Picked up a Weishi 1000 Timegrapher

[PWMDMD]

Walmart online was selling the Weishi 10000 on sale so I figured why not? Playing around here are my results:



31mm Rolex Datejust 2001 (recently serviced) - Flat = +2s/d; Vertical = +0s/d; Upside Down = +1s/d; Beat Error = 0ms

36mm Rolex Datejust 1987 (serviced 3 years ago) - Flat = +4s/d; Vertical = +7s/d; Upside Down = +6s/d; Beat Error = 0ms

Tag Heuer Link W5110 2000 (serviced 2008) - Flat = +16s/d; Vertical = +18s/d; Upside Down = +14s/d; Beat Error = 1.2ms

Seiko 5 2021 (never serviced) - Flat = -2s/d; Vertical = -1s/d; Upside Down = -8s/d; Beat Error = 1.2ms

41mm Tutor BB 2024 - Flat = +1s/d; Vertical = +2s/d; Upside Down = +0s/d; Beat Erro = 0ms


Kind of fun just to see how accurate they all are. That Seiko is an incredible value and I think the Tag needs to be serviced.

 

[Passport1]

Good info. I have a Tag Carrera, an Omega SeaMaster and a few older Oyster Day-Dates that are running erratictcally, outside their specs. If I have a baseline I'll know if a repair job is good. The Omega Co-Axial is especially $$ to get serviced.

I agree, the Seiko 5 is an unbeatable inexpensive watch. I wear it often, like right now SNK 807. Mine is ~10 years old. Never serviced and is about -15 seconds/day. Alernate with a couple of older Orients and a Russian Vostok Komandirski winder.

Amazon

 

[bunnspecial]

Do you know how to properly read/interpret what the data on a timing machine tells you? I don't mean reading the rate and beat error-I mean actually looking at the trace and interpreting the "dashes" on it.

If you don't know how to read this and look for problems, I'd caution blindly trusting the read-outs at the bottom of the screen. The trace itself is so useful that it's one big reason why there's still a paper tape machine sitting on my bench(I can see problem by looking at a few hours of tape on it that don't show on the relatively limited time shown on a newer machine's screen.

Also, beat error is more a function of how good of a job the last service did, with some caveats. If one pallet is dragging it can introduce some error, which of course would indicate service being needed, but this is why you read the trace. Amplitude is a lot more telling, but of course to trust what the machine is telling you the machine you need to tell it the correct lift angle(I feel like I have a conversation 3 times a week on Facebook about learning to estimate amplitude by eye when someone posts numbers that make no sense).

The relatively low variation across positions on your Tag also to me is more telling than the absolute rate, although fast+low amplitude would probably indicate a need for service to me. 2 seconds variation between dial up and dial down is worth looking at, although is probably fine(even the cheapest watch should show little variation between these two positions).

Last thing-you only report rates in 3 positions. At minimum you should look at 5, or ideally 6 positions. Those positions are dial up(DU), dial down(DD), stem up(SU, or PU for pendant up if you learned to work on pocket watches like me and still stick to those terms), stem left(SL), stem right(SR), and stem down(SD). The two dial positions and stem down are usually considered most important for wristwatches, although of course stem left and stem right are not insignificant. Stem up is usually considered least important and is the last adjusted, although of course wearer's habits factor into this too(this is opposite pocket watches, where stem up is king and many of the best watches 100+ years ago didn't adjust to stem down in favor of tighter 5 position adjustment).

 

[PWMDMD]

Do you know how to properly read/interpret what the data on a timing machine tells you? I don't mean reading the rate and beat error-I mean actually looking at the trace and interpreting the "dashes" on it.

If you don't know how to read this and look for problems, I'd caution blindly trusting the read-outs at the bottom of the screen. The trace itself is so useful that it's one big reason why there's still a paper tape machine sitting on my bench(I can see problem by looking at a few hours of tape on it that don't show on the relatively limited time shown on a newer machine's screen.

Also, beat error is more a function of how good of a job the last service did, with some caveats. If one pallet is dragging it can introduce some error, which of course would indicate service being needed, but this is why you read the trace. Amplitude is a lot more telling, but of course to trust what the machine is telling you the machine you need to tell it the correct lift angle(I feel like I have a conversation 3 times a week on Facebook about learning to estimate amplitude by eye when someone posts numbers that make no sense).

The relatively low variation across positions on your Tag also to me is more telling than the absolute rate, although fast+low amplitude would probably indicate a need for service to me. 2 seconds variation between dial up and dial down is worth looking at, although is probably fine(even the cheapest watch should show little variation between these two positions).

Last thing-you only report rates in 3 positions. At minimum you should look at 5, or ideally 6 positions. Those positions are dial up(DU), dial down(DD), stem up(SU, or PU for pendant up if you learned to work on pocket watches like me and still stick to those terms), stem left(SL), stem right(SR), and stem down(SD). The two dial positions and stem down are usually considered most important for wristwatches, although of course stem left and stem right are not insignificant. Stem up is usually considered least important and is the last adjusted, although of course wearer's habits factor into this too(this is opposite pocket watches, where stem up is king and many of the best watches 100+ years ago didn't adjust to stem down in favor of tighter 5 position adjustment).

I don't know anything! However, I'm a bright guy and I tend to obsessively work at new challenges until I do understand them. Thank you for the primer! Are there any books that cover timegrapher theory? Thanks again!

 

[Passport1]

At minimum you should look at 5, or ideally 6 positions.

I know that chronometers are tested in six positions for certification. How do you suppose these watches would function in micro-gravity like in the ISS? Would position matter?

 

[PWMDMD]

Good info. I have a Tag Carrera, an Omega SeaMaster and a few older Oyster Day-Dates that are running erratictcally, outside their specs. If I have a baseline I'll know if a repair job is good. The Omega Co-Axial is especially $$ to get serviced.

I agree, the Seiko 5 is an unbeatable inexpensive watch. I wear it often, like right now SNK 807. Mine is ~10 years old. Never serviced and is about -15 seconds/day. Alernate with a couple of older Orients and a Russian Vostok Komandirski winder.


View attachment 215073
Amazon

I like Orient a lot. Nice looking watches!

 

[bunnspecial]

I don't know anything! However, I'm a bright guy and I tend to obsessively work at new challenges until I do understand them. Thank you for the primer! Are there any books that cover timegrapher theory? Thanks again!

Depending on how far into the weeds you want to get on timing theory-

Decarle and Fried both cover timing machines, but relatively primitive units. They're worth the read and having as a reference, but are dated. I forget if Daniels' Watchmaking covers timing machines, but it's really good on a lot of heavy information on timing theory so is probably as good of a reference as any.

A lot of this does tie into the "big picture" of how timing works-both for a balance wheel-hairpsring system and for the pecularities of different escapement types. To that end, Fried and DeCarle both primarily address lever escapements since they were more geared toward the typical shop that would mostly see levers(although IIRC, and it's been a while since I looked at my copy, since DeCarle was English and was writing for a typical English watchmaker, he spends some time on cylinders, detents, and duplexes, something someone working in England would have been much more likely to encounter than a typical American watchmaker of ~75+ years ago). Daniels probably knew more about escapement design and theory than anyone who has ever lived, although I find his shameless touting of the Daniels co-axial escapement a bit tiring, along with the fact that even by the time he published the 3rd edition in 2012 or so he spent way too much time telling you about how the Daniel's escapement was totally different from Fasoldt's escapement(even though it really is just an improvement of Fasoldt's-Daniels actually IIRC went to court a few times to keep his patent on the basis of it being a novel design, and I think his defense is still shaky).

For just timing theory in general one of the best references I personally have is a ~50 page book on adjusting that Waltham published in the mid 1920s or so. It's not the easiest to find, and unfortunately the name escapes me at the moment. There were some VERY primitive tube-based timing machines around then and it touches on them a bit, but mostly assumes that you don't have access to one.

As a starter, though, I'd get Fried, DeCarle, and Daniels. That trio will get you maybe deeper than you care to go!

 

[bunnspecial]

I know that chronometers are tested in six positions for certification. How do you suppose these watches would function in micro-gravity like in the ISS? Would position matter?

I would think it still would at least to some degree.

On earth, a lot of positional variation does depend on gravity pulling on different parts of the watch differently, or specifically the balance-hairspring. As an example, dial up you're assuming that the balance is primarily riding on lower balance cap, dial down on the upper balance cap, and in various stem positions it's riding on the hole jewels. A drastic variation between the dial positions positions tells you there's an issue with one of jewels or the pivot(although it's not always the one you think! A mushroomed bottom pivot, for example, could bind dial up and not dial down) while a drastic variation in a stem position could point to something like a bent pivot.

With that said, in a microgravity environment, the various parts still have mass and would still tend to move around. They would just tend to get placed according to the last direction the watch was moved and not the absolute position.

 

[97prizm]

Walmart online was selling the Weishi 10000 on sale so I figured why not? Playing around here are my results:



31mm Rolex Datejust 2001 (recently serviced) - Flat = +2s/d; Vertical = +0s/d; Upside Down = +1s/d; Beat Error = 0ms

36mm Rolex Datejust 1987 (serviced 3 years ago) - Flat = +4s/d; Vertical = +7s/d; Upside Down = +6s/d; Beat Error = 0ms

Tag Heuer Link W5110 2000 (serviced 2008) - Flat = +16s/d; Vertical = +18s/d; Upside Down = +14s/d; Beat Error = 1.2ms

Seiko 5 2021 (never serviced) - Flat = -2s/d; Vertical = -1s/d; Upside Down = -8s/d; Beat Error = 1.2ms

41mm Tutor BB 2024 - Flat = +1s/d; Vertical = +2s/d; Upside Down = +0s/d; Beat Erro = 0ms


Kind of fun just to see how accurate they all are. That Seiko is an incredible value and I think the Tag needs to be serviced.

My sister sold high end jewelry for years. She said that when mechanical watches were cutting edge Rolex and others were good but when really accurate battery powered watches came out they got left behind. I've always wanted a Ferrari Hublot but don't have $250, grand lying around. Does Rolex have the self winding watches?

 

[bunnspecial]

My sister sold high end jewelry for years. She said that when mechanical watches were cutting edge Rolex and others were good but when really accurate battery powered watches came out they got left behind. I've always wanted a Ferrari Hublot but don't have $250, grand lying around. Does Rolex have the self winding watches?

Most(all?) Rolex watches are "automatic"-aka self winding. In fact on most models you'll see, among other things, "Oyster Perpetual" splashed across the dial. "Oyster" refers to the watertight case(screw on gasketed back, screw down crown, waterproof crystal) and "perpetual" refers to the self winding mechanism.

Automatic tends to lend itself to real gains in real-world accuracy for a watch worn since for ~8-16 hours a day(depending on the wearers habits) the watch is at or near full wind, and in theory for a watch designed to run ~48 hours on a wind you're only using 1/4-1/3 of that. That means that you don't have to worry about end-of-wind accuracy or even accuracy after 24 hours without winding. Usually you can count on a watch to be reasonably isochronous for about 2/3 it's total run time(back in the 20s that was one of the big selling points Illinois used for the 60 hour mainspring in the Bunn Special and Sangamo Special-they would hold time even if you forgot to wind them one day). My daily wear Rolex has a 3035 movement(1980s) and it's usually good to a few seconds a week if I wear it every day, but can lose ~30 seconds if I don't wear it or wind it one day.

A really good mechanical watch adjusted properly can be fairly accurate, and has a leg up on most normal quartz watches in that modern hairspring and balance alloys have made temperature error minimal(Hamilton did a ton of research on this in the 30s and 40s, and nearly eliminated temperature error in the Model 23 chronometer, although their solution there wasn't practical for a normal watch). Quartz is super temperature sensitive. The good quartz watches have temperature compensation and can pretty well destroy mechanical watches, but you're looking at something that costs as much as at least a mid-range mechanical watch to get that.

As much as people love to hate Rolex, they actually have some big accuracy advantages in that nearly all of their calibers are freesprung. That makes them more fiddly to regulate(you need a special wrench to turn tiny screws on the balance wheel) but the lack of regulator pins on the hairspring actually eliminates a big source of positional error.

At one point, I had my 80s Datejust to within a second or so a month. It actually came back from service in 2020 worse than it went in, but I still can't complain about its accuracy now as a couple seconds a week still is well within what can reasonably expected. It just kills me because I know what this movement is capable of, I just don't want to mess with it.

 

[vavavroom]

A timegrapher is useful for regulating and diagnosing some issues like endshake, sideshake, and other problems. For the hobbyist the usefulness usually ends with being able to regulate the movement by adjusting the beat error and the rate in several positions. I would suggest attempting that only if you have a seriously dust-free workspace, super eyesight, a watchmaker's microscope or other suitable magnifier, and very fine motorskills.

You can find out in which position your watch runs slowest and fastest and you can use this knowledge to manipulate the time keeping by, for example, placing the watch face down overnight so that the watch may gain a few seconds.

 

[PWMDMD]

A timegrapher is useful for regulating and diagnosing some issues like endshake, sideshake, and other problems. For the hobbyist the usefulness usually ends with being able to regulate the movement by adjusting the beat error and the rate in several positions. I would suggest attempting that only if you have a seriously dust-free workspace, super eyesight, a watchmaker's microscope or other suitable magnifier, and very fine motorskills.

You can find out in which position your watch runs slowest and fastest and you can use this knowledge to manipulate the time keeping by, for example, placing the watch face down overnight so that the watch may gain a few seconds.

I’m a dentist who works under magnification all day long - fine motor skills are not a problem

The timegrapher was $130 so I figured why not? It’s reassuring to see my new Tudor seems to be within the claimed METAS cert limits and that the two Rolex aren’t far off being 37 and 33 years old (the 31mm is a 1991 and not a 2001 as indicated above). I have an interest in watchmaking and I’ve been watching YouTube videos about restoring watches for some time but I’d start with cheap basic mechanical watches (they even have kits meant to be built by lay people) before I’d ever consider cracking open one of the Rolexes or Tudor. With the watches with value I have no problem sending them in for overhauls.

 

[thastinger]

I’m a dentist who works under magnification all day long - fine motor skills are not a problem

The timegrapher was $130 so I figured why not? It’s reassuring to see my new Tudor seems to be within the claimed METAS cert limits and that the two Rolex aren’t far off being 37 and 33 years old (the 31mm is a 1991 and not a 2001 as indicated above). I have an interest in watchmaking and I’ve been watching YouTube videos about restoring watches for some time but I’d start with cheap basic mechanical watches (they even have kits meant to be built by lay people) before I’d ever consider cracking open one of the Rolexes or Tudor. With the watches with value I have no problem sending them in for overhauls.

Might be a dentist, but you're no mathematician.

 

[nomas]

So for the average guy that is not trying to put a spacecraft on the Moon , what does it matter if your watch is off by 3 seconds a month ?

 

[PWMDMD]

Might be a dentist, but you're no mathematician.

Wha? My math is correct, it was my memory of what year it was made that failed me.

 

[PWMDMD]

So for the average guy that is not trying to put a spacecraft on the Moon , what does it matter if your watch is off by 3 seconds a month ?

I can see the OCD does not run deep within you my son. Go, live life, happy and free from the confines of obsessive thoughts. It doesn't. It's just as measure of what a manufacturer can achieve and it means having to readjust the time less.

 

[nomas]

I can see the OCD does not run deep within you my son. Go, live life, happy and free from the confines of obsessive thoughts. It doesn't. It's just as measure of what a manufacturer can achieve and it means having to readjust the time less

Free from the confines of obsessive thoughts ...yep that's me .

 

[PWMDMD]

Free from the confines of obsessive thoughts ...yep that's me .

Oh wait...you're on Bob's...lol. I think it's safe to say we all suffer from a similar issue if we're here...

 

[bunnspecial]

So for the average guy that is not trying to put a spacecraft on the Moon , what does it matter if your watch is off by 3 seconds a month ?

For me it’s a matter of recognizing that you’re dealing with an inherently limited technology but still getting this kind of accuracy out of it. It’s especially satisfying when you can do it with something 100+ years old.

Around about 2012 or so, I bought a cheap Hamilton 992 at a show. The 992 is the stereotypical railroad pocket watch. In any case, this one was super clean and nice but the stem was frozen, and I paid $100 for it. I got it home and found the stem was frozen from ancient congealed grease. I spent a few hours(not joking) chipping ossified whale oil out of it(until Hamilton really started developing synthetics in the 30s, whale oils were the gold standard for precision lubricants) and then getting it adjusted as well as I could.

I sold it a couple months later at a chapter meeting to someone who later became a good friend, and he still will gladly tell me that he kept that watch round for over a year and it lost 2 seconds in that time. I have to say I was pretty proud of that one. I’ve told my friend I’d buy it back if he ever sold it, but he doesn’t want to. That’s a watch from about 1915…

 

[vavavroom]

I know that chronometers are tested in six positions for certification. How do you suppose these watches would function in micro-gravity like in the ISS? Would position matter?

With gravity being near zero friction on the pivots is reduced but while the watch is worn and moved around inertia will still make the pivots push into the bearings. My questions relate to the effect of a microgravity environment on isochronism, the effect on the lubricants in the bearings. Do the lubricants stay put, do they evaporate faster? Also, how do you regulate a watch on Earth for use in microgravity?

My best guess is that a mechanical watch will run faster in microgravity but I can't tell you how much faster. Maybe a couple of seconds per day?

Mechanical watches that have been worn in Space include Poljot, Breitling, Heuer, Omega, Bulova, Rolex, Hamilton, Longines Seiko, Fortis, and Sinn. The cheapest mechanical watch worn in space was probably a $100 Wittnauer Allproof that Neil Armstrong wore not only during X15 test flights but also during the rough Gemini 8 mission. He said this watch was keeping perfect time after his return from space.

And yes, selfwinding movements work in space thanks to inertia but many watches worn in space had handwound movements.