# Breitling SuperQuartz ?



## zak3737

Currently trying to decide on a new watch that my wife has promised to buy me for my 5oth soon, and I thought I was decided on the new version coming through of the Omega Seamaster Pro in Quartz. (I'm not 'that much' of a connosseur to be bothered by an Auto movement etc, -rather have the accuracy and convenience of Quartz.

However, I do love the Breitling Aerospace too b-)
In particular, I'm drawn to the Titanium for ease of wearing, as I arent keen on a lot of weight on my wrist these days, and having read a few posts on here, I see it has a 'SuperQuartz' movement, whatever that is ?
Can anyone explain in easy laymans terms please ?

Thx in advance ?


----------



## Hans Moleman

zak3737 said:


> Currently trying to decide on a new watch that my wife has promised to buy me for my 5oth soon, and I thought I was decided on the new version coming through of the Omega Seamaster Pro in Quartz. (I'm not 'that much' of a connosseur to be bothered by an Auto movement etc, -rather have the accuracy and convenience of Quartz.
> 
> However, I do love the Breitling Aerospace too b-)
> In particular, I'm drawn to the Titanium for ease of wearing, as I arent keen on a lot of weight on my wrist these days, and having read a few posts on here, I see it has a 'SuperQuartz' movement, whatever that is ?
> Can anyone explain in easy laymans terms please ?
> 
> Thx in advance ?


Lucky you!

Superquartz is the Breitling' way of saying that its watches are very accurate.
Is this one of those 'one second in a million years' clocks? No it is not.
It is 'more accurate' than the usual quartz watch.

A usual quartz clock could lose minutes in a year. 
A Superquartz watch could lose seconds in a year.

All depending on how you use the watch. Wear pattern is an important factor.

I struggle to find a real need for knowing the time to the second, but there are occasions where it is vital.

I cannot comment on the Aerospace, but it sure looks the part.
Do a search in the forum and see if there are bad experiences with it.


----------



## ronalddheld

I own an Aerospace and would recommend it. My only complaint is having to use the crown for all functions including the backlight.


----------



## petew

I echo ronalddheld's comments about the crown. It is a very comfortable and light watch.


----------



## artec

I'm ashamed to say that I've had an Aerospace several times and each time found some excuse to sell it to get funds for something else! 

All the Breitlings are COSC certified which in quartz means +/- 15.5 seconds a year, I believe. Certainly mine were very accurate and I agree with those who favor the Ti case. I found the use of the crown for all the adjustments and mode changes quite easy to get used to and since one has to adjust it so seldom one only uses it to select the chrono etc. The Aerospace also has an annual calendar which means only February calls for a reset.

A personal dislike is the angled bracelet links, but one quickly learns to ignore it even though it still bugs me when I see one. 

I wish you well with your Aerospace f you decide on it and, whether you do or not, I wish you a Happy Birthday.


----------



## webvan

Love mine, possibly the best luxury "tool" watch out there!


----------



## Sabresoft

artec said:


> All the Breitlings are COSC certified which in quartz means +/- 15.5 seconds a year, I believe.


COSC is 0.07 SPD @ 23C which translates to 25.5 SPY.



artec said:


> The Aerospace also has an annual calendar which means only February calls for a reset.


The Breitling site lists the current Aerospace as having a 4 year calendar, which I assume would not need adjusting other than setting the correct year in a 4 year leap cycle. My Campanola has a YR1, YR2, YR3, LY feature that I assume would be the way that the current Aerospace would approach it.


----------



## ronalddheld

I do not understand why these watches do not have perpetual calendars.


----------



## dicioccio

DON'T THEY ??? Really ??? Almost unbelievable !


----------



## Catalin

dicioccio said:


> DON'T THEY ??? Really ??? Almost unbelievable !


Well, remember those still have the 'annual calendar' - so it only needs to be corrected 1 in 4 years.

And I suspect the situation is kept that way by the marketing department - in order to 'differentiate upwards' the more expensive Chronospace and Airwolf models (which do have the perpetual calendar) ...


----------



## dicioccio

Ah, ok, at least the remember the number of the days in a month ^_^.

What a sad situation if the marketing needs these tricks to differentiate models...


----------



## webvan

I need to check my Aerospace, but if it shows February 29th, and I doubt it wouldn't, then the date will have to be adjusted three years out of four, right ?


----------



## McAllan

dicioccio said:


> Ah, ok, at least the remember the number of the days in a month ^_^.
> 
> What a sad situation if the marketing needs these tricks to differentiate models...


Agreed.
Buy hey. It's those things ordinary people can understand. Most people will look like you're asking them about the connection between string theory and general relativity and gravitational time dilation when all you ask for the expected precision, how well the TC work etc.

Many people are still stuck in the 1970s vision about quartz (except for a very few models like the OMC but they were out of their price range anyway) "Quartz is the best that and if you want better than that you need atomic clock" that sort of simple style thinking.

That is probably also why TC is non existent and precision is not very impressive on ordinary watches. They could as easily as raise the final price 10 dollars if even at all make them with very good TC and rate performance. Just take a look at one of my favorite examples the DS32KHZ chip. Perhaps specs is not the most impressive looking in the datasheet but usually the chips does way better as chip manufacturers are quite conservative about specs and it's certainly way better than ordinary quartz anyway. The vast majority of the chips perform at "SuperQuartz" level or (much) better and they only cost a handful of dollars if you are to buy them in small numbers from an electronics store which means for manufacturers and others buying them in large numbers they're utter cheap.

But hey. I'd be satisfied adjusting date every 4th year even on an expensive watch. No big deal in my world. Other watches you input date and year and many don't even run very far so before you're even an old man you have to find a year in which the weekdays fit the dates (and there by adjusting more than every 4 year). What I would like to see instead is some more advanced functions like sun up/down times (you input coordinates and your local timezone offset (non DST) relative to UTC). That is a function i could use from time to time in contrast of multiple alarms (one is fie with me) etc.


----------



## dicioccio

True words, that's why I feel frustrated every time I write here in this HEQ subforum.

I am sure how easily and economically the wristwatch builders could produce a wonderful watch with all the functions and the accuracy we are dreaming about but I can see that the market is driven by different logic. Again, it's really frustrating...


----------



## Hans Moleman

McAllan said:


> What I would like to see instead is some more advanced functions like sun up/down times (you input coordinates and your local timezone offset (non DST) relative to UTC).


That would be a handy addition: Sunrise sunset.


----------



## Sabresoft

webvan said:


> I need to check my Aerospace, but if it shows February 29th, and I doubt it wouldn't, then the date will have to be adjusted three years out of for, right ?


I don't believe so. The difference between a four year calendar and a perpetual calendar is that the four year calendar runs on a 4 year cycle but doesn't know the actual year. For example my Campanola currently shows +3 on the year dial. Next year it will show LY. I bought it last December and there was no February 29 this year. Next year there will be. My perpetual calendar watches show the actual year (directly on the Airwolf and in setting mode on the Skyhawk).

If you have to adjust for February 29 every 3 of 4 years it is known as an Annual Calendar.

The current Breitling website lists the Aerospace as being a four year calendar. It is conceivable that older Aerospaces may have had annual calendar calibers.


----------



## eurocopter

I think what you call a four year calendar is actually perpetual calendar. Your Campanola knows when the year is leap year. It doesn't matter whether the setting is actual year such as 2011 or offset +3.
Regarding calendar, the Aerospace (new or old) had always a primitive movement that was not leap year aware and on Feb 29 would show Mar 1.


----------



## Eeeb

McAllan said:


> ...
> That is probably also why TC is non existent and precision is not very impressive on ordinary watches. They could as easily as raise the final price 10 dollars if even at all make them with very good TC and rate performance. Just take a look at one of my favorite examples the DS32KHZ chip. Perhaps specs is not the most impressive looking in the datasheet but usually the chips does way better as chip manufacturers are quite conservative about specs and it's certainly way better than ordinary quartz anyway. The vast majority of the chips perform at "SuperQuartz" level or (much) better and they only cost a handful of dollars if you are to buy them in small numbers from an electronics store which means for manufacturers and others buying them in large numbers they're utter cheap...


Those chips have a larger form factor than will fit in a watch... I suppose a custom version could be created minimizing size. But the spec is only 60 seconds per year. Even if it is 5 times better, that only brings it into the current ETA Thermoline specs. But the killer is power consumption. The chip has a 'power consumption minimization mode'. If this is necessary on devices powered by large batteries then it is a sign the small button batteries of watches would have heart attacks trying to feed it. (I couldn't find power consumption in the datasheet.)

It might be pretty good for quartz clock moments though. But here too the market for accuracy is difficult to find. I can not see where anyone is making the 4 MHz crystal clocks anymore. And the real attraction of RC clocks seems to be they set themselves, not that they are accurate to the exact second.

However, with sufficient marketing and advertising and promotion, the market for high accuracy can be created. But no one has invested in such a campaign. I suspect because they think others can match the product easily.

I do have hopes the Chinese will use it as a method of driving up acceptance of their watches. They have more to gain than any other player. Time will tell.


----------



## ronalddheld

SOT, but have the Chinese produced an inexpensive HAQ watch?


----------



## Eeeb

ronalddheld said:


> SOT, but have the Chinese produced an inexpensive HAQ watch?


SOT == same old thing? shoes on target?

The Chinese have not done such. But they are the only ones in the market position where they gain a great deal by doing so.


----------



## webvan

eurocopter said:


> I think what you call a four year calendar is actually perpetual calendar. Your Campanola knows when the year is leap year. It doesn't matter whether the setting is actual year such as 2011 or offset +3.
> Regarding calendar, the Aerospace (new or old) had always a primitive movement that was not leap year aware and on Feb 29 would show Mar 1.


Makes sense, I'm a bit shocked that they would "erase" February 29th altogether though!


----------



## McAllan

Eeeb said:


> Those chips have a larger form factor than will fit in a watch... I suppose a custom version could be created minimizing size. But the spec is only 60 seconds per year. Even if it is 5 times better, that only brings it into the current ETA Thermoline specs. But the killer is power consumption. The chip has a 'power consumption minimization mode'. If this is necessary on devices powered by large batteries then it is a sign the small button batteries of watches would have heart attacks trying to feed it. (I couldn't find power consumption in the datasheet.)
> 
> It might be pretty good for quartz clock moments though. But here too the market for accuracy is difficult to find. I can not see where anyone is making the 4 MHz crystal clocks anymore. And the real attraction of RC clocks seems to be they set themselves, not that they are accurate to the exact second.
> 
> However, with sufficient marketing and advertising and promotion, the market for high accuracy can be created. But no one has invested in such a campaign. I suspect because they think others can match the product easily.
> 
> I do have hopes the Chinese will use it as a method of driving up acceptance of their watches. They have more to gain than any other player. Time will tell.


Choose the BGA size - not the classic DIP. It might even be possible to retrofit the BGA in some watches powered by lithium (as voltage would otherwise be too low).
Actually the chip is not that power hungry if you configure it right. It's right the power switching circuitry use quite an amount (why I don't get, but hey powered by mains it doesn't matter as its stil insignificant). Ground VCC and feed it by batt. Then current consumption is only about 1 µA and 450 µA at the brief period every 64 seconds when temp measurement is done - easily handled by a lithium. Not very many mAh over one year for a lithium.

Yes I said about the specs. As sais the chip manufacturers are quite conservative so should be no problem to get them guaranteed tighter. Look at my Seiko QM-11. Bet it'll be off by no more than max. 5 seconds at it's one year anniversary. Also part of the point is the price. It's cheap. Watches with TC are expensive even though you could easily/cheaply fit TC in cheaper watches - and of course TC can be made (much) more accurate in more expensive watches as in those you could adjust compensation to the individual crystal instead of "just" a generic approximate correction and thereby still differentiating the products.

What I personally hope for is that Casio will get themselves together. Their edifice line is quite nice but not quite there yet (my biggest complaint is no sapphire crystal and then basic accuracy although living where DCF is easily available it's tolerable for a daily use watch). I have look at their Lineage for a new everyday watch having a bit of trouble finding a Citizen perfectly fitting my demands (ana/digi, RC, easy to get the date without pulling and rotating a knob etc. as on the otherwise nice Skyhawk). Finally they're not just low price digitals and G-Shocks but also quite nice everyday watches with sapphire and some even in titanium and no flimsy plastic case. If any would have the guts I believe it could be Casio.
As said now they've finally got some quite nice everyday watches on their menu and they've long got watches with 1/1000 sec resolution stopwatch.
True until now they've haven't got any HAQ but a stopwatch with such a high resolution doesn't really make any sense if driven by a 1 s/d oscillator. And it would fit their recent development and step up from very cheap watches with their relatively new lines of edifice and lineage - seems Casio is climbing up the ladder wanting a piece of the higher ranging market too.
I believe if they only put a TC on their better edifice models and upgrade the crystal for sapphire they would have the watch of the century ground shaking the industry (perhaps do the case just that little better than their current). Of course that is if they manage to market it properly. And here the point about 1/1000 sec stopwatch might do the trick. Heck you even have difficulty pressing accurately on 1/100 resolution but of course that's conveniently left of of the advertizement ;-)


----------



## Sabresoft

webvan said:


> Makes sense, I'm a bit shocked that they would "erase" February 29th altogether though!


I was in the local Breitling AD today killing time while the wife was in getting some knee surgery done. I asked about the 4 year calendar on the Aerospace and they confirmed that it operates as I explained (they said "yes it is a full 1461 day calendar", which explains the marking on some automatic Breitling models). 1461 is 4 x 365 plus one Feb 29.

Now that is for the current Aerospace model and may not be true of older versions.

The trick has to be in setting the year in the 4 year cycle. On my Campanola it has one of the dials that shows +1, +2, +3 and LY, which currently shows +3.


----------



## Sabresoft

eurocopter said:


> I think what you call a four year calendar is actually perpetual calendar. Your Campanola knows when the year is leap year. It doesn't matter whether the setting is actual year such as 2011 or offset +3.
> Regarding calendar, the Aerospace (new or old) had always a primitive movement that was not leap year aware and on Feb 29 would show Mar 1.


I was in the local Breitling AD today and confirmed that my description is correct. The 4 year or 1461 day calendar only knows a 4 year cycle.

Perpetual calendars (misnamed actually because most will only work until 2100) know the actual year.

Annual calendars only know about 366 days a year and have to be corrected 3 years out of 4.


----------



## artec

I'm sure that many members are familiar with all these sets of initials (BGA, DIP, DCF etc) but not all of us are and I would suggest that for their benefit, the meaning of such abbreviations might be given the first time they're used in a thread. I for one, would appreciate it. 
There are so many abbreviations around nowadays, some of which have turned into acronyms, that it's hard to keep up. A new reader, exploring this forum for the first time, might well be daunted by abbreviations that those of us who've been here for a few months take for granted..... TC, ana-digi and so on. I know I had to ask a lot of beginners' questions when I first found out about HEQ, and clearly still have to, come to that.


----------



## webvan

> I was in the local Breitling AD today and confirmed that my description is correct. The 4 year or 1461 day calendar only knows a 4 year cycle.
> 
> Perpetual calendars (misnamed actually because most will only work until 2100) know the actual year.
> 
> Annual calendars only know about 366 days a year and have to be corrected 3 years out of 4.


No, perpetual calendars are...perpetual in that they don't need to be corrected (except in 2100, 2400, etc...), whether they show the actual year or Y1/Y2/Y3/LY does not take that away from them, see Perpetual calendar | Glossary | Fondation De La Haute Horlogerie

Of course showing they year is a nice bonus and there aren't too many out there that do, Ulysse Nardin (can be fixed for 2100/01/01 by the user too), IWC (needs to be fixed in the shop on 2100/01/01), some of Catalin's fancy Citizen and Seiko Quartz models (with a hand though, not a digit).

The "1461 calendar" doesn't really make sense to me since that would make it a perpetual calendar...it's really a "glorified" annual calendar that doesn't show February 29th as a "normal" annual calendar would (?). I guess it's more convenient as you only have to fix it once on February 29th of the LY, rather than each year, but I still have a bit of a problem with the concept of February 29th being "erased" from the map..


----------



## McAllan

artec said:


> I'm sure that many members are familiar with all these sets of initials (BGA, DIP, DCF etc) but not all of us are and I would suggest that for their benefit, the meaning of such abbreviations might be given the first time they're used in a thread. I for one, would appreciate it.
> There are so many abbreviations around nowadays, some of which have turned into acronyms, that it's hard to keep up. A new reader, exploring this forum for the first time, might well be daunted by abbreviations that those of us who've been here for a few months take for granted..... TC, ana-digi and so on. I know I had to ask a lot of beginners' questions when I first found out about HEQ, and clearly still have to, come to that.


BGA = Ball Grid Array. A standard which allowed very tiny space between chip connections. It's surface mounted and cannot be soldered by any chance hand like larger surface mounted components but must be re-flowed.

DIP = Dual Inline Package. The classic though hole component size pionered in the 60s and 70s. Well suited for hand soldering. When buying chips those sizes today there's typically lots of space wasted inside. A tiny chip inside an ocean of epoxy and giant leads connecting it to the outside world. That's why the size is not used very much today.

DCF = I can't remember. But it's the radio time transmitter located in Frankfurt, Germany. By far the most popular here. Even though UK and France have got their own senders most clocks and watches use the German and if supporting multiple it's not always supporting the UK and typically even then preferring the German but haven't seen anyone supporting the France transmitter. The same function as WWVB in America, MSF in England, JJY in Japan, BCP in China and some lesser known around the world like some in Moscow and Siberia and the now doomed HBG in Schwitzerland (wasn't used outside Schwitzerland anyway) etc.

But you're right about abbreviations. It's typically American and very pronounced in American books, official life etc. I saw a TV program about the life on a hangar ship. The briefing of the fighter pilots where almost nothing but abbreviations and totally meaningless to other than themselves even though saying the letter abbreviation is longer/harder than saying the actual words. Luckily it was underlined with the explanation otherwise it would be non sense for the viewer. Writing of course is a different matter.

Regarding the chip size. I'm was not saying watch manufacturers should absolutely use the small chips. In watches and many other small size modern electronic things the chip is typically bonded directly to the PCB (Printed Circuit Board) and then protected by a blob of epoxy (the same material as the loose chips you buy at an electronics store - you're not buying bare unprotected chips just cut out of the wafer). But guess since the DS32KHZ incorporates a crystal that's out of the question buying it unprotected. If Casio or any other watch manufacturer decides to use it I'm sure Maxim IC could deliver it in an even smaller package than the standard BGA without much price increase. Or Casio could just make their own TC. I believe they easily could get the knowledge and technology to do so if they haven't already got it. Really my point was the price of making such a circuit with so much greater accuracy and temperature stability than standard quartz - not that I by all means want Casio etc. to use that specific chip.


----------



## Sabresoft

webvan said:


> No, perpetual calendars are...perpetual in that they don't need to be corrected (except in 2100, 2400, etc...), whether they show the actual year or Y1/Y2/Y3/LY does not take that away from them, see Perpetual calendar | Glossary | Fondation De La Haute Horlogerie
> 
> Of course showing they year is a nice bonus and there aren't too many out there that do, Ulysse Nardin (can be fixed for 2100/01/01 by the user too), IWC (needs to be fixed in the shop on 2100/01/01), some of Catalin's fancy Citizen and Seiko Quartz models (with a hand though, not a digit).
> 
> The "1461 calendar" doesn't really make sense to me since that would make it a perpetual calendar...it's really a "glorified" annual calendar that doesn't show February 29th as a "normal" annual calendar would (?). I guess it's more convenient as you only have to fix it once on February 29th of the LY, rather than each year, but I still have a bit of a problem with the concept of February 29th being "erased" from the map..


OK fair enough I stand corrected (and not totally surprised that the AD saleslady didn't know the correct answer). Makes sense in a way I guess. Can hardly fault Breitling though as it is a feature of the base ETA caliber.

Of all the ETA TC (thermocompensated) calibers the one used for the Airwolf and Chronospace is best as it uses a perpetual calendar.

The Aerospace and Emergency use the four year calendar that is basically an annual calendar minus Feb 29 requiring a reset once every four years.

The one used in the Christopher Ward C70 requires date correction on all short months but this can be accomplished by spinning the individually adjustable hour hand 24 hours around the dial (this type of hour hand facilitates time zone and ST/DST changes).

The one in the Sinn UX allows easy single click date adjustment, but changing timezones or ST/DST requires resetting the time.

Why can't they (ETA) make all their calibers perpetual date. Citizen does perpetual calendars on some of their watches that only have a date window by using the hour and minute hands to designate year and month while in the date setting mode.

The only other solution is a watch with no date feature at all, but that definitely doesn't turn my crank.


----------



## Eeeb

McAllan said:


> ... Really my point was the price of making such a circuit with so much greater accuracy and temperature stability than standard quartz - not that I by all means want Casio etc. to use that specific chip.


Some of the early ETA Thermolines were their normal surface mount circuit board with an additional piggy back board for the thermocompensation thermistor and some additional circuitry. I believe they are now all on a single board. The ability to build these circuits for little more than a normal circuit has been around for all to use for many years.

One vendor approached Ronda about doing one. They were told Ronda didn't have any interest. TC is believed to be a small niche market. But that is a self fulfilling prophecy - no marketing of an innovation means no sales. Oh well... As one of the TAGHeuer moderators I know TAG monitors the WUS TAG forum. I keep trying over there. But TAG sees more profit in mechanicals... which is also a self fulfilling prophecy.

Given that no existing 'big' players see the value, I see our main hope coming from a small player looking for something special they can use to wedge themselves into the market. Maybe Ventura. But more probably someone in China. At this stage of their economic life the Chinese are more entrepreneurial.


----------



## dicioccio

One of the ability of Nicholas Hayek has been to build a solid image around mechanicals and it created a huge marketing that make mechanical builders to have good earnings.

This lesson seems to have been totally ignored by the big quartz builders. I think Citizen, Casio and Seiko are quite stubborn. They are currently building good quartz products but they seem to be totally afraid to create a solid market around high end / high accuracy products.

Funny that they have all the know how to do that easily so it's only a matter of marketing.

But if Breitling is able to sell for over 3000 € their "superquartz", why Seiko and Citizen don't market their product with the same "strength" ? Why Casio is choosing to stay away from this fight ?

I think for the Japanese is a cultural problem, choosing to be very conservative and not to open a new market area, that is the one of high-end and high accuracy quartz watches. For me, this new area should make the owners of such products to be proud to wear their watches and show them off the same way the owners of mechanicals do with their Rolex.


----------



## zak3737

Cripes fella's, this all got a bit deep,and I got 'lost' about half way through !

One thing is for sure, I want a Quartz watch, and a 'High-End' Quartz to be precise, something special on my wrist for my 50th. I've been browsing quite a few of the Forum's, ie Omega/Breitling etc, and the number of posts about Automatic's 'losing time', (albeit an 'accepted' scale of loss), going 'wrong', and cost of 'maintenance', - its all got me marvelling at just how many people out there are prepared to put up with these problems, and whats more, pay extortionately for the privelege in many many occasions.

For me, the *main* purpose of a watch is to accurately keep stock of time, and if a SuperQuartz or normal Quartz can do that better than a mechanical, then thats the one for me. Added benefit is that I dont have to keep it worn to keep it working.

So, looks like the Aerospace is a main contender for my wrist, but i'm open to suggestions ! ;-)


----------



## artec

You could have a look at the Chopard Grand Prix Historique de Monaco which is similar in function etc to the Breitling but more expensive (though selling at really good discounts) and the Sinn UX, which is much simpler in function than either of the other two. Both are thermocomp and COSC certified. The Chopard, being mirror polished stainless has a lot more bling than the others.


----------



## typericey

Sorry for thread-jacking, just wanted to ask:

- what calibers are the Breitling Superquartz?
- are they ETA?
- what are their accuracy ratings?


----------



## typericey

Disregard my question above. Found the answer here.


----------



## sliberman

I own a Breitling Aerospace. I bought it (brand new) because of its claimed precision (+/- 15 seconds a year) and the titanium case.

I am very disappointed with this watch. After two years of use it started to advance about 2 minutes after ~5 days.
Under warranty, I sent the watch back to Breitling for calibration and battery replacement.
After about 1 year, it has again started to run faster and is currently getting ~1 minute in advance every week.
It costs more than US$ 500 to get the watch calibrated by Breitling.

Do yourself a favor and get a Citizen if you want titanium case, or a Casio Solar Atomic if you want precision.


----------



## webvan

Sorry to read that, but that's really not typical for a Breitling with a Superquartz (ETA) movement. These quartz ETA movements are excellent and my 24 year old Omega SM200 with the 1441 is currently at -1 spy.

The only accuracy problems I've seen or heard of were related to failing batteries but it doesn't seem like it's the case for your current problem. I'd get on Breitling's case and ask that they swap out the movement.


----------



## South Pender

I've gathered from this thread that the Breitling TC movements ("Superquartz") will have either this "annual" calendar (which needs adjustment 3 out of every 4 years) or a true perpetual calendar. Is this true? Second, do any of these movements have an independently-adjustable hour hand (for DST and time-zone changes)?


----------



## Catalin

South Pender said:


> I've gathered from this thread that the Breitling TC movements ("Superquartz") will have either this "annual" calendar (which needs adjustment 3 out of every 4 years) or a true perpetual calendar. Is this true? Second, do any of these movements have an independently-adjustable hour hand (for DST and time-zone changes)?


I believe the Aerospace is annual calendar, and I would expect to only need adjustment 1 in 4 years. But I don't know if the analog hand for hours has the 1-hour steps ...


----------



## ronalddheld

I do not have that problem with my Aerospace. Get Breitling to replace that movement.


----------



## Sabresoft

South Pender said:


> I've gathered from this thread that the Breitling TC movements ("Superquartz") will have either this "annual" calendar (which needs adjustment 3 out of every 4 years) or a true perpetual calendar. Is this true? Second, do any of these movements have an independently-adjustable hour hand (for DST and time-zone changes)?


Yes the Colt Chronograph II and Avenger Seawolf Chrono use the Breitling 73 caliber which I believe is based on the ETA 251.232 used in the Christopher Ward C70 Brooklands, Maurice Lacroix Miros Diver Chronograph and the Certina DS Master. These "7 Hand" watches have the easily adjusted hour hand.

Breitling even describes the caliber as having a fast-action timezone change.

Unfortunately this caliber's calendar needs adjusting on all short months, but a quick 24 hour spin of the fast-action hour hand allows quick advance of the date.

The B78 (Airwolf and Chronospace), has perpetual calendar and the hour hand is in sync with the digital display which can be easily adjusted for the hour without affecting the minutes/seconds. The B79 (Aerospace) and B76 (Emergency) have the 4 year calendars, but I assume would adjust the hour hand in a similar fashion to the B78.

The non chronograph Colt 44, uses the Breitling B74 caliber which I believe is based on the ETA 955.652 which is also used in the Sinn UX.

This caliber has fast date change but requires a reset of the watch for timezone and ST/DST changes. It has a rated 8 year battery life (Sinn says 7 years, possibly due to drag from the oil).

The Colt 33 uses a B77 (3 year battery), the Galactic 32 and Galactic 30 uses a B71 (6 year battery). These appear to be similar to the B74 in terms of having a 31 day calendar, but I have no information on the quick set features (date or hour hand).


----------

