# Comparisonal review of Chronotac Seamatic and Alpha-USA MilSub AKA the beatdown



## discordianist (Jan 19, 2009)

Comparisonal review of Chronotac Seamatic and Alpha-USA MilSub

First impressions










When I handled these the very fist time two very disctinctive things jumped on me. First on Alpha-USA MilSub (refered as Alpha later on review) the lume color of the hands and dial was distinctively differend from each other, more then usually on watches and so much so that it was distraction from the overall impression. On Chronotac Seamatic (refered as Seamatic later on review) first impression was the look that meant the business. It was suprisingly similar in look to the vintage Rolex Submariner and all the parts look like they're up for it at first glance.

Score:
Alpha 2/5
Seamatic 4/5

When compared to Rolex Submariner as all other scores are on my review, how ever I've given these watches some slack so it ain't 0/5 in all respects 

Overall design










Design wise both watches are homages, nothing spectacular here. Alpha does have a view-throu back which can be a fun thing for someone if they like the look of it. For me it's a distraction from tool-like appearence of the watch. Alpha also has a dark grey colored dial where black would have been prefered. Also the hands seem too thin and narrow in comparison to Rolex and makes the dial look bit like it's missing something.










Seamatic has a bi-directional bezel which makes it unusable as a diver (not that I would place it's water resistance to a real life test). Seamatic also has a pretty standard and rather low quality clasp on it's otherwise ok:ish bracelet. Other then these differences they are pretty much spot on same as their Rolex counterparts. Dial has text overload on it but it doesn't distract too much, it's bit "DSSDesque" but still. It also has peculiar "perpentual calendar" text which ain't corresponding with anything in the movement.

Both loses points on their differences from Rolex counterpart since they are after all meant to be homages and in these cases pretty much copies.

Score:
Alpha 2/5
Seamatic 2/5

Quality of finishing








This is where there's huge differences. Alpha has large amount of small quirks like not perfectly centered lume dot on bezel, bezel markers don't hit dial markers spot on (althou rather close), bezel has some play in it, there were dirt under the bezel when it came from the factory and markings on the dial have slight sloppiness, not bad but visible to naked eye (but you need to look for it).
Seamatic has better over all finishing, shiny parts are bit shinier, brushed parts have more even finish and paintwork on dial is spot on. It does how ever have slightly unevenly finished lug ends (the very tip of lugs) where they are slightly differend sized and one is bit pointier then the other. Not by much but still.

Score:
Alpha 1,5/5
Seamatic 2,5/5

Strap / Bracelet








Alpha comes with horrible NATO, worst I've witnessed to date. Stiched, harsh and hard. It's so hard it's even hard to remove it with out removing the spring bars. Only good thing I can think of this particular nato is the fact that I can't see it braking down, ever and that's a shame in this case. Any NATO from usual suppliers would be better and some so much better that they might have changed my appearence of this watch by a degree.
Seamatic comes with a bracelet which rattles. It does feel rather solid thou and it's comfy on wrist and what's most important in the line of looking like an other watch this one looks apart amazingly well. It looks exactly like rolex bracelet on wrist (old style bracelet that is). Clasp has lower quality then rest of it but it works and keeps the bracelet on my wrist rather securely.

Score:
Alpha 0/5
Seamatic 2/5

Movement








Alpha comes with TY2806 which is Miyota style movement and known for staggering second hand which in my particular watch is pretty bad, actually I normally enjoy watching second hand sweep but watching this one sweep is like watching drunken sailor on dry land. Also TY2806 ain't known for long lasting performance or high quality control. It does hack thou and keeps the watch running and it ain't too inaccurate to rule it out as timeshowing instrument, althou I wouldn't count on this one on longer trips since I know that this movement can stagger and lose/gain time when shook with force, I havent tried it with this watch but on my line of work that would be a issue. It works and that's a bonus in this pricepoint thou 








Seamatic has a DG2822 movement which again is Miyota styled movement. It also hacks and runs. This one doesn't stagger and it's running at steady speed of 8 beats a second (at least by ear it sounds like it). It's a nice looking movement too and I'm pretty certain that it has a higher quality, at least I didn't see any fingerprints inside  Also it has a adequate shock protection, althou not great but working to some degree. It ain't a watch I would rely on longer periods of time out in the field but it does keep time and seems to be at least as accurate as Alpha if not more so (haven't checked for long enough duration to known for sure).

Score:
Alpha 2/5
Seamatic 2,5/5

Conclusion and other details
Would I purchase a watch at this pricepoint again, never in million years. They simply cant meet my standards and they have too many flaws to consider them as serious watches. How ever if your thinking about purchasing a watch at this pricepoint look above and do your conclusions mine are below but don't let my objective and compared to my standards judgement blind you, make your own choice.

Seamatic has higher quality control, better movement and higher level of finishing. Alpha has drunken sailor as a movement (althou it keeps in time) and horrendous NATO coming along. Lume on both watches is pretty non-existant but in both watches bezel dot has the strongest lume on the watch. Both watches have one big upside thou, you don't have to buy them and if would buy them at least you haven't lost that much money in the end.


















Final Scores:
Alpha 7 / 25
Alphas upsides are.. Can't actually think of anything. It ain't much of a watch in the end and there are better options. I ain't saying it's total piece of junk, but for it's price (which ain't much) I wouldn't get it since even at that price point competition beats it hands down. With some improvements Alpha-USA could have made a real watch and considering this is custom ordered I must wonder why they made the choises they made. Were they in hurry with it's launch or do they only look at their accounts I don't know but I do know that with some work and differend parts it could have been a winner with out too much work.

Seamatic 13 / 25
Seamatics upside is it's movement which considering the pricepoint is a wise choice. Also dial paint color is rather nice as are hands. That's it actually, for the price (cheaper then Alpha if ordered to Europe due to heavy postage by Alpha-USA, in US they would be priced pretty much the same). Is it better then Alpha, I really really think so. Is it a good watch? Not in a million years.

Rolex Submariner as a comparison 25/25
As I said before I've given these watches quit some headstart to Rolex so that scores would be comparable between each other, not in comparison to Rolex. I'm not saying that Alpha is third of a Rolex or Seamatic is half of a Rolex. Only giving some idea of how they compare to each other.

End note
Both of these show time and they are automatics. What else could I get with same amount of money? Rather nice average Joe quartz or even some cheaper Citizen Eco-Drive. Credit to where it belongs, Chronotac made better choices and came out first for me, Alpha took a amazing watch to do a homage to but made wrong choices making it. I would love to love Alpha but it ain't the watch people on forums expected, waited and wanted. Will people purchase these? Of course since there will always be those that either don't care for those "little" things that bug me and there will always be those that are purchasing their first automatic and these two are cheap. 
I would save up and purchase a real watch and if this is the styling of your after there's quit a few options to consider including the original Rolex ones.

_Sorry about all those fingerprints.. But I wanted to this fast since I've been thinking about this review for a while now, I just needed to let it rest, for now.
Now I just need to figure out what to do with these, all creative and innovative ideas welcomed!_


----------



## smcx (May 27, 2008)

Nice! I was thinking about getting a 1680 for a while and decided to buy one of the chronotac seamatics from the bay. It is a cheap watch, but it's also a cheap price, so you can't complain too much. Ok value for the money if you ask me. It also helped me decide that I should get a 1680


----------



## OH Redhawk (Jun 18, 2009)

Nice, fair comparison. I own both Alphas and a Chronotac (mine is an older Chronomat), and the Chronotac/mat seems better built. The Chronotac dial certainly wins hands-down, even though they are *not* good to 200M nor possess a perpetual calendar.


----------



## AlphaUSA (Apr 19, 2009)

I would have appreciated it if you would have let us know of your impending trashing of one of our products on a public forum. We spend a fair amount of money supporting these forums and would appreciate the common courtesy of an email or phone call when our products are a problem. 

Compare us to any other manufacturer out there in the Chinese or low priced category. You won't find a single one that has the level of participation in any forum.

Your blatant disregard for common sense is pretty disturbing. if you had a problem with your watch, you could have let us know and we could have remedied the situation. I am disappointed but not surprised given your typical posture on the forum. 

Your so called review is totally subjective and I believe you missed the entire point. We are providing an excellent value for the money and listen to our customers. if our product isn't what the forum members wanted, why is it our best selling model? Please speak for yourself.

Next time you want to compare Alpha USA to eBay, please share your one sided opinions elsewhere.


----------



## treefrog (Jul 29, 2009)

Sir,

Well done and nice review, I noticed a criticism that you did not compare it to the market leader Rolex, but you did, so I don't know where he got that from.

I am glad someone did a review at the bottom of the tree. Just shows what your money does not buy. Obviously not a Rolex or quality, but the DG movement does look better than the cheap Sea-Gull.

Thanks, I was looking of a throw away watch, and I think for the small money, the Seamatic offers excellent money over it competitor. Also looks nicer. Also you get a real steel band. I am off to the bay to get one - just for fun.

Guys we know these are not seriously watches&#8230;so you really can take either of the seriously.

Mr Alpha is out of line. Anyone can review anything without telling the maker. Just because they are a sponsor does not give them the right to say yes or no to a review.

Looks like Alpha USA do spend a heap of money&#8230; I am only new here but from my reading of the "Chinese Forum" it is a Forum of paid advertising for Alpha. I joined WUS for the variety not, to go to the "Alpha Forum", and there are a few notes on Chinese watches.

Alpha USA's comment "Next time you want to compare Alpha USA to eBay, please share your one sided opinions elsewhere."

This is a public Forum and this should represent the public's views - regardless of their bias. So I do not think a sponsor (who spends lots of money on the Forum) can dictate where or what a member can say.

For me (and I am only new) so you will all think I am wrong, the review as an interesting take on the usually reviews. It compared the models to the Standard Bearer (Rolex) and basically said both were of inferior quality and you really should not waste your money on either, but if you wanted to burn a few dollars throw it at the Seamatic.

Fair call Sir, fair review&#8230;.it is a public arena and we need this debate. Not be censored by the sponsor.

Rob.


----------



## gg4411 (May 15, 2008)

Thanks for the thorough review . This is the first time that i've seen the Chronotac before, and I am certainly tempted now. ;-)


----------



## OH Redhawk (Jun 18, 2009)

Post #4 is completely out of line and would have been better communicated via PM. Pure nasty and really unbecoming.


----------



## Chascomm (Feb 13, 2006)

An interesting review.

On the subject of hands and indicies, it looks from the photos that the colour variation is as strong on the Chronotac as the Alpha. And strangely enough the Chronotac hands don't seem to have any more visual 'weight' than the Alpha to my eyes. Must be a matter of personal taste, I guess.

Do you have any comparitive lume shots to show us?

Regarding the movements, I think I should point out that the DG is on average equally prone to stutter as the Sea-Gull, and in neither movement will that have any influence on timekeeping. Incidentally, the DG runs at 6 beats per second, the same as the Sea-Gull. Could you clarify what you meant in your comments about shockproofing. How were you able to test this in both movements?

Funny things, these homages. So many people seem to demand originality but when it comes to actually buying, it is the one that looks most like a Rolex that wins. I accept that if your purpose in purchasing was to try out for that Submariner that you've promised yourself in the future, then the Chronotac win hands down; the Oyster bracelet, cyclops date, dial inscriptions. No other criteria matters. On the other hand, it would seem that the whole point of the Alpha Mil-Sub was to offer something a bit different for those who want it. After all, Alpha still sell Submariner homages for those that want that sort of thing. Perhaps you should have bought one of them for the review.


----------



## visitor (Apr 3, 2009)

wait.. wait... let me get this straight.. all these clowns on WUS WHINE AND WHINE about "originality" and then when the alpha does not use standard style rolex hands.. it LOSES points? are you kidding me? seems to me the snobs are hell bent on trashing (unfairly) more inexpensive watches. I cannot believe this is a fun hobby with the mentality of "it has to reach at least this price point to be a real watch" Also- why did you not compare a standard alpha sub to the seamatic? The milsub is without date.. the alpha sub would really be a more fair comparison. If you insist on going after the milsub style, the chrono should lose "points" for that pesky date and cyclops

DISCLAIMER: I do not own the alpha sub, or milsub, nor do I have plans to buy either.

I'm sorry, but completely unhelpful and negative review.


----------



## nsmike (Jun 21, 2009)

Chascomm said:


> Regarding the movements, I think I should point out that the DG is on average equally prone to stutter as the Sea-Gull, and in neither movement will that have any influence on timekeeping. Incidentally, the DG runs at 6 beats per second, the same as the Sea-Gull. Could you clarify what you meant in your comments about shockproofing. How were you able to test this in both movements?


To continue with thoughts on the movement Lysanderxii has stated that the ST 16 is less prone to stuttering than the Miyota and that the Seiko type "magic fingers" winding system is superior to the Miyota. The DG28 is a much closer copy of the Miyota movement so at the same price point I'll go with the ST16.


----------



## discordianist (Jan 19, 2009)

Thanks for all the comments. I knew I woken the beast with this but didn't realise how angry it would be  I don't work for neither company and trust me after this review I never will.



smcx said:


> Nice! I was thinking about getting a 1680 for a while and decided to buy one of the chronotac seamatics from the bay. It is a cheap watch, but it's also a cheap price, so you can't complain too much. Ok value for the money if you ask me. It also helped me decide that I should get a 1680


Thank you for your insight and I do agree to a degree. Ok value for the money is the bit I don't agree with since i feel that you could find a better watch even at this pricepoint, from local supermarket having a average chinese quartz inside.  Or Timex or Citizen. But Chronotac does look the part and gives good visual impresson on what 1680 looks like.



OH Redhawk said:


> Nice, fair comparison. I own both Alphas and a Chronotac (mine is an older Chronomat), and the Chronotac/mat seems better built. The Chronotac dial certainly wins hands-down, even though they are *not* good to 200M nor possess a perpetual calendar.


I actually thought about preasure testing both to the braking point, but then I actually couldn't find time or motivation to do it. Agreed Chronotac most likely ain't surviving 200m depth, might not even survive 50m but I really don't know. Alpha is said to be good to 100m but I wouldn't put it to the test either. At that pricepoint with crystal in caseback.. I bet it's going to leak but I'm not saying that since I haven't tested it out in real life. I know Alpha-USA has tested few cases to 100m of static so it might hold.



AlphaUSA said:


> I would have appreciated it if you would have let us know of your impending trashing of one of our products on a public forum. We spend a fair amount of money supporting these forums and would appreciate the common courtesy of an email or phone call when our products are a problem.
> 
> Compare us to any other manufacturer out there in the Chinese or low priced category. You won't find a single one that has the level of participation in any forum.
> 
> ...


I respect your straight forward attitude but I don't respect your tone. That's all said. If your quality control can't handle it then expect to read reviews like this. I didn't write this to bash you, I wrote this to let people know my honest opinion and let them see the comparison between these two products. And no I don't work for the chinese Chronotac company.



treefrog said:


> Sir,
> 
> Well done and nice review, I noticed a criticism that you did not compare it to the market leader Rolex, but you did, so I don't know where he got that from.
> 
> ...


Thanks for your support and your comments are very much welcomed and respected.



gg4411 said:


> Thanks for the thorough review . This is the first time that i've seen the Chronotac before, and I am certainly tempted now. ;-)


Let me tempt you to something else compleatly, how about putting that money inside a jar and next time you see a nice alpha / chronotac / cheapie do the same. And the same and the same again. Before you know it you can afford something you can be happy and proud about.



OH Redhawk said:


> Post #4 is completely out of line and would have been better communicated via PM. Pure nasty and really unbecoming.


Thank you for your support.



Chascomm said:


> An interesting review.
> 
> On the subject of hands and indicies, it looks from the photos that the colour variation is as strong on the Chronotac as the Alpha. And strangely enough the Chronotac hands don't seem to have any more visual 'weight' than the Alpha to my eyes. Must be a matter of personal taste, I guess.
> 
> ...


Alpha movement suffers from way worse stutter to the point that I was certain that the movement was broken, but it keeps time and does seem like it's working. When the watch took a serious shooking (while strapped to my arm) while I was on a bike minute hand wondered a bit over the dial and hour hand moved along so it actually moved the time. Other then that incident I haven't found faults in shock proofing but if that kind of a shock (which I can take with out troubles) compromises timekeeping then it's faulty either by design or by manufacturers fault.

When it comes to the hands, Chronotac hands are pretty much identical to 1680 hands, and look the part. Alpha hands are narrower then 5517 hands so they lose points.

DG movement didn't suffer from staggering actually I haven't witnessed it in that particular watch at all. Maybe it's about luck maybe it's about quality control.



visitor said:


> wait.. wait... let me get this straight.. all these clowns on WUS WHINE AND WHINE about "originality" and then when the alpha does not use standard style rolex hands.. it LOSES points? are you kidding me? seems to me the snobs are hell bent on trashing (unfairly) more inexpensive watches. I cannot believe this is a fun hobby with the mentality of "it has to reach at least this price point to be a real watch" Also- why did you not compare a standard alpha sub to the seamatic? The milsub is without date.. the alpha sub would really be a more fair comparison. If you insist on going after the milsub style, the chrono should lose "points" for that pesky date and cyclops
> 
> DISCLAIMER: I do not own the alpha sub, or milsub, nor do I have plans to buy either.
> 
> I'm sorry, but completely unhelpful and negative review.


Rolex 1680 and 5517 were used as basic line for this review but I did give these two watches a headstart to get even some points to them too. I don't claim that Rolex watches are perfect, but they are perfect in being 1680 and 5517, that was the basic point which I refered in all the marks. Basic principle was to compare these two between each other but I needed a base line for the review and decided to use Rolex.



nsmike said:


> To continue with thoughts on the movement Lysanderxii has stated that the ST 16 is less prone to stuttering than the Miyota and that the Seiko type "magic fingers" winding system is superior to the Miyota. The DG28 is a much closer copy of the Miyota movement so at the same price point I'll go with the ST16.


ST16 does wind fine as does DG28. I haven't experienced issues about handwinding, rotor noise or hacking with either. They work and I haven't questioned that in either case. ST16 is pretty much the lowest end seagull there is and it's known for bad quality control (including hairs and fingerprints inside the movement) as seen on couple reviews online. I have nothing agains SeaGull, they make ok toolwatch movement too, it's ST21 series and they make rather good movements in ST18 series and chrono movement ST19 series not to talk about their tourbilions and other cool movements they've done. I'm not bashing them as a company, only the movement choice made here by the watches manufacturer. DG28 seems like more robust movement at the same pricepoint. At least I was more lucky with it or it's simple case of QC.


----------



## nsmike (Jun 21, 2009)

discordianist said:


> ST16 does wind fine as does DG28. I haven't experienced issues about handwinding, rotor noise or hacking with either. They work and I haven't questioned that in either case. ST16 is pretty much the lowest end seagull there is and it's known for bad quality control (including hairs and fingerprints inside the movement) as seen on couple reviews online. I have nothing agains SeaGull, they make ok toolwatch movement too, it's ST21 series and they make rather good movements in ST18 series and chrono movement ST19 series not to talk about their tourbilions and other cool movements they've done. I'm not bashing them as a company, only the movement choice made here by the watches manufacturer. DG28 seems like more robust movement at the same pricepoint. At least I was more lucky with it or it's simple case of QC.


Who said anything about how the watch winds. I repeated that the Seiko 'Magic Fingers Winding System' is superior. It's part of the auto winding mechanisim. If you don't know that, how can you judge, the robustness of a movement. To me you just proved that your opinion is worthless.


----------



## Chascomm (Feb 13, 2006)

discordianist said:


> Alpha movement suffers from way worse stutter to the point that I was certain that the movement was broken, but it keeps time and does seem like it's working. When the watch took a serious shooking (while strapped to my arm) while I was on a bike minute hand wondered a bit over the dial and hour hand moved along so it actually moved the time. Other then that incident I haven't found faults in shock proofing but if that kind of a shock (which I can take with out troubles) compromises timekeeping then it's faulty either by design or by manufacturers fault.


OK, so that is a legitimate problem. It was not clear in your original comments that this was a separate problem from the stutter.

Incidentally, the term 'shockproofing' is usually used in reference to the device holding the cap-jewels on the balance wheel. It is specifically designed to prevent breakage of the most sensitive parts of the movement; hence my confusion about how you tested that.



> When it comes to the hands, Chronotac hands are pretty much identical to 1680 hands, and look the part. Alpha hands are narrower then 5517 hands so they lose points.


That was my point above. They're _supposed_ to be different. If you wanted the same, then get an Alpha Submariner, not the Mil-Sub which is intended to be different.



> Rolex 1680 and 5517 were used as basic line for this review but I did give these two watches a headstart to get even some points to them too. I don't claim that Rolex watches are perfect, but they are perfect in being 1680 and 5517, that was the basic point which I refered in all the marks. Basic principle was to compare these two between each other but I needed a base line for the review and decided to use Rolex.


Surely if this review is about watches _looking like_ Rolex rather than _being_ Rolex, then the control watch should have been something like a Sandoz or an Orient.



> ST16 is pretty much the lowest end seagull there is and it's known for bad quality control (including hairs and fingerprints inside the movement) as seen on couple reviews online.


Debris and fingerprints are more as symptom of the assembler rather than the manufacturer, so the risks are about the same for both DG and ST16 (which to be fair, given that they are probably supplied fully built up, is somewhat less than some of the 7750 and Unitas clones which often have extensive 3rd party embellishment)

I'm wondering if maybe we need some kind of survey on the Chinese forum to see if we can get comparative reliability stats for DG and ST16. We might all learn something new from that.


----------



## DenS (Sep 25, 2009)

Just giving you a bit of support... I think this is a good review and enjoyed reading it. Reviews should be non-biased and without influence from 'supporters'.

Please keep up the good reporting.

Den


----------



## discordianist (Jan 19, 2009)

DenS said:


> Just giving you a bit of support... I think this is a good review and enjoyed reading it. Reviews should be non-biased and without influence from 'supporters'.
> 
> Please keep up the good reporting.
> 
> Den


Thanks for your kind comment.


----------



## joe1347 (Jul 19, 2008)

As a fair comparison - what was the price paid for the two watches? If they were not fair comparable - then obviously it wasn't a fair comparison.


----------



## m03 (Jul 3, 2009)

Chascomm said:


> That was my point above. They're _supposed_ to be different. If you wanted the same, then get an Alpha Submariner, not the Mil-Sub which is intended to be different.


He stated that he was comparing the two to their respective originals (Chronotac == 1680, Alpha == 5517) in the part you quoted, not to each other. The Alpha's hands are noticably narrower than the Rolex 5517. Here's a pic I found on this forum, for comparison:










Not necessarily that the hands being smaller on the Alpha is right or wrong, but the big hands on the 5517 was one of the interesting/attractive aspects, IMHO.


----------



## Chascomm (Feb 13, 2006)

Thanks for the clarification. I was not aware that Rolex had used hands of a similar shape to that.


----------



## TheWalrus (Mar 16, 2009)

AlphaUSA said:


> I would have appreciated it if you would have let us know of your impending trashing of one of our products on a public forum. We spend a fair amount of money supporting these forums and would appreciate the common courtesy of an email or phone call when our products are a problem.


Why is he under any obligation to share his opinions with you privately, first? He isn't "trashing" one of your products, he's reviewing it, same as he would with any watch. That's what the review section is for. If you wanted your sponsorship of the forum to come with inherent censorship privileges, you should have negotiated that when you signed on.



> Compare us to any other manufacturer out there in the Chinese or low priced category. You won't find a single one that has the level of participation in any forum.


Perhaps less time should be spent participating in forums, and more time should be spent on QC?



> Your blatant disregard for common sense is pretty disturbing. if you had a problem with your watch, you could have let us know and we could have remedied the situation. I am disappointed but not surprised given your typical posture on the forum.


In what way is his review a "disregard for common sense"? It's a review. He received a watch, he wasn't happy with it, at all, and he aimed to review it on a forum so others wouldn't make the same mistake. Maybe you would have _preferred_ it if he came to you first. But he was under no obilgation (based on common sense or not) to do so. That's the risk you run when you sell products. people might not like them, and they might inform others of that fact. Perhaps thicker skin is required on your part?



> Your so called review is totally subjective and I believe you missed the entire point.


Most independent reviews are subjective, that's sort of inherent in the 'review' aspect of the whole thing. I'm also not sure how he missed the 'entire point' of the review either - it was quite well written and to the point if you ask me.



> We are providing an excellent value for the money and listen to our customers. if our product isn't what the forum members wanted, why is it our best selling model? Please speak for yourself.


He already did speak for himself - that was what the review was. It might be your best selling model, but in a world where cigarettes are a billion dollar industry, I'm not sure that popularity is necessarily the best judge of a quality product.



> Next time you want to compare Alpha USA to eBay, please share your one sided opinions elsewhere.


Such as on, say, a public forum, or board where people might go to give their impressions on various time pieces that they've procurred?


----------



## Gianna's Dad (Jan 24, 2009)

Good review - honest opinion. Well done.


----------



## R_T_H (Jul 1, 2009)

Good review. And with respect to forum sponsors, adverts yes, editorial control no.


----------



## GQ1 (Jan 30, 2007)

Good review. Thanks.


----------



## discordianist (Jan 19, 2009)

R_T_H said:


> Good review. And with respect to forum sponsors, adverts yes, editorial control no.





GQ1 said:


> Good review. Thanks.


Thanks for kind comments and support!


----------



## flybynight70 (Feb 21, 2008)

:think:


----------



## AlphaUSA (Apr 19, 2009)

> Alpha comes with TY2806 which is Miyota style movement and known for staggering second hand which in my particular watch is pretty bad, actually I normally enjoy watching second hand sweep but watching this one sweep is like watching drunken sailor on dry land. Also TY2806 ain't known for long lasting performance or high quality control. It does hack thou and keeps the watch running and it ain't too inaccurate to rule it out as timeshowing instrument, althou I wouldn't count on this one on longer trips since I know that this movement can stagger and lose/gain time when shook with force, I havent tried it with this watch but on my line of work that would be a issue. It works and that's a bonus in this pricepoint thou


So, after re-reading your review I have a few questions/comments.

In regards to the movement, I'd like to know if you tested it's accuracy and if so, what were the results? We test each and every watch before it goes out the door in at least two positions (dial up and crown down) to make sure that there aren't any real problems with a particular movement checking for beat error (1ms is unacceptable) and timekeeping ability (+/- 45sec per day MAX) as well as insuring it maintains consistency through it's test. If you did test it, what type of instrument did you test it with?

We look for major issues with regards to stutter but don't stare at the dial for hours on end. Maybe a minute or so.

What type of shock test did you perform? You mentioned that in your line of work, that particular movement in that particular watch is an issue. What line of work are you in?

The MilSub has the same EXACT movement and finish as the Sub and I can't say I've heard any real complaints from anyone until now. That said, I stand by my words, if you have a problem with a watch, let me know and we'll make it right one way or the other.

Thanks in advance.

Mark


----------



## discordianist (Jan 19, 2009)

AlphaUSA said:


> So, after re-reading your review I have a few questions/comments.
> 
> In regards to the movement, I'd like to know if you tested it's accuracy and if so, what were the results? We test each and every watch before it goes out the door in at least two positions (dial up and crown down) to make sure that there aren't any real problems with a particular movement checking for beat error (1ms is unacceptable) and timekeeping ability (+/- 45sec per day MAX) as well as insuring it maintains consistency through it's test. If you did test it, what type of instrument did you test it with?
> 
> ...


This was the first watch ever that has had serious timekeeping faults when taking a shaking that's usual for my daily life. My line of work does require watch to all kinds of bumps and shocks but nothing really major but the issues arise when I was on a bike. Riding downhill on sand road which had loads of bumps and holes. When I was at my work (I bicycle to work pretty much every day) the minute hand and hour hand had wondered about 15 degrees, both. But before that and after that time keeping was ok:ish (I don't have timing tools but from comparison to GMT there was significant error of about 30 - 40 sec a day with out taking that irrational hand movement in comparison).

I think that kind of shaking of the watch rules out warranty thou  And even if it didn't after this review the watch was given away for good (after hands were reset to place where they seemed to stay at least for now).

Stutter on this particular watch was serious to the point where it looked like to move like quartz at times and sometimes it moved counterclockwise for a good bit too, but time keeping wasn't affected (althou this kind of hand movement did it for me on this watch, even if it would keep time with in COSC I wouldn't consider using it).

And about your quality control, if you leave watches which have inconsistent surface finish, dial printing, movement quality (at least in case of shock proofing), and so forth out of the door there has been some error, mistake by one of your workers or problems in procedure in which you handle and test your watches. I'm not taking this further since I no longer have the piece in question and I feel threatened by your responses and actions online. So I leave this here and provide info based on what I know if asked for by either curious customers or by others.


----------



## AlphaUSA (Apr 19, 2009)

discordianist said:


> This was the first watch ever that has had serious timekeeping faults when taking a shaking that's usual for my daily life. My line of work does require watch to all kinds of bumps and shocks but nothing really major but the issues arise when I was on a bike. Riding downhill on sand road which had loads of bumps and holes. When I was at my work (I bicycle to work pretty much every day) the minute hand and hour hand had wondered about 15 degrees, both. But before that and after that time keeping was ok:ish (I don't have timing tools but from comparison to GMT there was significant error of about 30 - 40 sec a day with out taking that irrational hand movement in comparison).
> 
> I think that kind of shaking of the watch rules out warranty thou  And even if it didn't after this review the watch was given away for good (after hands were reset to place where they seemed to stay at least for now).
> 
> ...


Fair enough and I appreciate your response.


----------



## Chascomm (Feb 13, 2006)

discordianist said:


> When I was at my work (I bicycle to work pretty much every day) the minute hand and hour hand had wondered about 15 degrees, both. But before that and after that time keeping was ok:ish (I don't have timing tools but from comparison to GMT there was significant error of about 30 - 40 sec a day with out taking that irrational hand movement in comparison).


My experience is that where hands are looseon their posts, it is impossible to gain any meaningful impression of timekeeping. There may have been small shifts even beforethey started swinging badly.

You mentioned that you had the hands re-set prior to giving the watch away. If the hands have remained steady, would it be possible for the new owner to measure the accuracy?

I wonder if there is a problem with this new hand set sourced by Alpha especially for the Mil-Sub, or if it was an isolated incident. :think:


----------



## AlphaUSA (Apr 19, 2009)

It's only speculation as to what was wrong. I've heard (from another member) that the cap jewel could have been somehow damaged and caused the problem. The other thing that we can only speculate about it just how much shock was the watch subjected to? I suspect (again, only speculation) that it may have been due to excessive shock. Then the question is, how much shock can the movement take in G force? I highly doubt that any Chinese movement is tested beyond basic functionality and Alpha USA is not going to take on that responsibility.

It's a deep dark hole and at this point is all moot. Alpha USA would have made it right but, we didn't get the opportunity.


----------



## nsmike (Jun 21, 2009)

What many people don't understand about warrenty programs is that they aren't there just to make the customer happy. When get an item back that's failed, you can examine the failure, and make make product changes. In this case because you didn't get the watch back it's pure conjecture.


----------



## dnslater (Feb 26, 2009)

I thought the review was very helpful and provided useful information to those considering a sub homage, as I have been. There were a few points that I thought were somewhat harsh, but overall a good review.

It was mentioned that you would be better off buying a cheap watch at a department store such as Walmart. The photos the reviewer posted actually made these watches look nice for the price point (in my humble opinion). I also don't appreciate the comments regarding spending more and buying a "real" watch. Sounded like both of these watches were functional and told time just fine.... we can't all afford a Rolex. Edit: not sure what the requirements are to be a real watch. I also agree that this has turned me off to Alpha.... both the review and the Alpha USA response, as I was actually considering a sub homage (that why I read the review).

I do like the advise about putting money in a jar each time you get the urge to buy an inexpensive watch and save up. I will do that today, and that advise will be helpful for me to remember......


----------



## Matvei (Feb 8, 2009)

Thanks for the review.

The much-too-slim hands are a turn-off for me about the milsub. As for the different lume on hands vs. markers, that's one of the things bothering me about my Alpha Explorer, along with the very mat black of the dial. I love everything else about the watch though. If it had a date and stayed the same size (unlike the mkii) it'd be awesome for me.

As for the Chronomat (tac?) I think it seems shady only living in ebay-land and having stupid text (perpetual calendar, 200 meters). 

Thanks for the great pics.

EDIT: oh and Alpha-usa's response to your review has turned me off them big time. I hate censorship, especially corporate censorship. They should apologize to the forum, in my mind.


----------



## ivftc (Sep 29, 2009)

All due respect to the reviewer and to the makers of Alpha and Chronotac, but my impression of the two watches is different. 

I happen to own both an Alpha Sub (not a mil-sub, mind you) and a Chronotac Seamatic. In my opinion the Alpha is a much higher quality, more well made timepiece than the Chronotac. The Chronotac looks pretty good, but when you get down to it is pretty chintzy. The Alpha, for all intents and purposes, IS a Submariner. I have actually held the Alpha right next to a Rolex Sub and noted very few differences, other than that the bracelet on the Rolex is a little higher quality and just moves and fits together a little better.

I vote for Alpha.


----------



## CMSgt Bo (Feb 12, 2006)

discordianist said:


> When I handled these the very fist time two very disctinctive things jumped on me. *First on Alpha-USA MilSub (refered as Alpha later on review) the lume color of the hands and dial was distinctively differend from each other, more then usually on watches and so much so that it was distraction from the overall impression.* On Chronotac Seamatic (refered as Seamatic later on review) first impression was the look that meant the business. It was suprisingly similar in look to the vintage Rolex Submariner and all the parts look like they're up for it at first glance.


I find it odd that the lume mis-match on the Alpha is such a distraction for you when you hardly noticed a more blatant mis-match on the OW MilSub 5517 last October here:

https://www.watchuseek.com/showthread.php?t=312239

and the Explorer 5517 last May here:

https://www.watchuseek.com/showthread.php?t=268272

:-s


----------



## danielb (Aug 29, 2008)

Whooo WELL DONE!!:-!
I do not think you have to add anything else. You seem to love writing reviews
We want more


----------



## orian (Feb 10, 2010)

Good observation.

The reviewer does seem to have an imagined axe to grind with Alpha. As such his review is unreliable.



CMSgt Bo said:


> I find it odd that the lume mis-match on the Alpha is such a distraction for you when you hardly noticed a more blatant mis-match on the OW MilSub 5517 last October here:
> 
> https://www.watchuseek.com/showthread.php?t=312239
> 
> ...


----------



## Chicawolverina (Jul 4, 2009)

I just purchased the Alpha Mil Sub a few weeks ago. At first after setting it and screwing in the crown it could once in a while come to a complete stop and only opening up the crown again would release the balance wheel. Then a few times when I screwed down the crown it would run and then stop for just a second or two and the second hand would snap forward in an instant to start up again. It's all better now, and I've done nothing to improve it other than setting the rate cock back just a tad so that now it's getting about + or - 7 seconds a day depending on if I wear it or not etc. One thing I've noticed in comparison to the usual Alpha Sub is that this Alpha USA Mil Sub has a nice deep channel in the case under the back flange for a nice normal taurus shaped O-Ring gasket! I'm not ready to tear the watch down to see what's under the crown but, this o-ring on the case is far better than what the standard Alpha Sub has for its back seal, which is just the cheap lightweight flat-sided black rubber band around the top of the threading. I would buy this watch again! A comparison of the Chronotac's case open next to the Alpha USA Mil Sub would be nice, but from what I can see of the Chonotac's picture, it's the same sort of arrangement on the Alpha USA Mil Sub.

The only other thing about the Alpha USA Mil Sub was that right at first the bezel was bad, very hard to turn and just grinding and flaking off metal dust from beneath it. So I put a few shots of silicone oil spray around the sides of the bezel cracks and that blew out the metal dirt, so I hit it again the next day and since then it's smooth and tight, and pricise! I'll take it off soon and really work on that.

So there's little things, I guess I would do with any diver like that too?


----------

