# Who makes the most accurate Quartz movement?



## Luminated (Dec 1, 2012)

This might be an odd question but I've often wonder who or which of these HAQ movements is actually the most accurate.


----------



## ronalddheld (May 5, 2005)

Luminated said:


> This might be an odd question but I've often wonder who or which of these HAQ movements is actually the most accurate.


Have you read any stickies or looked at recent threads?


----------



## wbird (Feb 25, 2015)

OP as far as I can tell it would be the Apple watch.


----------



## matador02 (Feb 17, 2010)

wbird said:


> OP as far as I can tell it would be the Apple watch.


How so?


----------



## matador02 (Feb 17, 2010)

From what I gather, any "ATOMIC" quartz watch would be the most accurate regardless of make.


----------



## wbird (Feb 25, 2015)

Sure most atomic watches are pretty accurate, but the Apple Watch is also thermocompensated.

In essence it runs at about 1s per month error. There isn't a RC, RX, or Bluetooth watch other than the Breitling B55 in the game.

What separates Apple is it syncs from a location and a frequency that allows it to be specd at a 50ms watch.

So best in the game as far as I know.


----------



## Skeptical (Sep 14, 2012)

Atomic watches are accurate if they receive a signal, but the movement itself is usually only rated +/-15 seconds per month, and do not qualify as HAQ.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Nom de Forum (Oct 17, 2012)

Perhaps the OP should specify the type of quartz movement he is asking about. Maybe differentiate atomic from non-atomic quartz movements. I think it is pure bologna to claim the Apple watch is the most accurate quartz movement. Take an Apple watch to some place on Earth where it can't update and then try to support that claim.


----------



## gangrel (Jun 25, 2015)

Nom de Forum said:


> Perhaps the OP should specify the type of quartz movement he is asking about. Maybe differentiate atomic from non-atomic quartz movements. I think it is pure bologna to claim the Apple watch is the most accurate quartz movement. Take an Apple watch to some place on Earth where it can't update and then try to support that claim.


Have you read the Apple watch threads here? In this forum? It's been discussed. Its intrinsic accuracy, on its own, makes it rate HAQ status. I don't recall if it beats the couple of 5 SPY movements, tho.


----------



## wbird (Feb 25, 2015)

Well Apple is certainly the best connected watch out there. Compared to say a 5 s/yr non-connected watch it would probably be in the game also based on its TC movement, how good well most folks don't much care. Sort of like I really don't care how well my brakes will work without ABS, I have ABS. 

Not many people travel to a place where they can't connect anyway, there just aren't that many places left on this planet where you can't get internet and make a Wi-Fi call. But that aside 50 ms accuracy is just a pretty remarkable specification.

I mean if by some fluke you were able to hack a great in its own right 5 s/yr watch perfectly by hand, and it was meeting specs, it would be more than 50 ms off in 5 days.


----------



## matador02 (Feb 17, 2010)

Skeptical said:


> Atomic watches are accurate if they receive a signal, but the movement itself is usually only rated +/-15 seconds per month, and do not qualify as HAQ.
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


 So an Apple watch is a HAQ, as another poster implied it's the most "HAQ".


----------



## wbird (Feb 25, 2015)

Well we do talk other technology in these parts and if he would have asked what is the most accurate wrist watch you can buy, than we might have to talk literally atomic watches and the answer may be different. But if you are talking quartz Apple is going to be hard to beat, but I could be wrong, somebody out there could be quoting better accuracy specs.


----------



## yankeexpress (Apr 7, 2013)

The ETA 251.264 movement is my most accurate non-atomic, non-connected watch....also my only certified HAQ:










Quartz chronograph movement ETA Thermoline Chronograph 251.264 BD PreciDrive. 5 stepper motors; hour hand can be quick adjusted. Hacking seconds. Provided chronograph is not running, battery life is some 72 months. Thermo adjusted.

Videos of an awesome chrono movement:
















One of the least expensive HAQ, especially pre-owned, as resale value sucks










Certina DS-2 Precidrive HAQ chrono



















Short amateur demo video showing the big chrono sweep hand:






Certina DS-2 Limited Edition Watch With High-End PreciDrive Movement | aBlogtoWatch

So far, it is dead nuts accurate. Found it as a brand new, reduced price, catch and release in the sales forum, under $450US.




























https://www.watchuseek.com/f9/certina-ds-2-precidrive-watches-940252.html


----------



## Skeptical (Sep 14, 2012)

I’m a little curious how the Apple Watch accuracy was determined. It will update on the cellular signal, as any phone, even my old Nextel flip phone from 10 years ago, will, so unless there’s a way to disconnect it and still measure the cock, I put it in the same category as atomics 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## ronalddheld (May 5, 2005)

I did a month test of the AW Series 2 off the network and found the offset to be around .2 to . 3 seconds off. On the network, it is alleged to be within 50 ms.
Some Hpptroff quartz watches are speced around a second a year. CSAC watches could be better than a second per century.


----------



## Nom de Forum (Oct 17, 2012)

gangrel said:


> Have you read the Apple watch threads here? In this forum? It's been discussed. Its intrinsic accuracy, on its own, makes it rate HAQ status. I don't recall if it beats the couple of 5 SPY movements, tho.


Yes.
Yes.
I know.
Indeed it does.
I don't think it does, but I am "receptive" ;-) to proof that it out performs the best HAQs .


----------



## hughesyn (Oct 9, 2014)

Luminated said:


> This might be an odd question but I've often wonder who or which of these HAQ movements is actually the most accurate.


I'm surprised no one has given the obvious answer Citizen A660, A010 and A060!

The accuracy of the Apple thing is irrelevant to me, since I wouldn't wear it if you paid me.
OK, maybe for 5 GBP per day I would wear it. No less.


----------



## tmathes (Jan 11, 2013)

hughesyn said:


> I'm surprised no one has given the obvious answer Citizen A660, A010 and A060!
> 
> The accuracy of the Apple thing is irrelevant to me, since I wouldn't wear it if you paid me.
> OK, maybe for 5 GBP per day I would wear it. No less.


:-!

I'll take my Speedmaster with it's wind-up mechanism and 7-8 sec/day accuracy over that iFruit thing.


----------



## Miguel (May 4, 2008)

Skeptical said:


> I'm a little curious how the Apple Watch accuracy was determined. It will update on the cellular signal, as any phone, even my old Nextel flip phone from 10 years ago, will, so unless there's a way to disconnect it and still measure the cock, I put it in the same category as atomics
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Sorry but it is like Apple claim about their sapphire crystal: putting it at real test, it does just as good as gorilla glass and nothing near as a true sapphire. I really do not any respect to this brand and their "obsolete by design" products. MHO.

Cheers,

Miguel


----------



## ronalddheld (May 5, 2005)

One's likes and dislikes of certain manufacturers do not change the specs.


----------



## Verdict (Nov 3, 2011)

Skeptical said:


> I'm a little curious how the Apple Watch accuracy was determined. It will update on the cellular signal, as any phone, even my old Nextel flip phone from 10 years ago, will, so unless there's a way to disconnect it and still measure the cock, I put it in the same category as atomics
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Measure the what?


----------



## chris01 (Jan 5, 2011)

Verdict said:


> Measure the what?


And you thought you had been looking at a *wrist* shot.:rodekaart


----------



## gaijin (Oct 29, 2007)

Who makes the most accurate quartz movement?

The name of this forum is HAQ (High Accuracy Quartz).

The common term that sticks out to me is, "quartz." To me, this means that the watch/movement has an onboard quartz oscillator. This oscillator may vibrate at different rates, may be augmented by a radio signal (RC) or a signal from a satellite (GPS); but the main timekeeping onboard reference for any HAQ or quartz movement is the quartz oscillator.

So-called "Atomic" watches from Casio and others have an onboard quartz oscillator and we discuss them here.

Watches like the Seko Astron are augmented by GPS and have an onboard quartz oscillator and we discuss them here.

Does the Apple Watch have an onboard quartz oscillator?

I don't believe it does. So my simple question is whether we should include the Apple Watch in the realm of HAQ or even quartz movements?

Thoughts?

HTH


----------



## ronalddheld (May 5, 2005)

AW uses MEMS, but I am at a watch event, and cannot look up the relevant link.
Edit: http://www.digitimes.com/news/a20140626PR200.html


----------



## DaveK12 (Mar 25, 2017)

gaijin said:


> Does the Apple Watch have an onboard quartz oscillator?
> 
> I don't believe it does. So my simple question is whether we should include the Apple Watch in the realm of HAQ or even quartz movements?
> 
> ...


Computers have quartz oscillators to control bus and clock speed, and often have more than one. Since TC is usually implemented by comparing two dissimilar crystals' change, a computing device has everything it needs to keep time as long as it's running, and may even already come with what it needs for TC with more than one oscillator onboard. Like the Apple Watch.

How would it keep time without one?


----------



## Tom-HK (Jan 6, 2015)

DaveK12 said:


> Since TC is usually implemented by comparing two dissimilar crystals' change


Is this how it's done on PCs? I only ask because I know relatively little about computers and I'm not sure if that's what you're saying. With regard to watches, we haven't seen the dual oscillator approach for a couple of decades, now. Seiko and ETA both had movements incorporating two quartz crystals, but regulation was always a right pain in the backside. These days temperature is determined by a thermistor and a certain count is deducted from the oscillator based on a predetermined performance table. It's all in the stickies.


----------



## wbird (Feb 25, 2015)

Seems to me if you want to rule out Apple on a technicality, than you have to make a choice between the Breitling B55, a Hoptroff, or a Morgenwerk. None of which are specd more accurate than an Apple but, with the combination of the sync and TC will easily out perform anything from ETA, Citizen, and Seiko.


----------



## gangrel (Jun 25, 2015)

Tom-HK said:


> Is this how it's done on PCs? I only ask because I know relatively little about computers and I'm not sure if that's what you're saying. With regard to watches, we haven't seen the dual oscillator approach for a couple of decades, now. Seiko and ETA both had movements incorporating two quartz crystals, but regulation was always a right pain in the backside. These days temperature is determined by a thermistor and a certain count is deducted from the oscillator based on a predetermined performance table. It's all in the stickies.


If I remember the articles on TC, the basic notion is that the oscillation frequency varies slightly with temp. TC checks the temp and adjusts; there are at least 2 methods mentioned to do that, altho I forget the details. But yeah, it's all hard coded in ROM tables (I presume), and doesn't require 2 oscillators.

A PC has an oscillator; my reading suggested there's a rather standard module for this that runs at 14.3 MHz. (7 * 14.3 == 100.1.) After that, you get into a phase lock loop to up the clock rate to what you want. That module is quartz-based, but apparently it's not necessary.

However, that's the processor clock. PCs have a real time clock that's completely separate. It has to be; the RTC has to operate separately from the processor, as when the machine's off. Again, all you need is an oscillator arrangement to provide the signal. PC real time clocks were actually notoriously inaccurate in the past; most likely, they were largely an afterthought and used dirt-cheap modules. (Think those $3 bulk-buy specials.) More recently, they're pretty good even without NTP...probably as accurate as standard quartz.

What Ronald mentioned is something like this:

https://www.sitime.com/products/32-khz-temperature-compensated-oscillators-tcxo


----------



## yankeexpress (Apr 7, 2013)

wbird said:


> Seems to me if you want to rule out Apple on a technicality, than you have to make a choice between the Breitling B55, a Hoptroff, or a Morgenwerk. None of which are specd more accurate than an Apple but, with the combination of the sync and TC will easily out perform anything from ETA, Citizen, and Seiko.


The last part may be incorrect as ETA 251.264 movement has TC and is certified HAQ. Citizen and Seiko have sync (atomic) versions (Casio does too).


----------



## wbird (Feb 25, 2015)

yankeexpress, it's the combination of sync and TC. Tell me a Japanese watch that syncs and has a better than 15 s/mo movement (500 ms/day) or one with TC that syncs. Tell me a an ETA 10 s/yr (27 ms/day) or better movement that has TC and syncs. 

Not sure what I got wrong, based on the math nothing you listed can compete with Apple or the ones I listed for accuracy based on their specs.


----------



## Tom-HK (Jan 6, 2015)

wbird said:


> Tell me a Japanese watch that syncs and has a better than 15 s/mo movement (500 ms/day)


Citizens with F150 movements are GPS synched and spec'd to 5 SPM.


----------



## Verdict (Nov 3, 2011)

Tom-HK said:


> Citizens with F150 movements are GPS synched and spec'd to 5 SPM.


I own a CC3000 series with a F150 movement. Would a rating of 5 SPM qualify it as a HAQ?


----------



## chris01 (Jan 5, 2011)

Verdict said:


> I own a CC3000 series with a F150 movement. Would a rating of 5 SPM qualify it as a HAQ?


60 SPY is way out of bounds, as far as our HAQ definition goes. Of course your watch may be better than spec.; mine does -15 SPY without synch. Pretty damn good but still not HAQ.


----------



## Drosen1 (Oct 13, 2017)

Interesting question. I stumbled upon this article while researching which would have the most accurate and it says Citizen.

Guide to High Accuracy Quartz (HAQ) Watches - Worn & Wound

Does anyone have any thoughts on this? Never owned a citizen in my life so not so sure.


----------



## wbird (Feb 25, 2015)

Thanks Tom, I stand corrected, didn't know about the F150 and the 166 ms/day and sync. It is certainly impressive but still not the more accurate than what I listed. Made me think are any of the RC Exceeds TC? They would certainly be part of the mix if they are.


----------



## topol2 (Jul 12, 2016)

Hey, not a "fancy" name but diver only 5 seconds slow since set at DST. That comes to about 0.7 seconds per month. And Moon Watch 2 seconds fast since DST sat. That's less than 0.3 seconds per month. And FYI, the diver on sale cost just slightly more that the Strapcode bracelet it is wearing.


----------



## ronalddheld (May 5, 2005)

topol2 said:


> Hey, not a "fancy" name but diver only 5 seconds slow since set at DST. That comes to about 0.7 seconds per month. And Moon Watch 2 seconds fast since DST sat. That's less than 0.3 seconds per month. And FYI, the diver on sale cost just slightly more that the Strapcode bracelet it is wearing.


You are fortunate with your watch, but ot is not likely to be in the few seconds a year for many years.


----------



## topol2 (Jul 12, 2016)

ronalddheld said:


> You are fortunate with your watch,.......


From what I read on this site most of the Bulova precisionist watches are roughly in this range. Years from now....we shall see.


----------



## wbird (Feb 25, 2015)

topol2, nice to see your watches are performing so well, but OP was asking for the best. So although there is place, and plenty of threads for those watches on this forum, this just isn't that thread.


----------



## topol2 (Jul 12, 2016)

wbird said:


> So although there is place, and plenty of threads for those watches on this forum, this just isn't that thread.


Didn't realize I needed your permission to post in this thread. When you have moderator status I'll heed your advice. In the meantime if my posts offend you please feel free to ignore them.


----------



## Triton9 (Sep 30, 2011)

topol2 said:


> Hey, not a "fancy" name but diver only 5 seconds slow since set at DST. That comes to about 0.7 seconds per month. And Moon Watch 2 seconds fast since DST sat. That's less than 0.3 seconds per month. And FYI, the diver on sale cost just slightly more that the Strapcode bracelet it is wearing.


Super smooth sweeping second hand and super accuracy plus most importantly. It does not cost a bomb. Mine is coming in next week. ;-)


----------



## ronalddheld (May 5, 2005)

Mr. Moderator prefers the threads to stay on topic.


----------



## wbird (Feb 25, 2015)

topol2 said:


> Didn't realize I needed your permission to post in this thread. When you have moderator status I'll heed your advice. In the meantime if my posts offend you please feel free to ignore them.


Not offended at all, and you certainly don't need my permission to post anything anywhere. I think from all my previous posts it's clear I like Bulova and think they make a nice watch, but "the most accurate quartz movement?" Your post just seemed to be out of left field considering the previous posts and OP's question. Unless you think Bulova is the best, if not why the post?


----------



## topol2 (Jul 12, 2016)

wbird said:


> Not offended at all, and you certainly don't need my permission to post anything anywhere. I think from all my previous posts it's clear I like Bulova and think they make a nice watch, but "the most accurate quartz movement?" Your post just seemed to be out of left field considering the previous posts and OP's question. Unless you think Bulova is the best, if not why the post?


A lot of the posts on this thread are about Apple "watches". I use the term loosely because they are not really a watch but rather a hybrid "wrist computer" with a watch function. Surely they do not meet the definition of having a quartz movement. Do you have a problem with them posting on the thread?

I posted because for the money the Bulova precisionist watches are heads and shoulders above most quartz watches and therefore I posted for comparison. If there were one most accurate this thread would be limited to one post because there can only be one "MOST" accurate...discounting ties of course.


----------



## ronalddheld (May 5, 2005)

Bulova is not in the same class as previously mentioned Seikos, Citizens and Hoptroffs.


----------



## wbird (Feb 25, 2015)

Honestly I don't know how the Apple watch works, the technology involved, or how different it is from quartz technology. I do know, they clearly went out of their way to incorporate watch accuracy to a level that exceeds anyone else in their category did. It is specd better than any watch short of an atomic clock so yeah I don't have any problem talking about it here. As far as price it's cheaper than most Precisionist, Tissot's, and Certina's so it packs a pretty good bang for the buck also.

If OP would have asked this question 5 or 10 years ago the answer would have been the "The Citizen," and I doubt if there would have been much discussion. Today as Ron mentioned there are a lot of contenders for the crown, in addition to the brands Ron cited, based on specs you have to add Longines, Breitling, and Morgenwerk before you get to Bulova. 

Clearly a Bulova is still a desirable watch to own even if it isn't the most accurate. Just like folks bought and continue to buy and enjoy a whole bunch of other HAQ watches, including a lot of those Certina's like the one Yankeexpress shows, while Citizen ruled the accuracy world. 

Like I said earlier, if you want to rule out Apple, my money would be on the B55 from Breitling, mainly because they have a whole lot of history with Superquartz being very good and it seems that they can consistently sync. Hoptroff and Morgenwerk are theoretically just as good, maybe better, I just don't have enough data on how well they have the TC part down.


----------



## ppaulusz (Feb 11, 2006)

wbird said:


> ...If OP would have asked this question 5 or 10 years ago the answer would have been the "The Citizen," and I doubt if there would have been much discussion...


Wrong!:https://www.watchuseek.com/f9/most-accurate-quartz-wristwatch-=-108825.html


----------



## topol2 (Jul 12, 2016)

I officially declare this the winner of the most accurate...probably not quartz though. Now I need a comfortable bracelet to go with it..


----------



## chris01 (Jan 5, 2011)

topol2 said:


> I officially declare this the winner of the most accurate...probably not quartz though. Now I need a comfortable bracelet to go with it..


We demand wrist shots. And preferably include your shoes, as so many others seem to find essential.


----------



## gangrel (Jun 25, 2015)

Know a good gray market dealer for one of those?


----------



## ronalddheld (May 5, 2005)

Single Atom clocks should be more accurate. I suspect all of them have Quartz oscillators to be disciplined.


----------



## wbird (Feb 25, 2015)

Well for about 13k$ you could get the Hoptroff atomic it?ll fit a little better on your wrist is accurate 1.5 s/ 1000 years and will sync to 30 ms. Their self proclaimed most accurate wrist watches in the world.


----------



## topol2 (Jul 12, 2016)

That's the best they could do on design.......FUGLY!!!


----------



## gangrel (Jun 25, 2015)

That comment has been made.

And that's one of the nicer looking ones.

But the accuracy comes with a big grain of salt, IIRC. The atomic timekeeping is voracious, eating through battery life very quickly. I don't believe it's practical to have it running more than a fraction of the day.


----------



## wbird (Feb 25, 2015)

Clearly you guys aren't into art deco, neither am I for that matter. But I'm guessing those designs are targeting buyers that recognize them as being similar to the pocket watch designs from Patek in the 1920's and 1930's, and are spending significant sums of cash for them at auctions. I gotta respect the marketing, it is an interesting blend of old design and new technology marketed at the core buyers of expensive time pieces.

That aside, cmon Gangrel battery life? Really? I mean that's like asking fuel mileage on a Ferrari, or trunk space on a Porsche 911. I'm sure you're right in full atomic mode with the laser, microwave, and oven firing away it's a drain, but in low power mode the battery is good for 3 months between USB charges and the accuracy is still crazy good.

On the positive side the Hoptroff's do make the design of a rose gold apple watch on mesh look a lot better if you're willing to give up 20ms of accuracy and save about $13k of cash.


----------



## ronalddheld (May 5, 2005)

Bathys made 10 of the CSAC. Their design might be more palatable.


----------



## gangrel (Jun 25, 2015)

I don't mind art deco. The proportions on this are way out of whack, tho. 

The battery issue is germane, because it means it can't operate with that level of accuracy all the time. A claim of 1 second every 1000 years...for the, IIRC, half hour or hour when the atomic is running? True enough, but fundamentally specious. Granted: they're saying in resonator mode, it's 1 second per century, and I agree, that's CRAZY good. (BUT, does it have jumping hour?????) How long can it run in this mode? That's not clear. The timekeeping discusses "atomic mode" and "atomic resonator mode"; the battery section mentions ~ 3 months between charges, in "low power mode." What does "low power mode" mean? If it's the same as "atomic resonator mode"...sure, I'll buy the 1 second per century as the core accuracy for the watch.


----------



## wbird (Feb 25, 2015)

Since OP doesn't seem to be showing any interest, I'll go a little off topic with you on the Hoptroff, Gangrel. I'm guessing there is not a whole lot he can do about the size. Bathys is (was?) a pretty big brick of a watch also. That's a whole lot of technology that they were trying to fit in there, if Hoptroff can stay in business maybe the future generations will get smaller. But on the upside it's still smaller than quite a few popular Invicta's.

How long is the battery life in full atomic mode got me, maybe you would have to charge it every night, but really it is kind of irrelevant. I mean the main point is that high level accuracy is available on demand. If god knows for whatever reason anyone needed 0.001 s/yr accuracy drift for some reason, it's capable, and they've got it, I'm assuming the owner only needs it long enough to show off, and that shouldn't take that long.

If we want to talk Hoptroff and quartz they are specing some like a Gravitas at 1 s/yr, they sync and they are under 500$ US.


----------



## ronalddheld (May 5, 2005)

For the record square, you should be able to go under a day in full atomic mode, AFAIR. In low power mode, the chip "wakes up" periodically, and does its correction.


----------



## gangrel (Jun 25, 2015)

Oh, I agree it's likely the size is required. Is the shape?  Or maybe he did it that way because you spread out up and down the arm more than you can across the wrist.

On the Gravitas, it's never been clear how often they need to sync to actually reach the 1 SPY. I remember the old thread, but that was a while back now. I may be misremembering how long you can run in atomic mode. We've brought them into the discussion, if someone reaches this point and wants to learn more about them. The old threads are still there.


----------



## ronalddheld (May 5, 2005)

The CSAC chip size dictates the overall watch size. I do not believe that will change in the near future.
The Hoptroff watches with ~1s/y spec have had more time spent in calibrating them. The exact method may be proprietary, AFAIR.


----------



## Roamy360 (Sep 23, 2011)

OK: Here's my take. I put my Grand Seiko SBGX061 with the 9F quartz in a box for about 4 months. I had already set it to my GPS (atomic) clock about a month earlier. When I took it back out it was maybe 1 second off. Don't know how you could get better accuracy than that. It was incredible to say the least.


----------



## krishan.adhikari (Sep 20, 2017)

CITIZEN unveils world’s most accurate Cal.0100 Eco-Drive*1.movement with annual accuracy ±1 second at BASELWORLD 2018



Sent from my CPH1725 using Tapatalk


----------



## Tom-HK (Jan 6, 2015)

krishan.adhikari said:


> CITIZEN unveils world's most accurate Cal.0100 Eco-Drive*1.movement with annual accuracy ±1 second at BASELWORLD 2018
> 
> Sent from my CPH1725 using Tapatalk


If you want to resurrect old threads to repeat information that is already discussed at length elsewhere, then I might as well give a nod to the extensive Morgenwerk thread and that brand's spec of 0.75 seconds per year.

That's not to say we actually have a lot of concrete evidence, yet, of Morgenwerks performing at 0.75 SPY, but it will be years before we even get our hands on the new Citizen so I wouldn't exactly call that movement 'tried and tested' either.


----------



## ronalddheld (May 5, 2005)

No need to bump old threads with news previously posted: https://www.watchuseek.com/f9/citizen-cal-0100-eco-drive-8-4mhz-4666235.html


----------



## Ranger822 (Feb 9, 2013)

I have been really satisfied with my Chronomaster which hasn't been set in 11 months and is +2 seconds fast and my Campanola w/A660 is +3 but it hasn't been reset since January of 2017. What is nice is the battery lasts about 5 years. I keep one for DST and the other for standard time. I am curious how well they will prove to be from one battery change to the next. with only a few seconds off per year I really don't see a need to hack them.


----------



## Tom-HK (Jan 6, 2015)

Ranger822 said:


> I have been really satisfied with my Chronomaster which hasn't been set in 11 months and is +2 seconds fast and my Campanola w/A660 is +3 but it hasn't been reset since January of 2017. What is nice is the battery lasts about 5 years. I keep one for DST and the other for standard time. I am curious how well they will prove to be from one battery change to the next. with only a few seconds off per year I really don't see a need to hack them.


Whilst I have often considered having one GS for DST and another for the proper time, this is mainly because GS choose not to incorporate an independently adjustable hour hand. Citizen, of course, do incorporate this feature. You can change the hour back and forth without hacking the watch. I am just curious as to why you prefer the two-watch option over the hand-setting approach?


----------



## tmathes (Jan 11, 2013)

Tom-HK said:


> Whilst I have often considered having one GS for DST and another for the proper time, this is mainly because GS choose not to incorporate an independently adjustable hour hand. Citizen, of course, do incorporate this feature. You can change the hour back and forth without hacking the watch. I am just curious as to why you prefer the two-watch option over the hand-setting approach?


Which kind of IAHH design is it, the mechanical like as in may Swiss watches or the motorized/electronic kind like in other Citizens and the Longines VHP?


----------



## Tom-HK (Jan 6, 2015)

tmathes said:


> Which kind of IAHH design is it, the mechanical like as in may Swiss watches or the motorized/electronic kind like in other Citizens and the Longines VHP?


I believe the A660 uses an electronic system (rather than a geared system) for moving its IAHH.


----------

