3 ms·
I recently thought I could probably go back to a not-smart watch to not have to charge the watch all the time, but I don't want to deal with setting the time re
by stkdump 2mo ago
I recently thought I could probably go back to a not-smart watch to not have to charge the watch all the time, but I don't want to deal with setting the time regularly either due to quartz drift and dst. So a bluetooth watch with two years of battery life doesn't sound like a bad idea really.
- TonyStr 2mo agoEven cheap quartz movements tend to drift by ±10 seconds per year, so you'd only really set it at dst. Maybe you're thinking about automatic watches which can drift by several seconds per day, and stop if you don't use it for 24/48/X amount hours. I have to set my automatic quite frequently
- stkdump 2mo agoIt is usually 10-15s per month. And the annoying thing is you have to notice it and I prefer a watch that I don't have to double check.
- TonyStr 1mo agoYou're right, I looked it up - it's per month for cheap watches. My bad!
- maratc 1mo ago±10 seconds per year would be quite an expensive quartz movement. To be that reliable anywhere it should be thermocompensated, too. This is the range of Grand Seiko 9F, Citizen Chronomaster, or Bulova Precisionist.
- quickthrowman 1mo ago+/- 10 seconds a year for a quartz watch isn’t cheap. A Grand Seiko or Citizen high-accuracy quartz watch costs around $3,000 for the most basic models. A cheap quartz watch is an order of magnitude less accurate, which is still more accurate than a Rolex .