62, 83, 66, 61, 63, 6R movement quality comparison?

[huangcjz]

How do Seiko's basic movement series compare in quality to each other? I have read that the 6220, the basic hand-winding member of the 62 series family, was a cost-reduced and slightly larger version of the 3140 Liner movement. Was the cost-reduction just in terms of the quality of finishing, or did it negatively affect the quality of the movement's functioning?

I have also read that the 62 series automatic movements were simplified over time (e.g. from calibre 400 to calibre 6206) in order to reduce the number of parts and hence save cost. Was this simplification also a good thing in terms of the movement's function, neutral, or was the cost-saving a negative thing?

My assumption is that the 61 series is an improvement on the 62 series in every way, for example with its higher beat-rate (and gaining hand-winding capability), but is my assumption correct?

For example, the 6245/6 and 6215/6 19,800 vph movements were capable by design of being accurate to the Grand Seiko standard of 1966 of -3 to +6 seconds per day (as found in the 62GS), and I assume could perform even better than that nowadays with modern lubricants - would the design of the 6106C or 6119 at 21,600 vph (more comparable than the 36,000 vph members of the 61 series, since higher beat-rate helps with time-keeping, so trying to control as much as possible for beat-rate, in order to only extract the effects of the design) be capable of the same?

I know the 6106 and 6119 would only have been guaranteed/adjusted to be within probably -15 to +25 seconds per day at the time they were made, but is the basic design capable of performing better than the best 62 series of -3 to +6 seconds per day, if it were to have more careful adjustment? (Of course, the 36,000 vph members of the family were capable of up to +/- 2 seconds per day, but I am guessing that those movements likely had more design tweaks to help them achieve that than the 21,600 vph members of the family).

Along the same lines - calibre 460 was capable of -3 to +8 seconds per day in 1963 - would a 6220 be capable of the same or better?

Was the 61 series an improvement on the design of the 83 series in every way?

The sense I seem to get is that the 63 series movements are a cost-reduced version of the 61 series movements. Is this correct, and again, did the cost-saving negatively impact the movement's function or not?

For example, leaving out the 36,000 vph members of the 61 series, and just comparing the 21,600 vph members of the 61 and 63 series movements - how does a 25-jewel 6106C, or a 6119 (from what I can find, they were later replacements for the 6106, but topped out at 21 jewels instead of 25 jewels), compare with a 23-jewel 6349? (I know the number of jewels themselves don't necessarily make a difference to the quality of a movement in themselves, but I'm using them as an indicator of how much investment/money Seiko put into the specific movement and also how high its positioning is in Seiko's line-up, and hence as a kind of proxy for quality.)

How do the 6106C, 6119, and 6349 compare with the ultimate development of the 7000-series movements that Seiko use today, the 28,800 vph 6R20/1/7 series, in terms of quality?

Extending this to the 7600 and 6600 series of movements - the sense I seem to get is that these were lower-cost movements, with the 6600 sort of a lower-cost version of the 6200 series, being thicker, but being also smaller in diameter, and hence was used in high-end, 21-jewel 6660 form in some dress watches, which could be smaller in diameter than the 6220 movements, and hence more suitable for dress watches. How does a 6660, the highest-end version of a lower-end movement, compare with a 6220, a lower-end version of a standard/higher-end/not-low-end movement, in quality?

I am not so concerned with features, e.g. hacking (and hand-winding), day and date quick-sets, etc., since some movements from the same family have them and others not, so I see them a bolt-on, modular add-ons. I am more wondering about the performance and quality of the movements themselves in terms of their time-keeping - accuracy, precision, consistency, resistance to/speed of recovery from the effects of positional change, etc.

[Deleted]

I could be wrong but my general impression is that cost reduction did not always mean reduction in quality or accuracy.
Cost reduction did not always mean reducing parts count. Sometimes things like upgrading movements to the magic finger system or installing an etachron style regulator actually improved the cost of assembly and setup.

A common misconception is that the 7002 calibre is just a cost reduced 6309 and a poor cousin to the 7s26.

Apart from some plastic bits which both the 6309 and 7s26 have in their date side mechanisms, the 7002 movement is just as robust, reliable and capable of accurate time keeping. The only unfortunate feature of the 7002 divers is the crappy lume on the dials, so finding a good clean example can be difficult.

The calibre series you've mentioned run the gamut from lowest entry level to high end so it's not really fair to try comparing some of them.

[huangcjz]

Nov 1, 2019 7:41:37 GMT -8 @penguinbce said:

A common misconception is that the 7002 calibre is just a cost reduced 6309

Thank you for your reply. The bit I’ve quoted above surprises me that some people would believe that, given that firstly, the 63 series is a Suwa movement and the 7000 series is a Daini movement, and hence were developed by separate companies, and secondly because I believe that the basic design of the 7000 series actually pre-dates the 63 series! (Though I know that the 7002 itself does not pre-date the 6309).

The general point I am trying to get at is - were Seiko’s movements always getting better over time?

[Deleted]

Nov 1, 2019 9:04:33 GMT -8 huangcjz said:

Nov 1, 2019 7:41:37 GMT -8 @penguinbce said:

A common misconception is that the 7002 calibre is just a cost reduced 6309

Thank you for your reply. The bit I’ve quoted above surprises me that some people would believe that, given that firstly, the 63 series is a Suwa movement and the 7000 series is a Daini movement, and hence were developed by separate companies, and secondly because I believe that the basic design of the 7000 series actually pre-dates the 63 series! (Though I know that the 7002 itself does not pre-date the 6309).

The general point I am trying to get at is - were Seiko’s movements always getting better over time?

I'm not sure what the order of release was for all the calibres you've mentioned is, but I believe it is reasonable to assume that generally most were advances for the better with perhaps a small number being mistakes.

Would I take a 4r36C over an older 6309B; you bet. Newer materials and assembly practices ensure that the latest movements are better than the older ones at the time they came off the assembly line.
For example, plastics; which in the older models became brittle and in many cases shrunk. The newer plastics have different chemical make up and will likely never shrink nor will they become hard and brittle. An added benefit with many modern plastics is that they are somewhat self lubricating which makes them excellent for calendar side movement parts.

[Adrian-VTA]

Nov 1, 2019 2:37:25 GMT -8 huangcjz said:

How do Seiko's basic movement series compare in quality to each other? I have read that the 6220, the basic hand-winding member of the 62 series family, was a cost-reduced and slightly larger version of the 3140 Liner movement. Was the cost-reduction just in terms of the quality of finishing, or did it negatively affect the quality of the movement's functioning?

- Not sure on the facts on this issue specifically, but when they revised the movements over this period, I've found they made small improvements mainly to stop stuff breaking/wearing.

I have also read that the 62 series automatic movements were simplified over time (e.g. from calibre 400 to calibre 6206) in order to reduce the number of parts and hence save cost. Was this simplification also a good thing in terms of the movement's function, neutral, or was the cost-saving a negative thing?

- The 400 series is a piece of garbage. It is not bushed in the barrel arbors and they are always totally chewed out.The top plate is paper thin and it was a crap design decision. When they revised to 62, they bushed the top which is a huge improvement. 

My assumption is that the 61 series is an improvement on the 62 series in every way, for example with its higher beat-rate (and gaining hand-winding capability), but is my assumption correct?

- Absolutely. The 62, by comparison, is garbage. It wears more heavily, uses more brass and has a heap of things in there that are a pain to deal with. The 61 is easier to work on, has no shepherd's crook springs everywhere and is much more robust. The 62 was designed in the early-mid 60's, the 61 in the late 60's. 

For example, the 6245/6 and 6215/6 19,800 vph movements were capable by design of being accurate to the Grand Seiko standard of 1966 of -3 to +6 seconds per day (as found in the 62GS), and I assume could perform even better than that nowadays with modern lubricants - would the design of the 6106C or 6119 at 21,600 vph (more comparable than the 36,000 vph members of the 61 series, since higher beat-rate helps with time-keeping, so trying to control as much as possible for beat-rate, in order to only extract the effects of the design) be capable of the same?

- The finish on the 62GS movements is not comparable to the 6206/6217 etc. Remember also they used better steel on the hairspring etc on the GS movements. Modern lubricants make a difference. So it's not a fair comparison vs. the low-mid range movements. The GS movements vary little during positional changes, the 61 quite a bit. There would be better poising on the balance wheel etc. on the GS movements.

I know the 6106 and 6119 would only have been guaranteed/adjusted to be within probably -15 to +25 seconds per day at the time they were made, but is the basic design capable of performing better than the best 62 series of -3 to +6 seconds per day, if it were to have more careful adjustment? (Of course, the 36,000 vph members of the family were capable of up to +/- 2 seconds per day, but I am guessing that those movements likely had more design tweaks to help them achieve that than the 21,600 vph members of the family).

- No. Crapper hairsprings and balance balancing is really the issue there.

Along the same lines - calibre 460 was capable of -3 to +8 seconds per day in 1963 - would a 6220 be capable of the same or better?

- See above

Was the 61 series an improvement on the design of the 83 series in every way?

- Not comparable. The 83 was a mid range movement. A better comparison would be 83 vs. 56.

The sense I seem to get is that the 63 series movements are a cost-reduced version of the 61 series movements. Is this correct, and again, did the cost-saving negatively impact the movement's function or not?

- Yes and no. Cost reduction and they also revised the balance, calendar and keyless works. The 61 balance is huge and delicate, also tops out amplitude wise at around 240ish. 63 is a smaller balance, tops out at 250. The balance is much more robust. The entire gear train and balance does interchange. The 63 keyless works are vastly better than the crappy system on the 61's with the pushbutton crown.

For example, leaving out the 36,000 vph members of the 61 series, and just comparing the 21,600 vph members of the 61 and 63 series movements - how does a 25-jewel 6106C, or a 6119 (from what I can find, they were later replacements for the 6106, but topped out at 21 jewels instead of 25 jewels), compare with a 23-jewel 6349? (I know the number of jewels themselves don't necessarily make a difference to the quality of a movement in themselves, but I'm using them as an indicator of how much investment/money Seiko put into the specific movement and also how high its positioning is in Seiko's line-up, and hence as a kind of proxy for quality.)

- About the same. The cap jewels really help to "level out" the timegrapher line. So a 61 with cap jewels everywhere will perform roughly the same a 63 with cap jewels everywhere.

How do the 6106C, 6119, and 6349 compare with the ultimate development of the 7000-series movements that Seiko use today, the 28,800 vph 6R20/1/7 series, in terms of quality?

- Roughly the same level of finish. Performance wise the 6R will kill it due to modern alloys in the hairspring and mainspring.

Extending this to the 7600 and 6600 series of movements - the sense I seem to get is that these were lower-cost movements, with the 6600 sort of a lower-cost version of the 6200 series, being thicker, but being also smaller in diameter, and hence was used in high-end, 21-jewel 6660 form in some dress watches, which could be smaller in diameter than the 6220 movements, and hence more suitable for dress watches. How does a 6660, the highest-end version of a lower-end movement, compare with a 6220, a lower-end version of a standard/higher-end/not-low-end movement, in quality?

- 66 series was a thing on it's own. I'm of the opinion the 66 and 6619 were the low end movements equivalent to the 61. The 62 was sort of in the DX territory, like the 6106. The 66 and 6619 are garbage movements. Worst keyless works ever made. There's a stupid spacer under the 4th wheel that's usually been lost in a service in 1974 and they wear like a "mofo" on the barrel arbors.

I am not so concerned with features, e.g. hacking (and hand-winding), day and date quick-sets, etc., since some movements from the same family have them and others not, so I see them a bolt-on, modular add-ons. I am more wondering about the performance and quality of the movements themselves in terms of their time-keeping - accuracy, precision, consistency, resistance to/speed of recovery from the effects of positional change, etc.

[Deleted]

Excellent answers Adrian  7dfe79adc2f0

[huangcjz]

Dear Adrian, I hope you're well.

Thank you very much for your comprehensive and thorough answer - it is exactly what I was looking for. I appreciate the time and effort you took to answer my questions. I hope that this information being out there now will be useful for other people in the future. Best wishes.

I find it strange now that SEIKO seems to have this massive gap in their mechanical movement range in terms of performance/accuracy between the 6R series, based on the 7000 series, and the few watches with the 6L in them and then the Grand Seiko design 8L/9S series, whereas at the end of the mechanical period, you had the 7000 series at the bottom, then 51/560x/52 in the middle where there's not many watches with equivalent movements nowadays, before having the top end with 564x in Grand Seikos.

[pip]

Nov 2, 2019 6:55:26 GMT -8 Adrian-VTA said:

Nov 1, 2019 2:37:25 GMT -8 huangcjz said:

How do Seiko's basic movement series compare in quality to each other? I have read that the 6220, the basic hand-winding member of the 62 series family, was a cost-reduced and slightly larger version of the 3140 Liner movement. Was the cost-reduction just in terms of the quality of finishing, or did it negatively affect the quality of the movement's functioning?

- Not sure on the facts on this issue specifically, but when they revised the movements over this period, I've found they made small improvements mainly to stop stuff breaking/wearing.

I have also read that the 62 series automatic movements were simplified over time (e.g. from calibre 400 to calibre 6206) in order to reduce the number of parts and hence save cost. Was this simplification also a good thing in terms of the movement's function, neutral, or was the cost-saving a negative thing?

- The 400 series is a piece of garbage. It is not bushed in the barrel arbors and they are always totally chewed out.The top plate is paper thin and it was a crap design decision. When they revised to 62, they bushed the top which is a huge improvement. 

My assumption is that the 61 series is an improvement on the 62 series in every way, for example with its higher beat-rate (and gaining hand-winding capability), but is my assumption correct?

- Absolutely. The 62, by comparison, is garbage. It wears more heavily, uses more brass and has a heap of things in there that are a pain to deal with. The 61 is easier to work on, has no shepherd's crook springs everywhere and is much more robust. The 62 was designed in the early-mid 60's, the 61 in the late 60's. 

For example, the 6245/6 and 6215/6 19,800 vph movements were capable by design of being accurate to the Grand Seiko standard of 1966 of -3 to +6 seconds per day (as found in the 62GS), and I assume could perform even better than that nowadays with modern lubricants - would the design of the 6106C or 6119 at 21,600 vph (more comparable than the 36,000 vph members of the 61 series, since higher beat-rate helps with time-keeping, so trying to control as much as possible for beat-rate, in order to only extract the effects of the design) be capable of the same?

- The finish on the 62GS movements is not comparable to the 6206/6217 etc. Remember also they used better steel on the hairspring etc on the GS movements. Modern lubricants make a difference. So it's not a fair comparison vs. the low-mid range movements. The GS movements vary little during positional changes, the 61 quite a bit. There would be better poising on the balance wheel etc. on the GS movements.

I know the 6106 and 6119 would only have been guaranteed/adjusted to be within probably -15 to +25 seconds per day at the time they were made, but is the basic design capable of performing better than the best 62 series of -3 to +6 seconds per day, if it were to have more careful adjustment? (Of course, the 36,000 vph members of the family were capable of up to +/- 2 seconds per day, but I am guessing that those movements likely had more design tweaks to help them achieve that than the 21,600 vph members of the family).

- No. Crapper hairsprings and balance balancing is really the issue there.

Along the same lines - calibre 460 was capable of -3 to +8 seconds per day in 1963 - would a 6220 be capable of the same or better?

- See above

Was the 61 series an improvement on the design of the 83 series in every way?

- Not comparable. The 83 was a mid range movement. A better comparison would be 83 vs. 56.

The sense I seem to get is that the 63 series movements are a cost-reduced version of the 61 series movements. Is this correct, and again, did the cost-saving negatively impact the movement's function or not?

- Yes and no. Cost reduction and they also revised the balance, calendar and keyless works. The 61 balance is huge and delicate, also tops out amplitude wise at around 240ish. 63 is a smaller balance, tops out at 250. The balance is much more robust. The entire gear train and balance does interchange. The 63 keyless works are vastly better than the crappy system on the 61's with the pushbutton crown.

For example, leaving out the 36,000 vph members of the 61 series, and just comparing the 21,600 vph members of the 61 and 63 series movements - how does a 25-jewel 6106C, or a 6119 (from what I can find, they were later replacements for the 6106, but topped out at 21 jewels instead of 25 jewels), compare with a 23-jewel 6349? (I know the number of jewels themselves don't necessarily make a difference to the quality of a movement in themselves, but I'm using them as an indicator of how much investment/money Seiko put into the specific movement and also how high its positioning is in Seiko's line-up, and hence as a kind of proxy for quality.)

- About the same. The cap jewels really help to "level out" the timegrapher line. So a 61 with cap jewels everywhere will perform roughly the same a 63 with cap jewels everywhere.

How do the 6106C, 6119, and 6349 compare with the ultimate development of the 7000-series movements that Seiko use today, the 28,800 vph 6R20/1/7 series, in terms of quality?

- Roughly the same level of finish. Performance wise the 6R will kill it due to modern alloys in the hairspring and mainspring.

Extending this to the 7600 and 6600 series of movements - the sense I seem to get is that these were lower-cost movements, with the 6600 sort of a lower-cost version of the 6200 series, being thicker, but being also smaller in diameter, and hence was used in high-end, 21-jewel 6660 form in some dress watches, which could be smaller in diameter than the 6220 movements, and hence more suitable for dress watches. How does a 6660, the highest-end version of a lower-end movement, compare with a 6220, a lower-end version of a standard/higher-end/not-low-end movement, in quality?

- 66 series was a thing on it's own. I'm of the opinion the 66 and 6619 were the low end movements equivalent to the 61. The 62 was sort of in the DX territory, like the 6106. The 66 and 6619 are garbage movements. Worst keyless works ever made. There's a stupid spacer under the 4th wheel that's usually been lost in a service in 1974 and they wear like a "mofo" on the barrel arbors.

I am not so concerned with features, e.g. hacking (and hand-winding), day and date quick-sets, etc., since some movements from the same family have them and others not, so I see them a bolt-on, modular add-ons. I am more wondering about the performance and quality of the movements themselves in terms of their time-keeping - accuracy, precision, consistency, resistance to/speed of recovery from the effects of positional change, etc.

That needs to be a Wikipedia page, excellent read.

[huangcjz]

Nov 2, 2019 6:55:26 GMT -8 Adrian-VTA said:

- The 400 series is a piece of garbage. It is not bushed in the barrel arbors and they are always totally chewed out. The top plate is paper thin and it was a crap design decision. When they revised to 62, they bushed the top which is a huge improvement.

I assume the same applies to calibre 395 (which I guess was technically the flagship rather than cal. 400) too, which was from the same time period?

[Adrian-VTA]

Anything from this era really is pretty poor in my opinion. They aren't great timekeepers, finish is OK but they wear really bad. The movements only really got good when they did the huge rationalisation and modernisation over 1968/1969.

They are not comparable to anything Swiss from the era in my opinion.

Notable exception here is the Bell-Matic, which is a great movement but has interchange and some bits from the 6206.

Nov 3, 2019 7:01:54 GMT -8 huangcjz said:

Nov 2, 2019 6:55:26 GMT -8 Adrian-VTA said:

- The 400 series is a piece of garbage. It is not bushed in the barrel arbors and they are always totally chewed out. The top plate is paper thin and it was a crap design decision. When they revised to 62, they bushed the top which is a huge improvement.

I assume the same applies to calibre 395 (which I guess was technically the flagship rather than cal. 400) too, which was from the same time period?

[Adrian-VTA]

The  video you've always dreamed of...6156 side by side with a 6106. Watch to the end where I look at how the adjustments are done to the balance for the chronometer rating.

Nov 3, 2019 7:01:54 GMT -8 huangcjz said:

Nov 2, 2019 6:55:26 GMT -8 Adrian-VTA said:

- The 400 series is a piece of garbage. It is not bushed in the barrel arbors and they are always totally chewed out. The top plate is paper thin and it was a crap design decision. When they revised to 62, they bushed the top which is a huge improvement.

I assume the same applies to calibre 395 (which I guess was technically the flagship rather than cal. 400) too, which was from the same time period?

[Deleted]

Well done Adrian, an excellent video 

Not sure if you have looked really, really closely at the balance spring itself but I've seen videos and photos of these VFA springs with micro welded blobs on them that further balance the balance spring itself. It may have only been in the conservatory competitions but I found it fascinating, the levels Seiko went to make these things.

Again, thanks for the great tear down and descriptive video 7dfe79adc2f0

[Adrian-VTA]

They did that on the 44, not sure about others.

I do have a 44 here with the weights on. They were attached by a specialised epoxy.

Most idiot repairers think it's a problem and remove them.

Nov 4, 2019 16:58:07 GMT -8 @penguinbce said:

Well done Adrian, an excellent video 

Not sure if you have looked really, really closely at the balance spring itself but I've seen videos and photos of these VFA springs with micro welded blobs on them that further balance the balance spring itself. It may have only been in the conservatory competitions but I found it fascinating, the levels Seiko went to make these things.

Again, thanks for the great tear down and descriptive video

[Deleted]

Thanks for the informative post and video Adrian. Lots of helpful info here!

[huangcjz]

Thanks for the great video Adrian, as always.

Do you have any photos of the weights on the Calibre 44 hair-springs?

How would you say that the 7600 and 6600 compare to each other? The 7600 autos were positioned higher in the market than the 6600 autos, but the cosmetic finishing on the 7600 movements looks less nice to me than that on the 6600 ones.

[Adrian-VTA]

I'll take the balance out and take some shots for you when I have a chance.

The finishing on the 76 series is roughly equivalent to the finish on a VOSTOK movement. It's awful.

The 6600 is nicer. It looks more polished design wise. The rhodium plating is nicer. Plates have had more care taken.

FYI, the 76 series lives on now as the current generation of ORIENT movements, albeit with a bunch of upgrades. They went to the 7S26 style calendar system but with the keyless works kept calendar side.

Nov 8, 2019 6:54:25 GMT -8 huangcjz said:

Thank for the great video Adrian, as always.

Do you have any photos of the weights on the Calibre 44 hair-springs?

How would you say that the 7600 and 6600 compare to each other? The 7600 autos were positioned higher in the market than the 6600 autos, but the cosmetic finishing on the 7600 autos looks less nice to me than that on the 6600 ones.

[raistlin]

I spent some time on Japanese watch repair blogs, and most of the comments suggest that the Orient 469s and Seiko 7S26 are contemporaries, both derived from Seiko 70xx in the late 70s.

The earlier Orients used in the AAA series were supposedly rebranded Seiko 76xx, while the later Deluxes with the (3)49 movements were very similar, design wise, to the Seiko 83xx, and the Citizen 52xx / 72xx / 77xx. The Chronoace series (which directly preceded the 469) was even more similar to the Citizen 52xx (doubled third or fourth wheel).

Of course , some information could be utterly lost in translation, and Orient could use the 76xx exclusively in some form or the other since the first AAAs.

It would be absolutely great if Adrian could do a video of a vintage Orient of any caliber though!

[Adrian-VTA]

Nov 9, 2019 2:04:48 GMT -8 raistlin said:

I spent some time on Japanese watch repair blogs, and most of the comments suggest that the Orient 469s and Seiko 7S26 are contemporaries, both derived from Seiko 70xx in the late 70s.

- Wrong. They maybe need to blog about something else, or do some basic visual comparison. The 469 is the 76xx movement, re-spun. Not contemporaries really. The Orient movements train side have absolutely no relation/interchange or any physical resemblance to the 700x series. They handle things in totally different ways and have totally different construction. When the 76xx transfer was done to orient, they upped the beat rate and modernised a few things. At that point the 76xx movement was pretty old fashioned.

The earlier Orients used in the AAA series were supposedly rebranded Seiko 76xx, while the later Deluxes with the (3)49 movements were very similar, design wise, to the Seiko 83xx, and the Citizen 52xx / 72xx / 77xx. The Chronoace series (which directly preceded the 469) was even more similar to the Citizen 52xx (doubled third or fourth wheel).

- Orient's low-mid movements were all 76xx based. The mid movements were stripped down 830x movements. I wouldn't compare the 83 series with the citizen movements. They handle things in totally different ways and were mid range movements while the citizen's weren't. The high end orients were seiko 52xx series movements. Citizens have uni directional winding and were/still are less modern movements.

Of course , some information could be utterly lost in translation, and Orient could use the 76xx exclusively in some form or the other since the first AAAs.

It would be absolutely great if Adrian could do a video of a vintage Orient of any caliber though!

- I don't have any here I don't think, otherwise I'd do the side by side comparison with a 76xx and end speculation forever.

[raistlin]

That's some great info Adrian, thank you so much!