Anyone up for some Serious Horology???

[ninja01]

OK, well not too serious - hopefully fun in the topic anyway. Something along the lines of what I wrote up in the posts referenced in the  database I used to work on.

Items like:

Comparison of two 39 jewel automatics: Seikomatic 6216/6246 vs. Buren with AS 1581.

=================================================================================================

Well, in the spirit of those, let's pose a question, OK??

Which is the better quality movement??

From Seiko -

1. Presmatic low-beat cal. 5106, 33j



or

2. Seikomatic cal. 6218, 35j [and, it can be any of the A, B, or C variants - you say which one you choose] 





<<  6218C depicted here; note the major difference between this & the A & B.

....
Heck, we can even expand it to see which is the best when we also include as a choice:

3. Presmatic Hi-beat (28,800bph) cal. 5146 in the 30j variant (also came in 27j).



Got any takers to start the discussion??

State your choice and give the reasons WHY ... that's the most important part anyway.
==============================================================================================

I'm going to stay out of the way for now & see what we get!! I'll suggest you go to either the xxxx site (Database & essays) to get some background on each, or go to the Seikomatic site {Japanese language, so get a translation link ready!!}, OR dig out some Seiko technical documentation first.

[cobrajet25]

Some great reading there, brother!  Keep it coming!

[ninja01]

Sept 16, 2014 3:17:47 GMT -8 cobrajet25 said:

Some great reading there, brother!  Keep it coming!

Glad you like it! I've had to take a bit of a vacation from it this year, plus it's not always easy to think of new things I can speak intelligently on as well - sometimes, I have the idea but not the data. Hopefully, someone has some data on the movements I asked about above. I have a certain amount of info which I will impart if nobody else chimes in, but I can't say I have "the answer" to my own question (if there even is indeed "the" answer).

Where I have some "data", it focuses on:

1. some practical difference between the tadpole & the cog-wheel types of fine-adjuster types

2. uses of the jeweling over and above the typical amount needed for good running.

[longbike]

Great I can use more knowledge in a lot of these areas too.

Thanks for the posting and I will make good use of it too.

I am learning everyday thanks to all of you. 7dfe79adc2f0

[funkster]

I do not feel fully qualified to comment on the original comparison, however thank you for such a well-informed cache of horological goodness. I will read , I will learn, I will consider... 

[Deleted]

5146 because it indicates a higher level of attention to adjustment and regulation if not hand picked parts.

[ninja01]

Sept 16, 2014 16:08:50 GMT -8 @penguinbce said:

% [5146] because it indicates a higher level of attention to adjustment and regulation if not hand picked parts.

Well, I have to say you make sense ...

1. The higher beat rate [28,800bph] of the 5146 implies greater stability of the rate (especially when watch is moved on the wrist) over the older low-beat movements. This was stated in Kobayashi Seiya's Grand Seiko History page years ago when a low-beat and a high-beat [28.8K qualifies as the "entry point" for high-beat by definitions used] were compared on a watch tester. The main finding was that the high-beat "resumed the (proper) rate" much quicker than the low-beat - thus, implying greater "stability" of the rate and therefore, greater chances of maintaining the proper rate in real world usage where the watch is subject to frequent (and sometimes jarring) motion while on the wrist.

BUT:
2. Statistics given in a Japanese language site (maybe it was Seikomatic??) indicate that the cog-wheel fine-adjuster (seen above in 6218C) has more "sensitivity" or "granularity" than the older tadpole style & thus, can be regulated to a finer degree in practice. I believe I added those statistics somewhere in xxxx database or discussion forum.

The 5146 has the higher beat rate, but the 6218C has the cog-wheel fine-adjuster (but low-beatrate, likely was 18K, if not, may have been raised to 19.8K ... OK, just checked back w/ Seikomatic ... 6218C is NOT listed in the 19.8K section so I guess it remained @ 18K). So, maybe a trade-off??

As a side note, the 5106A [low-beat Presmatic or Seikomatic-P (JDM designation of line) ] was a 19800bph movement, like the 6216 & 6246 and other "2nd generation" Grand Seiko movements [1st Gen overall can be considered the 3180 hand-wind & 5722A all @ 18K]. My Terminology here can be confusing -- 1st Gen (overall for GS) vs. 1st Gen Auto GS [6245 & 6246] ... here I mean 1st Gen overall for both h-w & Auto models of GS/Chronometer.

.... Back to the main point:

What say you???

NOTE: I'm not saying you are "wrong", just opening up the thought process some more.

[ninja01]

Bumping this one with more info!!

Database links removed.

One "problem" I have in determining the overall relative quality level of each movement is that I have never seen where each one of the above fits in the accuracy grade scale!! We know an entry level GS is "AA" grade, and that a King (KS) is at "A" grade. I've seen that LM (LordMatic) Special is "B" and the LM is "C" 8306 & 8346 are "C", .... but I've NEVER seen anyone tell the "official" grade of things like the 6216, 6218, 5106, or 5146!! Of course, 1 caveat in using that "scale" is that it was not formally adopted (AFAIK) when things like the 6218 were produced, though there were Grand Seiko standards in effect since the start of the '60s. So, trying to "fit" a 6218 (or other early calibre) into that grading system is not totally correct in a historical sense.

Knowing that would help greatly in placing each movement in it's proper hierarchical order!! For example, we could know if a 35 jewel 6218 Weekdater Seikomatic were a "better quality" movement than (for example) a 25j manual-wind 25j King Seiko 44A (or the earlier un-numbered calibre used therein).

Anyone ever see that kind of info around on the net or in other documents??
========================================================
Now, about the tadpole vs. cog-wheel fine-adjuster types:

I'd seen the following data coming out of Japan:

Thanks to translations of the Seikomatic site, I found out the following:

Slight movement of fast and slow lever [fine adjuster] of:
1. "Tadpole type" - can be adjusted for about ten seconds

2. "Rack and Pinion" or "Cogwheel" [as it's called in Seikomatic site] type - can be adjusted for about 4.4 seconds.

So, it seems the "Cogwheel" or "Rack and Pinion" style gives the watchmaker much finer control over the regulation of the movement, based on those statements. Further significance of the increase in sensitivity is that in 1960, the Seiko "GS" standard for Mean Daily Rate was -3 to +12 secs/day & in 1961 it was -3 to +8 secs/day. In either case the interval (or span between slowest & fastest acceptable times) is MORE than 10 secs. The early GS models [3180, 430, & 5722A] used a Tadpole type fine adjuster!

In 1966, about the time of intro of the "Rack and Pinion" or "Cogwheel" type of adjuster, the GS MDR standard was improved to -3 to +6 secs/day - a LESS than 10 second interval!


But, one caveat about adjusters in general, from my thread @ xxxx:


3. Fine adjuster: presence of a fine adjuster, starting in early '60s for Seiko does generally indicate the higher end movement. Of course, it can be hard to compare "absolute quality level" of a ca. 1958 23j Lord Marvel with NO fine adjuster against an early '60s King Seiko 25j [either 1st Gen. unnumbered or the 44A calibres] WITH tadpole-style fine-adjuster. Probably only a trivial difference in ability to finely regulate the movement. If you believe the Chronoswiss folks, a fine-adjuster is NOT a necessary attribute to a "fine quality" movement. They claim that it is just as possible to regulate a movement without fine-adjuster as it is to regulate a movement with fine-adjuster. Not sure of that in practice - I would think it would take longer to get a non-fine-adjuster movement to the same degree of accuracy as one with an effective fine-adjuster [such as the Seiko "cog wheel" style fine-adjuster found on movements such as the 6246 GS/Chronometer and the 5740C Lord Marvel 36,000bph].

[Deleted]

What is so terrible that it had to be hidden away behind locked doors on Seikoholics???

[ninja01]

Sept 27, 2014 16:29:28 GMT -8 @penguinbce said:

What is so terrible that it had to be hidden away behind locked doors on Seikoholics???

Nothing as far as I'm concerned.

I'm just tired of doing much of the "heavy lifting" for a mostly AWOL owner, and then being told "NO" when I have suggestions for growing the membership {to be fair, many suggestions were Sweephands in prior years} and then lately being hit with unwritten rules.

Enough!!

So, if he doesn't want any links now to other sites (I linked back to this post in the thread I started over there), then I refuse to link back to his site for reference from other forums. Fair is fair ... if other forums allow me to reference his site & all the info in there, he should allow people to link to other sites/forums for reference & credit for IP, etc.

Well, I'm thru there - I tried resigning as "curator" of the database several times over the past couple years & was talked out of it. Then when I'd need/want something from him ... oh, "too busy", 'have a family emergency', one excuse after another.

As those Murphy's Laws humor books said:

"No good deed goes unpunished!"

[mwbuss8]

Personally I like the 6218, but have no horological support to back my opinion. I have a few low-beat movements and they're a dream to work on (except the 6619 date jumper), power reserve is great, and they're all within +5/day. This includes a few seikos, a citizen, and 2 orients, along with a 3rd currently in pieces. Maybe I've just gotten lucky but they all seem to be workhorses. I bought a parts watch for the Orient project. It has no crystal and is missing 2 of the hands. It looks as if it's been that way a while. To my amazement, a quick wind had it ticking away! Again maybe I'm lucky...

[ninja01]

Sept 27, 2014 18:45:15 GMT -8 mwbuss8 said:

Personally I like the 6218, but have no horological support to back my opinion. I have a few low-beat movements and they're a dream to work on (except the 6619 date jumper), power reserve is great, and they're all within +5/day. This includes a few seikos, a citizen, and 2 orients, along with a 3rd currently in pieces. Maybe I've just gotten lucky but they all seem to be workhorses. I bought a parts watch for the Orient project. It has no crystal and is missing 2 of the hands. It looks as if it's been that way a while. To my amazement, a quick wind had it ticking away! Again maybe I'm lucky...

Over the years, I've heard a lot of anecdotal information/evidence of the same nature.

I would consider the 6218 one of Seiko's finest automatic movements. Let's not forget - when 6218 was intro'd, there was NO higher quality line of automatic, there was NO automatic Grand Seiko in those days!! An auto Grand Seiko / Chronometer {1st ones were the 6245 & 6246} did not get released to the public for another 2 years or so!!

The "high quality" automatic lineage, as far as I'm concerned, starts with the 30j cal. 603, proceeds to the 39j cal. 395 {especially model J13.083 in Gold Cap case that some Japanese writers consider something of a "trial run" for an automatic luxury / high-quality Seiko}, then to the 6218, then to the 62GS/Chronometer family AND the 6215/6216 Diver & Seikomatic counterparts.

Basically, 6215 & 6216 WERE just 6245 & 6246 movements, just not as highly regulated & finely-adjusted as the ones put into the GS/Chronometer models. Architecturally, they were identical {between the "1" and the "4" versions when speaking of the 3rd digit of calibre #}.

Of course, Seiko did put a "code" into the calibre # starting in about the 1964 timeframe - we'll discuss that another day!!