Power reserve - is there a new "minimum" standard? are consumers spoilt?

[wolfeyes1974]

Power reserve - here's something that came immediately to my mind when I look at watches nowadays.

Not sure If it's just me but I think i've been spoilt by watch companies offering 3 days PR as the new "minimum" standard. Perhaps Pammy has started the trend having 3 days PR for most of their watches. In the past, I would have happily settled for 48 hours PR but now it seems 48 hours is "outdated". Oris now has an awesome 10 days PR.

Now PR is also a consideration when I want to buy a watch. Recently, I went to an AD to check out Roger Dubuis Excalibur 42mm but was a little disappointed with its 50 hrs PR. The worksmanship is great but I was kind of expecting a minimum of 3 days PR coming from some of the established brands.

Do you feel the same way?

Cheers

James

[jieming]

Power reserve - here's something that came immediately to my mind when I look at watches nowadays.

Not sure If it's just me but I think i've been spoilt by watch companies offering 3 days PR as the new "minimum" standard. Perhaps Pammy has started the trend having 3 days PR for most of their watches. In the past, I would have happily settled for 48 hours PR but now it seems 48 hours is "outdated". Oris now has an awesome 10 days PR.

Now PR is also a consideration when I want to buy a watch. Recently, I went to an AD to check out Roger Dubuis Excalibur 42mm but was a little disappointed with its 50 hrs PR. The worksmanship is great but I was kind of expecting a minimum of 3 days PR coming from some of the established brands.

Do you feel the same way?

Cheers

James

I rotate my watches. Normally, I don't wear the same watch for 2 consequence days. Power reserve is not an important criteria for me but I appreciate the technology that goes into increasing the power reserve.

[wolfeyes1974]

I rotate my watches. Normally, I don't wear the same watch for 2 consequence days. Power reserve is not an important criteria for me but I appreciate the technology that goes into increasing the power reserve.

with all the technology that goes into making a watch, wouldn't it be realistic for consumers to expect higher PR hence a "new" standard?

[jieming]

with all the technology that goes into making a watch, wouldn't it be realistic for consumers to expect higher PR hence a "new" standard?

If price remain the same with higher PR, I would like to have it but sadly it Is not.

[shuseido]

Yes, cant remember since when, PR is one of my consideration when buying watch.

Min 3 days PR is nice! At least, can last over the weekends.

[Ed.YEO]

why not get a quartz if power reserve is your main concern
the battery PR last 1 to 2 year

RONDA analogue quartz movements with Chronograph features offer up to 4yrs battery life per change of RENATA battery.
CASIO also have some the offers up to more than what RONDA offers... but only limited to digital watches.

[Ed.YEO]

Yes, cant remember since when, PR is one of my consideration when buying watch.

Min 3 days PR is nice! At least, can last over the weekends.

WELCOME! To the world of low beat, long run POWERMATIC 80! Which can currently only be found in TISSOT(locally widely available) and CERTINA(niche in local market... get from grey!)

[Ed.YEO]

If price remain the same with higher PR, I would like to have it but sadly it Is not.

Coming soon(HK launching @ the end of this month?)... with SWATCH SYSTEM51, you'll be spoilt for choice on patterns. But then... would you go for plastics?

[alantannottam]

I dun think the higher PR is the new standard. Companies are still introducing new models with less than 50hr pr, which means there's still markets for low pr watches (cheaper to produce hence more affordable for consumers? ). I may be wrong, but its just my view.

[WatchRUs]

My 2 cents. With watches advertising with "PR", they must have at leat 3 days PR. I'm spoiled with both 3 day & 8 days PR with PAM watches.

[clocking]

I believe most Rolex 42hr PR, even the outstanding enginering DSSD 42hr PR. 42hr PR standard from what I understand, for me is good to have more than 42hr PR. Don't you think Rolex going to increasing the standard PR from 42hr to 72hr or maybe 7days for daytona, who knows for marketing planning, maybe for future sales, in the same time upgrading the enginering. Sorry yeah maybe just me, increasing PR part of mechanical engineering improvement. Sadly now I only love panerai in house movement, most 3 days PR, I also like non in house movement, from Pam 197 JLC 8-Days Movement, price haha I have to go with 233 hehe. Thanks! everyboy thanks!..

[triton]

for a person who has one watch who wears it almost daily, anything from 42 to 50 hours power reserve will be deemed sufficient compared to a person who has multiple watches to rotate than looking for more power reserve may be a concern.

if i were to look for a new watch, the power reserve is not my primarily concern. aesthetics and price are my main concerns

[mew]

PR is the least of my concern when deciding on a purchase. Apart from a few companies truely innovating by using improved mainspring materials to increase PR, I feel many "cheat" by increasing the barrel size, adding double barrels or lowering beat rate, achieving higher PR at the expense of other factors.

[pegasi]

No, I don't think there is a new minimum standard for PR, although we are seeing more watches with longer PR. I see it as a way for the brands to differentiate themselves from the competitions, or simply to offer more options in their product line-up to consumers who might prefer/appreciate such feature ((hence creating more sales opportunities). It is somewhat similar to the intention of brands coming out with dive watches with spec good for deep sea diving although most people would be happy with dive watches of 200m~300m water resistant.

Are consumers spoiled for choice? Yes, but realistically speaking the range of choices are relative to one's affordability and budget.

[Matt Sandy]

3 day is good. Unfortunately many watches fail to deliver the quoted PR after a few years use.