This might be a stupid question. I keep track of my watches rate with an app on my phone. For a long time, I wore a Seiko 5 (snxs79) with a non-hacking movement. I had some real luck of the draw and it ran extremely well, and moreso, it happened to run in a way, so that it would ever so slightly loose time when it lay 3 o’clock up over night, and it would gain time when it lay flat at night. So, whenever it was 5-10 seconds ahead of atomic, I simply would lay it 3 o’clock up at night for a few days, and this way I kept it continously around +5s for several months on end. I didn’t set it once.
Now. If I bought a high end automatic. A COSC chronometer movement or higher. Would a watch-maker, if I asked them to, be able to replicate this behaviour? Could they make the watch reliably aim slightly under 0s/d in the 3 o’clock position, and slightly over 0s/day of if in the flat position?
The practice of “strategic resting” to compensate for positional variance is common – especially with Japanese movements. I do the same with an older Orient and can go weeks without adjustment.
The question about a COSC movement doesn’t make sense to me. If the watch is running within COSC specs, why would you break that so you could then compensate for it??? This seems ridiculous.
I think I asked about a COSC level movement specifically, because I know these to be adjusted for several positions. So I was thinking that these were also the movements for which it might be technically possible to intentionally have one position gain time, and another loose time. While as for cheaper movements, it would be pure luck of the draw, as one can’t adjust them per position at all? I was just curious.
Because COSC isn’t accurate enough. It can be from -14 to +28s a week. Which is far outside what I ideally want. But with strategic resting, I can avoid setting the watch altogether, and basically have the accuracy I’m looking for without spending a little over a minute every other morning to set the watch.