The evaluation criteria are not limited to "COSC"
"Chronometer" is the precision standard for mechanical wristwatches stipulated by ISO3159. Although it merely guarantees a relative accuracy within a certain range, the name has become synonymous with a title of high precision. The speculation surrounding COSC, the leading chronometer certification organization, and the new precision standard that is beginning to emerge are unclear. Is it really possible to find new added value in it?
Photographs by Masanori Yoshie, Eiichi Okuyama, Osamu Yajima, Katsunori Kishida
Hiroyuki Suzuki (this magazine): Interview and writing
Text by Hiroyuki Suzuki (Chronos-Japan)
[First published in the November 2013 issue of Kronos Japan]
The speculation and development surrounding the absolute standard "COSC"
ISO3159, the international standard for the accuracy of mechanical watches, was established in 1975. It is based on the standards of the Official Swiss Chronometer Testing Institute (COSC). According to the latest data available, the number of certified watches per year has exceeded 160 million. However, a closer look at the details reveals the hidden intentions of each manufacturer behind these numbers.
"Chronometer" symbolizes high precision. It is important to note that this word does not refer to absolute precision, but rather to a "relative standard" that guarantees that a watch (or movement)'s accuracy falls within a certain range. The term chronometer is said to have first been used by the English watchmaker Jeremy Thacker in 1714, but its importance grew after the invention of the detent escapement by Pierre Leroy of France in 1748. At the same time, Leroy also developed a temperature-compensated balance wheel, making marine chronometers for use on ships "mass-produced." The main purpose of the first "chronometer certification" conducted in 1776 was to ensure that the quality of marine chronometers, which were now being produced on an industrial scale, fell within a certain range.
The same was true for Switzerland. Until the mid-19th century, Switzerland earned foreign currency through the export of mid-range ébauches. However, it soon found itself overwhelmed by the mass-produced ébauches of the United States, which had quickly achieved industrialization. Through the 1876 Philadelphia International Exposition, Switzerland learned mass production techniques, such as automating machine tools and improving parts interchangeability. This led to a major breakthrough at the end of the century. It is no coincidence that the rise of Swiss chronometer testing, which is said to have begun in Neuchâtel, coincided with the success of mass production. Later, Switzerland launched a precision competition at various observatories. Many of the entries were primarily aimed at verifying the performance of basic calibers before commercialization. As watch production increased dramatically in the mid-1940s, there was a strong demand for new testing standards for commercial products. This led to the establishment of the Swiss Chronometer Testing Office (BO), a German, French, and Swiss commission established in 1951, which later became the COSC (Swiss Chronometer Testing Institute), established in 1971. The COSC standards were soon reflected in the precision standards for mechanical wristwatches established by the ISO (International Organization for Standardization) (established on February 1, 1976), and remain in place to this day.
Before we get into the main topic, let's review the specifications of ISO 3159. Measurements are taken over 15 days at three temperatures (38°C, 23°C, and 8°C) in five positions (excluding the vertical position at 12 o'clock (12H)). In Category 1 (mechanical movements with a baseplate diameter of 20mm or an area of 314mm or more), a watch must meet the following criteria to be certified as a chronometer: mean daily rate of -4.0 to +6.0 seconds per day; mean daily temperature range of 2.0 seconds per day or less; maximum daily temperature range of 5.0 seconds per day or less; horizontal and vertical rate of -6.0 to +8.0 seconds per day; maximum positional deviation of 10 seconds per day or less; temperature coefficient of -0.6 to +0.6 seconds per day per °C; and recovery rate of -5.0 to +5.0 seconds per day. Therefore, if the accuracy of the movement alone falls within this range, it can officially be called a "COSC certified chronometer," but whether this standard value is viewed as strict or standard will be a point where each company has different ideas.
The list below shows the changes in the number of COSC certified chronometers published from the time this magazine was first published until June 2013. (COSC's annual report is usually published around August or September, so data for 2012 is not yet available. Also, the total number of certifications on the list includes all watches, including quartz, but manufacturers that have only obtained quartz watches are not counted separately. Although it varies slightly from year to year, manufacturers that have obtained fewer than 100 certifications in a year were not reflected in the list. Please note that for this reason, there is a discrepancy between the total number of certifications by manufacturer and the total number of certifications.)
Looking at data from Rolex, Omega, and Breitling, which each receive over 100,000 certifications per year, we can see that their changes are largely linked to economic trends. From 2004 to 2008, there was a gradual increase, followed by a sudden drop in the number of certifications in 2009. Since then, although the degree of recovery has varied, they have all been on an upward trend. These top three companies have maintained a consistent attitude toward chronometers, and the ratio of chronometers to annual production has remained constant. While we have not made a direct comparison this time, if we were to overlay data on annual production figures, the graph would likely have a similar shape. Panerai, while not as numerous as the top three, has also shown a similar change. For these four companies, chronometer certification is merely "standard equipment" and is by no means considered special.
What's interesting is the trend among brands to view COSC-certified chronometers as a form of added value. A good example is TAG Heuer. As of 2005, the company had only about 2400 certified watches. However, as the company, which relied primarily on ETA, grew as a luxury watch brand, the number of certifications increased, reaching approximately 07 in 3 and 09 in 10. However, the following year, 2, the number plummeted to approximately 5000, and by 11, the number was so low that it no longer even needed to be listed. What happened in 09, the turning point? That was the year TAG Heuer released its first in-house movement, the Caliber 1887. Since then, the 1887 has been refined and improved, and productivity has risen significantly. For TAG Heuer, who relied primarily on ETA watches at the time, the COSC seal of approval was a powerful way to demonstrate its status as a luxury brand. However, with the arrival of the even more powerful in-house movement, TAG Heuer has lost interest in COSC. Just to be clear, this doesn't mean that they've abandoned their approach to precision. It just means that they now have a more powerful tool than COSC that can represent precision.
Over 10 COSC acquisitions per year
COSC certification less than 10 per year
Since 2010, ETA, the mainstay of movements for the entire Swiss watch industry, has seen its supply steadily decline, and Nivarox-Farr regulators and escapements have also become difficult to obtain. In particular, complete regulator and escapement assortments are essential components for precision. Instead, replacement ébauches from Sellita and Soprode have emerged. Turning our attention back to the list, since 10, brands with little previous experience have begun to display the COSC name, albeit in small batches. These include Barco, Christopher Ward, Mühle-Glashütte, Oris, and Stowa. Many of the movements they applied for are likely not ETAs. Regardless of actual performance, isn't it entirely reasonable to argue that this is a way to "add prestige" to ETA replacements, which still lack the name recognition they deserve? Just as Tag Heuer differentiated itself from ETA with COSC, now, in the age of alternatives, smaller brands want the representation of a COSC chronometer.
Those who actively use COSC's representative function perceive it as an "absolute standard," but as mentioned at the beginning, the chronometer standard itself is merely a "relative standard." It is a relative standard that assumes variations in quality during mass production. However, with "new movements" incorporating the latest designs, even the necessity for this standard is becoming questionable. A good example is Breitling. While Breitling is a rare brand that claims to be 100% chronometer-certified, its approaches to high precision differ completely between its old and new flagship movements. The company's long-standing flagship movement, the "Caliber 13," was an extremely highly tuned ETA 7750. Due to its ageing basic design, the individual components of the ébauches had significant "play." In other words, its accuracy depended entirely on the adjustments made by the person who assembled it. Meanwhile, Breitling's current flagship in-house movement, the "Caliber 01," is designed to be less reliant on post-assembly adjustments, thanks to significantly improved manufacturing precision. Roughly speaking, the Caliber 01 achieves accuracy just by being assembled. In the case of Breitling, the final required level of precision is set high, so even the 01 requires advanced adjustments, but if this is "just a level where it is sufficient to pass COSC," then the story is very different.
The shift in thinking at the design level can now be seen in all areas. The biggest change in high-end movements is the emergence of silicon balance springs. DRIE allows for precise flat shapes, and silicon balance springs are highly antimagnetic, so to put it bluntly, precision can be achieved simply by assembling them. The weakness of the temperature coefficient, which stems from silicon's moisture absorption, has now been largely resolved with oxidation coating. Furthermore, judging from the manufacturing process and materials, it should not be an expensive part. In reality, the only thing preventing the expansion of mass production economies is the complex web of patent rights.
This same trend has now spread to entry-level mechanical movements. The Powermatic 80, now exclusively used by Tissot, is a major breakthrough in the mid-range. Based on the ETA2824, this movement incorporates a synthetic escapement consisting of an escape wheel and anchor made of engineering plastic. While it has a simple design without pallet stones, its lightweight components undoubtedly enhance the escapement's efficiency. Despite its simple construction, it also incorporates a free-sprung mechanism. Models equipped with the Powermatic 80 have achieved COSC chronometer certification at prices below 10 yen. The reason for this low price seems to lie in the manufacturing process, as the movement is assembled with minimal human intervention. Swatch's flagship product, the Swatch System 51, has taken this a step further. It consists of 51 components, including the synthetic escapement. The production is fully automated, the price is within 100 to 200 Swiss francs, and the daily deviation is announced to be within 5 seconds. I don't think it will ever be COSC certified, but the numbers suggest it should be possible.
Considering this, it can be said that COSC (= chronometer standard) is already losing its original role as a quality control function for mass-produced movements. However, in stark contrast to this reality, the latest data (2011) shows that the total number of COSC-certified watches is a record high of 1,631,252.
