Vintage watches run faster?

[minimerc]

Guys, did a simple synchro test today with 5 of my rollies of different vintages and service and thes test subjects r 1977 gmt, 1980 gmt, 1986 gmt2 (recently underwent major service), v series sub, and a heavily used f series dj. all the watches were manually wind for ard 15 rounds for power. The watches were all sychro to run for 8 hours.
Using the newest and hardly wore v series sub as benchmark:
- the recently (major) serviced gmt2 ran the slowest, ard 5.5 to 6 sec slower than benchmark) sub
- the 1980 gmt abt same as sub
- the 1977 gmt, same as dj, abt 3 sec faster than sub
- the vintage 1977 gmt/heavily wore dj were about 9 second faster against the recently serviced gmt by about 9 sec in 8 hours.

So vintages and heavily used watches not timely serviced always run faster? Can someone pl enlighten? Thanks.

[triton]

are all the watches placed in the same position aka side of case with crown facing upwards/lie flat on a normal flat surface?

when was the last servicing done on all the watches? all same time?

are the watches worn regularly or just safe queen?

i need to find a piece of information where rolex indicated that positioning of watch in various different positions will cause the watch to run faster/slower/maintain.

i raise some of the points because the conditions are not quite the same for each of the watch.

also to use the latest v series sub as benchmark might not be appropriate to see the true result. perhaps running against an online atomic clock will be a better benchmark.

what i would suggest is check the timing 86 GMT II that was recently serviced against the online atomic clock. see if the watch loses time over a period of 24 hours on wrist. then ascertain if it is within COSC specification. if not, you can always bring it back for a regulation.

also was the major service done @ RSC or otherwise? if done @ RSC, can go back and request for a regulation check information

[taxico]

i raise some of the points because the conditions are not quite the same for each of the watch.

x2

no such thing as vintage watches run faster.

all the watches need to be serviced at the same time, under the same conditions, and adjusted exactly alike each other before your test can be deemed SOMEWHAT reliable.

[minimerc]

i need to find a piece of information where rolex indicated that positioning of watch in various different positions will cause the watch to run faster/slower/maintain
information

http://www.minus4plus6.com/regulation.htm

Just a simple test, not meant to establish any theory or facts. Not sure if any guys here share the same observation or just the unusual behavior of my recently serviced watch. All the watches were in same position in watch case during the 8 hours. Not sure of
the service history of the other 2 vintages gmts, hardly wore them since I bot them 3m ago. The 16220 has been my daily beater for
the past 10y, last serviced 5yrs ago. V series sub bit 4 m ago, hardly wore. Prior to major servicing the 86gmt2, all the 3 gmt were running abt same time.
Now the 16220 runs the fastest, appro 4 sec faster than v series sub; and the recently serviced gmt was almost 10 sec slower than sub. Any reason why the gmt2 slowed so much? Too much lubricants applied?

[taxico]

Just a simple test, not meant to establish any theory or facts...

...Any reason why the gmt2 slowed so much? Too much lubricants applied?

your guess is good as anyone else's! you should check out the link in the locked servicing interval sticky. it is quite mind boggling yet interesting at the same time...

[caeden]

x2

no such thing as vintage watches run faster.

All the watches need to be serviced at the same time, under the same conditions, and adjusted exactly alike each other before your test can be deemed somewhat reliable.

agree!

[KuchingKu]

agree!

Long time no see you.

New watch of course run faster cos they are younger....but its also true that old watches need to run faster to catch up with the newer ones....

OK....think I am bored.

[caeden]

Haha....Must be the holidays getting to you!

[KuchingKu]

Haha....Must be the holidays getting to you!

Plus the lack of funds to get a Paul Newman...haha. Cheers and end OT.