Budlum24 wrote:
sharkman wrote:
Budlum24 wrote:
Am I the first to point out that measuring the timing on the IWC's is premature because they haven't had time to settle?
Expressly? Yes. I thought it implied. And next week the Steelfish could be off. There are too many variables to draw conclusions, which is why my conclusion was intended as comical.
Soooo serious. I'm just saying that the new additions should get a fair shot! The interwebs can be so hostile. This is why I hate lawyers.
No really, no sarcasm - I was clowning around with the whole thing.
The entirety of what can be concluded is some anal watch nut (ME) spent an hour of his life on 2 consecutive Mondays holding watches up against time.gov on his laptop while recording the differences. And none of it really means a thing. The timing of one watch could be slightly effected by the angle in the winder, the amount of time on the wrist versus on the winder, the temps and humidity when worn. Not to mention I haven't a clue that each watch was fully wound when I started this little deal. I think they all were - but I didn't video it like that creepy rock guy on the other thread.
All in good fun. There isn't even a thesis. I knew someone - and expected it would be Ian! - would question the accuracy.
The one thing I learned is my perception about most of these watches running outside COSC parameters was false.
And the tragedy of it all is if the Saints had just beaten my Cardinals Sunday, I likely would have been.......mmm...preoccupied last night! And tonight.
Login
Register
FAQ
