Diferencias entre "precision" and "accuracy"

First of all, accuracy in timing is not the same thing as precision. Accuracy refers to how likely the watch is to keep with actual time. So, if watch gains 5 seconds one day, then loses 5 seconds the next, it can be said to be highly accurate, as it's net gain/loss versus the actual time is zero. However, such a watch would be highly imprecise. A watch that gains 5 seconds regularly everyday is far more precise and more difficult to engineer, even if it is less accurate. Rolex has always prided itself on accuracy. But the reason why other finer, higher-end companies can say they build finer, better movements is because they tend to be more precise.

That said, you are right: the 50010 movement is not well-regarded for accuracy. But we were talking about finishing quality. Even if a shoe doesn't fit right, we can still judge how well it is finished. So too with watch finishing. Whether you think IWC finishing actually achieves the goals it reflects is a separate issue from how nicely it is done.
Again, you are confusing engineering with finishing. See above.

Haz clic para expandir...

Quite right about the distinction between precision and accuracy. The classic science-and-engineering-course example illustrates the concept clearly:

However, high-end makers neither claim nor deliver better precision — or accuracy — than their more common counterparts.

Once you can produce a movement that's capable of a consistent rate of plus five seconds a day (precision), it's trivial to adjust/regulate it to stay dead-on (accuracy). Isochronism and rate stability — i.e. precision — is by far the more difficult part, and that's where a manufacturer like Rolex excels.

No high-end company claims to make better movements because of better timekeeping precision; that would be foolish. They're finer and more costly simply because of the amount of skilled labour that they incorporate. A boring ol' machine-finished movement can be made with tighter and more consistent tolerances if the manufacturer is willing to invest in the production resources and quality control that it requires. With the delicate tasks of assembly, truing and adjustment done by hand in the case of Rolex, you get the best of both the mechanical and skilled-labour worlds as far as timekeeping results are concerned.

The empirical results discussed in the "Inside COSC" article on TZ support this, along with COSC director Jean-Pierre Curchod's assessment:
Quote:
What about those expensive, lovingly handcrafted crafted, pursuit-of-perfection in-house movements? It is possible for such movements to reach chronometer standard, acknowledges Mr Curchod, but at the cost of much expensive and time-consuming tweaking. "It is more difficult and the failure rates are high — as much as 60%."

Since mechanical movements are inherently anachronistic, a certain level of imprecision is accepted. It's remarkable how good the results for the lovely horlogerie movements can be, all things considered. But don't expect them to deliver better timekeeping results than mass-produced ones; that's not what it's about.

Haz clic para expandir...

Renacentista dijo:

Bueno, queridos compañeros y compañeras de foro, aquí concluye la lección de hoy

Que disfrutemos todos de unas fiestas apacibles

Haz clic para expandir...

Cabezon dijo:

Desde mi punto de vista, salvo que sean COSC o con certificaciones similares, los relojes tienen que ser preciosos, no precisos.
Con los cientos de hilos que he leído en este foro, sobre la despreocupación de los propietarios por los minutos que atrasan o adelantan sus relojes al mes, creo que distinguir entre precisión y exactitud es cogérsela con papel de fumar

Haz clic para expandir...