4 ms·
I was surprised by this inaccuracy too. But was impressed when I learnt that there is no analog wristwatch that can match this accuracy - they are all far far w
by ashwinne 4y ago
I was surprised by this inaccuracy too. But was impressed when I learnt that there is no analog wristwatch that can match this accuracy - they are all far far worse. (Isn't it shocking that all those super-expensive Rolexes and whatnot are all going off by minutes per month!) Get one of the Casio watches that syncs to atomic clock radio signals every night - it will be second-accurate all the time.
- Maursault 4y ago> But was impressed when I learnt that there is no analog wristwatch that can match this accuracy Seiko 5 automatics apparently[1] can.[2] [1] https://www.watchuseek.com/threads/seiko-5-is-pretty-accurate.410417/post-5522035 https://www.watchuseek.com/threads/seiko-5-is-pretty-accurat... [2] https://qr.ae/prvf6L https://qr.ae/prvf6L
- klodolph 4y agoAccording to the linked thread, the Seiko 5 is an order of magnitude worse… 5 seconds per day, versus 15 seconds per month for a quartz watch.
- Maursault 4y agoThis one? After observing Seiko 5 SNK809 for 35 days, I can say I´m happy with accuracy. Overall, it has lost 25 seconds during this time. It lost most of it when it was sitting on table 2 times during observation. When kept on wrist, it hardly lost any...