My old watches

These are the four oldest watches I've had, except for one that's missing.
First a Citizen.
Then I got an Aetos.
After that, a Citizen Club 2000, which was my first quartz watch.
Missing is a Nivada Baby Whale with a white dial. It broke when I was in Fiji.
The replacement which I got in Australia is a Seiko SQ100. It's really good even though 20 years old, but the seal has worn out, so I don't wear it anymore and won't replace the battery when it runs out. (I've always had it showing the French weekday names.)

Watch rubber bands

I used to dismiss rubber band as something "special purpose", meaning diving. But some time ago I had the idea to fit my Marathon SAR with a rubber band, so I bought myself a nice patterned Hirsch band made out of natural rubber.

Unfortunately, I managed to misplace one of its spring bars (it's actually the first time that's happened to me ever). Instead I fitted the band to my Sinn 656, which I had tried out a clasp on which didn't fit me well at all. Turned out to be a great combination as it looks good and is very comfortable.

The Hirsch bands come in several colours and I thought red would go well together with the SAR.

Seiko bracelet on Maraton SAR

Recently the battery in my really good Seiko SBCM023 finally quit, after eight years, exactly as it was supposed to. But when I tried to get the battery replaced I was told the watch was broken...

Earlier the same week I'd asked for a suitable bracelet for my Marathon SAR. Didn't find one, but bought a rubber strap for it (which is now on my Sinn 656). Reminded of the Seiko, which I had removed the bracelet from before turn it in, I tested its bracelet on the SAR. It fits remarkably well and looks right.

Unfortunately, it turns out the SAR is a lot heavier, and the divers' extension part put too much pressure on my wrist, so that's not the right solution. But it was an interesting experiment.

Tritium compounds compared to Luminova in watches

In short, I think Luminova is quite adequate and won't miss the tritium when it runs out on the few watches I have with it, and has to be replaced.

The problem

Previous non-radioactive luminous compounds definitely lacked in their ability to stay bright enough through a night, under conditions when it wasn't totally dark, because when it's nearly dark is when you need the best contrast.
Pure tritium activeded compounds have the problem that when you go from a bright to a dark place, they usually don't glow bright enough. Mixing another substance with them which handles the first 30 min or so works wery well though.
It's easy to see that Luminova behaves sort of like a tritium/regular mix initially. Likewise it stays bright enough through a single night if it's been subjected to enough light during the day. But I was curious about how it would behave during the hardest conditions.
I think winter near (well, relatively at least) a pole is the toughest challenge, because even if the sun nominally is over the horizon (and it mightn't be for weeks at a time), it's not likely shine brightly, nor is the watch likely to be worn outside your clothing even if it does. And in addition to this, neither in- nor outdoors is it certain it will be so totally dark at night as it gets nearer the equator at night.

The test

So I did a little practical, informal test: Watches were worn normally for two days, saw no daylight except through windows and even in office illumination mostly were worn under a shirtsleeve. Then they were put away one evening in a totally dark place and only brought from it during practical darkness (as in barely enough to get around in in a familiar space or darker).

1. First morning: Of course no problem to read the time. Comparable to tritium.
2. First evening: Legible, but not as bright as a watch with about 10 years old tritium compound (which as I get older is about when I think it's time to replace it).
3. Second morning: Perfectly legible - provided your eyes are dark adapted. Otherwise only if you brought it to total darkness.
4. Second evening: Legible with difficulty.
5. Third morning: Like the second morning, only still weaker.

As I consider it, if it stays legible for 50+ hours in total darkness after no special preparation, that's OK for most practical purposes.
Note that Luminova is not fully charged just because it glows brightly, which it can do after only 20 s outdoors in daylight. It takes approximately 30 min for it to reach its full charge.
I sure hope Luminova will also prove to stay usable a long time, both in years and in number of charge/discharge cycles.

---

Document created 2002 Jan 31 (Another article from the archives. The watch with tritium index and hands had it replaced with Luminova when it was next serviced and I've never missed its tritium.)

How important is the "base caliber" of a movement?

For example, you will frequently note that lots of people find a watch where the base caliber is the ETA 2892 is prefereable to one with an ETA 2824 movement. Presumably because the first is higher quality (it does cost more, after all).
This is what I call "movement snobbism" (which is different from preferring something which has known properties which are better) and think is basically flawed thinking. For one thing, there's no such thing as a single version of either of the movements as supplied from ETA (you can get them in quite different versions, for quite different prices and either assembled, as parts or only some of the parts and get the rest from another source), for another it doesn't take into account what the watch maker has done to the movement (varies from nothing to quite a lot).
Not being a collector, I don't have enough personal experience with these to make a comprehensive statement of their relative advantages, but I can note that there is at least one maker who's said to use 2824s as a base for watches that are chronometer certified and there are watches with 2892 movements which don't come that accurate from the maker, even if many are.
As another example, I can take two of my watches with "the same" 6497 movements. They behave very differently. One is very accurate as long as you wind it the same time of day. This means it's well regulated concerning which attitude it's in, but the spring delivers its power unevenly. The other one doesn't care much when or how much you wind it, but it's extremely sensitive to position and runs much too fast if left dial up during the night, but quite accurate when you wear it.
Same movements, but possibly not the same mainspring and certainly not the same kind of regulation.

---

Document created 2001 Oct 19  (So it's from the archives. In fact, I don't have any watch with a 6497 movement today.)

Watch winders, what is the importance of turns per day?

Many watch winders let you set them for a certain number of turns per day and there are tables for how many turns per day different movements require to keep running. I don't think that's really important information or a useful setting.
The reason I think so is that I've worn several automatic watches for different times, sometimes on the same arm simultaneously to get comparision numbers. Usually this results in 350-500 turns per hour worn during low activity. Rule of thumb: 2 hours of wearing is enough for 24 h running.
If you're more active, it's easy to get the rotor to get up to 15000 turns per day, and if this isn't considered harmful for the watch, it makes little sense to set the winder to a certain number of turns under 1000/day.

Why the crown often is positioned at 3 o'clock

The common explanation is because then you can wind and set the watch while you're wearing it.
That explanation can have some kind of sense to it, but I don't think it's the full story. From what I've observed, most people actually remove their watches from their wrists for winding and setting, and seen that way it's clear the crown is where it is so you can manipulate it with your right hand, not because the crown is accessible when the watch is on the wrist.
This also means I don't think crown position is any reason to wear a watch on either the left or right wrist. Unless it digs into your hand, of course.

Sinn 656

New watch. Haven't had it very long yet. Comfortable, easily readable and good looking.

New watch

Last week I decided it was time to replace my old (bought in 1991 in Darwin as replacement for a Nivada Baby Whale which apparently hadn't gotten its battery changed professionally, so moisture broke it) Seiko SQ100.

Reason I choose the SQ100 was that it was pretty legible for a normal watch and it had day and date display. It still works just fine, but it's not water tight at all any more so it's not a good idea to wear it if water is a risk. And it often is.

Of course I wanted much the same of its replacement. Hadn't thought much about Swatch as most of their models don't appeal to me. But after learning of my requirements (and after looking at something almost suitable but with almost invisible hands from one other common brand) I had the Swatch SUJB700 pointed out to me -- and it was just right in every respect and at a price where you don't take much of a risk anyway.

One drawback is that you can't replace the leather strap for something non-Swatch. For, for example, when you're planning on dunking it in water or walking in lots of rain. But you can purchase replacement plastic straps for it, which I may do in preparation for summer. Another is that the day display is only in English; If possible I always set my day displays to  French (as on the SQ100) or German. Neither has bothered me so far.

Citizen Promaster PMT56-2712

This is a watch I haven't been using for several years. The reason I put it away was because I thought it had started to be less reliable as I did a master reset and did micro adjustment several times. Obviously there wasn't any problem with it which wasn't cured by a good rest.

It's still easy to use and clearly one of my most technically advanced watches even though it not being especially expensive. Night visibility and solar cell efficiency are still good after seven year.

I have written about it earlier on my old web page, and what I wrote there is still true. (Note that I don't have write access to that document anymore, so the link to "better photos" is quite dead.)

A happy find, as I wasn't looking for it but rather clearing out junk from a storage area... in the weeks since I found it I've worn it about 7 days out of 8; It's also comfortable to wear.

The usefulness of one piece watch straps

The photo speaks for itself.

Automatic watches work in space

"An automatic watch will not work in space, because
there's no gravity there."

You sometimes hear or read the above as an explanation for why some models of watches used in space are manual wind instead of automatic. This explanation is not quite right.

It has been suggested in some watch information that when spaceflight was new, one didn't know for certain that automatic watches would work when worn by spacefarers, as the reason behind pace models being manual wind. There is some kind of reason to this, since it wasnt's very farfetched to think that the wearer would float around more or less motionless most of the time. (Obviously n automatic watch doesn't wind if it's motionless.) In practice it didn't turn out that way, you consume lots of calories during spaceflight.

The real reason for early manual wind watches in space

For example, in Breitling's own catalogue it's clearly written that the Cosmonaute model (a chronograph) was introduced in 1962 and that the company invented the automatic wind chronograph in 1965. The Speedmaster was chosen in 1965 and Omega didn't introduce an automatic variant until 1973. The manual one was submitted to NASA for the 1978 selection and adopted. I don't know, but his might have had to do with better ability to withstand the possibly severe environment.

And since then, there has been at least one kind of autmatic chronograph in space, Sinn's 142 St S for the first time in 1985.

How automatics work without gravity

It's correct that in a gravity field, you can keep a watch stationary and rotate it, which makes the rotor turn and wind the watch. Like for instance in a watch winder, which would not wind watches in zero gravity.

But that's not the only way you can get the rotor to turn:


Imagine placing a watch flat on a table and pushing it back and forth. Of course the rotor would turn, but you haven't involved gravity in the least.

Why Kevlar watch straps?

I think it's mainly because it's "cool" to have a
watch strap made of a high-tech material.

It does have the advantage compared to some other
common materials that it's quite fire resistant so it doesn't
burn and melt, and this can be a good reason to choose
Kevlar over Nylon.

Kevlar is strong, but how often does that matter in this
application?
Besides, it looses strength if wet (which is restored
when it dries), so I don't think neither strength nor fire
is on the mind of those who use Kevlar "dive" straps,
and it looses some of its strength if you bend the
fibres too much (admittedly I don't know if normal use
as a watch strap influences this, but I'm sure it doesn't
enough to matter) and if subjected to UV radiation.

So, apart from the one advantage,
and that it's quite wear resistant, it doesn't seem like
Kevlar is an ideal material for watch straps, but when
that advantage is needed, it's possibly the best choice
today.

Is it Kevlar?

Some people have been investigating the material
"Kevlar" straps are made of. And it has turned out that
many aren't really made of that material at all.

Moon phase, a mostly useless feature in watches

What is this good for? I won't believe in explanations
like "knowing if it's the right night to harvest
mistle-toe" and the like, but want a more rational
explanation.

If I've been out at night within the last week, then it's
likely I'll have a pretty good idea of what the moon will
be like tonight, and if I haven't, is it really likely I'm
interested? If I'm interested, it's not the phase I want
to know, I want to know much light there will be at what
times.

In case I'm planning a landing for the beginning of June,
then a moon phase watch won't help me find a suitable
night, a calender is better as it's usually got the moon
phases marked. But that's not enough, an ephemeris is also
needed as the times when the moon rises and sets also has
to be considered. A nearly full moon which rises in the morning
won't help much.

Why I don't like watches with pointer date indication

I very much prefer a date window to a date hand on a watch.
The reason is simple and has to do with logic. All other regular hands on a watch will point to every point: After 11 comes 12, after Thursday comes Friday and so on, so the hands' progression can be used to see what day of week it will be in three days time or how many hours it is until 12 o'clock.

This breaks down with pointer date, as just because it's the 30:th
today doesn't mean there will be a 31:st tomorrow.
Thus a date window is more logical.

Using a watch as a compass

There are some different rules where you use the hour hand, the 12 on the dial and the sun to find the directions. It gets a bit simpler if your watch has a 24 hour hand (and it's set to local time rather than UTC). Me, I think that's a bit more complicated than necessary.

What you need to remember is really a lot easier to remember and it's usable together with a digital watch.

In the northern hemisphere, you only have to remember that the sun is in this direction at these times:

0600 East
1200 South
1800 West
2400 North (if applicable)

In the southern hemisphere, let south and north switch places.