> 
> Anyway,
> 
> Model = C860962
> Rev = B2
> S/N = 13476492
> 
> I remove the watch from my wrist for less than 10 hours per week, normally only 1 hour per week. It is my tool watch.
> 
> I set the time two months ago against the USNO Clock. Including the allowance for the leap second the watch has lost just over one second in this time.
> 
> The method I use may not be very scientific but I figure if I compare the watch to USNO on a weekly basis any variations in internet latency (I refresh the USNO page to get a consistant differential) and me 'eyeballing' the watch will, over time, become normalised.
> 
> So far I am really pleased.
> 
> Cheers


Good news!

Thanks for reporting in. ;-)


----------



## Eeeb

gaijin said:


> Sounds like you need a more reliable/accurate time source. ;-) Try this site: The official US time (NIST & USNO)
> 
> If memory serves, Bulova rates the battery at 2-3 years, but I don't know anyone who has run one that long. Odds are your battery is already two years old.
> 
> HTH


I've found the difference between WWV and time.gov to be indistinguishable to normal human perception.

Dying batteries are always suspect when timing changes.


----------



## gaijin

Eeeb said:


> I've found the difference between WWV and time.gov to be indistinguishable to normal human perception.
> 
> Dying batteries are always suspect when timing changes.


I agree. Good point about the battery. I plan on letting mine run until the battery dies so we can see what effect, if any, decreasing battery voltage has on rate when the battery nears the end of its life.

I don't recall reading about anyone who has had a battery die in a Precisionist yet. Did I miss it? I'm expecting a little more than a year, but would like to hear from anyone who has actually experienced a dead battery.


----------



## ronalddheld

Eeeb said:


> I've found the difference between WWV and time.gov to be indistinguishable to normal human perception.
> 
> I have to agree


----------



## gaijin

Week 35 overall, week 16 off the wrist:










Current rate = +4.98 Seconds/Year

HTH


----------



## Precise

I have a Precisionist 96B132 (Titanium) which I bought on WUS six weeks ago. B1 is engraved on the back. I do not wear it much because I find it heavy and obscure to read.

I've been tracking it for these six weeks and it has consistently gained 1.2 sec per week (accounting for the leap second). That, of course, is about +60 spy which is similar to several other reports.









Before this era of electronic navigation mariners kept track of the rates of their chronometers and corrected the time accordingly. A constant rate was just as usable a zero rate. My Precisionist appears to have a very constant rate.


----------



## gaijin

Week 36 overall, week 17 off the wrist:










*Current rate= +5.0 seconds/year*

HTH


----------



## Hans Moleman

I am afraid there are still a few people under false illusions here.


Sure my watch speeds up and slows down a bit but overall it seems to keep time. What is wrong with that? 

Imagine you've just bought a car. 
Driving it seems to be tiresome. You don't understand why and you're keen to find out.

You're putting it on the salt flats and you're letting it run with the steering wheel locked.

You notice that it has problems running in a straight line. If you point it North, it lurches between North-East and North-West. Overall and on average it roughly goes North.

You've brought a reference car. If you point that North, it does not lurch that much. It stays within a few degrees of North.

The problematic car is difficult to drive on the roads because it takes so much effort to correct it.

The reference car has to cope with the same surface irregularities, but is thrown off less.

Every watch is thrown off course by the temperature of the environment. What surface irregularities is to a car, is temperature to a watch.

The watch does not know it is thrown off course. With some luck the temperature changes in its favor and it veers back. With less luck it veers off even more.

The problem car does not know it isn't heading North. With some luck that stone makes it lurch the other way.

Proper steering design ensures that a car is thrown off its course as little as possible.
Proper watch design ensures that temperature variations have as little effect as possible.

"Overall and on average" may well look good for a while but luck soon runs out.


----------



## gaijin

Hans Moleman said:


> I am afraid there are still a few people under false illusions here.
> 
> 
> Sure my watch speeds up and slows down a bit but overall it seems to keep time. What is wrong with that?
> 
> Imagine you've just bought a car.
> Driving it seems to be tiresome. You don't understand why and you're keen to find out.
> 
> You're putting it on the salt flats and you're letting it run with the steering wheel locked.
> 
> You notice that it has problems running in a straight line. If you point it North, it lurches between North-East and North-West. Overall and on average it roughly goes North.
> 
> You've brought a reference car. If you point that North, it does not lurch that much. It stays within a few degrees of North.
> 
> The problematic car is difficult to drive on the roads because it takes so much effort to correct it.
> 
> The reference car has to cope with the same surface irregularities, but is thrown off less.
> 
> Every watch is thrown off course by the temperature of the environment. What surface irregularities is to a car, is temperature to a watch.
> 
> The watch does not know it is thrown off course. With some luck the temperature changes in its favor and it veers back. With less luck it veers off even more.
> 
> The problem car does not know it isn't heading North. With some luck that stone makes it lurch the other way.
> 
> Proper steering design ensures that a car is thrown off its course as little as possible.
> Proper watch design ensures that temperature variations have as little effect as possible.
> 
> "Overall and on average" may well look good for a while but luck soon runs out.


OK ... and what does that have to do with this thread exactly?

Maybe if you were a little more specific about the particular "false illusions" you are trying to correct, your post would make more sense.

Can you just say what you mean in simple terms?

TIA


----------



## Hans Moleman

Sorry about posting it in your thread. It could appear in dozens of others.

I am afraid that a lot people read your thread and deduce that 'maybe the watch wobbles around a bit but in the end gets it gets it right anyway'.

As if the watch somehow knows when to slow down. A telepathic link to WWV maybe?

My point is that the wobbling part is the bad part.
The wobbling is the loose steering. The out-of-control part. The can-go-either-way part.

But off course, the wobbling could make it hit the target a few times too. By chance.

Lots of posts show this faith on chance:

"Yea well, my watch is 2 seconds fast this summer, but it probably will slow down again over winter and it will be spot on next year".

That might well work, or it might not work. But in fact it is hoping for that rock that knocks the steering back.
Hope for a change in the environment that makes it lurch the other way again.


----------



## Mark II

Excellent results. I have a 97b110 b2 which shows great promise at the moment, although I've only had it a few weeks. Still spot on after that time though.


----------



## jehanzeb

I just got mine yesterday. Here are the numbers:

Model Number = 96B152
Design Number = C960945
Serial Number = 13456294
Hardware Version B2
Date Purchased August 1st 2012

Will post pics later.
Observed accuracy (have not tested yet)


----------



## gaijin

Thanks for the info, jehanzeb! It will be interesting to see how the accuracy of the B2 (2012) models tracks.


----------



## ronalddheld

Has anyone posted B2 data?


----------



## gaijin

Week 37 overall, 18 off the wrist:










Current rate = +4.99 Seconds/year

HTH


----------



## dicioccio

I would like to post a simple consideration about the accuracy of the precisionist. It seems that the "claimed" 10 spy (with a given wearing pattern) is not just mere advertising but the truth. "It seems" means "according to the informations posted on this forum and not only on this thread.

If the precisionist would confirm a true 10 spy accuracy (again with a given wearing pattern) can we conclude that the movement could be regarded as innovative ? Until now, in fact, I've always heard that such an accuracy could have been met only using thermocompensation. In this case then I wonder if there is something more than just a high-frequency quartz. Maybe they've found something different and effective in the design of the quartz. Maybe they fitted the circuit with something different from an ordinary layout. I ask to myself if the Precisionist is just a "standard" HF movement or much more.

Anyway, despite any form of speculation, I see a low cost watch with a very good accuracy: this shows that manufacturers could achieve a great accuracy, without raising too much the pricing, if they really would to do so.


----------



## jehanzeb

dicioccio said:


> Until now, in fact, I've always heard that such an accuracy could have been met only using thermocompensation. In this case then I wonder if there is something more than just a high-frequency quartz. Maybe they've found something different and effective in the design of the quartz. Maybe they fitted the circuit with something different from an ordinary layout.


Could that be the 'third prong' Bulova mentions ?


----------



## jehanzeb

I have started tracking the accuracy on mine by comparing it manually to time.gov. 







So far it is accurate but I have only had it for six days. 
Will update in a month.


----------



## dicioccio

On WUS there is this topic discussing about it: https://www.watchuseek.com/f9/origins-three-tined-quartz-watch-crystal-453457.html

Anyway they didn't go further on the discussion...


----------



## gaijin

Week 38 overall, week 19 off the wrist:










Current rate = +4.80 seconds/year

HTH


----------



## gaijin

Week 39 overall, week 20 off the wrist:










Current rate = +4.93 seconds/year

HTH


----------



## jehanzeb

Two week update on my 98B152 - 

Manually checking the seconds (java disabled) on time.gov, my watch is one second faster. 
Since I set it to one second fast initially, looks like it has not lost or gained any time in two weeks.

I wear it every other day for about six or so hours.
Will update in two more weeks.


----------



## gaijin

jehanzeb said:


> Two week update on my 98B152 -
> 
> Manually checking the seconds (java disabled) on time.gov, my watch is one second faster.
> Since I set it to one second fast initially, looks like it has not lost or gained any time in two weeks.
> 
> I wear it every other day for about six or so hours.
> Will update in two more weeks.


Sounds great! Thanks for the update. ;-)


----------



## EdwardChen

gaijin, just wanted to thank you for your updates. I just received my Precisionist today and will start tracking. I'm not in it for the HAQ, just for the smooth movement, but I like tracking all my watches anyhow. I got the simplest one as I'm trying to use it in dressier occasions. I'll probably put it on leather very soon.

deets:

Model Number: 96B159
Design Number: C860917
Hardware Version: B2
Date Purchased August 15, 2012


----------



## gaijin

Looks good! Thanks for the info. ;-)


----------



## gaijin

Week 40 overall, week 21 off the wrist:










Current rate = +4.99 seconds/year

HTH


----------



## h2oflyer

Following this thread since post one brings up some questions:

Why so few reports of super accuracy? Are Precisionist owners shy or having timing issues with the smooth second hand.

The posted pictures show a very small (cheap looking) movement in relation to a larger stylish case. Does this small movement size some how condense any temp. drift?

This thread reminds me of a neighbor many years ago justifying his purchase of a Lada. :-(

Walter


----------



## gaijin

Week 41 overall, week 22 off the wrist:










Current rate = +4.93 seconds/year

HTH


----------



## Chazman1946

h2oflyer said:


> Following this thread since post one brings up some questions:
> 
> Why so few reports of super accuracy? Are Precisionist owners shy or having timing issues with the smooth second hand.
> 
> The posted pictures show a very small (cheap looking) movement in relation to a larger stylish case. Does this small movement size some how condense any temp. drift?
> 
> This thread reminds me of a neighbor many years ago justifying his purchase of a Lada. :-(
> 
> Walter


Have you been following the timing results this guy is getting out of this watch? He is only 2 months short of a year of testing and so far the watch is only off 4.9 seconds. I wouldn't call that un-accurate, and the Precisionists come in a wide variety of case models, of which most are excellent fit and finish (bulova doesn't make any crappy watches), the prices are reasonable, and as an extra added bonus the second hand sweeps, rather then doing a spastic jerk movement like most all Quartz watches do.

I think it is this point which causes some of the rejection from the Quartz crowd, on face value, it looks like the movement is Mechanical. Reverse discrimination?
's
This watch is the best of both worlds, it's movement looks smooth, and it's accurate beyond the dreams of the little old Swiss elfs in their cobble shops, and if they could just hook up with Citizen and make it an Eco-drive it would be the absolute, ultimate watch!


----------



## Chazman1946

EdwardChen said:


> gaijin, just wanted to thank you for your updates. I just received my Precisionist today and will start tracking. I'm not in it for the HAQ, just for the smooth movement, but I like tracking all my watches anyhow. I got the simplest one as I'm trying to use it in dressier occasions. I'll probably put it on leather very soon.
> 
> deets:
> 
> Model Number: 96B159
> Design Number: C860917
> Hardware Version: B2
> Date Purchased August 15, 2012
> 
> View attachment 800169


I find your (as you put it) simplist one, one the the sharpest looking ones they make. Gives the Omega Aqua terra, and Rolex Milguas crowd a inexpensive run for their money. I am seriously thinking about adding it to my collection!


----------



## ronalddheld

One watch's performance does not provide enough data to generalize. Aging on this watch could be severe.


----------



## gaijin

ronalddheld said:


> One watch's performance does not provide enough data to generalize. Aging on this watch could be severe.


Really?

Where are your data in support of potential severe aging?

HTH


----------



## dwjquest

gaijin said:


> Really?
> 
> Where are your data in support of potential severe aging?
> 
> HTH


Here is my data supporting aging. This is a Gen 1 movement. Two years and still aging. Might not call this severe, but it is definitively aging.


----------



## gaijin

What temperature(s) was the watch at for the 11 data points?

And how are you measuring seconds/year with just one data point?

TIA


----------



## dwjquest

gaijin said:


> What temperature(s) was the watch at for the 11 data points?
> 
> And how are you measuring seconds/year with just one data point?
> 
> TIA


All measurements were made at 86 F with a standard deviation in temperature of around 0.03 F. I have instrumentation that allows the measurement of rate at near real time. Actually a good measurement takes about 2 hours. I use the equipment sold by Mumford Micro Systems Mumford Micro Systems - The Crackpot Inventor.

If you are interested in how this particular movement performs over a temperature range try https://www.watchuseek.com/f9/bulova-precisionist-rate-vs-temperature-493249.html.

Since I am measuring the rate in a constant temperature chamber, I do not find the rate that is actually realized when the watch is worn. The 86 F temperature is what I use to approximate actual wearing conditions.


----------



## gaijin

dwjquest said:


> All measurements were made at 86 F with a standard deviation in temperature of around 0.03 F. I have instrumentation that allows the measurement of rate at near real time. Actually a good measurement takes about 2 hours. I use the equipment sold by Mumford Micro Systems Mumford Micro Systems - The Crackpot Inventor.
> 
> If you are interested in how this particular movement performs over a temperature range try https://www.watchuseek.com/f9/bulova-precisionist-rate-vs-temperature-493249.html.
> 
> Since I am measuring the rate in a constant temperature chamber, I do not find the rate that is actually realized when the watch is worn. The 86 F temperature is what I use to approximate actual wearing conditions.


Thanks for the info, but since you were not specific, may I conclude then that you are using the Microset 3 with the Accutron sensor?

Do you have the internal TCXO timebase?

When measuring the Precisionist, instead of the 360Hz Accutron base rate, what value do you obtain for the Precisionist?

I use a Gw Instek GFC-8010H Frequency Counter to calibrate my TYMC MTG-1000 Timegrapher used for measuring analog movements. This identifies and corrects any internal drift found with the MTG-1000. Do you have a similar method of calibration with the Microset 3? If so, what is it? If not, how do you identify and correct for any internal drift?

This is very interesting stuff. Thanks for the info.

HTH


----------



## dwjquest

gaijin said:


> Thanks for the info, but since you were not specific, may I conclude then that you are using the Microset 3 with the Accutron sensor?
> 
> Do you have the internal TCXO timebase?
> 
> When measuring the Precisionist, instead of the 360Hz Accutron base rate, what value do you obtain for the Precisionist?
> 
> I use a Gw Instek GFC-8010H Frequency Counter to calibrate my TYMC MTG-1000 Timegrapher used for measuring analog movements. This identifies and corrects any internal drift found with the MTG-1000. Do you have a similar method of calibration with the Microset 3? If so, what is it? If not, how do you identify and correct for any internal drift?
> 
> This is very interesting stuff. Thanks for the info.
> 
> HTH


I am using the Microset 3 with quartz sensor and GPS reference receiver. The TCXO timebase is not stable enough for watches that operate under 5 SPY.

Since the GPS system is accurate to 0.000001 s over any time span, with a two hour data collection, I theoretically should be able to measure a movement's rate to better than 0.01 SPY. My own observation is that 0.1 to 0.2 SPY is the practical limit.


----------



## Eeeb

dwjquest said:


> I am using the Microset 3 with quartz sensor and GPS reference receiver. The TCXO timebase is not stable enough for watches that operate under 5 SPY....


I once calculated a TCXO should be capable of measuring down to 0.4 SPY. That does require good temperature stability but most any implementation should be able to do that... CALIBRATING is a different matter though...


----------



## gaijin

dwjquest said:


> I am using the Microset 3 with quartz sensor and GPS reference receiver. The TCXO timebase is not stable enough for watches that operate under 5 SPY.
> 
> Since the GPS system is accurate to 0.000001 s over any time span, with a two hour data collection, I theoretically should be able to measure a movement's rate to better than 0.01 SPY. My own observation is that 0.1 to 0.2 SPY is the practical limit.


Thanks for the info. Mumford has a new order waiting for them when they gat back to work after the weekend. I'll put it on my watch and see what it says. ;-)

If I may ask again, what base rate do you obtain for the Precisionist. The Bulova Accutron is supposed to be 360Hz, but I am curious what the indicated base rate is for the Precisionist.

TIA


----------



## dwjquest

Eeeb said:


> I once calculated a TCXO should be capable of measuring down to 0.4 SPY. That does require good temperature stability but most any implementation should be able to do that... CALIBRATING is a different matter though...


You are right. The short term stability should be good. I always worried about the long term drift of the temperature control circuitry. When I discussed what I wanted to measure with his equipment, Mumford recommended the GPS receiver.


----------



## Chazman1946

Wow, that the last three or four posts on this thread could have been in Klingon to me, way over my head.


----------



## jeffmj

Go to www dot bmumford dot com to see what they are talking about. I don't have that equipment but it looks cool for measuring the time keeping precision of watches.


----------



## webvan

gaijin said:


> I use a Gw Instek GFC-8010H Frequency Counter to calibrate my TYMC MTG-1000 Timegrapher used for measuring analog movements. This identifies and corrects any internal drift found with the MTG-1000.


How do you use the MTG-1000 to time your Precisonist? I tried popping mine in it today and while it does blink seemingly in tune with the 16bps of the seconds hand no data gets displayed and no sound cones out (no sync).


----------



## gaijin

webvan said:


> How do you use the MTG-1000 to time your Precisonist? I tried popping mine in it today and while it does blink seemingly in tune with the 16bps of the seconds hand no data gets displayed and no sound cones out (no sync).


Sorry if I was unclear - it is not possible to measure ANY quartz movement with the MTG-1000, strictly analog (i.e. mechanical/automatic) movements, not digital (i.e. quartz) movements.

HTH


----------



## webvan

Makes sense, looks like you have a Microset on order now. I'd inquired about a quartz equivalent for the MTG-1000 and it was close to $1k, a bit steep when one has the video method ;-) Does your total come to $295+$40 for the Microset 3+Quartz/Accutron sensor?


----------



## gaijin

webvan said:


> Makes sense, looks like you have a Microset on order now. I'd inquired about a quartz equivalent for the MTG-1000 and it was close to $1k, a bit steep when one has the video method ;-) Does your total come to $295+$40 for the Microset 3+Quartz/Accutron sensor?


Yes, Microset is on order, but it comes to a bit more:

Microset 3 - $295
TCXO Timebase - $125
Windows Interface ver.3 - $175
USB to serial adapter - $20
Accutron sensor - $40

Current total: $655

Based on further discussions with Bryan Mumford tomorrow, there may also be an additional $350 for a GPS Reference Receiver, but initial thoughts are that it would not be necessary. If the GPS Reference Receiver is purchased, then we are looking at over $1000.

I agree wholeheartedly that 41 weeks of data using the video/stopwatch method should be enough to address the perception issues surrounding the Precisionist, apparently they are not. Until someone does BOTH the real data gathering over time as I have AND alternate rate measurement techniques like the Microset ON THE SAME WATCH, and reports on the correlation or lack thereof between the two methods, then the questions about the Precisionist as a HAQ will never be put to rest.

I'm all about data - the more the better. The more data we present that can be replicated by others and share our findings, the better off we will be. All one needs to replicate my data is access to the internet (for an accurate time reference), a stopwatch, and time (i.e. patience). In order to replicate the Microset data, however, requires a significant monetary investment.

In any event, I know at what rate my watch is running, and I know it is not exhibiting any "aging" phenomenon. We'll see what the Microset says. ;-)

HTH


----------



## webvan

Should be fun playing with that new toy but it's not needed to figure out the aging pattern of a watch, Precisionist or otherwise. No one's doubting your good results with your watch but there are several of us whose Precisionist lost it after a few months, that's an undisputed fact.

The other fact is that Bulova don't stand by their +/- 10 spy claim, which HAQ experts like us knew (just looking at the behaviour of the similar 8Fxx movements) was too good to be true anyway without a VHF quartz or TC. You have now seen the impact of the variation between worn and room. That was always going to be there, regardless of aging.

So yes, maybe there was a particularly bad batch at inception in 2010 (B0) but the guy who tried to get Bulova to stand by their accuracy claim had a B1, so that wasn't totally addressed if at all.

At the end of the day it's a relatively cheap watch and hoping it would match the 10x priced Citizen/Seiko was wishful thinking. As of today the best bet for accuracy (and price) is still to get a vintage Omega 1441/1445/1680 and regulate yourself to +/- 2 spy. I have a few like that and love them ;-)


----------



## gaijin

Week 42 overall, week 23 off the wrist:










Current rate = +5.00 seconds/year

HTH


----------



## jehanzeb

Replaced my existing 98B152 with another due to battery not being new when purchased:

Model Number = 98B152
Design Number = C960945
Serial Number = 14021665
Hardware Version B2
Date Acquired September 2nd 2012

So far, it is in sync with Time.gov. Will post updates in a month or so.


----------



## gaijin

jehanzeb said:


> Replaced my existing 98B152 with another due to battery not being new when purchased:
> 
> Model Number = 98B152
> Design Number = C960945
> Serial Number = 14021665
> Hardware Version B2
> Date Acquired September 2nd 2012
> 
> So far, it is in sync with Time.gov. Will post updates in a month or so.


Thank you very much for the information. Looking forward to your updates.


----------



## gaijin

Week 43 overall, week 24 off the wrist:










Current rate = +5.18 seconds/year

HTH


----------



## gaijin

Week 44 overall, week 25 off the wrist:










Current rate = +5.33 seconds/year

HTH


----------



## Precise

My Precisionist was gaining a very steady 60 sec/year. I was the second owner and according to their website, the three year guarantee applied only to the original owner. However they agreed to regulate it under the guarantee, knowing I was not the original owner. The charge was $10 including shipping.

I've had it back 4 days and cannot see a deviation in that time. Listening to WWV and observing the second hand through a magnifier, I think I could detect 0.1 second. Although I do not see a shift of 0.1 sec, assuming that to be the shift in four days would make it accurate to about 10 sec per year. It's been off my wrist all but about 8 hours of that 4 days.

I'll report back in about a month.


----------



## webvan

That's very interesting, mine is performing just as bad, about +65 spy, but I hadn't really looked into sending it after a UK member here got told by Bulova that they couldn't help him and that accuracy varies with temperature, that the 10 spy had to be looked at for a full year, blah, blah, blah...How did you about contacting Bulova ? Did you just send it in using the form here Bulova or had you called/exchanged emails first ?


----------



## Precise

I started with the form. They responded and then we exchanged a few emails.

Alan



webvan said:


> That's very interesting, mine is performing just as bad, about +65 spy, but I hadn't really looked into sending it after a UK member here got told by Bulova that they couldn't help him and that accuracy varies with temperature, that the 10 spy had to be looked at for a full year, blah, blah, blah...How did you about contacting Bulova ? Did you just send it in using the form here Bulova or had you called/exchanged emails first ?


----------



## webvan

Thanks, I'll try that approach too. Went back and it's not a form that can get sent online, it needs to be printed and sent along with the watch, is that what you did?


----------



## Precise

webvan said:


> Thanks, I'll try that approach too. Went back and it's not a form that can get sent online, it needs to be printed and sent along with the watch, is that what you did?


Try this: [email protected]


----------



## Precise

Precise said:


> My Precisionist was gaining a very steady 60 sec/year. I was the second owner and according to their website, the three year guarantee applied only to the original owner. However they agreed to regulate it under the guarantee, knowing I was not the original owner. The charge was $10 including shipping.
> 
> I've had it back 4 days and cannot see a deviation in that time. Listening to WWV and observing the second hand through a magnifier, I think I could detect 0.1 second. Although I do not see a shift of 0.1 sec, assuming that to be the shift in four days would make it accurate to about 10 sec per year. It's been off my wrist all but about 8 hours of that 4 days.
> 
> I'll report back in about a month.


Well, it's half-a-month but the accuracy is uncanny. As mentioned above, I think I would see a change of 0.1 sec -- if it were there. But I can't see *any* shift after 15 days. And if it had shifted 0.1 sec, that would work out to 2.4 sec per year! Yoiks! It's scary!

Alan


----------



## webvan

That's really good, hope it stays there!

Thanks for the email address, I just wrote and will be awaiting their reply.


----------



## Precise

Precise said:


> My Precisionist was gaining a very steady 60 sec/year. I was the second owner and according to their website, the three year guarantee applied only to the original owner. However they agreed to regulate it under the guarantee, knowing I was not the original owner. The charge was $10 including shipping.
> 
> I've had it back 4 days and cannot see a deviation in that time. Listening to WWV and observing the second hand through a magnifier, I think I could detect 0.1 second. Although I do not see a shift of 0.1 sec, assuming that to be the shift in four days would make it accurate to about 10 sec per year. It's been off my wrist all but about 8 hours of that 4 days.


I've been checking it every few days but I haven't seen *any* shift at any check. But even *if* it had shifted 0.1 sec after 21 days, that would work out to 1.7 sec per year!

Do I get bragging rights for this forum's most accurate watch? Step up and brag guys!

Alan


----------



## webvan

webvan said:


> That's really good, hope it stays there!
> 
> Thanks for the email address, I just wrote and will be awaiting their reply.


Heard back within 24 hours and now the watch is on their way to them. Hopefully they'll set it straight like yours.


----------



## jehanzeb

jehanzeb said:


> Replaced my existing 98B152 with another due to battery not being new when purchased:
> 
> Model Number = 98B152
> Design Number = C960945
> Serial Number = 14021665
> Hardware Version B2
> Date Acquired September 2nd 2012
> 
> So far, it is in sync with Time.gov. Will post updates in a month or so.


Update:

I have only been wearing it once a week so it is fast by three seconds when syncing with time.gov.
This watch may not be as accurate as the last one but I wore that watch every day. 
Will update in another month or so.

Btw, thanks for the tip from Alan we can at least request Bulova to regulate our watches.


----------



## Precise

Precise said:


> I've been checking it every few days but I haven't seen *any* shift at any check. But even *if* it had shifted 0.1 sec after 21 days, that would work out to 1.7 sec per year!
> 
> Do I get bragging rights for this forum's most accurate watch? Step up and brag guys!
> 
> Alan


 It's now a full month. It's been checked ten times over this month but I still haven't seen even 0.1 second error. Yoiks!


----------



## EdwardChen

Quick update after exactly 2 months. I believe i wear it approximately once a week (on average)

Date/Time	Difference (s)	Seconds/Year	
8/23/2012 12:30:00	0 Reset (new)
8/27/2012 12:20:00	0	0	
9/5/2012 10:33:00	0	0	
9/21/2012 9:04:00	-1	-12.6486018193197	
10/2/2012 11:25:00	-1	-9.13530894238327	
10/23/2012 1:22:00	2	12.0589180011942

In summary, it appears to be +2s/2months, or approximately +12spy on average.



EdwardChen said:


> gaijin, just wanted to thank you for your updates. I just received my Precisionist today and will start tracking. I'm not in it for the HAQ, just for the smooth movement, but I like tracking all my watches anyhow. I got the simplest one as I'm trying to use it in dressier occasions. I'll probably put it on leather very soon.
> 
> deets:
> 
> Model Number: 96B159
> Design Number: C860917
> Hardware Version: B2
> Date Purchased August 15, 2012


----------



## Alpinist

just wondering... its an analog watch, how do you get the decimal point calculations ?


----------



## sleeky

EdwardChen said:


> gaijin, just wanted to thank you for your updates. I just received my Precisionist today and will start tracking. I'm not in it for the HAQ, just for the smooth movement, but I like tracking all my watches anyhow. I got the simplest one as I'm trying to use it in dressier occasions. I'll probably put it on leather very soon.
> 
> deets:
> 
> Model Number: 96B159
> Design Number: C860917
> Hardware Version: B2
> Date Purchased August 15, 2012
> 
> View attachment 800169


Just ordered one of these for myself, I think its the best looking one in the range


----------



## Precise

Alpinist said:


> just wondering... its an analog watch, how do you get the decimal point calculations ?


The dial has marks every 0.2 seconds and the hand steps every .062 seconds.

I view the second hand under a magnifying glass while listening to clicks on WWV. I watch it for a few minutes -- noting the exact position of the second hand for every click. I think I can see to an accuracy of 0.1 second this way.

I checked the watch again tonight. I still have not seen any deviation in the 38 days that I've been checking it (since regulation by Bulova). Each click sounds when the second hand is 0.6 seconds before the exact time.

Alan


----------



## gaijin

Week 49 overall, week 30 off the wrist:










Current rate = +6.24 seconds/year

Ambient temp here is much colder now. Storage temp for the Precisionist is around 64-66*F.

HTH


----------



## RogerE

My watchmaker, who is a Bulova dealer and who has been sizing my Grand Seiko and Chronomaster quartz bracelets for the past few years talked me into buying a Precisionist 14 months ago. It's a little big for my wrist, so I put it in a watch case 2 weeks after buying it. I checked it while I was looking for another watch last week, and that puppy gained 25 seconds in just over a year. I have numerous Grand Seikos that without being worn stay accurate within a few seconds per year. Yes, they cost 10 times as much as the Precisionist, but why does Bulova bother with the accuracy claims? Most people buying a $300 watch don't care. Just my 2 cents.


----------



## Eeeb

RogerE said:


> ... why does Bulova bother with the accuracy claims? Most people buying a $300 watch don't care. Just my 2 cents.


Having worked for several large corporations I have seen a vast difference in how communications to customers are handled. Some allow individual departments to say what they want. The last one I worked for (an infrastructure utility provider) required Legal to review communications.

Bulova is obviously one of the former.


----------



## webvan

Precise said:


> My Precisionist was gaining a very steady 60 sec/year. I was the second owner and according to their website, the three year guarantee applied only to the original owner. However they agreed to regulate it under the guarantee, knowing I was not the original owner. The charge was $10 including shipping.


Thanks again for the tip, I sent in mine about a month ago and just ok'd the cost, shipping only since it's under warranty, but still a rather hefty $30 (plus the $20 it cost me to send it out) since I'm not currently in the US, with the complimentary movement service clocking in at $85 (they'll certainly just swap the movement). Hopefully it will come back keeping better time than it's current +65 spy, after being at +5 spy for a couple of months.

It would make sense that for work under warranty the shipping costs would be shared but they're calling the shots...


----------



## Sabresoft

webvan said:


> Thanks again for the tip, I sent in mine about a month ago and just ok'd the cost, shipping only since it's under warranty, but still a rather hefty $30 (plus the $20 it cost me to send it out) since I'm not currently in the US, with the complimentary movement service clocking in at $85 (they'll certainly just swap the movement). Hopefully it will come back keeping better time than it's current +65 spy, after being at +5 spy for a couple of months.
> 
> It would make sense that for work under warranty the shipping costs would be shared but they're calling the shots...


Which model do you have?

I'm trying to decide if I want to send my Claremont model back or just sell it. I tend to like watches with more complications and was waiting for the Precisionist Chronograph models to appear. I went in recently to look at the Chrono model when it started appearing in stores in October, but wasn't to impressed with the size, heft and blingy shininess and end up coming home with another Citizen AT watch instead.


----------



## webvan

It's this one : https://www.watchuseek.com/f9/bulova-precisionist-claremont-96b127-pictorial-471507.html - 96B127

Yeah the chrono is rather showy...rubber version a bit better I think.

What's the (in)accuracy of yours?


----------



## gaijin

*Re: Precisionist 98B153 Accuracy Tracking*

It has been 52 weeks since I started this test and here is the final graph:










After having been worn for 20 weeks and stored for 32 weeks, my Precisionist 98B153 measured today at +6.71(6.84-0.13) seconds for the year.

While being worn, it performed well within the +10s/y spec by deviating less than one second.

While being stored, it performed just slightly worse than the upper end of the spec at about +11s/y.

Conclusion:

1. If worn for about half the time in a temperate climate, my Precisionist 98B153 easily performs within Bulova's published specification of +10s/y.

I hope you all enjoyed the journey. Even though this particular test is done, I have more work to do using my newly acquired Microset Timer - stay tuned for those studies. ;-)

HTH

ETA: A wrist shot of my Precisionist 98B153:


----------



## h2oflyer

Do Precisionist's come with serial numbers, as I believe this thread is about a "lucky" number rather than the model or Bulova.

I also have a lucky watch and running an endless accuracy thread about this sample does nothing to promote rate results on this model. My seven year old Tissot, which is
now my yard work beater, started out at between 30 and 40 spy slow and now is an amazing -11spy at last DST change, probably due to crystal aging which could go to +60spy or higher
at next DST check.

Do I have a HAQ Tissot....no. Do I have a lucky sample....yes. Does anyone at HAQ care....no. Possibly a need for a "lucky" watch sub forum :-d

Walter


----------



## gaijin

h2oflyer said:


> Do Precisionist's come with serial numbers, as I believe this thread is about a "lucky" number rather than the model or Bulova.
> 
> I also have a lucky watch and running an endless accuracy thread about this sample does nothing to promote rate results on this model. My seven year old Tissot, which is
> now my yard work beater, started out at between 30 and 40 spy slow and now is an amazing -11spy at last DST change, probably due to crystal aging which could go to +60spy or higher
> at next DST check.
> 
> Do I have a HAQ Tissot....no. Do I have a lucky sample....yes. Does anyone at HAQ care....no. Possibly a need for a "lucky" watch sub forum :-d
> 
> Walter


You're welcome. ;-)


----------



## jehanzeb

webvan said:


> Hopefully it will come back keeping better time than it's current +65 spy, after being at +5 spy for a couple of months.


Please share the updates when you get it back. Thanks!


----------



## webvan

Watch came back today and I've set it and gotten a reference time using the video method so we should know what to expect in a bout a week.

Not much in the way of documentation, they did leave the readings of what looks like a waterproof test...and upon close inspection I can see a spec of dust on the seconds hand, hum...


----------



## webvan

Well I've got *some bad news*, that piece of crap has gained *2.4 seconds in 8 days* face up on my desk, so that's *+ 100 spy*, i.e. even worse than previously when it was at +70 spy. The people at Bulova have no shame.

I'm going to give them an earful but at the tune of $50 shipping ($20 out, $30 back) I think I'm going to write it off for good and forget about getting the chronograph version.


----------



## Hans Moleman

webvan said:


> Well I've got *some bad news*, that piece of crap has gained *2.4 seconds in 8 days* face up on my desk, so that's *+ 100 spy*, i.e. even worse than previously when it was at +70 spy. The people at Bulova have no shame.
> 
> I'm going to give them an earful but at the tune of $50 shipping ($20 out, $30 back) I think I'm going to write it off for good and forget about getting the chronograph version.


Sorry to hear that. 
Thanks for doing the dirty work.


----------



## ronalddheld

If that is indicative of their maintenance, then it seems as if their standards are poor.


----------



## Eeeb

Looks like they did a movement swap and then shipped without checking... a 'normal' service. 

At least it worked. My watchmaker just serviced an Ebel Sportwave for me. He had to order a new movement (for $300 - his cost! :-(). The first one that came in didn't work at all... QC varies all over the world and the default seems to be 'ship it!' LOL


----------



## Sabresoft

webvan said:


> It's this one : https://www.watchuseek.com/f9/bulova-precisionist-claremont-96b127-pictorial-471507.html - 96B127
> 
> Yeah the chrono is rather showy...rubber version a bit better I think.
> 
> What's the (in)accuracy of yours?


Sort of missed your reply to my earlier message.

My performance was +25 SPY in last year's test and +40 SPY in this year's. I have 4 TC watches doing between 4 and 15 SPY, and 6 RC watches that at worst sync once or twice a week (2 Casios) or pretty much daily (4 Citizens) so I don't see much percentage in chasing the Bulova any longer.


----------



## Sabresoft

webvan said:


> Well I've got *some bad news*, that piece of crap has gained *2.4 seconds in 8 days* face up on my desk, so that's *+ 100 spy*, i.e. even worse than previously when it was at +70 spy. The people at Bulova have no shame.
> 
> I'm going to give them an earful but at the tune of $50 shipping ($20 out, $30 back) I think I'm going to write it off for good and forget about getting the chronograph version.


I had thought about sending my Claremont back like you did. Your results have made me change my mind. Thanks for doing the leg work for us, but sorry about your wasted funds.


----------



## dwjquest

webvan said:


> Well I've got *some bad news*, that piece of crap has gained *2.4 seconds in 8 days* face up on my desk, so that's *+ 100 spy*, i.e. even worse than previously when it was at +70 spy. The people at Bulova have no shame.
> 
> I'm going to give them an earful but at the tune of $50 shipping ($20 out, $30 back) I think I'm going to write it off for good and forget about getting the chronograph version.


I also sent my Precisionist back for repair as it was running at 47 spy. Came back and is now running at a very nice 47 spy. I don't think that they even opened the case.

Gave it what we call a "sunshine" repair job. Let it set in the sun for a while and then send it back.


----------



## webvan

Wow, that's really bad news...it seems our friend "Precise" who advertized that movement swap here got very lucky!

I have half a mind to put a stop payment on my $30.67 credit card payment to these thieves. Did you contact them after you noticed nothing had changed? I sent a certain Ralph Johnson (Bulova Watch Service Dept., Service Material Agent, [email protected], Work 718 204 3234, Fax 718 204 3596) who'd written to tell me I had to pay $30 if I wanted my watch back) an email but have not heard back from him...It's not been 24 hours yet but I suppose there's still a chance he's going to reply and tell me that I can send it back on my dime and pay $30 for return shipping for them to toss it in a drawer for 6 weeks before sending it back...

I looked up the screen print he'd sent me when I enquired about the status and now I'm seeing "*NOT WORKING*" for the movement, so I suppose they noticed it was working, totally disregarded all the details I had sent about the time keeping, and water tested it!


----------



## Eeeb

dwjquest said:


> I also sent my Precisionist back for repair as it was running at 47 spy. Came back and is now running at a very nice 47 spy. I don't think that they even opened the case.
> 
> Gave it what we call a "sunshine" repair job. Let it set in the sun for a while and then send it back.


I wonder if Citizen/Bulova realizes how damaging to their reputation these are? If I were their management I'd be all over their service folks... (That's an American expression meaning yelling and screaming would ensue!)


----------



## webvan

Based on their shoddy quality control out of the gate they probably can't care less. Having said that I'd met Francie Abraham, S.V.P. and Chief Marketing Officer, Bulova Corporation at Baselworld in 2010 so I'll send her an email if the clowns at Bulova Service don't wake up ans smell the coffee.


----------



## ronalddheld

Any talk of accuracy is mostly marketing. I do not recall seeing consistent high accuracies from our posters.


----------



## webvan

Yes but we're past that first problem, now we're dealing with service people who take the watch in because it doesn't meet the specs and then send it back with the same problem, and possibly the same movement, while "charging" (to their warranty for now) cost of "repairing the movement". This is one step further in the deception and unsuspecting customers should be aware of it.


----------



## Sabresoft

Unfortunately this forum is probably the only place where this dialogue is taking place, so it's doubtful that Bulova is feeling much impact.


----------



## fmc000

Oh well, based on what I read in this thread my idea to buy a 97B110 PRECISIONIST LONGWOOD in 2013 simply vanished. I suppose that that's what public forums are for. 
Thanks Watchuseek!!


----------



## Eeeb

fmc000 said:


> Oh well, based on what I read in this thread my idea to buy a 97B110 PRECISIONIST LONGWOOD in 2013 simply vanished. I suppose that that's what public forums are for.
> Thanks Watchuseek!!


It is interesting the impact public forums are having in the industry. WUS gets about 3 million different people visiting each year. (Most lurk as guests, just reading.) WUS alone exceeds the combined circulation of all watch magazines combined. (WUS is now the largest, exceeding visits to the longer established TimeZone last year.)

Some of the smaller vendors are more adept and have seized the opportunity and sponsor Official Forums here. Most of the larger companies have folks who read the forum but never post in an official capacity. Should a random employee post with company identification, they disappear quickly. I assume the company has people who do what I used to do sometimes when I worked information security for a large phone company - find the person and get them fired or disciplined for speaking out of turn (not a fun part of the job).

But one stands out, TAGHeuer. The CEO is a member and has directly addressed several service/product issues with personal posts and emails. They are trying to embrace the new market. (They are big into Facebook too.) I see that as one of the reasons the marque has risen as fast as it has. Obviously the same can not be said of Citizen/Bulova. Oh well...


----------



## RogerE

fmc000 said:


> Oh well, based on what I read in this thread my idea to buy a 97B110 PRECISIONIST LONGWOOD in 2013 simply vanished. I suppose that that's what public forums are for.
> Thanks Watchuseek!!


It is still a good looking watch, plus it has the cool smooth motion sweep second hand. It is also more accurate than most watches and I think Costco carries them now (i.e., deep discount). You can never have too many watches!


----------



## webvan

webvan said:


> I sent a certain Ralph Johnson (Bulova Watch Service Dept., Service Material Agent, [email protected], Work 718 204 3234, Fax 718 204 3596) who'd written to tell me I had to pay $30 if I wanted my watch back) an email but have not heard back from him...It's not been 24 hours yet but I suppose there's still a chance he's going to reply and tell me that I can send it back on my dime and pay $30 for return shipping for them to toss it in a drawer for 6 weeks before sending it back...


Well it appears Ralph Johnson is a good man after all as he doesn't want me to part with more of my hard earned cash, offering to pay for shipping both ways to get that piece of crap Claremont Precisionist in line with the marketing blurb of a 10 spy accuracy? Not all, here's his suggestion :



> Please read below according to the service order manager:
> temperature plays a roll in the seconds lost and gain this test must be done over a period of a year, when the temperature gets warmer the seconds will change in the other direction.


Ah well all is good that ends well, these thieves cost me $50 to do nothing to my watch (or dwjquest's) but now assure me that it's perfectly normal that my watch gains 6 seconds per month when it's cold outside and will apparently lose 6 seconds per month when it's warm outside...assuming that was correct (it isn't, the impact of temperature when worn has to be close to zero and at room temp, 2 spm max) that doesn't apparently strike this clown as being problematic, what a sad company Bulova has become, dubious designs and taking their customers for a ride.


----------



## Hans Moleman

webvan said:


> Well it appears Ralph Johnson is a good man after all as he doesn't want me to part with more of my hard earned cash, offering to pay for shipping both ways to get that piece of crap Claremont Precisionist in line with the marketing blurb of a 10 spy accuracy? Not all, here's his suggestion :
> 
> Ah well all is good that ends well, these thieves cost me $50 to do nothing to my watch (or dwjquest) but now assure me that it's perfectly normal that my watch gains 6 seconds per month when it's cold outside and will apparently lose 6 seconds per month when it's warm outside...assuming that was correct (it isn't, the impact of temperature when worn has to be close to zero and at room temp, 2 spm max) that doesn't apparently strike this clown as being problematic, what a sad company Bulova has become, dubious designs and taking their customers for a ride.


Aha, the old temperature gamble: All these extra seconds will hopefully be lost again when the seasons change.

Let's hope no-one asks you for the time. "Could you ask me again in the summer, when my watch has slowed down enough?"

See if you can bite your tongue for one year. You'll prove him wrong in the end.


----------



## ronalddheld

Should we buy their watches with that attitude????


----------



## RejZoR

If you're so desperate for accuracy you buy Seiko Astron GPS or something from the Casio Multiband6/WaveCeptor series. If it successfulyl syncs every night, you're looking at 0,01 sec deviations if not even less.


----------



## ronalddheld

RejZoR said:


> If you're so desperate for accuracy you buy Seiko Astron GPS or something from the Casio Multiband6/WaveCeptor series. If it successfulyl syncs every night, you're looking at 0,01 sec deviations if not even less.


As has been stated many times those watches do not have intrinsic HAQ accuracy.


----------



## gaijin

ronalddheld said:


> As has been stated many times those watches do not have intrinsic HAQ accuracy.


Correct. The movements in those watches (GPS, Multiband6, etc.) are not as precise ... just more accurate ;-)


----------



## Hans Moleman

gaijin said:


> Correct. The movements in those watches (GPS, Multiband6, etc.) are not as precise ... just more accurate ;-)


Thought about a career in politics?


----------

