-
Jul 14, 2020, 06:23 PM
#31
Nothing wrong with those at all.
The date window is ‘bracketed’ rather than framed - is that usual? I’ve owned an Expedition, but can’t remember.
-
Post Thanks / Like - 1 Likes
Sedi liked this post
-
Jul 14, 2020, 06:33 PM
#32
Looking at models online, I couldn't find it on any other model. And the other Timexes I have, are all digital.
Cheers, Sedi
-
Jul 14, 2020, 09:00 PM
#33
Does anybody have the new Timex Expedition solar model(s)?
Originally Posted by
tribe125
Nothing wrong with those at all.
The date window is ‘bracketed’ rather than framed - is that usual? I’ve owned an Expedition, but can’t remember.
I hadn’t noticed this, but you are absolutely right. My standard quartz 40mm version from a couple of years appears to be neither bracketed nor framed.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
Jul 14, 2020, 09:09 PM
#34
Originally Posted by
tribe125
Nothing wrong with those at all.
The date window is ‘bracketed’ rather than framed - is that usual? I’ve owned an Expedition, but can’t remember.
I remembered it from a Timex Waterbury I eyed some time ago, but it doesn't look like a defining element for any particular model line.
-
Jul 15, 2020, 12:01 AM
#35
Lume is better than I expected.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
Post Thanks / Like - 1 Likes
-
Jul 15, 2020, 05:06 PM
#36
Originally Posted by
Sedi
I generally find that timekeeping on Casios is pretty awful. I suspect they do it deliberately so people buy wave ceptors
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
Jul 15, 2020, 05:32 PM
#37
I can't complain. They all run within specs but +/-15 sec per month (on G-Shocks and Edifice, on the cheapos it is +/-30) is not that great to begin with. That being said -- my "supposedly" HEQ Bulova runs 15 sec fast per month, too. I never even bothered changing the battery, once the first one was empty -- so it sits in the box with an empty battery -- complete waste of money.
Nowadays, if I want absolute precision, I wear one with atomic reception.
Cheers, Sedi
-
Jul 15, 2020, 09:11 PM
#38
Member
Originally Posted by
whatmeworry
I generally find that timekeeping on Casios is pretty awful. I suspect they do it deliberately so people buy wave ceptors
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Most Casios I have or have had won't stay within 3 seconds per week which is horrible for a quartz imo. Except this one...
Last I checked it was within 1 second over 8 months. Oddly enough that version has been reported as super accurate by many people.
This Timex averages +.06 seconds per day since April 22.
Sent from my SM-A102U using Tapatalk
-
Post Thanks / Like - 1 Likes
Sedi liked this post
-
Jul 15, 2020, 09:19 PM
#39
Originally Posted by
whatmeworry
I generally find that timekeeping on Casios is pretty awful. I suspect they do it deliberately so people buy wave ceptors
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I have had hundreds of casio and have never had one lose or gain time I can get them months later out the draw and they will match my digital table clock I have set them by .. and I do mean hundreds my fav three are dw6900 , the old ga 100 that I regular buy to mod and flip for a profit and the old gwm 5600 and 5610 ... plus the gwm ranges have the atomic clock feature
the really cheapo one I don't do much with as stick mainly to g shock and those that pre date the g'shock range
sharky
one of the most original good guys their was never anything but a true friend "the daito to my shoto"
rest easy good buddy
https://gofund.me/eb610af1
-
Jul 15, 2020, 10:34 PM
#40
Wow, your experience differs a lot from mine and I had a couple hundred over the years as well. Probably got 50 or 60 at the moment and accuracy is all over the place. I mean, they are within specs but still not great. One of the best I have is also one of the cheapest, an AE-1000W.
Cheers, Sedi