Path: csiph.com!eternal-september.org!feeder.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Cursitor Doom <curd@notformail.com>
Newsgroups: sci.electronics.design
Subject: Re: OT: Current standard for watch precision
Date: Tue, 7 Feb 2017 18:29:41 -0000 (UTC)
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 14
Message-ID: <o7d3ml$org$2@dont-email.me>
References: <o792ut$ooh$1@news.albasani.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Tue, 7 Feb 2017 18:29:41 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: mx02.eternal-september.org; posting-host="fb92a64fb49a291c9be770dd064cd27c"; logging-data="25456"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX19kq4vmexZ5B5zghSJ7YaJyYlguQW7P+AY="
User-Agent: Pan/0.139 (Sexual Chocolate; GIT bf56508 git://git.gnome.org/pan2)
Cancel-Lock: sha1:YY6y5LUVyKM3ACEB0+r1Xvw4lR4=
Xref: csiph.com sci.electronics.design:446664

On Mon, 06 Feb 2017 11:22:26 +0530, Pimpom wrote:

> What would be considered a "good" wristwatch today in terms of
> timekeeping precision? Forget about build quality, price, shock-
> and waterproofing, etc.
> 
> Half a century ago, a wristwatch with a-minute-a-month accuracy might
> have been labelled a chronometer. What standard would you apply now?

I've had a lot of high-end Swiss watches that fall into the "certified 
chronometer category" over the years, all with self-winding mechanical 
movements. The best of them would keep to well within 20s over 3 months. 
Obviously that's unimpressive compared with even the cheap quartz/digital 
watches, but perfectly acceptable for my purposes anyway.