# BULOVA PRECISIONIST - TIMEKEEPING NOT TO STANDARD QUOTED



## Douglas Denny

I have a great interest in precision timekeeping, and bought recently a Bulova Precisionist being persuaded by the claim of better than ten seconds a year accuracy.

This however, is clearly not going to be achiveable with the Claremont Two tone watch I bought.

It has lost three and a half seconds already from when it arrived on 17th February that is 3 1/2 seconds in only five weeks; which if stable at this rate means a loss of 35 seconds in a year ....way-out from the claimed ten seconds accuracy. The watch has been kept mostly in its box at a stable temperature of near 28 degrees centigrade.

You might be interested in the exchange of e-mails when I complained about this to Bulova.

The exchange is on-going, and I am still not satisfied with their response. IN fact I think it is inadequate and unsatisfactory. I do not liike to be fobbed-off with arguments which are clearly not addressing the problem. It is clear they do not want to know about the inadequacies in accuracy I am experiencing with the Precisionist movement in my watch. I shall wait a little longer to continue with rating the watch and contact them again. I sent copies of the e-mails to their head office, customer service and watch servicing departments.

Here are the e-mails, progressing downwards:-
-----------------

COPY: 
Douglas Denny to Bulova. 03/02/2012

Dear Sir or Madam,
I recently bought a Bulova 'Precisionist' watch purely for the relatively
low cost compared with most temperature compensated watches for the exceptional timekeeping qualities which are ascribed to it, wishing to use it for navigational use as a precision timekeeper for
use at sea; i.e. in other words as a chronometer.

I have some reasonable horological expertise myself as I repair clocks, and
heve even repaired Bulove Accutron tuning fork movements myself, even
producing a strobe light triggered by variable frequency generator to
enable the adjustment of the jeweled indexing for the tuning fork accutron.
I also have still a 'Unisonic' divers watch which I bought in 1969.

The watch I bought : a Claremont Two Tone Ref 98B140 itself is a rather
large piece of 'bling', being much larger than I envisaged when I bought
it via the internet - I thought it would be a standard size like the Rolex
Explorer, but it is enormous for the small calibre movement inside so I was
not happy about that to start with; however, on rating the watch I found it
is nowhere near the accuracy you claim for it and it is this which I am
complaining about. The watch is acceptable as a chronometer in appearence
which is not too much of a problem, but the rate and accuracy is not
acceptable if your claims for accuracy are to be believed.

It arrived on Feb 13th and it has lost 1 and 1/2 seconds in three weeks in
a stable room temperatere. Now this is very good by anything expected of a
standard quartz watch but is double the worst error expected for what you
claim is possible for a Prescionist watch i.e. less than ten seconds per
year.

That will not go down well on the watch bloggs where watch performance is a
regular issue for comment. The race is on for a watch company to produce a
really outstanding perfrmance watch at reasonable cost. I thought this
watch would be exactly that - but it seems your claims are not viable.

Have you any comments to make about this?

I would be intersted to know if it is possible to change the rate with
adjustment at the source - i.e. the movement. I have done this with my
Casio Chronograph which is now over twenty years old, is a standard quartz
with capacitor adjustment and not themo-compensated, and maintains accuracy
of better than a second a week.
Yours faithfully, Douglas Denny.
----------------

Reply to my e-mail of 3rd March: 
BULOVA to Douglas Denny. March 07, 2012 Subject: Re: Bulova Precisionist - Timekeeping Not to Standard Quoted

_the rate is calculated over 1 year period. It can not be over a period of a
month or two and make the calculation for the year. As explained to our
service division that temperture changes come into play with the
precisionist. so in warmer season the performance will differ from colder
seasons.
I'm not saying that every movement is perfect. we have seen a very good
performance record on the precisionist models_
------------------

Reply to Bulova's e-mail of 7th March.
Douglas Denny to Bulova: 09 March 2012

Dear Sir or Madam,

Your unsigned reply, from an anonymous person, is very poor. It is an inadequate response with no technical information about the movement itself as I requested.

You admit that "not every movement is perfect" yet try to make a case for saying there is unlikely to be anything wrong with my particulat watch implying it 'might' be better in different seasons as th etemperature changes, and further imply I should threfore wait ayear to find out ! That is proposterous.

The watch has been kept in a constant 28 degrees Centigrade, which is what wrist temperature is, and is therefore not going to change its rate from one season to another. 

The bottom line is your watch is not fit for purpose for the claim you make for the "precisionist" movement, of better than ten seconds a year. 

I would normally request a refund from the supplier, but that is not fair as they are not responsible for claims made of it. The only recourse is, perhaps, to take Bulova UK to court action in the County (small-claims) court to recover my money, and that I shall consider when I have more evidence for the watch not fulfilling the claims you make for it. I shall wait a month or two more to confirm my experimetns with the rate.

I think your present response will be of interest on the "WATCHUSEEK" website for everyone to see the inadequate, almost dismissive, response from Bulova and for them to make up their minds as my practical experiments with your claims for accuracy. I think it ialready clear your precisionist movements in watches will not even be better than twenty seconds a year let alone ten.

My watch is now currently 2.8 seconds slow in four weeks: that means *36.4 seconds slow in a year* - well above what you claim for it of ten per year... and note at constant 28 degrees C. temperature - wrist temperature. Even my 1962 Mercer mechanical chronometer is nearly as good as that.
I shall look forward to your further reply.
Douglas Denny.

--------------------------------

BULOVA to Douglas Denny: 09 March 2012.
_
This month it may be 2 seconds fast this month it may be 2 seconds fast
next month. And the way its explained as the temperature changes it may run
slower off setting the seconds gained. and can only be judged over the one
year period.
Henry Encarnacion_

------------

ENDS. No further exchange of e-mails so far.


----------



## dicioccio

Quartz watches, as you know, are affected by temperature and some of them are engineered to work better at wrist temperature and worn a given amount of time, i.e. 12 hours a day.

May I suggest you to change the temperature pattern and recalculate the accuracy over a 6 months period ?

Unfortunately only thermocompensated movements have (as the word says) a very low thermo-sensitivity while uncompensated movements vary their accuracy depending on the temperature.


----------



## gaijin

Douglas,

I have been tracking the accuracy of my Bulova Precisionist model 98B153 for 17 weeks now with the following results:










These results are obviously better than you are experiencing with your watch and better than some had reported with earlier models as well.

I have a working hypothesis that the initial offering of Precisionist watches from Bulova were perhaps not as accurate as they could be, but the "Second Wave" of models introduced to the market are better.

On the back of your watch, among other numbers, will be an alphanumeric designation beginning with B - so far we have seen "B0" and B1" designations. It has been suggested, and I support the contention, that the "B0" models were manufactured in 2010 and the "B1" models were produced in 2011.

So far, accuracy reports from "B1" models have been better than "B0" models.

If possible, can you look on the back of your watch and let us know whether yours is a B0, B1 or possibly a B2?

TIA

HTH


----------



## Hans Moleman

Some people rate a watch over an entire year.
This skews the results favorably.
The gains in the warm season can be compensated for with the loss in the colder season.

That is not an acceptable way of measuring the performance:
Compare that with a car that swerves left and right while still remaining on the road. It hasn't left the road yet out of pure luck and not because of the car's steering design.

I am at a guess how Bulova can claim a 10 second per year rate without any wear requirements since it has proven to be quite sensitive to temperature.

Since Bulova advertises with a year's performance, you'll just have to sit it out until the year is done. Just don't forget about it!


----------



## starter

I realize this is the HAQ forum, and believe me, I definitely appreciate absolute precision in a watch... 

However you are of course aware that the methods of navigation for which you wish to implement the watch as timekeeper were invented and successfully utilized centuries before the first mechanical wristwatch, let alone quartz or or thermocompensated quartz? For general navigation, this watch should be fine to chart a redundant course and keep your GPS honest.


----------



## webvan

Thanks for sharing your exchange of emails with Bulova, I'd been meaning to take them to task myself on the claimed 10 spy accuracy but I feared I was going to waste my time, it seems I was right. Mine is currently ticking at a very poor +65spy.

Other than gaijin (yes we've established with 100% certainty that B0 stands for 2010, B1 for 2011, etc...not for hardware revisions of the movement) I'm not aware of anyone finding their Precisionist to be within the +/- 10 spy rating and as Hans points out, how could it since it's a "simple" HF Quartz without TC and that "serious" HAQ manufacturers like Seiko or Citizen explain you need a wearing pattern, even with a sophisticated TC movement.

This thread should be of interest to you : Bulova Precisionist Aging - both dwjquest's and my Precisionists were initially within spec before speeding up considerably, since yours is slow, that "feature" might help actually ;-)


----------



## v76

I can attest to gaijin's claim of accuracy for the B1 hardware revision of the Precisionist. Mine is running about 0.2 seconds fast after 11 weeks.


----------



## webvan

Good, but see how it goes over time (re the aging) and AGAIN, B1 is NOT the hardware revision, B1 is the year of manufacture, B1=2011, B0=2010, B2=2012, A6=2006, M9=1969, N4=1974, etc...


----------



## gaijin

webvan said:


> Thanks for sharing your exchange of emails with Bulova, I'd been meaning to take them to task myself on the claimed 10 spy accuracy but I feared I was going to waste my time, it seems I was right. Mine is currently ticking at a very poor +65spy.
> 
> Other than gaijin (yes we've established with 100% certainty that B0 stands for 2010, B1 for 2011, etc...not for hardware revisions of the movement) *I'm not aware of anyone finding their Precisionist to be within the +/- 10 spy rating and as Hans points out, how could it *since it's a "simple" HF Quartz without TC and that "serious" HAQ manufacturers like Seiko or Citizen explain you need a wearing pattern, even with a sophisticated TC movement.
> 
> This thread should be of interest to you : Bulova Precisionist Aging - both dwjquest's and my Precisionists were initially within spec before speeding up considerably, since yours is slow, that "feature" might help actually ;-)


Other than myself and v76, I know of no other accuracy reports for B1 (2011 manufacture) Precisionists. And both of us are tracking at <+1second/year.

Are you implying in the underlined statement above that even if I accumulate a year's worth of data showing <+10seconds/year accuracy it would still not be possible?

My hypothesis still stands pretty solidly supporting the performance of B0 Precisionist models is not up to expectation, but it also supports the performance of B1 model Precisionists as being very good.

I would really like to have more data. If you have any other performance data for B1 Precisionists, please share.

HTH


----------



## Sabresoft

My B0 Claremont was tracking to COSC limit 25.5 SPY over a 10 month test period. 

It is conceivable that in the B1 models they are pre-aging the crystals better, and possibly spending more time pre-adjusting the calibers before installing in the watches. After all continuing to advertise 10 SPY performance when the watches clearly aren't achieving that is a recipe for trouble, so they may be trying to fix things.


----------



## Catalin

Douglas Denny said:


> I have a great interest in precision timekeeping, and bought recently a Bulova Precisionist being persuaded by the claim of better than ten seconds a year accuracy.
> 
> This however, is clearly not going to be achiveable with the Claremont Two tone watch I bought.
> 
> It has lost three and a half seconds already from when it arrived on 17th February that is 3 1/2 seconds in only five weeks; which if stable at this rate means a loss of 35 seconds in a year ....way-out from the claimed ten seconds accuracy. The watch has been kept mostly in its box at a stable temperature of near 28 degrees centigrade.
> 
> You might be interested in the exchange of e-mails when I complained about this to Bulova.
> ...


I believe it is a very good thing that some of the people with a passion for high accuracy will write to the companies trying to sell such watches - and in this case I applaud both your observations on accuracy and those on the size (it might be telling that right now the most tempting model for me is an elegant ladies model - if it was 3-4mm bigger I would have probably got it but that size tendency is completely absurd :roll: :roll: :roll: ).

That being said:

- the Precisionist was from the start making very unlikely claims - 10 s/y (in large-scale industrial production) is not that easy as it might sound and 20s/y like in the Seiko 8F would have been a much more accurate description;

- that being said I believe a negative value at 28C is not that bad - it might be interesting to also see a rate around 22-23C or similar (and many HAQ watches are specified with some "wearing pattern" - like wearing it for 12 hours and leaving it for 12 hours on room temperature);

- also over one entire year the rate will most likely change due to aging and it IS possible to achieve in the first year around 10 s/y - but it would be very hard to say if the same could be possible in the 2nd or 3rd!


----------



## h2oflyer

I only own one HAQ and that is the SBCM023 which I actually wear in rotatation and correct the time at DST, which does limit my viewpoint on this subject. 
I, too, have owned "lucky" quartz watches.

I have followed the Precisionist since launch, and other than a couple of proud owners proclaiming outstanding accuracy, the claimed accuracy is not there.
Where are all the claims of trend setting accuracy? 

In my opinion the Precisionist is a marketing disaster and is viewed as "bling" by most purchasers. Those that have bought on technical specs are left disappointed.
It is wishfull thinking to hope that Bulova would improve next build generation to adhere to specs. Why would they, the smooth second hand still works.

Walter


----------



## LJUSMC

Sync the watch with an atomic clock, then try actually "wearing" the watch every day for several months; don't compare the watch to the clock for a few months, no matter how tempted you may be. You'll likely find that the accuracy to be acceptable at that point. A watch will NOT run within the specified parameters if it's just left alone in a watch box at a constant temperature for days or weeks on end.

Take the grand seiko quartz for example. I read one account where a person left it in a watch box for a year and it was +20 seconds after 12 months, which is way off from the +/- 10sec/year claim. However, another person who wore his every day for 12 months was +4 seconds.

Watches are meant to be worn, and they are designed with that in mind. They aren't designed to be +/- 10 seconds just sitting alone.



Douglas Denny said:


> I have a great interest in precision timekeeping, and bought recently a Bulova Precisionist being persuaded by the claim of better than ten seconds a year accuracy.
> 
> This however, is clearly not going to be achiveable with the Claremont Two tone watch I bought.
> 
> It has lost three and a half seconds already from when it arrived on 17th February that is 3 1/2 seconds in only five weeks; which if stable at this rate means a loss of 35 seconds in a year ....way-out from the claimed ten seconds accuracy. The watch has been kept mostly in its box at a stable temperature of near 28 degrees centigrade.
> 
> You might be interested in the exchange of e-mails when I complained about this to Bulova.
> 
> The exchange is on-going, and I am still not satisfied with their response. IN fact I think it is inadequate and unsatisfactory. I do not liike to be fobbed-off with arguments which are clearly not addressing the problem. It is clear they do not want to know about the inadequacies in accuracy I am experiencing with the Precisionist movement in my watch. I shall wait a little longer to continue with rating the watch and contact them again. I sent copies of the e-mails to their head office, customer service and watch servicing departments.
> 
> Here are the e-mails, progressing downwards:-
> -----------------
> 
> COPY:
> Douglas Denny to Bulova. 03/02/2012
> 
> Dear Sir or Madam,
> I recently bought a Bulova 'Precisionist' watch purely for the relatively
> low cost compared with most temperature compensated watches for the exceptional timekeeping qualities which are ascribed to it, wishing to use it for navigational use as a precision timekeeper for
> use at sea; i.e. in other words as a chronometer.
> 
> I have some reasonable horological expertise myself as I repair clocks, and
> heve even repaired Bulove Accutron tuning fork movements myself, even
> producing a strobe light triggered by variable frequency generator to
> enable the adjustment of the jeweled indexing for the tuning fork accutron.
> I also have still a 'Unisonic' divers watch which I bought in 1969.
> 
> The watch I bought : a Claremont Two Tone Ref 98B140 itself is a rather
> large piece of 'bling', being much larger than I envisaged when I bought
> it via the internet - I thought it would be a standard size like the Rolex
> Explorer, but it is enormous for the small calibre movement inside so I was
> not happy about that to start with; however, on rating the watch I found it
> is nowhere near the accuracy you claim for it and it is this which I am
> complaining about. The watch is acceptable as a chronometer in appearence
> which is not too much of a problem, but the rate and accuracy is not
> acceptable if your claims for accuracy are to be believed.
> 
> It arrived on Feb 13th and it has lost 1 and 1/2 seconds in three weeks in
> a stable room temperatere. Now this is very good by anything expected of a
> standard quartz watch but is double the worst error expected for what you
> claim is possible for a Prescionist watch i.e. less than ten seconds per
> year.
> 
> That will not go down well on the watch bloggs where watch performance is a
> regular issue for comment. The race is on for a watch company to produce a
> really outstanding perfrmance watch at reasonable cost. I thought this
> watch would be exactly that - but it seems your claims are not viable.
> 
> Have you any comments to make about this?
> 
> I would be intersted to know if it is possible to change the rate with
> adjustment at the source - i.e. the movement. I have done this with my
> Casio Chronograph which is now over twenty years old, is a standard quartz
> with capacitor adjustment and not themo-compensated, and maintains accuracy
> of better than a second a week.
> Yours faithfully, Douglas Denny.
> ----------------
> 
> Reply to my e-mail of 3rd March:
> BULOVA to Douglas Denny. March 07, 2012 Subject: Re: Bulova Precisionist - Timekeeping Not to Standard Quoted
> 
> _the rate is calculated over 1 year period. It can not be over a period of a
> month or two and make the calculation for the year. As explained to our
> service division that temperture changes come into play with the
> precisionist. so in warmer season the performance will differ from colder
> seasons.
> I'm not saying that every movement is perfect. we have seen a very good
> performance record on the precisionist models_
> ------------------
> 
> Reply to Bulova's e-mail of 7th March.
> Douglas Denny to Bulova: 09 March 2012
> 
> Dear Sir or Madam,
> 
> Your unsigned reply, from an anonymous person, is very poor. It is an inadequate response with no technical information about the movement itself as I requested.
> 
> You admit that "not every movement is perfect" yet try to make a case for saying there is unlikely to be anything wrong with my particulat watch implying it 'might' be better in different seasons as th etemperature changes, and further imply I should threfore wait ayear to find out ! That is proposterous.
> 
> The watch has been kept in a constant 28 degrees Centigrade, which is what wrist temperature is, and is therefore not going to change its rate from one season to another.
> 
> The bottom line is your watch is not fit for purpose for the claim you make for the "precisionist" movement, of better than ten seconds a year.
> 
> I would normally request a refund from the supplier, but that is not fair as they are not responsible for claims made of it. The only recourse is, perhaps, to take Bulova UK to court action in the County (small-claims) court to recover my money, and that I shall consider when I have more evidence for the watch not fulfilling the claims you make for it. I shall wait a month or two more to confirm my experimetns with the rate.
> 
> I think your present response will be of interest on the "WATCHUSEEK" website for everyone to see the inadequate, almost dismissive, response from Bulova and for them to make up their minds as my practical experiments with your claims for accuracy. I think it ialready clear your precisionist movements in watches will not even be better than twenty seconds a year let alone ten.
> 
> My watch is now currently 2.8 seconds slow in four weeks: that means *36.4 seconds slow in a year* - well above what you claim for it of ten per year... and note at constant 28 degrees C. temperature - wrist temperature. Even my 1962 Mercer mechanical chronometer is nearly as good as that.
> I shall look forward to your further reply.
> Douglas Denny.
> 
> --------------------------------
> 
> BULOVA to Douglas Denny: 09 March 2012.
> _
> This month it may be 2 seconds fast this month it may be 2 seconds fast
> next month. And the way its explained as the temperature changes it may run
> slower off setting the seconds gained. and can only be judged over the one
> year period.
> Henry Encarnacion_
> 
> ------------
> 
> ENDS. No further exchange of e-mails so far.


----------



## everose

This thread prompted me to send an email to Bulova UK asking 2 questions.

I asked:

1) Does Bulova recommend any wear pattern for Precisionist models?

 Ans) "you do not need to wear it every day to maintain the accuracy"


2) Does Precisionist have an eol batt indicator? 

 Ans) "the precisionist does not have a cell indicator to warn you when its dying."

........Sigh ! :-(


----------



## webvan

Clueless people, since you have them on the line, ask them what happens if the accuracy is not the guaranteed 10 spy ? Can it be sent in be adjusted ? If it gains 5 seconds in a month, can it be sent it after two months ?


----------



## Douglas Denny

gaijin said:


> Douglas,
> 
> I have been tracking the accuracy of my Bulova Precisionist model 98B153 for 17 weeks now with the following results:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> These results are obviously better than you are experiencing with your watch and better than some had reported with earlier models as well.
> 
> I have a working hypothesis that the initial offering of Precisionist watches from Bulova were perhaps not as accurate as they could be, but the "Second Wave" of models introduced to the market are better.
> 
> On the back of your watch, among other numbers, will be an alphanumeric designation beginning with B - so far we have seen "B0" and B1" designations. It has been suggested, and I support the contention, that the "B0" models were manufactured in 2010 and the "B1" models were produced in 2011.
> 
> So far, accuracy reports from "B1" models have been better than "B0" models.
> 
> If possible, can you look on the back of your watch and let us know whether yours is a B0, B1 or possibly a B2?
> 
> TIA
> 
> HTH


==========================

Dear Gaijin,

Thank you for your comments. It would seem from your experiments you have a 'lucky' watch with timekeeping qualities within standard quoted, and which I was rather hoping to obtain when I bought mine.

The watch I have is marked B1 on the back. I can time it to about a tenth of a second from radio time signals. And I have a Racal frequency standard available which is similarly accurate. The 'continuous' second hand is actually a fast impulse drive of what appears to be tenth second pulses.
-----

What I find particularly annoying about this business is that Bulova appear to have conned me into believing them. I did believe them, which is why I bought the watch.

One does not expect a world-wide known watch company to introduce a new design with a fanfare of publicity about it being within ten second per year if it clearly is not going to be upheld in practice and to subsequently have this claim demolished by a number of people. They have no right to make unsubstantiated claims of that nature in this business of precision timekeeping, and worse: even having the cheek to name the watch "Precisionist". It is NOT up to standard as claimed - period. It is NOT "precisionist" at all.

It is further annoying when they fall back on denying there is a problem and effectively saying go away for a year as you can't tell until then - nonsense! If like any other timekeeper, it is kept in a stable temperature it will have a constant rate for that particular temperature as far as the temperature compensation goes. Any variation is then due to other causes: air pressure variations, gravity direction, crystal ageing.

There is an excellent article I believe on this forum with all the technical details of the various precision watches produced so far, and that points out the difficulties of producing a watch movement accurate to ten seconds a year very clearly indeed. It is a very difficult standard to reach.

Crystal quality in purity and manfacture, cutting and ageing is all vitally importent, as is the temperature control / compensation method used.
Yet there is no information forthcoming by Bulova on their 'precisionist' movement. Why? In my experience of life, a company that will not give out technical data has something to hide. Making extravagant claims they cannot substantiate in practice, or even shown to be possible with the technical detail of design is very suspicious. Perhaps they *know* it is not up to standard and won't say if the sales are continuing well.

It also seems they are relying on the wearing of the watch to maintain a constant temperature, and random gravitional directions to even out variations. If so - why don't they say so?

I think the bottom line is they have made a completely unrealistic claim of ten SPY, are now caught out, and are closing ranks to fend-off people like me who are not satisfied and have the cheek to complain to them.

They should have said in the beginning their watches are only capable of around thirty SPY and be done with it instead of being duplicitous.

Bulova made great use of publicising the exact details of the revolutionary 'Acutron' movement in the 1960s - why are they so reluctant to give technical details of this 'precisionist'(-not) movement now?

I wanted a stand-alone watch of superb timekeeping accuracy over long periods to use as a standard timekeeper, at reasonable cost, and ten seconds per year as promised by Bulova was the attraction. I am now severely disappointed.

Douglas Denny.


----------



## Hans Moleman

> even having the cheek to name the watch "Precisionist"


They can't possibly be that brazen!

Yes they can. The marketers know that people will stumble over a small lie yet happily accept a massive one.
Just be sure to make the lie so large that its beyond expectation of ordinary folk.

What can you do now?

Complain, and you'll get another one with the same defects.

On the other hand, people here struggle to get a respectable rate from watches that cost ten times as much.
Bulova isn't the first whose claims are a bit 'enthusiastic'.


----------



## LJUSMC

webvan said:


> Clueless people, since you have them on the line, ask them what happens if the accuracy is not the guaranteed 10 spy ? Can it be sent in be adjusted ? If it gains 5 seconds in a month, can it be sent it after two months ?


I wouldn't expect them to regulate it. Even Seiko says that although they anticipate 10spy out of their GS quartz models, they won't regulate it under warranty just because of an accuracy issue.


----------



## everose

Perhaps it should have been called "*Precision'ish" *:-x !


----------



## John MS

You have the Bulova explanation as well as the warranty and instructions. In essence the watch will likely perform within specs if you wear the watch as specified. If you want higher short term accuracy off the wrist then you will probably have to pay more. Or raher than fighting a losing battle with the service department you should ask for a replacement from the selling dealer.


----------



## gsmcquarrie

John MS said:


> You have the Bulova explanation as well as the warranty and instructions. In essence the watch will likely perform within specs if you wear the watch as specified. If you want higher short term accuracy off the wrist then you will probably have to pay more. Or raher than fighting a losing battle with the service department you should ask for a replacement from the selling dealer.


I have two Bulova Precisionists, and while one of them after 9 months keeps time not within 10sec/yr, but certainly within the COSC standard that is often quoted. (~25s/y) the other one does not even meet that standard. They both did to begin with, but both have drifted off over the time I've had them. I checked in the instruction and warranty booklet and was surprised to note that there was NO discussion as to accuracy nor any wearing time recommendations. The only mention of their purported accuracy was in their advertising, and it appears that this has been seriously overstated based upon what I have read here. I think that the fact that there is no discussion with regard to accuracy in the official documentation, is telling.


----------



## stratct

Not to bump this thread to the top and annoy everyone  but... A quartz watch movement (most of them anyway) is supposed to operate at wrist temp. It should jeep better accuracy on the wrist. 


I could be wrong tho


----------



## Hans Moleman

stratct said:


> Not to bump this thread to the top and annoy everyone  but... A quartz watch movement (most of them anyway) is supposed to operate at wrist temp. It should jeep better accuracy on the wrist.
> 
> I could be wrong tho


The 28 degrees that Douglas keeps the watch at, is pretty close to the watch-on-the-wrist temperature.
30-32 degrees Celsius was measured for that.


----------



## stratct

Hans Moleman said:


> The 28 degrees that Douglas keeps the watch at, is pretty close to the watch-on-the-wrist temperature.
> 30-32 degrees Celsius was measured for that.


I see


----------



## The Naf

Hi all...Perhaps I should have done a bit of research on this forum before I bought this watch. Never the less the question I ask is (in spite of failing to meet accuracy claims) does it perform better than any other quartz watch at the particular price range? As mentioned earlier in the thread you can pay a whole lot more for watches that again don't stack up to manufaturers claims. Again on the grand Seiko website you will note how ingenius mechanical additions to their quartz movements ensure that the second hand stops on each of the dial markers each and everytime without vibration. Does it happen in practice? Just ask all the grand Seiko owners with the 9F calibre. AND Seiko DO provide technical information to back this supposed claim. Technical information isnt worth the paper it is printed on if it doesn't actually back up performance..

Ok so its note +/- 10s/year. Is it at least amongst the most accurate in its price range? I should venture to think so. I have a Tissot V8 and you can bet your bottom dollar the precisionist is performing much better. If you want to spend <$500 for an unthermocompensated quartz then don't expect it to perform to the same standard as thermocompensated ones which could cost up to 5 times as much. But if your like me and you dont have a lot of money to spend and just want a great quartz movement within your budget (<$500) than you won't can't go wrong with a precisionist. And the second hand moves 16times per second giving the wonderful illusion of a continuous sweep (better than paying $2000 plus for a grand seiko that won't hit the dial markers)


----------



## The Naf

Sorry just to add. I DO feel for those who have purchased it as a cheap reliable accurate time keeper. I myself am just happy to have a really accurate quartz at a good price  Mine's 300metres water resistant, comes with those funky looking Cordura ballistic Strap and a titanium case making it a faaantastic casual/beach/everyday watch. try finding that for $350 Au


----------



## everose

The Naf said:


> Sorry just to add. I DO feel for those who have purchased it as a cheap reliable accurate time keeper. I myself am just happy to have a really accurate quartz at a good price  Mine's 300metres water resistant, comes with those funky looking Cordura ballistic Strap and a titanium case making it a faaantastic casual/beach/everyday watch. try finding that for $350 Au


"relatively accurate for the money paid" ............ Is certainly one positive way to summarise Precisionist !

If that is acceptable for you then that is great. I am pleased that you are happy with your Precisionist. At the end of the day that is what really matters !

However this is the HAQ forum and many people around here are seriously in to precision *regardless* of the price point.

The fact that Bulova seems to bombard us at every opportunity with the the 10spy claim causes a problem for some of us who are achieving nowhere near the spec quoted.

My positive outlook on Precisionist is that: "Its a work in progress............hopefully!" :-d


----------



## Eeeb

Well, I did buy it as a cheap accurate time keeper...... but mine isn't, accurate that is. Better to get a trimmer-regulated quartz.


----------



## ronalddheld

I would rather use that money to buy something more satisfying(ina HAQ sense).


----------



## webvan

Right, and the bottom line is that it's not very satisfactory to see them make these ridiculous accuracy claims for a non-TC movement and with no wearing pattern and even worst that they don't stand by them, but how could they. Basically this is false advertising and I'm sure they could be taken to task legally if someone had enough time and money to waste on it...


----------



## gaijin

Well, my 98B153 (B1) just keeps humming along ...










No complaints here. ;-)


----------



## webvan

Yeah you've posted that before, but I also have a standard 32khz watch that has zero drift at room temperature like your Precisionist, I just got lucky. It doesn't change a thing to the "theory" of HAQ that's been posted above (TC, recommended wearing pattern, etc...) or the fact that Bulova make outlandish claims and naturally don't stand by them.

Wear your 98B153 for a week or place it on top of a router to simulate a wrist temperature of 30 degrees and see what happens...my guess based on my (and other's) extensive testing before it' started aging rapidly : between -15 and -20 spy.


----------



## scada

I bought a Precisionist off the bay. This'll probably ruffle some feathers, but if it is accuracy you want it seems to me the only way to get it is with a device that is continually updated ala the gps system or network time from NIST. Anything other than that you will most likely be disappointed.

Also you have to change the date every other month save July and January, just sync the time then. As long as it is good for 30 or 60 days it should be good enough.

Or am I looking at this all wrong?


----------



## webvan

No, you can get +/- 5 spy accuracy on the "cheap" (bought a Longines VHP for €30 the other day) from a watch with a 32Khz thermocompensated ETA movement (Omega equivalents : 1441, 1445) that have a digital terminal that lets you adjust the accuracy in increments of 4 spy. If you don't like setting the date on your watch, get a version with a perpetual calendar (Omega equivalent : 1680 on the Double Eagle)

If you're ready to cough up a lot more cash ($2000), you can get a Citizen Chronomaster and Citizen guarantees it will be within +/- 5 spy for 10 years if you wear it 8 hours a day (or is it 10 ?). If it's not you can send it back to them and they will adjust if for free.

Clearly you can get perfect "assisted" accuracy from an RC or a GPS watch, but it's a lot less "satisfying" to HAQ fans.

Bulova on the other hand use a non thermocompensated 192khz (relative high frequency) movement with no wearing pattern requirements and push "+/- 10 spy accuracy"...if you get lucky (but a 192Khz movement generally has a 20+ variation between room and worn so even on a perfectly tuned watch with no aging, in the best of worlds you're looking at +10 at room and -10 when worn) as some have been here and don't stand by their claim if your watch isn't, again "false advertising" and they know it (they are owned by Citizen who built that movement), the question is how much longer they'll be able to get away with it...

@Douglas - any recent news from Bulova ? Could you try leaving your watch at room temperature for a week or two to see what happens, chances are it's going to speed up by 15/20 spy, so that will take you a bit closer to their +/- 10 spy claim as you're starting from -36 spy at 28/30 dC.


----------



## gaijin

webvan said:


> Yeah you've posted that before, but I also have a standard 32khz watch that has zero drift at room temperature like your Precisionist, I just got lucky. It doesn't change a thing to the "theory" of HAQ that's been posted above (TC, recommended wearing pattern, etc...) or the fact that Bulova make outlandish claims and naturally don't stand by them.
> 
> Wear your 98B153 for a week or place it on top of a router to simulate a wrist temperature of 30 degrees and see what happens...my guess based on my (and other's) extensive testing before it' started aging rapidly : between -15 and -20 spy.


The Precisionist I'm testing is worn 23 hours/day, 3-5 days/week. The rest of the time it is stored at room temperature.

So, if I understand you correctly, unless a watch is TC, has recommended wearing patterns, etc. it cannot be considered an HAQ? Even if after a year of wearing it is well within +10s/y?

Admittedly, it appears that the first batch of Precisionists released to the market, those made in 2010 (the B0 watches) are not meeting Bulova's advertised spec. However, of the two watches being tracked on this forum that were manufactured in 2011 (the B1 watches), mine and that belonging to v76, are both performing well within the spec.

Shouldn't we stop painting the Precisionist performance with such a broad brush and at least allow for the possibility - especially in light of the data - that Bulova have improved the performance in the second batch of watches?

Just a thought.


----------



## gaijin

webvan said:


> Bulova on the other hand use a non thermocompensated *192khz* (relative high frequency) movement with no wearing pattern requirements and push "+/- 10 spy accuracy"...if you get lucky (but a *192Khz* movement generally has a 20+ variation between room and worn so even on a perfectly tuned watch with no aging, in the best of worlds you're looking at +10 at room and -10 when worn) as some have been here and don't stand by their claim if your watch isn't, again "false advertising" and they know it (they are owned by Citizen who built that movement), the question is how much longer they'll be able to get away with it...


FYI, the Precisionist movement is 262.144 kilohertz, not 192 kilohertz as you claim.

HTH


----------



## webvan

That's right, my bad, doesn't change the fact that it's marginally high frequency compared to the standard 32Khz, nothing like the 2.4Mhz of the OMC or the 4MHz of the Crystron. By the way if you want to read more about the Precisionist, I'd talked with the Bulova people at the Baselworld tradeshow in 2010 : Bulova Precisionist Previewed : +/- 10 seconds per year accuracy and Sweeping Seconds « BestofWatch

Ok, so now you're wearing it 23 hours a day 4 days a week on average ? In your Precisionist Accuracy Tracking you wrote "Watch is worn sometimes, mostly stored at RT which at this time of year is about 21 DEGC.". I'm afraid changing the wearing pattern when the difference between room and worn procedure appears to be 20spy based on other people's testing (and on the similarly specced 8Fxx movements) won't let you draw reliable conclusions.

Anyway, assuming you're now wearing it as you just described and the drift is more or less 0, don't wear it at all for a week or two and you'll see it speed up by 15/20 seconds on a yearly drift, if it doesn't, Citizen/Bulova have come up with something magical : no TC, no super high frequency (think Mhz) and no wearing pattern requirement. When something's too good to be true...it generally is, and the fact that Bulova are not willing to service a watch that's not meeting their claims shows that they know it, but you can prove this wrong.

BTW, the OPs Precisionist was also made in 2011 (B1) and it's performing way out of Bulova's claims so we already know for a fact that there's nothing magical with the watches made in 2011 compared to those made in 2010.


----------



## gaijin

webvan said:


> That's right, my bad, doesn't change the fact that it's marginally high frequency compared to the standard 32Khz, nothing like the 2.4Mhz of the OMC or the 4MHz of the Crystron. By the way if you want to read more about the Precisionist, I'd talked with the Bulova people at the Baselworld tradeshow in 2010 : Bulova Precisionist Previewed : +/- 10 seconds per year accuracy and Sweeping Seconds « BestofWatch
> 
> Ok, so now you're wearing it 23 hours a day 4 days a week on average ? In your Precisionist Accuracy Tracking you wrote "Watch is worn sometimes, mostly stored at RT which at this time of year is about 21 DEGC.". I'm afraid changing the wearing pattern when the difference between room and worn procedure appears to be 20spy based on other people's testing (and on the similarly specced 8Fxx movements) won't let you draw reliable conclusions.
> 
> Anyway, assuming you're now wearing it as you just described and the drift is more or less 0, don't wear it at all for a week or two and you'll see it speed up by 15/20 seconds on a yearly drift, if it doesn't, Citizen/Bulova have come up with something magical : no TC, no super high frequency (think Mhz) and no wearing pattern requirement. When something's too good to be true...it generally is, and the fact that Bulova are not willing to service a watch that's not meeting their claims shows that they know it, but you can prove this wrong.
> 
> BTW, the OPs Precisionist was also made in 2011 (B1) and it's performing way out of Bulova's claims so we already know for a fact that there's nothing magical with the watches made in 2011 compared to those made in 2010.


OK. I'll stop wearing it for a couple of weeks and see what the data show. It is true that it appears the more I wear it, the slower (albeit not big numbers) it runs.


----------



## The Naf

Look I completely understand that some people place a great deal of emphasis on accuracy and yes it DOES appear to be false advertising and yes of course I am angry as well (well was). But is it the only company guilty of this? Not by a long shot. Check out the forum elsewhere and you'll see some guy complaining that even the chronomasters don't stack up to their claims...How about those really expensive autos claiming to have in-house movements when infact they're merely recasing unmodified eta's... Anyway the point I make is perhaps we should all have been a little skeptical when you can get some of the watches in the precisionist range for almost $150. Hardley anywhere near a HAQ watch price range. And yes I know price shouldn't matter but Im just trying to place things in perspective. I.e. at least you didn't get scammed $2000 under such false advertising . My advice.. Get a grand seiko and you should be pretty happy after adjusting it. Use the precisionist as a casual or sell it!


----------



## v76

I'm pretty surprised to see just gaijin's and my Precisionist examples (both B1) performing according to specs.


----------



## The Naf

Sorry forgot to mention I'm sorta tracking my watch as well...but at a more gross level (i.e. not intervals of any smaller than 1s) and after one week it is still pretty much spot on. Mind you I dont have any high tech. gear or anything but I will keep you all posted if there's any major drift. Mines a B1 as well...


----------



## ronalddheld

To meet the specs, do you have to wear the watch 24/7?


----------



## v76

I usually don't wear it more than once or twice a week ... 8-10 hours/week, at best.



ronalddheld said:


> To meet the specs, do you have to wear the watch 24/7?


----------



## The Naf

Update on this. 2 days short of three weeks and still less than a second off. A whole second in three weeks should work out to below 20s/year. Would I be happy paying $370 (including international delivery) for a which with those specs, a screw down crown, water resistant to 300m and a titanium case? You betcha!

Having said that I do agree with other forum members that perhaps they should have been more realistic and specified it to operated at +/-20s/year or even +/-25s/year. It would still have been within COSC standards and Im sure there would still be many forum members interested in this piece even if it was spacified to run at +/-25s/year. At present it may face some sort of a backlash...


----------



## Ginctm

Any information on the B2's?..That's the type I have..


----------



## webvan

B2=watch produced in 2012, there's no good reason to think they perform any differently than those produced in 2010/B0 and 2011/B1, both years have duds, and watches that are borderline within the +/- 10spy, but it doesn't matter since Bulova don't stand by their claim as you've seen in this thread.


----------



## Sodiac

Wear it for a year, then get back to us (without cc'ing all the personal correspondence to Bulova, please).


----------



## gaijin

gaijin said:


> OK. I'll stop wearing it for a couple of weeks and see what the data show. It is true that it appears the more I wear it, the slower (albeit not big numbers) it runs.


Here it is after 12 weeks without being worn over which it gained a little less than 3 seconds:










Overall, still well within the +10 sec/year spec, but definitely gains more when not worn.

HTH


----------



## freddytireguy

With all this talk on this watch I wonder what would have been said about the Omega Megaquartz with its 12 spy accuracy? BTW I had an Accutron Spaceview which I purchased in 1971 in Switzerland. It was a real rarity with a square face but it was stolen many years ago. Would be worth a fortune now.


----------



## Eeeb

freddytireguy said:


> With all this talk on this watch I wonder what would have been said about the Omega Megaquartz with its 12 spy accuracy? BTW I had an Accutron Spaceview which I purchased in 1971 in Switzerland. It was a real rarity with a square face but it was stolen many years ago. Would be worth a fortune now.


There are threads on the Megaquartz. Rare but liked! I have only 32K models... Omegas are too expensive!!


----------



## webvan

Yes including this one : https://www.watchuseek.com/f9/omega-2-4mhz-megaquartz-collected-pictures-facts-605461.html

And what are these accuracy problems you mention, something you read at the time ? They can be adjusted by the user too.

That Spaceview wouldn't really be worth a fortune (much less than an MQ anyway), I bought one for $250 last year on eBay ;-)

Anyway, getting back on topic, my Precisionist should soon be coming back from Bulova USA where they are swapping the movement under warranty ($85 cost) but charging me $30 for shipping. Hope it comes back working better than 70spy...


----------



## phdmam

webvan said:


> Yes including this one : https://www.watchuseek.com/f9/omega-2-4mhz-megaquartz-collected-pictures-facts-605461.html
> 
> And what are these accuracy problems you mention, something you read at the time ? They can be adjusted by the user too.
> 
> That Spaceview wouldn't really be worth a fortune (much less than an MQ anyway), I bought one for $250 last year on eBay ;-)
> 
> Anyway, getting back on topic, my Precisionist should soon be coming back from Bulova USA where they are swapping the movement under warranty ($85 cost) but charging me $30 for shipping. Hope it comes back working better than 70spy...


****************************
I am new to the watch forum scene, and must say that I am amazed at the high degree of reliance of high technology people on this thread have shown.

Darn, People are complaining of 20 seconds per year!! I calculated it and it represents a degree of error of - 0.0000006! We should all thank our lucky stars that we can own a piece of hardware that does this!!

If you MUST have perfect precision, then buy a $65 Casio atomic G Shock... which does the correcting for you.


----------



## Hans Moleman

phdmam said:


> ****************************
> I am new to the watch forum scene, and must say that I am amazed at the high degree of reliance of high technology people on this thread have shown.
> 
> Darn, People are complaining of 20 seconds per year!! I calculated it and it represents a degree of error of - 0.0000006! We should all thank our lucky stars that we can own a piece of hardware that does this!!
> 
> If you MUST have perfect precision, then buy a $65 Casio atomic G Shock... which does the correcting for you.


It's really interesting to work out how accurate a watch really is. 
It's not that straight forward, and that's why a lot of 'enthusiastic' claims are never challenged. 
Read on in the old posts and you'll learn a lot.

But you're right, 20 seconds per year are errors in the parts per million range. 
Homeopathy numbers.


----------



## Sabresoft

phdmam said:


> ****************************
> I am new to the watch forum scene, and must say that I am amazed at the high degree of reliance of high technology people on this thread have shown.
> 
> Darn, People are complaining of 20 seconds per year!! I calculated it and it represents a degree of error of - 0.0000006! We should all thank our lucky stars that we can own a piece of hardware that does this!!
> 
> If you MUST have perfect precision, then buy a $65 Casio atomic G Shock... which does the correcting for you.


There are many TC watches that can do better than 20 SPY, and many of these claim no better than meeting COSC, which is +/- 25.5 SPY. Where Bulova is coming under attack is that they claim 10 SPY, with no minimum wearing requirements, but many here have found that their Precisionists are running at far from 10 SPY (my own is around 36 SPY).

My own experience with my TC watches has two (Breitling Airwolf Raven and Christopher Ward C70 Brooklands) in the range of 3 to 5.5 SPY, another (Maurice Lacroix Miros Diver) at around 11 to 12 SPY and my Sinn UX at around 16 SPY, so better than 20 SPY is quite feasible.

While RC watches can be much more accurate, they require a successful sync on a regular basis, something that doesn't always happen, and certainly not feasible in the Southern Hemisphere or even parts of the north. Off sync they can be off by quite a bit in only a few days as the calibers used are in the 15 to 20 SPM range. I have several RC, and enjoy them too, but make no mistake they are not as accurate as TC without external correction.

The new Morgenwerk watches (if/when) they materialize will combine TC and satellite sync. Is this perhaps a little excessive focus on accuracy? Maybe, but then little of mankind's technical progress has been achieved without pushing the envelope.

Prior to the development of quartz, effort was expended trying to make mechanical watches as accurate as possible (and this continues today), but we have progressed from seconds per day (mechanical) to seconds per month (basic quartz) to seconds per year (TC).


----------



## Orex

Douglas Denny said:


> I have a great interest in precision timekeeping, and bought recently a Bulova Precisionist being persuaded by the claim of better than ten seconds a year accuracy.
> 
> This however, is clearly not going to be achiveable with the Claremont Two tone watch I bought.
> 
> It has lost three and a half seconds already from when it arrived on 17th February that is 3 1/2 seconds in only five weeks; which if stable at this rate means a loss of 35 seconds in a year ....way-out from the claimed ten seconds accuracy. The watch has been kept mostly in its box at a stable temperature of near 28 degrees centigrade.


A watch is made to be worn. Don't expect specs accuracy if you do not wear it. duh...



Douglas Denny said:


> You might be interested in the exchange of e-mails when I complained about this to Bulova.
> 
> 
> The watch I bought : a Claremont Two Tone Ref 98B140 itself is a rather
> large piece of 'bling', being much larger than I envisaged when I bought
> it via the internet - I thought it would be a standard size like the Rolex
> Explorer, but it is enormous for the small calibre movement inside so I was
> not happy about that to start with; however, on rating the watch I found it
> is nowhere near the accuracy you claim for it and it is this which I am
> complaining about. The watch is acceptable as a chronometer in appearence
> which is not too much of a problem, but the rate and accuracy is not
> acceptable if your claims for accuracy are to be believed.


Is strange to see commenting on the watch style on your inquire to Bulova. If you did not like the watch you should not have bought it at first place - perhaps this is the reason you keep it in the box. It seems to me you suffer of buyer remorse. If you cannot get over it, I suggest to flip the watch on the Sales forum or eBay - you might recover some of the costs.


----------



## Orex

webvan said:


> Bulova on the other hand use a non thermocompensated 192khz (relative high frequency) movement with no wearing pattern requirements and push "+/- 10 spy accuracy"...if you get lucky (but a 192Khz movement generally has a 20+ variation between room and worn so even on a perfectly tuned watch with no aging, in the best of worlds you're looking at +10 at room and -10 when worn) as some have been here and don't stand by their claim if your watch isn't, again "false advertising" and they know it (they are owned by Citizen who built that movement), the question is how much longer they'll be able to get away with it...


If I remember correctly, the movement was developed by Bulova before it was acquired by Citizen - this is American technology as it is also suggested by its name. Between the two World Wars several American artists started The Precisionist Movement - The City Paintings of Edward Hopper, Charles Sheeler and Georgia O'Keeffe - The Art History Archive


----------



## Sean779

Hans Moleman said:


> But you're right, 20 seconds per year are errors in the parts per million range.
> Homeopathy numbers.


that's very funny!


----------



## ronalddheld

It is not as if we were time-nuts who want nanoseconds offset from "the time".


----------



## Hans Moleman

ronalddheld said:


> It is not as if we were time-nuts who want nanoseconds offset from "the time".


Well, my guess is that if you could see those nanoseconds, you would want them to be perfect too!

About these phenomenally low error rates:
We would complain about a few seconds per year, the equivalent of a single vibration of the crystal in a 8 minute period.

Remembering off course that a crystal vibrates with 32 kHz. The 8 minute period is the usual period the crystal oscillations are measured over.


----------



## Eeeb

Hans Moleman said:


> Well, my guess is that if you could see those nanoseconds, you would want them to be perfect too!
> 
> About these phenomenally low error rates:
> We would complain about a few seconds per year, the equivalent of a single vibration of the crystal in a 8 minute period.
> 
> Remembering off course that a crystal vibrates with 32 kHz. The 8 minute period is the usual period the crystal oscillations are measured over.


Yes. This points to exactly why I like HAQ as an example of fine technology... just like some of my mechanicals are fine examples. Different technologies... but I can appreciate both.


----------



## everose

I wish my Precisionist had something like this ! :-x :-d .........

Slightly Off Topic but i thought quite interesting. 
This year Bulova will introduce a new user adjustable "Calibrator key" in an auto/mech mvt.


From SJX:
Watches by SJX: Baselworld 2013: Bulova Calibrator with user adjustable regulator


----------



## ronalddheld

I saw that. A good idea but isn't that fairly coarse in adjustments?


----------



## Eeeb

ronalddheld said:


> I saw that. A good idea but isn't that fairly coarse in adjustments?


I can not imagine current engineering would produce something as bad as the early quartz trimmers... But I suspect this is the equivalent - setting the zero error temperature. This actually has pretty good results in many situations.


----------



## everose

I guess an external adjustment facility for an auto is not entirely a new idea. I know Seiko made a mvt with this facility some time ago and i would imagine there were others.
From SCWF: http://www.thewatchsite.com/index.php?topic=1215.0

It sure would be great if some of our favourite modern quartz watches had an external adjustment system of some sort....of course with the caviat that it actually worked well !


----------



## ronalddheld

At~ 1K USD, I will pass. Now for user control of a TC movement, that is another matter...


----------



## Eeeb

ronalddheld said:


> At~ 1K USD, I will pass. Now for user control of a TC movement, that is another matter...


Gads. I missed this was just a 2824 (clone). Oh well... of no real value as this is already easy enough to do and is, in fact, often not the panacea the user will believe it to be.


----------



## ronalddheld

Eeeb I did not mention the movement because I thought you already knew.


----------



## Hans Moleman

The mere fact that Bulova adds a mechanism for the user to regulate their automatic watch is interesting.

They obviously believe that that will give their watches an advantage over others.

That suggests that:

A user cares about accuracy. 
A user knows what part regulation plays. And that it is only part of the accuracy equation. 

Great that Bulova puts emphasis on accuracy again.

However, such marketing hoopla like:


> Bulova claims EFAS delivers a "a precision of 99.99% on average"


Is very off-putting.

Try to give the public a full and honest picture. They'll thank you for it in the end.


----------



## Eeeb

Hans Moleman said:


> ...
> 
> Try to give the public a full and honest picture. They'll thank you for it in the end.


You work in Engineering, right? :-d

This is, actually, a good long term business objective. And it makes decisions easier. But it requires a business culture behind it. And such business cultures are all too rare.


----------



## Sean779

Eeeb said:


> You work in Engineering, right? :-d
> 
> This is, actually, a good long term business objective. And it makes decisions easier. But it requires a business culture behind it. And such business cultures are all too rare.


Also let's not forget that the advertising shpiel, esp. short term, will be assumed by customers as inflated. And Hans Moleman is right: "Try to give the public a full and honest picture. They'll thank you for it in the end."

They will thank you in the end, if you're still in business.


----------



## Hans Moleman

I afraid you're right.

Although, and that gives me some hope, there are old and very reputable firms out there that are sold for good money. Meaning that a good reputation is worth something after all.


----------



## Sean779

Hans Moleman said:


> I afraid you're right.
> 
> Although, and that gives me some hope, there are old and very reputable firms out there that are sold for good money. Meaning that a good reputation is worth something after all.


Hans, I couldn't agree more. A good reputation is what you build, an invaluable asset because it inspires trust, cash coming your way. How the world optimally works. New companies scrape for a foothold on a competitive hill, and their morals can go to hell until they're rooted and entrenched.


----------



## kimjmoon

So I guess my Omega Planet Ocean certified chronometer is unable to be used to circumnavigate the planet? I'm shocked that you guys spent 8 pages discussing losing 30 seconds a year! The funny thing is, I don't think the OP even likes the looks of this watch from the way he described it in his letter to bulova. Why even buy it then? I have never needed to be anywhere within 1 second of my perceived arrival or appointment. I assume its all about the idea and not the reality. Interesting thread.........


----------



## ronalddheld

This board is mostly a quest for accuracy and precision.


----------



## Sabresoft

kimjmoon said:


> So I guess my Omega Planet Ocean certified chronometer is unable to be used to circumnavigate the planet? I'm shocked that you guys spent 8 pages discussing losing 30 seconds a year! The funny thing is, I don't think the OP even likes the looks of this watch from the way he described it in his letter to bulova. Why even buy it then? I have never needed to be anywhere within 1 second of my perceived arrival or appointment. I assume its all about the idea and not the reality. Interesting thread.........


It is probably less to do with being exactly to the second, but more the cumulative effects. I have a Sellita 200 powered watch that gains 20 to 30 seconds per day. No big deal if I set the watch this morning, but if I let it run for a month it'd be out by 15 minutes. A standard quartz might be out by 10-20 seconds at the same point. TC would be out by no more than 2 seconds (assuming worst case of just meeting COSC). Extrapolate that out to a year, and it could be in the region of 3 hours for the Sellita, 3 minutes for the quartz and 25 seconds for the COSC watch. All of my TC watches are better than that, ranging from 3 - 15 seconds. When I set my TCs I offset half the annual rate so in fact the effective range is 1.5 - 7.5 seconds. Even the PO could be out by as much as 36 minutes, although as mechanicals are affected by position, and changing position from worn to not worn can cancel out some of the cumulative accuracy effects.

Do I need to know the time exactly to the second, no, but do I like to know that a watch is reasonably close to correct time when I put it on in the morning (which for half the year is in the dark), yes. My TC, RC and SC watches do this for me, and for the most part at a cost no worse than that spent on many mechanical watches. I have two TC watches that cost me the same amount as the model with the Sellita 200 caliber. Others of my collection are fairly expensive, but then mechanical models from the same brand would cost more.

The problem with the Precisionist is less that it runs at perhaps 35 seconds per year, still better than most standard quartz, but rather that with no minimum wearing requirements Bulova continues to advertise/sell the Precisionist line as being accurate to 10 SPY, a performance that few owners have been able to achieve (a standard quartz would also be close to zero deviation if worn 24-7 under 100% room temperature conditions).


----------



## webvan

All good points, the other issue is that Bulova lies to people who send in their Precisionist running out of the advertized specs saying they'll fix it...and return it without doing anything about that accuracy problem. When confronted they then come up with ridiculous and clueless explanations (your watch will slow down in the summer, see my previous post for details on that whole fiasco).


----------



## Sean779

Most people buying the Precisionist won't care much about its cutting edge quartz technology: they know it's in their price range, it's shiny like most mall watches, and best of all it's a Bulova!

We're a little group of people who are holding Bulova to the standards claimed. Wouldn't surprise me if watches returned for accuracy complaints are sent right back to the owner with nothing done.


----------



## everose

kimjmoon said:


> ....... I'm shocked that you guys spent 8 pages discussing losing 30 seconds a year!......


........Welcome to the HAQ Forum ! :-!


----------



## Hourolog.

I just ordered a Bulova Precisionist 96B158 watch, 40 mm bezel, black/charocal gray dial, after learning this watch is the only quartz watch with a sweeping second hand, still a reasonable 2-3 year battery life, and an expected accuracy of within 10 seconds a year. I just must have this watch in my collection, for the sweeping second hand alone, exclusive for a quartz watch. I hope my Precisionist is from this years series, and with no mechanical issues of any kind. Anyone with experience with this model? - I will be happy to hear from you. Cheers.


----------



## webvan

I think that with the lie on the accuracy claim and the aggravation (and wasted time/money) they gave me when pretending to deal with the problem, my Precisionist is my LEAST favorite watch, sad but true...


----------



## CR0

Hourolog. said:


> I just ordered a Bulova Precisionist 96B158 watch, 40 mm bezel, black/charocal gray dial, after learning this watch is the only quartz watch with a sweeping second hand, still a reasonable 2-3 year battery life, and an expected accuracy of within 10 seconds a year. I just must have this watch in my collection, for the sweeping second hand alone, exclusive for a quartz watch. I hope my Precisionist is from this years series, and with no mechanical issues of any kind. Anyone with experience with this model? - I will be happy to hear from you. Cheers.


After years of autos-only, now going the other direction. I too am awaiting this same watch, read the specs and hoping it is true. With a number of watch winders in this room winding very nice Swiss watches, I was curious about quartz.
Yes, have read about the Seiko GS and the rare Astrom (sic) with it's GPS ___like a kid on Christmas morning, regarding the Bulova, never ever thought I would ever cross my mind.
But, 3.5 weeks ago, I purchased a watch with an `egg-colored dial' and Swiss made, quartz. It arrived and set it with the Internet time, because using IMHO logic, by the time the `signal' from the atomic clock arrives several seconds and 
I might miss my "school bus"__so three weeks and 1 day later, this Swiss quartz is right on the second with Atomic/Internet time___drum roll Please, a Wenger $75.00 watch. Off only to shower. The lume could be better, 
but I cannot complain. So for the first time in over __well many years wearing a canvas/leather strap and being able to read even at 3 AM. Hoping the Bulova does what it says, or it too will go back.
I will not bore anyone with the list autos, but IWC, Omegas, to the point, these and other companies have for years shipped me their annual dealers catalogs. Not boasting, a horology-nut.
Keep you posted, Cheers, and thanks for the 8 pages of info.


----------



## Eeeb

I just checked my Precisionist. After 2.5 years it is now about 2.5 minutes fast... :-(


----------



## CR0

OK, ___the watch 96B158 arrived___ I have read the comments from you gentlemen____it is a bit flashy for my tastes, but curious____with it set to the Atomic/Internet time,
and glued to viewing it, ( sorry new watch)___when the second hand is at 9__the minute finally lines up!!! I reset it____I suppose there is a `break in period', Don't yell,
am new to quartz. Thank you, the chap__USMC__well I know a bit about them__but later____he stated, " don't look at the bloody clocks or other watches for months"___ or words to 
that effect. I could not read all the Likes? And am I suppose to receive emails when you post here? Because I have not as yet. The cheaper Swiss job on left wrist, the Percisionist (sic) 
on right wrist____and hoping it will work____within an hour or so of the actual time. It did have a stop clip in the crown, set the time and date and __let it fly___
Please try to update this weary old mind as to what is next. Danke! Where did that come from? Ya! or Da !


----------



## webvan

Eeeb said:


> I just checked my Precisionist. After 2.5 years it is now about 2.5 minutes fast... :-(


Just like mine and dwjquest's and probably many (all ?) others. Pretty depressing if you're an HAQ fan...what a shoddy job they did, shame on them.

Citizen wouldn't have let that happen surely, now I believe the Bulova guy who told me at Basel 2010 that this was movement was being worked on by Bulova when Citizen bought them. The worst part was that they were "force tuned" to specs out of the box and lost it after a couple of months.


----------



## ronalddheld

it is a good thing that i never bought one.


----------



## CR0

Update: Now 19.0005 hours it has been `bolted' to my wrist____after posting yesterday____ at about 3.5 hours into the `wearing in period', it actually started keeping perfect time.
And even now__the thing is right on the second in sync.
BUT____with grey dial, black strap, ( and as my wife said, really cheap leather, true)____( I know whine, whine, "never happy even being hung with new rope" very old saying) 
It looks so bloody flashy !!! It is those silver like `slashes' at the 5 minute marks, and the silver shiny hands, plus the glaring ring ( read bezel).
It is on my desk as I complain___ I think it is happy keeping great time, `if only I could spray paint some black on the shiny things', any ideas so as not to void the warranty? 
It is amazing as most would know, to sit and watch that second hand sweep and know it is a quartz not an auto. Time keeping still amazes me. 
Thank you gentlemen.


----------



## webvan

Give it a couple of months before it settles into the all too standard +60 spy mode of Precisionist watches...don't bother sending it in, they'll just waste your time and money for shipping and if you complain that the timekeeping is just as bad as when you sent it in, that useless dude in customer service will write and say "I looked up the notes in the CS system and it says that the time keeping varies depending on the time of the year"...No sh*t Sherlock!


----------



## Sean779

webvan said:


> Give it a couple of months before it settles into the all too standard +60 spy mode of Precisionist watches...don't bother sending it in, they'll just waste your time and money for shipping and if you complain that the timekeeping is just as bad as when you sent it in, that useless dude in customer service will write and say "I looked up the notes in the CS system and it says that the time keeping varies depending on the time of the year"...No sh*t Sherlock!


This is why they're sold at such a relatively reasonable price. They're not worth what they cost as is.


----------



## CR0

webvan said:


> Give it a couple of months before it settles into the all too standard +60 spy mode of Precisionist watches...don't bother sending it in, they'll just waste your time and money for shipping and if you complain that the timekeeping is just as bad as when you sent it in, that useless dude in customer service will write and say "I looked up the notes in the CS system and it says that the time keeping varies depending on the time of the year"...No sh*t Sherlock!


What is this above mentioned +60 spy mode? After nearly 48 hours still running in sync___but spy mode? What ?
Thank you.


----------



## ronalddheld

If you do a forum search on these watches you will find data that indicates the watches do not meet spec. That also includes the effect of aging.


----------



## CR0

webvan said:


> Give it a couple of months before it settles into the all too standard +60 spy mode of Precisionist watches...don't bother sending it in, they'll just waste your time and money for shipping and if you complain that the timekeeping is just as bad as when you sent it in, that useless dude in customer service will write and say "I looked up the notes in the CS system and it says that the time keeping varies depending on the time of the year"...No sh*t Sherlock!


Webvan,

Could you please explain in simple terms____what does +60 spy mode mean. I tried searching here and feeling dense, Thank you!

Another update: The model 96B158 has kept good time, but that flash aspect did not go away. Tried placing large pieces of duct tape over the entire watch, so as not to see the near-blinding flashy,
then when I needed the time, just look under the tape.  It is gone, as in back to the `goober' who sent it, @ amazon.
On another site found the Bulova 96B128 in brown/brown__same workings, I hope, ( did notice it must have been the '" redheaded step-child, because Bulova no longer even claims they made it)

If any of you member here know something I should know, please hurry and shoot me an email so I might decline when it arrives, OK?
Thank you gentlemen. 
The $75.00 Wenger is still keeping perfect time, but that jumping second hand is annoying, and it Does glow all night.


----------



## webvan

spy = seconds per year, it's an expression you'll probably find in every thread (post?) of this forum ;-)


----------



## CR0

Not in 1,000 years___OK, 40 days and 40 nights would I have figured that out.
I was told to do a search__never found a single word.

Still pulling duct tape from my wrist that covered the bling watch( only learned that word today) too flashy!
Hope this brown one will blend in better.

It was hypnotic watching a quartz watch sweep____the `tech stuff' ___I enjoy, is still is amazing.
Thank you for the quick response since 2008.


----------



## AvantGardeTime

I had a Precisionist when they first came out. Interesting movement, but the watches are cheaply made. Even Citizens in their immediate price range look and feel much better made.

The other day I handled a new Precionist chrono and liked it, but not sure I would drop $400 on one.


----------



## CombatMarine

I would have probably bought one of the less expensive ones by now, just for curiosity sake. Problem is no sapphire crystals, and the designs look like they came from an Invicta designer on crack.


----------



## CR0

Back with warnings______the Bulova___96B128___brown/brown__nice looking, until it becomes dark, even with an LED flashlight__no lume.
Further__again from amazon__( I know don't) but I did___the `Regal Watch Shoppe'___sent me a used used and running, yes the watch had been worn and the 
bloody watch was running to the point it Never sync'd with the Atomic time. Back to amazon -_with warnings and total refund and closed account.
Shopping found___`Princeton Watches' in Ohio. "R' and I talked __placed a order for another watch___UPS___it arrived a overpriced Seiko diver!!
Phoned ASAP, "R" talked with her boss, cannot help you, the watch we shipped you is not defective___"but wrong watch !" "sorry".
Phoned Amex___to cancel all further deals. Long story short, still wearing the Wenger and it is keeping perfect time and all night lume. $75.00.

I thought Seiko had good lume, but read reviews stating not good at all.???
in such time as one of you're fellows finds or updates with the WIS__ I'll wear the Wenger. Hope to sell every rare special autos later.
Regards.


----------



## WnS

Eeeb said:


> I just checked my Precisionist. After 2.5 years it is now about 2.5 minutes fast... :-(


On the up side, it has an almost smooth second hand. To me that's a bigger selling point than the yearly accuracy.


----------



## CR0

WnS,

Thank you for the reply___the problem is the difficulty in finding an honest watch dealers here in the U.S.!
As I stated earlier, yesterday 23/10/2013___order a new "virgin in the box" from Princeton Watches.
Today UPS arrived, open the box, it was a Seiko divers watch! Phoned the very person I spoke and took my order yesterday __"R"___ nice conversation them,
I asked "were you warehouse people drinking?"__she replied,"sometimes!" " This is NOT a Bulova watch!"___send me a RMA number, spoke with her boss, whom stated " It's not defective, you pay for return"

Phoned Amex, and one of my attorneys then a friend at FBI, they said "fraud" keep the watch, block all charges from them, until they send for the watch. 
The "ball in their court"____ I ordered in good faith__they have my Amex card number which they already charged too, I know the little lume, but a very nice looking watch.
I want a new one! It has been discounted!!! "R" told me so today__recorded legally of course off-site. So tied of being lied to. These people are attempting to dump out of style out of date watches.
I"ll stay with the Wenger and my `autos'__ they are not as accurate, but great lume and of course must be reset _Hmm __about every 10 days.
Thank you for your response,
Regards!


----------



## Robotaz

I had a Precisionist and it gained one second in three months. I sold it to a friend who said he's checked it a few times in the last year and it's only a few seconds off.


----------



## Srben

I admire you guy's attention to detail. My Longwood has been keeping as accurate a measure of time as I require, and looking great while doing it. If gaining a few or less seconds a year is an issue, maybe an atomic clock is more up your alley?


----------



## ronalddheld

Since you are on the High Accuracy Quartz forum, I would be carefully with your statements. We are concerned about seconds/year and we have discussed current CSAC applications.


----------



## webvan

This ^


----------



## Sabresoft

Well, to help defray the cost of my latest acquisition, the Citizen Eco-Drive Satellite Wave-Air, I have decided to divest myself of several LAQ (lesser accuracy quartz) watches, and the Precisionst is one of them. While I do like the design of the Claremont model (I even like the unusual curved crystal), I just never wear it and could no longer justify the space it was taking up in my collection drawer. And its 60 SPY accuracy just didn't cut it in a collection of HAQ and RC/SC watches. I have 12 watches that are running at better than 20 SPY, with 6 RC that are at worst a few seconds off due to missed syncs for a few days, two SC (satellite) that are similar to the RC, and four TC, the worst of which (the Sinn UX) is close to 20 SPY, but the others are 10 SPY or less. I am looking at acquiring the new Certina HAQ model, the DS2.

Even my old Citizen (non-AT) Skyhawk seems to keep better time than the Precisionist (30-40 SPY).


----------



## sirgilbert357

I have to say, I've been looking at buying the Bulova two tone 98B156 (the only Precisionist that really attracts me currently) for quite awhile now and this is all kind of discouraging. I guess I want it more for the movement and that sweeping second hand, but the accuracy improvement on "regular" quartz was a lure too. I wouldn't wear it every day though since I have a collection I like to rotate through (like most WIS). I assume its more accurate when worn all day, every day, but still...hmm, decisions, decisions.


----------



## Sabresoft

Well some people claim to have had reasonable success, but the majority here report less than stellar results. Definitely way off the 10 SPY that Bulova continues to claim.


----------



## sirgilbert357

Sabresoft said:


> Well some people claim to have had reasonable success, but the majority here report less than stellar results. *Definitely way off the 10 SPY that Bulova continues to claim.*


Yeah, this is what, the third or fourth batch of production for the Precisionist line? I don't know how many "generations" they've had of them, but surely by now they know there's a problem with the accuracy claims. I'm assuming they don't pre-age their quartz crystals or anything (would probably drive the cost up), so I just have to wonder if they are doing anything to improve the product line. If the next generation of Precisionists are going to be more accurate, then I'd feel foolish buying one of them now...I'm kind of waiting to see what they do.


----------



## dwjquest

Sabresoft said:


> Well some people claim to have had reasonable success, but the majority here report less than stellar results. Definitely way off the 10 SPY that Bulova continues to claim.


My Precisionist started off well and went downhill from there.


----------



## cgalny

I've had three Precisionist watches in the past and just bought my fourth (the 98B167 Catamount), mainly because it's currently on sale at Ashford for $179 with the code AFFPRECISN179. I don't know if mentioning specific prices/dealers is allowed here. If not, please delete the information.

Like many similarly afflicted watch "collectors" I tend to turn over my collection frequently, so I have only this one Precisionist left. Based on the three or four months that I owned and wore my other Precisionists (2012 models) none seemed to be on track to come even close to 10 spy. If memory serves, all three were about 20-30 seconds off after three or four months. I could be wrong, but I just don't believe they would have eventually corrected themselves to within 10 spy.

The 98B167 Catamount Precisionist I just acquired is a B3. The serial number begins with 14, which until reading this thread I would have believed meant a 2014 manufacture date. However, common sense indicates it's too early in the year to expect to find a 2014 specimen.

The bad news is after 12 hours my one day old Precisionist 98B167 is already off by 1.5 seconds. Yes, I realize this is FAR too early to judge the watch's accuracy, but my experience with other quartz and specifically Precisionist watches has been that their accuracy does not improve very much (but a little) and they do not "break in" to any significant degree with time. This could be just my bad luck, but I'm not so sure.

Nevertheless, I love these watches for several reasons. First of all I have a very large wrist, and the Precisionist bracelets fit my wrist perfectly without adjustment. Most people will need to remove four or more links. The bracelets are very high quality, with screwed in links. I don't always like to wear my big watches, but when I do, I prefer a Precisionist with a bracelet. They just feel good on my wrist. I particularly like this Precisionist because of its 1000 foot water resistant rating and locking bezel...not that I'll need or use either feature. It's a very nice watch, especially at the sale price.

I'm hoping against hope that the accuracy of my 98B167 will improve, because at this rate of inaccuracy it will wind up no more accurate than any "ordinary" watch. I have 50 year old manual wind watches that are accurate to 2 seconds a day, and several other quartz watches good to a couple of seconds a month. My Citizen eco drive watches have surprisingly been my most accurate of all...good to within five seconds or so per year if kept properly charged.

I'll try and remember to update the watch's accuracy.


----------



## mr.steevo

I got a 98B140 for xmas. I like the look of it and the curved glass shape of the crystal but it is not an accurate watch from what I've seen. It has gained about 4-5 seconds in the first month which is a disappointment but not a deal breaker. I wanted this watch for the two tone gold and sweeping hand but thought it would be nice to have a HAQ as well. The other disappointment is the snap on back that gives the watch a cheap tin sound when I rattle the bracelet around. If I pinch the crystal and the back with my thumb and finger the cheap sound goes away. At $180 CND I guess you get what you pay for. I do like the bracelet itself as it seems well made and from good materials, though the butterfly clasp still gives me trouble in putting the watch on in the mornings.

All in all its an okay watch but I would never buy another Bulova or recommend one to someone. The watch has helped me to finally appreciate the build quality of my SARB033. Now I understand why people love that watch so much.


----------



## Totoro66

Sorry for my ignorance, but I never realized that a Precisionist was a HAQ, only that it was the most precise quartz *with a sweeping second hand*, which really limits the competition.


----------



## Hans Moleman

Totoro66 said:


> Sorry for my ignorance, but I never realized that a Precisionist was a HAQ, only that it was the most precise quartz *with a sweeping second hand*, which really limits the competition.


The advertising executive that came up with that gem can be well pleased with himself.


----------



## ronalddheld

Evidence gather here would indicate that Precisionists should not be considered HAQ.


----------



## mr.steevo

Totoro66 said:


> Sorry for my ignorance, but I never realized that a Precisionist was a HAQ, only that it was the most precise quartz *with a sweeping second hand*, which really limits the competition.


The marketing department added that "most precise quartz *with a sweeping second hand*" recently. There are reviews of these watches from 2012 where the advertising listed these watches as having an accuracy of 10 seconds per year due to a three prong quartz.

I was hoping that I'd get lucky with my Bulova but it wasn't the case.


----------



## webvan

They're still lying as I'm pretty certain that any Seiko Springdrive (with a FULLY sweeping second hand) controlled by a quartz is more accurate than their "three prong quartz" piece of junk. They should really say "most precise THREE PRONG* quartz with an ALMOST** sweeping second hand"

* substituting CRAP is ok
** 16 ticks per second so quite visible


----------



## webvan

The liars at Bulova are releasing a new Spaceview with the Precisionist movement and calling it "Accutron II". Too bad they use that infamous movement because it looks rather nice...

1. Accutron II Alpha for $399 : Bulova Accutron II Alpha Watch Hands-On: The New & Affordable Spaceview With A Precisionist Movement - Page 2 of 2 | aBlogtoWatch

Check out his comment on accuracy...guy's obviously clueless when it comes to HAQ ;-)


> Bulova wanted to decrease the size of the movements but in doing so they needed to decrease the *extreme* accuracy a bit.(...)The two year battery life and sweeping seconds hand are still part of the movement, but rather than being accurate to about 10 seconds a year, the movements are accurate to about 5-10 seconds a month. According to Bulova, even with this lowered frequency the Accutron II movements are still six times more accurate than "normal" quartz movements.


----------



## chris01

webvan said:


> The liars at Bulova are releasing a new Spaceview with the Precisionist movement and calling it "Accutron II". Too bad they use that infamous movement because it looks rather nice...
> 
> 1. Accutron II Alpha for $399 : Bulova Accutron II Alpha Watch Hands-On: The New & Affordable Spaceview With A Precisionist Movement - Page 2 of 2 | aBlogtoWatch
> 
> Check out his comment on accuracy...guy's obviously clueless when it comes to HAQ ;-)


What an ugly and utterly pointless watch. The 'movement' looks like a piece left over from some other watch, and has none of the interest of the original Spaceview. There is nothing to see that has any relevance and it's not even better than a normal quartz, let alone achieving the usual outstanding Precisionist 'accuracy'. Are the Bulova designers and marketers on some mind-altering substance that deletes any sense of reality? Or are they targeting a particularly clueless market segment?


----------



## cgalny

I don't know. I kind of like the looks of the Accutron II Alpha, although I believe it's overpriced. I would not buy it at the MSRP. I guess it willl not be available until the summer of 2014.

Regarding the accuracy of the Precisionist, I posted a reply in early January of this year bemoaning the fact that my brand new Catamount Precisionist had already lost a second or so overnight, and mentioned that I would be keeping track of its accuracy over the long haul. 

I'm not going to post any accuracy results yet (after all, it's been less than three months) but I will say that the situation has improved. Let's just say the Precisionist, based on the several weeks I've had it, will beat Bulova's ten seconds a year claim.


----------



## CombatMarine

Ok, you guys made me do it, I went and pulled my Precisionist out the watch box where it has sat for 2 months, and according to the NIST time widget, it is running +2 seconds fast from when I last set it about three months ago. Now that's not too shabby. But back to the box it goes until I need a watch with a brownish dial and rose gold case, which ain't often.


----------



## Roller07

I must be one of the lucky ones. I bought a 96B159 on June 20,2013 and set the time to the USNO master clock. As of today, it is only +6 secs. I have never changed the date or reset the time for Daylight Savings Time.(I didn't wear it for those few months of DST)

Has anybody else had great results like this? Because all I see are stories of very poor accuracy.


----------



## ronalddheld

Roller07 said:


> I must be one of the lucky ones. I bought a 96B159 on June 20,2013 and set the time to the USNO master clock. As of today, it is only +6 secs. I have never changed the date or reset the time for Daylight Savings Time.(I didn't wear it for those few months of DST)
> 
> Has anybody else had great results like this? Because all I see are stories of very poor accuracy.


Sounds rare. Let us know if it continues after a year or two, if you can.


----------



## Roller07

ronalddheld said:


> Sounds rare. Let us know if it continues after a year or two, if you can.


I sure will. I'll give a one year update on June 20, 2014. Then I will start over and check the accuracy for another year.


----------



## gaijin

Roller07 said:


> I must be one of the lucky ones. I bought a 96B159 on June 20,2013 and set the time to the USNO master clock. As of today, it is only +6 secs. I have never changed the date or reset the time for Daylight Savings Time.(I didn't wear it for those few months of DST)
> 
> Has anybody else had great results like this? Because all I see are stories of very poor accuracy.


Mine was pretty good for the year I tracked it:










The Precisionist movement has the capability of yielding great accuracy results, but since the movement is NOT thermocompensated, wear patterns, season, anything that affects the temperature of the watch will affect the rate.

Especially in this forum, the negative observations about this movement seem to get the most attention. ;-)

HTH

Edit to add update:

I did not wear my Precisionist at all after the test above was completed in November 2012. It has been sitting in a watch box since then at ambient temperatures between approximately 65*F-82*F. It was never adjusted for date or DST during that time. It is now showing about 69 seconds fast since the start of the test about 127 weeks ago. That calculates out to an average of +28.3 sec/year, but since it only gained 6.84 seconds the first year, it has averaged approximately +43.1 seconds/year since the conclusion of the test.

Since I do not have ongoing measurements, I do not know if this is all a function of the movement's inherent accuracy and has been running at that rate continuously, or if it has gained time recently at an accelerated rate due to a low battery condition. If memory serves, the expected battery life on these is three years and mine is approaching that limit.


----------



## mr.steevo

Mine has been in the box for 2 months and in that time has lost 40 seconds. I don't mind though, I just like wearing it. 

Sent from my Nexus 4 using Tapatalk


----------



## TAT_SHINTA

just love my precisionist more, thanks for sharing, Gaijin.


----------



## max_stirling

Sorry for reopening an old thread but just wanted to add my $.02. I had been following this tread from the beginning but stopped after a few months. I own two precisionist (98B167 and 96B144) for about a couple years now and have been keeping track of the accuracy from day one since that's one of their big draws. Within the first year, both were running at <+10s/yr. Since then, year 2, they are running at <+20s/yr which is still great. I will see what year 3 brings. It could be the accuracy is dropping as the battery runs down. I think the batteries are only supposed to last about 3 years. My standard for accuracy is that it must be within 30s of the correct time. High for this group but that's good enough for me and it's more accurate than my the time on my phone compared to the atomic clock.

I know that the style of the precisionist line isn't for everyone, but I really like the two I have. They are not my favorite in my collection but they are also not at the bottom either. I love the "sweeping" second hand (16 hz is way better than the 4-5 hz of the high end automatics) and that I can just pull it out of my watch case, put it on and know that will have the right time.

The quality of the case and bracelet is not as good as my high end watches but still very good. These are definitely keepers and I will probably add a chronograph version within the year though I try to avoid owning more than 2 watches from a single brand. Maybe my standards are not very high, but I do love the precisionist movement and I do consider it one of the best quartz movements, especially for the price. I have not owned a SpringDrive watch though I hope to one day.

Cheers.


----------



## RON in PA

I purchased a Langford back in April and wore it 24/7 for 36 days. Over that time it lost 3 seconds, extrapolating to a year, that's 30 sec./year.

If you go to the Bulova web page they have totally de-emphesized the accuracy of the Precisionist movement and they are also using the movement in the Accutron II line.


----------



## montekay

I only recently discovered the Precisionist line and bought my first, a 98B140 just last week. So far after just 4 days it doesn't seem to have changed at all but that's a pretty short test. My main attraction to it was the sweep second hand as I had an Accutron back in the 1970's. The 16 increments/sec is no where near as smooth as the Accutron but still better than a normal 1 increment/sec Quartz. I once tried a Ball Automatic which had a decent sweep second hand but I couldn't take the 15 seconds/day error so I sold it. I just bought some old 1970's accutrons on E-bay that I plan to have restored more for nostalgia value than anything else. I think they are supposed to be about 2 min/month which I suppose was good for it's day.


----------



## boggyboy

You seem genuinely disappointed, beyond buyer's remorse. I'm sorry but I feel compelled to level with you.
Dude; It's a quartz watch granted a fairly nice one, but it wasn't built by some artisan, it was built on an assembly line.
The different in accuracy of all quartz watches is extremely small, talking seconds a year. 
Of course, no two quartz crystals are the same, so their will some be variance from crystal to crystal but again it's inconsequentially small. 
Finally I'm not the least bit surprised that it's not as accurate in the box. I own many watches and I have noticed anecdotally a couple my quartz watches do lose time or even stop if not worn regularly.


----------



## ronalddheld

boggyboy said:


> You seem genuinely disappointed, beyond buyer's remorse. I'm sorry but I feel compelled to level with you.
> Dude; It's a quartz watch granted a fairly nice one, but it wasn't built by some artisan, it was built on an assembly line.
> The different in accuracy of all quartz watches is extremely small, talking seconds a year.
> Of course, no two quartz crystals are the same, so their will some be variance from crystal to crystal but again it's inconsequentially small.
> Finally I'm not the least bit surprised that it's not as accurate in the box. I own many watches and I have noticed anecdotally a couple my quartz watches do lose time or even stop if not worn regularly.


You need to be more careful with your statements on this forum. Accuracy is paramount, here.


----------



## Sabresoft

I have seen several statements about accuracy being de-emphasized on Bulova's site, but on their Canadian site the main page under the Precisionist range has these words only "Precisionist - Accurate to 10 seconds a year".

The Precisionist line, while not to everyone's taste is a competent, low price point quartz watch that probably performs slightly better than a standard quartz watch, but in very few instances has shown the level of performance as advertised, which is the main reason that it receives such poor reviews here on the HAQ forum. 

The fact that Bulova still says that it is accurate to 10 seconds per year is disheartening as it is false advertising.

Any quartz watch with the correct wearing and ambient temperature regimen can probably perform quite well, but as soon as it is exposed to various extremes of temperature, the performance will drop off significantly.

My TC watches that are performing in the region of between 3 SPY (best) to 20 SPY (worst), are not worn that much due to my rather large watch collection and rotation of same, so they are exposed to a wider range of temperature extremes than they might be if worn daily, and yet perform very well (I don't know if I wore them daily if their performance would differ, but I suspect not worse, and maybe better).

My old Citizen Skyhawk (non-radio controlled model) always seemed to be fairly accurate when I wore it daily, but since it almost never gets worn right now (just too many other and more accurate watches), it certainly shows a much greater error than I ever recall from when I used to wear it all the time (at that time it was my only watch, not counting an older automatic that was a gift from my grand father, but which I rarely wear).


----------



## RejZoR

I can't understand people raging over Precisionist accuracy and then they do the tests by having a non thermo compensated watch at 28°C. That's like complaining over specified car's MPG and then driving it only at high revs up in the hills.

Wear it on a wrist where body temperature is consistent ~36,5°C and then observe the accuracy and THEN complain over it if it goes off significantly. Precisionists can't compensate for temperature changes and solely rely on higher quartz sampling.


----------



## Hans Moleman

RejZoR said:


> I can't understand people raging over Precisionist accuracy and then they do the tests by having a non thermo compensated watch at 28°C. That's like complaining over specified car's MPG and then driving it only at high revs up in the hills.
> 
> Wear it on a wrist where body temperature is consistent ~36,5°C and then observe the accuracy and THEN complain over it if it goes off significantly. Precisionists can't compensate for temperature changes and solely rely on higher quartz sampling.


Quartz kept at a constant temperature is very accurate. Actually, not accurate but stable.
The main thing that gets it off track is temperature.

The real challenge happens when it is not kept at a constant temperature.
And that happens as soon as you take the watch off.

Have a look at dwjquest's post:
https://www.watchuseek.com/f9/new-accuracy-champion-252404.html

Can a $7 Walmart quartz watch outperform any TC watch?
Yes it can! If kept at a constant temperature.


----------



## cgalny

Well, I try and keep my promises, so I'm back to report on the accuracy of my most recent Precisionist, after a meaningful number of days. My first post regarding this issue was in this thread on 1/10/14, if you want to go back and check it out.

Briefly, I've owned several Bulova Precisionist watches before my current one, and based on the amount of time I wore them, I seriously doubted that they would even come close to Bulova's 10 seconds a year accuracy claim. So after buying my most recent Precisionist (am I glutton for punishment?) I decided to conduct my own pseudo-scientific test.

The conditions of my test were as follows:

I have worn this watch every single day during the entire length of my "test," for approximately 12 hours/day, on my left hand (I'm right handed)---except for one 10 day period when I was as sick as a dog and flat on my back most of this 10 day period. I compared the watch's performance to atomic time, and checked the watch once or twice a week. When removing the watch, I always placed it dial flat facing up. I wore the watch both inside and outside. I made no effort to keep the watch in a stabilized temperature environment, though I was inside more than outside.

The test period was:

From and including: Saturday, January 11, 2014
To and including: Wednesday, July 9, 2014
Result: 180 days, from the start date to the end date, end date included
Or 5 months, 29 days including the end date

During these 180 days, the watch gained 4.5 seconds. The minute hand is still dead on accurate and corresponds precisely to the correct minute marks. So is the hour hand.

Interestingly (at least to me) is the fact that this watch likes being worn. Over the test period I noticed it deviated from atomic time less when worn for more hours per day, than when worn fewer hours per day. I avoided getting the watch wet and removed it when doing strenuous work. But I don't think I babied it.

So perhaps, after all, the Precisonist may keep time to within 10 seconds a year. I collect watches and frankly am a bit tired of wearing this watch every day, when I have so many others I'd like to wear, so I probably won't keep wearing it every day, and may or may not report back at the end of one year, since I normally pull the crown out on the few quartz watches I have when not wearing them, to conserve battery life.


----------



## wd1craig

RejZoR said:


> I can't understand people raging over Precisionist accuracy and then they do the tests by having a non thermo compensated watch at 28°C. That's like complaining over specified car's MPG and then driving it only at high revs up in the hills.
> 
> Wear it on a wrist where body temperature is consistent ~36,5°C and then observe the accuracy and THEN complain over it if it goes off significantly. Precisionists can't compensate for temperature changes and solely rely on higher quartz sampling.


Agree 100%. I do see both sides to this issue, obviously the company failed to manage expectations in the launch of the Precisionist. If only the accuracy claims had appropriate disclaimers, such as "capable of... ." Folks would be focusing their attention on the merits of the technology.


----------



## RejZoR

Though they don't mention 10 seconds anywhere on their webpage for any of their Precisionist movement based watches. They just say they are 10 times more accurate. That's not 10 seconds, that's 10 times more accurate than the usual quartz watch.


----------



## wd1craig

I'm entering into this a bit late, having recently joined the ranks of Precisionist owners a few days ago. True to form, I tend to buy what I like then research it after the fact. From what I can ascertain the company made the accuracy claim of +/- 10 spy at the time of the product launch and attempted to defend it, in the process angering the consumer. The accuracy claims appear to have morphed over time to the point of being illussory such as what you note and keeping time to within "seconds a year." Not sure what that means exactly! One reasonable interpretation would be anything under +/- 60 spy. If so, from what I read here, that claim likely more realistic of what the average customer will encounter. Maybe in terms of leveling with the consumer a case of better late than never?


----------



## wd1craig

One week since my last post and my specimen must be "one of the good ones". It is a B2, by the way. Rock solid +/-0 for the week on the wrist. I'm very happy with it.


----------



## adi4

wd1craig said:


> I'm entering into this a bit late, having recently joined the ranks of Precisionist owners a few days ago. True to form, I tend to buy what I like then research it after the fact. From what I can ascertain the company made the accuracy claim of +/- 10 spy at the time of the product launch and attempted to defend it, in the process angering the consumer. The accuracy claims appear to have morphed over time to the point of being illussory such as what you note and keeping time to within "seconds a year." Not sure what that means exactly! One reasonable interpretation would be anything under +/- 60 spy. If so, from what I read here, that claim likely more realistic of what the average customer will encounter. Maybe in terms of leveling with the consumer a case of better late than never?


Congrats on the recent acquisition!

For me, it's much harder for a company to work backwards from a bad image than to work towards a good image from the get-go. I don't think Bulova is the only company in the watch industry to make lofty statements, but it certainly never looks good to me when _any_ company does it.


----------



## wd1craig

Thanks. I agree and think Citizen/Bulova dug itself a hole with their approach here. The Accutron/Accuquartz lines of the 60s and 70s give the now Citizen owned Bulova some historic goodwill among those of us old enough to remember and be nostsligic. The familiar tunning fork logo on the face, crown and clasp caught my eye. Too bad it wasn't carried over to the second hand. Use that logo throughout or not at all. Similarly many find most of the design elements of most of these Precisionists offputting, busy, overly complex (I thought "Transformer") and similarly indicative of "design by committee. "

Then to the accuracy claims. Why lie or exaggerate when the truth will do just fine? By almost every account the movement is different, innovative and accurate. If the company tests results showed accuracy to a certain standard, publish the results, but with the reasonable disclaimers that variables of wear and temperature will affect observed accuracy by the consumer. Even if only a +/- 5 second per month, that's still exceptionally accurate for all but the most demanding.

I see where this movement is being used in the new Accutron II and the accuracy claims now for all intents and purposes devoid of any meaning. These new Accutrons, drawing from vintage designs are far more appealing to my tastes. I'd like to see Bulova recapture its place in terms of relative accuracy for the Accutron II line and think many consumers would actually pay much more for a watch that delivers on the +/- 10 spy promise. Others like me would be content the Precisionist level of accuracy (and in my case more traditional design elements please).


----------



## jtiis

When I first head of Bulova's precisionist line I was pretty happy about it. I have plenty of nice/expensive autos but also wanted a high accuracy quartz for frequent wear. I found their 96B159 quite appealing. Then came and read this thread and wasn't so sure. Went for it anyhow - and I must say - a few days on I'm very happy. Looks as better than I'd hoped (the blue is quite tasteful - and while 3 days is a short test- she's spot on. Hope to come back in a month and see where we are - but for now - I'm a happy camper.


----------



## annuvin

I got my first precisionist in the mail today, a 96B144. It gains a second every hour! I thought it might be the battery so I replaced it with a new one and no change. looks like I got a dud


----------



## woodville63

annuvin said:


> I got my first precisionist in the mail today, a 96B144. It gains a second every hour! I thought it might be the battery so I replaced it with a new one and no change. looks like I got a dud


This is the new variant that is supposed to mimic an automatic. Sweeping hand and 20s/day isn't bad for an auto. Terrible for a quartz, mind you.


----------



## boggyboy

Yes Sir; my anecdotal experience is the most accurate quartz watch I own is the one I wear daily.
It almost seems as if they need to be worn to be at their most accurate? 
Can't explain the mechanics, but other watch owners have also noticed this. My point was that the watch here was never worn and I didn't mean to minimize the value of accuracy.


----------



## Photo Pete

cgalny said:


> I've had three Precisionist watches in the past and just bought my fourth (the 98B167 Catamount), mainly because it's currently on sale at Ashford for $179 with the code AFFPRECISN179. I don't know if mentioning specific prices/dealers is allowed here. If not, please delete the information.
> 
> Like many similarly afflicted watch "collectors" I tend to turn over my collection frequently, so I have only this one Precisionist left. Based on the three or four months that I owned and wore my other Precisionists (2012 models) none seemed to be on track to come even close to 10 spy. If memory serves, all three were about 20-30 seconds off after three or four months. I could be wrong, but I just don't believe they would have eventually corrected themselves to within 10 spy.
> 
> The 98B167 Catamount Precisionist I just acquired is a B3. The serial number begins with 14, which until reading this thread I would have believed meant a 2014 manufacture date. However, common sense indicates it's too early in the year to expect to find a 2014 specimen.
> 
> The bad news is after 12 hours my one day old Precisionist 98B167 is already off by 1.5 seconds. Yes, I realize this is FAR too early to judge the watch's accuracy, but my experience with other quartz and specifically Precisionist watches has been that their accuracy does not improve very much (but a little) and they do not "break in" to any significant degree with time. This could be just my bad luck, but I'm not so sure.
> 
> Nevertheless, I love these watches for several reasons. First of all I have a very large wrist, and the Precisionist bracelets fit my wrist perfectly without adjustment. Most people will need to remove four or more links. The bracelets are very high quality, with screwed in links. I don't always like to wear my big watches, but when I do, I prefer a Precisionist with a bracelet. They just feel good on my wrist. I particularly like this Precisionist because of its 1000 foot water resistant rating and locking bezel...not that I'll need or use either feature. It's a very nice watch, especially at the sale price.
> 
> I'm hoping against hope that the accuracy of my 98B167 will improve, because at this rate of inaccuracy it will wind up no more accurate than any "ordinary" watch. I have 50 year old manual wind watches that are accurate to 2 seconds a day, and several other quartz watches good to a couple of seconds a month. My Citizen eco drive watches have surprisingly been my most accurate of all...good to within five seconds or so per year if kept properly charged.
> 
> I'll try and remember to update the watch's accuracy.


Knowing the truth about the 10spy accuracy claim you still believe the water resistance claim?


----------



## cgalny

I haven't worn the watch in question for over a year, but still own it and very much admire the watch's style and accuracy.. Regarding the water resistance claim...no, I don't believe it's water resistant to the depth claimed. Then again, I have other watches whose deep water resistant claims I also don't believe. And of course, there's the fact that I don't dive, barely swim in fact, soI won't get the watch wet except when it's on my wrist while washing the dishes.


----------



## mleok

boggyboy said:


> Yes Sir; my anecdotal experience is the most accurate quartz watch I own is the one I wear daily.
> It almost seems as if they need to be worn to be at their most accurate?
> Can't explain the mechanics, but other watch owners have also noticed this. My point was that the watch here was never worn and I didn't mean to minimize the value of accuracy.


The rate of a quartz movement is most affected by temperature.


----------



## Photo Pete

mleok said:


> The rate of a quartz movement is most affected by temperature.


....and the precisionist is well within 10spy... as long as you find the correct temperature. Not really easy to argue against the manufacturer's claims when they haven't specified the operating temperature their figures were derived at. You get into all sorts of 'reasonableness' disputes. Personally I think the OP should just ditch the watch and put it down to experience... They didn't like the style or size anyway.

Of course if they were really set on doing everyone a favour and taking Bulova to task they could always take them to small claims court and argue the case.


----------



## tomkeyaia

Quit whining. Did you really think that you were getting atomic clock accuracy for less $500? If you like the aesthetics of the watch, be happy with it. If you truly require pin point accuracy, plan to spend a little (actually a lot) more. If you want a bargain, buy an Apple watch, or anything that syncs with your phone. Honestly, the true sweep second is really cool, so enjoy the watch and adjust it every few days to match the time on your phone or computer, as these items are electronically regulated in a controlled environment. Do this and you will most likely always be within 1 minute of the actual time.


----------



## ronalddheld

tomkeyaia said:


> Quit whining. Did you really think that you were getting atomic clock accuracy for less $500? If you like the aesthetics of the watch, be happy with it. If you truly require pin point accuracy, plan to spend a little (actually a lot) more. If you want a bargain, buy an Apple watch, or anything that syncs with your phone. Honestly, the true sweep second is really cool, so enjoy the watch and adjust it every few days to match the time on your phone or computer, as these items are electronically regulated in a controlled environment. Do this and you will most likely always be within 1 minute of the actual time.


There was no need to bump this old thread for that comment.


----------



## yankeexpress

tomkeyaia said:


> Quit whining. Did you really think that you were getting atomic clock accuracy for less $500? If you like the aesthetics of the watch, be happy with it. If you truly require pin point accuracy, plan to spend a little (actually a lot) more. If you want a bargain, buy an Apple watch, or anything that syncs with your phone. Honestly, the true sweep second is really cool, so enjoy the watch and adjust it every few days to match the time on your phone or computer, as these items are electronically regulated in a controlled environment. Do this and you will most likely always be within 1 minute of the actual time.


My Certina HAQ chrono was under $450.

One of the least expensive HAQ, it has an ETA movement










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.




























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

ETA 251.264 Quartz movement










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.


----------



## dicioccio

tomkeyaia said:


> Quit whining. Did you really think that you were getting atomic clock accuracy for less $500? If you like the aesthetics of the watch, be happy with it. If you truly require pin point accuracy, plan to spend a little (actually a lot) more. If you want a bargain, buy an Apple watch, or anything that syncs with your phone. Honestly, the true sweep second is really cool, so enjoy the watch and adjust it every few days to match the time on your phone or computer, as these items are electronically regulated in a controlled environment. Do this and you will most likely always be within 1 minute of the actual time.


Hello Tom,
we both know that a great movement is very cheap. When you buy a watch, 90% of the street price (or even more) is due to the case, bracelet, dial, brand name and craftsmanship of the details, not to mention the R&D costs that are very difficult to compute. The movement (and therefore its accuracy) represents a small part of the purchase cost. A thermocompensated movement is just slightly more expensive than a standard quartz. And for absolute accuracy, just to give you an example, you can go for a radiocontrolled watch that can be very cheap...

Therefore when you say "Quit whining. Did you really think that you were getting atomic clock accuracy for less $500?" I think you are not getting the point. But when you say "If you like the aesthetics of the watch, be happy with it" I agree with you.


----------



## wbird

Wow someone bumped this classic thread. Gotta say I read this bad boy over a year ago when I was thinking of buying a Bulova. Read it again and once you get past all the emotion, venom, and snark; and just count the number of people who said their watch was meeting specs and the number who had problems, you find that 9 or 10 people were doing fine and 4 or 5 people were having problems. Read the links and the same people with problems weren't shy in posting.

Based on the odds that I had a 2 to 1 chance of getting an accurate and unique watch I pulled the trigger and bought one. Couldn't be happier, watch routinely performs well and over in the Bulova sub forum it seems I'm not alone. 

Strangely enough based on the results we've been seeing from Certina recently (including mine) the odds are about the same of a Certina meeting specs, but they haven't received the same treatment that Bulova got in these parts. Perhaps if OP and the folks that were having problems simply returned their watch and asked for a replacement this thread wouldn't have become so epic.


----------



## dicioccio

Hi wbird, for example... as I did with my Certina ! ^_^

But I loved the case and dial and bracelet so I asked for a fix by the Swatch technical support.

For the same reason I don't care for the Bulova since I don't like its aesthetics, regardless its performances


----------



## Miguel

Hi,

And as I did with mine . Now, I have both: DS-2 and DS-2 Chrono and could not be happier.

Cheers,

Miguel


----------



## wbird

Yep dicioccio and Miguel I respected the way you guys when faced with a problem watch just proceeded to fix it without a whole lot of drama and emotion. At the end of the day you ended up with the watch you wanted performing at the level you expected. I obviously like both the Bulova and Certina and I agree with you dicioccio if you're not interested in the style or aesthetics it is pointless to buy the watch, no matter what the performance. 

I feel the same way about quite a few of the Citizen and Seiko offerings, their nice, just to small for my tastes. I certainly wouldn't go out of my way to say disparaging things about them, like many did on this thread about Bulova.


----------



## Sevenmack

wbird said:


> I feel the same way about quite a few of the Citizen and Seiko offerings, their nice, just to small for my tastes. I certainly wouldn't go out of my way to say disparaging things about them, like many did on this thread about Bulova.


The thing is that Bulova got a lot of flack from HAQ enthusiasts is because it isn't HAQ to them, even though the Seiko 8F32 and 8F56 movements are considered HAQ and use the same approach to accuracy (high beat without thermocompensation) as Bulova does with the Precisionist. There are some who have embraced one detail of what can make a quartz high-accuracy (thermocompensation) and made it the litmus test instead of looking at the matter of accuracy over time (which matters more).

At the end of the day, what matters is whether we enjoy the watches we buy.


----------



## Tseg

After ~ 15 months my $100 UHF Bulova has gained almost 1 second. It stopped my yearning to get more and more accurate automatics. More recently I bought an RC atomic time watch which has stopped my yearning to buy more and more accurate Bulovas.


----------



## mleok

Sevenmack said:


> The thing is that Bulova got a lot of flack from HAQ enthusiasts is because it isn't HAQ to them, even though the Seiko 8F32 and 8F56 movements are considered HAQ and use the same approach to accuracy (high beat without thermocompensation) as Bulova does with the Precisionist. There are some who have embraced one detail of what can make a quartz high-accuracy (thermocompensation) and made it the litmus test instead of looking at the matter of accuracy over time (which matters more).
> 
> At the end of the day, what matters is whether we enjoy the watches we buy.


I didn't realize that the 8F32/56 weren't thermocompensated. I think the Precisionist does more than just having a higher frequency. In principle, the fact that its quartz crystal has three prongs means that it's essentially two coupled mechanical oscillators, which should result in a much more precise and robust frequency.


----------



## jkpa

I don't wear my MoonView all that often but accuracy is pretty good, I'd say. It has gained around 2 seconds in 2 months so if I wore it more regularly, it may be even better.


----------



## Tom-HK

mleok said:


> I didn't realize that the 8F32/56 weren't thermocompensated. I think the Precisionist does more than just having a higher frequency. In principle, the fact that its quartz crystal has three prongs means that it's essentially two coupled mechanical oscillators, which should result in a much more precise and robust frequency.


It is true that the Precisionist's movement employs more than just a high-frequency oscillator, though the precise function of the third prong has never been satisfactorily explained in any of Bulova's public statements. The best guess I have been able to come up with is that the third prong adds a torsional resonance mode to the flexural resonance inherent in a standard two-pronged oscillator. This appears to build on earlier work by Seiko in their cal. 9963 twin mode HAQ movement (which found a way of delivering two resonance modes without a third prong). I say 'appears' because I don't know nearly enough about the technical aspects to be certain, but when I read Bulova's statement that they had produced a high-frequency, three-pronged torsional oscillator, I immediately thought of Seiko's 20 SPY, high-frequency flexural/torsional HAQ offering, the patents for which had recently expired. There was also an expired patent of about the same period for a three-pronged oscillator, but from the patents alone I don't see any direct connexion to either high-frequency or torsional resonance so I can't quite tie-up the final pieces of the design puzzle.


----------



## ronalddheld

In the past, <20s/y was our criterion for HAQ. A more recent definition is <10s/y.


----------



## tmathes

wbird said:


> Wow someone bumped this classic thread. Gotta say I read this bad boy over a year ago when I was thinking of buying a Bulova. Read it again and once you get past all the emotion, venom, and snark; and just count the number of people who said their watch was meeting specs and the number who had problems, you find that 9 or 10 people were doing fine and 4 or 5 people were having problems. Read the links and the same people with problems weren't shy in posting.
> 
> Based on the odds that I had a 2 to 1 chance of getting an accurate and unique watch I pulled the trigger and bought one. Couldn't be happier, watch routinely performs well and over in the Bulova sub forum it seems I'm not alone.
> 
> Strangely enough based on the results we've been seeing from Certina recently (including mine) the odds are about the same of a Certina meeting specs, but they haven't received the same treatment that Bulova got in these parts. Perhaps if OP and the folks that were having problems simply returned their watch and asked for a replacement this thread wouldn't have become so epic.


Wbird, I have two Bulova 262kHz models (moonwatch, Accutron II Surveyor) and two Certinas (DS-2 chrono, DS-8). So, my sample size is double what many on either forum have in the same collection 

For what little it's worth, my Bulovas run around +1-1.5sec/month, with my moon watch being the more accurate of the two (gained 3 seconds since the daylight saving change in March). Before the DST change, it gained 4 seconds from the Nov-March period from the last DST change. My two Certinas are +1.5-2sec/month, with my DS-2 chrono gaining 24 seconds in the past year (I used the IAHH adjust during that time; great for DST changes, a PITA for date changes). With my non-scientific stupid-small sample size the Bulovas do a marginally better job. The accuracy in the 2 Certinas is good too and not worth the risk of having Swatch USA crack the case open (and munging up what is otherwise a properly running watch).

If I had to change anything it's shrinking the moonwatch case size but that's another fight for another forum.....


----------



## Sevenmack

mleok said:


> I didn't realize that the 8F32/56 weren't thermocompensated. I think the Precisionist does more than just having a higher frequency. In principle, the fact that its quartz crystal has three prongs means that it's essentially two coupled mechanical oscillators, which should result in a much more precise and robust frequency.


You are correct that Precisionist does more than use higher frequency. As Tom-HK notes, the third prong creates torsional resonance, with all three prongs twisting as well as moving back and forth. That part is similar to what Seiko achieved with the Calibre 9963. At the same time, the higher frequency (similar to the 8Fs) is part of the equation. But as Tom notes, it is hard to make full heads or tails of what the movement does. [This is a time when we could use a Walt Odets for quartz, tearing down HAQ movements to understand them,]

As someone noted some years ago in the thread on the 8F32, thermocompensation is merely a qualifier; it isn't the definitive characteristic of a HAQ. Otherwise a number of the HAQs developed by the Swiss in the 1970s would also be excluded from the list.


----------



## julio13

Buy the new Citizen cal 0100


----------



## ronalddheld

No need to bump this thread.


----------

