Horological Meandering

Smoke in the eyes my friend...I am ,like you,my own certificate,and that suits me fine and its more than enough....

There are as many 'certifications', 'seals', 'hallmarks' and 'brands' as there are lemmings.

I agree with your remarks. But even if there is an independent organism that would do test or judge on a specific seal...would it change my mind?
We would perhaps all drive the same car if we would follow results from crash tests, breakdown figures.

In reality, we like perhaps an oldtimer that will break down sooner our later, no airbags...

So, I don't care about certification for a watch or an item that goes together with passion.

Best regards,
Dirk

Here's what he had to say about it recently (edited for brevity and forum rules)

I am looking at several different watches in the $8-$10K retail range. One ... model has the features that I want. Yet for virtually the same price, but with less features, they have a certified chronometer." Is there real value in a certified chronometer, or is it just a cash grab?

Unless you’re planning a solo circumnavigation of the globe without the use of GPS, chronometer certification shouldn’t be reason to part with more money.

Modern engineering and manufacturing means that it isn’t as hard as it used to be for a watch to keep time to within minus-four to plus-six seconds per day. Even a well-adjusted low-end ETA movement can achieve this, and, frankly, I think you should expect this sort of performance out of any watch you buy these days, especially one in the price range you’re looking in, whether certified or not.

As far as I can tell, all existing certification tests are designed to allow a favored group of watches to pass. When the Poincon de Geneve decided that wire springs would be prohibited, you had better believe that first they checked to be sure their clients were not using wire springs. C.O.S.C. is the closest to providing an objective test, but they still don't test in six positions, and it's MUCH easier to get a watch to keep time in five positions than in six.

It's like the car insurance crash tests: the testing agency makes clear that the test will involve a collision from a certain angle, so the car makers build cars that are strong from that angle. Good luck, however, if your car is hit from a different angle.

I would very much like to see a test that really checks out what a watch can do. Example: at time of test, watch must have been in its case and running for at least three years since last maintenance; watch is tested in 14 positions (2 flat, 4 vertical, 8 inclined) and under a few different types of motion as well as temperature. Watch is then retested having been subjected to a magnetic field of reasonable strength.

Of course, right now if a company sends in a watch for testing the watch simply is not sold (or is adjusted and retested). If we really want to make it fun, have the watch company send in watches in batches of 100 and the test result will reflect what percentage passed.

Perhaps a good certification process might actually push improvements in the final product?

What if COSC said that from 2015 they were going to decrease their tolerances to -1 to +3 seconds per day? Would that lead to a better, more robust, more accurate movement?

What about if they moved to the Fleuritest and tested chronometric performance on cased-up movements across every range AND intensity of movement with tighter tolerances (currently 0 to +5 seconds) per day?

Maybe then consumers would be happy to pay extra for independent certification? But clearly it has to mean something more than the paper it is print on, particularly if a CHF50 ETA movement can achieve better accuracy.

Andrew

but as a "diver's watch" I'm glad that it conforms to and tested to pass an agreed upon international standard.







I am sure that it is part of Certina's marketing strategy for this watch and I bet there are a lot of other "diving watches" that cannot meet ISO 6425.







Best, Mike





 

 

It has no residual value. If you go diving, say 6 months after you have bought the watch, and you found water seepage, ISO is not "accountable".Certina might repair or offer a new watch to you, if it is within the warranty period.

designed the watch, the engineers incorporated elements which allowed the Action Diver to pass ISO 6425. Plus the deepest I know I will go is to the bottom of the 12 feet pool at the local Y

Cheers, Mike
This message has been edited by mkt33 on 2013-02-07 11:16:01

No message body

COSC is pure commercial, easily obtainable and fairly low standards...how many standard mechanized issued Rolex Submariner movements need to be certified?? 

... putting the Big Bad Wolf in charge of the children's nursery and the piggery.

So I see that you agree with external, independent accreditation of a facility. For this to work we have to have defined standards that the facility must be audited against. The standard could range from defining "Swiss Made" more thoroughly all the way to defining hand finishing or other aspects of manufacture that we value.

And yes, there are several Key Performance Indicators, such as returns under warranty and TAT for repair, that might differentiate companies, and in fact improve their performance if they were held accountable to their peers in league tables, or similar device for comparison.

Andrew

... you are spot effing on!

of their testing protocol.  It is as good as it gets.  The COSC certification only looks at a selected number of movements prior to encasement and certainly in that process the accuracy of the movement can be affected.  The QF testing does assess each certified watch in case and mimics the typical use of the watch by a computerized simulation.  It is a foundation established by several watch companies (Parmigiani, Chopard and Bovet).  At the time of my visit, it was interesting that one of the founding companies had yet to have one of it's watches certified by QF thus testifying to the independence and rigorousness of the testing protocol.

Thanks for your comments, Mitch. I like the concept of the FQF and the fact that it covers issues like performance on the wrist (Fleuritest), robustness and build quality (Chronofiable test), parts finishing and addresses the Swiss Made fallacy. But of course I agree with you that we make up our own minds in the end and the FQF is icing on the cake.

My Fleurier Quality Foundation visit can be found by clicking here ...

Andrew