Incoming brass...Arrived!

[CFR]

Photo finish

[stew77]

That turned out great C!

I now have a better reference method for accelerating patina on brass...a darker and more uniform result.

[CFR]

Thanks, Chris!

It was a lot cleaner ( ) and faster than the egg method, giving a more uniform patina. There's a greenish tonality present, though.

[CFR]

Position	Rate (s/d)	Amplitude (53º)	Beat error (ms)
Dial up	-3	287	0,2
Dial down	+3	261	0,4
Crown up	-10	242	0,4
Crown down	-9	230	0,1
Crown left	-11	233	0,0
Crown right	-16	227	0,5
Delta		19
Average (s/d)		Circa -7,6s/day
On the wrist	Average 8 days	Circa - 3s/day

[The measurements have an error of +/-1s and were taken @ full wind for 20s periods with a lift angle of 53º]

As promised, I came back after a week, to show some measurements. As expected with this movement – and shared with the other Seiko 4Rxx series – there's a substantial delta while the amplitude falls sharply @ the hanging positions.

The numbers are not too different from the ones presented by The Watch Time (October 2017) fort he Seiko Turtle Padi diver. And believe me, they're much, much better than the ones produced by the NH35 used in my Unimatic Due and my own Seiko Turtle.

There's a discrepancy between the average rate based on the Timegrapher and the one measured on the wrist. I can think of one reason for explaining that divergence: the watch, during this 8 days period, didn't see as much time as usual, on the wrist. Given its – not so good – isochronism, the movement did not work, most of the time, fully wounded, making it run faster (another common "behaviour" of this series of Seikos) and returning an apparent better rate.

Looking exclusively at the results based on the measurements taken on the wrist, they could make me believe I had an excellent movement in this watch: I would be wrong.

Anyway, and as I said before, I was already expecting something along these lines and it is not that bad. Actually, it's quite ok.

Thanks for reading and sorry for challenging some well stablished myths.

Cheers, C

[skywatch]

Position	Rate (s/d)	Amplitude (53º)	Beat error (ms)
Dial up	-3	287	0,2
Dial down	+3	261	0,4
Crown up	-10	242	0,4
Crown down	-9	230	0,1
Crown left	-11	233	0,0
Crown right	-16	227	0,5
Delta		19
Average (s/d)		Circa -7,6s/day
On the wrist	Average 8 days	Circa - 3s/day

Anyway, as I said before, Iwas expecting something along these lines and it is not that bad. Actually,it's quite ok.
Thanks forreading and sorry for challenging some well stablished myths.

So, basically you are showing a Japanese affordable movement running within COSC specs despite not claiming COSC specs? I would say that's pretty darn good.

[CFR]

So, basically you are showing a Japanese affordable movement running within COSC specs despite not claiming COSC specs? I would say that's pretty darn good.

What? COSC specs? Which COSC specs? You're kidding, Robert. Yes, you are.

[skywatch]

What? COSC specs? Which COSC specs? You're kidding, Robert. Yes, you are.

Well, OK, sorta kidding, because the range got narrower recently. But really... it's a cheap mechanical, and sometimes they are rather accurate. Here are the COSC specs, and you are within the basic use accuracy (maybe over the edge on positional adjustments.)

Mechanical	Quartz
Average daily rate: −4/+6[13]	Average daily rate at 23 °C: ±0.07
Mean variation in rates: 2[14]	Rate at 8 °C: ±0.2
Greatest variation in rates: 5[15]	Rate at 38 °C: ±0.2
Difference between rates in H & V positions: −6/+8[16]	Rate stability: 0.05
Largest variation in rates: 10[17]	Dynamic rate: ±0.05
Thermal variation: ±0.6[18]	Temporary effect of mechanical shocks: ±0.05
Rate resumption: ±5[19]	Rate resumption: ±0.05
n/a	Residual effect of mechanical shocks: ±0.05;200 shocks equivalent to 100 g (981 m/s², 3,217 ft/s²)

[CFR]

Well, OK, sorta kidding, because the range got narrower recently. But really... it's a cheap mechanical, and sometimes they are rather accurate.

COSC:

Average daily rate: −4/+6[13]	Average daily rate at 23 °C: ±0.07
Mean variation in rates: 2[14]	Rate at 8 °C: ±0.2
Greatest variation in rates: 5[15]	Rate at 38 °C: ±0.2
Difference between rates in H & V positions: −6/+8[16]	Rate stability: 0.05
Largest variation in rates: 10[17]	Dynamic rate: ±0.05
Thermal variation: ±0.6[18]	Temporary effect of mechanical shocks: ±0.05
Rate resumption: ±5[19]

The movement fails basically, on all parameters. Can't even match one.

[CFR]

I don't want to give the impression I'm attacking Seiko movements; I'm not. That would be foolish, ignorant and terribly pretentious of me. These low price movements are indeed reliable, low maintenance mechanisms. And yes, if we're lucky, sometimes they can show a rather nice accuracy, but precision...not so much.

What happens, with most of the reviews - and this is not a formal review - is a compilation of highly subjective statements (or a copy of the brand's catalogue) and rarely an indication of the real performance of the watch and that's true, no matter the price point or the brands prestige. There are exceptions.

I'm not a movement freak, but if the movement was totally irrelevant to me, I would happily wear a pretty empty case on my wrist, instead of a true, trustful, working timepiece.

That's one of the reasons I like to measure all my watches.

[CFR]

For the sake of the experiment with the brass Ventus Mori, I thought it would be interesting to try to bring the brass case, back to its previous clean (non-"patinated") look. And it was quite easy: a bit of a metal polishing product, a soft toothbrush, dish soap, water and a dry soft cloth made it look like this:



Not exactly the same shade of yellow present on the fist pics, a bit less shiny - although the pics tend to intensify the brightness - but quite uniform and pleasant.

Now, guess this closes the experiment. Glad I got this piece, because it was fun to manipulate it's looks and I'm pleased with the watch. Somehow, it manages to keep very reasonable time on the wrist, it's comfortable and I learned a bit more, from the whole process - probably, the best part of it.