# Grand Seiko vs Swiss Luxury



## raveen (Sep 1, 2012)

Hi,
GS considered as high quality and reliable watch. Compared to luxury Swiss watches, is GS on par with say Patek, Vacheron or Ulysse?
Does GS fall in same category as these high-end and ultra-luxury SWISS watches?

Regards
Raveen


----------



## Pawl_Buster (Mar 12, 2007)

raveen said:


> Hi,
> GS considered as high quality and reliable watch. Compared to luxury Swiss watches, is GS on par with say Patek, Vacheron or Ulysse?
> Does GS fall in same category as these high-end and ultra-luxury SWISS watches?
> 
> ...


Different category all together. Those Swiss marks are just fashion watches for the filthy rich ;-)


----------



## ec633 (Jan 6, 2012)

Short of adding more diamonds to make it more luxurious & glamorous.


----------



## Greek6486 (Mar 26, 2013)

raveen said:


> Hi,
> GS considered as high quality and reliable watch. Compared to luxury Swiss watches, is GS on par with say Patek, Vacheron or Ulysse?
> Does GS fall in same category as these high-end and ultra-luxury SWISS watches?
> 
> ...


No, grand Seiko uses a hybrid movement that is not comparable with swiss movements. This should be compared more to a citizen satellite wave or other movement that is quartz related. Does the spring drive have good specs on paper? Yes, however so does a quartz and the spring drive is regulated by a quartz crystal. You will find a strange obsession on this forum with seiko. The truth is that that these interesting movements that they make sound cool but are very unreliable like the kinetic for example which my watchmaker would describe to you as garbage. If you have 7k, do not get this .. Its still a Seiko, citizen is pummeling them in sales and those are the only watches they should be compared with. Would you compare a satellite wave to a Patek? Lol. Much better things out there at this price range! Ask yourself, are you good with having a suped up Honda? Or do you want a Lamborghini?

Sent from my SCH-I545 using Xparent BlueTapatalk 2


----------



## lorsban (Nov 20, 2009)

Grand Seiko is priced lower than omega/iwc but the quality is in at least JLC level.

They also use 3 kinds of movements mechanical, spring drive, and quartz. The finishing and accuracy of these movements is every bit as good or better than inhouse Rolex/jlc/iwc/omega.

I had a chance to compare my Rolex to a grand Seiko and the Seiko definitely had a better finish by a mile.

Was about to buy till I found out only a handful of people in the whole WORLD can refinish a grand Seiko and they're all in Japan. Not very practical.

Sent from my ST27i using Tapatalk now Free


----------



## raze (Nov 28, 2010)

Greek6486 said:


> No, grand Seiko uses a hybrid movement that is not comparable with swiss movements. This should be compared more to a citizen satellite wave or other movement that is quartz related. Does the spring drive have good specs on paper? Yes, however so does a quartz and the spring drive is regulated by a quartz crystal. You will find a strange obsession on this forum with seiko. The truth is that that these interesting movements that they make sound cool but are very unreliable like the kinetic for example which my watchmaker would describe to you as garbage. If you have 7k, do not get this .. Its still a Seiko, citizen is pummeling them in sales and those are the only watches they should be compared with. Would you compare a satellite wave to a Patek? Lol. Much better things out there at this price range! Ask yourself, are you good with having a suped up Honda? Or do you want a Lamborghini?
> 
> Sent from my SCH-I545 using Xparent BlueTapatalk 2


Better trade that Samsung for a Vertu I think the radiation is causing adverse effects!


----------



## Davidtan (Mar 11, 2008)

for my own experience of having diff brand of watch, from rolex, pam, GO, Sinn, Omega, Longines, Bell and Ross and so on, by far nothing none can beat GS quality

as for PP and VC, i'm cant comment on that because i never owned them, but i'm pretty sure one who owned GS watch will def impressed, is not about brand name but the fine made of the watch itself. 

if you ask for my personal opinion, i think GS is somewhere like JLC, everything in house and well known watch maker brand


----------



## mpalmer (Dec 30, 2011)

In my mind Grand Seiko seems more practical minded than PP, ALS, VC. These Swiss makers seem to focus on making very dressy and complicated watches. The Grand Seiko combines a great movement with designs that emphasize everyday functionality over the dressy opulence that these Swiss makers exude.


----------



## Greek6486 (Mar 26, 2013)

This guy sums it up very well:






And even better:






Sent from my SCH-I545 using Xparent BlueTapatalk 2


----------



## raze (Nov 28, 2010)

Greek6486 said:


> This guy sums it up very well:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


That Jersey Shore flunky doesn't know what he's talking about. Looks like a typical $30,000 millionaire to me trying to impress with whats on his wrist.


----------



## lorsban (Nov 20, 2009)

That guy on youtube is an idiot. Obviously talking out of his ass and doesn't know what makes a great watch great.

All he cares about is brand marketing and nothing else. He even tries pronouncing the french names with a french accent and STILL manages to sound like an idiot.

Just to illustrate how good Grand Seiko is, a panel of judges from the watch industry voted the Grand Seiko Hi-Beat as the "2012 European Watch of the Year" in the €2500-8500 category which INCLUDES the brands he mentioned.

That's right. A Japanese Seiko beat the european brands. 

Sent from my GT-N7100 using Tapatalk


----------



## overbudget (Sep 3, 2013)

That video is the biggest plate of tripe ive ever seen. This guy is obviously higher than a kite. Who goes from room to room in their house ranting about thier dislike of a watch? And by the way, he doesn't address a single technical or structural element of the watch...don't waste you time viewing it...what a blowhard!


----------



## Evanssprky (May 14, 2012)

Don't feed the troll!


----------



## lorsban (Nov 20, 2009)

Evanssprky said:


> Don't feed the troll!


Sorry haha

I just have a very low tolerance for stupid.

Sent from my GT-N7100 using Tapatalk


----------



## Evanssprky (May 14, 2012)

lorsban said:


> Sorry haha
> 
> I just have a very low tolerance for stupid.
> 
> Sent from my GT-N7100 using Tapatalk


You just have to build up your resistance slowly and steadily and be ever vigilant, of course true applied stupid can always catch you unawares. ;-)


----------



## lorsban (Nov 20, 2009)

Evanssprky said:


> You just have to build up your resistance slowly and steadily and be ever vigilant, of course true applied stupid can always catch you unawares. ;-)


Good advice!

Would be easier if there was a 12 step program I could enroll in though.

The culminating activity could be wall to wall videos of that guy, coupled with electric shocks when I reach for a gun.

Sent from my GT-N7100 using Tapatalk


----------



## Davidtan (Mar 11, 2008)

there are ppl who love it and ppl who don't, rest to personal preference, greek has his own point and even the youtube guy, is pretty up to your own choice coz there nothing so call best watch in the world..

but for me, i'd sold all my Swiss/German collection and keeping only Grand Seiko for self enjoyment


----------



## EvoRich (Jan 30, 2013)

Greek6486 said:


> This guy sums it up very well:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Holy cow, they're just watches.

I think most people who dislike Grand Seiko, is because they're "just a Seiko". Too much thought is placed on the brand name, and they can't be appreciated for what they are. Buying a Grand Seiko won't get the ooo's and ahhh's from people who only know the names Rolex, Omega and TAG Heuer. I guess the Lexus LF-A is "just a Toyota".

I'm not necessarily defending Grand Seiko, I don't even have one, or can afford one... It just doesn't' make sense to me, that most people don't like them simply because they're a Seiko. The word "Seiko" on the dial causes such a fuss. Pick any Grand Seiko, that exact same watch, movement, case, everything EXACTLY the same, place a Swiss name brand on the dial and "Swiss Made" at 6 o'clock, and it'll suddenly get respect.


----------



## JPfeuffer (Aug 12, 2011)

I own/owned Panerai, Rolex and Omegas among many other Swiss brands but desire to get a GS in the near future and it will be a proud roommate in my watch box with the others. I don't acknowledge names on a dial and when I seen and handled Grand Seikos I just acknowledge a watch that is not trying to be anything that its not, no gimmicks, just a damn good watch.


----------



## Robotaz (Jan 18, 2012)

I try not to make comparisons like that. GS makes a hell of a watch. I have a spring Tuna and admit it is worth every penny and has suddenly made me have serious doubts about similarly priced competitors.

That said, part of the watch obsession is appreciation for history and prominence in the proud evolution of horology. Obviously the OP's mentioned brands stand out as horological aristocracy and I do believe there is a lot to be said about that. But, you have to realize that supply/demand and marketing are huge factors in their prices.

If I had the money to own a Patek I probably would. But I can tell you this, if I had a Patek, I can guarantee you that I'd have a bunch of GS watches. GS is a great watch for the money. I plan on owning more and couldn't care less if it's just a Seiko or not.


----------



## Okapi001 (Apr 9, 2013)

Comparing Grand Seiko to a Swiss luxury watch is like comparing samurai sword to a cuckoo clock. One is beautiful and highly functional product made by a skilled craftsman and the other is a piece of glorified kitsch. ;-)


----------



## gagnello (Nov 19, 2011)

Greek6486 said:


> No, grand Seiko uses a hybrid movement that is not comparable with swiss movements. This should be compared more to a citizen satellite wave or other movement that is quartz related. Does the spring drive have good specs on paper? Yes, however so does a quartz and the spring drive is regulated by a quartz crystal. You will find a strange obsession on this forum with seiko. The truth is that that these interesting movements that they make sound cool but are very unreliable like the kinetic for example which my watchmaker would describe to you as garbage. If you have 7k, do not get this .. Its still a Seiko, citizen is pummeling them in sales and those are the only watches they should be compared with. Would you compare a satellite wave to a Patek? Lol. Much better things out there at this price range! Ask yourself, are you good with having a suped up Honda? Or do you want a Lamborghini?
> 
> Sent from my SCH-I545 using Xparent BlueTapatalk 2


You do know gs makes mechanical movements as well as spring drive right? You should probably educate yourself before making broad generalizations.

Sent from my SGP311 using Tapatalk 4


----------



## lethaltoes (Mar 5, 2013)

Hi Raveen. I saw that you posted a couple of days ago about choosing between a dornbluth and a used PP calatrava. Of the posts you received there I counted possibly one firmly in dornbluth's camp. That one post is from a poster whom I believe to be a long time collector with a fair number of prestigious swiss makes in his stable already. Similarly, while there are avid fans of the grand seiko on this forum, I don't believe it is the buy you are looking for. Especially since I'm thinking your question as to whether the grand seiko brand falls into the ultra luxury category implies recognition in general of the brand name as such. The answer is simply no. Grand seiko's marketing at this stage is woefully inadequate and ineffective for international markets. Frankly, in my humble opinion, a lot of it has to do with very poor corporate strategy but realistically, grand seiko will be a pet project or novelty to Seiko at this juncture because I just can't imagine how those limited sales numbers and extensive costs will ever look palatable to Seiko which sells watches in the millions from their lower lines. But what a novelty it is indeed! And I selfishly hope it stays that way actually. Cheers!


----------



## gagnello (Nov 19, 2011)

Greek6486 said:


> This guy sums it up very well:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


No way this guy is real. He's like Archie luxury. Gotta be schtick.....right?

Sent from my SGP311 using Tapatalk 4


----------



## ec633 (Jan 6, 2012)

Okapi001 said:


> Comparing Grand Seiko to a Swiss luxury watch is like comparing samurai sword to a cuckoo clock. One is beautiful and highly functional product made by a skilled craftsman and the other is a piece of glorified kitsch. ;-)


 Common, You don't know exactly what you are talking about. Just be fair & impartial, man. Must be a biased Swiss fanboy.


----------



## gagnello (Nov 19, 2011)

ec633 said:


> Common, You don't know exactly what you are talking about. Just be fair & impartial, man. Must be a biased Swiss fanboy.


Either im reading the post wrong, or he is saying grand seiko is better than Swiss luxury....

Sent from my SGP311 using Tapatalk 4


----------



## ken_sturrock (Oct 24, 2010)

As the saying goes, moderates have no battle cry.


----------



## ec633 (Jan 6, 2012)

I think it's an insult to GS using cuckoo clock as reference.


----------



## Pawl_Buster (Mar 12, 2007)

Greek6486 said:


> No, grand Seiko uses a hybrid movement that is not comparable with swiss movements. This should be compared more to a citizen satellite wave or other movement that is quartz related. Does the spring drive have good specs on paper? Yes, however so does a quartz and the spring drive is regulated by a quartz crystal. You will find a strange obsession on this forum with seiko. The truth is that that these interesting movements that they make sound cool but are very unreliable like the kinetic for example which my watchmaker would describe to you as garbage. If you have 7k, do not get this .. Its still a Seiko, citizen is pummeling them in sales and those are the only watches they should be compared with. Would you compare a satellite wave to a Patek? Lol. Much better things out there at this price range! Ask yourself, are you good with having a suped up Honda? Or do you want a Lamborghini?
> 
> Sent from my SCH-I545 using Xparent BlueTapatalk 2


The SD is neither regulated nor driven by the quartz crystal. Do some simple reading before spewing out nonsense :-(
And since you won't likely read anything about Seiko; try reading about the ETA HPM movement and educate yourself with facts.


----------



## lorsban (Nov 20, 2009)

gagnello said:


> Either im reading the post wrong, or he is saying grand seiko is better than Swiss luxury....
> 
> Sent from my SGP311 using Tapatalk 4


That's how I understood it too.

Grand Seiko = Samurai sword
Swiss luxury = cuckoo clock

I don't necessarily agree tho. Swiss luxury covers a HUGE range of brands and watches and although Grand Seiko is better made than a lot of them, you can't compare them to über brands like A. Lange.

But I do feel that they're better than Swiss midrange like iwc/omega/rolex, for example.

Sent from my GT-N7100 using Tapatalk


----------



## Greek6486 (Mar 26, 2013)

Pawl_Buster said:


> The SD is neither regulated nor driven by the quartz crystal. Do some simple reading before spewing out nonsense :-(
> And since you won't likely read anything about Seiko; try reading about the ETA HPM movement and educate yourself with facts.


Wrong.

Actually the energy produced by the glide wheel is used to power a control circuit and quartz crystal oscillator, which in turn regulates the electro-mechanical braking of the glide wheel.

I'm wondering how many of you have multiple accounts and are triple posting and I'm wondering how many of you are on Seikos payroll lol.

Sent from my SCH-I545 using Xparent BlueTapatalk 2


----------



## Watchnut12 (Sep 2, 2013)

Oh my god!!! HAHAHAHAHA!!! This is that nightmare from Youtube who knows absolutely crap about watches!!! This guy goes to Costco and tapes it as if it is Baselworld.. The worst part was when this guy belittled the Costco worker for wearing a cheap watch.. I HATE this guy!!! Classless, seriously take your top notch Perrelet and piss off!! You are just annoying!!!



Greek6486 said:


> This guy sums it up very well:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## alexwatch (Sep 12, 2012)

Five years from now the GS value will plummet that's throwing money away. If you want accuracy buy mid tier quartz they will last forever and your wallet will still have some cash in it. Both Swiss and German watches hold there there value longer.


----------



## Watchnut12 (Sep 2, 2013)

No actually, this forum is for watch enthusiasts who know a thing or two about watches... I think their are forums for insecure men who are in their late 50's ad still dress like they are in their 20's purchasing items that they believe others might like...Please Google it as I believe you would be much happier with people who share your same interests , here we just like to go to town on legitimate nightmares who spill verbal diarrhea from their key boards.



Greek6486 said:


> Wrong.
> 
> Actually the energy produced by the glide wheel is used to power a control circuit and quartz crystal oscillator, which in turn regulates the electro-mechanical braking of the glide wheel.
> 
> ...


----------



## lorsban (Nov 20, 2009)

More clarity about Spring Drive:

http://www.thepurists.net/patrons/members/johnd/jackfreedman/article.html

Interesting part is only 5 people in Japan can assemble spring drives hence the price.

Sent from my GT-N7100 using Tapatalk


----------



## Watchnut12 (Sep 2, 2013)

Not true, If I wanted to sell my GS Diver or either one GS GMT I would get all I payed for new with discount.. My Rolex Daytona RG I purchased in 2008 for 10% off msrp it took me 6 months to sell for about a 20% loss.. Also my Rolex Sub C LE.. I purchased for 15% of retail and will not sell it now as I will lose about 25% to 30%.. That said if you are getting into this business for investment than you are heading in the wrong direction... Lastly the discussion is about quality, fit & finish.

The thing that irks me the most is that none of you making comments on GS not having good resale etc.. don't have experience of what you can buy it for and flip it or let alone even handled one!!!

Hey Brazil sucks!!! I've never been their but it sucks anyway... LMAO!!!! Are we children here? Or educated adults that know not to start spewing speculation before any physical & detailed research PERSONALLY.



alexwatch said:


> Five years from now the GS value will plummet that's throwing money away. If you want accuracy buy mid tier quartz they will last forever and your wallet will still have some cash in it. Both Swiss and German watches hold there there value longer.


----------



## Greek6486 (Mar 26, 2013)

Watchnut12 said:


> No actually, this forum is for watch enthusiasts who know a thing or two about watches... I think their are forums for insecure men who are in their late 50's ad still dress like they are in their 20's purchasing items that they believe others might like...Please Google it as I believe you would be much happier with people who share your same interests , here we just like to go to town on legitimate nightmares who spill verbal diarrhea from their key boards.


My information is quoted from here

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spring_Drive

Is the wiki wrong? If so we'd better contact them and explain.

Sent from my SCH-I545 using Xparent BlueTapatalk 2


----------



## alexwatch (Sep 12, 2012)

Maybe your not buying right.


----------



## Watchnut12 (Sep 2, 2013)

I'm just not buying to sell, but enjoy.. I'll get rid of a watch now and then if it gets no wrist time, but not with any intentions of making a profit.. I'm on the other end, I like to purchase and enjoy 



alexwatch said:


> Maybe your not buying right.


----------



## Watchnut12 (Sep 2, 2013)

Whats your point??? You didn't quote one single word from that thread, accept for the title and aspect of the movement. Did you see the calibers of the Spring Drive on the post & how many parts it has? How long does it take for a Spring Drive movement to be put together? If you knew the answers to these questions, you wouldn't of spilled the verbal diarrhea you did in your earlier posts. Do you even know that their is only 5 Master Watchmakers in GS that can put that movement together & that all 5 have 25 years plus with Seiko as Master Watchmakers. I only know of 2 Swiss & 1 German brand who have the same resume (Patek, Breguet & Lange) Why is Swatch Corp, LMVH all working diligently to come close to this movement but can't do to many reasons one being a Patent, Trade. Because it is the movement of the future, you will probably swinging by this movements bolts once the major Swiss start producing something similar.

That's all you get from me Mr. Greek Archie, as I know who you are from your videos & am not very fond of you.











Greek6486 said:


> My information is quoted from here
> 
> Spring Drive - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> ...


----------



## Evanssprky (May 14, 2012)

I'm not qualified to speak of the technical aspects of spring drive, but actually yes, Wikipedia is often wrong. All entries are entered by unpaid freelancers. If incorrect information is entered it stays there supposedly as fact until someone writes in to correct it.
But I suppose its fair to assume that any individual who believes the Swiss marketing lies and hype will also believe everything else they read.


----------



## Pawl_Buster (Mar 12, 2007)

Greek6486 said:


> Wrong.
> 
> Actually the energy produced by the glide wheel is used to power a control circuit and quartz crystal oscillator, which in turn regulates the electro-mechanical braking of the glide wheel.
> 
> ...


You have obviously no electronics background; have never read the Seiko Spring Drive patent and haven't a clue what you are talking about.
I won't belabour the point since you seem incapable of understanding the basics.

Anyone caught having multiple logins on WUS gets a warning then banned. Trolls do too...tread carefully!


----------



## lethaltoes (Mar 5, 2013)

alexwatch said:


> Five years from now the GS value will plummet that's throwing money away. If you want accuracy buy mid tier quartz they will last forever and your wallet will still have some cash in it. Both Swiss and German watches hold there there value longer.


While I don't have a quartz crystal ball to accurately tell me the future, grand seiko has 2 very important elements that will likely mitigate your prophecy of plummeting value. Firstly, it makes an outstanding product which as I have observed, pretty much sells itself despite it's non existent marketing. Secondly, it has a passionate audience as evident here. Buyers actually care about the brand and product. Such brand / product loyalty (especially when it's not marketing led) and when it's not temperamental, is a very powerful argument against your prediction of secondary market collapse of the value of grand seiko watches.


----------



## omegasnik (May 6, 2009)

It's obvious that the walls are falling! Let's discuss the "swiss vs japan" issue after ten years ! 
Thank you INTERNET!

Kind regards,
Nikos.


----------



## alexwatch (Sep 12, 2012)

I think you guys should calm down .That word VS is used sometimes to get people worked up.


----------



## Watchnut12 (Sep 2, 2013)

GS is a labor of love for Seiko, where time & resource is no object to end up at what they think is the 'perfect' watch. They make their money from the lower & mid ranges and GS has a halo effect for the rest of the range. I feel that for Swiss -﻿ they will be more interested in maximizing their margins & will cost reduce their product gradually until the results are noticed by the Consumer.

If people can understand GS was only available in Japan until recently, see the Japanese tend to keep the best of the best for themselves when it comes to the products they export. So to understand the level of quality is to understand the sentence above.. Seiko doesn't need to make money of GS, they are already the BIGGEST watch company in the whole wide world selling their lower & mid level watches.. See many, many human beings can afford quartz watches that don't cost as much as an automatic. I'm sure the educated people who aren't under the Advertising spell of the Swiss can understand with all these facts why people can speak highly of GS with their head held high & with confidence.

See you have to make a plunge first to experience & realize it.. GS is not a cheap watch , so for the average person who saves up $5,000 to $10,000 & gets an interest for fine watches it's going to be hard to drop that coin on a watch that is only known for their more practical cheaper watches. I fully understand & agree with this (Rookie to watches & the advertisement isn't their to lead you)... but for the watch enthusiasts that have dabbled in many brands & have the means to own a couple of watches, I say give it a try. I was one of those people that only bought Swiss... AP, Rolex, Corum, PAM etc... until I gave it a try. I'll say it again, if GS made a bunch of different models it would be hard for me to choose a Swiss over them unless it was Patek, Breguet or JLC.



lethaltoes said:


> Hi Raveen. I saw that you posted a couple of days ago about choosing between a dornbluth and a used PP calatrava. Of the posts you received there I counted possibly one firmly in dornbluth's camp. That one post is from a poster whom I believe to be a long time collector with a fair number of prestigious swiss makes in his stable already. Similarly, while there are avid fans of the grand seiko on this forum, I don't believe it is the buy you are looking for. Especially since I'm thinking your question as to whether the grand seiko brand falls into the ultra luxury category implies recognition in general of the brand name as such. The answer is simply no. Grand seiko's marketing at this stage is woefully inadequate and ineffective for international markets. Frankly, in my humble opinion, a lot of it has to do with very poor corporate strategy but realistically, grand seiko will be a pet project or novelty to Seiko at this juncture because I just can't imagine how those limited sales numbers and extensive costs will ever look palatable to Seiko which sells watches in the millions from their lower lines. But what a novelty it is indeed! And I selfishly hope it stays that way actually. Cheers!


----------



## Davidtan (Mar 11, 2008)

are we talking about GS watch vs to Swiss or the SD movement itself only? GS has 4 different type of movement but the discussion has brought towards SD movement, there are superb hand wind, auto and high-beat movement that is easily as accurate as any COSC movement

had a pam 111 hand wound with COSC once, suppose the accuracy should be within but how funny, the watch running more than 10 second per day and i had sold it off.. while my both GS auto and hand wind are keeping at max +3 and usual average +1 to +2

i understand that not everyone could accept the fact of SD, but i really appreciate how the movement was made, which i believe not even Swiss can do something similar to it, and no doubt the accuracy is +/- 0 everyday on my diver !


----------



## Greek6486 (Mar 26, 2013)

Pawl_Buster said:


> You have obviously no electronics background; have never read the Seiko Spring Drive patent and haven't a clue what you are talking about.
> I won't belabour the point since you seem incapable of understanding the basics.
> 
> Anyone caught having multiple logins on WUS gets a warning then banned. Trolls do too...tread carefully!


Seriously? Read this

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spring_Drive

2nd paragraph

" It uses a mainspring, barrel, automatic winder and stem winding like in a mechanical watch to store the watch energy. The conventional escapement is replaced with a device that Seiko calls a Tri-synchro Regulator to regulate the unwinding of the mainspring. The regulator controls the use of the three forms of energy used in the Spring Drive mechanism; the mechanical power of the mainspring, the electrical energy generated from this mechanical power, and the electromagnetic energy that governs the rotation of the glide wheel. The energy produced by the glide wheel is used to power a control circuit and quartz crystal oscillator, which in turn regulates the electro-mechanical braking of the glide wheel."

Let me guess... Its still not there right?

You and that other guy are all worked up and aren't reading. It states exactly what I said about quartz being used to regulate the glidewheel right on that page.. I didn't make it up, and as for my electronics background... I quoted an article how do you know about my electronics background? Again go read it for yourself instead of trying to discredit me.

Sent from my SCH-I545 using Xparent BlueTapatalk 2


----------



## lorsban (Nov 20, 2009)

The other major thing to note here is Grand Seiko buyers (outside Japan) most likely started out as Swiss watch buyers.

What this means is many Grand Seiko owners HAVE compared them to their swiss watches and have a clear understanding of Grand Seiko quality vs Swiss.

What Mr. Youtube doesn't understand is Seiko "Fanboys" are basically watch lovers, be it Swiss, German, Italian, US, Russian, Asian etc...

In other words, we KNOW that a great watch is great, no matter where it's from.

Sent from my GT-N7100 using Tapatalk


----------



## Watchnut12 (Sep 2, 2013)

Bravo...Couldn't of summed it up any better!



lorsban said:


> The other major thing to note here is Grand Seiko buyers (outside Japan) most likely started out as Swiss watch buyers.
> 
> What this means is many Grand Seiko owners HAVE compared them to their swiss watches and have a clear understanding of Grand Seiko quality vs Swiss.
> 
> ...


----------



## omegasnik (May 6, 2009)

Let me make it clear: when an objective watch fun "meets" the above-mid-range Seiko is at least surprised! 
I still remember that when I bought Ananta (mechanical 8R28 caliber) from an AD I felt like stealing it given the price I bought it!
Also felt the same with the MM300, and so on ...

You can check me and my favourites here:
https://www.watchuseek.com/f2/these-some-my-favorite-watches-911835.html

Kind regards,
NIkos.


----------



## ken_sturrock (Oct 24, 2010)

*OT SD regulator*

OK, just so we don't totally recreate this discussion (last one was two weeks ago)...Pawl is focusing on the precise meaning of the word "regulate". Regardless of Wikipedia's summary - the gear train of a SD is controlled (regulated) by the electro-magnetic trisynchro regulator which is told how to operate by an elecronic timer on the IC. That timing circuit is set by the quartz crystal. The quartz crystal does not, therefore, regulate the gear train. This is a subtle, and mostly unimportant, distinction for everyday discussion. Nonetheless, it's true. It's approachably documented in the patents.

/*
All right, back to where we were, Seiko fans - return to your religious crusade (BTW the brand doesn't really need defense against the purposefully ignorant and trolls typing from their mommy's basement...) Greek - pursue your pointless provocation (Aren't you missed back in the Longines forum? Aren't you getting tired of bashing Seiko? It's all you have posted about for months. It sounds like you have some sort of strange personal obsession. Did you bust your knuckle opening one for a battery change? Do you need a hug?)
*/


----------



## JPfeuffer (Aug 12, 2011)

*Re: OT SD regulator*

If this debate continues which I am not minding if it does, I hope everyone can be calm and civil. Because this guy's next video will be how crazy and fanatic Seiko fans are and how verbally assualted he was on WUS. For this site's reputation and the great people on here I would rather not give him that satisfaction and opportunity to post as such. There are plenty of well educated and intelligent Seiko collectors on this forum for it not to go that route.


----------



## Greek6486 (Mar 26, 2013)

*Re: OT SD regulator*



JPfeuffer said:


> If this debate continues which I am not minding if it does, I hope everyone can be calm and civil. Because this guy's next video will be how crazy and fanatic Seiko fans are and how verbally assualted he was on WUS. For this site's reputation and the great people on here I would rather not give him that satisfaction and opportunity to post as such. There are plenty of well educated and intelligent Seiko collectors on this forum for it not to go that route.


Lol just to clarify --- I'm not the guy in the video!!!!

Sent from my SCH-I545 using Xparent BlueTapatalk 2


----------



## oak1971 (Aug 19, 2013)

*Re: OT SD regulator*



Greek6486 said:


> Lol just to clarify --- I'm not the guy in the video!!!!
> 
> Sent from my SCH-I545 using Xparent BlueTapatalk 2


Perhaps, but you still are uninformed.


----------



## Pawl_Buster (Mar 12, 2007)

Greek6486 said:


> Seriously? Read this
> 
> Spring Drive - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> ...


It is dangerous to quote stuff from wikipedia. The person who wrote that was obviously as uniformed as you are.
You also obviously didn't read the Seiko SD patent or the ETA HPM description or you would understand what the real purpose quartz crystal is and why it does not regulate the watch.

When you've done some reading of the real facts and understand the difference between quartz watches, quartz regulation and Spring Drive; then maybe there can be a meaningful discussion.

Until that time, this is just a troll thread set up by 'raveen' for you and a couple of others to agitate while adding nothing useful to the thread :-(


----------



## Okapi001 (Apr 9, 2013)

I don't know what is so difficult to understand? Spring drive is both quartz watch - because quartz crystal is responsible for accuracy of the watch - and mechanical watch, because mechanical power - spring - is used to move the hands (in conventional quartz watches electric motor moves the hands). And that is all one needs to know.

O.


----------



## AvantGardeTime (Aug 23, 2013)

*Re: OT SD regulator*



Greek6486 said:


> Lol just to clarify --- I'm not the guy in the video!!!!
> 
> Sent from my SCH-I545 using Xparent BlueTapatalk 2


Oh yes you are. Just follow the trail....


----------



## Pawl_Buster (Mar 12, 2007)

Okapi001 said:


> I don't know what is so difficult to understand? Spring drive is both quartz watch - because quartz crystal is responsible for accuracy of the watch - and mechanical watch, because mechanical power - spring - is used to move the hands (in conventional quartz watches electric motor moves the hands). And that is all one needs to know.
> 
> O.


The difficulty seems to be that their is a lack of understanding how the quartz crystal is used in these watches.

In a quartz watch, the crystal is the clock that provides the signal that ultimately drives the electric motor or the digital display. In the SD, the crystal serves and entirely different function and does not drive the regulator at all; it's just a reference.
The SD could function just fine if Seiko had not included the quartz crystal but a quartz watch could not function at all without one.


----------



## Pawl_Buster (Mar 12, 2007)

*Re: OT SD regulator*



AvantGardeTime said:


> Oh yes you are. Just follow the trail....


They really don't like it when they are discovered :-d


----------



## Okapi001 (Apr 9, 2013)

*Re: OT SD regulator*



Pawl_Buster said:


> The difficulty seems to be that their is a lack of understanding how the quartz crystal is used in these watches.
> 
> In a quartz watch, the crystal is the clock that provides the signal that ultimately drives the electric motor or the digital display. In the SD, the crystal serves and entirely different function and does not drive the regulator at all; it's just a reference.
> The SD could function just fine if Seiko had not included the quartz crystal but a quartz watch could not function at all without one.


I'm afraid you don't understand the Spring Drive.

Spring Drive without a quartz crystal would be terribly inaccurate, so it's not true that it could function "just fine". On the other hand, you could also make an electric watch without a quartz, however the electric motor itself is again very inaccurate.

So in every case, if you want a usable watch, you need a system that is responsible for accuracy (quartz crystal or balance wheel + hairspring or pendulum or some other form of harmonic oscillator) and system that powers the watch and moves the hands (electric motor, mainspring, weight on a cord ...).

So, Spring Drive without a quartz oscillator would not function "just fine". The quartz crystal in the Spring Drive is its only oscillator, so it's not really a reference, but its only "source of accuracy".


----------



## Pawl_Buster (Mar 12, 2007)

*Re: OT SD regulator*



Okapi001 said:


> I'm afraid you don't understand the Spring Drive.
> 
> Spring Drive without a quartz crystal would be terribly inaccurate, so it's not true that it could function "just fine". On the other hand, you could also make an electric watch without a quartz, however the electric motor itself is again very inaccurate.
> 
> ...


I won't indulge you any further. Until you have read and understood how the SD actually works and how a quartz watch functions, there is nothing to be gained in continuing this discussion.
Believe anything you like...it will not change how the SD or any other watch functions.


----------



## Okapi001 (Apr 9, 2013)

*Re: OT SD regulator*



Pawl_Buster said:


> I won't indulge you any further. Until you have read and understood how the SD actually works and how a quartz watch functions, there is nothing to be gained in continuing this discussion.
> Believe anything you like...it will not change how the SD or any other watch functions.


So you want to tell us that the description on the Seiko web page is wrong?
---
The electronic signal generated by the *oscillator [i.e. quartz crystal] *is fed back to the IC which *regulates *an electro-magnetic brake which *controls *the rotation speed of the drive wheel.

---

Could you be please a little less patronising and care to explain how it really works?


----------



## Pawl_Buster (Mar 12, 2007)

*Re: OT SD regulator*



Okapi001 said:


> So you want to tell us that the description on the Seiko web page is wrong?
> ---
> The electronic signal generated by the *oscillator [i.e. quartz crystal] *is fed back to the IC which *regulates *an electro-magnetic brake which *controls *the rotation speed of the drive wheel.
> 
> ...


That description is not wrong at all. If you read carefully it says that the crystal signal is fed back to the IC which regulates...the IC regulates the brake; not the crystal.
Read the patent and you will see that the try-syncro regulator is a combination of measuring and control circuitry. The 'IC' is a conglomerate of several electronic systems. The three inputs to the try-syncro regulator are; pulses from the glide wheel pick up coil; a time/clock reference provided by a voltage controlled oscillator and pulses from the crystal.

The VCO is the primary clock and it's output is compared to the input from the glide wheel coil. If the glide wheel spins faster than 8 Hz, then the 'IC' will apply braking to the other coil(braking coil) until the glide wheel is back in sync.
This set up by itself would be more than capable of keeping the movement accurate in a static situation. When worn, the watch would be subject to all the same things a fully mechanical movement would; ie inertial, gravity and temperature.
Seiko took the SD one more quantum leap further by building in a system to take care of any effects that inertia, gravity and temperature might have on the movement.
They added a quartz reference. The signals from the crystal are fed into the 'IC' where they are compared to the output of the comparator which looks at the VCO and glide wheel signals. This further comparison generates a table of offsets which after a specific time are then applied to the braking.

At no time does the quartz crystal signal directly interact with the glide wheel and is therefor not doing any regulating; it is just a reference. Without this reference, the SD would work fine but be no more accurate than a regular mechanically escaped movement.

By comparison, the crystal in an analog quartz watch provides the accurate signal that is down counted from 32KHz to 1Hz. It is then amplified and drives the stepper motor by pulsing a coil once per second.


----------



## Okapi001 (Apr 9, 2013)

*Re: OT SD regulator*



Pawl_Buster said:


> By comparison, the crystal in an analog quartz watch provides the accurate signal that is down counted from 32KHz to 1Hz. It is then amplified and drives the stepper motor by pulsing a coil once per second.


You can apply exactly the same warped logic to a quartz watch. Every quartz watch have an IC which regulates the motor or display. It's not the crystal that regulates the watch. The crystal only produces impulses, which are then counted by the IC, who regulates the watch.

And if the VCO in the IC would really be enough, why is there no "quartz" watch without a quartz, with only IC?

But more importantly, for this discussion it's really not important if the oscillator is the IC or the quartz crystal or both, important is that it is "electric", not mechanical.


----------



## Okapi001 (Apr 9, 2013)

*Re: OT SD regulator*

And what exactly is wrong with my statement? You have quartz crystal AND IC in every quartz watch and in every Spring Drive watch. Please explain what is really the difference, regarding the "oscillator part" of the watch. And I would really like to know what is the advantage of the VCO in the Spring Drive. Why not only quartz crystal? And who is really "the master" oscillator? How do the IC know when to "listen" only to VCO and when it has to take the impulses from the quartz in the account.


----------



## Pawl_Buster (Mar 12, 2007)

*Re: OT SD regulator*



Okapi001 said:


> And what exactly is wrong with my statement? You have quartz crystal AND IC in every quartz watch and in every Spring Drive watch. Please explain what is really the difference, regarding the "oscillator part" of the watch. And I would really like to know what is the advantage of the VCO in the Spring Drive. Why not only quartz crystal? And who is really "the master" oscillator? How do the IC know when to "listen" only to VCO and when it has to take the impulses from the quartz in the account.


Please read and _*understand*_ this before making any more statements...http://www.thewatchsite.com/12-refe...aining-spring-drive-related-technologies.html


----------



## oak1971 (Aug 19, 2013)

*Re: OT SD regulator*

It almost sounds like a kind of Wheatstone bridge. Whereas knowns are used to calculate an unknown from the imbalance. Or is that wrong?


----------



## Okapi001 (Apr 9, 2013)

*Re: OT SD regulator*

First of all, thanks to Ken who sent me the link to the Seiko's patent. And secondly, after reading the patent claim I'm pretty sure Pawl is wrong. And if I made a mistake, I would be very happy if Pawl can explain what did I misunderstand.

So, if I understand the patent claim correctly, the VCO is only used to measure the rotation of the glide wheel. It's part of the *rotation detecting circuit* and doesn't regulate anything. The signal, produced by the rotation detecting circuit, is than compared to the signal, produced by the* oscillator circuit (quartz crystal)* and the brake is applied to the glide wheel. *If I understand the patent correctly, there is no way that the spring drive can function without a quartz.
*
And here are quotes from the original patent claim (bold is used by me, and in italics are my comments).
---
... the *oscillator circuit *uses a quartz oscillator to output an oscillating signal, and the oscillating signal is frequency-divided by the frequency-dividing circuit to have a constant cycle. The frequency-divided signal is output as, for example, a 10-Hz time-standard signal (reference cycle signal) fs to the phase comparison circuit. The time-standard signal (reference cycle signal) fs is used as a target revolution of the generator. Thus, the oscillator circuit and the frequency-dividing circuit constitute a target-signal generating circuit that generates a target signal (time standard signal fs) corresponding to a target revolution. 
----

_So this is the oscillator of the Spring Drive. Basically the same as in every quartz watch. _

---

The *rotation detection circuit* receives an output waveform from the *VCO *at a high impedance so that the generator is not affected. It performs the waveform processing of the output to form rectangular-wave pulses fr, and outputs them to the phase comparison circuit. Accordingly, the rotation detection circuit generates a rotation signal synchronized with the rotation of the generator.
----

_Here is this famous VCO, which is only used to help measure rotation of the glide wheel (generator). It doesn't regulate anything, it is only part of the rotation detection circuit.
_
---

The* phase comparison circuit* compares the phases of time reference signal fs from the frequency-dividing circuit and rectangular-wave pulses fr from the rotation detection circuit, and outputs a difference signal. The difference signal is processed by the LPF so that its high-frequency components are eliminated, before being input to the brake control circuit.
----

_So here is the signal from the oscillator (quartz crystal) compared to the signal from rotation detection circuit and the necessary braking calculated._

I'm very sorry but if I'm not very mistaken Pawl got it wrong and the quartz crystal is the only "clock" that regulate the Spring Drive. The VCO is only used to measure correctly the rotation of the glide wheel (and to produce a signal that corresponds with the rotation). On its own it has zero effect on the rotation of the glide wheel and consequently on the accuracy of the watch. Only when the signal from the quartz is added to the equation can the rotation of the glide wheel be regulated.


----------



## Watchnut12 (Sep 2, 2013)

*Re: OT SD regulator*

NO.. NO!! Completely different, read the PATENT!!! I cut and pasted the design, part and blueprint for your friend Mr. Greek, you guys need to study that & come back and talk. Otherwise its like speaking Chinese to the French & vise verse! Plus don't you think us CRAZY SEIKO fanatics who spend the $$$$$ for these spring drives would know better than a couple of Swiss Cultists who can't bare to think their's something better out their than what has been BRANDED in their minds.

If you see the PATENT..Actual blueprint for the movement you will see how many parts it has & it's refereed to as a MECHANICAL movement.. I don't give a rats ass if they put a diamond in their to regulate the MECHANICAL movement!!



Okapi001 said:


> You can apply exactly the same warped logic to a quartz watch. Every quartz watch have an IC which regulates the motor or display. It's not the crystal that regulates the watch. The crystal only produces impulses, which are then counted by the IC, who regulates the watch.
> 
> And if the VCO in the IC would really be enough, why is there no "quartz" watch without a quartz, with only IC?
> 
> But more importantly, for this discussion it's really not important if the oscillator is the IC or the quartz crystal or both, important is that it is "electric", not mechanical.


----------



## 80talisten (Jul 24, 2011)

*Re: OT SD regulator*

This video explains pretty well how the Spring drive-movement is working.






I love the Spring drive-movement, but I'm more a fan of their 36000 bph Hi-beat-movements.


----------



## pantagruel (May 30, 2010)




----------



## Pawl_Buster (Mar 12, 2007)

*Re: OT SD regulator*



Okapi001 said:


> First of all, thanks to Ken who sent me the link to the Seiko's patent. And secondly, after reading the patent claim I'm pretty sure Pawl is wrong. And if I made a mistake, I would be very happy if Pawl can explain what did I misunderstand.
> 
> So, if I understand the patent claim correctly, the VCO is only used to measure the rotation of the glide wheel. It's part of the *rotation detecting circuit* and doesn't regulate anything. The signal, produced by the rotation detecting circuit, is than compared to the signal, produced by the* oscillator circuit (quartz crystal)* and the brake is applied to the glide wheel. *If I understand the patent correctly, there is no way that the spring drive can function without a quartz.
> *
> ...


Obviously you have not comprehended how the entire circuit works at all.

Quoting small snippets that you think support your unsupportable position is no different than quoting bits from the bible to 'prove' that people had dinosaurs for pets and that the earth is only 4000 years old.
Reality is much different.


----------



## Okapi001 (Apr 9, 2013)

*Re: OT SD regulator*



Pawl_Buster said:


> Obviously you have not comprehended how the entire circuit works at all.
> 
> Quoting small snippets that you think support your unsupportable position is no different than quoting bits from the bible to 'prove' that people had dinosaurs for pets and that the earth is only 4000 years old.
> Reality is much different.
> ...


These were no "small snippets", but one continuous part of the claim (where the whole mechanism is explained in relatively simple terms), which I divided into three parts for clarity. From your patronising answer (again) I understand that you really have no idea (or rather - you have wrong idea) how Spring Drive really works. Otherwise you would pointed out where I made mistake.

I will quote this part again, this time with numbers that correspond with the ilustration.

The oscillator circuit *51* uses a quartz oscillator *51*A to output an oscillating signal, and the oscillating signal is frequency-divided by the frequency-dividing circuit *52* to have a constant cycle. The frequency-divided signal is output as, for example, a 10-Hz time-standard signal (reference cycle signal) fs to the phase comparison circuit *54*. The time-standard signal (reference cycle signal) fs is used as a target revolution of the generator *20*. Thus, the oscillator circuit *51* and the frequency-dividing circuit *52* constitute a target-signal generating circuit that generates a target signal (time standard signal fs) corresponding to a target revolution.
The rotation detection circuit *53* receives an output waveform from the VCO *25* at a high impedance so that the generator *20* is not affected. It performs the waveform processing of the output to form rectangular-wave pulses fr, and outputs them to the phase comparison circuit *54*. Accordingly, the rotation detection circuit *53* generates a rotation signal synchronized with the rotation of the generator *20*.
The phase comparison circuit *54* compares the phases of time reference signal fs from the frequency-dividing circuit *52* and rectangular-wave pulses fr from the rotation detection circuit *53*, and outputs a difference signal. The difference signal is processed by the LPF *55* so that its high-frequency components are eliminated, before being input to the brake control circuit *56*.
The brake control circuit *56* inputs, based on the signal, to the VCO *25*, a control signal to the brake circuit *23*. Thereby, phase synchronization control is realized.


----------



## lorsban (Nov 20, 2009)

Dear lord are you guys still on about Spring Drive? Cripes! The OP asked about Grand Seiko. Spring Drive is just ONE movement they got. haha! If you ask me, I prefer their HiBeat or their regular mechanical. I might got for Spring Drive if it was a chrono. That smooth sweep would be cool to watch on a chrono.

Sent from my Transformer Prime TF201 using Tapatalk


----------



## Okapi001 (Apr 9, 2013)

lorsban said:


> Dear lord are you guys still on about Spring Drive? Cripes!


Well, it's interesting to know how it _really _works. ;-)


----------



## Greek6486 (Mar 26, 2013)

The patents from a post above are:

"Watch movement driven by a spring and regulated by an electronic circuit 
Jean-Claude Berney

US Patent number: 3937001
Filing date: Nov 20, 1973
Issue date: Feb 10, 1976

http://www.google.com/patents/about?...BAJ&dq=3937001

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Electric Timepiece
Aizawa, et al.

US Patent number: 3648453
Filing date: Jul 16, 1969
Issue date: Mar 1972

http://www.google.com/patents/about?id=uukxAAAAEBAJ

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ +++++++++++++++++++++++
Timepiece having a mechanical movement associated with an electronic regulator 
Jean-Jacques Born et al

US Patent number: 7016265
Filing date: Sep 30, 2004
Issue date: Mar 21, 2006
Application number: 10/953,451

http://www.google.com/patents/about?...J&dq=US7016265

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ ++++++++++++++++++++++
Mouvement d'horlogerie mû par un ressort et régulé par un circuit électronique.
Clockwork driven by a spring and controlled by an electronic circuit.

Jean-Claude Berney
Ebauches S.A.
c/o ASUAG SA., Faubourg du Lac 6
2501 Biel/Bienne

https://www.swissreg.ch/srclient/fac...at&id=CH597636

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Attachment to this post

Electronically Controlled Mechanical Timepiece and Control Method Therefor
Shinkawa and Koike

US Patent Number: RE38110 E
Reissue Date: May 6, 2003
Reissue of US Patent 6,041,021
Original Issue Date: March 21, 2000
Attached Files
File Type: pdfUSRE38110.pdf (353.5 KB, 4 views)
File Type: pdfUSRE38110.pdf (353.5 KB, 3 views)
File Type: pdfUSRE38110.pdf (353.5 KB, 3 views)
Qaaa
"

So I still see no proof or evidence besides the wiki and the Seiko website which both say that this mechanism uses a quartz crystal. Also the patents all state that they are for a mechanical mechanism regulated by an electronic circuit... Honestly all u hear from team Seiko here is "ooooo go read more we know the magical truth but can't prove it in any way shape or form." Wikipedia is wrong... Seikos website is wrong.... Patents are wrong... This watch is actually powered by a genie named Takabushi and you dont know him so therefore its worth 8000 dollars.

So here is what we have so far:
Is there a quartz crystal in a spring drive? Yes
Is this watch mechanical with electric control? 
Yes

Sent from my SCH-I545 using Xparent BlueTapatalk 2


----------



## Pawl_Buster (Mar 12, 2007)

lorsban said:


> Dear lord are you guys still on about Spring Drive? Cripes! The OP asked about Grand Seiko. Spring Drive is just ONE movement they got. haha! If you ask me, I prefer their HiBeat or their regular mechanical. I might got for Spring Drive if it was a chrono. That smooth sweep would be cool to watch on a chrono.
> 
> Sent from my Transformer Prime TF201 using Tapatalk


Yep and every time someone comes along and throws out the old and completely incorrect mantra 'Spring Drive is quartz or SD is quartz regulated'...it will be challenged with the facts. Whether those facts are understood or not makes no difference; those in error will be taken to task ;-)


----------



## lorsban (Nov 20, 2009)

Haha yeah. I can see how that's annoying. Somebody should just make another youtube video with all the info. 

Sent from my Transformer Prime TF201 using Tapatalk


----------



## oak1971 (Aug 19, 2013)

If I follow the design properly, the quartz only enhances accuracy, as the base accuracy is provided by the mechanical movement. The magnetic brake replaces a mechanical one that would otherwise be there doing the same job with slightly less efficiency and more parts wear. It works in conjunction with the quartz reference and circuitry to provide an enhancement to the mechanical accuracy, not a replacement for the mechanical accuracy.


----------



## AvantGardeTime (Aug 23, 2013)

Someone finally gets it!


----------



## Pawl_Buster (Mar 12, 2007)

oak1971 said:


> If I follow the design properly, the quartz only enhances accuracy, as the base accuracy is provided by the mechanical movement. The magnetic brake replaces a mechanical one that would otherwise be there doing the same job with slightly less efficiency and more parts wear. It works in conjunction with the quartz reference and circuitry to provide an enhancement to the mechanical accuracy, not a replacement for the mechanical accuracy.


Thank you for having taken the time to look, read and understand :-!


----------



## Okapi001 (Apr 9, 2013)

oak1971 said:


> If I follow the design properly, the quartz only enhances accuracy, as the base accuracy is provided by the mechanical movement. The magnetic brake replaces a mechanical one that would otherwise be there doing the same job with slightly less efficiency and more parts wear. It works in conjunction with the quartz reference and circuitry to provide an enhancement to the mechanical accuracy, not a replacement for the mechanical accuracy.


Your mechanical base accuracy is provided by the more or less uniform unwinding of the mainspring. It's as in a mechanical toy - it unwinds in a certain time, which is always more or less the same. But that is nowhere near as accurate to be useful. It's the same as in the standard mechanical watch without a balance wheel and hairspring. So in a mechanical watch you need a balance wheel with hairspring, as an oscillator, to accurately control unwinding of the mainspring, in a wall clock you have a pendulum, and in a Spring Drive you have quartz crystal (and associated electronics that accurately brakes the unwinding of the mainspring). Notwithstanding what Pawl thinks


----------



## Pawl_Buster (Mar 12, 2007)

Okapi001 said:


> Your mechanical base accuracy is provided by the more or less uniform unwinding of the mainspring. It's as in a mechanical toy - it unwinds in a certain time, which is always more or less the same. But that is nowhere near as accurate to be useful. It's the same as in the standard mechanical watch without a balance wheel and hairspring. So in a mechanical watch you need a balance wheel with hairspring, as an oscillator, to accurately control unwinding of the mainspring, in a wall clock you have a pendulum, and in a Spring Drive you have quartz crystal (and associated electronics that accurately brakes the unwinding of the mainspring). Notwithstanding what Pawl thinks


More crap...what about isochronism of the main spring???

Keep digging and you will surely bury yourself and your completely erroneous conclusions :-!


----------



## raveen (Sep 1, 2012)

Pawl_Buster said:


> It is dangerous to quote stuff from wikipedia. The person who wrote that was obviously as uniformed as you are.
> You also obviously didn't read the Seiko SD patent or the ETA HPM description or you would understand what the real purpose quartz crystal is and why it does not regulate the watch.
> 
> When you've done some reading of the real facts and understand the difference between quartz watches, quartz regulation and Spring Drive; then maybe there can be a meaningful discussion.
> ...


With due respect,
My purpose is not to set up a troll thread but to get some meaningful inputs in helping me to decide my next purchase.

Regards
Raveen


----------



## Okapi001 (Apr 9, 2013)

Pawl_Buster said:


> More crap...what about isochronism of the main spring???


Yes, what about that? In mechanical watch it has an effect on the oscillator (i.e. balance wheel), in Spring Drive it has zero effect on the oscillator (i.e. quartz crystal).


----------



## Pawl_Buster (Mar 12, 2007)

raveen said:


> With due respect,
> My purpose is not to set up a troll thread but to get some meaningful inputs in helping me to decide my next purchase.
> 
> Regards
> Raveen


I apologize if you were misunderstood but the subject line of your post is a definite red flag guaranteed to provoke exactly the responses you see in the thread.
Your query is far t0o wide and all encompassing to elicit much meaningful dialogue. And as you have seen, it's like a light to moths; it has drawn out some bridge dwellers ;-)

Perhaps you could rephrase tour inquiry with a few specific models so that folks here who might have one or the other or both can give you their unbiased or biased opinions. That would serve the forum and community much better.

So please excuse us if we didn't recognize this as a genuine question :-(


----------



## oak1971 (Aug 19, 2013)

Okapi001 said:


> Your mechanical base accuracy is provided by the more or less uniform unwinding of the mainspring. It's as in a mechanical toy - it unwinds in a certain time, which is always more or less the same. But that is nowhere near as accurate to be useful. It's the same as in the standard mechanical watch without a balance wheel and hairspring. So in a mechanical watch you need a balance wheel with hairspring, as an oscillator, to accurately control unwinding of the mainspring, in a wall clock you have a pendulum, and in a Spring Drive you have quartz crystal (and associated electronics that accurately brakes the unwinding of the mainspring). Notwithstanding what Pawl thinks


Likely much more predictable than a wind up robot toy. If it were otherwise, the balance wheel would need to be huge to provide the needed dampening effect.


----------



## lethaltoes (Mar 5, 2013)

I can vouch for Raveen. Ain't no troll.


----------



## 31 Jewels (Oct 15, 2011)

I knew it was gonna happen. So lets all pull on the brakes! 
I was taught in watch school a very interesting fact about watch companies back in the day. The Japanese were a threat to the Swiss because they could build them very very good. This is why the Japanese started their own observatory for chronometer testing. Its a tough call, and I could think of 1,000 comparos. They both are good, even being a huge Japanese watch collector,






but I gotta say that Zenith sits on the top. 31


----------



## Pawl_Buster (Mar 12, 2007)

lethaltoes said:


> I can vouch for Raveen. Ain't no troll.


Thanks for the reference and I'm glad I gave him the benefit of the doubt after he reposted


----------



## oak1971 (Aug 19, 2013)

In response to the original query, the Japanese proved their mettle in the late 60's with the original Hi Beat GS. The parity continues.


----------



## Okapi001 (Apr 9, 2013)

oak1971 said:


> Likely much more predictable than a wind up robot toy. If it were otherwise, the balance wheel would need to be huge to provide the needed dampening effect.


Of course, but you still need a balance wheel (or some other form of oscillator) to have something you can call accurate watch. And the oscillator in a Spring Drive movement is quartz crystal.


----------



## Pawl_Buster (Mar 12, 2007)

oak1971 said:


> In response to the original query, the Japanese proved their mettle in the late 60's with the original Hi Beat GS. The parity continues.


Good one :-!


----------



## AvantGardeTime (Aug 23, 2013)

oak1971 said:


> In response to the original query, the Japanese proved their mettle in the late 60's with the original Hi Beat GS. The parity continues.


And the proof is in the pudding....
Watches by SJX: Explaining the Seiko Astronomical Observatory Chronometer, and Seiko's history in Swiss chronometer competitions


----------



## Watchnut12 (Sep 2, 2013)

Finally, someone intelligent who took the time to research & then post.



oak1971 said:


> If I follow the design properly, the quartz only enhances accuracy, as the base accuracy is provided by the mechanical movement. The magnetic brake replaces a mechanical one that would otherwise be there doing the same job with slightly less efficiency and more parts wear. It works in conjunction with the quartz reference and circuitry to provide an enhancement to the mechanical accuracy, not a replacement for the mechanical accuracy.


----------



## oak1971 (Aug 19, 2013)

Okapi001 said:


> Of course, but you still need a balance wheel (or some other form of oscillator) to have something you can call accurate watch. And the oscillator in a Spring Drive movement is quartz crystal.


It contains a quartz crystal as part of a larger system. You keep saying the quartz is the whole system, but it isn't. The circuitry between the magnetic brake and the nature of the brake itself has thus far gone unmentioned in your posts.


----------



## Okapi001 (Apr 9, 2013)

oak1971 said:


> It contains a quartz crystal as part of a larger system. You keep saying the quartz is the whole system, but it isn't. The circuitry between the magnetic brake and the nature of the brake itself has thus far gone unmentioned in your posts.


Of course it's a larger system. And I _never ever_ said that the quartz is the whole system. But the quartz crystal is the part of the system that provides the "beat", oscillation. And than you have frequency divider, low pass filter, brake control circuit, electro-magnetic brake, a lot of tiny wires connecting all those parts and who knows what else. But that doesn't change the fact that the quartz crystal has the role of oscillator. In the Spring Drive movement the quartz crystal (and all associated machinery) is equivalent of the balance wheel (and hairspring and escapement and a lot of tiny screws and levers and whatnot) in the purely mechanical watch (or the pendulum in the clock).

In fact I don't know why is this so difficult to understand?


----------



## Pawl_Buster (Mar 12, 2007)

Okapi001 said:


> Of course it's a larger system. And I _never ever_ said that the quartz is the whole system. But the quartz crystal is the part of the system that provides the "beat", oscillation. And than you have frequency divider, low pass filter, brake control circuit, electro-magnetic brake, a lot of tiny wires connecting all those parts and who knows what else. But that doesn't change the fact that the quartz crystal has the role of oscillator. In the Spring Drive movement the quartz crystal (and all associated machinery) is equivalent of the balance wheel (and hairspring and escapement and a lot of tiny screws and levers and whatnot) in the purely mechanical watch (or the pendulum in the clock).
> 
> In fact I don't know why is this so difficult to understand?


I don't understand why you find it so difficult either???

The glide wheel itself(just like a balance wheel) provides the beat. The VCO is there to receive that beat and maintain it at 8 Hz. That is the primary regulation.

The quartz crystal simply supplies a stead reference that is used to add or subtract phase or pulse differences when the glide wheel is affected by gravity, inertial or temperature. It is a secondary input and not the regulating device as in a quartz watch.

Several others have grasped the concept; why haven't you?


----------



## lethaltoes (Mar 5, 2013)

And that's only a very small portion of the superb engineering that's gone into the movement I may add. Since I love my music too, I suggest all who find the Seiko literature difficult to understand to perhaps visit nagra's website and have a look at the on line brochure detailing their basic cdp's architecture, the phase lock loop and the use of the vcox. Nagra is swiss by the way but good engineering is good engineering. Cheers!


----------



## Okapi001 (Apr 9, 2013)

Pawl_Buster said:


> The glide wheel itself(just like a balance wheel) provides the beat. The VCO is there to receive that beat and maintain it at 8 Hz.


No and no.
1) The glide wheel is rotating faster than 8 Hz. It has to. The Spring Drive has only the brake to regulate tha accuracy, it cannot speed up the glide wheel in case the rotation drops below 8 Hz. So the wheel has to rotate at least somewhat faster.
2) The whole point of VCO is not to interfere with the glide wheel (generator) while measuring its speed.
"The rotation detection circuit receives an output waveform from the VCO at a high impedance *so that the generator is not affected*."

The brake has to be always engaged (because there is no way to speed up the wheel), and the VOC has nothing to do with maintening the basic rotational speed. Basic rotation speed (faster than 8 Hz) is determined mechanicaly, by the mainspring and associated mechanism.



Pawl_Buster said:


> The quartz crystal simply supplies a stead reference that is used to add or subtract phase or pulse differences when the glide wheel is affected by gravity, inertial or temperature. It is a secondary input and not the regulating device as in a quartz watch.


 And now please explain how the watch knows when is the glide wheel affected by gravity or temperature? Are there any accelerometers and thermometers in the movement?

Try to explain how the watch knows when to obey the "primary" oscillator and when the secondary one? It is logically impossible. There can be only one "master" oscillator in a watch, because there is no mechanism for determining which one is in any given moment more accurate, if there are more than one. The only other solution with two oscillators is a mechanism to calculate average value between both oscillators, and in this case both must be equally (in)accurate.

I think it's stupid even to think that a more accurate oscillator can be only some kind of a backup for a less accurate oscillator. It's also completely illogical from engineering point of view.


----------



## Watchnut12 (Sep 2, 2013)

I had the pleasure of attending Basel World last year, one of the exhibits they had was about Watches of the future. It basically was about European manufacturers, especially the newer innovative companies like Urwerk are inventing concepts for the perfect MECHANICAL movements that are in the same concept as Spring Drive..
I had the pleasure of speaking with Mr. Baumgartner of Urwerk. He explained to me the innovative path his company is taking towards revolutionizing the European watch industry. I asked him if he was familiar with Spring Drive movement Seiko has invented. He replied by saying that his goal is to revolutionize the European watch industry the same way Seiko did JAPAN.. I then asked him if this movement would be considered an mechanical movement, he replied by saying yes in many ways it is allot more complicated. He explained that putting the movement together is done in most aspects more rigorously than a basic automatic with the same complications.

Below is a little outline of what the European companies are working towards for future movements (This one is the URWERK)... Swatch, LVMH they all are working on their on twist of Spring Drive.


----------



## Okapi001 (Apr 9, 2013)

And again not a single answer to my questions or correction of a factual mistake that I might made.


----------



## JarenCarter (Oct 6, 2011)

Heh been following this thread. Interesting to see the back and forth. After reading the comments and went to Seiko's page directly. I'm no watch expert and I have no idea how a mechanical movement works (looking it up as I go), but in the layman's term that they put in their video the quartz sounds like it does act as an oscillator. But at the same time, it sounds like any regulation is done by the IC because it's sampling the 1 revolution velocity of that wheel its braking with the quartz oscillation and then doing a comparison to see if they mismatch.

I could be misunderstanding it or maybe Seiko put up a bad video. 

Also I apologize to the OP for further derailing your thread. I wish I could give you an answer, but I've never owned PP or swiss luxury watches. However, Spring Drive as I've seen stated on this forum is an amazing combination of technology put towards a mechanical watch. I don't think you'd be disappointed in a Grand Seiko. Hell, I'm starting to consider a spring drive seiko now.


----------



## Okapi001 (Apr 9, 2013)

JarenCarter said:


> but in the layman's term that they put in their video the quartz sounds like it does act as an oscillator. But at the same time, it sounds like any regulation is done by the IC because it's sampling the 1 revolution velocity of that wheel its braking with the quartz oscillation and then doing a comparison to see if they mismatch.


Of course it's done by the IC. Or you could say that it is the brake that is doing the regulation, but the brake is controled by the IC. Quartz crystal is just a "stupid" oscillator, ticking away in its steady beat. It doesn't know what's going on at all, and it doesn't care;-) The IC is the brain of the watch. It compares the rotation of the wheel with the ticking of the crystal and applies the brake accordingly. But the harmonic oscillator of the Spring Drive movement, the system fully responsible for a -+15 sec/month accuracy, is the quartz crystal. The IC constatly "listens" to the quartz crystal, not only from time to time. And the brake is constantly engaged, only the power of the brake is not constant.


----------



## richy176 (Sep 26, 2013)

raveen said:


> Hi,
> GS considered as high quality and reliable watch. Compared to luxury Swiss watches, is GS on par with say Patek, Vacheron or Ulysse?
> Does GS fall in same category as these high-end and ultra-luxury SWISS watches?
> 
> ...


Hi Raveen,

If you go back 40/50 years than if you wanted a watch that kept very good time, you had to look at ones like Rolex with the Certified Chronometer label. A family friend bought one and justified the coist because he was a navigator officer in the navy and accurate time was important.

Today with GPS etc this would not be so imprtant but watches generally have developed and high levels of accuracy are available from modestly priced watches.

I do have a Roles Datajust that was given to me some 30 years ago and it is a great watch that keeps good time. I also have (amongst others) a Seiko kinetic divers (pepsi bezel) that I picked up about 10 years ago. Both are comfortable to wear, timekeeping probably goes to the kinetic, quality would go to the Rolex but it is not that obvious. The Seiko has never been serviced but the Rolex has been in twice over the 10 years I have had the Seiko and the cost of the services would have paid for 3 more seiko kinetics!

Now, I could probably sell the Rolex and get back most of its lifetime cost - purchase price and services and maybe even make a bit of profit but that is not guaranteed. The seiko cost about $300 and if I threw it away now it would have cost me about $0.08 per day which is hardly a bank breaking cost.

You copuld argue that the real difference between the Seiko kinetic and the Rolex automatic is that if someone sees the Rolex they associate it with higher income/success etc whereas the Seiko is just a watch.

If we now move on to GS comapred to swiss luxury then I think it depends on what you want from your watch/piece of jewelry. My guess is that the vast majority of buyers have little idea of what is inside their watch and probably don't even care - they are more interested in the look and status of their watch.

Swiss watches obviously have the history and established repuation for luxury watches. Seiko may be seen more as advanced technology rather than tradition but the GS range is very high quality. I recently bought a GS quartz (shock and horror to mechanical diehards). The quality of the case/bracelet etc is every bit as good as a Rolex. Being a quartz movement it was a lot less expensive that a GS mechanical or spring drive but still has the same external quality. It also has a 50 year service interval which is pretty incredible as over that time period I would have paid far more in serevice costs on a swiss mechanical than the GS cost me.

Overall I would say that the GS is every bit as good as the swiss luxury brands but perhaps will appeal to a different type of buyer. Maybe like comparing a Ferrari to a Bentley - both fantasic cars but for different people.


----------



## raveen (Sep 1, 2012)

Pawl_Buster said:


> Thanks for the reference and I'm glad I gave him the benefit of the doubt after he reposted


Thank you guys


----------



## LeeMorgan (Jun 3, 2012)

raveen said:


> Hi,
> GS considered as high quality and reliable watch. Compared to luxury Swiss watches, is GS on par with say Patek, Vacheron or Ulysse?
> Does GS fall in same category as these high-end and ultra-luxury SWISS watches?


I cannot find one watch in all the Patek, Vacheron or Ulysse collections with same features of one of the Seiko model in the GS collection.

So the only right simple answer to your vague question is:

NO!

Ask us to compare two watches with the same features and may be you'll get a deserved clever answer.


----------



## lethaltoes (Mar 5, 2013)

LeeMorgan said:


> I cannot find one watch in all the Patek, Vacheron or Ulysse collections with same features of one of the Seiko model in the GS collection.
> 
> So the only right simple answer to your vague question is:
> 
> ...


Huh? Gets more complicated everyday. PP calatrava VC patrimony UN classico maybe?


----------



## LeeMorgan (Jun 3, 2012)

lethaltoes said:


> Huh? Gets more complicated everyday. PP calatrava VC patrimony UN classico maybe?



















Ohhhh sorry, you are right.
Both measure time and share the same heritage, design, post sale service, price, value, finishing, etc etc


----------



## MID (May 16, 2006)

I will try to answer the question directly. My Dad has a PP and I have a close friend with a PP Calatrava. I have handled both and have some limited first-hand experience with the PP. I have recently acquired a new GS44 in steel, which, honestly, I adore. Both my Dad's PP and the GS44 are hand wind watches. My friend's PP is automatic. Let us put aside the difference between gold and steel. The case finish of both the PP and GS44 is very high. But the clarity and distortion-free finish on the GS44 is superior to the PP. Grand Seiko finishes steel like PP finishes platinum, it's that good. As to the movements, both PP and Seiko are classically constructed, hand assembled, well-finished mechanical movements. But here I would give the technical edge to the Seiko as well. For example, the published power reserve of the GS44 is 72 hours -- mine lasts a bit longer -- with only a single mainspring. The published power reserve of the PP is about half that. Seiko's manufacturing and technical prowess -- in developing new alloys, new lubricants, its MEMS technology (which makes the little bits smoother at the microscopic level) -- are superior to PP. Indeed, I suspect that no Swiss watchmaker (perhaps with the exception of ETA/Swatch) can match the industrial and R&D capabilities of Seiko in metallurgy, tribology, ceramic engineering (for the crystals) and so on. The Japanese are very good at melding the best of high-tech and hand craftsmanship, using each where it does the most good. It is also worth bearing in mind that Europe and Japan each has its own traditions of fine craftsmanship and aesthetics. (The Japanese are also not obsessed with useless complications.) You may prefer one over the other. For me, within the limitations of my experience described above, both for aesthetic and technical reasons, the GS is superior to the PP.


----------



## HomeMadeLookingBoutiqueSh (Jan 12, 2012)

Admittedly I gave up after a half dozen pages, & the technical stuff was over my head anyway, but can someone tell me if there is a battery or capacitor involved in a SD, or since there's a spring, that means all the stored energy is purely mechanical?


----------



## Okapi001 (Apr 9, 2013)

HomeMadeLookingBoutiqueSh said:


> Admittedly I gave up after a half dozen pages, & the technical stuff was over my head anyway, but can someone tell me if there is a battery or capacitor involved in a SD, or since there's a spring, that means all the stored energy is purely mechanical?


Yes, the energy is stored mechanically in the mainspring.


----------



## lethaltoes (Mar 5, 2013)

JarenCarter said:


> Heh been following this thread. Interesting to see the back and forth. After reading the comments and went to Seiko's page directly. I'm no watch expert and I have no idea how a mechanical movement works (looking it up as I go), but in the layman's term that they put in their video the quartz sounds like it does act as an oscillator. But at the same time, it sounds like any regulation is done by the IC because it's sampling the 1 revolution velocity of that wheel its braking with the quartz oscillation and then doing a comparison to see if they mismatch.
> 
> I could be misunderstanding it or maybe Seiko put up a bad video.
> 
> Also I apologize to the OP for further derailing your thread. I wish I could give you an answer, but I've never owned PP or swiss luxury watches. However, Spring Drive as I've seen stated on this forum is an amazing combination of technology put towards a mechanical watch. I don't think you'd be disappointed in a Grand Seiko. Hell, I'm starting to consider a spring drive seiko now.


Hi JC. Very clever unlike a certain noob. I just had a wonderful evening catching Escape Plan. Very entertaining! Anyway back to spring drive. It'll take too long to really go through the genius of the architecture and implementation (for when it was launched anyway) so here's my simple take. The rotor which is driven by the main spring actually actually provides the time keeping function in that it serves as the master clock. It's over sampled to run twice as fast exactly and relays the signal to the ic which contains the master programme to down convert the signal via braking the glide wheel to the analogue display of time. The rotor is probably built to run at that precise speed (16 turns per minute) to generate the 0.5 volts required to power the ic and the electromagnetic regulator. I don't know whether Seiko was able to further regulate this supply but I suspect they probably found a way as this is crucial to the proper functioning of the entire system. What they have done further I believe is to provide a phase lock loop synchronisation whereby the vco provides a small amount of feedback into the system to ensure that any deviation (jitter from impact through use or environmental disturbances) in the primary signal or voltage (from the rotor) is continuously evened out. I guess that's why they call it the tri synchro regulator; all the elements are just so complementary and imagine the tiny, tiny estate Seiko has to make this work (within the confines of the wrist watch). There. My 2 cents. Cheers!


----------



## LeeMorgan (Jun 3, 2012)

MID said:


> I will try to answer the question directly. My Dad has a PP and I have a close friend with a PP Calatrava. I have handled both and have some limited first-hand experience with the PP. I have recently acquired a new GS44 in steel, which, honestly, I adore. Both my Dad's PP and the GS44 are hand wind watches. My friend's PP is automatic. Let us put aside the difference between gold and steel. The case finish of both the PP and GS44 is very high. But the clarity and distortion-free finish on the GS44 is superior to the PP. Grand Seiko finishes steel like PP finishes platinum, it's that good. As to the movements, both PP and Seiko are classically constructed, hand assembled, well-finished mechanical movements. But here I would give the technical edge to the Seiko as well. For example, the published power reserve of the GS44 is 72 hours -- mine lasts a bit longer -- with only a single mainspring. The published power reserve of the PP is about half that. Seiko's manufacturing and technical prowess -- in developing new alloys, new lubricants, its MEMS technology (which makes the little bits smoother at the microscopic level) -- are superior to PP. Indeed, I suspect that no Swiss watchmaker (perhaps with the exception of ETA/Swatch) can match the industrial and R&D capabilities of Seiko in metallurgy, tribology, ceramic engineering (for the crystals) and so on. The Japanese are very good at melding the best of high-tech and hand craftsmanship, using each where it does the most good. It is also worth bearing in mind that Europe and Japan each has its own traditions of fine craftsmanship and aesthetics. (The Japanese are also not obsessed with useless complications.) You may prefer one over the other. For me, within the limitations of my experience described above, both for aesthetic and technical reasons, the GS is superior to the PP.


----------



## lethaltoes (Mar 5, 2013)

HomeMadeLookingBoutiqueSh said:


> Admittedly I gave up after a half dozen pages, & the technical stuff was over my head anyway, but can someone tell me if there is a battery or capacitor involved in a SD, or since there's a spring, that means all the stored energy is purely mechanical?


Yep. No battery no capacitor. No escapement too. Most describe this movement as hybrid with the emphasis on the electronica involved but really it's 98% (based on components) mechanical. Cheers!


----------



## JarenCarter (Oct 6, 2011)

Okapi001 said:


> Of course it's done by the IC. Or you could say that it is the brake that is doing the regulation, but the brake is controled by the IC. Quartz crystal is just a "stupid" oscillator, ticking away in its steady beat. It doesn't know what's going on at all, and it doesn't care;-) The IC is the brain of the watch. It compares the rotation of the wheel with the ticking of the crystal and applies the brake accordingly. But the harmonic oscillator of the Spring Drive movement, the system fully responsible for a -+15 sec/month accuracy, is the quartz crystal. The IC constatly "listens" to the quartz crystal, not only from time to time. And the brake is constantly engaged, only the power of the brake is not constant.


Well yes, but if you're implying the quartz is the main source of regulation that's not really an accurate statement because it like the rotational velocity are just reference points. The IC, as you admitted, is doing the regulation if both are off or nothing if both are in sync.


----------



## JPfeuffer (Aug 12, 2011)

One thing I really, really don't get about the Swiss snobs is when they put down Seiko for not being Swiss. I can go on QVC at 3 in the morning and find an Invicta 59.99 special that says "Swiss Made" at the bottom of the dial. Sorry, that "just a Seiko" and "if it ain't Swiss I won't wear it" attitude doesn't have any justification. I own many Swiss mechanicals and Seikos BTW so no bias statements here just venting haha


----------



## Pawl_Buster (Mar 12, 2007)

lethaltoes said:


> Yep. No battery no capacitor. No escapement too. Most describe this movement as hybrid with the emphasis on the electronica involved but really it's 98% (based on components) mechanical. Cheers!


Well, it does have an escapement even if it isn't the traditional oscillating balance wheel.
Escapement refers to the mechanism that allows the energy from the mainspring to 'escape'. If the balance wheel stops, there is no escape for the mainspring energy.
The same applies to the glide wheel in the SD; it provides an escape for the energy in the mainspring. If the glide wheel stops, there is no escape for the mainspring energy.

The escape mechanism for the balance wheel system is the escape wheel and palette fork. On the SD it is the electomechnical braking of the glide wheel which is the escape mechanism.

In your description above of how the SD works, I think you got confused with a couple of things but the biggest was using 'rotor' where I'm sure you meant 'glide wheel'. The rotor is nothing more than the oscillating weight that winds the mainspring ;-)


----------



## Okapi001 (Apr 9, 2013)

JarenCarter said:


> Well yes, but if you're implying the quartz is the main source of regulation that's not really an accurate statement because it like the rotational velocity are just reference points. The IC, as you admitted, is doing the regulation if both are off or nothing if both are in sync.


In every single quartz watch it's an IC too, that is doing the regulation. Quartz crystal is only ticking away and is completely useless without other systems.

And as far as "just" reference points are concerned, that is a crucial part of the watch. You simply need a reference to know how fast is the wheel really spinnig. The speed of the wheel itself is NOT a reference - you have to _compare _the speed of the wheel with the reference to know how fast it really is. It's like measuring circumference of your wrist with a piece of string. The certain lenght of the string itself is not a reference - you have to _compare _this lenght with a reference (the meter) to know how big is your wrist.

And you need precisely ONE reference point (or system), because if you have two, you don't know which one is better.

Imagine situation with two references - VCO and quartz (as certain individuals thinks it's the case in Spring Drive). You now have a speed of the wheel that needs to be compared with the reference point. How could you decide which one to choose?


----------



## Greek6486 (Mar 26, 2013)

JPfeuffer said:


> One thing I really, really don't get about the Swiss snobs is when they put down Seiko for not being Swiss. I can go on QVC at 3 in the morning and find an Invicta 59.99 special that says "Swiss Made" at the bottom of the dial. Sorry, that "just a Seiko" and "if it ain't Swiss I won't wear it" attitude doesn't have any justification. I own many Swiss mechanicals and Seikos BTW so no bias statements here just venting haha


We hate invicta too believe me. That's another story 

Sent from my SCH-I545 using Xparent BlueTapatalk 2


----------



## lethaltoes (Mar 5, 2013)

I stand to be corrected PB. I wasn't referring to the winding rotor. By rotor I meant "converter" rotor which generates the required voltage to power up the ic and associated electromagnetic brake, which I'm turn slows it down to maintain the steady voltage required. It is this steady "beat" rate, rotational velocity or voltage supply (however you choose to see it) that primarily tells time. And to Okapi, yes the system is rather comprehensive in that there is a built in timing machine and automated fine tuning / regulation "pin" which constantly monitors and adjusts the mechanical "beat" rate which involves the use of a quartz oscillator as reference. But certainly you see the difference by now and how it's not just another quartz watch. In any case, let's just all focus our attention on MID's comments as obviously there will be no swiss luxury equivalent of the spring drive any time soon. Cheers!


----------



## Pawl_Buster (Mar 12, 2007)

lethaltoes said:


> I stand to be corrected PB. I wasn't referring to the winding rotor. By rotor I meant "converter" rotor which generates the required voltage to power up the ic and associated electromagnetic brake, which I'm turn slows it down to maintain the steady voltage required. It is this steady "beat" rate, rotational velocity or voltage supply (however you choose to see it) that primarily tells time. And to Okapi, yes the system is rather comprehensive in that there is a built in timing machine and automated fine tuning / regulation "pin" which constantly monitors and adjusts the mechanical "beat" rate which involves the use of a quartz oscillator as reference. But certainly you see the difference by now and how it's not just another quartz watch. In any case, let's just all focus our attention on MID's comments as obviously there will be no swiss luxury equivalent of the spring drive any time soon. Cheers!


No problem; I often mix up watch part names ;-)
As for your last statement, you might find this interesting http://www.wiglaf.org/~aaronm/watches/hpm-en.pdf
Seikos patents may have run out or will be soon. If ETA is on the ball, we could see HPM powered watches in the near future


----------



## JPfeuffer (Aug 12, 2011)

Enough of this Spring Drive talk.14 pages of spring drive talk. Now Seiko is a wonderful company who has make other noteworthy movements. Seiko's high beats are so spectacular they rival their Swiss competitors. I'm feeling verklempt talk amongst yourselves.


----------



## oak1971 (Aug 19, 2013)

Yes. Hi beat or go home.


----------



## AvantGardeTime (Aug 23, 2013)

Spring Drive or turn off the lights.


----------



## Okapi001 (Apr 9, 2013)

lethaltoes said:


> and how it's not just another quartz watch.


OMG! When did I say something remotely similar to your (completely false) accusation?


----------



## Pawl_Buster (Mar 12, 2007)

AvantGardeTime said:


> Spring Drive or turn off the lights.


As much as I love the beauty and engineering of the SD; my heart lies with the traditionally escaped mechanical movement.
In fact, a well made 18,000bph movement is probably my favourite. These have soul that is relaxing vs the machine gun rapid fire angst of the hi beat calibres.


----------



## lethaltoes (Mar 5, 2013)

Okapi001 said:


> Of course, but you still need a balance wheel (or some other form of oscillator) to have something you can call accurate watch. And the oscillator in a Spring Drive movement is quartz crystal.


False accusation?

Sent from my HTC One XL using Tapatalk


----------



## Okapi001 (Apr 9, 2013)

lethaltoes said:


> False accusation?


No - my statement is completely true, however your conclusion that this somehow means that spring drive is "just another quartz watch" is completely wrong.


----------



## lethaltoes (Mar 5, 2013)

Okapi001 said:


> In every single quartz watch it's an IC too, that is doing the regulation. Quartz crystal is only ticking away and is completely useless without other systems.


And again, the implication being??


----------



## Okapi001 (Apr 9, 2013)

lethaltoes said:


> And again, the implication being??


Implication being that it's the quartz crystal in the role of the oscillator. Nowhere in hell that means that the spring drive is "just another quartz watch". That is completely your projection, not something you can deduce from my statement. And if you really need something more, it means that the accuracy of the spring drive is equal to the accuracy of a (good) quartz watch. And here all similarities between "just another quartz watch" and spring drive end.


----------



## lethaltoes (Mar 5, 2013)

MID said:


> I will try to answer the question directly. My Dad has a PP and I have a close friend with a PP Calatrava. I have handled both and have some limited first-hand experience with the PP. I have recently acquired a new GS44 in steel, which, honestly, I adore. Both my Dad's PP and the GS44 are hand wind watches. My friend's PP is automatic. Let us put aside the difference between gold and steel. The case finish of both the PP and GS44 is very high. But the clarity and distortion-free finish on the GS44 is superior to the PP. Grand Seiko finishes steel like PP finishes platinum, it's that good. As to the movements, both PP and Seiko are classically constructed, hand assembled, well-finished mechanical movements. But here I would give the technical edge to the Seiko as well. For example, the published power reserve of the GS44 is 72 hours -- mine lasts a bit longer -- with only a single mainspring. The published power reserve of the PP is about half that. Seiko's manufacturing and technical prowess -- in developing new alloys, new lubricants, its MEMS technology (which makes the little bits smoother at the microscopic level) -- are superior to PP. Indeed, I suspect that no Swiss watchmaker (perhaps with the exception of ETA/Swatch) can match the industrial and R&D capabilities of Seiko in metallurgy, tribology, ceramic engineering (for the crystals) and so on. The Japanese are very good at melding the best of high-tech and hand craftsmanship, using each where it does the most good. It is also worth bearing in mind that Europe and Japan each has its own traditions of fine craftsmanship and aesthetics. (The Japanese are also not obsessed with useless complications.) You may prefer one over the other. For me, within the limitations of my experience described above, both for aesthetic and technical reasons, the GS is superior to the PP.


Congrats on the GS! That's my favourite too!


----------



## omeglycine (Jan 21, 2011)

Okapi001 said:


> And again not a single answer to my questions or correction of a factual mistake that I might made.


I'm not saying anyone is full of BS, but your posts throughout were presented with a rationale, genuine and non-aggressive tone. You've fought a good fight. Probably best to leave it be at this point.


----------



## 124Spider (Feb 1, 2009)

This tortured thread exemplifies why I so rarely look in on this site any more--So many people, with so little knowledge, and so much blind "loyalty" to a brand, or a country of manufacture, or a movement, or whatever.

Here we have pages of posts (almost 150 posts as I write this), many (most?) of which are narrow personal opinion masquerading as "fact." We have Swiss fanbois; we have Seiko fanbois; we have Spring Drive haters; we have Spring Drive fanbois. And all think that their little opinions are the be-all and end-all of watch discussion.

Who cares whether Spring Drive has a quartz regulator? Why hate it (I understand not being attracted to it, but I see no reason, on a forum dedicated to watch-loving, for so much chauvisism; it takes a remarkably closed mind to denigrate such an engineering achievement)?

On the other side, why hate Swiss watches? While I think it's an ignorant "opinion" to denigrate the great Seikos, I think it's an equally ignorant "opinion" to run down Swiss watches generally; many extraordinary watches come from there.

I won't ask "why can't you all just get along," because I don't really care. But I will point out that the hating of fine engineering, regardless of the origin of that engineering, reflects only on the hater.

Mark


----------



## oak1971 (Aug 19, 2013)

I don't hate the Swiss, nor am I overly enamored with the spring drive. I only took exception to the misrepresentation of facts. I am not convinced that SD movement will outlast a conventional automatic movement, but it seems obvious that service intervals are likely to be longer. The fact the that the Swiss are looking to copy SD must mean something. In the end though, there is no getting around the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics (Entropy). All things degrade and decay, enjoy them while you can still get parts.


----------



## Okapi001 (Apr 9, 2013)

124Spider said:


> Who cares whether Spring Drive has a quartz regulator?


Everyone who is genuinely interested in the technical aspects should.


----------



## 124Spider (Feb 1, 2009)

Okapi001 said:


> Everyone who is genuinely interested in the technical aspects should.


As a technical matter, sure. But why is it a matter about which to criticize, or look down one's nose? Or fight? Why can't those who prefer traditional movements just be happy with their preference? Why must they denigrate either quartz or Spring Drive movements, just because they don't prefer them? It would be just as easy (easier, really, since these are machines whose primary purpose is to keep time) to criticize the relatively poor time-keeping of a traditional movement; but there's also no real good reason to do that.

It's as if people feel threatened by something different. On an internet discussion forum. Silly (at best).

It's different. Not worse, or better (unless reliable, high-level accuracy is a principal requirement, in which case a traditional escapement-regulated watch isn't for you). Just different. Not for everyone (either because of personal preference of budget).

Why the bickering?


----------



## lethaltoes (Mar 5, 2013)

124Spider said:


> This tortured thread exemplifies why I so rarely look in on this site any more--So many people, with so little knowledge, and so much blind "loyalty" to a brand, or a country of manufacture, or a movement, or whatever.
> 
> Here we have pages of posts (almost 150 posts as I write this), many (most?) of which are narrow personal opinion masquerading as "fact." We have Swiss fanbois; we have Seiko fanbois; we have Spring Drive haters; we have Spring Drive fanbois. And all think that their little opinions are the be-all and end-all of watch discussion.
> 
> ...


Hi Mark. I'm fairly new to this forum but I would say the Seiko / Citizen forum here has been a revelation. Just look up JakeB's thread on the Rolex milgauss trade for a gs here. Cheers!


----------



## alexwatch (Sep 12, 2012)

124 Spider your 100 percent right. I have never read on this forum so much childish comments about other people's opinions.


----------



## JarenCarter (Oct 6, 2011)

Okapi001 said:


> In every single quartz watch it's an IC too, that is doing the regulation. Quartz crystal is only ticking away and is completely useless without other systems.
> 
> And as far as "just" reference points are concerned, that is a crucial part of the watch. You simply need a reference to know how fast is the wheel really spinnig. The speed of the wheel itself is NOT a reference - you have to _compare _the speed of the wheel with the reference to know how fast it really is. It's like measuring circumference of your wrist with a piece of string. The certain lenght of the string itself is not a reference - you have to _compare _this lenght with a reference (the meter) to know how big is your wrist.
> 
> ...


I definitely can see your point of view, but I'd like to see this patent everyone's talking about.


----------



## Okapi001 (Apr 9, 2013)

JarenCarter said:


> I definitely can see your point of view, but I'd like to see this patent everyone's talking about.


You can start with this one:
https://www.google.com/patents/US6252828


----------



## Aussiejohn (Jul 11, 2012)

I am starting to get paranoid that perhaps taking my new car to an electronics engineer would be better than a mechanic after this thread. But then confuse myself when I realize that the control of my motor is done by an on-board computer. So is my power plant an electrical device or a mechanical one.

I be thinking it is a mechanical device that powers my car but the electronics enhances its efficiency.

There really is no debate here because both houses of this argument are correct it is really a new type of movement. But none the less it’s greater percentage of components are in fact mechanical.

The watch is a fantastic piece of engineering and it’s not made by some swatch company that leads it sheep into believing that any other type of timepiece other than a pure mechanical is a fraud. Give it 20 years and you will see documentaries where a person will say that the swatch company came up with the Spring drive but thought it would hurt the watch industry so they didn't use it. Just like they say about the Quartz.


----------



## Okapi001 (Apr 9, 2013)

Incidentally, I don't have a Spring Drive, but I do have Seiko's calibre 7D48, Kinetic Perpetual, which has 101 parts in it's mechanical gear train for perpetual calendar, and 232 parts alltogether - more than many purely mechanical movements.


----------



## ken_sturrock (Oct 24, 2010)

omeglycine said:


> I'm not saying anyone is full of BS, but your posts throughout were presented with a rationale, genuine and non-aggressive tone. You've fought a good fight. Probably best to leave it be at this point.


Yeah - I think this is a kind of common WUS phenomena. Two really smart people look at a situation from different angles, and using slightly different terminology, and they end up talking past each other. Rather than discuss it on a PM, they do it in the forum and then a mob of people in the peanut gallery start throwing their various and sundry opinions into the fray. At that point, it becomes hard to deescalate.

Sorry for the "Jerry Springer Moment", I'm a former diplomat and I couldn't help it...


----------



## Pawl_Buster (Mar 12, 2007)

alexwatch said:


> 124 Spider your 100 percent right. I have never read on this forum so much childish comments about other people's opinions.


What is it you have brought to the discussion?

And, I may be wrong, but lethaltoes was pointing out that compared to the raging fights that go on elsewhere, this place is quite tame.

If anyone is to blame for this thread going a little pear shaped; it has to be me.
There are only two things I am truly passionate about; one being fakes and the other is repeatedly posted misunderstandings about how the Spring Drive works. Post either of these and you know there will be a response ;-)


----------



## lethaltoes (Mar 5, 2013)

Okapi001 said:


> Yes, what about that? In mechanical watch it has an effect on the oscillator (i.e. balance wheel), in Spring Drive it has zero effect on the oscillator (i.e. quartz crystal).


I'll have to say that I respectfully disagree with Ken on this matter. If the argument was fundamentally on terminology, then of course, I agree that this thread was about 10 pages too long. But in effect, statements like such quoted above, warrant discussion because they invalidate the technology presented in spring drive. But in all fairness, I now understand that okapi may be genuinely confused and thanks okapi for the link on the patent. I hope you can try reading it again especially on how the generator and brake system forms the vco as a unit which replaces the traditional balance wheel and the use of the reference system involving the quartz oscillator.


----------



## oak1971 (Aug 19, 2013)

Okapi001 said:


> Yes, what about that? In mechanical watch it has an effect on the oscillator (i.e. balance wheel), in Spring Drive it has zero effect on the oscillator (i.e. quartz crystal).







Actually the linearity of the spring has everything to do with the correction factor needed, just like in a conventional mechanical.


----------



## Pawl_Buster (Mar 12, 2007)

oak1971 said:


>


Ronnie was a class actor...on and off the screen


----------



## Okapi001 (Apr 9, 2013)

lethaltoes said:


> But in effect, statements like such quoted above, warrant discussion because they invalidate the technology presented in spring drive.


Please explain. In a quoted statement I was referring to the isochronism of the mainspring (it's effect on the balance wheel in the mechanical watch and on the quartz crystal in spring drive).



lethaltoes said:


> But in all fairness, I now understand that okapi may be genuinely confused and thanks okapi for the link on the patent. I hope you can try reading it again especially on how the generator and brake system forms the vco as a unit which replaces the traditional balance wheel and the use of the reference system involving the quartz oscillator.


Please be so good and quote a relevant part of the patent. And than also explain the role of the "reference system involving the quartz oscillator". Is it responsible for keeping the glide wheel rotating at 8 Hz at all times, or not?

In the mechanical watch is the balance wheel (and hairspring) with its precisely 21,600 or 28,800 or whatever beats per hour responsible for keeping the watch accurate. It is the (harmonic) oscillator of the watch. In the spring drive it's the quartz crystal with its steady beat that is ultimately responsible for a precisely 8 Hz of the glide wheel. Please explain where exactly did I make a mistake in this statement. Also please explain, if the quartz crystal is NOT responsible for 8 Hz of the glide wheel, why it is in the watch in the first place. And if you think that there are two oscillators (timekeeping systems) in the spring drive, please explain how did the watch (IC) decides which one to use for timekeeping at any given moment.

The generator and brake are equivalent of the escapement, as Pawl already mentioned, not balance wheel. It is a device that connects the "power system" of the watch and the "timekeeping system" (and also the "timekeeping system" with the "display system")


----------



## Okapi001 (Apr 9, 2013)

OK, so I try to sumarise everything, as simple as possible.

Every watch/clock has three main components (systems).

1) Power system

2) Timekeeping system

3) Display system

*Power system* powers both the timekeeping and the display system. It can be mainspring, battery or weight on a cord.

*
Timekeeping* involves some kind of an oscillator. In a mechanical watch this is harmonic oscillator (pendulum or balance wheel with hairspring), in electronic watch it is the quartz crystal (or it can be 50/60 Hz of the AC electricity in a clock).

*
Display system* are hands, digital numbers, LCD &#8230;

*
Escapement* is a device that basically connects all three systems in a purely mechanical watch or clock. It transfers power from mainspring to the balance wheel/hairspring and also "counts" the beats of the balance wheel and transfers "time" to the hands.

In a Spring Drive the power system is the same as in every mechanical watch - mainspring. More or less exactly the same is also display system, with hands and associated gear train. The timekeeping system is quartz crystal.

And then there is an equivalent of the escapement, which transfers power from mainspring to the timekeeping system (i.e. quartz crystal) and beats of the quartz crystal (and power of the mainspring) to the display system. In a spring drive that part consists of generator (glide wheel), electro-magnetic brake, VCO and all other associated electronics (IC).

So please, what exactly is wrong with this explanation?


----------



## Will_f (Jul 4, 2011)

I love Seikos and I love Grand Seikos. However, the Seiko & Citizen forum seems to have more than a few hard core nuts. It's been a long time in the manufacturer forums where I've seen this much bashing of other brands and such blind infatuation. 

Grand Seikos are fantastic watches that represent good values on the market, but they aren't the best watches ever made. There are plenty of excellent Swiss and German brands that are as good or better, though you probably will pay more.

Spring Drives are quartz watches because the timing is done by a quartz oscillator. It's that simple. Talking about the brake and wheel like they, not the oscillator, sets the timing is just announcing to anyone with a shred of engineering background that you don't don't know what you're talking about.

All watches over $100 are as much about emotion as anything else. Buy the watch you love and don't worry about what is best unless your goal is to impress a bunch of obsessed watch nuts on a forum. For the record, on this forum that would be a "The Citizen", a Spring Drive Diver or Snowflake, any high beat, or a vintage GS/KS.

Personally, I'm not a one brand kind of guy. I have my GS, my KS, my Swiss luxury watches, my German luxury watches, and my American luxury watches.


----------



## Pawl_Buster (Mar 12, 2007)

Will_f said:


> ...
> 
> Spring Drives are quartz watches because the timing is done by a quartz oscillator. It's that simple.
> 
> ...


It's not that simple. And I will not bore everyone with the details again as they have been well explained both in this thread and in Seiko's own patent o|

As said several times before, believe what you want, it will not make the SD something it is not.

And yes; I realize I'm being baited once again ;-)


----------



## Will_f (Jul 4, 2011)

Pawl_Buster said:


> It's not that simple. And I will not bore everyone with the details again as they have been well explained both in this thread and in Seiko's own patent o|
> 
> As said several times before, believe what you want, it will not make the SD something it is not.
> 
> And yes; I realize I'm being baited once again ;-)


Not everything is about you, PB.

Having spent most of my life as a professional design engineer with advanced degrees in physics and engineering, I can assure you that it really is that simple. That doesn't take anything away from the incredible innovative coolness of the SD movement though. I've never understood why watch collectors are so dismissive of Quartz.

Amongst other things I collect high end quartz watches. Seiko has been an innovator from the start with some of the most accurate wrist watches ever made. There is a recurring rumor that Seiko is planning to come out with a thermo compensated SD as possibly a special edition. I'll be all over it if they do. 10s/ year accuracy? You bet!


----------



## Pawl_Buster (Mar 12, 2007)

Will_f said:


> Not everything is about you, PB.
> 
> Having spent most of my life as a professional design engineer with advanced degrees in physics and engineering, I can assure you that it really is that simple. That doesn't take anything away from the incredible innovative coolness of the SD movement though. I've never understood why watch collectors are so dismissive of Quartz.


Be that as it may; I have no advanced degree in anything and if I did, I wouldn't be advertizing them when I wasn't reasonably sure of what I was talking about.

Nope; I'm just a lowly electronics technician with ground floor training and in the field experience where one often has to figure out the circuit and how it operates without the benefit of a pure sciences education ... or schematics.
I was describing how the SD operated long before I ever saw the Seiko patent(which validates everything I have postulated). Their are at least three humongous threads here on WUS and on one other forum where this has been debated to death. In none of them has anything that Seiko's patent describes or what I have postulated been disproved.

The SD is not a quartz watch and it is definitely not quartz regulated. The quartz oscillator is only one third of the tri-syncro regulator as devised by Seiko and it is not the most important part of the equation.

In fact, if you were to go back and leaf through your notes taken in those high status engineering classes, you will find that not only is the quartz oscillator not the regulator but is actually itself regulated ;-)

Semantics for sure but that is why we have language.


----------



## gshock626 (Apr 14, 2010)

Calling a SD a quartz watch is like calling someone who uses a battery operated pacemaker a robot.


----------



## Okapi001 (Apr 9, 2013)

Pawl_Buster said:


> The SD is not a quartz watch and it is definitely not quartz regulated. The quartz oscillator is only one third of the tri-syncro regulator as devised by Seiko and it is not the most important part of the equation.


I'm terribly sorry, but you are wrong. First of all, the quartz oscillator *is not* a part of the tri-synchro regulator. The quartz oscillator is (separate) timekeeping part of the spring drive.

As far as tri-synhcro regulator is concerned, here is a quote from the Seiko's webpage.

"The Tri-synchro regulator controls and releases the mechanical, electrical and electro-magnetic energy generated by the mainspring*. It replaces the escapement* and, with its one-way motion, it is inherently more stable, durable and precise."

The tri in the tri-synchro regulator means three diverse forms of energy (according to Seiko):

1) Controls the mainspring's mechanical energy

2) Converts a small part of this energy into electricity to power the quartz crystal.

3) Generates a magnetic force to regulate the speed of the glide wheel.

I don't know what exactly do you mean by "regulated" in your post, but the fact is that the *only timekeeping part* of the spring drive is the quartz crystal. All other components (tri-synchro regulator and other stuff) are only there to transfer the timekeeping properties of the crystal oscillator to the mechanical parts of the watch (and to power the quartz crystal).


----------



## Okapi001 (Apr 9, 2013)

gshock626 said:


> Calling a SD a quartz watch is like calling someone who uses a battery operated pacemaker a robot.


That would be wrong, because robot is something else. The correct term would be cyborg.

A *cyborg*, short for "cybernetic organism", is a being with both organic and artificial parts.

And in a loosest sense of a term someone with a pacemaker _is _a cyborg.

What is the definition of a quartz watch? And, for that matter - what is the definition of a mechanical watch? Only when we know what is the definition of a quartz watch can we decide if a spring drive is a quartz watch or not.


----------



## lorsban (Nov 20, 2009)

gshock626 said:


> Calling a SD a quartz watch is like calling someone who uses a battery operated pacemaker a robot.


haha right.

When someone mentions quartz, I see a battery operated tick tock watch.

But then again, most people use quartz as a "catch-all" term to describe all battery powered watches. Plus, we've been taught that battery operated = cheap, and therefore quartz = cheap. Hence, the seeming disconnect for some people with Spring Drive which uses a quartz crystal YET costs a lot.

Which is a real shame for quartz in general because it is a very useful substance in horology to be pigeonholed like that.

Sent from my Transformer Prime TF201 using Tapatalk


----------



## gshock626 (Apr 14, 2010)

Okapi001 said:


> That would be wrong, because robot is something else. The correct term would be cyborg.
> 
> A *cyborg*, short for "cybernetic organism", is a being with both organic and artificial parts.
> 
> And in a loosest sense of a term someone with a pacemaker _is _a cyborg.


WOW. I'm out. Carry on fellas.


----------



## AvantGardeTime (Aug 23, 2013)

Excellent article showing the nuts and bolts of Spring Drive and how it works:

Seiko Spring Drive: Revolution pt. 2 - TimeZone


----------



## Okapi001 (Apr 9, 2013)

AvantGardeTime said:


> Excellent article showing the nuts and bolts of Spring Drive and how it works:
> 
> Seiko Spring Drive: Revolution pt. 2 - TimeZone


I wouldn't call it an excellent, because it doesn't even mention the quartz crystal, which is crucial for the 1sec/day accuracy of the movement. There are however some fine pictures and interesting infos (for example how fast would the glide wheel spins without a brake).


----------



## oak1971 (Aug 19, 2013)

Okapi001 said:


> I'm terribly sorry, but you are wrong. First of all, the quartz oscillator *is not* a part of the tri-synchro regulator. The quartz oscillator is (separate) timekeeping part of the spring drive.
> 
> As far as tri-synhcro regulator is concerned, here is a quote from the Seiko's webpage.
> 
> ...


Then why have a spring, dial, and all those gears? Just buy a $5 digital and be happy. _Insert sarcasm here._


----------



## Will_f (Jul 4, 2011)

Okapi001 said:


> What is the definition of a quartz watch? And, for that matter - what is the definition of a mechanical watch? Only when we know what is the definition of a quartz watch can we decide if a spring drive is a quartz watch or not.


It's an interesting question with quite a bit of overlap between the categories.

If you go by the rate control mechanism you could have:

"mechanical" subdivided by a variety of escapements and including magnetic escapements and early battery powered watches which used an oscillating balance wheel & hairspring or tuning fork.

"Quartz" which would be just quartz oscillators, even though quartz is basically a tuned mass and spring system, just like "mechanical" watches. The only difference being an electronic circuit that counts the oscillations.

"Atomic" which is the only system I'm aware of that gets good accuracy and doesn't use a mass / spring oscillator rate controller, but it does use an electronic circuit to count the pulses from the energized cesium.

You could also go by power source, which puts the SD in the "mechanical" group, but it uses electricity to power the IC chip and quartz oscillator so maybe electrical, or you could go by escapement, which puts the SD in the quartz camp since it uses an IC to count the quartz oscillations.

For me it really doesn't matter except as an intellectual exercise. I'll take high precision, accurate and beautifully crafted watch whatever the rate control mechanism.


----------



## Pawl_Buster (Mar 12, 2007)

Okapi001 said:


> I'm terribly sorry, but you are wrong. First of all, the quartz oscillator *is not* a part of the tri-synchro regulator. The quartz oscillator is (separate) timekeeping part of the spring drive.
> 
> As far as tri-synhcro regulator is concerned, here is a quote from the Seiko's webpage.
> 
> ...


The only thing I have been wrong about was trying to engage in an intelligent and rational discussion. My bad :-(


----------



## entropy96 (Nov 9, 2010)

It depends on what brands you are comparing the GS to, and what parts of the watch (movement, bracelet, dial, etc.) you are comparing GS to.

If you compare the mechanical movements of GS to, say, Bovet or URWERK or MB&F,
then those Swiss brands have better decorated movements by leaps and bounds above GS.
And at this price point, they better be.

But if you compare the finishing of a GS case and bracelet to PP Nautilus or AP Royal Oak (or any Swiss/German high-end bracelets), you'd be surprised that it is _IMHO _superior to the aforementioned brands.
The Zaratsu finishing is unlike anything I've ever seen in any other watch. You have to see it to believe it.

BTW, it is quite unfair to compare Grand Seiko to high-end brands such as Patek Philippe and Vacheron Constantin.
Their direct competitors are the low to mid-level brands, like Rolex, Omega, Ulysse Nardin, IWC, etc.
Credor is Seiko's high-end brand, and it surely is on par with any high-end Swiss/German/Dutch/Irish/Finnish/Japanese brand.


----------



## gagnello (Nov 19, 2011)

Dont we think this has gone on long enough? Surely we have more interesting things to move on to than carry on this nonsense.....

Sent from my SGP311 using Tapatalk 4


----------



## Pawl_Buster (Mar 12, 2007)

gagnello said:


> Dont we think this has gone on long enough? Surely we have more interesting things to move on to than carry on this nonsense.....
> 
> Sent from my SGP311 using Tapatalk 4


19 pages of posts indicate there must be something interesting ;-)
As WIS, we often go to great lengths to help folks understand simple ideas :-d


----------



## AvantGardeTime (Aug 23, 2013)

Here is a suggestion.... Skip the thread!


----------



## Evanssprky (May 14, 2012)

gagnello said:


> Dont we think this has gone on long enough? Surely we have more interesting things to move on to than carry on this nonsense.....
> 
> Sent from my SGP311 using Tapatalk 4


Why not read a different thread if this is not interesting enough for you, only saying.


----------



## Will_f (Jul 4, 2011)

entropy96 said:


> It depends on what brands you are comparing the GS to, and what parts of the watch (movement, bracelet, dial, etc.) you are comparing GS to.
> 
> If you compare the mechanical movements of GS to, say, Bovet or URWERK or MB&F,
> then those Swiss brands have better decorated movements by leaps and bounds above GS.
> ...


I understand where you are coming from. The GS is beautifully polished. However, that's just one measure of quality and it's the first one to go from wear and tear. I actually prefer the case and bracelet of the Sub-C because of the sophisticated clasp and 904ss. That said, I prefer the ratcheting clasp used by Glaschutte Original to all others. What a work of machining art.

Rolex movements, while durable and accurate, aren't especially attractive or well finished. GS definitely wins there but in movement finishing they appear comparable to GO and I don't know if they're any better than Omega (Haven't looked at an Omega with a lupe). GS is a clear step or two behind ALS and the Geneva sealed Swiss movements, but you're going to pay a lot more if you want that.

The bottom line is GS is generally a better deal than mid range big name luxury brands because they don't have the market visibility and pricing power of the Rolexes, Omegas, etc, but then for a lot of luxury watch buyers that's important.


----------



## kwcross (Dec 31, 2007)

Hello everyone; some very strong opinions around here... Just coming in midstream, and to provide some perspective around the OP's question. I recently read a quote posted by James Dowling, well known watch collector and author of "Best of Time; Rolex Wristwatches" (Schiffer Publishing), on another forum. -

"There is that tiny group of folks who 'get' the Grand Seiko and then there is the rest of the world. What bothers me most about this split is that so many watchnuts fall into the second group. 

To my unskilled eyes, the Grand Seiko line is actually amazing value; the quality is right up there with much more expensive Swiss brands; and, having had the good fortune to visit everyone from Patek to Rolex in Switzerland and also the Grand Seiko operation, I have to say that the craftsmanship is the equal and the dedication just as intense." James Dowling, 2013 

:-!

And of course, I am not scared of quartz. :-d


----------



## Okapi001 (Apr 9, 2013)

Pawl_Buster said:


> His fascination with the quartz crystal and refusal to understand it's place is fairly classic.


If there is one with a fascination (or rather a fobia) with the quartz, it's you. You obviously have some fixed ideas that no amount of arguments and quotes from the Seiko's own documents can move. OK, so I tried, readers with common sense and basic understanding of how a watch works did understand - and for the rest of you, just live in your illusions, I give up.



Pawl_Buster said:


> When there have been many who have tried to help him understand; the patent has been posted and articles written by others who also understand how it works...then to simply dismiss it all and repeat the mantra must be frustrating for him.


Funny thing is - not one factual mistake that I might make were pointed out by you or anybody else. And not one of my questions (that could clarify or prove your statements) were answered.

Unlike you I have quoted from the actual patent and from Seiko's own descriptions of the Spring Drive. You did nothing like that - instead you keep repeating your mantra, without a shred of evidence. So I should probably listen to the advice from one of the more lucid member of the forum and rest the case. It has been already said everything relevant anyway.


----------



## Okapi001 (Apr 9, 2013)

Before I really rest my case, one last attempt;-)
Video from Seiko's webpage has already been linked, but here is again, with a transcript of the most crucial part for this discussion (starting at 2:50).


> The minimum electric power operates IC and vibrates quartz which produces highly accurate oscillation. This accurate oscillation is used to *regulate *the force of the electromagnetic braking


Spring Drive | SEIKO WATCH CORPORATION

Pawl will probably say that Seiko is wrong but that's his problem


----------



## Xcandescent (Oct 25, 2013)

An opinion on how a known mechanism *actually works* is not really an opinion. It's a theory, and it's either provable or not.

The distinction may seem subtle, but there is a huge difference between suggesting the quartz oscillator is there to make the movement more accurate through minor compensation ... and suggesting that without it the movement would be totally, massively inaccurate. The former implies quartz is optional, the latter implies it's a requirement. That's a pretty big difference.

I have no idea who's right. Don't have the background for it. But I do wonder how the designers would react if they saw this thread. Actually, I'm wondering why no one has even tried to get the non-marketing side of Seiko on record about it. Saying to read the patent doesn't fly for the layperson. And at the end of the day, I think a lot of the technical arguments are ultimately stand-ins for arguments about marketing and personal taste in movements (mechanical vs. quartz).

I dunno. Even if it turns out that it's "just" a quartz watch, having a quartz watch that runs on spring power and doesn't need batteries is pretty awesome. Dunno if it's awesome enough to justify the price, but it is an impressive technical achievement. But it does raise the question of who exactly was this thing made for? It feels like a technology that no one knows how to properly explain or market. And if you can't explain why it exists, then why would I want to buy it, much less pay used car prices for it?

-XCN-


----------



## oak1971 (Aug 19, 2013)

Okapi001 said:


> Before I really rest my case, one last attempt;-)
> Video from Seiko's webpage has already been linked, but here is again, with a transcript of the most crucial part for this discussion (starting at 2:50).
> 
> Spring Drive | SEIKO WATCH CORPORATION
> ...


If the quartz vibrated itself, you would be correct. but it doesn't.


----------



## Okapi001 (Apr 9, 2013)

oak1971 said:


> If the quartz vibrated itself, you would be correct. but it doesn't.


And what do you think it's doing? The quartz in a Spring Drive is the same quartz as in any other quartz watch. The _only _thing good old quartz crystal can do in any watch is to vibrate. Other component of the watch (integrated circuit) than counts its vibrations (oscillation) and regulate the watch.

The difference between ordinary quartz watch and spring drive is the method of how the IC regulates the watch.
1) In analog quartz watch the IC is sending a signal to the electric motor
2) In digital quartz watch the IC is sending a signal to the display
3) In spring drive the IC is sending a signal to the electromagnetic brake.

And that's it. In every case the quartz crystal is responsible for "timekeeping" and the IC for "regulating" the watch.


----------



## Okapi001 (Apr 9, 2013)

Xcandescent said:


> Actually, I'm wondering why no one has even tried to get the non-marketing side of Seiko on record about it.
> ...
> But it does raise the question of who exactly was this thing made for? It feels like a technology that no one knows how to properly explain or market. And if you can't explain why it exists, then why would I want to buy it, much less pay used car prices for it?
> 
> -XCN-


I did send a couple of questions to Seiko, but so far no answer. And as far as technology is concerned, it's pretty obvious to me. You get advantages of the mechanical watch (no need for battery and a nicely sweeping second hand) and accuracy of the quartz watch. What more would you like?

The Spring Drive trades only three mechanical parts - escapement, balance wheel and hairspring - for an order of magnitude better accuracy. All other mechanical components are the same as in every mechanical watch.

And why are some people so appalled by the fact that it's the quartz crystal that is doing the timekeeping in Spring Drive is beyond me. To be absolutelly clear - for me Spring Drive is much more desirable technology than mechanical watch and would love to have one (if I could get one for less that $1000;-) )

And another disclaimer - I like Seiko very much. I have three - a "vintage" analog/digital from 1988 (from the Arnie series), Alpinist and Kinetic Perpetual.


----------



## Will_f (Jul 4, 2011)

Okapi001 said:


> And what do you think it's doing? The quartz in a Spring Drive is the same quartz as in any other quartz watch. The _only _thing good old quartz crystal can do in any watch is to vibrate. Other component of the watch (integrated circuit) than counts its vibrations (oscillation) and regulate the watch.
> 
> The difference between ordinary quartz watch and spring drive is the method of how the IC regulates the watch.
> 1) In analog quartz watch the IC is sending a signal to the electric motor
> ...


Dead horse anyone? Okapi, your explanations are correct and frankly excellent in clearly explaining how quartz works in laymen's terms. The problem is, your audience isn't willing to listen.

We seem to have lost the ability (if we ever had it) to separate reason from rationalizations.


----------



## Okapi001 (Apr 9, 2013)

Xcandescent said:


> The distinction may seem subtle, but there is a huge difference between suggesting the quartz oscillator is there to make the movement more accurate through minor compensation ... and suggesting that without it the movement would be totally, massively inaccurate. The former implies quartz is optional, the latter implies it's a requirement. That's a pretty big difference.


In fact it is very simple, if only you use a little common sense.
You have a spinning wheel that you want to spin at precisely 8 Hz. Why on Earth would you want to have two devices - one less accurate and one more accurate - for controling the frequency? You need precisly one device, as accurate as possible. And even if you for some reason have two, it's the more accurate device that is ultimately responsible for the accuracy of the watch.

And just watch the video linked above - everything is explained very clearly.


----------



## Pawl_Buster (Mar 12, 2007)

Okapi001 said:


> And what do you think it's doing? The quartz in a Spring Drive is the same quartz as in any other quartz watch. The _only _thing good old quartz crystal can do in any watch is to vibrate. Other component of the watch (integrated circuit) than counts its vibrations (oscillation) and regulate the watch.
> 
> The difference between ordinary quartz watch and spring drive is the method of how the IC regulates the watch.
> 1) In analog quartz watch the IC is sending a signal to the electric motor
> ...


This is quite an about face from insisting that the quartz crystal regulates the SD!


----------



## Pawl_Buster (Mar 12, 2007)

Will_f said:


> Dead horse anyone? Okapi, your explanations are correct and frankly excellent in clearly explaining how quartz works in laymen's terms. The problem is, your audience isn't willing to listen.
> 
> We seem to have lost the ability (if we ever had it) to separate reason from rationalizations.


Well not entirely correct; but it's good to see that he is coming around. He has gone from telling us that the crystal is the only thing that regulates the SD to now saying that just the IC does...which is much closer to reality


----------



## Okapi001 (Apr 9, 2013)

Pawl_Buster said:


> Well not entirely correct; but it's good to see that he is coming around. He has gone from telling us that the crystal is the only thing that regulates the SD to now saying that just the IC does...which is much closer to reality


I thought it was self evident to everyone that the crystal is not regulating anything by itself. It's not doing that in "ordinary" quartz watches either. To qoute from Seiko's video again, this time with emphasis on another word: "This accurate oscillation is *used *to regulate ...". So, not regulate by itself, but is "used" to regulate (by the IC).

I also don't see why is this nitpicking really necessary or useful, because even if you now claim that it's the IC that is doing the regulation, it's the same for every other quartz watch. And if you will now claim that it's really not only IC, but also the VCO and brake and whatnot, that regulates the SD, I can spare you the effort, because that was not contested from the beginning.


----------



## JarenCarter (Oct 6, 2011)

After considering the posts and the patent, there is definitely a miscommunication of words. I hear where you're coming from okapi and understand what you;ve been saying.


----------



## Pakz (Aug 16, 2011)

A good analogy, in my opinion for how a Spring Drive relates to both mechanical and "classical quartz" watches is boats.

-A mechanical watch is quite like a sail boat... it gets its speed and trajectory from the wind, through the sails.
-A quartz watch would be a steamboat or any engine boat. The speed and trajectory come from a machine.
-A spring drive would be a sail boat where an engine is used for orienting the sails and keeping the helm.

Sure, it's got quartz, like the classical quartz watch, and in that respect it IS a quartz movement. Sure as well it's main source of energy and timing is mechanical, the spring, come to the hands via wheels. In that respect it is a mechanical movement. But that delivery of energy gets braked / controled by the timing abilities of the quartz.

In that sense most of the previous 21 pages were never arriving anywhere. Some were willing to see that movement as mechanical, which it is, but not only. Some wanted to see it as quartz, which it is, but not only. You just cannot perceive the spring drive as pertaining to the previous watch movement categories as it belongs to both and none at the same time.

Quartz, sure enough. But it could be replaced by some atomic source or anything, it is the metric by which the regulation is obtained. So quartz is not consubstantial to the SD, since it does not correspond to the storage and delivery of the energy, just a comparison that enables that delivery to be right.
Mechanical. Yes, but not quite a normal one since the mechanical parts are not enough to provide regulation and the timing would be disastrous with only that.

Now, I really like the idea. But what I like about it is that it's really both of these two things, and therefore something new. Everyone in the thread is right... and wrong. Mostly because people want to still thing in a binary separation between quartz and mechanical (when they are not even two categories of the same thing...)


----------



## oak1971 (Aug 19, 2013)

Okapi001 said:


> And what do you think it's doing? The quartz in a Spring Drive is the same quartz as in any other quartz watch. The _only _thing good old quartz crystal can do in any watch is to vibrate. Other component of the watch (integrated circuit) than counts its vibrations (oscillation) and regulate the watch.
> 
> The difference between ordinary quartz watch and spring drive is the method of how the IC regulates the watch.
> 1) In analog quartz watch the IC is sending a signal to the electric motor
> ...


In the sd the spring generates the energy for the quartz to vibrate. No spring no electricity and no vibration.


----------



## Okapi001 (Apr 9, 2013)

oak1971 said:


> In the sd the spring generates the energy for the quartz to vibrate. No spring no electricity and no vibration.


And? Do you think that in an ordinary quartz watch the crystal magically vibrates on its own? No battery no electricity and no vibration. How exactly is that relevant to our discussion?


----------



## LittleTim (Jan 17, 2011)

So after all this, can a spring drive function without the quartz crystal?


----------



## Okapi001 (Apr 9, 2013)

LittleTim said:


> So after all this, can a spring drive function without the quartz crystal?


Of course not (as it is). If the crystal dies in the watch, it's game over (there is no backup oscillator).

You could in principle construct a mechanical/electronic hybrid without a quartz crystal, but you would have to add some other form of accurate oscillator and that would be than an entirely different movement.


----------



## oak1971 (Aug 19, 2013)

Okapi001 said:


> And? Do you think that in an ordinary quartz watch the crystal magically vibrates on its own? No battery no electricity and no vibration. How exactly is that relevant to our discussion?


Because you keep saying the quartz does everything, and it can't. Your argument not mine.


----------



## oak1971 (Aug 19, 2013)

Okapi001 said:


> Of course not (as it is). If the crystal dies in the watch, it's game over (there is no backup oscillator).
> 
> You could in principle construct a mechanical/electronic hybrid without a quartz crystal, but you would have to add some other form of accurate oscillator and that would be than an entirely different movement.


GPS signal for the IC with a default algorithm for backup.

In fact, if one could construct a mathematical simulation of a quartz crystal you could ditch the quartz completely from every watch.


----------



## Pawl_Buster (Mar 12, 2007)

LittleTim said:


> So after all this, can a spring drive function without the quartz crystal?


Not by simply removing it but if Seiko had not wanted to make the SD a better time keeper than a mechanical watch, they could have left it out of the circuit and relied on the output from the VCO compered to the pulses from the glide wheel. As has been stated a couple of times,Seiko includes the quartz oscillator as one more comparison source that helps take care of stuff the VCO can't react to quickly enough.

The tri-suncro regulator compares the pulses from the glide wheel to the output of the VCO then compares that output against the pulses from the crystal to maintain the glide wheel speed at exactly 8 Hz. That may be a tad over simplified but it is basically how the SD works.


----------



## Pawl_Buster (Mar 12, 2007)

oak1971 said:


> GPS signal for the IC with a default algorithm for backup.
> 
> In fact, if one could construct a mathematical simulation of a quartz crystal you could ditch the quartz completely.


Apart from the fine accuracy the crystal oscillator gives the SD during times when it is exposed to gravity, g-forces and temperature changes, I think it may just be possible that the watch would still run if the crystal died. Now I don't know the exact circuitry in the final comparator but I've worked with simple circuits that use comparators and I have seen where one or the other inputs simply passes through unaltered signal if the comparing signal disappears. The glide wheel and the VCO should in that case be adequate to keep it running, albeit no better than a 7s26.


----------



## Okapi001 (Apr 9, 2013)

Pawl_Buster said:


> Apart from the fine accuracy the crystal oscillator gives the SD during times when it is exposed to gravity, g-forces and temperature changes, I think it may just be possible that the watch would still run if the crystal died..


SD is exposed to gravity, g-forces and temperature changes ALL the time, every microsecond of its existence. Unless you think it has inbuild accelerometer and thermometer to knows better.


----------



## Greek6486 (Mar 26, 2013)

This video explains exactly how the movement works 

Sent from my SCH-I545 using Xparent BlueTapatalk 2


----------



## lethaltoes (Mar 5, 2013)

LittleTim said:


> So after all this, can a spring drive function without the quartz crystal?


Unequivocally the answer is yes. It cannot deliver corrections by self referencing but it'll still spin and brake based on the target value in the master code. I reckon it can still be pretty accurate if the voltage regulation is up to scratch and the mainspring's rate of delivery is within the parameters dictated in the master code.


----------



## oak1971 (Aug 19, 2013)

Greek6486 said:


> This video explains exactly how the movement works
> 
> Sent from my SCH-I545 using Xparent BlueTapatalk 2


Yeah, that's unbiased. lol


----------



## lethaltoes (Mar 5, 2013)

Okapi001 said:


> Of course not (as it is). If the crystal dies in the watch, it's game over (there is no backup oscillator).
> 
> You could in principle construct a mechanical/electronic hybrid without a quartz crystal, but you would have to add some other form of accurate oscillator and that would be than an entirely different movement.


Plain wrong. And quite frankly, this has been.your line of thought despite twisting and turning around terminology. In effect, that's exactly what Seiko has done with the spring drive - they have created a mechanical device that generates electricity to engage a brake which slows the said device back down to the desired beat rate at the desired voltage. The generator produces a signal to show the actual beat rate. This beat rate is then referenced to the target beat rate and corrections applied when necessary. But it is this primary oscillation which provides the time display and any correction is made to this primary oscillation.

It is true that without the quartz oscillator there is no time reference to correct the primary waveform. It's the same when we manually adjusts our mechanical watches to our phones or HAQ watches or whatever you use when the said mechanical time pieces lose or gain time. There is just no way the mechanical watch is able to regulate away it's errors especially when compiled over a period of time. The best you can do for a mechanical time piece is to account for the variations in positional difference, temperatures, unwinding of the main spring with the provision of measured force dampening. It's similar to spring drive whereby you can set a fine rate of oscillation in the combination of glide wheel and brake through parameters for the voltage supply.

As it is, the spring drive comes with the compensatory quartz oscillator so there's no way we can actually tell in and of itself how accurate the glide wheel and brake system is without compensation.

But just as you can tell which mechanical movement is accurate and to what degree by referencing your phone and setting the time again, it cannot be said that mechanical watch is "not telling time" no matter how deficient it is since the correction you apply is to that oscillator in the mechanical watch.

Lastly, by grand seiko standards, if the quartz oscillator is the primary component for time display, you should know that accuracy rate deviation should be well within the range of 5-10 spy and not the quoted 15s a month range. Although I'm glad to report that the compensatory regulation works better than as advertised and my spring drive gs has gained a paltry 2s in 4 months while delivering a smooth arc to it's time telling. How satisfying!


----------



## Okapi001 (Apr 9, 2013)

In order for a watch (or any other mechanism, for that matter) to know when a temperature changes (or gravity or whatever influences the accuracy of the timekeeping system), a suitable sensor has to be present. Only if there is a temperature sensor can the watch compensate for such a change. Pawl's (and probably yours too) notion that the spring drive uses the data from the quartz only when there is a temperature or some other similar change that renders VCO or tri-synchro regulator inaccurate is complete and utter BS. You obviously don't have a clue how such mechanisms function.

The spring drive (IC) "listens" to the quartz crystal's beat _all the time _and obeys it _absolutely_. It simply has to, because there are no sensors to tell it when one system for timekeeping is OK and when it should switch to another (because there happens something that has an effect on the first one).

And as far as why accuracy of the SD is "only" 15 sec/month, the answer is simple. It's because the quartz crystal is not thermocompensated.


----------



## lethaltoes (Mar 5, 2013)

Okapi001 said:


> You don't deserve the answer, but for the sake of other readers who could be otherwise mislead by your ignorance, and that of Pawl, I will explain anyway.
> 
> In order for a watch (or any other mechanism, for that matter) to know when a temperature changes (or gravity or whatever influences the accuracy of the timekeeping system), a suitable sensor has to be present. Only if there is a temperature sensor can the watch compensate for such a change. Pawl's (and probably yours too) notion that the spring drive uses the data from the quartz only when there is a temperature or some other similar change that renders VCO or tri-synchro regulator inaccurate is complete and utter BS. You obviously don't have a clue how such mechanisms function.
> 
> ...


From your cited patent

An electronically controlled mechanical timepiece includes: a voltage-controlled oscillator (25) including a generator that uses a rotor (12) driven by a spring (1 a) to rotate, and a brake circuit (23) for controlling the rotation cycle of the generator (20); and a rotation control means (50) for controlling the rotation cycle of (50) includes a phase-comparison circuit (54) for comparing the phases of rectangular-wave pulses fr output from a VCO (25) and time standard signal fs, and a brake control circuit (56) for inputting, based on an output from the phase-comparison circuit (54), a signal for controlling the brake circuit (23) to a voltage-controlled oscillator (25). By providing the VCO (25) and the phase-comparison circuit (54), PLL control is realized to enable a rapidly responsive system.

The vco provides the primary set of data for correction. It generates this data on it's pre set parameters of function. It could be ahead, behind or spot on. That's the trigger for correction and implementation of the response through the brake control circuit.

What if the vco is neither ahead or behind by displaying a perfect waveform? Then there is no need for correction. I already mentioned voltage regulation so what's up with the mention of temperature sensors?

I know the quartz oscillator is not thermocompensated and I'm implying that it's a step back for grand seiko if that's the intent to use it as the primary signal in this implementation, which it clearly is not.

You can set the time on your mechanical again and again whenever you choose but it doesn't mean that your mechanical watch is not functioning as an oscillator and telling time. And if you cannot detect any deviation on your mechanical watch at a certain time of the day, then there is no function to correct it.


----------



## Will_f (Jul 4, 2011)

lethaltoes said:


> Plain wrong. And quite frankly, this has been.your line of thought despite twisting and turning around terminology. In effect, that's exactly what Seiko has done with the spring drive - they have created a mechanical device that generates electricity to engage a brake which slows the said device back down to the desired beat rate at the desired voltage. The generator produces a signal to show the actual beat rate. This beat rate is then referenced to the target beat rate and corrections applied when necessary. But it is this primary oscillation which provides the time display and any correction is made to this primary oscillation.
> 
> It is true that without the quartz oscillator there is no time reference to correct the primary waveform. It's the same when we manually adjusts our mechanical watches to our phones or HAQ watches or whatever you use when the said mechanical time pieces lose or gain time. There is just no way the mechanical watch is able to regulate away it's errors especially when compiled over a period of time. The best you can do for a mechanical time piece is to account for the variations in positional difference, temperatures, unwinding of the main spring with the provision of measured force dampening. It's similar to spring drive whereby you can set a fine rate of oscillation in the combination of glide wheel and brake through parameters for the voltage supply.
> 
> ...


Wow. I can see you love SDs, but they're not magical. That mechanical device Seiko created? It's called a generator. That braking you're talking about? That's the torque required to generate electric power and is proportional to the current draw of the IC circuit. The SD generator produces power at a frequency dependent on the speed of the glide wheel, just like the generator that powers your home, except it produces picowatts instead of megawatts. Without a governor circuit, that frequency would be entirely dependent on the state of wind in the mainspring because the torque required to brake the glide wheel varies with state of wind. In an SD that governor exists in the IC, and it modulates the current draw to maintain a constant speed from the glide wheel. Here's the part where you need to pay attention: there is no frequency controlled generator out there that doesn't need a reference for its regulator. In the SD, that reference is a plain Jane quartz oscillator. Without it, an SD would vary dramatically in speed from full wind to unwound, making it no more accurate than a windup toy.

Finally, the reason SDs have the accuracy of a standard quartz is because the IC chip does not include a thermocompensation circuit. Why Seiko didn't put one in is anyone's guess, but I would bet power consumption. It doesn't take much if your power budget is measured in picowatts.

EDIT: I think I see your confusion. The patent references control being achieved by comparing the phase of two signals and using a PLL (phase lock loop) circuit to hold the phase between the two, thus keeping one synced with the other. Make no mistake: the quartz crystal is the reference signal source. Everything else is just there to allow an apples to apples waveform comparison between the quartz frequency output and the generator frequency output (glide wheel speed). Using a PLL circuit allows rapid response to changes in glide wheel speed so it stays locked with the quartz oscillator. This lock is absolutely necessary to achieve quartz level accuracy if the wearer is throwing balls, jogging, driving a motorcycle or something similar.


----------



## lethaltoes (Mar 5, 2013)

Okapi the fatal flaw in your assumption is that the vco is highly inaccurate. Why would they design it as such? Or are the engineers incapable? Doesn't seem so to me from the implementation of the other systems. Nobody designs a defective vco and then capably deals with the phase shifts in the waveforms thereafter. Just doesn't happen. Not in time pieces nor hi fi nor... Whatever.


----------



## Aussiejohn (Jul 11, 2012)

Well I thought after reading the Patent that it would have ended this but it appears someone forgot to tell them that.


----------



## Okapi001 (Apr 9, 2013)

lethaltoes said:


> The vco provides the primary set of data for correction. It generates this data on it's pre set parameters of function. It could be ahead, behind or spot on. That's the trigger for correction and implementation of the response through the brake control circuit.
> 
> What if the vco is neither ahead or behind by displaying a perfect waveform? Then there is no need for correction. I already mentioned voltage regulation so what's up with the mention of temperature sensors?


You really don't understand, right? The _only _way to know if the vco is ahead or behind or spot on is to _constantly _compare the rotation of the glide wheel with the quartz crystal. It really doesn't matter if there is a need for correction with the brake or not, because even if the glide wheel is spinning with precisely 8 Hz the only way for the IC to know that there is no need for correction (i.e. the wheel is at 8 Hz) is by comparing that data with quartz crystal. The IC can recognise the "perfect waveform" _only _by comparing it with the quartz crystal. Without a waveform, provided by the quartz crystal, the IC would be clueless as to what to do with the waveform, provided by the vco/tri-synchro regulator.

Take a look again at that video explanation and think about it. It's really not that difficult.


----------



## Watchnut12 (Sep 2, 2013)

A little about Seiko Spring Drive... Also the controle officiel suisse de chronometres (COSC ) Published his account of Mr.Akahane work spring drive in Oct 2,1997 as a new mechanical movement with the best precision of all mechanical movements ever made (ACCURACY).

This link will explain Spring Drive FOR REAL! If anyone is interested to get completion from this Thread! (Please click on the link below for the truth & to end this!)
Spring Drive | SEIKO WATCH CORPORATION

"1977. A young Seiko engineer started to wonder how he could make his dream of "the ever-lasting watch" come true. In his vision: a watch wound by a mainspring and with one-second-a-day accuracy, a precision that only the finest electronic watches could deliver. This engineer, Yoshikazu Akahane, was a persistent and dedicated man. It took him 28 years, countless set-backs and over 600 prototypes, but he and his team eventually succeeded by inventing new technologies in every aspect of the watchmaker's art. In 2005, Seiko Spring Drive came of age."

*Four Key features of Spring Drive*

The precision, reliability and durability of Spring Drive were made possible by advances in four key areas of luxury watchmaking.

*High accuracy*

The Tri-synchro regulator controls and releases the mechanical, electrical and electro-magnetic energy generated by the mainspring. It replaces the escapement and, with its one-way motion, it is inherently more stable, durable and precise. Spring Drive is accurate to 1 second per day.

*Glide-motion*

As the movement has no escapement, all the motion within it is circular, in a single direction, allowing the hands to move constantly with a unique glide-motion. Spring Drive is the only watch in the world to express the natural and continuous flow of time.

*Long Power Reserve*

The new generation mainspring delivers more power, more smoothly and for longer. A special alloy, developed in-house by Seiko, generates increased power in addition to being durable and highly resistant to heat or corrosion. Spring Drive has a power reserve of 72 hours, even if the chronograph is in continuous operation.

*Fast winding*

In 1959 Seiko invented an original component from the winding mechanism of a mechanical watch, the 'Magic Lever.' It boosted the efficiency of the automatic winding mechanism, by using the energy created by each swing, in both directions, of the rotor. With direct installation to the rotor shaft, the newly designed 'Magic Lever' system delivers more efficient transmission of power than ever.

*Page Top*​*Mechanism*









*Source of energy*

The sole motive power is the mainspring
*Transmission*

The power of the mainspring is transmitted via gear train to the hands and to the Tri-synchro regulator.
*Regulation*

The Tri-synchro regulator controls the speed of the glide wheel and the hands by electromagnetic braking.

*Page Top*​*Three Key Innovations*

*The Tri-synchro regulator*

Developed by SEIKO especially for Spring Drive, the Tri-synchro regulator








1. Controls the mainspring's mechanical energy.
2. Converts a small part of this energy into electricity to power the quartz crystal.
3. Generates a magnetic force to regulate the speed of the glide wheel.

These three diverse forms of energy gives the regulator the 'tri' in its name.

*The Mainspring*

Seiko developed a new high-elasticity alloy "Spron 510" for the mainspring.
SPRON 510* is Seiko's unique alloy and leads the industry and delivers extended power and accuracy.

*SPRON is a registered trademark of Seiko Instruments Inc.
*The Magic Lever*

Magic Lever is a unique winding system first developed by Seiko in 1959.
In SPRING DRIVE a new Magic Lever winding system fitted directly to the shaft of the rotor gives greater efficiency and allows a shorter winding period and a longer power reserve.
*Page Top*​*Spring Drive Chronograph*
Seiko Spring Drive provides the perfect platform for a luxury chronograph, because elapsed time is measured precisely and not to the nearest fraction. With one-second-a-day accuracy, with its 12 hours duration, with its vertical clutch and column wheel for precise button operation, this is one of the world's great chronographs. Assembled by hand, with 416 parts, 50 jewels, 140 oil points and 5 different lubricants, the Spring Drive chronograph has a power reserve of 72 hours, even when the chronograph is in use
*Page Top*​*Glide motion hand*









The chronograph second hand moves in glide motion and measures up to twelve hours. It stops precisely when the button is pressed, not at the nearest second or 1/10th of a second.
The Spring Drive Chronograph is the only watch that can measure with precision the natural and continuous flow of time.

*Page Top*​*Vertical clutch & Column wheel*









*Vertical clutch*

The vertical clutch delivers high precision to the chronograph operation, and the chronograph second hand never jumps when it starts. This allows a level of accuracy (one second per day) that far exceeds that of any other luxury chronograph.









*Column wheel*

The Spring Drive chronograph is equipped with a column wheel for maximum stability in the switching mechanism. This eight-pillar component controls the chronograph function with error-free precision, and creates maximum durability and reliability.

*Page Top*​*Two-step system*









The precision and accuracy in chronograph measurement is secured by the two-step push button system. A slight resistance at the halfway point and the reassuringly solid 'click' ensure the operator captures the precise moment to start or stop the chronograph

*Page Top*​


----------



## Okapi001 (Apr 9, 2013)

lethaltoes said:


> Okapi the fatal flaw in your assumption is that the vco is highly inaccurate. Why would they design it as such? Or are the engineers incapable? Doesn't seem so to me from the implementation of the other systems. Nobody designs a defective vco and then capably deals with the phase shifts in the waveforms thereafter. Just doesn't happen. Not in time pieces nor hi fi nor... Whatever.


In fact only fatal flaw here is your misunderstanding of very basic principles of regulation. If you want to keep a rotation at precisely 8 Hz, you only have to know if you are spot on, behind or ahead. Nothing more. If that could be achieved by means other than the quartz crystal, the crystal would be competelly needless. Everything could be achieved without it, and perfectly so.

- spot on > don't touch the brake
- ahead > brake until spot on
- behind > speed up until spot on
(let's forget for the moment that wheel drive cannot be speeded up, so it has to spin faster than 8 Hz, as only brake is there to regulate speed.)

The problem is that you cannot achieve that with only vco/tri-synchro regulator. You can not know if you are spot on, or behind or ahead withhout a quartz crystal. Because, as already mentioned, if you could achieve that without it, you wouldn't need it in the first place. You could achieve perfect 8 Hz without it. On the other hand, if vco/tri-synchro regulator cannot recognize precisely 8 Hz on its own, it means that you absolutely need the quartz crystal at all times. A vco that can not recognise precisely 8 Hz (but lets say only 8 Hz+- 0,1 Hz) is completely useless, because it can't tell you when it is "spot on".

It's really very simple - you either know when you are spot on, or you don't know at all. There is no other way around. And if you know, than you don't need secondary device at all, and if you don't know, than your "secondary" device is in fact you "primary" device, the one that you absolutely and constantly need.


----------



## LittleTim (Jan 17, 2011)

Will_f said:


> In an SD that governor exists in the IC, and it modulates the current draw to maintain a constant speed from the glide wheel. Here's the part where you need to pay attention: there is no frequency controlled generator out there that doesn't need a reference for its regulator. In the SD, that reference is a plain Jane quartz oscillator. Without it, an SD would vary dramatically in speed from full wind to unwound, making it no more accurate than a windup toy. "
> 
> A generator will produce electricity even when it voltage regulator fails. It will produce a wider range of voltage. A generator is basically a frequency generator.
> 
> So based upon the thread, I believe (my opinion) that the spring drive could in theory be made to run without the quartz crystal. If so, it is more kin to mechanical rather than quartz.


----------



## lethaltoes (Mar 5, 2013)

Will_f said:


> In an SD that governor exists in the IC, and it modulates the current draw to maintain a constant speed from the glide wheel. Here's the part where you need to pay attention: there is no frequency controlled generator out there that doesn't need a reference for its regulator. In the SD, that reference is a plain Jane quartz oscillator. Without it, an SD would vary dramatically in speed from full wind to unwound, making it no more accurate than a windup toy. "
> 
> Very clever observation. But like I said the generator AND the brake circuit constitutes the vco. Look at the description of the chopper circuit described in the brake circuit. Non linear oscillator described perhaps? Look at the waveform shaping circuitry. Why is it there? To output the waveform of the oscillator into a square wave for comparison with the linear quartz oscillator.
> 
> ...


----------



## Okapi001 (Apr 9, 2013)

lethaltoes said:


> Will_f said:
> 
> 
> > Okapi was disputing earlier that two oscillators (vco and quartz) would be ridiculous and determined there was really only one oscillator at play. What he failed to understand is that the benefit of the vco allows for the signal to be synced to the quartz signal and also allowed for it's (vco) frequency to be varied over a set range through the voltage loop feedback into the vco.
> ...


----------



## Okapi001 (Apr 9, 2013)

Pawl_Buster said:


> What pray tell do you thing the tri-syncro regulator is then?


*The Tri-synchro regulator controls and releases the mechanical, electrical and electro-magnetic energy generated by the mainspring. It replaces the escapement*.

If you would understand the role of the escapement in the mechanical watch, you would probably know that it cannot function properly without a balance wheel. And the same is true for the tri-synchro regulator - it cannot function properly without its "balance wheel" - quartz crystal.


----------



## Okapi001 (Apr 9, 2013)

Pawl_Buster said:


> So now the SD could theoretically work without the benefit of a quartz crystal??


A mechanical watch can also theoretically work without a balance wheel. But it would be terribly inaccurate.


----------



## Pawl_Buster (Mar 12, 2007)

I am invoking forum rule #10 and removing myself from this thread.

I apologize to all the other members for having even attempted to bring a little understanding about the inner workings of the SD and thereby having been partly responsible for making the thread so long and tortured.

If you don't like long threads; please don't ask me to explain how a quartz watch actually works :-d


----------



## Will_f (Jul 4, 2011)

LittleTim said:


> A generator will produce electricity even when it voltage regulator fails. It will produce a wider range of voltage. A generator is basically a frequency generator.
> 
> So based upon the thread, I believe (my opinion) that the spring drive could in theory be made to run without the quartz crystal. If so, it is more kin to mechanical rather than quartz.


 I get the feeling you're thinking about the alternator on a car. It's frequency is controlled by the engine of the car and the voltage output is controlled by a voltage regulator which keeps it from going too high. If you wanted a car alternator to spin at a fixed speed, you would still need a reference signal.

The frequency is directly proportional to the rotational speed. Yes, a generator will continue to produce electricity if it doesn't have a governor, but it's frequency will be dependent on the electrical load and the torque applied to the shaft. If you want it to spin at a fixed frequency, you need a timing reference so you can modulate either the torque applied or the connected load. Or, in the case of a car alternator, the magnetic field strength of the winding.


----------



## Okapi001 (Apr 9, 2013)

In other words, a device cannot generate frequency and than use this frequency to regulate itself. It needs external source of frequency as a reference.


----------



## LittleTim (Jan 17, 2011)

Will_f said:


> I get the feeling you're thinking about the alternator on a car. It's frequency is controlled by the engine of the car and the voltage output is controlled by a voltage regulator which keeps it from going too high. If you wanted a car alternator to spin at a fixed speed, you would still need a reference signal.
> 
> The frequency is directly proportional to the rotational speed. Yes, a generator will continue to produce electricity if it doesn't have a governor, but it's frequency will be dependent on the electrical load and the torque applied to the shaft. If you want it to spin at a fixed frequency, you need a timing reference so you can modulate either the torque applied or the connected load. Or, in the case of a car alternator, the magnetic field strength of the winding.


Sorry Will, 
A motor attached to a generator can be attached to turn at a set RPM. This inturns turn the generator head. This will creates electricity regardless of outside regulation. 
Will it creates variable voltage level? Yes of course. Will load have a greater impact? Yes.
This is the generator that was used in olden time before having a super stable voltage level became critical. For example running a light bulb.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I537 using Tapatalk


----------



## Will_f (Jul 4, 2011)

Okapi001 said:


> In other words, a device cannot generate frequency and than use this frequency to regulate itself. It needs external source of frequency as a reference.


Not necessarily an external frequency constant per se, but an external constant that is independent of the system being regulated. For example, you could come up with a frequency regulator that relies on the constant force of gravity, which is how the spinning ball regulators and pendulum clocks from the turn of the last century worked. You could also use a very consistent spring, which is how all "mechanical", tuning fork and quartz watches work.


----------



## Will_f (Jul 4, 2011)

LittleTim said:


> Sorry Will,
> A motor attached to a generator can be attached to turn at a set RPM. This inturns turn the generator head. This will creates electricity regardless of outside regulation.
> Will it creates variable voltage level? Yes of course. Will load have a greater impact? Yes.
> This is the generator that was used in olden time before having a super stable voltage level became critical. For example running a light bulb.
> ...


What controls the motor RPM? If you have a set RPM, something set it. What? In olden times it was a steam valve that used a variable inertia flywheel and would modulate open or closed depending on how fast the steam engine was spinning. It was called a governor. Not as accurate as the quartz controlled systems used today, but good enough if you could handle 5-10% variation. There's a term still in use today by power generation professionals. It's called droop speed control. It came from those old spinning speed governors which would "droop" when they slowed down.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Droop_speed_control


----------



## LittleTim (Jan 17, 2011)

Will_f said:


> What controls the motor RPM? If you have a set RPM, something set it. What? In olden times it was a steam valve that used a variable inertia flywheel and would modulate open or closed depending on how fast the steam engine was spinning. It was called a governor. Not as accurate as the quartz controlled systems used today, but good enough if you could handle 5-10% variation. There's a term still in use today by power generation professionals. It's called droop speed control. It came from those old spinning speed governors which would "droop" when they slowed down.


What set the RPM? Just what the articles posted in previous responses. That it is already set at 8 Hz. How is it already set at 8 Hz, I don't know. Since it is already set @ 8 Hz, than there is your regulator for the IC to work. 
Complete conjector: 
Since the IC can see waveform, I would hardcode the 8 Hz waveform and let the IC use that as a comperator.

I only dig dirt for a living and am not a watch maker.


----------



## Okapi001 (Apr 9, 2013)

LittleTim said:


> What set the RPM? Just what the articles posted in previous responses. That it is already set at 8 Hz. How is it already set at 8 Hz, I don't know. Since it is already set @ 8 Hz, than there is your regulator for the IC to work.
> Complete conjector:
> Since the IC can see waveform, I would hardcode the 8 Hz waveform and let the IC use that as a comperator..


  In other words, why bother with a quartz crystal, just order the watch [that is: hardcode] to be accurate and that's it


----------



## Will_f (Jul 4, 2011)

LittleTim said:


> Will_f said:
> 
> 
> > What set the RPM? Just what the articles posted in previous responses. That it is already set at 8 Hz. How is it already set at 8 Hz, I don't know. Since it is already set @ 8 Hz, than there is your regulator for the IC to work.
> ...


----------



## Okapi001 (Apr 9, 2013)

Will_f said:


> You are the regulator, but you're getting a reference signal from the speedometer.


And even more crucial, IMHO, the speedometer needs a clock. You (or the IC) can count 8 revolutions, no problem, but without a clock, you cannot transform your counting into frequency (8 revolutions per second). So you need a clock. And where is this clock (in the spring drive)? It's the quartz crystal. It could be, in theory, something else, but than you wouldn't need the quartz in the first place.


----------



## Will_f (Jul 4, 2011)

Okapi001 said:


> And even more crucial, IMHO, the speedometer needs a clock. You (or the IC) can count 8 revolutions, no problem, but without a clock, you cannot transform your counting into frequency (8 revolutions per second). So you need a clock. And where is this clock (in the spring drive)? It's the quartz crystal. It could be, in theory, something else, but than you wouldn't need the quartz in the first place.


Older cars used a spinning weight and a spring to report speed by essentially measuring rotational acceleration of the weight. You don't need a clock so much as an independent reference. The SD uses a quartz tuned oscillator as a reference because it's extremely accurate and energy efficient. If Seiko had wanted to, they also could have used a spring and a spinning weight. It just wouldn't have been very accurate and it wouldn't run for 50+ hours.

The thing that makes watches so fascinating is how amazingly accurate and energy efficient they are . A standard quartz error is 0.0005%. A well made mechanical watch error is 0.005%. That kind of accuracy kicks the crap out of most means of measuring speed.


----------



## MrDagon007 (Sep 24, 2012)

First, I did not read all the mails in this thread. My opinion may be redundant.

I've examined GS models several times the last few years, mainly on business trips to Japan. Yes, I have been tempted (esp since the yen is low), but never succumbed. Why? Here are my general perceptions:

- The products are obviously very nicely made. No matter how close you look at them, you can see only perfection.
- From reviews (impossible to assess in the shop), the movements are likely very accurate and dependable. Hence, from a technical point of view, there is little one could wish. I agree about the general comparison with JLC.
- The price is expensive but not at the crazy luxury segment level. At roughly the same price levels, we can find some but not all nice models from Rolex, Omega, IWC, probably not JLC (didn't check). Considering the first 2 points, GS is I would say at the same level of general quality perception.
- Indeed there is less prestige, if that bothers you. It wouldn't bother me, I'm one of those who wouldn't mind driving a Honda NSX or VW Phaeton. It may or may not have an influence on resale value. Still, if you're the type who would flip watches quickly then it's safer to stay with Rolex, if it is for long term pleasure then resale doesn't matter.
- Personally I prefer the automatics over Spring Drive, the smooth second hand of SD is charming but I always found it an overly convoluted solution. Then why not go quartz all the way? To me SD is almost a crazy complication like the tourbillon, difficult for the sake of being difficult, without in my opinion great tangible benefits besides being impressive as a technical feat. 
- The big minus for me: sadly, to my eyes, the design of Grand Seiko is nearly always too conservative. I prefer a bit more character. A matter of taste for sure. Omega Planet Ocean or Aqua Terra, IWC new Ingenieur, that fabulous wacky Zenith Montre Aeronef... I never saw a GS model that gave me that same "Wow!" effect when holding it, and I am quite open to GS, loving Seiko in general. The nicest GS I've examined was the GMT model with deep black dial, even then I prefer the look of the similar Rolex Explorer 2 (roughly same price as well if I am not mistaken). The GS diver didn't really do it for me, while I expected to love it.
- most GS tend to be a little small for me. I prefer 42-45mm, 40mm and under looks a bit feeble on my meaty arm. This is esp. so for the diminutive Quartz models, some of which were almost affordable in the Japanese discount shops Yodobashi and BIC Camera the last time I was there.
- not to forget, getting a GS officially serviced will be a hassle.

So, in short GS are watches that I've wanted to love (and still do), and while I rationally respect them, the heart is rather drawn to other brands at that level - and let's admit that this factor is what drives most watch purchases. If we would be fully rational then everyone would be driving Toyota or Nissan.


----------



## Okapi001 (Apr 9, 2013)

Grand Seiko is also a perfect example that for many it's not really the quality, craftsmanship and/or design that is most important in a (luxury) watch, but brand (more accurately - popular perception of the brand).


----------



## Will_f (Jul 4, 2011)

MrDagon007 said:


> - most GS tend to be a little small for me. I prefer 42-45mm, 40mm and under looks a bit feeble on my meaty arm. This is esp. so for the diminutive Quartz models, some of which were almost affordable in the Japanese discount shops Yodobashi and BIC Camera the last time I was there.
> .


that's actually the thing I love about the GS quartz models. Fits my wrist better than any other watch I've ever owned, though I'm guessing my 7" wrist is smaller than yours. The prices are pretty good too, though the special edition 5s/y models are kind of spendy.


----------



## ec633 (Jan 6, 2012)

Okapi001 said:


> Grand Seiko is also a perfect example that for many it's not really the quality, craftsmanship and/or design that is most important in a (luxury) watch, but brand (more accurately - popular perception of the brand).


 Being a Swiss fanboy, the opinion you expressed is always biased. [ in favor of the Swiss brand ] . Why not give this thread a break. R I P


----------



## Will_f (Jul 4, 2011)

ec633 said:


> Being a Swiss fanboy, the opinion you expressed is always biased. [ in favor of the Swiss brand ] . Why not give this thread a break. R I P


I really don't think he was criticizing the brand or boosting Swiss watches. How many Swiss fanboys have you met who would say it's not about the quality, it's about the name?


----------



## Evanssprky (May 14, 2012)

I think what Okapi is saying is that people will buy based on brand recognition, even if an equivalent or even better quality product is available.
This is shown by this example. In the uk, bmw 3 series are typically about £10,000 more than a ford mondeo, are better in no measurable criteria and worse in a few, yet bmw still outsell the mondeo. People will buy based on marketing and perceived quality and so called prestige.
Unless you are a wis, this is just as true of watches.


----------



## Watchnut12 (Sep 2, 2013)

This is 100% true and no denying it by anyone. That is why Rolex is who they are because of advertising! And Omega is who they are now.. When I was 15 years old (1993) I came home with an Omega Seamaster and told my mom I paid roughly $1,600 for it, she laughed and said to me "you could of bought a Rolex".... "When I was growing up the gardener wore an Omega, you paid $1,600? Are you nuts!" Because believe or not that's how it was in the 50's when she was growing up. So advertising a brand the right way "Rolex" "Patek" etc.. is 100% going to have an affect on buyers. As we all know SEIKO is best known for the Quartz Revolution that almost destroyed the Swiss Watch Industry in a whole, they are the most profitable watch Co. In the world because their watches are sold to more of the human population. To understand Grand Seiko, one must first understand the Japanese culture. I am not going to go into a 20/20 detail on Japanese culture.. But lets just put these words into their cultural description, Perfection, Discipline , Honor & Respect... They share one unique aspect with their European counterparts... Both cultures offer their young generation an option to choose a craft at an early age, fallow that passion and teach them to master that craft (This is an option instead of school) Does this make a difference in the engineering fields & craftsmanship? You bet it does.. So to end: GS is more like a labor of love for Seiko, where time & resource is no object , to end up at what they think is the 'perfect' watch. They make their money from the lower & mid ranges and GS has a halo effect for the rest of the range. I feel that for Rolex (Tudor), Omega & Swatch - they will be more interested in maximizing their margins (In the luxury watch industry) as they need to with the hundreds of millions they have invested in advertisements to sell their products to the masses. 

At the end of the day watch collectors who reach a point in collecting and want to experience something exceptional and different, will wonder of towards GS. Like I did. The Swiss will always make exceptional time pieces some of the most beautiful, but if you want the same quality as a GS in Swiss open your checkbook and start by writing a check for $10k minimum. 




Will_f said:


> I really don't think he was criticizing the brand or boosting Swiss watches. How many Swiss fanboys have you met who would say it's not about the quality, it's about the name?





Evanssprky said:


> I think what Okapi is saying is that people will buy based on brand recognition, even if an equivalent or even better quality product is available.
> This is shown by this example. In the uk, bmw 3 series are typically about £10,000 more than a ford mondeo, are better in no measurable criteria and worse in a few, yet bmw still outsell the mondeo. People will buy based on marketing and perceived quality and so called prestige.
> Unless you are a wis, this is just as true of watches.





Okapi001 said:


> Grand Seiko is also a perfect example that for many it's not really the quality, craftsmanship and/or design that is most important in a (luxury) watch, but brand (more accurately - popular perception of the brand).


----------



## lorsban (Nov 20, 2009)

Nicely put Watchnut.

I feel the same way. Grand Seiko is really a superior watch. If they had some kind of local means to handle repairs and service (even if all the local branch does is facilitate), I'd be all over their watches. For now tho, my country has just now started selling Prospex/Marine Master/Ananta level watches. I'm not sure if they can handle Grand Seiko and I'd hate to be a guinnea pig and have my watch get fumbled around or worse lost. 

Sent from my Transformer Prime TF201 using Tapatalk


----------



## Watchnut12 (Sep 2, 2013)

I totally understand and agree with that point 100%.. I didn't buy a GS until they started carrying here in the States just a year ago.. Their is no way I was going to make that purchase from Japan without any warranty when you get it in the states... They make such a quality and dependable watch tho that I would get a Prospex directly from Japan... example MM300, IMO one of the BEST day to day divers at it's price point.

This Swiss vs Japan thing is so childish and foolish IMO!! They both make exceptional wrist pieces!! Seiko just happens to make them in 4 different price points (Low, Middle, Luxury & Ultra Luxury) and Rolex 2 (Luxury & Ultra Luxury). The difference is Seiko built it's empire on mainly selling the low & middle market & Rolex the High. At the end of the day if you are choosing one brand over the other because of name recognition & perception of acceptance from your pears.. Than KUDOS to you!! After all it is a free World, live your life the way you want.. I myself couldn't ever live like that!! and never shall!! You can pretty much tell from my collection & the amount I have spent on it, many would do it completely different if they where in my shoes.. But when I'm spending what could buy me a new 3 bedroom house in Arizona on a hobby, I'm doing it for me.. I want to look at my wrist and have a smile from ear to ear!! Do I show of my watches? Hell yes I do, this is my passion.. I love every piece to death!!! Sometimes I like to show of my pieces even though many would say "I would never of spent that cash on that watch!" Guess what, I don't care... I didn't work my ass off day in day out to appease the MASS appeal!

When I hear that comment "You bought a GS over a Rolex!! WHAT??" It irks me so much!! It makes me picture the person behind the keyboard a used car salesman that knows nothing about watches and is saving his commissions to buy a Rolex to show off. No offense to any used car salesman.. As I'm implying this to the sleazy ones in your profession who have earned the bad title ...

So please understand when you see a bit of bitterness in my posts here towards the likes of Mr. Greek, who knows not a thing about watches or horology in general and likes to make videos & posts on how Seiko is a cheap POS company compared to the likes of Perrelet, Rolex etc..

Finally, I have no hate toward either Swiss or Japanese watches.. As you can see I own quite a few of both,


----------



## AvantGardeTime (Aug 23, 2013)

Grand Seiko's have been sold in officially in the US since Nov 2010 and come with a 3 year warranty. GS watches purchased directly from Japan come with a 2 year worldwide warranty also valid in the US. I have purchased GS here in the US and from Japan with no issues. If you buy from Japan I can vouch for Higuchi for price, selection and impeccable after sales support, even if you are half a world away.


----------



## Watchnut12 (Sep 2, 2013)

I really meant to say that here in San Francisco where I'm at it's been a year. The Seiko AD just started carrying GS a year ago. They are the only one that carry it in the whole SF, the cool aspect is that they are in Japan town. Their selection is weak though, my first GS was from them the GMT. From then on my other 3 have been from Timeless Luxury here on WUS. Their selection of models on hand is much superior than the AD here in SF.


----------



## lorsban (Nov 20, 2009)

We're only 5 hours away from Japan but it sure seems like we're in Siberia the way things are over here. lol

Sent from my Transformer Prime TF201 using Tapatalk


----------



## entropy96 (Nov 9, 2010)

lorsban said:


> We're only 5 hours away from Japan but it sure seems like we're in Siberia the way things are over here. lol


You said it.

It seems like Rolex is the only brand that people care about when talking about luxury wristwatches in this place.
Omega and Tag get a bit of decent recognition. I've spotted a few people wearing Rado and Oris, but apart from that, the masses wear fashion brand watches.

You're right about the GS. There is virtually 0 ADs here.
For this reason, I had to sell my entire GS collection. Just can't stand the hassle of having to ship the watch to Japan for servicing/repairs.
Might end up selling my lovely Royal Orient as well 'cause I haven't found a place where it can be serviced locally.


----------



## dero (Nov 4, 2011)

For me, a Grand Seiko is very finely made. It's level of quality is right up there with the other marques that come from Switzerland.

I'm enamoured by the muted conservative design of the Grand Seiko.

I'm geeked out by the way they implemented the Spring Drive.

I love the way the seconds hand sweeps smoothly without the ticking.

I already have 2 Swiss watches and don't have any strong longings for another other than those which are in ridiculous price ranges.

For those reasons above, the next opportunity that avails itself I will be getting myself a Spring Drive based Grand Seiko because it is something I want, something within the means which I will be able to afford, I have desire for and know that once I have it, I will have many years of enjoyment from it.


----------



## Okapi001 (Apr 9, 2013)

entropy96 said:


> For this reason, I had to sell my entire GS collection. Just can't stand the hassle of having to ship the watch to Japan for servicing/repairs.


Hmmm, as JFK might have said - we collect watches because it is hard, not because it is easy.;-)


----------



## Pakz (Aug 16, 2011)

Okapi001 said:


> Grand Seiko is also a perfect example that for many it's not really the quality, craftsmanship and/or design that is most important in a (luxury) watch, but brand (more accurately - popular perception of the brand).


Yeah, generally speaking "luxury" items, and watches costing more than $500 automatically qualify as that, are sort of the classic example of Veblen goods. The more pricey, the more desirable.

In fact the main fault of Grand Seiko is not to have understood the sheer snobery of westerners and that bloody concept of Veblen goods. Had then thought about that, they would have put their watches on the market for 10000 a piece, minimum, selected a name with no seiko in it. And made more profit and maybe sold in larger volume. In western countries, that is. But Japan is their main market. They're very respected their and do not care for us. If they sell some watches here and there in America or Europe, that's as a side profit.

If we're too much focusing on brand name/reputation and missing superb products at generally very fine prices because of that, it's our loss, not their.


----------



## Domo (Sep 20, 2013)

dero said:


> For me, a Grand Seiko is very finely made. It's level of quality is right up there with the other marques that come from Switzerland.
> 
> I'm enamoured by the muted conservative design of the Grand Seiko.
> 
> ...


I'm in the same boat as you, man. Well said. I'll be looking to get a GS SD towards the end of the year. Servicing worries me quite a bit on one hand, but on the other, I really can't see anything going wrong with it. My real dilemma is: 1) cough up for the price of one at Victoria's ONLY AD, or 2) send a large sum of money to japan and have faith that no-one is going to pinch it right out of the box in the postal system.


----------



## Domo (Sep 20, 2013)

Pakz said:


> Yeah, generally speaking "luxury" items, and watches costing more than $500 automatically qualify as that, are sort of the classic example of Veblen goods. The more pricey, the more desirable.
> 
> In fact the main fault of Grand Seiko is not to have understood the sheer snobery of westerners and that bloody concept of Veblen goods. Had then thought about that, they would have put their watches on the market for 10000 a piece, minimum, selected a name with no seiko in it. And made more profit and maybe sold in larger volume. In western countries, that is. But Japan is their main market. They're very respected their and do not care for us. If they sell some watches here and there in America or Europe, that's as a side profit.
> 
> If we're too much focusing on brand name/reputation and missing superb products at generally very fine prices because of that, it's our loss, not their.


You've hit the nail right on the head. On both points of price and Seiko's lack of interest in foreign markets regarding the GS line.
GS's are priced too low, and are compared against similarly priced Swiss watches (which naturally can't compete with the engineering and financial behemoth that is Seiko) and hence there really is no comparison. But in saying that, if they _were _more expensive I wouldn't buy one at all. And not because it wouldn't be worth it, but because I simply wouldn't spend more that 5 grand on any watch. So, thanks, Seiko 
On a side note, I think it would be naive to think Seiko doesn't want to sell more GS watches in the west (because they're in the game to make more profit) but i reckon it's more of a "we'll give it a shot and see" approach, as compared to heavy marketing and product launches. They care, just not very much


----------



## dero (Nov 4, 2011)

Domo said:


> I'm in the same boat as you, man. Well said. I'll be looking to get a GS SD towards the end of the year. Servicing worries me quite a bit on one hand, but on the other, I really can't see anything going wrong with it. My real dilemma is: 1) cough up for the price of one at Victoria's ONLY AD, or 2) send a large sum of money to japan and have faith that no-one is going to pinch it right out of the box in the postal system.


Servicing is a worry but there's varying reports that servicing will go the Seiko indicated 4-5 years but who says it can't go longer?

Already as it is, my JLC and to an extent my 1887 TAG already go to Switzerland for servicing. The JLC 975H is too specialised and there isn't a Richemont watchmaker here with the necessary skills to service it. The TAG 1887 while having a Seiko base movement again is too specialised for the LVMH watchmakers here to service. I've had to send both back to Richemont/LVMH under warranty for various faults within the first year of ownership and I've lost my watch for 6-8 weeks. It came back all well and good and they've been working well since but hell - should it have happened in the first place at all?

Anyway, the thing I'll be banking on here is that the Japanese take aftermarket service very seriously. Look at anything you have which is Japanese, they'll always have some high level of service capability local to you. Toyota, Sony, etc. Seiko is no different. Sure we might send it to a Wallace Bishop service centre as they're the "authorised representatives" but once it's there it'll be quickly realised that it needs to go to Japan for servicing. I'm ok with that. I've banked it into the local rep for servicing, they now take the responsibility to get it safely to Japan to get it done.

You're lucky that at least Victoria has the AD. The bummer for me is that in Brisbane, we also have Saleras Jewellers stores but they're not authorised to be an AD. I've been in contact with the Melbourne store. I'd have to buy it sight unseen. They say that they can send it to a local Brisbane store for me to pick up. Luckily for me, I was in Bangkok a few weeks ago and was able to try on one of the GS SDs. Not the exact model I'm after but same in all but dial and colour of hands. That's good enough for me. I'm thoroughly impressed with the quality and finishing of the product for the short time which I wore it. Pricing wise, if Melbourne can stump a price similar to the conversion from Baht, I'll be happy and will drop money on it.


----------



## Domo (Sep 20, 2013)

^^^^
I reckon Salera's will help me out. They've been really nice so far through e-mail providing me with more responses than necessary. I've been jumping all over the place on models, from an SBGA003 to SBGA085 to SBGA029 to SBGE013 and now i want the SBGA075. They're all so similar but the small differences really play on my mind. I'm a sucker for a blue dial and I think i'll stick to this one. It's a JDM and not part of the international collection - but I'll ask them soon enough when I'm ready and hopefully they can get one in for me. When i own one, servicing will be few and far between anyway unless something happens to it. I've heard too that Salera's is usually happy to discount. They only give your RRP's over email though. I wonder what i can expect them to discount it by?


----------



## Watchnut12 (Sep 2, 2013)

This was so perfectly put!! Bravo Sir!



Pakz said:


> Yeah, generally speaking "luxury" items, and watches costing more than $500 automatically qualify as that, are sort of the classic example of Veblen goods. The more pricey, the more desirable.
> 
> In fact the main fault of Grand Seiko is not to have understood the sheer snobery of westerners and that bloody concept of Veblen goods. Had then thought about that, they would have put their watches on the market for 10000 a piece, minimum, selected a name with no seiko in it. And made more profit and maybe sold in larger volume. In western countries, that is. But Japan is their main market. They're very respected their and do not care for us. If they sell some watches here and there in America or Europe, that's as a side profit.
> 
> If we're too much focusing on brand name/reputation and missing superb products at generally very fine prices because of that, it's our loss, not their.


----------



## Will_f (Jul 4, 2011)

Pakz said:


> ....But Japan is their main market. They're very respected their and do not care for us. If they sell some watches here and there in America or Europe, that's as a side profit.
> 
> If we're too much focusing on brand name/reputation and missing superb products at generally very fine prices because of that, it's our loss, not their.


Seiko is working to expand their presence overseas. The US now has at least two ADs and Seiko has started participating in US watch shows. That said, they're starting pretty slowly. That's probably a good strategy given the nature of the market. Exclusivity and rarity are important and I imagine their production capacity isn't huge.


----------



## alexwatch (Sep 12, 2012)

Seiko is playing the same game the Swiss have done for ages {Madison avenue sell] If Seiko wanted to they have 500 people assembling GS's and selling them for 199 dollars and we all could buy them.


----------



## 124Spider (Feb 1, 2009)

alexwatch said:


> Seiko is playing the same game the Swiss have done for ages {Madison avenue sell] If Seiko wanted to they have 500 people assembling GS's and selling them for 199 dollars and we all could buy them.


ROTFLMAO!!


----------



## gagnello (Nov 19, 2011)

alexwatch said:


> Seiko is playing the same game the Swiss have done for ages {Madison avenue sell] If Seiko wanted to they have 500 people assembling GS's and selling them for 199 dollars and we all could buy them.


Huh?

Sent from my SGP311 using Tapatalk 4


----------



## oak1971 (Aug 19, 2013)

alexwatch said:


> Seiko is playing the same game the Swiss have done for ages {Madison avenue sell] If Seiko wanted to they have 500 people assembling GS's and selling them for 199 dollars and we all could buy them.


That's ridiculous.


----------



## JPfeuffer (Aug 12, 2011)

Yup if I wanted easy I'd have a collection of decent quartz watches where for the next 50 years all I would have to worry about is battery changes and perhaps a gasket every now n then.


----------



## Darwin (Jan 28, 2012)

This is your argument, the evidence that you marshal to support your position? Wow. There simply aren't words.

PS: sorry, I started reading this thread a few hours ago, got called away, and when I returned, read the quoted posted and started watching the poseur on YouTube... only realised that I had missed 28 pages of the thread after I hit "submit".



Greek6486 said:


> This guy sums it up very well:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## ec633 (Jan 6, 2012)

I can't believe this thread is still alive after all this time. Debate goes on & on & on & on. Give it a miss, pal.


----------



## PJ S (Apr 29, 2013)

lorsban said:


> More clarity about Spring Drive:
> 
> A CLOSER 'TECHNICAL' LOOK AT SEIKO'S SPRING DRIVE TIMEPIECES
> 
> Interesting part is only 5 people in Japan can assemble spring drives hence the price.


That was maybe the case back in 2005, but I would have to believe more assemblers now do Spring Drive movements, having learned and been taught as part of an ongoing process.


----------



## lorsban (Nov 20, 2009)

PJ S said:


> That was maybe the case back in 2005, but I would have to believe more assemblers now do Spring Drive movements, having learned and been taught as part of an ongoing process.


Yes actually a lot can assemble them since you can find spring drives in Seiko Ananta etc...

But only the absolute best are allowed to handle grand Seiko.

Sent from my ST27i using Tapatalk


----------



## Alpinist (Nov 3, 2010)

I think its the same problem with the Omega Coaxial, since it has specialized parts and requires special training to service, it might not be very future proof, especialy since seiko only garantees parts for a watch for 10 years.


----------



## PJ S (Apr 29, 2013)

Xcandescent said:


> .....But it does raise the question of who exactly was this thing made for? It feels like a technology that no one knows how to properly explain or market. And if you can't explain why it exists, then why would I want to buy it, much less pay used car prices for it?


Have you watched any of the second hand's motion videos on YT?
If so, then the reason is self-explanatory.

As for what it is - it's a highly accurate hybrid mechanical watch. Nothing more needs to be said or explained in minutiae.


----------



## PJ S (Apr 29, 2013)

lorsban said:


> Yes actually a lot can assemble them since you can find spring drives in Seiko Ananta etc...
> 
> But only the absolute best are allowed to handle grand Seiko.


Yes, but I can't believe 8 years on, there's still only 5 out of at least 65 (iirc) assemblers in the Studio, who are solely responsible for Seiko's entire SD GS output - there has to be more than that.
If that's the case, then it's more about the GS models themselves, than purely the SD movements, since they're all the same spec


----------



## lorsban (Nov 20, 2009)

PJ S said:


> Yes, but I can't believe 8 years on, there's still only 5 out of at least 65 (iirc) assemblers in the Studio, who are solely responsible for Seiko's entire SD GS output - there has to be more than that.
> If that's the case, then it's more about the GS models themselves, than purely the SD movements, since they're all the same spec


It's a demand thing. Grand Seiko was never meant to be "mass produced." Japan is still the main market, the rest of the world gets the few extras.

Based on that there is no reason for them to ramp up production.

Sent from my ST27i using Tapatalk


----------



## serdal23 (May 15, 2011)

I have a saying to my friends and coworkers: "You can not go wrong with any Seiko!" Period. 

I started my watchmania with a gift Seiko 5 from my late father. Some of my relatives had (Have) Seiko 5 Auto timepieces as well. They were doing some heavy labour such as construction and heavy duty carpentry on the field, none of them ever complained about their Seikos which they were abusing badly.

I owned a very LE Breitling, a Panerai PR, a B&R, and I had 6 Rolexes till today. Tomorrow, I will have only one Rolex remaining in my personal collection. 

I had 13 Seikos, Automatic - Quartz - SD - Auto Alarm, and tomorrow I will have 5 Seikos and despite selling 90% of my entire collection there are some certain Seikos which I can not let go and will stay with me forever. And as many of you know me very well, this number will double in no time. 

Seiko brand makes many type of IN HOUSE movements, models, sizes, and for different price ranges. And its history is not less than those who are proud of their watch existence histories. 

After I showed some of my Seiko timepieces, Automatic, SD, and Quartz to my coworkers alone, 9 of them already bought their first Seikos and they are amazed with the value for the price, and over all quality of their Seikos. 

We Seiko lovers do not carry our beloved timepieces on our wrists to show off, or just to see the time. We carry our Seikos on our wrists proudly because they make us extremely happy. Believe me, most of the time I stare at those magnificent dials and cases sitting on my wrist but not for the time. 

And when I own a Seiko, I know that I AM the owner, and I can get it regulated or serviced (If I ever need to do so at all) at any good watchmaker at a very low cost. I find this fact very important. For example, I regulated my birth year Auto Seiko (From 1969) by myself, and I achieved +1 sec a day accuracy from -12 secs / day. And you guessed right: I didn't have to worry about the warranty issue. The word SEIKO on the dial is all the warranty I need, and it assures me that the timepiece I am carrying on my wrist is WORTH to carry on my wrist.

This is my very humble opinion. No disrespect is ever intended to any other brands nor owners at all. I only tried to express my love and respect and admiration and envy for this brand. Any watchlover, whatever brand it is, is our horological family member. We love each other this much. 

Enjoy your gorgeous Seikos in the best of health, very best regards to you all . . .

Capt. Serdal


----------



## Robotaz (Jan 18, 2012)

I've tried to keep up with this thread. It's made me think.

Seiko is a very unique company. To me, most anything Japanese is really different. They're just very unique people and have a unique nation.

Seiko has a watch for everyone. That alone is very unique in my opinion. They make all of their own parts (that I know of) and design everything in-house. What I admire most of Seiko is how they have continuity from cheap to luxurious. The styling is very consistent and almost always very Seiko.

I have an old flex band Seiko with an aftermarket sapphire crystal installed. It's about ten years old and has required one battery change. The second hand hits the markers perfectly. It keeps fantastic time. The flex band has never even thought about breaking. Everything works perfectly. If you look at this watch and then look at a Grand Seiko of any type, there's a very consistent styling and build trend. It makes my little beater seem like such a great value. 

And that's what I think when I think of GS. I think of a brand that emphasizes the quality in the lower brands by Seiko. Usually, cheaper models really only stand to minimize the fancier models. But with Seiko it's quite different. GS pulls the cheaper models up. That is really an astonishing marketing effect in my opinion. It's quite brilliant indeed. And, as a Seiko owner, I can say that I see quality in my cheaper Seikos rather than see cheapness in my nicer ones. Seiko is very, very clever to leave the GS theory and implementation the way it is. They've had many chances to change, and it's remained the same for the most part. I hope it continues this way.


----------



## PJ S (Apr 29, 2013)

lorsban said:


> It's a demand thing. Grand Seiko was never meant to be "mass produced." Japan is still the main market, the rest of the world gets the few extras.
> 
> Based on that there is no reason for them to ramp up production.


No-one's talking about mass production, but the fact is they must be producing more since 2010, when they officially started to distribute (some of) the range worldwide.
I still maintain, if the question was asked, we'd find the answer different from that in the 2005 linked article.
But anyway, we digress.


----------



## lorsban (Nov 20, 2009)

PJ S said:


> No-one's talking about mass production, but the fact is they must be producing more since 2010, when they officially started to distribute (some of) the range worldwide.
> I still maintain, if the question was asked, we'd find the answer different from that in the 2005 linked article.
> But anyway, we digress.


Yeah it's probably higher but I don't think by much.

Last year in HK I talked to one of the dealers and I was told only 7 guys can refinish a grand seiko case.

So there's still obviously a production bottleneck. Maybe this number used to be 3 or 5 in 2005 but 7 people isn't a lot.

Sent from my GT-N7100 using Tapatalk


----------



## Lexus050470 (Sep 10, 2012)

raveen said:


> Hi,
> GS considered as high quality and reliable watch. Compared to luxury Swiss watches, is GS on par with say Patek, Vacheron or Ulysse?
> Does GS fall in same category as these high-end and ultra-luxury SWISS watches?
> 
> ...


Interesting question but I guess only Seiko can give us the exact answer in terms of which category they are competing in. As for the accuracy, I believe Seiko has proven GS is quite a contender in this criteria. I own a GS and a JLC and I love them both!

This is not, by any means, a comparison between the two as they are not the same anyway but personally if you are looking for a great value watch, GS is the one you should look at in the first place.


----------



## Watchnut12 (Sep 2, 2013)

You sir have EXQUISITE taste!



Lexus050470 said:


> Interesting question but I guess only Seiko can give us the exact answer in terms of which category they are competing in. As for the accuracy, I believe Seiko has proven GS is quite a contender in this criteria. I own a GS and a JLC and I love them both!
> 
> This is not, by any means, a comparison between the two as they are not the same anyway but personally if you are looking for a great value watch, GS is the one you should look at in the first place.
> 
> ...


----------



## Lexus050470 (Sep 10, 2012)

Watchnut12 said:


> You sir have EXQUISITE taste!


Many thanks, Watchnut12! By looking at your signature, I am sure you also have great taste in watches too!


----------



## Stensbjerg (Feb 28, 2011)

It all comes down to the eyes that looking, if you look at how they are build they are for me at the same level
as the high-end swiss watches but in Europa you can't flash a grand Seiko because a lot of people just don't know what kind of watches we are talking about here, and many people in Europa like that other people knows that they have spend 
a good sum of money on there new watch.

When some one talk down about Grand Seiko the only thing they are really saying,
is just how "much" the know about thise watches.

Some people just belive what they what to belive...


----------



## lorsban (Nov 20, 2009)

Actually, if we were to use car companies as an analogy, the Japanese companies in general follow the same strategy.

Just look at Nissan who make everything from budget mini-cars to the Red Bull formula 1 car. No "cheap" "crappy" company can make a performance car of that caliber.

Just like with Seiko. Not every watchmaker can do what they do.

Sent from my ST27i using Tapatalk


----------



## Desert (Jul 3, 2013)

Greek6486 said:


> No, grand Seiko uses a hybrid movement that is not comparable with swiss movements. This should be compared more to a citizen satellite wave or other movement that is quartz related. Does the spring drive have good specs on paper? Yes, however so does a quartz and the spring drive is regulated by a quartz crystal. You will find a strange obsession on this forum with seiko. The truth is that that these interesting movements that they make sound cool but are very unreliable like the kinetic for example which my watchmaker would describe to you as garbage. If you have 7k, do not get this .. Its still a Seiko, citizen is pummeling them in sales and those are the only watches they should be compared with. Would you compare a satellite wave to a Patek? Lol. Much better things out there at this price range! Ask yourself, are you good with having a suped up Honda? Or do you want a Lamborghini?
> 
> Sent from my SCH-I545 using Xparent BlueTapatalk 2


I have been asking the same question. Considering Grand Seiko Ltd Quartz over a Omega Seamaster Aqua Tera Quartz. Both would be late model second hand purchases. I would be careful about using the car metaphore altogether with watches. For starters performance in a watch and Lamborghini? I would be comparing longivity and precision, not performance. In that case I would have used Mercedes Benz or BMW. If we are talking Quartz here and only Quartz, remember Seiko invented it and they are pretty particular about there production quality in Japan. Japan is one of those rare developed countries that has not allowed itself to become polluted by third world countries. I compared Grand Seiko Ltd with Sinns ETA UX which offered only 18SPY adjustable to 15SPY (the best the factory can calibrate it to). Even standard Grand Seiko is 10SPY, which incidentally equals Omega Seamaster Aqua Tera. Their Ltd edition Grand seems excellent on paper. I like its proportions (37mm excl crown), thermoncompensation, 5SPY accuracy, blade polishing and 'European copied' blued second sweeper hand. I dont like the omission of a screw down crown - this is not 1920, every watch needs one IMO; and I dont like the fact that it misses the prestige factor. Problem is I just dont know enough technically to assess it properly against the Omega...?

As for Citizens- get this! I recently opened my toy box where sat my grandfathers automatic 17 jewel citizen he gave me in 1989 when I was 15. I put the watch on and it started ticking and keeping excellent time after 24years of sitting still... If this isn't a representation of Japanese quality what is? (Yes Citizen's were made in Japan back then.)

That said the Omega Seamaster Aqua Tera Quartz offers 10SPY, a screw down crown, 38.5mm case (perfect for me!), tonnes of prestige and brand recognition. Also there are black and silver faces to choose from. Some people say watches are snobbery, but who likes a snob. Maybe the smartest option is the best watch ...But which one is it??? Mmmm... hard decision to make isn't it?


----------



## shtora (Jan 11, 2009)

Omega AT quartz do NOT offer 10 spy. It is just a regular quartz. GS quartz caliber is TC.


----------



## PJ S (Apr 29, 2013)

lorsban said:


> Actually, if we were to use car companies as an analogy, the Japanese companies in general follow the same strategy.
> 
> Just look at Nissan who make everything from budget mini-cars to the Red Bull formula 1 car. No "cheap" "crappy" company can make a performance car of that caliber.


Nissan make Red Bull's F1 cars? I think Christian Horner would be very surprised to find out that his factory staff were moonlighting as Nissan employees.
The closest Nissan gets to F1 is donating a large sum of money through their luxury arm, Infiniti, to advertise on the F1 car and driver's overalls/team's workwear.
Not even the engine is Nissan anything, it's Renault.
The highest level road car Nissan makes is the R35 GT.

Your analogy would be better viewed as akin to Toyota, who parent Lexus.


----------



## PJ S (Apr 29, 2013)

alexwatch said:


> Seiko is playing the same game the Swiss have done for ages {Madison avenue sell] If Seiko wanted to they have 500 people assembling GS's and selling them for 199 dollars and we all could buy them.


Sadly as much as we'd all like that to be true, it is wholly unrealistic.
Seiko would have to follow Omega/Rolex's strategy of production assembly, rather than by hand.
I'm sure they could do that if they really wanted to, but Grand Seiko isn't designed as a mass produced product, with a desire to compete head-on with the two brands mentioned.
It does so, in the mind of the consumer, because of price, and being the upper echelon of Seiko's watchmaking portfolio.

The price, outside of Japan, is artificial for pretty much the sole purpose of positioning Grand Seiko in the minds of the consumer, at the same level as Omega/Rolex.
The reason for that, is because we've all become conditioned to the fact that 'more equals better', whether it be a car, house, TV, kitchen products, beds, etc, etc, and etc.
Therefore, if there was only a small increase in the JDM prices of Grand Seiko, many people (not necessarily WIS) would automatically dismiss them because of conditioned perception - something cheaper can't be as good as/better than something dearer.
So in order for them to be given consideration, the price has to reflect that.


----------



## Will_f (Jul 4, 2011)

shtora said:


> Omega AT quartz do NOT offer 10 spy. It is just a regular quartz. GS quartz caliber is TC.


Correct. Nice watch, better quality movement than you will find in a cheap quartz watch, but only good to about 15s / month.


----------



## jikot (Jan 24, 2012)

Okapi001 said:


> Grand Seiko is also a perfect example that for many it's not really the quality, craftsmanship and/or design that is most important in a (luxury) watch, but brand (more accurately - popular perception of the brand).


I was pretty undecided about you being a troll all throughout this spring drive discussion, but this idiotic statement absolutely seals the deal.

I'm into Seiko because they're one of the very last honest watchmakers out there in the +/- 5k $ price range, and especially in the sub-1k $ range.

Seiko is all about in-house craftsmanship, unlike 99% of Swiss jewellers who pretend to be watchmakers.


----------



## Mike_Dowling (May 4, 2013)

jikot said:


> I was pretty undecided about you being a troll all throughout this spring drive discussion, but this idiotic statement absolutely seals the deal.
> 
> I'm into Seiko because they're one of the very last honest watchmakers out there in the +/- 5k $ price range, and especially in the sub-1k $ range.
> 
> Seiko is all about in-house craftsmanship, unlike 99% of Swiss jewellers who pretend to be watchmakers.


I agree about the in house portion of your statement, if you don't make your movement you're a case designer, same with fountain pens, if you don't make the nib in house you're not a pen maker.

But "honest" not sure about that since Seiko steels a lot of designs from Swiss designers. I don't particularly care about that portion of their business, but I'm not sure I would attribute the word honest to Seiko, they're making a buck and selling out their integrity a little by stealing designs, that's no better than Swiss brands that pack in cheap eta movements and sell it for $6,000.00.


----------



## jikot (Jan 24, 2012)

Mike_Dowling said:


> But "honest" not sure about that since Seiko steels a lot of designs from Swiss designers. I don't particularly care about that portion of their business, but I'm not sure I would attribute the word honest to Seiko, they're making a buck and selling out their integrity a little by stealing designs, that's no better than Swiss brands that pack in cheap eta movements and sell it for $6,000.00.


Everyone copies to some extent, see the fact that the Swiss are gearing up to produce their own spring drives for the most recent example.
And it's not like Seiko hasn't paid its dues by way of its own innovations and refinements.


----------



## Desert (Jul 3, 2013)

shtora said:


> Omega AT quartz do NOT offer 10 spy. It is just a regular quartz. GS quartz caliber is TC.


My Omega dealer said it was 10SPY anyway, wasn't my guess. Seems he was wrong then.

Edit: BTW I just realised the NEW Omega Aqua Terra Quartz (ATQ) is a joke in comparison to the Grand Seiko as well as the previous ATQ. This forum revealled the Hour markers on the new ATQ are now printed instead of applied, there is no quick set hand feature now and from what I have heard here its not 10SPY either.

One things for sure I certainly wont be buying a new ATQ, and I nearly did! Shame Omega... Shame...


----------



## Stensbjerg (Feb 28, 2011)

Why don't you take at night off and start to read onlinie what Grand Seiko is really about and i mean the hole watch
the work that is put into thise watche are unreal, and just can't be compard with a CNC serie made watch like the Omega,
Don't get me wrong the Omega is a nice watch but it is not at the same level as a Grand Seiko, thise watches are at the same level as JLC and up.

I know that Omega do a lot thise days to raise there brand value,
but they are not in the same league as JLC/Grand Seiko


----------



## Stensbjerg (Feb 28, 2011)

Beefalope said:


> One of the most ignorant posts I've ever seen on WUS.


don't hate greek6486 he/she just show the world,
how little he/she knows about highend watches from Japan ;-)


----------



## c0sin (Jan 2, 2013)

lorsban said:


> Actually, if we were to use car companies as an analogy, the Japanese companies in general follow the same strategy.
> 
> Just look at Nissan who make everything from budget mini-cars to the Red Bull formula 1 car. No "cheap" "crappy" company can make a performance car of that caliber.
> 
> ...


Hmm... is it a coincidence that I've been only driving Nissan cars for the last 16 years and have a dozen of Seiko's? Tell me I am missing something


----------



## Stensbjerg (Feb 28, 2011)

Watch youtube video FbmKZ5JXyjo and learn.;-)


----------



## Splinter Faction (Feb 23, 2013)

serdal23 said:


> I have a saying to my friends and coworkers: "You can not go wrong with any Seiko!" Period.
> 
> I started my watchmania with a gift Seiko 5 from my late father. Some of my relatives had (Have) Seiko 5 Auto timepieces as well. They were doing some heavy labour such as construction and heavy duty carpentry on the field, none of them ever complained about their Seikos which they were abusing badly.
> 
> ...


 I thought I was keeping up with this thread, but somehow I missed this one. Just want to say this mini-essay is beautifully written, and captures my (newer than yours) enthusiasm for Seiko. WUS, and this forum of course most of all, have introduced me to a great respect for this company. I don't know if I'll ever reach GS territory, but as you note, you can get watches that are either lots of fun (Monsters) or very elegant (SARB and a thousand other examples) for the price of a nice dinner.


----------



## ricefarmerr (Jan 14, 2014)

You are such a dumb piece of .....



Greek6486 said:


> This guy sums it up very well:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## ricefarmerr (Jan 14, 2014)

overbudget said:


> That video is the biggest plate of tripe ive ever seen. This guy is obviously higher than a kite. Who goes from room to room in their house ranting about thier dislike of a watch? And by the way, he doesn't address a single technical or structural element of the watch...don't waste you time viewing it...what a blowhard!


"Higher than a kite." Rofl. Made my day.


----------



## snakeeyes (Jan 23, 2014)

jikot said:


> I was pretty undecided about you being a troll all throughout this spring drive discussion, but this idiotic statement absolutely seals the deal.
> 
> I'm into Seiko because they're one of the very last honest watchmakers out there in the +/- 5k $ price range, and especially in the sub-1k $ range.
> 
> Seiko is all about in-house craftsmanship, unlike 99% of Swiss jewellers who pretend to be watchmakers.


to be blunt? a grand seiko with a ROLEX name instead would sell for DOUBLE and than some. Grand Seiko for all intents competes more with Patek Phillipe than Rolex as far as quality/attention to detail is concerned. True WIS and people in the 'know' understand what GS brings to the table.


----------



## ilitig8 (Oct 11, 2013)

snakeeyes said:


> Grand Seiko for all intents competes more with Patek Phillipe than Rolex as far as quality/attention to detail is concerned.


On the outside you are correct but attention to movement finishing puts Patek in a different league but it certainly should be for the price. There is no question GS punches above its price range compared to most Swiss makers BUT it doesn't punch 4 times above its price range.


----------



## Will_f (Jul 4, 2011)

snakeeyes said:


> to be blunt? a grand seiko with a ROLEX name instead would sell for DOUBLE and than some. Grand Seiko for all intents competes more with Patek Phillipe than Rolex as far as quality/attention to detail is concerned. True WIS and people in the 'know' understand what GS brings to the table.


I don't own a Patek, but I do own a GS and a few Rolexes. GS makes a very fine watch, but changing the name to Rolex wouldn't double the price and GS sure as heck can't compete with Patek.


----------



## snakeeyes (Jan 23, 2014)

Will_f said:


> I don't own a Patek, but I do own a GS and a few Rolexes. GS makes a very fine watch, but changing the name to Rolex wouldn't double the price and GS sure as heck can't compete with Patek.


I respectfully disagree. The GS 'hand assembled' movements absolutely destroy the 'utilitarian' Rolex 3135. The 3135 is good. Its not on GS's level however. Thats not an insult to Rolex. Its a testament to GS. I'm not the first nor the last to mention GS in the same breath as PP.


----------



## Mediocre (Oct 27, 2013)

The Swiss Luxury brands are able to demand more simply for the Swiss orientation and the name recognition (not to speak down of their quality). Grand Seiko is more required to sell based on merit, since the Seiko name and Japanese origin of the brand do not carry the same weight. With GS you get the quality you pay for. With Swiss Luxury brands you get quality.....and you get the name you pay for.


----------



## Will_f (Jul 4, 2011)

snakeeyes said:


> I respectfully disagree. The GS 'hand assembled' movements absolutely destroy the 'utilitarian' Rolex 3135. The 3135 is good. Its not on GS's level however. Thats not an insult to Rolex. Its a testament to GS. I'm not the first nor the last to mention GS in the same breath as PP.


GS movement:










Patek Movement:










See the difference?

Rolex for good measure


----------



## Domo (Sep 20, 2013)

snakeeyes said:


> I respectfully disagree. The GS 'hand assembled' movements absolutely destroy the 'utilitarian' Rolex 3135. The 3135 is good. Its not on GS's level however. Thats not an insult to Rolex. Its a testament to GS. I'm not the first nor the last to mention GS in the same breath as PP.


I'd more or less agree. The GS 9S is more accurate and has a longer PR than the Rolex movement, not to mention it is hand assembled and regulated to more positions and temperatures.

The Patek is certainly a league ahead in decoration, but that's about all. A 9S Special (which is the closest to a competitor to a Patek) is regulated to within 1 second's difference to a Patek, and lets be clear that the 9S special is a hi-beat movement, 36000 bph, compared to Patek's 21000 and 28800 bph, which is a much harder accomplishment. (And it STILL has a greater PR, let alone running at 36000bph)
People seem to think that a Patek's movement is made by hand, it's not. It's ALL CNC, and then decorated by hand.
A GS escapement is made on a molecular level the same way a microprocessor is made.

View attachment 1356684


Not only is it skeletonised to reduce weight and inertia, but it's actually all hollow. Also, the SPRON springs can be completely stretched out and will retain their exact same shape. I hear all the time about the Breguet overcoil Rolex use, but if it was a better system that increased accuracy, GS would use it. Accuracy is THE MAIN concern of GS above all else.

Patek certainly has extremely beautiful decoration, but the actual movement is inferior in every other aspect. To each his own, but I'd be damned to spend 20 grand on a watch and get a second hand movement that looks like a Seiko 5's.
Of course, their complications are a whole other story to which Seiko/Credor barely involve themselves in.


----------



## steinmann (Feb 11, 2012)

Sorry if this link was given here before: http://www.watchtime.com/cms/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/WT_Spotlight_Seiko_fin.pdf


----------



## RejZoR (May 12, 2010)

Will_f said:


> GS movement:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


You can't compare Patek to GrandSeiko. Because i highly doubt you can get that Patek for sub 10k where you can Grand Seiko.


----------



## Will_f (Jul 4, 2011)

RejZoR said:


> You can't compare Patek to GrandSeiko. Because i highly doubt you can get that Patek for sub 10k where you can Grand Seiko.


Strange, I thought that was exactly what this thread was doing.


----------



## Domo (Sep 20, 2013)

RejZoR said:


> You can't compare Patek to GrandSeiko. Because i highly doubt you can get that Patek for sub 10k where you can Grand Seiko.


I think you can. Things don't have to be on a perfectly equal price point for a comparison. A Patek Calatrava is 20k. An 18K GS is 20k. 18K Grand seikos go up to 30 grand.


----------



## lethaltoes (Mar 5, 2013)

Will_f said:


> Strange, I thought that was exactly what this thread was doing.


It should in my opinion. I have been pondering the PP 5227g and the sbgh019 recently as the next possible acquisition if nothing interesting crops up at basel 2014 (within budget of course). They are very comparable. Cheers!


----------



## Will_f (Jul 4, 2011)

Domo said:


> Patek certainly has extremely beautiful decoration, but the actual movement is inferior in every other aspect. To each his own, but I'd be damned to spend 20 grand on a watch and get a second hand movement that looks like a Seiko 5's.
> Of course, their complications are a whole other story to which Seiko/Credor barely involve themselves in.


While a GS may be more technically advanced, accuracy as observed by WUS members does not show a watch that is more accurate than the current generation Rolexes and Omegas. I haven't seen any accuracy reports on modern Pateks so I can't comment on that.

However, your main point, which is that GSs should cost more because they're more technically advanced and more accurate, even though the movement is far less decorated, isn't reality. If it were, a Seiko Astron would cost far more than it does, a Pebble would be in the high thousands, and Philip Dufour watches would be dirt cheap. People who buy Patek priced watches are buying art, not technology or accuracy.


----------



## flyingpicasso (Jun 28, 2010)

Will_f said:


> People who buy Patek priced watches are buying art, not technology or accuracy.


I think this is spot on.


----------



## ErikS (May 21, 2009)

Greek6486 said:


> This guy sums it up very well:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Huh.........I looked up d-bag in the dictionary & found this guys picture...........go figure.


----------



## RejZoR (May 12, 2010)

So, slamming bunch of gold engravings into the movement is art, but keeping it artistically minimalistic is not? Because that's the whole point of GS lines. The art of minimalism with a touch of techno feel. You can't talk about all technology and then mention GS in the same line. If you want technology, you have to look at Astron GPS...


----------



## PJ S (Apr 29, 2013)

Domo said:


> I think you can. Things don't have to be on a perfectly equal price point for a comparison. A Patek Calatrava is 20k. An 18K GS is 20k. 18K Grand seikos go up to 30 grand.


Only in the West - check those prices in Yen, and you'll see a massive difference!
By comparison, see what a PP Calatrava goes for in Japan, and compare to its domestic EU price.

Not sure how representative these are, but it'll have to do, given my very limited knowledge of PP model numbers:

PP 5127G - 2,677,500 ¥ (5% sales tax included)
PP 5127G - 17,500 € (~20% sales tax included)

At present day rate, the ¥ price is 19,115 €

GS SBGW043 - 1,680,000 ¥ (sales tax included) - equivalent to 11,995 €
The official price for this watch in Europe was, 20,000 €

Both watches are white gold, and whilst there has been a change in exchange rates, it's not that much in reality.
Not sure about how a 5127 compares to the SBGW043, or if numbers produced is similar or vastly different - SBGW043 was a production run of 70 only.


----------



## B in NY (Jan 20, 2014)

Greek6486 said:


> This guy sums it up very well:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I have not read through all the posts, so this might have been addressed already. This guy should be able to afford a better camera. Such a big shot should have the means to buy any camera in the world. His camera sucks.


----------



## Will_f (Jul 4, 2011)

RejZoR said:


> So, slamming bunch of gold engravings into the movement is art, but keeping it artistically minimalistic is not? ...


That's all you see? Gold engravings? Really? Look a little closer. Note the absolutely perfect edges, perfect polishing, and that every surface on the PP is beautifully finished. Then look at the GS. It's a great movement, but it's not so much minimalist as utilitarian. The Rolex is also utilitarian.


----------



## Domo (Sep 20, 2013)

Will_f said:


> While a GS may be more technically advanced, accuracy as observed by WUS members does not show a watch that is more accurate than the current generation Rolexes and Omegas. I haven't seen any accuracy reports on modern Pateks so I can't comment on that.
> 
> However, your main point, which is that GSs should cost more because they're more technically advanced and more accurate, even though the movement is far less decorated, isn't reality. If it were, a Seiko Astron would cost far more than it does, a Pebble would be in the high thousands, and Philip Dufour watches would be dirt cheap. People who buy Patek priced watches are buying art, not technology or accuracy.


Is your GS running outside of spec?
And I _never _argued that a GS should cost more. I'm content with what they are. This thread is less about Patek I think, which gets to play by its own intangible set of rules. I personally see more to a watch than it's movement finishing and frankly the dials of a Calatrava or Aquanaut don't even catch the light.
GS's are adjusted to finer tolerances in EVERY category than a Rolex, so I don't see how that can be true. Unless the million units of Rolexes every year are all running +2 secs a day.


----------



## Will_f (Jul 4, 2011)

Domo said:


> Is your GS running outside of spec?
> And I _never _argued that a GS should cost more. I'm content with what they are. This thread is less about Patek I think, which gets to play by its own intangible set of rules. I personally see more to a watch than it's movement finishing and frankly the dials of a Calatrava or Aquanaut don't even catch the light.
> GS's are adjusted to finer tolerances in EVERY category than a Rolex, so I don't see how that can be true. Unless the million units of Rolexes every year are all running +2 secs a day.


My GS is within spec. But so are my Rolexes. All run within 2s/d and my Sub runs within 1s. The GS may be specified with tighter tolerance than the Swiss chronometer standard, but from my personal experience it does not enjoy any real world advantage.

YMMV and you can find posts that show GS and Rolex performing out of spec but for me they perform equivalently. CitizenM's very fine thread comparing an Omega AT to a GS suggests that Omega also performs above the Swiss chronometer spec.

I am curious though, why do you think GS movements are spec'd to run within 2s/d? Are you counting Spring drives?


----------



## Okapi001 (Apr 9, 2013)

Will_f said:


> I am curious though, why do you think GS movements are spec'd to run within 2s/d? Are you counting Spring drives?


Seiko's technical specifications for caliber 9S hi-beat:

Mean daily rate in different positions: -3.0 ～ +5.0 seconds/ day*Mean variation: Less than 1.8 seconds/day*Maximum variation: Less than 4.0 seconds/dayDifference between flat and hanging position: -6.0 ～ +8.0 seconds/dayGreatest difference between the mean daily rate and any individual rate: Less than 8.0 seconds/day 

http://www.grand-seiko.com/manufacture/mechanical_02.html


----------



## Will_f (Jul 4, 2011)

Okapi001 said:


> Seiko's technical specifications for caliber 9S hi-beat:
> 
> Mean daily rate in different positions: -3.0 ～ +5.0 seconds/ day*Mean variation: Less than 1.8 seconds/day*Maximum variation: Less than 4.0 seconds/dayDifference between flat and hanging position: -6.0 ～ +8.0 seconds/dayGreatest difference between the mean daily rate and any individual rate: Less than 8.0 seconds/day
> 
> http://www.grand-seiko.com/manufacture/mechanical_02.html


Sounds about right. Not the same thing is being accurate within two seconds.


----------



## Domo (Sep 20, 2013)

Will_f said:


> My GS is within spec. But so are my Rolexes. All run within 2s/d and my Sub runs within 1s. The GS may be specified with tighter tolerance than the Swiss chronometer standard, but from my personal experience it does not enjoy any real world advantage.
> 
> YMMV and you can find posts that show GS and Rolex performing out of spec but for me they perform equivalently. CitizenM's very fine thread comparing an Omega AT to a GS suggests that Omega also performs above the Swiss chronometer spec.
> 
> I am curious though, why do you think GS movements are spec'd to run within 2s/d? Are you counting Spring drives?


No I didn't mean it like that, but in your previous post you said that GS's were less accurate than Rolexes and Omegas which I don't believe to be true at all. If anything the GS Hi-beats would have a higher accuracy over positional variation. It was a tongue in cheek comment to say sort of: 'Well, if the GS's are less accurate than Rolexes, how accurate are the Rolexes? 2 secs a day?"
Point poorly made, I concede.
And I don't see how it's a moot point whether there's any real world advantage to the tighter allowances or not. If Patek is allowed to argue 'it's art' the GS can argue 'We manufacture our movements to a higher standard and can achieve a tighter accuracy' That's a different sort of art. The art of watchmaking. The best sort.


----------



## Okapi001 (Apr 9, 2013)

Seiko's technical specifications for caliber 9S hi-beat with added COSC standard for comparison:

Mean daily rate in different positions:* -3.0 ～ +5.0 seconds/ day (COSC: -4 ～ +6 sec/day) 
Mean variation: Less than 1.8 seconds/day (COSC: 2 sec/day)
Maximum variation: Less than 4.0 seconds/day (COSC: 5 sec/day)Difference between flat and hanging position: -6.0 ～ +8.0 seconds/day (COSC: the same).Greatest difference between the mean daily rate and any individual rate: Less than 8.0 seconds/day (COSC: 10 sec/day)
* GS is adjusted to 6 positions + 3 temperatures, COSC to 5 positions and 2 temperatures.


----------



## Will_f (Jul 4, 2011)

Domo said:


> No I didn't mean it like that, but in your previous post you said that GS's were less accurate than Rolexes and Omegas which I don't believe to be true at all. If anything the GS Hi-beats would have a higher accuracy over positional variation. It was a tongue in cheek comment to say sort of: 'Well, if the GS's are less accurate than Rolexes, how accurate are the Rolexes? 2 secs a day?"
> Point poorly made, I concede.
> And I don't see how it's a moot point whether there's any real world advantage to the tighter allowances or not. If Patek is allowed to argue 'it's art' the GS can argue 'We manufacture our movements to a higher standard and can achieve a tighter accuracy' That's a different sort of art. The art of watchmaking. The best sort.


I believe what I said was, "While a GS may be more technically advanced, accuracy as observed by WUS members does not show a watch that is more accurate than the current generation Rolexes and Omegas." By that I meant the real world accuracy was about the same. I then went to say that that's not why people spend Patek prices on watches.

It's perfectly fine for Seiko to tout its technical advances and they are impressive, but as you recall, I entered this debate when it was claimed that if GS said Rolex on the dial, it would sell for twice as much. I disagree because people who spend that much on a watch are less interested in technology and accuracy than artistry.


----------



## Domo (Sep 20, 2013)

Will_f said:


> I believe what I said was, "While a GS may be more technically advanced, accuracy as observed by WUS members does not show a watch that is more accurate than the current generation Rolexes and Omegas." By that I meant the real world accuracy was about the same. I then went to say that that's not why people spend Patek prices on watches.
> 
> It's perfectly fine for Seiko to tout its technical advances and they are impressive, but as you recall, I entered this debate when it was claimed that if GS said Rolex on the dial, it would sell for twice as much. I disagree because people who spend that much on a watch are less interested in technology and accuracy than artistry.


Well, we basically agree. But I'm lost as to why you quoted me then. I never said anything about cost and I agree that a Patek has different 'virtues' (not _my _virtues, mind you, but whatever) than a GS.
The only things I said that you could take beef with is that I think a Hi-beat Special in gold is comparable to a Patek, and that I think a 3Hz movement is lame in a 20 grand watch no matter how many smiley faces are engraved in it. Just my thoughts....


----------



## Will_f (Jul 4, 2011)

Domo said:


> Well, we basically agree. But I'm lost as to why you quoted me then. I never said anything about cost and I agree that a Patek has different 'virtues' (not _my _virtues, mind you, but whatever) than a GS.
> The only things I said that you could take beef with is that I think a Hi-beat Special in gold is comparable to a Patek, and that I think a 3Hz movement is lame in a 20 grand watch no matter how many smiley faces are engraved in it. Just my thoughts....


I believe I took issue with the concept that a GS movement was superior to a Patek movement. While that might be true for you, it's not true in the area that high end watch buyers care most about- looks.

That said, from my perspective it's an intellectual argument. I've convinced myself that there are other things in life more valuable to me than a 20k watch, even if it is pretty. I also like tech innovation so I would rather have a Spring Drive over a high beat.


----------



## Domo (Sep 20, 2013)

Will_f said:


> I believe I took issue with the concept that a GS movement was superior to a Patek movement. While that might be true for you, it's not true in the area that high end watch buyers care most about- looks.
> 
> That said, from my perspective it's an intellectual argument. I've convinced myself that there are other things in life more valuable to me than a 20k watch, even if it is pretty. I also like tech innovation so I would rather have a Spring Drive over a high beat.


It's only my opinion is all. 
I have a GS SD and I still want a hi-beat. Which GS do you have might I ask?


----------



## Pawl_Buster (Mar 12, 2007)

Domo said:


> ...
> 
> and that I think a 3Hz movement is lame in a 20 grand watch no matter how many smiley faces are engraved in it. Just my thoughts....


What is lame about a company that can consistently produce chronometers with 3Hz movements? That takes a lot more design engineering and assembly talent than just making a balance wheel wizz back and forth at hypersonic speeds.

Hi beat is the easy and lazy way to make a chronometer because the high frequency cancels out a lot of the issues the 3Hz assembler has to adjust for and regulate out.


----------



## ilitig8 (Oct 11, 2013)

The modern Patek Sealed movements have mean daily rate of -3 to +2 and are tested on a cased watch. It is dynamic tested so it is essentially infinite positions. So the current Pateks have more stringent requirements for accuracy than the GS that certainly doesn't mean any individual Patek will be more accurate than a GS or vice versa. 

One certainly can argue effectively the GS movements are finished in a very artistic manner (and VERY well for the price). Art does not mean expensive per se but it must be considered that some artisan techniques require more time to produce. Danish style furniture can be glorious but Colonial Queen Anne furniture will take far more artisan time to create. 

Patek and GS cater to somewhat different crowds and they have different mission statements as it were and Pateks generally command a higher price than GS watches part of which is due to the time and effort in them and part certainly is that the value of Patek on the dial is higher than Grand Seiko. I do think the GS shop could build watches finished in the traditional Swiss way if they decided to and their prices would increase but that is just not what they are task with doing. GS is probably the best in the world at their version of the perfect watch, there are multiple Swiss makers vying for the Swiss version of that crown.


----------



## Domo (Sep 20, 2013)

Pawl_Buster said:


> What is lame about a company that can consistently produce chronometers with 3Hz movements? That takes a lot more design engineering and assembly talent than just making a balance wheel wizz back and forth at hypersonic speeds.
> 
> Hi beat is the easy and lazy way to make a chronometer because the high frequency cancels out a lot of the issues the 3Hz assembler has to adjust for and regulate out.


Well, I disagree. That's your angle and that's fine. This is the old 'High-beat vs Low-beat' argument which has been had 100 times.


----------



## lethaltoes (Mar 5, 2013)

Pawl_Buster said:


> What is lame about a company that can consistently produce chronometers with 3Hz movements? That takes a lot more design engineering and assembly talent than just making a balance wheel wizz back and forth at hypersonic speeds.
> 
> Hi beat is the easy and lazy way to make a chronometer because the high frequency cancels out a lot of the issues the 3Hz assembler has to adjust for and regulate out.


We'll soon find out with the swatch sistem51 won't we? Cheers!;-)


----------



## Pawl_Buster (Mar 12, 2007)

Domo said:


> Well, I disagree. That's your angle and that's fine. This is the old 'High-beat vs Low-beat' argument which has been had 100 times.


Disagree away; it won't change the fact that it takes more time, money and expertise to produce a low beat chromometre than a high beat one.
This is part of the reason the PP is more expensive; it costs more to produce...simple as that.
The other benefit of the low beat movement is that it will not wear out anywhere near as quickly as the high beat if unserviced and servicing will not be required as often when it is done.

I dare say the reason this low vs high beat discussion comes up so often is because there is too little understanding of the mechanics and too much of the uneducated peddling of the supposedly better higher beat rate. Trying to dismiss it as something beneath you does not change the facts.


----------



## lethaltoes (Mar 5, 2013)

Will_f said:


> I believe what I said was, "While a GS may be more technically advanced, accuracy as observed by WUS members does not show a watch that is more accurate than the current generation Rolexes and Omegas." By that I meant the real world accuracy was about the same. I then went to say that that's not why people spend Patek prices on watches.
> 
> It's perfectly fine for Seiko to tout its technical advances and they are impressive, but as you recall, I entered this debate when it was claimed that if GS said Rolex on the dial, it would sell for twice as much. I disagree because people who spend that much on a watch are less interested in technology and accuracy than artistry.


Let's be honest here Will. If there was no grand seiko, and Rolex made your sbgx with little crowns on the dial as opposed to lions, and launched it as an oyster quartz special edition, how much do you think that'll cost? Bear in mind how much omega is asking for their decontented AT quartz. Cheers!


----------



## lethaltoes (Mar 5, 2013)

Pawl_Buster said:


> Disagree away; it won't change the fact that it takes more time, money and expertise to produce a low beat chromometre than a high beat one.
> This is part of the reason the PP is more expensive; it costs more to produce...simple as that.


I'll agree to that statement if PP removed the gyromax system and attendant regulators PB. However, that's not quite the case is it? Beat rate presents different issues as you've correctly pointed out but again you are assuming PP is made ala Dufour which cannot be further from the truth. In fact I reckon the gs approach to balance wheel adjustment would be a closer approximation to what you are hinting at with regards to watchmaker's expertise. And the mems approach to the escapement certainly doesn't come across to me as easy and lazy from a design and engineering perspective. Just some thoughts. Cheers!


----------



## Will_f (Jul 4, 2011)

lethaltoes said:


> Let's be honest here Will. If there was no grand seiko, and Rolex made your sbgx with little crowns on the dial as opposed to lions, and launched it as an oyster quartz special edition, how much do you think that'll cost? Bear in mind how much omega is asking for their decontented AT quartz. Cheers!


I figure it would cost somewhere around $1-$2k more. Yes, you pay for the name, but if the Bracelet was at Rolex standards, some of it would be justified. I will tell you the 30 Y.O Oysterquartz I have holds its own against my SBGX 103. I'll post pics if you would like to compare.


----------



## Domo (Sep 20, 2013)

Pawl_Buster said:


> Disagree away; it won't change the fact that it takes more time, money and expertise to produce a low beat chromometre than a high beat one.
> This is part of the reason the PP is more expensive; it costs more to produce...simple as that.
> The other benefit of the low beat movement is that it will not wear out anywhere near as quickly as the high beat if unserviced and servicing will not be required as often when it is done.
> 
> I dare say the reason this low vs high beat discussion comes up so often is because there is too little understanding of the mechanics and too much of the uneducated peddling of the supposedly better higher beat rate. Trying to dismiss it as something beneath you does not change the facts.


The 'Which is the harder watch to make' in regards to beat-rate argument can be spun either way depending on which side of the fence you sit on. Most Patek and GS automatics are both 4Hz anyway. 
I don't _personally _find the motion of my 7S36 very attractive and I believe I'm allowed to have the opinion that I wouldn't want that in such an expensive watch.


----------



## lethaltoes (Mar 5, 2013)

Will_f said:


> I figure it would cost somewhere around $1-$2k more. Yes, you pay for the name, but if the Bracelet was at Rolex standards, some of it would be justified. I will tell you the 30 Y.O Oysterquartz I have holds its own against my SBGX 103. I'll post pics if you would like to compare.


Thanks Will. I've seen your pics earlier when you posted them up. That refurbished oyster quartz is a gem!
As for the PP argument, I think everyone on this forum will agree that with 400 or more years of history, the Swiss aesthetic of movement finishing is more widely accepted as art and appropriate for an expensive watch. It's also a simple indicator of the value added by the watchmaker.

Grand seiko has a different approach in line with their philosophy and i would say they have succeeded in their art most times. And they tend to show their ability through their dial and case work. But note, even their most extensive movement decoration in their costly limited editions involve engraving and not bevelling. It's just more culturally correct. I do believe they have made some concessions for enthusiasts but by and large I cheer their refusal to conform.

And that's the important bit. Grand seiko would be worthless (to me anyway) if it's the most technically and aesthetically perfect SWISS timepiece you've ever seen.

It's worth is also that it offers an interesting alternative to the traditional Swiss torch bearers. That to me is also a good thing as the more genius the better. It really doesn't have to be one or the other strictly. Cheers!

Sent from my C6903 using Tapatalk


----------



## Will_f (Jul 4, 2011)

lethaltoes said:


> Thanks Will. I've seen your pics earlier when you posted them up. That refurbished oyster quartz is a gem!
> As for the PP argument, I think everyone on this forum will agree that with 400 or more years of history, the Swiss aesthetic of movement finishing is more widely accepted as art and appropriate for an expensive watch. It's also a simple indicator of the value added by the watchmaker.
> 
> Grand seiko has a different approach in line with their philosophy and i would say they have succeeded in their art most times. And they tend to show their ability through their dial and case work. But note, even their most extensive movement decoration in their costly limited editions involve engraving and not bevelling. It's just more culturally correct. I do believe they have made some concessions for enthusiasts but by and large I cheer their refusal to conform.
> ...


I agree that GS's are worth every penny they charge. The problem that comes up (as it always does in these threads) is that there is no universally accepted standard in watches that defines what they're worth except the marketplace (flawed as that may be). I have no problem paying the price Seiko charges for GS watches and I feel they compare very well with the Omegas, Rolexes, and other mid market Swiss luxury watches that are in a similar if somewhat higher price range.

That said, if I were looking to spend 20K+ on a watch, I wouldn't look at any of the aforementioned brands. I'd look at RGM's tank. Why? because it suits my preferences really well and it is a true hand made work of art, even if it is the least accurate and least technically sophisticated of all.


----------



## c0sin (Jan 2, 2013)

Will_f said:


> I agree that GS's are worth every penny they charge. The problem that comes up (as it always does in these threads) is that there is no universally accepted standard in watches that defines what they're worth except the marketplace


Isn't it a case for any type of good in the market, really? :what:
What X worth is defined only by the subjective value judgment of two parties involved into an act of exchange at a particular moment of time.


----------



## Pawl_Buster (Mar 12, 2007)

lethaltoes said:


> I'll agree to that statement if PP removed the gyromax system and attendant regulators PB. However, that's not quite the case is it? Beat rate presents different issues as you've correctly pointed out but again you are assuming PP is made ala Dufour which cannot be further from the truth. In fact I reckon the gs approach to balance wheel adjustment would be a closer approximation to what you are hinting at with regards to watchmaker's expertise. And the mems approach to the escapement certainly doesn't come across to me as easy and lazy from a design and engineering perspective. Just some thoughts. Cheers!


Thanks for making my point. I wasn't aware of the items you mentioned but they certainly sound like the 3Hz beat in the PP is anything but lame 

By easy and lazy I meant that from a manufacturing/assembly point of view, it makes a lot more sense to use high beat as a quicker method of achieving accuracy as it cuts down on time and processes needed to produce these high end watches.


----------



## Pawl_Buster (Mar 12, 2007)

lethaltoes said:


> Thanks Will. I've seen your pics earlier when you posted them up. That refurbished oyster quartz is a gem!
> As for the PP argument, I think everyone on this forum will agree that with 400 or more years of history, the Swiss aesthetic of movement finishing is more widely accepted as art and appropriate for an expensive watch. It's also a simple indicator of the value added by the watchmaker.
> 
> Grand seiko has a different approach in line with their philosophy and i would say they have succeeded in their art most times. And they tend to show their ability through their dial and case work. But note, even their most extensive movement decoration in their costly limited editions involve engraving and not bevelling. It's just more culturally correct. I do believe they have made some concessions for enthusiasts but by and large I cheer their refusal to conform.
> ...


400 years? I didn't even think Switzerland was that old :-d
Perhaps you are thinking of those English chronometres that were installed in Swiss navy sailing ships?


----------



## lethaltoes (Mar 5, 2013)

Will_f said:


> I agree that GS's are worth every penny they charge. The problem that comes up (as it always does in these threads) is that there is no universally accepted standard in watches that defines what they're worth except the marketplace (flawed as that may be). I have no problem paying the price Seiko charges for GS watches and I feel they compare very well with the Omegas, Rolexes, and other mid market Swiss luxury watches that are in a similar if somewhat higher price range.
> 
> That said, if I were looking to spend 20K+ on a watch, I wouldn't look at any of the aforementioned brands. I'd look at RGM's tank. Why? because it suits my preferences really well and it is a true hand made work of art, even if it is the least accurate and least technically sophisticated of all.


As an aside, and on the subject of the art of movement finishing, consider the depth of technical ability the Seiko high end watchmaking studio has to offer. They can now offer the best of what the world regards as valuable traditional movement decoration:

Watches by SJX: Up close: Seiko Credor Spring Drive Eichi - one of the finest finished watches in the world

as well as excellent modern "Japanese manga" art if you will from the very same studio!

Seiko "Shinji Hattori Special Model" Limited Edition Watch For Japan | aBlogtoWatch

Cheers!


----------



## lethaltoes (Mar 5, 2013)

Pawl_Buster said:


> 400 years? I didn't even think Switzerland was that old :-d
> Perhaps you are thinking of those English chronometres that were installed in Swiss navy sailing ships?


Ha ha! Sorry PB. You know that I'm neither a historian nor ... Actually, probably not very bright in general. Shall we start counting from 1850 then? Cheers!


----------



## RejZoR (May 12, 2010)

Pawl_Buster said:


> What is lame about a company that can consistently produce chronometers with 3Hz movements? That takes a lot more design engineering and assembly talent than just making a balance wheel wizz back and forth at hypersonic speeds.
> 
> Hi beat is the easy and lazy way to make a chronometer because the high frequency cancels out a lot of the issues the 3Hz assembler has to adjust for and regulate out.


Does it? Lazy way? Seiko managed to achieve same durability with Hi-Beat movements as you get with regular "slow" beat moveemnts from Seiko, despite significantly higher BPH. That's also quite a significant achievement. And i certainly wouldn't call it lazy. They had to hollow out the entire escapement to decrease it's momentum weight on collisions (friction and hammering) and so reducing power losses and wear. Not to mention second hand moves incredibly smoothly.


----------



## bvc2005 (Mar 15, 2007)

Kinetic, unreliable? I've had mine for 6 years and it's accuracy is dead-on, even better than my Swiss ETA and Ronda Quartz movements. One man's garbage, is another man's prize! I am glad I don't use your watchmaker.


Greek6486 said:


> No, grand Seiko uses a hybrid movement that is not comparable with swiss movements. This should be compared more to a citizen satellite wave or other movement that is quartz related. Does the spring drive have good specs on paper? Yes, however so does a quartz and the spring drive is regulated by a quartz crystal. You will find a strange obsession on this forum with seiko. The truth is that that these interesting movements that they make sound cool but are very unreliable like the kinetic for example which my watchmaker would describe to you as garbage. If you have 7k, do not get this .. Its still a Seiko, citizen is pummeling them in sales and those are the only watches they should be compared with. Would you compare a satellite wave to a Patek? Lol. Much better things out there at this price range! Ask yourself, are you good with having a suped up Honda? Or do you want a Lamborghini?
> 
> Sent from my SCH-I545 using Xparent BlueTapatalk 2


----------



## ilitig8 (Oct 11, 2013)

bvc2005 said:


> Kinetic, unreliable? I've had mine for 6 years and it's accuracy is dead-on,


In truth Seiko has had quite a issue with Kinetic watch reliability, though it seems to be sorted now. To add insult to injury they refused service on many of the faulty early ones, though Seiko certainly isn't alone in abandoning watches.


----------



## Pawl_Buster (Mar 12, 2007)

RejZoR said:


> Does it? Lazy way? Seiko managed to achieve same durability with Hi-Beat movements as you get with regular "slow" beat moveemnts from Seiko, despite significantly higher BPH. That's also quite a significant achievement. And i certainly wouldn't call it lazy. They had to hollow out the entire escapement to decrease it's momentum weight on collisions (friction and hammering) and so reducing power losses and wear. Not to mention second hand moves incredibly smoothly.


My point wasn't about Seiko specifically but rather all manufacturers who took to the high beat road. With the exception of Seiko and any other makers who have recently developed the technologies to make hollow parts; high beat movements have traditionally been made the same way as the lower beat ones and using most of the same processes.
Therefore it was easier for them to make chronometres with high beat movements than low beat ones. It's all about the amount of effort that has to be put into each. That makes the high beat road the lazy but more cost effective one.
If I were in the business, I would chose the high beat method as well; it just makes more business sense in terms of dollars and sense.


----------



## c0sin (Jan 2, 2013)

> citizen plummeting Seiko in sales


it won't hurt to check the facts next time before making such broad statements . Just look at both companies financial results. Juniors....


----------



## MrDagon007 (Sep 24, 2012)

While I love Seiko watches in general and I do respect the GS brand, having examined them already a few times while on business in Japan, I have never been that enamoured by the Spring Drive mechanism. 
Yes, it is a clever piece of engineering, but at what good? It is a quartz-based braking mechanism on a traditional watch. No problem with that, but then why not unapologetically go full quartz? I see it as a quartz-based mechanism at heart. I don't see any real benefit in the spring drive approach, except for the nice smooth second hand (but that could be done with pure quartz too). In a way it is a complication that reminds me of the tourbillon: pretty and difficult to get right, but no real benefit. 
Therefore my own favourite Grand Seiko models are the pure automatic ones, or at the low price range the pure quartz models (though those are too small for me).

Regarding a pure automatic GS vs an automic Swiss watch, I agree that the quality perception (perception from examining as I don't own one) of GS is at least on par with many Swiss models. I must say that for me most GS models look a bit too understated though. I recently examined the new amagnetic Omega Aqua Terra, which is wonderfully made as well and an example of good engineering - and for me its design is more sexy than most if not all GS models. My favourite GS is perhaps the GMT with its deep black dial. It is also a bit bigger than most other GS models which tend to be rather small on my wrist.

Currently I have a little collection of midrange watches, my favourite may well be a toss up between my Sumo and two Steinharts. I can see myself eventually upgrading to GS or Omega.


----------



## 124Spider (Feb 1, 2009)

MrDagon007 said:


> Yes, it is a clever piece of engineering, but at what good? It is a quartz-based braking mechanism on a traditional watch. No problem with that, but then why not unapologetically go full quartz? I see it as a quartz-based mechanism at heart. I don't see any real benefit in the spring drive approach, except for the nice smooth second hand (but that could be done with pure quartz too). In a way it is a complication that reminds me of the tourbillon: pretty and difficult to get right, but no real benefit.


To each his own, I guess.

I find great benefit in the Spring Drive mechanism. Eliminate the weakest link in a traditional movement (the escapement), replace it with a highly accurate, robust part, and never need a battery. And I actually do appreciate innovative engineering.

To me, it's ideal.


----------



## MrDagon007 (Sep 24, 2012)

124Spider said:


> To each his own, I guess.
> 
> I find great benefit in the Spring Drive mechanism. Eliminate the weakest link in a traditional movement (the escapement), replace it with a highly accurate, robust part, and never need a battery. And I actually do appreciate innovative engineering.
> 
> To me, it's ideal.


You make a good point about the escapement. But even then, why not go full quartz? 
Solar powered or kinetic watches can these days last for 8 to 10 years or so on a battery - no big deal.
This being said, whatever the relevance of the SD complication, Seiko produces a few nice models with it. I tried on the SD-based new Landmaster a few of months ago, and it was seriously attractive. Also the least expensive SD model, if I am not mistaken.


----------



## Ray916MN (Feb 11, 2006)

MrDagon007 said:


> While I love Seiko watches in general and I do respect the GS brand, having examined them already a few times while on business in Japan, I have never been that enamoured by the Spring Drive mechanism.
> Yes, it is a clever piece of engineering, but at what good? It is a quartz-based braking mechanism on a traditional watch. No problem with that, but then why not unapologetically go full quartz? ....


Because full quartz is not as energy efficient which is why the second hands of traditional quartz watches step in full second increments and you do not see traditional quartz watches with smooth sweep hand motions.

Energy efficiency or energy capacity has long played a significant role in timekeeping accuracy. The beat frequencies of mechanical movements have long been limited in application by the amount of energy it takes to run a high frequency balance. Electric watches, which ran high frequency balances or tuning forks which were capable of greater accuracy than mechanical movements in the 60s before the advent of quartz to some degree did not achieve long standing commercial success because their batteries needed to be changed every year or two. While balances running at 360000bph which break down seconds into 1/100th of a second increments have been in production stop watches since the late 50s, wristwatches with these balances have not been produced because of the inability to achieve a usable power reserve. The 2005 TAG Concept 360 has a power reserve of 100 minutes, when the stop watch section of the watch runs.

At some point, the argument that because the Spring Drive is quartz controlled, you may as well make a traditional quartz watch is akin to the argument that since a watch is quartz controlled you may as well do away with all mechanical aspects of timekeeping and just make ABC watches. Why bother converting electric signals into mechanical motion at all? The Spring Drive utilizes the traditional energy source of modern automatic watches, the motion of the wearer, and the equivalent of an ultra high balance frequency with a mechanical display. It does so in a different enough manner to a typical quartz watch that it would be pretty much impossible to make a Spring Drive ABC watch.


----------



## MrDagon007 (Sep 24, 2012)

Ray916MN said:


> Because full quartz is not as energy efficient which is why the second hands of traditional quartz watches step in full second increments and you do not see traditional quartz watches with smooth sweep hand motions.


Thanks for your general comments. Specifically on this point, unless I misremember from my early teenage years, I am pretty sure that my dad had a quartz Omega Constellation with smooth second hand. Also, doesn't Bulova make a smooth second hand watch? I think I saw an advertisement about that - again not sure if I misremembered.



Ray916MN said:


> At some point, the argument that because the Spring Drive is quartz controlled, you may as well make a traditional quartz watch is akin to the argument that since a watch is quartz controlled you may as well do away with all mechanical aspects of timekeeping and just make ABC watches. Why bother converting electric signals into mechanical motion at all?.


Well, many people prefer a traditional dial with hands over a numerical display.

Look, I know that SD is an impressive engineering feat. It just seems a lot of effort to me for no big benefit over a traditional quartz-driven watch. If you look at certain semi-skelonitsed cheap Swatch watches, you'd almost think that they were mechanical, the small electronics can be well hidden. Conceptually this, or a Kinetic watch that also uses the motion of the wearer, is for me a more elegant approach than the complexity of SD.

Thanks again for your insights. We don't agree, but that is ok.


----------



## dero (Nov 4, 2011)

Why is it that the moment Grand Seiko is mentioned, the Spring Drive is the only movement that a Grand Seiko uses? Grand Seiko produces traditional mechanical watches that are arguably manufactured to higher accuracy standards than watches from other Swiss luxury brands.

Asking why not go full quartz when you have a Spring Drive is an equivalent question as to asking why not ride a motorbike instead of riding a bike? Why not drive a bus instead of driving a car? Why buy a Ford when there's a Mercedes? Why buy Triumph when there's Ducati? It's something different. Something that people just want that so cater for it and take their money.


----------



## Domo (Sep 20, 2013)

dero said:


> Why is it that the moment Grand Seiko is mentioned, the Spring Drive is the only movement that a Grand Seiko uses? Grand Seiko produces traditional mechanical watches that are arguably manufactured to higher accuracy standards than watches from other Swiss luxury brands.
> 
> Asking why not go full quartz when you have a Spring Drive is an equivalent question as to asking why not ride a motorbike instead of riding a bike? Why not drive a bus instead of driving a car? Why buy a Ford when there's a Mercedes? Why buy Triumph when there's Ducati? It's something different. Something that people just want that so cater for it and take their money.


+1
That's exactly why I bought a GS SD. I consider it (I.M.O.!!) more of a quartz watch than a mechanical, but it was something different anyway. I've had quartz, I've had mechanical, same old same old and Seiko comes out with an interesting mix, so I bought it. It's a cool owners experience because it wears like a mechanical (stops if you don't wear it and has a smooth sweep seconds hand) but it's super accurate and completely silent.
I'm unconvinced if it's 'worth' the premium Seiko asks for it, but that's a value proposition everyone needs to weigh up if they're considering one. No regrets here, it's become my most-worn watch.


----------



## Cannonball (Apr 14, 2013)

*Re: Grand Seiko AND Swiss Luxury*

I want one of each please...


----------



## MrDagon007 (Sep 24, 2012)

dero said:


> Why is it that the moment Grand Seiko is mentioned, the Spring Drive is the only movement that a Grand Seiko uses? Grand Seiko produces traditional mechanical watches that are arguably manufactured to higher accuracy standards than watches from other Swiss luxury brands.
> 
> Asking why not go full quartz when you have a Spring Drive is an equivalent question as to asking why not ride a motorbike instead of riding a bike? Why not drive a bus instead of driving a car? Why buy a Ford when there's a Mercedes? Why buy Triumph when there's Ducati? It's something different. Something that people just want that so cater for it and take their money.


Of course I highly respect the prowess of the automatic calibers.
But regarding Spring Drive, I think your analogies are not correct. Better would be to say: why buy a petrol engine if there is a wankel engine? It is different, and very niche. Is it intrinsically better, mmmhhh.... don't think so.


----------



## Okapi001 (Apr 9, 2013)

And one of the great things with the Grand Seiko is exactly the fact that you can choose between all three kinds of movements - classic mechanical, classic quartz or spring drive.


----------



## hb5 (Jan 21, 2012)

If you would look only on facts (or if you would choose a movement only with brain), then you wouldn't buy anything except quartz because quartz is cheap, very accurate, with low maintenance costs. Mechanical watch can hardly be any competition in those departments to quartz watches. Despite all this what I have said, people are buying mechanical watches still. It's because people do not choose something based only on facts or with their head only, but also with heart. They want something mechanical on their hand, so SD can be fitted in minds of those people very easily imho.


----------



## 124Spider (Feb 1, 2009)

MrDagon007 said:


> You make a good point about the escapement. But even then, why not go full quartz?


If you can find me another quartz watch powered by a mainspring, I'd be interested.

To me, Spring Drive is as mechanical as a standard, gasoline-powered car engine. Sure, it has an electronic component, but it's powered by a spring (no battery or capacitor to wear out). And the typical SD watch is much more accurate than the typical (not HAQ) quartz watch.

As I said, to each his own. But, to me (a mechanical clock lover who values accuracy in a watch), SD is the perfect movement.


----------



## Okapi001 (Apr 9, 2013)

124Spider said:


> And the typical SD watch is much more accurate than the typical (not HAQ) quartz watch.


I don't think so. Accuracy as officialy declared by Seiko is the same as in standard quartz watches.


----------



## 124Spider (Feb 1, 2009)

Okapi001 said:


> I don't think so. Accuracy as officialy declared by Seiko is the same as in standard quartz watches.


I do think so. I have never heard a report of a Spring Drive watch anywhere near as inaccurate as the very conservative Seiko specs. My two are (i) essentially spot on, and (ii) about 5 seconds a month slow. That's pretty typical of reports. And that's much more accurate that the typical (non-HAQ) quartz watch.


----------



## Pawl_Buster (Mar 12, 2007)

MrDagon007 said:


> While I love Seiko watches in general and I do respect the GS brand, having examined them already a few times while on business in Japan, I have never been that enamoured by the Spring Drive mechanism.
> Yes, it is a clever piece of engineering, but at what good? It is a quartz-based braking mechanism on a traditional watch. No problem with that, but then why not unapologetically go full quartz? I see it as a quartz-based mechanism at heart. I don't see any real benefit in the spring drive approach, except for the nice smooth second hand (but that could be done with pure quartz too). In a way it is a complication that reminds me of the tourbillon: pretty and difficult to get right, but no real benefit.
> Therefore my own favourite Grand Seiko models are the pure automatic ones, or at the low price range the pure quartz models (though those are too small for me).
> 
> ...


Two things:
First the SD is not quartz regulated; this has been established over and over. It is all spelled out nicely in Seiko's patent.
Second, tourbillons solved a problem for pocket watches that spent their lives crown up in a vest pocket. Tourbillon brings nothing to the table as far as accuracy in a wrist watch.
The SD brings accuracy to a basically mechanical watch that is unprecedented; it competes with the accuracy provided by the average quartz watches.


----------



## AvantGardeTime (Aug 23, 2013)

Okapi001 said:


> I don't think so. Accuracy as officialy declared by Seiko is the same as in standard quartz watches.


Yes but in real life is much, much better.

I have owned 5 Spring Drives over the years. My current one, SBGE001 GMT hardly gains over 0.5 secs per month. At its current rate, the watch is not gaining more than 0.03 secs per day which is on par or far better than thermocompensated quartz movements. The accuracy of Spring Drive is grossly understated.


----------



## PJ S (Apr 29, 2013)

MrDagon007 said:


> Thanks for your general comments. Specifically on this point, unless I misremember from my early teenage years, I am pretty sure that my dad had a quartz Omega Constellation with smooth second hand. Also, doesn't Bulova make a smooth second hand watch? I think I saw an advertisement about that - again not sure if I misremembered.


They both are tuning fork technology, and I think the Bulovas use a Li-ion battery for longevity (2 years, maybe 3 if you're lucky).


----------



## AvantGardeTime (Aug 23, 2013)

Pawl_Buster said:


> Two things:
> First the SD is not quartz regulated; this has been established over and over. It is all spelled out nicely in Seiko's patent.
> Second, tourbillons solved a problem for pocket watches that spent their lives crown up in a vest pocket. Tourbillon brings nothing to the table as far as accuracy in a wrist watch.
> The SD brings accuracy to a basically mechanical watch that is unprecedented; it competes with the accuracy provided by the average quartz watches.


Not only that, but improves the mechanical watch, removes its worst weakness (The 500 year old escapement) and puts its accuracy and reliability within the realm of 21st century standards.


----------



## PJ S (Apr 29, 2013)

Okapi001 said:


> I don't think so. Accuracy as officialy declared by Seiko is the same as in standard quartz watches.


What Seiko states on their specs is one thing, the reality is often quite a different story.


----------



## Pawl_Buster (Mar 12, 2007)

PJ S said:


> They both are tuning fork technology, and I think the Bulovas use a Li-ion battery for longevity (2 years, maybe 3 if you're lucky).


Bulova has made two types of smooth sweep modules. The first was the famous Accuton which had various sweep speeds from 300 Hz to 720Hz. These watches used a mercury 1.55v cell.
This was not a quartz movement but rather an electromechanical movement which used a physical tuning fork. Some of the last Accutrons were quartz regulated as in the AccuQuartz. Still a tuning fork mechanism but with a quartz oscillator.

Bulova licensed this technology to Citizen and most of the major Swiss players. Citizen actually manufactured some of these movements for Bulova.

The latest Bulova with a smooth sweep can be found in the Precisionist line. These watches move the sweep at 16 steps per second which is almost continuous to the human eye.


----------



## PJ S (Apr 29, 2013)

Yes, of course. I lumped in the new with the old Bulova, hence the Li-ion battery remark for the Precisionist range, iirc.


----------



## Pawl_Buster (Mar 12, 2007)

PJ S said:


> Yes, of course. I lumped in the new with the old Bulova, hence the Li-ion battery remark for the Precisionist range, iirc.


I don't know for sure if it is L-Ion or not but I suspect you are correct. This is the only battery technology that would give a power hungry movement like this any longevity. I haven't seen the battey but it is most likely one of the CR20xx series.


----------



## imaCoolRobot (Jan 1, 2014)

Greek6486 said:


> No, grand Seiko uses a hybrid movement that is not comparable with swiss movements. This should be compared more to a citizen satellite wave or other movement that is quartz related. Does the spring drive have good specs on paper? Yes, however so does a quartz and the spring drive is regulated by a quartz crystal. You will find a strange obsession on this forum with seiko. The truth is that that these interesting movements that they make sound cool but are very unreliable like the kinetic for example which my watchmaker would describe to you as garbage. If you have 7k, do not get this .. Its still a Seiko, citizen is pummeling them in sales and those are the only watches they should be compared with. Would you compare a satellite wave to a Patek? Lol. Much better things out there at this price range! Ask yourself, are you good with having a suped up Honda? Or do you want a Lamborghini?
> 
> Sent from my SCH-I545 using Xparent BlueTapatalk 2


an Grand Seiko is more on par with the obsessive Lexus LF-A.
Now let's compare the LF-A with a Lambo.
GrandSeiko is basically the very best that the crazy company called Seiko can do, Swiss watches often stick ridiculous diamonds to make their watches attractive to the rich.


----------



## Okapi001 (Apr 9, 2013)

124Spider said:


> My two are (i) essentially spot on, and (ii) about 5 seconds a month slow. That's pretty typical of reports. And that's much more accurate that the typical (non-HAQ) quartz watch.


A lot of non-HAQ quartz watches can do 5 seconds/month or better. My Seiko Sportura is after nearly four months +8 sec (so better than +3 sec/month).


----------



## Okapi001 (Apr 9, 2013)

Pawl_Buster said:


> Two things:
> First the SD is not quartz regulated; this has been established over and over. It is all spelled out nicely in Seiko's patent.
> Second, tourbillons solved a problem for pocket watches that spent their lives crown up in a vest pocket. Tourbillon brings nothing to the table as far as accuracy in a wrist watch.


It's really funny how can you be so stubbornly wrong on both accounts.


----------



## RejZoR (May 12, 2010)

Lol, the whole point of SD (SpringDrive) is that it's powered by spring but regulated by quartz. That's why it's just as accurate as any other quartz watch, yet it uses regenerative power of you wrist to charge it. You have tech explanation videos about it on Youtube.


----------



## ken_sturrock (Oct 24, 2010)

Pawl_Buster said:


> SD is not quartz regulated; this has been established over and over.





Okapi001 said:


> It's really funny how can you be so stubbornly wrong on both accounts.





RejZoR said:


> Lol, the whole point of SD (SpringDrive) is that it's powered by spring but regulated by quartz.


Aw crap! I love all you guys but, didn't we just do this last October on Page 7?

https://www.watchuseek.com/f21/grand-seiko-vs-swiss-luxury-931566-7.html


----------



## Okapi001 (Apr 9, 2013)

ken_sturrock said:


> Aw crap! I love all you guys but, didn't we just do this last October on Page 7?l


We do, _ad nauseam_, and I hope Pawl is the only one that still refuses to accept the simple fact that the function of a quartz crystal in an SD movement is EXACTLY the same as in every ordinary quartz watch. And it doesn't matter a bit how exactly you want to call that function in English - regulating, timing, clocking, syncing, telling the time ... The point is that the function of a quartz crystal is the same in a Grand Seiko and in an $1 digital watch.


----------



## jason_recliner (Feb 2, 2009)

If the quartz crystal does not regulate the watch, it should be possible for the watch to run accurately without it. So why bother including it in the first place?

The ONLY purpose of the quartz crystal is regulation. To argue otherwise is, well... there are no words to describe such lunacy!


----------



## Pawl_Buster (Mar 12, 2007)

jason_recliner said:


> If the quartz crystal does not regulate the watch, it should be possible for the watch to run accurately without it. So why bother including it in the first place?
> 
> The ONLY purpose of the quartz crystal is regulation. To argue otherwise is, well... there are no words to describe such lunacy!


You haven't read and understood the patent either I see. The quartz crystal _DOES NOT_ regulate the watch; it is simply a reference for the tri syncro regulator.


----------



## Pawl_Buster (Mar 12, 2007)

Okapi001 said:


> We do, _ad nauseam_, and I hope Pawl is the only one that still refuses to accept the simple fact that the function of a quartz crystal in an SD movement is EXACTLY the same as in every ordinary quartz watch. And it doesn't matter a bit how exactly you want to call that function in English - regulating, timing, clocking, syncing, telling the time ... The point is that the function of a quartz crystal is the same in a Grand Seiko and in an $1 digital watch.


No matter how you spin it; the quartz crystal does not regulate the SD. None of the terms you used applies to the use of the crystal in the SD.

Seiko's patent is explicit.


----------



## Pawl_Buster (Mar 12, 2007)

ken_sturrock said:


> Aw crap! I love all you guys but, didn't we just do this last October on Page 7?
> 
> https://www.watchuseek.com/f21/grand-seiko-vs-swiss-luxury-931566-7.html


Sorry Ken but as long as there are people who insist on being ignorant of the facts; they has to be corrected.

I know that some of them do this just to get me excited but I don't care or perhaps because they don't think I will notice.

Wrong ideas and ignorant assumptions must be challenged; always!


----------



## Okapi001 (Apr 9, 2013)

Pawl_Buster said:


> No matter how you spin it; the quartz crystal does not regulate the SD. None of the terms you used applies to the use of the crystal in the SD.


First of all, please tell me the proper English word for the function that the quartz crystal is performing in an ordinary digital quartz watch. Without knowing the right term (it must be some arcane expression that only you know) I cannot argue properly.


----------



## 124Spider (Feb 1, 2009)

Pawl_Buster said:


> Sorry Ken but as long as there are people who insist on being ignorant of the facts; they has to be corrected.


I suppose. Just as, as long as there are people who insist on playing word games, they have to called out.

And you're playing word games.


----------



## Pawl_Buster (Mar 12, 2007)

124Spider said:


> I suppose. Just as, as long as there are people who insist on playing word games, they have to called out.
> 
> And you're playing word games.


Please read the patent!


----------



## Okapi001 (Apr 9, 2013)

Pawl_Buster said:


> The quartz crystal _DOES NOT_ regulate the watch; it is simply a reference for the tri syncro regulator.


I'm really amazed how stubborn can you be;-)

OK, so let's say the right term for the function of the quartz is not regulation. BUT - following that definition the quartz crystal DOES NOT regulate ANY watch. In a spring drive is a reference for the tri syncro regulator, in an analog quartz watch is a reference for an IC that regulate an el. motor, in a digital quartz watch is a reference for an IC that regulate a LCD display.

Quartz crystal is ONLY a reference for other electronic components in EVERY watch, be it digital, analog quartz or spring drive. And that is its ONLY function in all those watches.


----------



## Pawl_Buster (Mar 12, 2007)

Okapi001 said:


> First of all, please tell me the proper English word for the function that the quartz crystal is performing in an ordinary digital quartz watch. Without knowing the right term (it must be some arcane expression that only you know) I cannot argue properly.


There are many online dictionaries. They all say basically the same thing...regulate = control or maintain the speed of a machine or process.

That is exactly what the crystal does in a quartz watch.

The crystal does not do that in the SD. Once again I will refer you back to the patent.


----------



## Okapi001 (Apr 9, 2013)

Take a look at a typical quartz crystal, used in a watch. It's basically a tuning fork. It oscillates when excited by the electricity. And that is ALL that it's doing in a Grand Seiko and in the cheapest digital watch. It oscillates. Everything else is done by associated electronics.


----------



## gagnello (Nov 19, 2011)

Here we go again....

Sent from my SGP311 using Tapatalk


----------



## 124Spider (Feb 1, 2009)

Pawl_Buster said:


> There are many online dictionaries. They all say basically the same thing...regulate = control or maintain the speed of a machine or process.
> 
> That is exactly what the crystal does in a quartz watch.
> 
> The crystal does not do that in the SD. Once again I will refer you back to the patent.


Ah, word games again. Enjoy them: I'll still know that my wonderful watches wouldn't be nearly as accurate without the quartz crystal.


----------



## jason_recliner (Feb 2, 2009)

Okapi001 said:


> I'm really amazed how stubborn can you be;-)
> 
> OK, so let's say the right term for the function of the quartz is not regulation. BUT - following that definition the quartz crystal DOES NOT regulate ANY watch. In a spring drive is a reference for the tri syncro regulator, in an analog quartz watch is a reference for an IC that regulate an el. motor, in a digital quartz watch is a reference for an IC that regulate a LCD display.
> 
> Quartz crystal is ONLY a reference for other electronic components in EVERY watch, be it digital, analog quartz or spring drive. And that is its ONLY function in all those watches.


THANK YOU OKAPI!!!

(this is insane!)


----------



## jason_recliner (Feb 2, 2009)

Pawl_Buster said:


> There are many online dictionaries. They all say basically the same thing...regulate = control or maintain the speed of a machine or process.
> 
> That is exactly what the crystal does in a quartz watch.
> 
> The crystal does not do that in the SD. Once again I will refer you back to the patent.


OK, Pawl. In your humble opinion, what exactly is the crystal in the SD doing? You mention it is a "reference" - this is not a term often used in horology. It seems to me you are trying to say that the crystal signal is read by the IC, and then the brake does the physical act of regulating - i.e. braking to slow down. If that is what you are saying, you are technically corect, but your terminology and definitions are so far removed from what is commonly accepted. Sort of like saying the crystal in a quartz watch is a reference, and the stepper motors do the regulating.


----------



## lethaltoes (Mar 5, 2013)

jason_recliner said:


> OK, Pawl Puster. In your humble opinion, what exactly is the crystal in the SD doing? You mention it is a "reference" - this is not a term often used in horology. It seems to me you are trying to say that the crystal signal is read by the IC, and then the brake does the physical act of regulating - i.e. braking to slow down. If that is what you are saying, you are technically corect, but your terminology and definitions are so far removed from what is commonly accepted. Sort of like saying the crystal in a quartz watch is a reference, and the stepper motors do the regulating.


IngersoII experimental watch from 1932 (broken main spring not shown ; picture lifted from the Web-not mine)










Sent from my C6903 using Tapatalk


----------



## Pawl_Buster (Mar 12, 2007)

124Spider said:


> Ah, word games again. Enjoy them: I'll still know that my wonderful watches wouldn't be nearly as accurate without the quartz crystal.


It only looks like word games to the uninformed.

Without the crystal, quartz watches would be dead accurate...twice a day ;-)

The Spring Drive would not be as accurate without the crystal but it could still work(read the patent). The crystal is used to help offset the affects of inertia, gravity and temperature on the glide wheel. This is not regulation; it is simply a reference that the actual regulator uses.


----------



## Pawl_Buster (Mar 12, 2007)

jason_recliner said:


> OK, Pawl Puster. In your humble opinion, what exactly is the crystal in the SD doing? You mention it is a "reference" - this is not a term often used in horology. It seems to me you are trying to say that the crystal signal is read by the IC, and then the brake does the physical act of regulating - i.e. braking to slow down. If that is what you are saying, you are technically corect, but your terminology and definitions are so far removed from what is commonly accepted. Sort of like saying the crystal in a quartz watch is a reference, and the stepper motors do the regulating.


Read the patent.

And in the quartz watch, the crystal is by definition(controls or maintains the speed of the motor) the regulator. Absolutely not true in the case of the SD.


----------



## Pawl_Buster (Mar 12, 2007)

lethaltoes said:


> IngersoII experimental watch from 1932 (broken main spring not shown ; picture lifted from the Web-not mine)
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I've reposted that picture many times as an example of how and why the SD could work just fine without the crystal. The VCO)voltage controlled oscillator) in the Spring Drive would be capable of running the watch at least as accurately as a full mechanical movement. The addition of a crystal takes care of the affects of inertia, gravity and temperaturre on the glide wheel.


----------



## Okapi001 (Apr 9, 2013)

Pawl_Buster said:


> Without the crystal, quartz watches would be dead accurate...twice a day ;-)
> 
> The Spring Drive would not be as accurate without the crystal but it could still work(read the patent). The crystal is used to help offset the affects of inertia, gravity and temperature on the glide wheel. This is not regulation; it is simply a reference that the actual regulator uses.


I'm not sure why but you have some key concepts all wrong. The motor in a quartz watch can also move the hands without the quartz crystal fairly accurate (perhaps even within a couple of minutes a day). And the mainspring in the mechanical watch can move the hands without the balance wheel and hairspring, you just have to apply some brake to it so that the power stored in the mainspring lasts for a day or so. But all that is not nearly enough accurate without an oscillator. And the same applies to the magnetic brake in the spring drive movement. Without a quartz crystal it is like a wind-up toy or musical box. Or any other quartz watch without a quartz.

The quartz crystal is the only time keeping oscillator in a spring drive. It is impossible to have two time keeping oscillators in the watch because there is no way for a watch to know which one is more accurate in any given moment (as for you fantasy of helping offset the affects of inertia etc.)

You obviously don't understand correctly what's written in the patent, but since all explanations are futile, I give up.


----------



## 124Spider (Feb 1, 2009)

Pawl_Buster said:


> It only looks like word games to the uninformed.


It only doesn't look like word games to those playing them. If it materially improves the accuracy of the clock, you're playing word games if you insist (as you do, loud, long and often) that that isn't "regulation."

To those of us not playing word games, that which exists solely to make a clock more accurate is part of regulation.

Why do you care so much? Does it somehow hurt your sense of self-worth if some of us realize that the quartz in our wonderful Spring Drive watches is what makes them so accurate?


----------



## VoltesV (Dec 27, 2011)

raveen said:


> Hi,
> GS considered as high quality and reliable watch. Compared to luxury Swiss watches, *is GS on par with say Patek, Vacheron or Ulysse?*
> Does GS fall in same category as these high-end and ultra-luxury SWISS watches?
> 
> ...


They have the Credor brand for that.


----------



## Pawl_Buster (Mar 12, 2007)

124Spider said:


> It only doesn't look like word games to those playing them. If it materially improves the accuracy of the clock, you're playing word games if you insist (as you do, loud, long and often) that that isn't "regulation."
> 
> To those of us not playing word games, that which exists solely to make a clock more accurate is part of regulation.
> 
> Why do you care so much? Does it somehow hurt your sense of self-worth if some of us realize that the quartz in our wonderful Spring Drive watches is what makes them so accurate?


Read the patent!


----------



## Pawl_Buster (Mar 12, 2007)

Okapi001 said:


> I'm not sure why but you have some key concepts all wrong. The motor in a quartz watch can also move the hands without the quartz crystal fairly accurate (perhaps even within a couple of minutes a day). And the mainspring in the mechanical watch can move the hands without the balance wheel and hairspring, you just have to apply some brake to it so that the power stored in the mainspring lasts for a day or so. But all that is not nearly enough accurate without an oscillator. And the same applies to the magnetic brake in the spring drive movement. Without a quartz crystal it is like a wind-up toy or musical box. Or any other quartz watch without a quartz.
> 
> The quartz crystal is the only time keeping oscillator in a spring drive. It is impossible to have two time keeping oscillators in the watch because there is no way for a watch to know which one is more accurate in any given moment (as for you fantasy of helping offset the affects of inertia etc.)
> 
> You obviously don't understand correctly what's written in the patent, but since all explanations are futile, I give up.


Now you are just blowing smoke. Read the patent!

And perhaps take some courses on what makes a quartz watch work...although I doubt it would help.


----------



## Okapi001 (Apr 9, 2013)

Pawl_Buster said:


> Now you are just blowing smoke.


ROTFL. As I said - futile


----------



## MrDagon007 (Sep 24, 2012)

I think that terminology aside, it is quite obvious that the quartz crystal is the heart of the regulation/control mechanism in both a traditional quartz watch and in a SD watch. A quartz crystal is always the provider of a reference signal, the way it is then applied to the mechanical part is of course different between the two watches. But in both cases the accuracy is ensured by the quartz crystal. And there is nothing wrong with that. My original post was simply that I find SD, while clever, a rather convoluted solution compared to a normal quartz watch.

In other new, thanks for the persons clarifying that my dad's Omega is an electric watch with a tuning fork. I didn't know about this (nearly forgotten?) technology, it was interesting reading. And now I understand why my dad's Omega needed new batteries at an alarming rate!


----------



## dero (Nov 4, 2011)

MrDagon007 said:


> Of course I highly respect the prowess of the automatic calibers.
> But regarding Spring Drive, I think your analogies are not correct. Better would be to say: why buy a petrol engine if there is a wankel engine? It is different, and very niche. Is it intrinsically better, mmmhhh.... don't think so.


You can use any analogy as you wish.

The function is the same. The form which delivers the function differs slightly. Petrol vs Diesel vs Wankel - it doesn't matter. Function of a motorbike to a pushbike is the same. Function of a Ford and a Mercedes Benz is the same. Why are you arguing semantics?

I may be wrong here but I don't think I've seen anyone argue any intrinsic betterness between anything with the Spring Drive.

Again though - this thread is about Grand Seiko vs Swiss Luxury, it's not about Spring Drive vs Swiss Luxury. Grand Seiko makes some majestic automatics and exquisite dials and the end product is arguably in par with Swiss Luxury watches thousands if not tens of thousands of dollars more expensive.


----------



## stevenkelby (Sep 3, 2011)

Pawl_Buster said:


> Read the patent!


*Understand *the patent!


----------



## Pawl_Buster (Mar 12, 2007)

jason_recliner said:


> OK PB. You are right. We are ALL wrong. Every single one of us. We are ALL too thick to understand the concept of regulation. Only you understand it, so you must be much smarter than ALL of us.
> 
> Happy?


Yes, I am right about this one small issue; either that or Seiko has been shoveling a lot of manure with it's patent.
No not everyone is wrong or less intelligent. There are many here who have read and do understand the patent. It's really just a small minority who refuse to let go of the mantra that SD id Quartz and appreciate what Seiko has done. :-(


----------



## Okapi001 (Apr 9, 2013)

Pawl_Buster said:


> Yes, I am right about this one small issue;


Sadly, but no, you are not. You simply don't understand what's really written in that patent. You also don't understand (or misunderstand) the concept (function and importance) of a harmonic oscillator as a timekeeping element in every watch.


----------



## Pawl_Buster (Mar 12, 2007)

Thirty four years in electronics has afforded me a very good hands on training as to regards oscillators, what they do and where they can be used. I understand how a crystal oscillator works, I understand how a voltage or temperature controlled oscillator works. In my line of work, I have to design these systems into products all the time. More specifically, I understand how the tri-syncro regulator works and why it has three parts to it. Everything that anyone who really cares to know is in the patent.

And yes, I most definitely understand the patent.

In other threads on this and other forums, I have gone through the inner workings of the SD several times. Always there have been trolls but they never satisfactorily explain their erroneous misunderstandings about the SD. They simply regurgitate the boring and sad old mantra that SD is quartz :-(


----------



## Supermarine2000 (Feb 5, 2014)

I would like to say that the Hi-Beat G'S, in my view is their best movement. I only know Zenith and GS who still make this movement. On the spring drive movement, I can understand the comments put on here; but I was lucky to sell these watches and meet some of the Seiko Japanese team. It took them over 40 years for them to make this movement. The reason for them to make this movement, was to improve on the time keeping. (This watch is one man's life work, to make that dream come true) 

S2000


----------



## Pawl_Buster (Mar 12, 2007)

Supermarine2000 said:


> I would like to say that the Hi-Beat G'S, in my view is their best movement. I only know Zenith and GS who still make this movement. On the spring drive movement, I can understand the comments put on here; but I was lucky to sell these watches and meet some of the Seiko Japanese team. It took them over 40 years for them to make this movement. The reason for them to make this movement, was to improve on the time keeping. (This watch is one man's life work, to make that dream come true)
> 
> S2000


Excellent!
Are you still in touch with any of the team? Would it be possible to have one of them explain the patent for the benefit of those who don't want to understand it ;-)
seiko 
On the high beat front; I've seen that Seiko has been experimenting with 43,000bph and higher movements. Wouldn't it be cool to have an ultra high beat :-!


----------



## JPfeuffer (Aug 12, 2011)

Thread kind of been like this...


----------



## Okapi001 (Apr 9, 2013)

And you misunderstand the true function of the voltage controlled oscillator (VCO) and the quartz crystal in a Spring Drive;-)

You think that a VCO has a timekeeping function of a harmonic oscillator, somewhat less accurate than the quartz crystal, and that the watch has some magical way of knowing when the VCO is good enough to regulate the watch and when the quartz crystal should kick in. Well, to put it simply - you are wrong, VCO is not the timekeeping element of the Spring Drive.


----------



## Domo (Sep 20, 2013)

If I may, now might be a good time to raise a question I have about SD?

I understand that the 'Tri-synchro Regulator' comprises an integrated circuit as well as a coil used to gauge the speed of the glide wheel, the quartz oscillator and a clock courtesy of a voltage-controlled oscillator (VCO).
I get that the clock (VCO) is the timing signal the watch relies on, but as far as I know, a quartz crystal is still the most accurate oscillator there is. So my question is why would the SD design rely on an inferior clock reference (VCO) and use the quartz oscillator to correct for external variations on the glide wheel when it could just use the quartz crystal as the primary clock reference and be done with it?


----------



## Okapi001 (Apr 9, 2013)

Domo said:


> I get that the clock (VCO) is the timing signal the watch relies on, but as far as I know, a quartz crystal is still the most accurate oscillator there is. So my question is why would the SD design rely on an inferior clock reference (VCO) and use the quartz oscillator to correct for external variations on the glide wheel when it could just use the quartz crystal as the primary clock reference and be done with it?


VCO is not "the clock". There is no way for the watch to know when it should "use the quartz oscillator to correct for external variations". There are no accelerometers, thermometers or any other sensor that could provide such an information. The Spring Drive uses the quartz oscillator all the time as its one and only "clock" (timekeeping element). Is as simple as that, regardless anything Pawl are saying (in his insultingly patronising way).


----------



## taurnilf (Sep 30, 2013)

^Hi, newbie here.

In short, you're saying a SD is essentially 2 clocks, 1 quartz and 1 mechanical, the latter following the time of the former; or the SD is a quartz and the mechanical parts are just for show (at least for time keeping element)?


----------



## Pawl_Buster (Mar 12, 2007)

Domo said:


> If I may, now might be a good time to raise a question I have about SD?
> 
> I understand that the 'Tri-synchro Regulator' comprises an integrated circuit as well as a coil used to gauge the speed of the glide wheel, the quartz oscillator and a clock courtesy of a voltage-controlled oscillator (VCO).
> I get that the clock (VCO) is the timing signal the watch relies on, but as far as I know, a quartz crystal is still the most accurate oscillator there is. So my question is why would the SD design rely on an inferior clock reference (VCO) and use the quartz oscillator to correct for external variations on the glide wheel when it could just use the quartz crystal as the primary clock reference and be done with it?


The simple answer there has to be a way to gauge the speed of the glide wheel. The glide wheel through the pickup coil provides a voltage which the VCO uses to produce oscillations. These oscillations will be controlled according to the voltage being supplied; ie if the glide wheel speeds up or slows down the output frequency of the VCO will be adjusted.
This in itself would be enough to allow the movement to run as well as a mechanical escapement but Seiko wanted to make it more accurate(for a couple of technical reasons outlined in the patent) so they added a reference that is compare to the output of the VCO. The differences between the output of the reference and the VCO are added or subtracted and accumulated. After a predefined period of time, this difference is then fed to the braking system.

The reason that a quartz oscillator could not be used alone is because it is not voltage controlled but has a fixed frequency. There would be no way for the quartz oscillator to gauge whether the glide wheel had slowed or sped up and the movement would not be accurate at all; even worse than a VCO only setup.

Seiko went the extra step and added the crystal oscillator mainly to take care of the affects of gravity, inertia and temperature on the glide wheel.

So, instead of a Spring Drive with a VCO controlled movement that would be no more accurate than a regular mechanical escapement watch; we get a Spring Drive with the tri-syncro regulating system that gives us accuracy that is as good as or better than the average quartz watch.


----------



## Domo (Sep 20, 2013)

Pawl_Buster said:


> The simple answer there has to be a way to gauge the speed of the glide wheel. The glide wheel through the pickup coil provides a voltage which the VCO uses to produce oscillations. These oscillations will be controlled according to the voltage being supplied; ie if the glide wheel speeds up or slows down the output frequency of the VCO will be adjusted.
> This in itself would be enough to allow the movement to run as well as a mechanical escapement but Seiko wanted to make it more accurate(for a couple of technical reasons outlined in the patent) so they added a reference that is compare to the output of the VCO. The differences between the output of the reference and the VCO are added or subtracted and accumulated. After a predefined period of time, this difference is then fed to the braking system.
> 
> The reason that a quartz oscillator could not be used alone is because it is not voltage controlled but has a fixed frequency. There would be no way for the quartz oscillator to gauge whether the glide wheel had slowed or sped up and the movement would not be accurate at all; even worse than a VCO only setup.
> ...


Ahhhh, I'm a tard. I didn't realise the glide wheel inducts a current into the coil. I thought it was just a sensor to detect the rotation speed. That makes sense now.
Sorry peeps, I think P_B is right on this one....


----------



## Pawl_Buster (Mar 12, 2007)

taurnilf said:


> ^Hi, newbie here.
> 
> In short, you're saying a SD is essentially 2 clocks, 1 quartz and 1 mechanical, the latter following the time of the former; or the SD is a quartz and the mechanical parts are just for show (at least for time keeping element)?


That is partially correct.
The mechanical portions serve only to provide a power source and to drive the mechanical display; ie the hands.
There are no clocks in the SD; it is the clock or time telling element itself.

There are three oscillators that comprise the SD movement and escapement. They are the glide wheel(the primary oscillator), the VCO(the secondary oscillator) and the quartz crystal(the auxilliary oscillator.
The mechanical mainspring and gearing system drive the glide wheel forcing it to spin. It is controlled by an electromechanical regulating brake. The glide wheel provides two things the escapement needs; pulses that can be read to indicate speed of rotation and voltage to power the electronics. The VCO is used to create a second source of pulses to be compared to those of the glide wheel. This is done by measuring the voltage produced by the glide wheel which is turned into a frequency of pulses then comparing those pulses to the ones the glide wheel initially produced.
At this point there would be enough information to control the electromechanical brake. However, things like gravity, inertial, g-forces, etc. could not be accounted for and the movement would still have all the issues a regular mechanical one does with positional variances, isochronism, etc.
Adding the crystal(auxilliary oscillator) as a reference to be compared to the output of the VCO gives a differential output. Those differences are accumulated then after a predetermined amount of time, fed to the brake so as to regulate out any disturbances created by the physical environment.

At no time does the output of the crystal control or regulate anything as it would in a quartz watch. As implemented in the Spring Drive by Seiko, the quartz oscillator is simply one part of the tri-syncro regulator.


----------



## Okapi001 (Apr 9, 2013)

Pawl_Buster said:


> The reason that a quartz oscillator could not be used alone is because it is not voltage controlled but has a fixed frequency. There would be no way for the quartz oscillator to gauge whether the glide wheel had slowed or sped up and the movement would not be accurate at all; even worse than a VCO only setup.


Again, the problem is that you don't understand the true nature of the timekeeping function of the harmonic oscillator in a watch. Every timekeeping element of the watch *must have a fixed frequency*. The more fixed it is, the better.

And nobody never said that the quartz crystal is doing anything else than ticking with a fixed frequency. It is the same in Spring Drive movement and the cheapest imaginable digital watch. *The function of the quartz crystal is exactly the same*, in Grand Seiko and humble digital Casio. It is the one and only timekeeping element of the watch. The equivalent of the hairspring/balance wheel assembly of the mechanical watch. The one and only harmonic oscillator of the watch.

Spring Drive has of course other electronic elements and one of them is there to measure the frequency of the glide wheel. But it is not the timekeeping element of the watch, not even an auxilliary one (let alone main one).

It's amazing why is this so difficult to comprehend.


----------



## taurnilf (Sep 30, 2013)

Thanks, Pawl.

After reading Okapi001's last post, seems both of you are talking about the exact same thing


----------



## Pawl_Buster (Mar 12, 2007)

taurnilf said:


> Thanks, Pawl.
> 
> After reading Okapi001's last post, seems both of you are talking about the exact same thing


We are talking about the same bits and pieces but not how they work or why they are used.

To dismiss the SD as nothing but a glorified quartz watch is ignorant and demonstrates a complete lack of understanding about electronics, mechanics and how the system works.


----------



## Okapi001 (Apr 9, 2013)

Pawl_Buster said:


> To dismiss the SD as nothing but a glorified quartz watch is ignorant and demonstrates a complete lack of understanding about electronics, mechanics and how the system works.


This is a blatant straw man, worthy of a troll. NOBODY is dismissing the SD as "nothing but a glorified quartz watch." And the only one around here demonstranting a complete lack of understanding is you.


----------



## lethaltoes (Mar 5, 2013)

Okapi001 said:


> Again, the problem is that you don't understand the true nature of the timekeeping function of the harmonic oscillator in a watch. Every timekeeping element of the watch *must have a fixed frequency*. The more fixed it is, the better.
> 
> - that's correct!
> 
> ...


Sent from my C6903 using Tapatalk


----------



## taurnilf (Sep 30, 2013)

Let me see if get this right. Using an analogy, a mechanical watch is like an ordinary engine while a SD is an engine with an ECU?


----------



## Pawl_Buster (Mar 12, 2007)

Okapi001 said:


> This is a blatant straw man, worthy of a troll. NOBODY is dismissing the SD as "nothing but a glorified quartz watch." And the only one around here demonstranting a complete lack of understanding is you.


If you claim that the quartz oscillator is the only regulating element you are saying it is a quartz watch. You simply cannot have it both ways.


----------



## Pawl_Buster (Mar 12, 2007)

taurnilf said:


> Let me see if get this right. Using an analogy, a mechanical watch is like an ordinary engine while a SD is an engine with an ECU?


That is an accurate way of putting it. That's not at debate here. What is, is the manner in how this ECU(electronic control unit aka Tri-Syncro Regulator) functions.


----------



## lethaltoes (Mar 5, 2013)

124Spider said:


> "Not able to handle it"? Gawd; ROFLMFAO
> 
> If you weren't so absurdly, abusively arrogant and pedantic, it might actually be interesting to determine how many angels are dancing on the head of this pin. But the remarkable combination of abusive arrogance and hair-splitting of language, in which you take such evident pride, just makes your silly "arguments" all the sillier. To normal people, when a part participates in time-regulation, it is a regulating part; to you, only the whole "regulates." You want to make a big deal out of the definitional disitinction-without-a-difference; we don't.


I think the contention is whether the quartz oscillator in the comparator circuit is to be viewed as the only time keeping element in the spring drive movement. Obviously, in Okapi's view, it is. The other view is akin to setting and checking your mechanical wristwatch against your cellphone and performing the requisite adjustments, if any. Does that mean that your cellphone is the only time keeping element since you set the time and corrected the display subsequently with it? Cheers!

Sent from my C6903 using Tapatalk


----------



## Okapi001 (Apr 9, 2013)

Pawl_Buster said:


> If you claim that the quartz oscillator is the only regulating element you are saying it is a quartz watch. You simply cannot have it both ways.


 *I never said anything remotely similar. The quartz crystal is NEVER the only regulating element*. In *every *ordinary quartz watch there is an IC which in fact regulates the motor or LCD.

The quartz crystal however is the only "clock"/timekeeping element/harmonic oscillator. The only reference for regulating the watch. The watch is only as much accurate as is it's clock - quartz crystal. If that makes a Spring Drive a quartz watch, than it is a quartz watch. And if you don't like that, it's you problem - your fantasies of another timekeeping element in a SD are only that - fantasies.


----------



## taurnilf (Sep 30, 2013)

Ok, the quartz doesn't regulate because it can't. It can only be read/observed/referenced. It's the VCO that actually regulates using the quartz's "data" as reference?


----------



## 124Spider (Feb 1, 2009)

lethaltoes said:


> I think the contention is whether the quartz oscillator in the comparator circuit is to be viewed as the only time keeping element in the spring drive movement. Obviously, in Okapi's view, it is. The other view is akin to setting and checking your mechanical wristwatch against your cellphone and performing the requisite adjustments, if any. Does that mean that your cellphone is the only time keeping element since you set the time and corrected the display subsequently with it? Cheers!
> 
> Sent from my C6903 using Tapatalk


Thanks; I do appreciate your comments. And, especially, your reasonable attitude (what a concept, huh?).

But I also do understand the absurd level of this "debate."


----------



## Okapi001 (Apr 9, 2013)

lethaltoes said:


> The other view is akin to setting and checking your mechanical wristwatch against your cellphone and performing the requisite adjustments, if any.


For example - and it's a stupid idea to have two watches, one less and one more accurate. You first have to look at the less accurate and than check with the more accurate to see if the first reading is OK. You can be 100% sure that engineers at Seiko are not that stupid to implement such a bizzare concept in a Spring Drive. The regulator of the SD is constantly "listening" to the signal from the quartz crystal as it's one and only source of timing information.


----------



## Okapi001 (Apr 9, 2013)

taurnilf said:


> Ok, the quartz doesn't regulate because it can't. It can only be read/observed/referenced. It's the VCO that actually regulates using the quartz's "data" as reference?


Yes. In fact it's the whole tri-synchro regulator (VCO is only one element). However, the situation is basicaly the same in every ordinary quartz watch. There is always an IC that counts the oscillations of the quartz crystal and regulates the motor or the LCD.


----------



## Domo (Sep 20, 2013)

OK, I've been thinking about this for a while now, and I think I get it. The IC in the tri-synchro regulator uses a feedback loop of sorts to regulate the watch. The glide wheel is spinning along, and the speed of the rotation induces a variable current into the pick-up coil sensor attached. The current generated by the coil is compared by the IC to the VCO. I the current is too high, it sends a signal to the electromagnetic brake to apply more rigorously, or if the current is too low, it reduces the braking force. This constant cycle happens continuously and hence the watch can operate accurately. The quartz oscillator serves only to adjust for external variations occurring to the watch such as shock or temperature that the VCO would have no way of sensing.
I can't think of a way that the quartz oscillator could control the glide wheel because the glide wheel is driven by the spring tension and the quartz oscillator is only capable of providing a minute electric pulse. Normally, that pulse would be used to activate a stepper motor, but with the driving power of a SD being mechanical, that's not possible.
Right.....Right????
(Help me, P_B...I think I'm on the cusp of enlightenment!)


----------



## Pawl_Buster (Mar 12, 2007)

Okapi001 said:


> *I never said anything remotely similar. The quartz crystal is NEVER the only regulating element*. In *every *ordinary quartz watch there is an IC which in fact regulates the motor or LCD.
> 
> The quartz crystal however is the only "clock"/timekeeping element/harmonic oscillator. The only reference for regulating the watch. The watch is only as much accurate as is it's clock - quartz crystal. If that makes a Spring Drive a quartz watch, than it is a quartz watch. And if you don't like that, it's you problem - your fantasies of another timekeeping element in a SD are only that - fantasies.


Read the patent; it explicitly names three separate oscillating components. You cannot have it both ways. The universe does not work like that.


----------



## Okapi001 (Apr 9, 2013)

Domo said:


> This constant cycle happens continuously and hence the watch can operate accurately. The quartz oscillator serves only to adjust for external variations occurring to the watch such as shock or temperature that the VCO would have no way of sensing.
> ....
> Right.....Right????


Sorry, wrong
The quartz oscillator is always engaged. The watch has no way of knowing about "external variations .... such as shock or temperature". There are no sensors inside. Because of that the watch depends all the time on its only timekeeping element, the quartz crystal. The actual speed (frequency) of the glide wheel, as measured by the electronics, is *constantly *compared with the frequency of the quartz crystal, and adjusted accordingly.


----------



## Pawl_Buster (Mar 12, 2007)

Domo said:


> OK, I've been thinking about this for a while now, and I think I get it. The IC in the tri-synchro regulator uses a feedback loop of sorts to regulate the watch. The glide wheel is spinning along, and the speed of the rotation induces a variable current into the pick-up coil sensor attached. The current generated by the coil is compared by the IC to the VCO. I the current is too high, it sends a signal to the electromagnetic brake to apply more rigorously, or if the current is too low, it reduces the braking force. This constant cycle happens continuously and hence the watch can operate accurately. The quartz oscillator serves only to adjust for external variations occurring to the watch such as shock or temperature that the VCO would have no way of sensing.
> I can't think of a way that the quartz oscillator could control the glide wheel because the glide wheel is driven by the spring tension and the quartz oscillator is only capable of providing a minute electric pulse. Normally, that pulse would be used to activate a stepper motor, but with the driving power of a SD being mechanical, that's not possible.
> Right.....Right????
> (Help me, P_B...I think I'm on the cusp of enlightenment!)


Eurika! You got it.

While there is a lot more going on in the tri-syncro regulator; that is the nuts and bolts of it


----------



## Okapi001 (Apr 9, 2013)

Pawl_Buster said:


> Read the patent; it explicitly names three separate oscillating components.


It can names ten, but only one is the reference for timekeeping.


----------



## oak1971 (Aug 19, 2013)

Okapi001 said:


> Sorry, wrong
> The quartz oscillator is always engaged. The watch has no way of knowing about "external variations .... such as shock or temperature". There are no sensors inside. Because of that the watch depends all the time on it's only timekeeping element, the quartz crystal. The actual speed (frequency) of the glide wheel, as measured by the electronics, is *constantly *compared with the frequency of the quartz crystal, and adjusted accordingly.


The quartz is a reference, not a regulator. The crystal is oblivious to what is going on with the rest of the system and thus controls nothing.


----------



## lethaltoes (Mar 5, 2013)

taurnilf said:


> Ok, the quartz doesn't regulate because it can't. It can only be read/observed/referenced. It's the VCO that actually regulates using the quartz's "data" as reference?


It really is a combination of both and honestly, the difficulty with such discussions is that the 2 elements are inseparable, especially in the spring drive system. It's a complete system which works harmoniously. The quartz oscillator requires the stable voltage generated by the main spring and glide wheel to function. Once in motion, the electromagnetic brakes will operate with the input of the quartz oscillator. However, unlike a traditional quartz watch, this does not translate directly but is incorporated into a comparator circuit which also references the voltage of the system and speed of the glide wheel thereto. The reason is apparent. There is no battery. The glide wheel needs to spin within limits to generate the electrical energy to sustain the system. This requirement will always take precedence over any other consideration. It won't work otherwise. For example, if your mechanical watch is off by a few seconds, you pull out the stem and make the adjustments. If your watch hacks, the time stops. That can't happen with the spring drive because once the glide wheel stops, there is no current for the system. So whatever variation needs to be fed back into the system within the parameters of energy generation and voltage stability. As such, the display of time at any point will be a function of both oscillators. Cheers!

Sent from my C6903 using Tapatalk


----------



## Domo (Sep 20, 2013)

Pawl_Buster said:


> Eurika! You got it.
> 
> While there is a lot more going on in the tri-syncro regulator; that is the nuts and bolts of it


Yay for me! If you have a link handy, could you post it to the patent? I wouldn't mind some background reading, LOL. I've googled 'spring drive patent' and every other variation and have come up empty handed.


----------



## taurnilf (Sep 30, 2013)

lethaltoes said:


> It really is a combination of both and honestly, the difficulty with such discussions is that the 2 elements are inseparable, especially in the spring drive system. It's a complete system which works harmoniously. The quartz oscillator requires the stable voltage generated by the main spring and glide wheel to function. Once in motion, the electromagnetic brakes will operate with the input of the quartz oscillator. However, unlike a traditional quartz watch, this does not translate directly but is incorporated into a comparator circuit which also references the voltage of the system and speed of the glide wheel thereto. The reason is apparent. There is no battery. The glide wheel needs to spin within limits to generate the electrical energy to sustain the system. This requirement will always take precedence over any other consideration. It won't work otherwise. For example, if your mechanical watch is off by a few seconds, you pull out the stem and make the adjustments. If your watch hacks, the time stops. That can't happen with the spring drive because once the glide wheel stops, there is no current for the system. So whatever variation needs to be fed back into the system within the parameters of energy generation and voltage stability. As such, the display of time at any point will be a function of both oscillators. Cheers!
> 
> Sent from my C6903 using Tapatalk


I'm assuming the here that the "glide wheel" is an "SD-component" or is this the same as the balance wheel? I think I'm getting there. If this is the case then the SD really is a mechanical movement but with an electronic brain.


----------



## Okapi001 (Apr 9, 2013)

Domo said:


> Yay for me! If you have a link handy, could you post it to the patent? I wouldn't mind some background reading, LOL. I've googled 'spring drive patent' and every other variation and have come up empty handed.


 You can find the patent here: Patent EP0942341A1 - Electronically controlled mechanical clock and a method of controlling the same - Google Patents

Pay attention to the "time standard" and to figures 4 and 5. I hope you will understand that there is only one time standard, the signal from the quartz crystal.


----------



## Pawl_Buster (Mar 12, 2007)

taurnilf said:


> I'm assuming the here that the "glide wheel" is an "SD-component" or is this the same as the balance wheel? I think I'm getting there. If this is the case then the SD really is a mechanical movement but with an electronic brain.


That is correct.


----------



## Okapi001 (Apr 9, 2013)

taurnilf said:


> I'm assuming the here that the "glide wheel" is an "SD-component" or is this the same as the balance wheel?


Not really. The balance wheel is, together with a hairspring, the harmonic oscillator of the mechanical watch. The equivalent in the SD and any other quartz watch is a quartz crystal. The glide wheel is, together with tri-synchro regulator, something like an escapement of the mechanical watch (a component that transfers the power of the mainspring to the hairspring in one way and the oscillations of the balance wheel to the gear train in the other).



> If this is the case then the SD really is a mechanical movement but with an electronic brain.


You can say that. Or a hybrid quartz-mechanical watch.


----------



## Pawl_Buster (Mar 12, 2007)

Okapi001 said:


> Not really. The balance wheel is, together with a hairspring, the harmonic oscillator of the mechanical watch. The equivalent in the SD *and any other quartz* watch is a quartz crystal. The glide wheel is, together with tri-synchro regulator, something like an escapement of the mechanical watch (a component that transfers the power of the mainspring to the hairspring in one way and the oscillations of the balance wheel to the gear train in the other).
> 
> You can say that. Or a hybrid quartz-mechanical watch.


Yet again you proclaim the SD to be just another quartz watch...incredible!

You probably lost any following of watchmakers with your interpretation of what the glide wheel does. It serves the exact same purpose as the balance wheel both function as the escapement mechanisms for the main spring; that's why it's called escapement. This is not a word game; it simply fact :roll:


----------



## Domo (Sep 20, 2013)

Thanks for the link to the patent, Okapi001.
I have a whole new (read: accurate) understanding of how my SD works now 

P_B: A see a new edit to your sig


----------



## taurnilf (Sep 30, 2013)

Okapi001 said:


> Not really. The balance wheel is, together with a hairspring, the harmonic oscillator of the mechanical watch. The equivalent in the SD and any other quartz watch is a quartz crystal. The glide wheel is, together with tri-synchro regulator, something like an escapement of the mechanical watch (a component that transfers the power of the mainspring to the hairspring in one way and the oscillations of the balance wheel to the gear train in the other).
> 
> You can say that. Or a hybrid quartz-mechanical watch.


Thanks, got confused with hairspring and mainspring


----------



## Okapi001 (Apr 9, 2013)

Pawl_Buster said:


> You probably lost any following of watchmakers with your interpretation of what the glide wheel does. It serves the exact same purpose as the balance wheel both function as the escapement mechanisms for the main spring; that's why it's called escapement. This is not a word game; it simply fact :roll:


And once again you are wrong.
Wikipedia:


> An *escapement* is a device in mechanical watches and clocks that transfers energy to the timekeeping element (the "impulse action") and allows the number of its oscillations to be counted (the "locking action"). The impulse action transfers energy to the clock's timekeeping element (usually a pendulum or balance wheel) to replace the energy lost to friction during its cycle and keep the timekeeper oscillating.











The balance wheel (together with hairspring) is the oscillating element of the watch.



> A *balance wheel* is the timekeeping device used in mechanical watches and some clocks, analogous to the pendulum in a pendulum clock. It is a weighted wheel that rotates back and forth, being returned toward its center position by a spiral torsion spring, the balance spring or hairspring. It is driven by the escapement, which transforms the rotating motion of the watch gear train into impulses delivered to the balance wheel.











Glide wheel of the SD is the element (one of the elements, to be precise) that transfers the power of the mainspring to the electrical energy. The "balance wheel" of the SD (its timekeeping device) is the quartz crystal.


----------



## Okapi001 (Apr 9, 2013)

And a brief summary for everyone that may find this stuff confusing

Every watch or clock consists of a five basic elements. Three main elements are:
*
1) **Power source *(for both the timekeeping device and display): mainspring in a mechanical watch and in a Spring Drive, battery in a conventional quartz watch, weight in a pendulum clock &#8230;

2*) **Timekeeping device:* balance wheel/hairspring in a mechanical watch, pendulum in a clock, quartz crystal in a conventional quartz watch and in a Spring Drive, Cesium atom in an atomic clock &#8230;
*
3) **Display*: hands, LCD, LED &#8230;

And then there are two connecting systems:

*4) *For transferring the power from the power source to the timekeeping device and display. In a mechanical watch this is escapement, in a Spring Drive is glide wheel and tri-synchro regulator, in conventional quartz watch some electronics that connects the battery to the quartz crystal and LCD or motor.

*5)*For transferring the information from the timekeeping device to the display (or, in other words, for regulation/control of the display). In a mechanical watch this is escapement + gear train. In a Spring Drive it's tri-synchro regulator + glide wheel + gear train. In a conventional quartz watch it's electronics (IC) + motor and gear train in analogue quartz watch.


----------



## taurnilf (Sep 30, 2013)

Okapi001 said:


> And once again you are wrong.
> Glide wheel of the SD is the element (one of the elements, to be precise) that transfers the power of the mainspring to the electrical energy. The "balance wheel" of the SD (its timekeeping device) is the quartz crystal.


From what I understand, the balance wheel is different from the quartz crystal. The quartz crystal, together will all the regulators, regulate the balance wheel/hairspring.


----------



## Okapi001 (Apr 9, 2013)

taurnilf said:


> From what I understand, the balance wheel is different from the quartz crystal. The quartz crystal, together will all the regulators, regulate the balance wheel/hairspring.


Try again. There is no balance wheel/hairspring in a watch with a quartz crystal. They are both timekeeping devices (oscillators), one in a mechanical watch and the other in a quartz watch.


----------



## taurnilf (Sep 30, 2013)

Okapi001 said:


> Try again. There is no balance wheel/hairspring in a watch with a quartz crystal. They are both timekeeping devices (oscillators), one in a mechanical watch and the other in a quartz watch.


Yes, but from what I understand, the SD is a mechanical movement with an electronic brain. It still has the balance wheel and hairpsring, only they are regulated buy the quartz regulator group. If SD doesn't have the the balance wheel and hairspring, then wouldn't it be just like the Seiko Kinetic?


----------



## Domo (Sep 20, 2013)

taurnilf said:


> Yes, but from what I understand, the SD is a mechanical movement with an electronic brain. It still has the balance wheel and hairpsring, only they are regulated buy the quartz regulator group. If SD doesn't have the the balance wheel and hairspring, then wouldn't it be just like the Seiko Kinetic?


So many errors there I don't know where to begin. Never mind, you are ripe for education  
Watch this.....


----------



## Okapi001 (Apr 9, 2013)

taurnilf said:


> Yes, but from what I understand, the SD is a mechanical movement with an electronic brain. It still has the balance wheel and hairpsring, only they are regulated buy the quartz regulator group. If SD doesn't have the the balance wheel and hairspring, then wouldn't it be just like the Seiko Kinetic?


No, you got that wrong. Spring Drive doesn't have the balance wheel and hairspring. It does have a mainspring as a power source (instead of a battery in Kinetic). You can get a basic idea how the movement looks here: SPRING DRIVE - SEIKO


----------



## lethaltoes (Mar 5, 2013)

taurnilf said:


> Yes, but from what I understand, the SD is a mechanical movement with an electronic brain. It still has the balance wheel and hairpsring, only they are regulated buy the quartz regulator group. If SD doesn't have the the balance wheel and hairspring, then wouldn't it be just like the Seiko Kinetic?


https://www.google.com.sg/url?sa=t&...HYGkvlSBlixuYcrnw&sig2=2nBiqACubI8sL2XaDzw6yw

Sent from my C6903 using Tapatalk


----------



## taurnilf (Sep 30, 2013)

I see, I see. Thanks, guys.


----------



## lethaltoes (Mar 5, 2013)

Okapi001 said:


> Of course you are again just rambling incoherently since you are not able to point a single factual mistake in my writing.


https://www.google.com.sg/url?sa=t&...HYGkvlSBlixuYcrnw&sig2=2nBiqACubI8sL2XaDzw6yw

Sent from my C6903 using Tapatalk


----------



## Okapi001 (Apr 9, 2013)

Pawl:


> ... the glide wheel ... serves *the exact same* purpose as the balance wheel ...



TimeZone (from the above link):


> The glide wheel ... is not to be confused with the balance wheel of a conventional mechanical watch, *it is totally different*


.
;-)


----------



## ec633 (Jan 6, 2012)

The YouTube kindly linked by Domo clearly demonstrates the existence of the balance wheel. Just play & stop at 5.48/8.42 will prove its existence. All this argee bargee argument is superfluous.


----------



## Okapi001 (Apr 9, 2013)

ec633 said:


> The YouTube kindly linked by Domo clearly demonstrates the existence of the balance wheel. Just play & stop at 5.48/8.42 will prove its existence. All this argee bargee argument is superfluous.


I'm very sorry to disappoint you, but that is not a balance wheel but a glide wheel - totaly different.


----------



## Domo (Sep 20, 2013)

ec633 said:


> The YouTube kindly linked by Domo clearly demonstrates the existence of the balance wheel. Just play & stop at 5.48/8.42 will prove its existence. All this argee bargee argument is superfluous.


Verrrry different. A balance wheel oscillates (spins backwards and forwards) whereas the glide wheel spins only in one direction. The purpose of the glide wheel is to provide a smooth surface for the electromechanical brake to act on to regulate the accuracy of the watch, whereas the purpose of a balance wheel (in conjunction with the hair spring) is to release the pallet lever from the escape wheel to allow a part of the energy stored in the mainspring to turn the hands on the watch.


----------



## lethaltoes (Mar 5, 2013)

Okapi001 said:


> Pawl:
> TimeZone (from the above link): .
> ;-)


Strange that you should omit the line just above the one you quoted from the timezone article. Well.... maybe not that strange.


----------



## Okapi001 (Apr 9, 2013)

lethaltoes said:


> Strange that you should omit the line just above the one you quoted from the timezone article. Well.... maybe not that strange.


You mean this?


> It's the glide wheel "F" that is responsible for regulating the time keeping of the watch.


 It is clearly wrong or at least completely out of contest, just ask Pawl if you don't believe me.


----------



## dero (Nov 4, 2011)

Domo said:


> OK, I've been thinking about this for a while now, and I think I get it. The IC in the tri-synchro regulator uses a feedback loop of sorts to regulate the watch. The glide wheel is spinning along, and the speed of the rotation induces a variable current into the pick-up coil sensor attached. The current generated by the coil is compared by the IC to the VCO. I the current is too high, it sends a signal to the electromagnetic brake to apply more rigorously, or if the current is too low, it reduces the braking force. This constant cycle happens continuously and hence the watch can operate accurately. The quartz oscillator serves only to adjust for external variations occurring to the watch such as shock or temperature that the VCO would have no way of sensing.
> I can't think of a way that the quartz oscillator could control the glide wheel because the glide wheel is driven by the spring tension and the quartz oscillator is only capable of providing a minute electric pulse. Normally, that pulse would be used to activate a stepper motor, but with the driving power of a SD being mechanical, that's not possible.
> Right.....Right????
> (Help me, P_B...I think I'm on the cusp of enlightenment!)


Appreciate your summary!

There's two schools of thought being argued heavily about the Spring Drive. One school of thought is a little disjointed and jumps from place to place without describing each of the 3 items in the Spring Drive mechanism and how they have their own job integrating together to deliver the movement of a Spring Drive. The other school of thought is a clear concise statement summarised in this above quote.

I'll go with the one that isn't disjointed thanks.


----------



## Domo (Sep 20, 2013)

dero said:


> Appreciate your summary!
> 
> There's two schools of thought being argued heavily about the Spring Drive. One school of thought is a little disjointed and jumps from place to place without describing each of the 3 items in the Spring Drive mechanism and how they have their own job integrating together to deliver the movement of a Spring Drive. The other school of thought is a clear concise statement summarised in this above quote.
> 
> I'll go with the one that isn't disjointed thanks.


Thanks 
I've been struggling with the exact mechanics of the SD for a while now. When I bought mine I thought the heart of it's regulation was pretty much the same as a quartz watch, but after reading the patent (and with the help of P_B ) I've come to finally get the jist of it. I ought to go back through history now and edit a couple of my posts, LOL. I was wrong!


----------



## PJ S (Apr 29, 2013)

Guys, as much as I enjoy a *good* technical debate, the reality is that this one is old and sour, and in the wrong thread.
Any chance without involving moderators, that we can get back to the matter in hand, which is Grand Seikos and their Swiss counterparts?
Without adding further to the above toing and froing, all I will say is that in the grand scheme of things, defining the Spring Drive technology is for anoraks, not WIS, as it matters not what it is, but just that it works and produces a beautiful motion on the seconds hand.
So let's draw a line here, even if it means agreeing to disagree, and get back on the correct topic of conversation.


----------



## Okapi001 (Apr 9, 2013)

Well, I'm really truly amazed. After all this debate and some of you are obviously still convinced that the following statement made by Domo is true.



> The quartz oscillator serves only to adjust for external variations occurring to the watch such as shock or temperature that the VCO would have no way of sensing.


This is simply wrong and I really don't understand how you can not see that. Quartz oscillator is *constantly, *every second,used as the main (and only) reference (time standard) so that the tri-synchro regulator can apply the right amount of brake for the glide wheel to spin with exactly 8 Hz. The tri-synchro regulator *constantly *compares the frequency of the glide wheel with the frequency of the quartz crystal, not only from time to time, because it has no other internal reference to compare it with.

But I will leave it at that - if you didn't understand this by now it's obviously beyond my ability to explain it.

Just one more link, this time from Epson, about the first Spring Drive watch, where everything is put out very clearly:


> The design of the Spring Drive's movement drew on original Epson technologies and included a groundbreaking mechanism. This limited-edition watch was first sold in 1999 under the Seiko and Credor line, Seiko's luxury watch brand. It was hand-wound and spring-driven like a mechanical watch,* yet it was controlled by a crystal resonator for outstanding, quartz-like accuracy.*


Seiko/Credor Spring Drive - Milestone Products - Epson


----------



## Will_f (Jul 4, 2011)

Anyone else here suffering déjà vu?


----------



## White Tuna (Mar 31, 2011)

Okapi001 said:


> Grand Seiko is also a perfect example that for many it's not really the quality, craftsmanship and/or design that is most important in a (luxury) watch, but brand (more accurately - popular perception of the brand).


That is true. But popular perceptions change over time.

I am still trying to figure out why you think anything of what you have posted makes Grand Seiko's less than Swiss watches? To me it is like you cherry picked something you may or may not like and then used that single point to try to make a point on how Grand Seiko's are inferior. You have done this to the point of ignoring that not all Grand Seiko's have this feature but that it is offered as an option if someone would like that.

I personally think that people in general prefer more options and that diversity if good.


----------



## White Tuna (Mar 31, 2011)

Will_f said:


> I really don't think he was criticizing the brand or boosting Swiss watches. How many Swiss fanboys have you met who would say it's not about the quality, it's about the name?


To me it seems his only point is that Grand Seiko's are inferior to Swiss watches because....QUARTZ. Which I just do not get no matter how many times and ways he tries to say it.


----------



## Stensbjerg (Feb 28, 2011)

To mé SD also make great sense,
but I also Think you need to read in about the SD and what it took to make it work,
to really understand what Seiko did. :-!

As I Always say Think if it was the swiss who came up with it,
they Would had Call it the new wonder of the World,
now they are just sad.;-)


----------



## gagnello (Nov 19, 2011)

Will_f said:


> Anyone else here suffering déjà vu?


My god, yes.


----------



## Evanssprky (May 14, 2012)

Dont leave Pawl please!
Your posts and threads are often the most interesting and informative on here (sometimes I think it would be easier if you just let something go, but thats easy for me to say).
As for Swiss v Seiko, I was window shopping in a large watch shop in Windsor a couple of weeks ago. All the usual suspects were displayed (rolex, omega, breitling, tag etc etc) and some were very nice, many were vulgar. But basically to match in appearance at least the £300 sarb017 I'm wearing you had to move the decimal point a place to the right, and then in many cases double or triple the resulting number. And no one will ask if my seiko is genuine, love it.


----------



## LeeMorgan (Jun 3, 2012)

(Again)

Dont leave Pawl please!
Your posts and threads are often the most interesting and informative on here!


----------



## GinGinD (Feb 29, 2008)

Some of you may notice that a 53 page thread is now a 46 page thread (based on the forum display default). I have deleted 55 posts and edited a number more. All of those posts were deleted or edited because they contained rule #2 violations with the exception of 4 which were deleted as replica watch discussion.

It is not to the credit of those who have had posts edited or removed that they are unable to engage in debate without resulting to insults.

Words like "tool," "troll," "idiot," "moron," and "fanboy" (regardless of how you spell it), have no place here and will not be tolerated. There is no room for pejoratives in informed discourse. 

I will also remind you that this thread was not intended to be a discussion of the mechanics of the Spring Drive, but rather a compare/contrast of Grand Seiko watches vs Swiss luxury watches from several brands. I strongly recommend you return to that topic immediately. 

Jeannie


----------



## White Tuna (Mar 31, 2011)

GinGinD I was just reading through this morning and I did not notice the missing posts but I did see quite a few with you editing them and thought is was a lot of work. Good job. Not sure if it was worth it but it still took a lot of work.


----------



## White Tuna (Mar 31, 2011)

I will say someone, I believe on this forum, pointed me to an interesting term which was basically for a how a lay person can make a subject matter expert question their knowledge because the lay person has conviction, lack of any reputation to lose and keeps referencing enough material that the subject matter expert actually thinks this person knows about the subject matter because they understand the subject so well so why should someone else not? I wish I knew the name for it.


----------



## Domo (Sep 20, 2013)

Okapi001 said:


> Well, I'm really truly amazed. After all this debate and some of you are obviously still convinced that the following statement made by Domo is true.
> 
> This is simply wrong and I really don't understand how you can not see that. Quartz oscillator is *constantly, *every second,used as the main (and only) reference (time standard) so that the tri-synchro regulator can apply the right amount of brake for the glide wheel to spin with exactly 8 Hz. The tri-synchro regulator *constantly *compares the frequency of the glide wheel with the frequency of the quartz crystal, not only from time to time, because it has no other internal reference to compare it with.
> 
> ...


*EDIT*: Okapi001 is correct on this account. If anyone is still wondering how exactly the SD works (glutton for punishment?) PM me and I will forward you an excellent summary I was sent. Cheers.


----------



## Stensbjerg (Feb 28, 2011)

Youtube have some good clip that shows quit good how SD works,
no need to make any fuss about that ;-)

What really shut be on everones mind is 
why the swiss in open forum don't talk about all the things Seiko Can dó that they can't.

there is a reason to why they talk so much about history,
I know why they don't dó it it all comes Down to selling watches and thats fine.

But the only thing they really have today where Seiko maybe quit don't match Them,
is that long old history so thats why they put a lot of fokus there.

Seiko also have a Nice history I know that but b
they don't talk about it every time the sell a watch,like the swiss dó.;-)

I know for a fact that in the Real World the watches makers in other parts of the World,
Have a huge respect for a brand like Seiko Because no one Else out there have a position 
like Them in the watch World or the power to make the range of watches they make.

And that is really all I need to know
and yes I also like swiss watches.;-)

Peace b-)


----------



## MrDagon007 (Sep 24, 2012)

Sorry to have derailed the thread towards a discussion on SD. But it is a differentiation factor towards Swiss watches.

From my own amateur-level perception, GS watches are as nicely finished as any other watch in its price range.

however at least for me the perception is less impressive: I find the design of nearly all GS watches too neutral. When I examine IWC or Zenith in a shop, I will often think "wow, this is such a cool watch!", while my reaction to GS watches is usually simply one of respect, without the passion.


----------



## AvantGardeTime (Aug 23, 2013)

GS is not to your taste, nothing wrong with that. They tend to be very "Clinical" and "Sterile" because they are perfectly finished to a very high standard of quality and attention to detail. I had a Snowflake and while it is a very beautiful watch and enjoyed wearing it, I became bored with it over time. I prefer the GS GMT, Chrono or diver for example but then again it is a matter of taste.



MrDagon007 said:


> Sorry to have derailed the thread towards a discussion on SD. But it is a differentiation factor towards Swiss watches.
> 
> From my own amateur-level perception, GS watches are as nicely finished as any other watch in its price range.
> 
> however at least for me the perception is less impressive: I find the design of nearly all GS watches too neutral. When I examine IWC or Zenith in a shop, I will often think "wow, this is such a cool watch!", while my reaction to GS watches is usually simply one of respect, without the passion.


----------



## Stensbjerg (Feb 28, 2011)

You Can say you don't like the GS Because they don't Fall into your taste and that is fine,
but no matter what you Think of Them you have to respect the kind of work there is put into Them.

It is second to none.

No other brand Seiko is compard with at a normal basis make watches like this 
just Read in on the hole set up arround thise watches, it is crazy. b-)

I Would love to own a GS diver to mix with my MM600.


----------



## gagnello (Nov 19, 2011)

Stensbjerg said:


> You Can say you don't like the GS Because they don't Fall into your taste and that is fine,
> but no matter what you Think of Them you have to respect the kind of work there is put into Them.
> 
> It is second to none.
> ...


Why so many random caps?

Sent from my SGP311 using Tapatalk


----------



## Stensbjerg (Feb 28, 2011)

gagnello said:


> Why so many random caps?
> 
> Sent from my SGP311 using Tapatalk


random caps ????
don't see any random in what i wrote....


----------



## Moufies (Jan 12, 2014)

I believe when it comes to something that expensive, to be considered as luxury for most, everyone can have his preferences. (no fanatic here, sorry)
I can't afford a GS, but if I could I would buy a SD instead of a swiss luxury watch for their accuracy and built quality.

Sent from my GT-I5510 using Tapatalk 2


----------



## PJ S (Apr 29, 2013)

Stensbjerg said:


> You *C*an say you don't like the GS *B*ecause they don't *F*all into your taste and that is fine,
> but no matter what you *T*hink of *T*hem you have to respect the kind of work there is put into *T*hem.
> 
> It is second to none.
> ...





Stensbjerg said:


> random caps ????
> don't see any random in what i wrote....


There's quite a few, but it's not important seeing as English is not your primary language.


----------



## TJMike (Jan 30, 2014)

Can someone link to a thread (or a post in this thread) that explains the variations in the different ranges of GS? Specifically what are the differences in layman's terms between a "normal" Automatic model, a Hi-Beat model, and a Spring Drive model? What one cost more and why? Thanks!


----------



## AvantGardeTime (Aug 23, 2013)

TJMike said:


> Can someone link to a thread (or a post in this thread) that explains the variations in the different ranges of GS? Specifically what are the differences in layman's terms between a "normal" Automatic model, a Hi-Beat model, and a Spring Drive model? What one cost more and why? Thanks!


Do your own forum search. Also Google is your friend. Sorry but people need to start doing their own homework.


----------



## rosborn (Oct 30, 2011)

Stensbjerg said:


> Youtube have some good clip that shows quit good how SD works,
> no need to make any fuss about that ;-)
> 
> What really shut be on everones mind is
> ...


Interesting that people would cite history as being a factor in not considering Seiko. For example; Zenith was founded in 1863, IWC was founded in 1868, and Seiko was founded in 1881. From my perspective, Seiko has every bit the history as any Swiss watch maker.


----------



## Will_f (Jul 4, 2011)

AvantGardeTime said:


> Do your own forum search. Also Google is your friend. Sorry but people need to start doing their own homework.


"And get off my lawn!"


----------



## RejZoR (May 12, 2010)

rosborn said:


> Interesting that people would cite history as being a factor in not considering Seiko. For example; Zenith was founded in 1863, IWC was founded in 1868, and Seiko was founded in 1881. From my perspective, Seiko has every bit the history as any Swiss watch maker.


Not to mention Seiko has A LOT of 1st's as well. Magic Lever, first quartz wristwatch, first and only commercial hybrid (SpringDrive), first GPS atomic watch with timezone detection, these are rather huge milestones.


----------



## Will_f (Jul 4, 2011)

rosborn said:


> Interesting that people would cite history as being a factor in not considering Seiko. For example; Zenith was founded in 1863, IWC was founded in 1868, and Seiko was founded in 1881. From my perspective, Seiko has every bit the history as any Swiss watch maker.


I've run into very few WIS who don't regard Seiko as a superb watch maker with quite a history. In the general consumer market there is a fair degree of ignorance about Seiko, but that's because most people don't care and Seiko doesn't do much to tell the story.

I do see a lot of brand loyalists pushing Seiko and it's history pretty hard in the forums. They get a few trolls coming back at them, but so does Rolex, Omega, et al. In short, I find informed enthusiasts know about Seiko and know they predate some very well known and respected brands (like Rolex).

It's worth pointing out though that their early watches were crap. They didn't really start making high quality watches until around WWII and weren't competitive with the Swiss until the early 60s.


----------



## PJ S (Apr 29, 2013)

TJMike said:


> Can someone link to a thread (or a post in this thread) that explains the variations in the different ranges of GS? Specifically what are the differences in layman's terms between a "normal" Automatic model, a Hi-Beat model, and a Spring Drive model? What one cost more and why? Thanks!


As AGT so 'diplomatically' put it, a bit of time spent on Google will help you understand much more than just Seiko movements.
But, for a brief starter, typical autos at the mid-high end, "ticktock" 28,800 times per hour. Hi-beats do it 36,000 times, and Spring Drive is silent but in theory would be over 42,000.
The faster a watch ticktocks, the smoother the second hand moves due to the shorter micro-steps from one second to the next.



Will_f said:


> "And get off my lawn!"


You don't have any lawns up there!


----------



## rosborn (Oct 30, 2011)

Will_f said:


> It's worth pointing out though that their early watches were crap. They didn't really start making high quality watches until around WWII and weren't competitive with the Swiss until the early 60s.


It is worth noting that early watches from many of the more notable watch makers were crap. Rolex were of such poor quality that they very nearly went out business as an English company. Glycine, another historic Swiss company, also had issues early on. Shoot, many of these companies still have the occasional QA/QC problem.

My point was and is, Seiko has as much of a history as most of the Swiss brands do.


----------



## TJMike (Jan 30, 2014)

AvantGardeTime said:


> Do your own forum search. Also Google is your friend. Sorry but people need to start doing their own homework.


Actually I did a search and could not find anything suitable. As such, I thought I would ask the question here.


----------



## TJMike (Jan 30, 2014)

PJ S said:


> As AGT so 'diplomatically' put it, a bit of time spent on Google will help you understand much more than just Seiko movements.
> But, for a brief starter, typical autos at the mid-high end, "ticktock" 28,800 times per hour. Hi-beats do it 36,000 times, and Spring Drive is silent but in theory would be over 42,000.
> The faster a watch ticktocks, the smoother the second hand moves due to the shorter micro-steps from one second to the next.
> 
> You don't have any lawns up there!


Thank you for your response. I appreciate it.


----------



## Will_f (Jul 4, 2011)

rosborn said:


> I
> My point was and is, Seiko has as much of a history as most of the Swiss brands do.


That they do.


----------



## lorsban (Nov 20, 2009)

Seiko's main problem is their cheap and mass produced image. No matter what they do or make, people will always see them as a maker of cheap and mass produced watches. 

If we take Timex or Invicta with a similar image and they start making high end watches, most people will perceive them like they always have. 

The ability to change one's perspective on something once it has been ingrained is not so easily done for most people.

THAT is why Grand Seiko is focused PRIMARILY for the Japanese market, who have a better understanding of what Seiko is all about. 

For the rest of the world, who usually ONLY see low end Seiko 5's, the mere concept of a high end Seiko is difficult to wrap their heads around and near impossible for some to even consider.


----------



## stevenkelby (Sep 3, 2011)

lorsban said:


> No matter what they do or make, people will always see them as a maker of cheap and mass produced watches.


Not the people who know better 

Generally though, I think you're right.


----------



## Ferrar1 (Jan 18, 2014)

lorsban said:


> THAT is why Grand Seiko is focused PRIMARILY for the Japanese market, who have a better understanding of what Seiko is all about.
> .


Good valid point made.

Ah well it's much better that Seiko remains as what they are, if not Seiko would be pricing their GS at least 6K and above to reflect its true value.


----------



## dero (Nov 4, 2011)

lorsban said:


> For the rest of the world, who usually ONLY see low end Seiko 5's, the mere concept of a high end Seiko is difficult to wrap their heads around and near impossible for some to even consider.


For this particular statement - this is one of the reasons why I really want to get a Grand Seiko into my stable. The mindblowing over-the-top'ness that comes with having the Grand Seiko compared to their other offerings plus all other mid-tier (and similarly price bracketed) Swiss Luxury products is a very thought provoking thing.

I'm not the type of person to boast or show off grandeur in any ostentatious ways and if having a Grand Seiko then having someone come up and ask what is it to which I can then explain it's a high quality Seiko then watch their reaction... that's an internal sense of enjoyment I'll have.


----------



## MID (May 16, 2006)

lorsban said:


> THAT is why Grand Seiko is focused PRIMARILY for the Japanese market, who have a better understanding of what Seiko is all about.


There is something a bit circular here. Had Grand Seiko early on focused on export as well, more people would have had a better understanding of Grand Seiko. The current situation is as much the choice of Seiko as it is a response of Seiko.


----------



## lorsban (Nov 20, 2009)

MID said:


> There is something a bit circular here. Had Grand Seiko early on focused on export as well, more people would have had a better understanding of Grand Seiko. The current situation is as much the choice of Seiko as it is a response of Seiko.


I'm not sure if they could have focused both on their low end and their high end at the same time internationally.

Marketing-wise, it's already difficult to sell one concept to the public let alone two contrasting one's at the same time.


----------



## Supermarine2000 (Feb 5, 2014)

Dear Paul_Buster I am still awaiting a reply back from Seiko. Sorry about this.

S2000


----------



## RMA (Oct 16, 2013)

TJMike said:


> Can someone link to a thread (or a post in this thread) that explains the variations in the different ranges of GS? Specifically what are the differences in layman's terms between a "normal" Automatic model, a Hi-Beat model, and a Spring Drive model? What one cost more and why? Thanks!


I'm not a watch expert like a lot of the seasoned member's on here but I own one of each (Hi Beat & SD), I was never a quartz fan myself. But I figured I might as well own 2 of the best that Seiko has to offer. And I did trade out a few Swiss watches I had previously owned to obtain these 2 pieces, one being a Datejust.


----------



## Seikomasochist (Nov 10, 2013)

lorsban said:


> I'm not sure if they could have focused both on their low end and their high end at the same time internationally.
> 
> Marketing-wise, it's already difficult to sell one concept to the public let alone two contrasting one's at the same time.


They are also battling ethnocentrism and historical perceptions of inferiority. I doubt a 1950s or 1960s perception of Japanese-made would have gone over well with Western luxury consumers. It's just like today where some people refuse to believe that quality products can be made in China, or people assert that "It's made in China" presumes a lack of quality, like, "X product is made in China" or "Y company gets their parts from China" even if they don't explicitly say or explain why those products or parts are actually inferior.

Anyway, another issue is that Westerners tend to like brand exclusivity and the Japanese don't. In the USA, parents companies launch luxury brands to differentiate their products so that it doesn't appear to consumers that the high and low end products are made by the same people. Wealthy consumers don't like sharing a marque with not-so-wealthy consumers. For instance, Lexus was created for Americans. In Japan, I get the sense that they have a pride in the innovations and contributions of major companies to Japanese culture, business, and international stature. If Seiko or Toyota is an incredible company, everyone wants a Seiko or Toyota - not some plastic re-brand with a meaningless upscale-sounding moniker. They want to have a certain kind of solidarity. I hear that Japanese businessmen who deal a lot with Westerners are more favorable to Western sensitivities though, so Grand Seiko isn't as popular as Rolex among them.

EDIT: There are also aesthetic sensibilities that are different in the East vs. West. Look at the great difference between Seiko's Japanese and American market offerings. Compare Seiko and Citizen with comparable European manufacturers. The Japanese tend to prefer a refined, spare, gracious, understated, yet confident aesthetic. I think that is what attracts so many international fans to their brands, too. I don't find the same mixture in other companies, and when I do, it is usually some sad and feeble "intellectual" aesthetic as found in the Bauhaus-style watches.


----------



## lorsban (Nov 20, 2009)

Seikomasochist said:


> They are also battling ethnocentrism and historical perceptions of inferiority. I doubt a 1950s or 1960s perception of Japanese-made would have gone over well with Western luxury consumers. It's just like today where some people refuse to believe that quality products can be made in China, or people assert that "It's made in China" presumes a lack of quality, like, "X product is made in China" or "Y company gets their parts from China" even if they don't explicitly say or explain why those products or parts are actually inferior.
> 
> Anyway, another issue is that Westerners tend to like brand exclusivity and the Japanese don't. In the USA, parents companies launch luxury brands to differentiate their products so that it doesn't appear to consumers that the high and low end products are made by the same people. Wealthy consumers don't like sharing a marque with not-so-wealthy consumers. For instance, Lexus was created for Americans. In Japan, I get the sense that they have a pride in the innovations and contributions of major companies to Japanese culture, business, and international stature. If Seiko or Toyota is an incredible company, everyone wants a Seiko or Toyota - not some plastic re-brand with a meaningless upscale-sounding moniker. They want to have a certain kind of solidarity. I hear that Japanese businessmen who deal a lot with Westerners are more favorable to Western sensitivities though, so Grand Seiko isn't as popular as Rolex among them.
> 
> EDIT: There are also aesthetic sensibilities that are different in the East vs. West. Look at the great difference between Seiko's Japanese and American market offerings. Compare Seiko and Citizen with comparable European manufacturers. The Japanese tend to prefer a refined, spare, gracious, understated, yet confident aesthetic. I think that is what attracts so many international fans to their brands, too. I don't find the same mixture in other companies, and when I do, it is usually some sad and feeble "intellectual" aesthetic as found in the Bauhaus-style watches.


Well said.

Here's an example:










Very business-like design.


----------



## ken_sturrock (Oct 24, 2010)

Seikomasochist said:


> The Japanese tend to prefer a refined, spare, gracious, understated, yet confident aesthetic. I think that is what attracts so many international fans to their brands, too. I don't find the same mixture in other companies, and when I do, it is usually some sad and feeble "intellectual" aesthetic as found in the Bauhaus-style watches.


While I understand what you mean, not everything Japanese is refined, spare, gracious, understated, yet confident. It is a diverse culture.

Regarding you comment about the Bauhaus movement: Ouch.....


----------



## Maxy (Aug 15, 2011)

lorsban said:


> Well said.
> 
> Here's an example:
> 
> ...


Very nice.. model # pls?


----------



## Alpinist (Nov 3, 2010)

I was having a similar discussion on a spanish forum, the thread was if Seiko was as good as Rolex and Omega...

I did a technical comparison which came up with curious results, 

In age and Heretige, Omega is the oldest and Rolex is the youngest. 
But the funny thing was Technical innovation, 
Rolex and Seiko were toe to toe with Rolex having some key points like the first waterproof case, the first date window, the first wrist mounted chronograph, the first GMT. 
While Seiko having the first automatic chronograph (take that Heuer and Zenith), the first quartz watch, the first digital watch, the first Autoquartz, the first thermal powered wristwatch, the first quartz regulated automatic (spring drive), 

The funny thing that only had only 2 major landmark achivements, Coaxial escapement (which was actually aquired from george daniels) and the first non metal balance coil with their new Si14 silicon balance. 

Heretige... The 6105 on american GI´s in vietnam, The Omega speedmaster that went to the moon, and the Rolex Submariners that need no introduction, but also rolex has the extra of what made them famous, their popularity among british officers in WW2, Rolex was originaly a British brand untill they moved to switzerland due to high taxes on luxury goods in the UK.


Personaly, Omega has the poorest heretige, apart from the moonwatch and being a common olympic sponsor they have limited technical heretige, 
Seiko has their technical heretige, mostly technological with being the first to dive in to quartz technology and even integrating it in to mechanical watches like the spring drive, Citizen beat them to the punch with a GPS corrected Wristwatch, but still the astron is quite an achivement. 
Rolex has most of its heretige in technical and mechanical innovation, which continues today if you look at the new SkyDweller and its amazing mechanical complexity. 

Personaly...

Rolex and Seiko have better heretige and legacy then brands like Omega, 
Seiko always used in house movements, Rolex started using Gruen movements but moved to its own later on, but still used a zenith movement for the daytona up to 1999, Omega was the other way around, they started with in house movements and then moved to ETA and Lemania movements, only came back to using in house movements recently with their 8500 and 9300, the 2500 was a 2893 with a coaxial escapement patched on and that showed with the many problems with the original 2500A movement, they had to slow it down to 25,300VPH becuase at 28,800 the watch would fail and stop at some positions. 

My opinion, 
Rolex Vs Omega Vs Seiko ?

1) Rolex
2) Seiko
3) Omega

But by a very small margin, 
And remember that Hans Wildrof (founder of Rolex) started Rolex (and later Tudor) with the goal of making quality watches at a resonable price, 
And the only one of those 3 brands keeping that promise is Seiko .


----------



## RejZoR (May 12, 2010)

Citizen watches may sync to GPS, but they aren't aware of time zones. Astron GPS is. So Citizen apart from when and where it can sync isn't much different from radio controlled versions. You still have to adjust timezones by hand. Astron GPS doesn't need to, because it knows where it is.


----------



## Seikomasochist (Nov 10, 2013)

ken_sturrock said:


> While I understand what you mean, not everything Japanese is refined, spare, gracious, understated, yet confident. It is a diverse culture.


Of course not, but when it comes to personal consumer goods like watches, knives, or cars, this is actually a pretty common preference. Neutral, understated colors are generally preferred for automobiles, for instance.


----------



## imaCoolRobot (Jan 1, 2014)

rosborn said:


> My point was and is, Seiko has as much of a history as most of the Swiss brands do.


More actually....much much more
And an unbroken legacy
And completely inhouse movements

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## lorsban (Nov 20, 2009)

Maxy said:


> Very nice.. model # pls?


SRP463j


----------



## ken_sturrock (Oct 24, 2010)

Seikomasochist said:


> Of course not, but when it comes to personal consumer goods like watches, knives, or cars, this is actually a pretty common preference. Neutral, understated colors are generally preferred for automobiles, for instance.


I know what you're saying but I still have to tease you. It's not all Heian Period out there on the roadways of Japan: Your Guide to the Japanese Car Culture!


----------



## omeglycine (Jan 21, 2011)

Alpinist- you discredit your otherwise sound post by leading with a technical innovation that was in fact Zenith's, no matter how you wish to revise history. 

Question: what was the first automatic chronograph to exist in and be presented to the world? There can only be one answer. And we know it was not Seiko. But this argument has been beaten to death, even if the question posed above is the only relevant one.


----------



## Dareius (Jan 23, 2014)

What was the first automatic chronograph? I do not know.

Inviato dal mio Nexus 5 utilizzando Tapatalk


----------



## rosborn (Oct 30, 2011)

Talking about Swiss luxury... Tag Heuer used Seiko's intellectual chronograph property to design 1887 movement. So, even a Swiss manufacturer thought enough of Seiko to utilize it and make it their own.


----------



## hiro1963 (Feb 4, 2008)

rosborn said:


> Talking about Swiss luxury... Tag Heuer used Seiko's intellectual chronograph property to design 1887 movement. So, even a Swiss manufacturer thought enough of Seiko to utilize it and make it their own.


The Soprod A-10 (Doxa 1500T, Stowa Marine A 10 for example) is actually the Seiko movement as well (4L25).

Google Translate


----------



## rosborn (Oct 30, 2011)

hiro1963 said:


> The Soprod A-10 (Doxa 1500T, Stowa Marine A 10 for example) is actually the Seiko movement as well (4L25).
> 
> Google Translate


There you go. It looks like the Swiss luxury world thinks pretty highly of Seiko.


----------



## ken_sturrock (Oct 24, 2010)

hiro1963 said:


> The Soprod A-10 (Doxa 1500T, Stowa Marine A 10 for example) is actually the Seiko movement as well (4L25).
> 
> Google Translate


Interesting. I'd heard this said about the similarities between the A-10 and the Miyota 9 thousand series but hadn't seen it regarding the Seiko.


----------



## hiro1963 (Feb 4, 2008)

ken_sturrock said:


> Interesting. I'd heard this said about the similarities between the A-10 and the Miyota 9 thousand series but hadn't seen it regarding the Seiko.


I find it interesting too as I came across horologija's article just a few weeks ago.

Seiko 4L25



Soprod A-10


----------



## imaCoolRobot (Jan 1, 2014)

rosborn said:


> Talking about Swiss luxury... Tag Heuer used Seiko's intellectual chronograph property to design 1887 movement. So, even a Swiss manufacturer thought enough of Seiko to utilize it and make it their own.


In all fairness they bought the rights to use fair and square from Seiko

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## imaCoolRobot (Jan 1, 2014)

rosborn said:


> There you go. It looks like the Swiss luxury world thinks pretty highly of Seiko.


They're also terrified of Seiko

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## lorsban (Nov 20, 2009)

rosborn said:


> Talking about Swiss luxury... Tag Heuer used Seiko's intellectual chronograph property to design 1887 movement. So, even a Swiss manufacturer thought enough of Seiko to utilize it and make it their own.


Yeah this shows how good Seiko's engineering is.

Their movements are robust and easy to work on.


----------



## RejZoR (May 12, 2010)

Why no one told this before? I'd like Tag Heuer a lot more based on this.


----------



## ilitig8 (Oct 11, 2013)

RejZoR said:


> Why no one told this before? I'd like Tag Heuer a lot more based on this.


Its not a secret, I have seen it mentioned on WUS quite often.


----------



## rosborn (Oct 30, 2011)

chuasam said:


> In all fairness they bought the rights to use fair and square from Seiko


I wasn't insinuating that Tag Heuer had stolen the technology, merely that they were using Seiko intellectual properties in designing their new movement.


----------



## AvantGardeTime (Aug 23, 2013)

rosborn said:


> I wasn't insinuating that Tag Heuer had stolen the technology, merely that they were using Seiko intellectual properties in designing their new movement.


Back in December 2009, when the Tag 1887 Chrono was launched, the CEO of Tag was quoted as saying that Tag had developed the movement in the 1887 from the ground up in record time (Like 6-8 months development). When these declarations were made public, the CEO was called in public for his lies and he rescinded his initial claims regarding the true origins of the movement in question.

TAG Heuer Shoots Itself In the Foot on TAG Heuer Caliber 1887 Launch | Perpetuelle


----------



## jayhall0315 (Nov 27, 2013)

Seikomasochist said:


> They are also battling ethnocentrism and historical perceptions of inferiority. I doubt a 1950s or 1960s perception of Japanese-made would have gone over well with Western luxury consumers. It's just like today where some people refuse to believe that quality products can be made in China, or people assert that "It's made in China" presumes a lack of quality, like, "X product is made in China" or "Y company gets their parts from China" even if they don't explicitly say or explain why those products or parts are actually inferior.
> 
> Anyway, another issue is that Westerners tend to like brand exclusivity and the Japanese don't. In the USA, parents companies launch luxury brands to differentiate their products so that it doesn't appear to consumers that the high and low end products are made by the same people. Wealthy consumers don't like sharing a marque with not-so-wealthy consumers. For instance, Lexus was created for Americans. In Japan, I get the sense that they have a pride in the innovations and contributions of major companies to Japanese culture, business, and international stature. If Seiko or Toyota is an incredible company, everyone wants a Seiko or Toyota - not some plastic re-brand with a meaningless upscale-sounding moniker. They want to have a certain kind of solidarity. I hear that Japanese businessmen who deal a lot with Westerners are more favorable to Western sensitivities though, so Grand Seiko isn't as popular as Rolex among them.
> 
> EDIT: There are also aesthetic sensibilities that are different in the East vs. West. Look at the great difference between Seiko's Japanese and American market offerings. Compare Seiko and Citizen with comparable European manufacturers. The Japanese tend to prefer a refined, spare, gracious, understated, yet confident aesthetic. I think that is what attracts so many international fans to their brands, too. I don't find the same mixture in other companies, and when I do, it is usually some sad and feeble "intellectual" aesthetic as found in the Bauhaus-style watches.


Your comments seem on the mark to me. I was fortunate many years ago when I was studying engineering as an undergrad to do a summer internship at the University of Tokyo and observed what you speak of first hand. Whether it was watches, bridges, autos or robotics, I was fairly surprised at the constant precision.


----------



## el chorizo (Mar 26, 2010)

This guy is very funny. While I own and enjoy a Rolex, Omega and a Sinn and freely admit that there is a "pride of ownership" factor present in Swiss (and German) luxury watches, I can't take him very seriously. I want to purchase a Grand Seiko and I've spent some time researching the watches. And I have to say that I'm very impressed, especially at the relative price points. In terms of quality and performance, I just cannot identify any appreciable differnece between GS and the Swiss brands. I now think the presumption that "Swiss Made" watches are somehow superior to the what the rest of the world can offer has become anarchistic.



Greek6486 said:


> This guy sums it up very well:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## stevenkelby (Sep 3, 2011)

el chorizo said:


> In terms of quality and performance, I just cannot identify any appreciable differnece between GS and the Swiss brands.


After many hours intensely playing with hundreds of the worlds best watches at watch shops all over Europe and the USA, I certainly can 

GS stands head and shoulders above anything else anywhere near their prices, in terms of quality and performance.


----------



## I_dont_need_another_watch (May 6, 2014)

I've handled GS and some swiss watches.

In terms of accuracy and the external of the watches, i am very sure that GS is in no way not as good as the Swiss watches.

The dial of GS watches are very unique and very well done. For example, the SBGR055 may look very simple, but in different angle, the dial looks like a pure white ceramic dial, at some angles it looks off white (slightly blue), and other angle it looks silver with some texture.

If only the cases of GS watches can be a little thinner.


----------



## Snoopy_dude (Nov 21, 2012)

raveen said:


> Hi,
> GS considered as high quality and reliable watch. Compared to luxury Swiss watches, is GS on par with say Patek, Vacheron or Ulysse?
> Does GS fall in same category as these high-end and ultra-luxury SWISS watches?
> 
> ...


Don't mean to revive a dead thread, but the watches GS churn out are nothing short of praiseworthy. Ever since acquiring the GS spring drive SBGA109, I have decided to get rid watches that don't get wrist time. Those watches included IWCs, JLCs, Omegas, Rolexes, etc. The only watches that still remain in my collection are some APs, Breguets, and Pateks because the aforementioned brands decorate their movements in ways the GS does not. It doesn't mean GS couldn't if they wanted to, but highly decorative movements were/are never the aims of GS. The intention of GS from its inception has always been to make a basic functional watch that is the most accurate, the most durable, and the most comfortable to wear to the highest possible standard with no ostentatious decorations. In those regards, GS trumps the Swiss/German brands in spades.

I admire GS for what it stands for, but GS is not meant to compete with Patek, Lange, Vacheron, Breguet, Audemars, etc simply because movement decoration is not the focus of GS. Now if we are talking about qualities like the case finishing, the dial, the hands, etc then any Swiss/German brands would be hard pressed to surpass GS.

On the side note, I'm a huge of fan guilloched dial watches. My SBGA109 does have an interesting guilloche dial comparable to my Breguets


----------



## ilitig8 (Oct 11, 2013)

Snoopy_dude said:


> On the side note, I'm a huge of fan guilloched dial watches. My SBGA109 does have an interesting guilloche dial comparable to my Breguets


Does the SBGA109 have an actual guilloche dial?


----------



## Snoopy_dude (Nov 21, 2012)

ilitig8 said:


> Does the SBGA109 have an actual guilloche dial?


Actually no, there is no circular pattern come to think about it. It does evoke similar emotion as an actual guiloche dial for me though.

Cheers,


----------



## Maithree (Jan 17, 2013)

Snoopy_dude said:


> Don't mean to revive a dead thread, but the watches GS churn out are nothing short of praiseworthy. Ever since acquiring the GS spring drive SBGA109, I have decided to get rid watches that don't get wrist time. Those watches included IWCs, JLCs, Omegas, Rolexes, etc. The only watches that still remain in my collection are some APs, Breguets, and Pateks because the aforementioned brands decorate their movements in ways the GS does not. It doesn't mean GS couldn't if they wanted to, but highly decorative movements were/are never the aims of GS. The intention of GS from its inception has always been to make a basic functional watch that is the most accurate, the most durable, and the most comfortable to wear to the highest possible standard with no ostentatious decorations. In those regards, GS trumps the Swiss/German brands in spades.
> 
> I admire GS for what it stands for, but GS is not meant to compete with Patek, Lange, Vacheron, Breguet, Audemars, etc simply because movement decoration is not the focus of GS. Now if we are talking about qualities like the case finishing, the dial, the hands, etc then any Swiss/German brands would be hard pressed to surpass GS.
> 
> ...


In terms of case finishing and dial finishing, do GS compare to high end watches. I know movement decoration is not the same (nor the aim) but I wonder just how good finishing it is.


----------



## Snoopy_dude (Nov 21, 2012)

Maithree said:


> In terms of case finishing and dial finishing, do GS compare to high end watches. I know movement decoration is not the same (nor the aim) but I wonder just how good finishing it is.


IMHO GS is comparable to high end watches if we are talking about case and dial finishing. The karatsu blade polishing technique GS employs to finish the steel case, hands, indexes, and the bracelet is one of its kind. Whether or not the finishing is better than what's found in nautilus, royal oak, etc(I only choose sports models from these brands as steel models are only available in those lines) is debatable. I own these watches and I found them to be quite comparable. However, the GS styling is more conservative than those sports watches so the overall feel is quite different too.


----------



## gagnello (Nov 19, 2011)

Maithree said:


> In terms of case finishing and dial finishing, do GS compare to high end watches. I know movement decoration is not the same (nor the aim) but I wonder just how good finishing it is.


You may be able to answer this question by reading the previous 500 posts in this thread. I mean, wow. I havent ever seen someone post in a thread with 500+ posts and basically re-ask the OP's original question.....the title of the thread! This is a first for me.


----------



## freshprincechiro (Oct 12, 2013)

Maithree said:


> In terms of case finishing and dial finishing, do GS compare to high end watches. I know movement decoration is not the same (nor the aim) but I wonder just how good finishing it is.


i think the biggest attraction of GS (at least for me) is the movement. Unless we are speaking of ultra high end watches, like Patek, and speaking of more familiar brands like Rolex or Omega, I think Grand Seiko offers more accurate and more refined movement at a lower price. In my honest opinion, Movements like Spring Drive or HIbeat is much more interesting and more accurate than conventional ~28000 beats in high end Swiss watches.

finishing wise, comparing my GS watches to any Rolexes or omegas, GS really has much better finishing hands down. It is kind of funny because everyone becomes fascinated with my shiny Grand Seiko pieces from far away with "woo" s and "ahh"s, but as soon as they see Seiko logo on the dial., admiration becomes "Oh, it's only Seiko". I work at a hospital in an impoverished neighborhood , I guess it is a good thing for me because I won't get mugged ? Haha


----------



## Trel (Nov 21, 2009)

freshprincechiro said:


> ...fascinated with my shiny Grand Seiko pieces from far away with "woo" s and "ahh"s, but as soon as they see Seiko logo on the dial., admiration becomes "Oh, it's only Seiko"...


Of course, it goes the other way too. I've been out with a friend of mine who wears a GS and, while they don't often get looks, the guys who give the GS "the look" are usually ones wearing something extremely nice. Just last week, a fellow sitting next to us at a bar (we were surreptitiously admiring his JLC Geophysic) leaned over and said, "I don't want to sound creepy, but that's a Grand Seiko, right? I've been trying to get a good look at it all night. I've never seen one in the wild."


----------



## jhe888 (May 14, 2012)

GS's direct competitors are Rolex, Omega, IWC, and similar high end watches. In that world, GS can't be touched. Their movements are at least as good, and generally better than the Swiss high middle and low high-end watches. There is nothing like a Spring Drive from the Swiss and not many like a GS hi-beat movement. The GS "normal" autos meet or exceed the chronometer standards. There aren't many high-accuracy quartz watches at all, and even fewer in the luxury market, but Seiko (and Citizen) has them. The finishing of GS exceeds that of those Swiss makers pretty much all the time. There aren't many GS watches in precious metals, though, so if you want a gold case and a gold bracelet, GS doesn't have that.

But dollar for dollar, I see GS beating the Rolexes and Omegas in everything but cachet. If you need brand recognition, buy the Rolex.

I see Patek, Vacheron Constantine and a few of the others as in a different category, with their more hand built movements, movements with many complications, and highly decorated movements and cases. A GS probably keeps time just as well as a Patek, but it is not the ultra-fancy piece of jewelry that a Patek is.


----------



## Rogi (Mar 31, 2011)

Being an Omega-aholic I thought it was the best and certainly greatest watch in my price range (granted I've seen JLC and Pateks in the flesh at boutiques but none appealed to me as much to justify saving for one)

I never had the opportunity to view a Grand Seiko "in the wild" and my recent purchase was more a gamble, I was shocked when the watch arrived, it is a beautiful timepiece and excellently crafted. The dial mezmorises and intrigues. There are small details that make the Grand Seiko stand out and I have to say that in a lot of aspects it exceeds certain Swiss watches.

Here are some comparisons to Omegas in my collection 

First the GS:


Omega Constellation:


Omega PloProf:


The only one I can really compare it with is the Omega PloProf and then I can't, since it would be dress watch vs diver.


----------



## johnkaufman (May 9, 2011)

watch the second video link above...that guy is stupid and defeats his own argument. Greek6486...I wouldn't cite him as an example of a valid opinion if I were you.


----------



## arogle1stus (May 23, 2013)

Grand Seiko
Alike or unalike? Whats the difference? I'll never be able to purchse either the GS or some overpriced watch from Suisse.
My Dr friends wife owns a P P and keeps it in her safety deposit box.
WHY own a watch you can't wear? Be like owning an Aston Martin and leaving it in the garage 24/7
I buy watches to use and wear!!!! So no top end watch companies need apply.

X traindriver Art


----------



## camouflage (Aug 29, 2009)

it's one of these "Don't feed the Troll" topics, but for me there is not much difference between Swiss and GS - both have decent quality, both are overpriced and each has its pluses and minuses. So far GS marketing strategy for Westeners has been complete failure. From brand recognition perspective, GS is quite a waste of money, so it's definitely not bang for the buck watch like some people like to show it. In my opiniion GS makes sense, if you like Seiko, but you want to get rid of annoying quality problems sub 2000 usd Seikos have. For example misaligned bezels, sloppy lume, crappy bracelets, inaccurate movements... GS is quite close to perfection. Probably that is the main reason I do have GS. I'm pleased, that I can calmly glance my watch and I don't see some annoying small issues.


----------



## obomomomo (Nov 4, 2014)

'So far GS marketing strategy for Westeners has been complete failure.'

I don't think you can actually say Seiko actually have ANY kind of marketing strategy to Westerners. Simply put, they are not interested. They hardly sell these watches anywhere in the world outside Japan, let alone make an effort to promote them in any way to the West or in Asia. GS are simply 'Halo' models to enhance the company name, that's why the 'Seiko' name is on top while the 'GS' is below on the dial... Where I live, there are 2 small exclusive boutiques that do show GS. I had a chance to view and handle a some of them. Still, GS are not by any measure 'famous' or remotely well regarded by the general watch buying public (or even by many in the business). They are still 'Seikos' and far below in prestige for those who view Rolex or PAMs as the ultimate showoff brands. Not to mention the ultra high ends, PP, JLC, AP or VC. 

Seiko sells millions upon millions of watches worldwide, most of them quartz chronos and budget mechanical '5's popular in small towns, villages and rural areas where batteries are a real pain and expense to replace and tough mechanicals that don't need constant servicing are appreciated much more than the country of origin.

Seiko executives created the KS and later GS line more for company pride, or 'face' than desire to chase meagre profit. Its telling the Swiss, and the world, "Hey you think you're better than us? We can do it too, if we put our mind to it". Westerners may find these things a little hard to fathom, but I do believe this is an overlooked aspect of the Japanese national psyche.


----------



## WTSP (May 6, 2012)

The Swiss watch industry has been oriented toward export markets since its very foundations in the late 18th century. As such Swiss watches have the benefit of points of sale and service centers all over the world. Swiss watch designs also form the foundation of the current mechanical watch industry, so parts and knowledge of their designs is widespread.

Japanese watchmaking has more recent and regional foundations in the 20th century. They have been able to focus on their own national market first, exporting mainly less expensive pieces in (relatively) recent years.

I'm intrigued by Grand Seikos, but without the chance of seeing one in the flesh or having access to local service centers, I'm not sure that I would want to make the commitment. The quality may be the same as high end Swiss models, but the ownership experience should also be considered. Is it less complicated than I imagine?


----------



## obomomomo (Nov 4, 2014)

WTSP said:


> The Swiss watch industry has been oriented toward export markets since its very foundations in the late 18th century. As such Swiss watches have the benefit of points of sale and service centers all over the world. Swiss watch designs also form the foundation of the current mechanical watch industry, so parts and knowledge of their designs is widespread.
> 
> Japanese watchmaking has more recent and regional foundations in the 20th century. They have been able to focus on their own national market first, exporting mainly less expensive pieces in (relatively) recent years.
> 
> I'm intrigued by Grand Seikos, but without the chance of seeing one in the flesh or having access to local service centers, I'm not sure that I would want to make the commitment. The quality may be the same as high end Swiss models, but the ownership experience should also be considered. Is it less complicated than I imagine?


I agree completely with you on the need to see/feel the watch. Many times I had coveted watches seen in photographs and described in watch reviews only to be disappointed by having the real thing in my hand. I had coveted the SBGH 005 Hi-beat for quite a while and even admired from afar through the shop window several times. When I finally got to handle it in the flesh, my initial impression was the dial and case finish was superb, the bracelet was BY FAR the best I had ever had good fortune to handle, seeming to almost 'flow' over my fingers like metallic silk (the best way i can describe it!) and the second hand was oh-so smooth. But in the end, on my wrist the styling looked too conservative and generic with mirror polish surfaces just about everywhere. Impressive and excellent workmanship but I decided right there and then that its not for me and lost interest. Similar happened to me handling both the Rolex GMT/Sub and Omega AT/PO at their respective AD's, so the GS is not alone that way. Still appreciate all of those watches though.. they still look fabulous to me as seen on others' wrists, just not on mine


----------



## lorsban (Nov 20, 2009)

WTSP said:


> The Swiss watch industry has been oriented toward export markets since its very foundations in the late 18th century. As such Swiss watches have the benefit of points of sale and service centers all over the world. Swiss watch designs also form the foundation of the current mechanical watch industry, so parts and knowledge of their designs is widespread.
> 
> Japanese watchmaking has more recent and regional foundations in the 20th century. They have been able to focus on their own national market first, exporting mainly less expensive pieces in (relatively) recent years.
> 
> I'm intrigued by Grand Seikos, but without the chance of seeing one in the flesh or having access to local service centers, I'm not sure that I would want to make the commitment. The quality may be the same as high end Swiss models, but the ownership experience should also be considered. Is it less complicated than I imagine?


Aftermarket service is what I'm concerned with as well. I hear cost of service is similar to Omega +-$1000?

Second, there's only ONE place that can service Grand Seiko. And turnaround time could be months.

When I was in hongkong, I saw some watches and managed to try them on. The sales rep brought out other watches in the same price range and the Grand Seiko clearly had the superior finish. The polish was amazing.

Then he said nobody in HongKong can polish these cases. I was shocked since HK houses full service centers for nearly all the top brands and yet polishing Grand Seiko can only be done in Japan.

I was impressed but that info had the opposite effect on me. Instead of making me want to buy, it was the deterrent.

When I buy a watch I want to know that I can have it fixed within a reasonable amount of time and for a reasonable amount of cash.


----------



## Tempusfugitus (Feb 19, 2012)

raze said:


> That Jersey Shore flunky doesn't know what he's talking about. Looks like a typical $30,000 millionaire to me trying to impress with whats on his wrist.


I love his reflective measured delivery, not looking to camera, Mourinho-style...


----------



## Ovalteenie (May 4, 2010)

lorsban said:


> Aftermarket service is what I'm concerned with as well. I hear cost of service is similar to Omega +-$1000?
> 
> Second, there's only ONE place that can service Grand Seiko. And turnaround time could be months.
> 
> ...


Then you would have to avoid high end Swiss luxury brands too (eg PP, JLC), which can take months for factory servicing, and will be costly.


----------



## Seppia (Sep 1, 2013)

WTSP said:


> The Swiss watch industry has been oriented toward export markets since its very foundations in the late 18th century. As such Swiss watches have the benefit of points of sale and service centers all over the world. Swiss watch designs also form the foundation of the current mechanical watch industry, so parts and knowledge of their designs is widespread.
> 
> Japanese watchmaking has more recent and regional foundations in the 20th century. They have been able to focus on their own national market first, exporting mainly less expensive pieces in (relatively) recent years.
> 
> I'm intrigued by Grand Seikos, but without the chance of seeing one in the flesh or having access to local service centers, I'm not sure that I would want to make the commitment. The quality may be the same as high end Swiss models, but the ownership experience should also be considered. Is it less complicated than I imagine?


This was one of the reasons why I went for a GS Quartz. 
The 50 years service interval makes it an immortal watch basically, just need to change the battery. 
Other reasons why I went for a Quartz model:
- they are slimmer than the automatics and the spring drives (I find these a tad too "fat")
- you get the same amazing finishing quality found on other models, for a third of the cost
- seiko IS Quartz (not meaning they cannot do other movements, meaning they are the ones that made Quartz what it is today)


----------



## lorsban (Nov 20, 2009)

Ovalteenie said:


> Then you would have to avoid high end Swiss luxury brands too (eg PP, JLC), which can take months for factory servicing, and will be costly.


Exactly why Rolex is likely as high end as it gets for me.

I don't want to spend $1200-2000+ every 5 years and wait 3-6 months.


----------



## ryanb741 (May 31, 2006)

It's not as if they go to Japan on horseback! Shipped on a plane they will be there in a few days so I don't see the real difference between this and say sending a Rolex for a service in your own country as that still needs shipping and we are only talking a couple days longer. I don't feel the concerns around sending watches to Japan are warranted.

In my experience Seiko have been very prompt with servicing my GS, I had the watch back within 6 weeks. Good luck getting a JLC or Patek turned around so quickly


----------



## xtratomic (Sep 25, 2013)

For the practical and service time/need concious buy solar. Oceanus line, The Citizen, Astron etc. For the ones spending 5000$+ for a jewelery/luxury watch it's fair to think that the more they pay and the more they wait for the service the more special they will feel. 

Sent from my SM-N910F using Tapatalk


----------



## WTSP (May 6, 2012)

Ovalteenie said:


> Then you would have to avoid high end Swiss luxury brands too (eg PP, JLC), which can take months for factory servicing, and will be costly.





ryanb741 said:


> It's not as if they go to Japan on horseback! Shipped on a plane they will be there in a few days so I don't see the real difference between this and say sending a Rolex for a service in your own country as that still needs shipping and we are only talking a couple days longer. I don't feel the concerns around sending watches to Japan are warranted.
> 
> In my experience Seiko have been very prompt with servicing my GS, I had the watch back within 6 weeks. Good luck getting a JLC or Patek turned around so quickly


This is quite true. My colleague went through a nine month ordeal trying to get his AP ROO power reserve, date serviced. All local service sites and ADs turned it down. He had to send it to AP, which took almost nine months and cost $4k!

Personally I stick to brands for which I know that my local AD has accedited service staff to do servicing locally (I'm lucky that this includes IWC, JLC and others) or to uncomplicated models that regular watch service providers can deal whith.

Furthermore, my experience with watch servicing is that the MAJORITY of the time there is some sort of follow-up needed that requires that the watch be inspected by the owner for a second servicing phase before being paid for and taken back (better regulation, grease spots cleaned up, bezels refitted, hands aligned, etc.). Perhaps the Japanese are better, but I'm not ready to do this on multiple cross-Pacific courier runs at my expense.

Like I said, I'm interested in Grand Seiko, but this is one pet I won't adopt until I'm sure that I know what to feed it.


----------



## WatchOutChicago (Oct 28, 2013)

WTSP said:


> This is quite true. My colleague went through a nine month ordeal trying to get his AP ROO power reserve, date serviced. All local service sites and ADs turned it down. He had to send it to AP, which took almost nine months and cost $4k!
> 
> Personally I stick to brands for which I know that my local AD has accedited service staff to do servicing locally (I'm lucky that this includes IWC, JLC and others) or to uncomplicated models that regular watch service providers can deal whith.
> 
> ...


I've heard horror stories about AP service. I used to dream of owning a RO, but after the stories I've heard, not a chance. As a general statement, I'd certainly say my GS Snowflake was far superior in finish, craftsmanship, etc than the Rolexes or Omegas I've owned. Actually, it wasn't even close. GS is truly a hidden gem and a true value compared to the typical Swiss competitors. With that said, the resale on Rolex will trump that of GS, whatever that is worth...


----------



## lorsban (Nov 20, 2009)

ryanb741 said:


> It's not as if they go to Japan on horseback! Shipped on a plane they will be there in a few days so I don't see the real difference between this and say sending a Rolex for a service in your own country as that still needs shipping and we are only talking a couple days longer. I don't feel the concerns around sending watches to Japan are warranted.
> 
> In my experience Seiko have been very prompt with servicing my GS, I had the watch back within 6 weeks. Good luck getting a JLC or Patek turned around so quickly


Well true.

I don't really have experience with sending stuff to and from Seiko Japan.

I suppose it depends on the procedure and how competent the facilitating local representative is.

Rolex here tho consistently finishes in 2 weeks at about $2-300.

If GS can do it close to that, then I see no reason not to consider them.


----------



## ryanb741 (May 31, 2006)

lorsban said:


> Well true.
> 
> I don't really have experience with sending stuff to and from Seiko Japan.
> 
> ...


I had a Spring Drive Grand Seiko serviced and it took 6 weeks and was around $700. Please note a Spring Drive is a considerably more advanced movement than a Rolex Calibre so one would expect a higher servicing cost. A mechanical GS would be around $450 to service.

That's amazing if you are getting a 3 week turnaround for $300 on a Rolex. In the UK its 6-8 weeks and for a 3 hander the service fee is around £450/$675 which reflects a recent price hike for servicing. It's a LOT more for a Daytona. This is from Rolex themselves, not using a third party.


----------



## lorsban (Nov 20, 2009)

ryanb741 said:


> I had a Spring Drive Grand Seiko serviced and it took 6 weeks and was around $700. Please note a Spring Drive is a considerably more advanced movement than a Rolex Calibre so one would expect a higher servicing cost. A mechanical GS would be around $450 to service.
> 
> That's amazing if you are getting a 3 week turnaround for $300 on a Rolex. In the UK its 6-8 weeks and for a 3 hander the service fee is around £450/$675 which reflects a recent price hike for servicing. It's a LOT more for a Daytona. This is from Rolex themselves, not using a third party.


Yes, local RSC is the best when it comes to basic servicing of more modern Rolex. Forget older models, especially ones with chamfered edges. They'll polish the bejeezus out of those.

$450 isn't bad at all tho.

Our issue here is there is no local GS distributor and local Seiko doesn't have the process set for GS. So we'll need to send it directly to Japan and lord knows how that works.


----------



## MrClean (Aug 6, 2015)

lethaltoes said:


> Hi Raveen. I saw that you posted a couple of days ago about choosing between a dornbluth and a used PP calatrava. Of the posts you received there I counted possibly one firmly in dornbluth's camp. That one post is from a poster whom I believe to be a long time collector with a fair number of prestigious swiss makes in his stable already. Similarly, while there are avid fans of the grand seiko on this forum, I don't believe it is the buy you are looking for. Especially since I'm thinking your question as to whether the grand seiko brand falls into the ultra luxury category implies recognition in general of the brand name as such. The answer is simply no. Grand seiko's marketing at this stage is woefully inadequate and ineffective for international markets. Frankly, in my humble opinion, a lot of it has to do with very poor corporate strategy but realistically, grand seiko will be a pet project or novelty to Seiko at this juncture because I just can't imagine how those limited sales numbers and extensive costs will ever look palatable to Seiko which sells watches in the millions from their lower lines. But what a novelty it is indeed! And I selfishly hope it stays that way actually. Cheers!


You realize this "pet project" has been going on for over 50 years, right? They aren't as well known because until only recently, they were available exclusively in Japan. As it currently stands, there are many models that are not available outside of Asia. Perhaps mass-market isn't part of the whole "world domination" plan. I hope it stays that way, so they do not become sloppy like their Swiss counterparts. Loving my new Spring Drive...


----------



## ilitig8 (Oct 11, 2013)

MrClean said:


> You realize this "pet project" has been going on for over 50 years, right? They aren't as well known because until only recently, they were available exclusively in Japan. As it currently stands, there are many models that are not available outside of Asia. Perhaps mass-market isn't part of the whole "world domination" plan. I hope it stays that way, so they do not become sloppy like their Swiss counterparts. Loving my new Spring Drive...


First, welcome to (being active in) the forum.

Second, did you actually read the post? You actually agree.

Third, I think most everyone that posted in this necro-thread is aware enough of GS history to know how old they are and is aware of the marketing they do or don't do in the Western world.

Fourth, maybe some examples of Swiss sloppiness. That would likely reinvigorate the discussion...

Fifth, I think it is VERY reasonable to call GS a pet project when balanced against the size, scope and revenue of Seiko as a whole, it quite obviously exists as a result of passion not profit. Note there is nothing pejorative about the term pet project except when viewed in a purely capitalistic way.

Finally, if you are looking I suppose you found the large number of epic GS vs Swiss either generally or specifically a single brand, usually Rolex. It will keep you busy for a few days.


----------



## Domo (Sep 20, 2013)

Funny how things change though...If the Veda rumors are to believed it looks like Grand Seiko is planning to go *Super Saiyan* on the watch world!!!


----------



## maxixix (Dec 31, 2015)




----------



## MrClean (Aug 6, 2015)

ilitig8 said:


> First, welcome to (being active in) the forum.
> 
> Second, did you actually read the post? You actually agree.
> 
> ...


Thanks for the welcome, I think.  I have been lurking a while.

I did read your post, but I'm not sure I agree. You called Seiko's marketing efforts to promote GS woefully inadequate and ineffective, chalking it up to poor corporate strategy. I believe you framed it as a pet project in the spirit of some temporary effort that would soon wither as Seiko discovered there was little to no profit potential. I counter that profit is not what is driving the GS line.

I guess we agree on your third point. Love the term "necro-thread" have never heard it but intend to steal it. Brilliant.

I could find plenty of examples of Swiss quality control issues for you if I wanted to spend any more time on this necro-thread . Google it - no shortage of examples. I do have a personal story. I noticed a colleague of mine had stopped wearing his new $8200 IWC. When I asked him about it, he told me the (screw-down) crown had fallen out of it and gotten lost. He proudly told me IWC was going to cover the cost of replacement. Wow. Awfully big of them.

Yes, I did read more into your labeling GS a pet project than perhaps you meant. It sounded like you thought it unworthy because it did not have the profit potential of their competitors, and because of this, was running on borrowed time (pun intended). From a business standpoint, I get that, but I have to say I really admire Seiko for building something of this quality, to show they can compete with the world's best (they can), even if it means subsidizing the product so some jackass like me can afford to buy one.

I have found an epic number of threads comparing GS to Rolex, Omega, Breitling, IWC, etc., etc. I have even found some comparing them favorably to PP and the top end, but even I concede that is a stretch. How do you think I heard about GS? God bless the internet! 

Cheers!

J


----------



## MrClean (Aug 6, 2015)

dero said:


> For this particular statement - this is one of the reasons why I really want to get a Grand Seiko into my stable. The mindblowing over-the-top'ness that comes with having the Grand Seiko compared to their other offerings plus all other mid-tier (and similarly price bracketed) Swiss Luxury products is a very thought provoking thing.
> 
> I'm not the type of person to boast or show off grandeur in any ostentatious ways and if having a Grand Seiko then having someone come up and ask what is it to which I can then explain it's a high quality Seiko then watch their reaction... that's an internal sense of enjoyment I'll have.


You might have to wait a while. I was looking forward to the same thing. Nobody has noticed my spring drive yet.


----------



## Veda (Sep 17, 2009)

maxixix said:


>


Followed by:


----------



## Veda (Sep 17, 2009)

Domo said:


> Funny how things change though...If the Veda rumors are to believed it looks like Grand Seiko is planning to go *Super Saiyan* on the watch world!!!


----------



## Veda (Sep 17, 2009)

ilitig8 said:


> Fifth, I think it is VERY reasonable to call GS a pet project when balanced against the size, scope and revenue of Seiko as a whole, it quite obviously exists as a result of passion not profit. Note there is nothing pejorative about the term pet project except when viewed in a purely capitalistic way.


Incorrect but I understand not everyone attended the 30 people GS private event where Hattori-san stated otherwise.


----------



## 124Spider (Feb 1, 2009)

Veda said:


> Incorrect but I understand not everyone attended the 30 people GS private event where Hattori-san stated otherwise.


I don't much care one way or the other, but I tend to judge actions louder than words. GS wasn't even available outside of Japan until the very recent past, and it still isn't generally available in Europe or the USA. Until GS makes up a significant percentage of Seiko revenues, it's hard to consider it anything other than a pet project to show their chops.


----------



## Veda (Sep 17, 2009)

124Spider said:


> I don't much care one way or the other, but I tend to judge actions louder than words. GS wasn't even available outside of Japan until the very recent past, and it still isn't generally available in Europe or the USA. Until GS makes up a significant percentage of Seiko revenues, it's hard to consider it anything other than a pet project to show their chops.


And individuals speculations from the internet are static compared to hearing it from the man himself right in front of you. In any case, not part of my biz, I just want to wear superb quality pretty watches.


----------



## 124Spider (Feb 1, 2009)

Veda said:


> And individuals speculations from the internet are static compared to hearing it from the man himself right in front of you.


So you are moved by words, while I am moved by actions; that's fine.



> In any case, not part of my biz, I just want to wear superb quality pretty watches.


Agreed, which is why two of my four watches are Seiko's high-end offerings.

I like Seiko; I just think that pretending that, at present, Grand Seiko is other than a vanity brand for Seiko is not supported by the generally-available evidence.


----------



## Cocas (Jul 7, 2015)

I am not so particular whether my watch is swiss or japan or germany or china. As long as the watch is good and within my bufget, I buy them.

Lately, I bought few used watches at watch shop and tried on the brand new GS and Rolex. Looking attention hands. GS hands are at par with IWC and JLC. GS hands are definitely better than Rolex old model.


----------



## Veda (Sep 17, 2009)

Cocas said:


> I am not so particular whether my watch is swiss or japan or germany or china. As long as the watch is good and within my bufget, I buy them.


Exactly. Just buy the watches you like and enjoy them. Speculating about an old big brand that won't go bankrupt anytime soon is a waste of precious time.


----------



## Veda (Sep 17, 2009)

124Spider said:


> Veda said:
> 
> 
> > And individuals speculations from the internet are static compared to hearing it from the man himself right in front of you.
> ...


Hard to believe since reading strangers' comments in WUS gives you so much pleasure


----------



## 124Spider (Feb 1, 2009)

Veda said:


> Hard to believe since reading strangers' comments in WUS gives you so much pleasure


If you say so....


----------



## ilitig8 (Oct 11, 2013)

MrClean said:


> Thanks for the welcome, I think.  I have been lurking a while.
> 
> I did read your post, but I'm not sure I agree. You called Seiko's marketing efforts to promote GS woefully inadequate and ineffective, chalking it up to poor corporate strategy. I believe you framed it as a pet project in the spirit of some temporary effort that would soon wither as Seiko discovered there was little to no profit potential. I counter that profit is not what is driving the GS line.
> 
> ...


First, the welcome was sincere.

Second, you seem to be attributing the post you quoted earlier to me, it was not.

The Swiss QC issues do indeed happen but are not some kind of rampant issue, certainly not when you consider the number of Swiss watches built, it isn't like Seiko or GS don't have their share as well. If you can come up with a statistical analysis comparing the two I would be interested, my anecdotal evidence spans over 100 personally owned watches and it points to a fairly equal distribution of QC issues among most companies.

Personally, I view GS fondly and with admiration.

Enjoy your time here, it is quite a font of knowledge.


----------



## ilitig8 (Oct 11, 2013)

Veda said:


> Incorrect but I understand not everyone attended the 30 people GS private event where Hattori-san stated otherwise.


Tomorrow is what tomorrow may be, but for the history of GS it has been a halo brand for Seiko, driven by passion not primarily profit. If one could excise GS cleanly from Seiko the change in the balance books would likely be akin to a rounding error. It is like when Porsche brought the CGT and 918 to market, or maybe more like the Lexus LFA. It will be interesting to see how any significant change of marketing impacts the global markets. I for one would like to see them more widely available but I am curious how a more mainstream GS affects the WUS darling status.

What is up having to track you down to the far reaches of WUS? I have missed the Veda from which all wisdom flows...


----------



## Veda (Sep 17, 2009)

ilitig8 said:


> What is up having to track you down to the far reaches of WUS? I have missed the Veda from which all wisdom flows...


Veda is dead. This zombie hasn't been mercied yet by the mob or mod. But miracles do happen


----------



## ilitig8 (Oct 11, 2013)

Veda said:


> Veda is dead. This zombie hasn't been mercied yet by the mob or mod. But miracles do happen


I saw when you went all hara-kiri but saw you were still posting. Enjoy your new found angle on life and may the "strap" force be with you.


----------



## Veda (Sep 17, 2009)

ilitig8 said:


> Veda said:
> 
> 
> > Veda is dead. This zombie hasn't been mercied yet by the mob or mod. But miracles do happen
> ...


Temporary. Can't leave Seiko troopers in the dark when the force is coming strong. Some watches already on sale. After Basel...


----------



## Dareius (Jan 23, 2014)

Any news about new Grand Seiko's models?


Inviato dal mio iPhone utilizzando Tapatalk


----------



## Veda (Sep 17, 2009)

Dareius said:


> Any news about new Grand Seiko's models?
> 
> Inviato dal mio iPhone utilizzando Tapatalk


https://www.watchuseek.com/forum.php#/forumsite/20758/topics/2393034?page=1


----------



## jaason (Dec 28, 2012)

There is news that a new Seiko Spring drive is coming. Hand winding and decorated as Credor. Finally, Seiko seems to put decoration on GS series


----------



## ilitig8 (Oct 11, 2013)

jaason said:


> There is news that a new Seiko Spring drive is coming. Hand winding and decorated as Credor. Finally, Seiko seems to put decoration on GS series


This one?


----------



## jaason (Dec 28, 2012)

Yes. Looks great.


----------



## ilitig8 (Oct 11, 2013)

jaason said:


> Yes. Looks great.


For $55,000 one can be yours.


----------



## 124Spider (Feb 1, 2009)

ilitig8 said:


> For $55,000 one can be yours.


Heck, if I didn't already have a fine dress watch, I'd seriously consider spending 10% of that for this pretty watch!


----------



## brodog49 (Aug 19, 2015)

raveen said:


> Hi,
> GS considered as high quality and reliable watch. Compared to luxury Swiss watches, is GS on par with say Patek, Vacheron or Ulysse?
> Does GS fall in same category as these high-end and ultra-luxury SWISS watches?
> 
> ...


I am considering trading my Rolex Sub for an SBGA031...maybe we can revive this post and someone can tell me if I am insane or if the new Spring Drive in that watch is comparable to a decent 2007 Sub.

Thanks,

JR


----------



## 124Spider (Feb 1, 2009)

brodog49 said:


> I am considering trading my Rolex Sub for an SBGA031...maybe we can revive this post and someone can tell me if I am insane or if the new Spring Drive in that watch is comparable to a decent 2007 Sub.
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> JR


Expensive watches pretty much define "luxury items." Hence, most concepts of value, or comparability, are entirely subjective. Go the Rolex forum, and they'll laugh at you for even suggesting that a Seiko could be comparable to a Rolex. Many here would say just the opposite--it's silly to think that a mass-produced watch like a Rolex Sub could be comparable to a low-volume watch with a unique movement.

Only you can decide if one is comparable to the other, considering your personal ways of measuring value, and what aspects in a watch are important to you. Of the two, I'd take the Seiko, but most wouldn't.


----------



## Tseg (Mar 29, 2014)

124Spider said:


> Expensive watches pretty much define "luxury items." Hence, most concepts of value, or comparability, are entirely subjective. Go the Rolex forum, and they'll laugh at you for even suggesting that a Seiko could be comparable to a Rolex. Many here would say just the opposite--it's silly to think that a mass-produced watch like a Rolex Sub could be comparable to a low-volume watch with a unique movement.
> 
> Only you can decide if one is comparable to the other, considering your personal ways of measuring value, and what aspects in a watch are important to you. Of the two, I'd take the Seiko, but most wouldn't.


Actually not, Grand Seiko is a well respected brand by most on TRF. I know I own one of each.


----------



## Memento Vivere (Dec 31, 2011)

Tseg said:


> Actually not, Grand Seiko is a well respected brand by most on TRF. I know I own one of each.


Just want to second this. I've seen nothing but praise for Grand Seiko on TRF. I don't understand this notion that we must conclusively conclude think that one is better than the other or that someone cannot be a fan of both simultaneously. o|

I don't know about you guys, but "Team Rolex" or "Team Seiko" sounds a bit too much like Twilight for me. I'll happily own and wear both and be capable of appreciating each of their respective strengths.


----------



## drainaps (Nov 8, 2012)

+1 here. I have a decent line-up of both and don't consider one above the other, just enjoy wearing all of them. 

I'll go even further: I'll show more appreciation for a 007 owner who wears it with pride than many 116610 owners that wear those just because of a logo on a dial. 

In my particular case, there are 007 days and 5512 days, and they're, equally enjoyable.

Problem is in people's heads, not on people's wrists.


----------



## agentdaffy007 (Apr 12, 2012)

I have seen much praise for GS in the rolex forum. They even had to lockdown a thread that was GS vs Rolex and in the end people in the rolex forum was bashing rolex. lol


----------



## 124Spider (Feb 1, 2009)

Well, that's nice to hear. I haven't spent much time on Rolex forums, but back when I would visit from time to time, I was "impressed" with how dominant the "why would anyone spend that much on a Seiko?" comments were. 

If that's changing, that's good.

For the record, I don't see any reason why the two cannot co-exist happily. They're both excellent products, with a good history of excellence. 

Mark


----------



## Estilo (Apr 11, 2014)

drainaps said:


> +1 here. I have a decent line-up of both and don't consider one above the other, just enjoy wearing all of them.
> 
> I'll go even further: I'll show more appreciation for a 007 owner who wears it with pride than many 116610 owners that wear those just because of a logo on a dial.
> 
> ...


You'd appreciate me then! Maxi lugs on subs = eww. I have a 214270, the unknowing won't know it's a Rolex. I'm not completely impervious to how others think of me, but if I wanted to impress there are smarter ways to show.

Guess what, I bought a 009 yesterday, and I've _never _been more impressed by any other watch I've owned. And this was quite an impulse buy, I didn't even want it all that bad. Let's see where this goes..


----------



## drainaps (Nov 8, 2012)

It will go where you and I already know will go: Your 009 will be followed by other Seikos...... You can try the new turtle next!



Estilo said:


> You'd appreciate me then! Maxi lugs on subs = eww. I have a 214270, the unknowing won't know it's a Rolex. I'm not completely impervious to how others think of me, but if I wanted to impress there are smarter ways to show.
> 
> Guess what, I bought a 009 yesterday, and I've _never _been more impressed by any other watch I've owned. And this was quite an impulse buy, I didn't even want it all that bad. Let's see where this goes..


----------



## Fastdriver (Mar 15, 2014)

For me, Choosing between the SBGA031 and the Sub depends on your inner feeling toward the watches because they are apart one of the other in many aspects:
The Seiko is an SD, and the Rolex is mechanical.
The Seiko is a big watch, 44mm, and the Rolex 41mm.
The Seiko have a PR indicator the Rolex don't.
Some of the Subs don't have a date window.
The Seiko bezel is of steel, and the Rolex one is from ceramic.

They both are extremely well built, So I don't think that this point should bother you.

I own the SBGA031, And I believe that it's an excellent watch, I love the PR option, But it's too big for my wrist so I had replaced it with the Omega SMP'c, 41mm, as my everyday watch.
So quality is not always the most important factor.
You have to love the watch, Because every few minutes you are looking at him, And *that* is the important point.


----------



## Estilo (Apr 11, 2014)

drainaps said:


> It will go where you and I already know will go: Your 009 will be followed by other Seikos...... You can try the new turtle next!


Oh I forgot to mention, this isn't my first Seiko, and I've been a fan for quite a while . I own a Blue Monster, and another 4R36 in a modded Invicta. I wanted the gilt turtle but I think I'll wait til they sort out the misalignment issues, while on the other hand with the reduced/ceased production rumours I thought might as well jump the gun on the 009 .


----------



## coltpeacemaker041 (Jul 21, 2012)

ARCHIE thats a joke just a fat wanna be...


----------



## slow_mo (May 10, 2013)

I like both my GS and my Sub!


----------



## Dalen (Dec 12, 2016)

That GS is unbelievable!!


----------



## Galaga (Jun 22, 2017)

Some perspective:


----------



## yessir69 (Oct 22, 2008)

Galaga said:


> Some perspective:


Thanks for posting that.

GS>Rolex. There. I said it.

Sent from my SM-G935T using Tapatalk


----------



## Soarer31 (Sep 13, 2017)

This has been a really interesting thread (haven't read all the posts though) I'm no watch collector but I'd like to know if Rolex were to produce watches of between say $100 and $1000 under the Rolex brand how many customers would they loose? Or gain?


----------



## jthole (Jan 11, 2018)

Well, the only thing I know is that I am lusting for a Grand Seiko but not for a Rolex. I'd love being able to afford a Spring Drive!


----------



## daogiahieu (Feb 19, 2018)

I think GS is very good, GS > rolex i think. The finish and the movement are all amazing


----------

