WATCH TALK FORUMS banner
1 - 9 of 9 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
97 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
Running a very unscientific accuracy test comparing my 9937 with the SW200 and my Grand Diver with the NH35A. After 18 hrs on day one the SW200 is far in the lead being down one second (-1) against the Atomic Clock. The NH35A clocked in 12 seconds slower. I was somewhat surprised since the SW200 is 4-5 years old. I'll try to leave them in the same orientation overnight. I'm going to hand wind each auto daily just to make sure both are at full power. Think I'll throw a couple quartz movements in there just for kicks. And no, I don't plan on testing each auto in four or five different orientations, that's just overkill.

Observations: The SW200 seems to have a smoother sweep. The NH35A seems to have that slight hitch like the 8926. That said, I'd prefer the sweep of any of the automatics to the tick of a quartz. Again, just personal preference, and this from a guy with many more quartz than autos.

9937 with SW200

Grand Diver with NH35A

edison
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
1,512 Posts
This is great. Thanks for sharing. Great photos too. :thumbup::thumbup::thumbup:

I just wanted to clarify for others that Invicta uses unregulated movements. They have not been adjusted for accuracy by the manufacturer. They're usually very good, but can vary. The SW200 runs at 28800 VPH while the Seiko runs at approx 21600 VPH, which accounts for the smoothness of the second hand on the SW200.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
97 Posts
Discussion Starter · #3 · (Edited)
I knew that the NH35A ran at a slower rate. The sweep is not objectionable, just noticeable when put side by side with the SW200. Haven't checked the time yet since I just got home. I'm not too concerned. I don't expect my automatics to keep up with my quartz. Of course nothing keeps up with my Casio Waveceptor.

Edited: Time span 33 hrs: The SW200 is still running 1-2 seconds slow. I consider that excellent and to be honest, better than I expected. The NH35A is still running about 12 seconds slow (got to figure +/- a second since I'm eyeballing the time :001_unsure: ) My 5040D and TMI VD53 are both spot on. I figure I need a much longer baseline to really check the quartz watches for accuracy. I know, two days do not a test make, this was just an quick check to see how the engines were running. I realize I need a much longer run to get a true test of accuracy. Then, too, the NH35A may need a break in period for a better comparison. I usally hack and sync my autos when I wear them anyway. I do have a greater appreciation for my SW200. It should not be able to keep up with my quartz watches, but I'm surprised at how well it's running.

edison

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
97 Posts
Discussion Starter · #4 ·
Last post on this topic. I'm not so anal that I intend to sit and measure these watches daily (although if that's your hobby, more power to you). I expect my watches to keep reasonable time, but my life doesn't revolve around pinpoint accuracy. I've read that automatics usually aren't capable of keeping time as accurately as quartz watches, especially unregulated autos.

I am literally blown away by the 9937 with the SW200. After nearly three days since my last hack, the movement is still only two (2) seconds behind the reference atomic clock. The Grand Diver with the NH35A is now 28 seconds slow. I'm a little disappointed there, but again, I'll give it more time. The quartz watches, as to be expected, are within a second. I believe they're expected to run in the +/-15 second/month range anyway, so I'd need a month of observation to check them. Usually I reset my quartz when I correct the day at the beginning of the month.

BTW, I do wear the two autos. Each gets wrist time during the day. The 9937 gets the nod in the evening when I go dancing. It's a lot lighter and more comfortable when doing some moves. Plus I don't worry about knocking out a dance partner with an errant sweep of the hand. :biggrin: Watches such as my Scuba Diver stay home for safety reasons, heck, even door frames cower when I wear that baby.

edison
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
1,512 Posts
With a little research and a couple tools you could make an adjustment to the NH35A to make it run more accurately. Others have done it to the SW200 and ETA 2824. Just depends on how far your willing to go.

Thanks for posting all this info.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
272 Posts
My SAN IV was a minute and 10 seconds off from NIST after a couple of months of not checking (since I last coordinated the two); I don't consider that much of a problem. Seems right respectable to me. I just reset it to the correct NIST time.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3 Posts
0420 with NH35A Accuracy

I am new to this so I guess with unregulated movements it's more or less luck of the draw when it comes to accuracy? I just bought the 0420 with the NH35A. Hacked every 72 hrs and then checked against the NIST clock shows it's just under 2 seconds (by eye) slow each time. I never expected this accuracy. I will now try over longer periods of time and see if the results are comparable...
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
1,512 Posts
I am new to this so I guess with unregulated movements it's more or less luck of the draw when it comes to accuracy? I just bought the 0420 with the NH35A. Hacked every 72 hrs and then checked against the NIST clock shows it's just under 2 seconds (by eye) slow each time. I never expected this accuracy. I will now try over longer periods of time and see if the results are comparable...
That's great!!! All the feedback in regards to the NH35 has been positive. Thanks for sharing your experience.
 
1 - 9 of 9 Posts
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top