Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

FLTDI t1_j4ea95u wrote

Looks nice, but not exactly bulletproof if it doesn't function correctly.

450

WeirdEngineerDude t1_j4eamd5 wrote

For a mechanical watch, and an old one, a minute a day is pretty good. That’s off by less than 0.1%.

That’s why a vibrating quartz element was such a game-changer.

107

F-21 t1_j4ez30d wrote

Also, if you didn't loose a quartz watch from the 70's (or maybe 80's when they gott really widespread), it still runs today as well. New Casios last a decade on one battery and are more accurate than a rolex...

39

JMAC426 t1_j4g4s7u wrote

Yeah but Rolex are also overpriced and overhyped (though certainly not bad watches)

Edit: oh no fanboys found me

26

F-21 t1_j4g5zl4 wrote

That's quite literally any mechanical watch. Even the cheapest one is terribly overpriced and inferior to a much cheaper quartz casio in functionality. It's jewelry :)

I have nothing against them, and enjoy a good mechanical watch, but that's what they are. For style and performance, something like a Citizen Ecodrive is probably the best balance.

18

JMAC426 t1_j4g65c1 wrote

You mis-spelled Longines

−1

F-21 t1_j4h5czt wrote

Longines, patek philippe, tag heuer, rolex, citizen, seiko... does not matter, functionally a mechanical watch is obsolete. There is nothing that it could do better. For example, a citizen ecodrive is cheaper, slimmer, more elegant, way more accurate, lighter, more durable and completely maintenance free (I think it uses some sort of capacitors instead of a battery, only needs short term battery anyway, if most battery watches last for 8-10 years on a single battery the ecodrive only needs to last a week or a month so it's really tiny as it is constantly recharged). For more extreme durability, there's g-shock. A mechanical watch is an incredibly complex piece of fragile engineering, quartz is an amazing technology from a functional standpoint. But a mechanical watch is art.

3

JMAC426 t1_j4h64ik wrote

Just a joke, comrade. I’m well aware of the pros and cons of various watch types. I was just saying Rolex is those things, in comparison to other mechanical watches.

0

F-21 t1_j4h8hk5 wrote

Rolex is probably the most overhyped since it is so famous :) But probably retains value better? I don't know. I bet lots of people want a Rolex even over some "better" or equivelant brands just cause they only know rolex.

1

Dear_Watson t1_j4grs5g wrote

I have a early Seiko Quartz 0624 LCD from 1974 that still functions perfectly along with an early Zenith Defy Quartz from 1975 that also keeps great time. If you maintain older Quartz watches and make sure to regularly change the battery so the internals don’t get ruined they literally pretty much last forever. The massive exception to the rule being LED watches as eventually the LED anode will deteriorate with regular use, especially with older LEDs.

2

throwawaycanadian2 t1_j4elisf wrote

For an old one maybe. Mechanical is usually accurate to way more precise measurements than that. Even back then it would be measured in a few seconds. Not a minute.

Getting this was serviced by someone who knows what they re doing may make it way more accurate.

16

F-21 t1_j4eyxdf wrote

As another guy said, this was one of the cheapest mechanical movements on the market at the time. The shafts run on bearings that wear out and get sloppy...

18

RokieVetran t1_j4fut6j wrote

Timex watches of the day were not made to be serviced

8

lngswrd15 t1_j4ezdz5 wrote

As others have said, it's a bit hard to believe when we live in an age of super precise and cheap quartz movements, but it's not too bad for an old mass produced mechanical movement.

For comparison, a brand new NH35 is specced at -20 to +40 seconds per day.

100

agent_flounder t1_j4ej8e6 wrote

For an old, cheap pin-pallet Timex movement, that's not terrible. I doubt any of em could do better than 20-30 sec/d brand new. I mean, these are zero jewels movements designed for low cost.

This one could simply need regulating, too. If we want to judge health, throw it on a timegrapher.

Meanwhile .. cool watch!

25

jmp3r96 OP t1_j4g971n wrote

I didn't buy it for the accuracy. I'm a manufacturing engineer, so I jump between working in my office to being out on the shop floor pretty regularly. Nothing heavy-duty, but I wanted something that would still work if I accidentally knocked it. And I wanted something mechanical because I just like mechanical objects.

I'd also like to point out that the Timex movement while inaccurate and crude to some is pretty ingenious in that they were able to break down a complicated watch movement into its most basic components for mass manufacture. From a watchmaker's perspective, it's a junk nightmare. But for me, it's an example of manufacturing engineering at its finest.

16

agent_flounder t1_j4gs7rw wrote

For sure! They are awesome. That's why I have several including the one I had as a kid in the 70s (it still runs fine too).

The old ads are true ("takes a licking..."). Those old Timex watches really are tough as nails. For example, the balance staff, instead of a thin, easily broken thing like in typical mechanicals, is 10x thicker with cone ends that ride in inverse cone dishes. You're not gonna break that, I don't care what you do. That design is inherently shock proof without needing to add any tiny, expensive shock protection parts (diashock, incaboc, etc).

2

Cottonita t1_j4gy2o9 wrote

Exactly why I started collecting vintage Timexes. I’m amazed at the engineering it took to produce such hardy pieces at affordable prices, and I really like how the designs are so distinctive to their era. One of my everyday watches is from the 1950s and it’s still accurate.

1

bill1024 t1_j4f5dby wrote

In the 70s, a cheap watch might lose or gain 5 minutes a day. Timex was a cheap watch.

It takes a licking, and keeps on ticking! was their motto iirc.

12

ErikRogers t1_j4hwkr0 wrote

They ran with that motto in to the 90's. I remember a digital to next being a runner up prize on a kids game show back then (Uh-Oh) and they used that motto.

1

jmp3r96 OP t1_j4eami5 wrote

You have to wind it every other day anyways. I usually reset the time then.

11

FreakyWolf t1_j4fj3tc wrote

Automatic and mechanical watches are always off, especially the older ones. The more important thing is that it keeps going. A quartz watch is more accurate, but it breaks faster. A digital watch or a phone is way more accurate.

My mechanical 1939 German timepiece still works, it's off by a minute every day, but it's more of a conversation piece and it still works.

My 1982 Quartz watch has needed a couple of repairs, battery changes and it won't work anymore.

6

Golden_Wind123 t1_j4gn5sr wrote

>A quartz watch is more accurate, but it breaks faster

A quartz watch with a sapphire crystal and stainless steel case would last just as long as a good mechanical while requiring much less maintenance.

3

CptHawkeye94 t1_j4eu3l4 wrote

Takes a lickin but keeps on tickin!

58

robo_robb t1_j4ia4bx wrote

Hijacking the top comment to say this watch needs a service if it’s at -60 seconds a day. If you want your mechanical watch to truly last a lifetime you should service it at least every 10 years.

7

robo_robb t1_j4ia68c wrote

Hijacking the top comment to say this watch needs a service if it’s at -60 seconds a day. If you want your mechanical watch to truly last a lifetime you should service it at least every 10 years.

1

Chiefo104 t1_j4egjw9 wrote

That's looks great. I watch a guy on YouTube fix watches and to only lose 1 min a day after 50 years is amazing. Most of the stuff he fixes has a bigger loss rate and they are 50 or 60 years old.

28

annoyingdoorbell t1_j4eyfri wrote

Would you mind mentioning the YouTuber, please? I'm very interested!

11

reaganmien t1_j4fb8dj wrote

I highly recommend Wristwatch Revival on YouTube. He has a relaxing voice with great explanations.

12

nonexistentnight t1_j4glqey wrote

It blew my mind when I realized the Wristwatch Revival guy is longtime Magic the Gathering personality Marshall Sutcliffe.

6

ignus99 t1_j4guriq wrote

There is also the nekkid watchmaker, he's phenom and has a more relaxing voice / vibe.

He's also a professional horologist, rather than wristwatch revivals channel made by a hobbiest (albeit one of the best hobbiest horologists I've ever seen)

3

Chiefo104 t1_j4h00cc wrote

That's him. Marshall. I've learned so much from him.

1

50StatePiss t1_j4f9u52 wrote

James Martin

Edit: why did this get down voted? I find his videos super relaxing and his channel is well regarded on other subs; has he done something wrong or been cancelled?

−1

ConfusedNegi t1_j4ejhu3 wrote

The most accurate watch in the world is a dead one. At least it's accurate twice a day.

7

rafingo t1_j4f8p70 wrote

Every watch is more accurate than a dead one. The dead watch is more precise at two, infinitesimally small periods each day.

4

ConfusedNegi t1_j4fa46j wrote

It’s supposed to be a joke.

Honestly even high end Swiss mechanical watches will gain or lose a couple seconds a day meaning it almost never tell exactly the right time when you think about it. It will always be just a little off, regardless of being able to tell time well enough.

5

agent_flounder t1_j4ejf7y wrote

Love it. I have some vintage timex watches including the one I had when I was a kid in the 70s (and it still runs fine)

4

Bismarck_Da_Otto_Von t1_j4gozpp wrote

The wristwatch equivalent of a malaise era Detroit automobile. You just showed us a pristine Chevy Vega with 300,000 miles on the ODO still running fine with no rust!

The manufacturer simply never intended that product to last 50 years

4

boguslikeness95 t1_j4el7tv wrote

I kinda liked the simplicity of it. Looks great

2

PaulblankPF t1_j4f50jt wrote

One time you get to do the Wonder Woman deflection. Do one and make it cool and that’ll be that! Bad guy diverted!

2

idle_racoon t1_j4ft2zb wrote

Bulletproof? Nah I won't shoot you in the wrist anyway mate!

2

corneliu5vanderbilt t1_j4gf2jl wrote

I don't know why someone would shoot at your watch. All I know is that you are constantly late.

2

99available t1_j4evoxy wrote

john Cameron Swayze approves.

1

balanced_view t1_j4fjyag wrote

So inaccurate you can set your watch by it

1

Master_Singleton t1_j4g14ye wrote

I bought a second hand SWISS MILITARY by Chrono quartz watch at a local Pawn Shop for $35 and the watch haven't missed a beat and is a solid performer.

1

maali74 t1_j4g368x wrote

I've got one from the 2010s, and I've had to replace the pins holding the bands in place multiple times, but the old ad slogan was right - Timex takes a licking & keeps on ticking!

1

beatnavy16 t1_j4g5psk wrote

That’s is a dope ass watch

1

Paper-street-garage t1_j4gap3r wrote

Have you had it serviced? Even just a basic adjustment on the rate would help a lot.

1

Rawlo93 t1_j4gi5wi wrote

Great watch. Doesn't tell the time accurately but it still makes that ticking noise and that's all that matters right?

1

jmp3r96 OP t1_j4gjq2m wrote

I prefer to think of it as being fashionably late 😛

2

_tadiwa_ t1_j4gtwfe wrote

Nice watch, reminds me of the Timex Weekender.

1

bavmotors1 t1_j4h1c4g wrote

My bullet proof vest only misses a bullet a day, but absolutely bulletproof!

/s

Nice watch

1

Freedom_4Ever t1_j4hgooa wrote

"1970s Mechanical Timex 🙂 Loses a minute a day, but absolutely bulletproof!"

​

Project Farm: We're going to test that!

1

jmp3r96 OP t1_j4hhe1r wrote

They actually did a test back in the day where they strapped it to the back of an outboard boat engine and it still survived. Also shooting it through a glass window while attached to an arrow 🤷🏻‍♀️

1

thatkidwithayoyo t1_j57c2wy wrote

A minute a day is a LOT of time to be losing. Is it "buy it for life" if by normal standards it is wildly inaccurate?

1

justheretoreadstuffs t1_j4fnvup wrote

Is this inside the wrist? I remember my mother doing this and it reminds me of my childhood. So I hope it is because I want to buy my mother a watch

0