Moved this from the community form to the General Discussion Forum as the CF is for non watch related posts.
See below - and you won't like it.I've heard this said before and I'll reiterate it; ETA movements like the 2824 when adjusted or regulated might keep stable time for several months or up to a year but then have a tendency to go out of whack.
Where as an in house like the cal 3135 once adjusted will stay that way for years up to the next servicing.
It's not an insight - he's repeating hearsay. I've owned MANY watches powered by ETA movements and ALL of them were consistent performers for YEARS. They were some of the most accurate movements I have ever owned. I had a Daniel Jean Richard with a 2824 base that gained an average of 1.5 seconds a day with no wider than a 1 second variance for almost 3 years before I sold it. I owned a Tiffany's Mark Coupe that was regulated to be crazy consistent (click HERE and use the links in the beginning of the post to read all 3 articles). My IWC Portofino was so consistent the timing machine read out looked like a dead man's cardiograph.Yes, consistency is often more highly valued than accuracy.
Great insight about in-house vs. ETA movement- thanks!
How ironic that you should cast B&R in this role. No B&R was ever an important tool for any professional (e.g. pilot, race or rally driver, diver, etc), none of their watches ever proved themselves historically in any type of practical, tool-watch role, and their "heritage" and "functionality" is a marketing invention. B&R has impressed me only as a well-conceived, consistent and thorough marketing exercise, the success of which is documented by the association that you make above.For me, it's the mechanical function aspect- like how watches used to be important tools for professionals.
And this functionality is best displayed by my new BR02:
Nope, no facts. I know next to nothing about stats. I'm only referring to my own personal experience.See below - and you won't like it.
It's not an insight - he's repeating hearsay. I've owned MANY watches powered by ETA movements and ALL of them were consistent performers for YEARS. They were some of the most accurate movements I have ever owned. I had a Daniel Jean Richard with a 2824 base that gained an average of 1.5 seconds a day with no wider than a 1 second variance for almost 3 years before I sold it. I owned a Tiffany's Mark Coupe that was regulated to be crazy consistent (click HERE and use the links in the beginning of the post to read all 3 articles). My IWC Portofino was so consistent the timing machine read out looked like a dead man's cardiograph.
I'm calling on billybop to prove that statement because it's bull. I will NOT have the same rampant speculation / rumor based argument crap that goes on at WUS happen here. If you state something like that, you'd BETTER be able to back it up with FACTS. Reiterate nothing as fact that isn't known to be fact. What is true about ETA calibers is they're reliable, well designed, easy to service, and accurate movements that have been the industry benchmark for decades.
BTW Mark - your Bell & Ross that you're so enamored with? Do you know what's powering it? (that's a trick question :sneaky2![]()
I have no bias for or against ETA, I just know that they make a good product. I have no time or patience for ill informed people make bull**** claims without any evidence to back it up - like you just admitted to. That's the kind of horse manore that goes on at other places - not here, or you get called on the carpet for it. As Mark / 124Spider says about Watch Talk Forums: "I like it here because the signal to noise ratio is much better". Maybe we should invite lysanderXIII to view your post and see what he says since he's still welcome at WUS and people respect him. I'd wager he'd call you out on it too.From reading your other posts about ETA's I know you're biased and that's NOT my problem.
Yes, and you know why I was? For calling out asonine posters who make unsupported statements like you just did. One thing led to another and I finally cursed out Ernie privately because he's more interested in the keeping the members who buy the sponsor's latest boutique diver which keeps the sponsors paying him than he is in stopping the perpetual idiocy. Take a look at the list of banned members and see how much they used to contribute to WUS before they couldn't put up with the invasion of stupidity. Here's another post of Mark's that pretty much sums up the disdain many long time collectors have for WUS:And, about WUS since you bring it up, at least I wasn't BANNED from WUS.
OK, got it. I respect your views.Billy, call it anything you like - hostility, vitriol, whatever makes you feel more empowered - I will not allow Watch Talk Forums to devolve into a place where fanboy logic and half baked "facts" rule. That's what WatchuSeek is for now. Say what you wish about me, but take that hearsay crap about any brand back to WUS because there's no place for it on WTF.
"Ulack". Reading back on this I can understand your point. I think the first sentence is OK but the rest I did come off like you mentioned half baked and hearsay is NOT fact.I like or "love" a timepiece that keeps not only accurate time but is also stable. That is, if a watch is 2 seconds fast one day it will continue to gain 2 seconds EVERY day.
I've heard this said before and I'll reiterate it; ETA movements like the 2824 when adjusted or regulated might keep stable time for several months or up to a year but then have a tendency to go out of whack.
Where as an in house like the cal 3135 once adjusted will stay that way for years up to the next servicing.