Xeric Regulator - the perils of buying off the internet

well I took a gamble on an internet (worse, Kickstarter) product and ... well ... as a friend said to me; "you wouldn't be the first to be disappointed in an internet purchase".

And disappointed I am.

Structure

Its impossible to go into anything (unless its for the first time) with no expectations (perhaps even then). So rather than just whinge I thought I'd explore the watch, clarify what Xeric had set up for expectation and then explore why my expectations weren't met. Well actually some were met, as soon after I'd committed to back the project I explored it in more detail and what I got was mostly what I expected. Where I was surprised was size, execution and build quality.

The Regulator watch

If you go to their Kickstarter site you can see many things which tell you about the watch and what to expect. I'd suggest having a look there first if you don't know the project. Anyway, this is my watch:

It pretty much fits the expectation of the Silver Bullet, my first shock was how fukken big it was. This is it beside my Seiko SRPE 65K1 (which I already think of as a "large" watch). 

Lug to Lug on the Xeric Regulator is 51mm (vs 44mm on the SRPE and more than their claim of 48mm). The diameter is correct with spec at 42mm (vs 40mm on the SRPE). A minor point is that the mass is also a bit off because without the strap its 77.6g and with the strap its 90g ... but what's 5g

It is however also about 2mm thicker than the SRPE (which is 12mm) and so considerably thicker than claimed.

Now this is a ruler balanced on the Xeric, and you can see that difference (toothpick for reference is ~2mm thick and won't fit under).

This is not what anyone would call a sleek or slender in the "dress watch" category. Dress watch you say? Well yes, if you read the kickstarter its pretty fukken obvious its not being pitched as a work watch or even simply a quirky watch. Some examples

Looks pretty dressy to me ... but due to its extra size and thickness it isn't

My 1967 Sportsman however is:

and in profile you can see how much more slender the Sportsman is too ... as any good dress watch should be.

So if the intention is for a dress watch then really the Regulator is a fail. Unless you're into big and brash American Styled stuff ... like most of their cars. Some people do like the large and obscene things.

But unlike their pitch, for a gent with a slender wrist this thing stands out like dogs balls. Say, perhaps I've found the target audience?

However I digress ... 

now my wrist size is 6.5 inch, and this is how it looks

and they suggested:

which when you look closely its not too far off the truth (given that the top of the lugs are outside the wrist). But it is however the thickness which makes it bulky and they are careful not to show that.

This is of course a peril of buying off the internet; you don't always get a good idea from pictures.

Getting into build quality and ability to execute their design concept Xeric made this statement in their Kickstarter:

The Regulator features raised and sunken elements to accentuate the simple timekeeping of each hand. A subtle AM/PM indicator ring is built into the 24-hour display, and the split seconds display is a nod to our signature Hemicycle© displays from past watch models.

So lets look at how they envisaged that (poached from their Kickstarter):

Now my first thought was that this was nice, however it actually not only fails in implementation;

... as you can see here there is no sense of the light of shade as promised by the designer. Additionally it fails in production accuracy because you can see the circle isn't actually centred ... FFS ... All of this can be seen in this video (which contains further thoughts which I'll go into just below).

Then there's the LUME ... they claim this:

which is an imaginative CAD fantasy (or is lie more appropriate?), as its frankly the worst lume I've ever seen (yep, even worse than the SNK805 standard lume).

My video:

Prioritising Time

While it was clear from the outset reading the Kickstarter how this watch worked I thought that for a quirky dress watch I could cut it some slack for this fail.

Now one of the things that's important in knowing the time is knowing the hour, less so the minute and less so the second; which is why digital watches show the hour first. Also there exists a group of watches called one handers, for exactly the sort of folk who are more interested in: "is it 4 yet?" rather than is it "23minutes past something yet". (although Americans do like their MM-DD-YY format so perhaps that's at work here?)

Two such examples are this one (a classic one hander)

where at a glance you can see its nearly 10 (and the chances are you'll know if thats AM or PM) or even better yet this variation with reversed importance in the hands

where the glance shows nearly two and the minute hand clarifies how many minutes before 2 it is. 

In the meantime I've made a simple change to my SNK805 watch to make the Hour hand the first you see and the minute hand then handily clarifies where the obtuse hour hand is actually laying with respect to before or after the hour.

Which is perhaps less bold than you'd think because these hands are a copy of those used on a Citizen Diver (see my post here).

Now if one was going to do a "Bold Redesign" then one would perhaps consider this, but no, they just used an existing (well regarded) movement (a Miyota 82S7) and whacked a crazy case around it.

That there are graduations barely visible on the face of the Regulator and the lack of a clarifying orientation makes actually making sense of the time more challenging. They had the good sense to put markers for the hours (more so because its a 24 hour time) but nothing on the minutes, not even a 0 marker at the 12o'clock position. So to actually read the time (unless you're a minute by minute clock watcher) at a glance is vexed.

If you focus on minutes and don't really worry about the seconds and because you're always watching the clock acutely aware of the hour then baby this is your bag.

Conclusions

Given that

• this thing is more expensive than my Seiko SRPE (by about US$100) and
• that its partly made and fully assembled in China (nothing like that mentioned in the Kickstarter and perhaps explaining the poor quality control)
• it fails as a time keeping piece (because reading of the time at a glance is impossible)
• its a lump, so neither a rugged time piece like a divers nor a suitable dress watch

then this can only be described as a novelty item for King Wang watch heads. It is also overpriced KingWang.

I had hoped that it would compare more in size to my Sportsman than my SRPE, but it doesn't, meaning that it doesn't really have any function for me ... and I'm not really a collector of the bizarre and unusual.

Finally, if anyone wants to buy this thing, please reach out through the comments, which are fully moderated and I'll get back to you.

I will remove both this that above line when its sold.

So there you go ... they still have a few, but as of right now they're having trouble with the other colours not being "right" ... Made in China eh ... 

Dads watch

I'm not sure when he bought it but I think it was in the late 70's, but Dad was pretty proud of his Omega Seamaster. However he expected it to be a tool not just an icon of his success.

It was a Cosmic 2000 and Dad had the view that such expensive things should be fully functional and last a life time. Strangely he never applied the same view of service and maintenance to his watch as he did his boat.

He regularly worked in it, and it was his daily driver. Suffering working with him (as I did) on everything from boat building to working with steel, working on cars, to making truck bodies

Every mark on it was evidence of a life lived with Dad

So after under 2 decades it stopped working; he took it to a watch maker who informed him that he should have had the seals checked and replaced some time back because salt water (boats, ocean and fishing) had made its way in and everything was stuffed inside. He was shocked at the price of fixing that and complained that such an expensive watch would fail was "bullshit". Like so many other things which had (in his view) failed him, he blamed the watch and tossed into a drawer.

After Dad had passed I had to go through his belongings and sort out his estate. I found the watch and pondered if I'd repair it and keep it or sell it to someone who had just those skills. I did this (for not much money) because I had no desire to wear it ever.

Some years after he bought that (more than 5 less than 10) I'd bought my Seiko Sports 100 which was a 1979 manufacture, so about the same as Dads Cosmic. Unlike his Cosmic I chose to send mine to Seiko for seals and pressure test at every battery change (about 4 years) and so accordingly my Seiko is still with me and still working now.

it too was my daily driver, went through the same stuff as Dads, but including more construction work and diving than Dads.

My watch has held up and is still on the original bracelet, which is more than I can say for the Omega. Perhaps the Omega would have been working still were it serviced occasionally, but perhaps those services would have bought a new watch a few times over. Hard to say if it would be different with the Seiko ...

Personally I have a strong fondness for my Sports 100 quite simply because it reflects on the many places I went to and shows the marks of the many things I did. Strangely I don't think my wife ever saw me wearing it ... for its battery died for (almost) the last time in 2004 and I didn't put a battery back into it until mid last year. She bought me a watch in Finland, which was just a budget training watch, which helped me for some years of ski training. With some regret I don't have that watch anymore. I will (of course) keep the Sports 100 but I only put it on now and then to explore some aspects of its fit and feel, and then I return it to its box. Our story together is perhaps over except for the sentimental value of it.

Occasionally I wonder where Dads watch is ... but not for long.

anti-magnetic issues (and your watch)

 an old saying is something like "knows just enough to be dangerous" ...

One of the things that the King Wang New Watch Purchaser today seems to fuss about is accuracy, its pretty common for the new watch owner to expect that their new object of fascination should be accurate to within seconds per day (and they'll check every day). Especially young people who grew up in the age of cheap quartz timed movements (which nearly toppled the entire mechanical watch industry) imagining that their $500 watch "must" be more accurate than a $20 one. That boys and girls is why Quartz nearly killed Mechanical.

One of the things which emerges quickly is it's not up to Swiss Chronometer standard, and Google "my watch is [slow | fast]" and may find a suggestion that the cause is "your watch has been magnetised" ... frankly I'm of the view that 90% of the population don't have the faintest idea what magentism even means.

So if you're wondering if your watch is running fast or slow because its been magnetised then the first thing you should do is look for this symbol on your watch

That symbol tells you that the watch is resistant to being magnetised. In the case of Seiko it goes like this:

Seiko case back markings

1. No inverted U indication: certified level of anti-magnetism: 1,600 A/m. Your watch will not be affected by the level of magnetism that ordinary watches can withstand.
2. Inverted U with 1 bar (Type 1): certified level of anti-magnetism: 4,800 A/m. Your watch will not be affected by the magnetism generated by household appliances at a distance down to 5cm.
3. Inverted U with 2 bar (Type 2): certified level of anti-magnetism: 16,000 A/m. Your watch will not be affected by the magnetism generated by household appliances at a distance down to 1cm.

Now the normal standard for Japan made stuff (and that means the movement) is that its like this

Magnetic resistance performance

Type	Magnetism resistance (in case of direct current magnetic field)	Explanation
Common timepiece	Up to 1,600 A/m (approx. 20 gauss)	The minimum magnetism resistance requirement for a watch. (For reference)
Type 1 antimagnetic watch (magnetic resistant watch)	Up to 4,800 A/m (approx. 60 gauss)	A magnetic resistant watch almost always maintains its performance when placed at 5 cm from magnetic field generating devices of everyday life.
Type 2 antimagnetic watch (super magnetic resistant watch)	Up to 16,000 A/m (approx. 200 gauss)	A super magnetic resistant watch almost always maintains its performance when placed at 1 cm from magnetic field generating devices of everyday life.
Diver's watch	Up to 4,800 A/m (approx. 60 gauss)	The magnetism resistance requirement for a diver's watch.

• Type 1 and 2 requirements are defined in JIS B 7024 - Magnetic resistant watches, and diver's watch requirements in JIS B 7023 - Divers' watches - Classification and performance.
  
• Generally, resistance of watches is indicated according to the old JIS B 7024 standard, but indications are now being changed for the current ISO standards.

referencing this site.

So what does this A/m and gauss mean?

Well like most things there is a measurement for it, like how much water is in a bucket, how fast you're going ... magnetic field strength has a measurement too it is Gauss.

Now for non metric users (those who are in love with the should-be-dead-by-now imperial system (which is mostly the USA and PommieLand)) I'll explain something basic first a meter is a standard measurement, smaller units are millimeters and converting them is done by thousand. I know this is shocking to people who deal in inches because they'll never have heard of a thousandth of an inch being called a milliInch. (not to mention multiplying by 10 seems difficult for lovers of Imperial)

So how strong is a gauss?

Thats a good place to start, so from a quick google we find this:

A refrigerator magnet is 100 gauss, a strong refrigerator magnet. The typical strength of the Earth's magnetic field at its surface is around a half a gauss. So those are everyday units of magnetic fields.

So basically from this and the above table you could reasonably expect that if you sat a fridge magnet on top of your watch which was not marked with the U symbol shown above then it would be likely to be effected by that magnet.

If however yours was type 1 then as they say "A magnetic resistant watch almost always maintains its performance when placed at 5 cm from magnetic field generating devices of everyday life." This should leave you to be comfortable that unless you've sat a fridge magnet on top of your watch then there should be no effect and you can look elsewhere for reasons why your watch is not running on time. My first advice would be that you look at the actual specs for the movement, which are often a few minutes per day. If its an automatic perhaps you should just wear it, as it was designed to be worn.

But what about my phone?

yes, indeed phones can give you a magnetic field, this is usually measured in milligauss. Indeed if you dig around you'll find (on a now gone site, but you can find it on the wayback machine) that (in 2003) a common phone produced about 20 milligauss. For the maths challenged thats pretty small. 100 gauss is 100,000 milligauss and so 20 milligauss is literally nothing for a watch.

So basically you can stop worrying that your phone on the dresser beside your watch has magnetised your phone, and pretty much unless you are a technician working on CAT scanners you can rest easy (they'll probably already be resting easy because they'll know they shouldn't wear a watch) and give up that plan to buy a degaussing tool from eBay (which will probably result in your magnetising your watch anyway because you don't know how to use it).

Leave this one to the watch sub cult of King Wang

Making NATO work better for me (and maybe you)

I've had a couple of watches with a NATO strap now and while I would like to like it, I'm afraid that I just don't like the unnecessary thickness under the watch. This is more pronounced with a slim watch on a slim wrist. 

Now its worth mentioning that the very design of the NATO places two thicknesses of strap under your wrist:

In reality one is completely enough and the other as a keeper is only really needed if you have either a military watch with fixed and large spring bars 

or if the band too small for the watch (say, you've got an 18mm on 20mm lug width) and there is concern of the watch slipping off when you're taking it off. If you get the right size for your lug width then it won't slip.

Remove the Appendix

The solution often suggested on the internet is to cut off the (vestigial) keeper. This surgery looked painless enough, so I did it.

which has now made only a single pass of fabric under the watch and still holds the watch firmly.

My next concern was that the cut (and heat sealed carefully with my soldering iron) would be a slight skin irritant (because its rough), but this has proven not to be an issue because the spring bars keep it away from the skin.

As it happens I like to wear my straps "buckle down" or "Grand Seiko" (GS) style, because it is easier to control where the watch sits, and keeps both the tongue and the buckle facing me. I find its easier to fit, as well it keeps outside of the watch looking smoother (and snags on less things).

The watch can also then sit on my desk easier too

... although now with this band I feel I no longer need to take the watch off when using a computer at my desk.

If you do this yourself I recommend that you use a sharp blade (such as a box cutter with a fresh blade)  and 

1. clamp the strap down by the end (away from the buckle)
2. pull the keeper back and keep tension on it (folding it back against the stitch point)
3. cutting just above the last row of stitching removing the keeper strap
4. seal with a hot tip (I don't recommend flame)

Sharp scissors also work if you are careful too.

A quick and dirty video

So now it looks like this, clean on the back:

and the clutter of the strap on the inside (rather than both sides as before) ... where its less likely to catch on things.

and note that the watch is now sitting much nicer.

There is still of course one layer of fabric between me and the watch, and since this is a work watch (yard and other sweaty work) that may just help to keep the watch (my SNK805, which isn't highly waterproof) cleaner and less gunk infested.

 voilla ... win win

PS: this is actually almost a Bond pattern strap now, with the removal of the keeper and the almost correct Bond pattern (oh and no Bond wore a NATO until the 21st century).

Watch Gunk

 One of the old sayings is "out of sight out of mind" and this really applies to almost everything, especially gunk that gets into places you almost never see.

For one reason or another I've always had watches which allow me to see between the strap / band / bracelet and the watch. I've always avoided bracelets which have had covers such as this:

and yes, that's my watch and my bracelet ... but that's a subject for another post. Instead I prefer bracelets like this:

which are more open and to me honest in what they are, not trying to pretend to be something more and give the impress that the bracelet and watch are a single thing.

This is also important because gunk gets in to crevices and forms a film and starts to attack stuff (like metal, like seals ... this is an excellent example from Hodinkee

Festy is it not?

Now my Garmin training watch is something a bit like that, but I have to change the battery every few months so I always have opportunity to clean it, however it does get like this which can be seen when you pull the silicon cover off:

and

while not as festy as the watch above from Hodinkee its still hardly hygenic.

Now if you're the kind of person who never washes then this is all probably de-rigueur for you, but that's probably not most of us.

That's why I like to have a watch band that makes it easy to keep clean in my daily wear.

indeed you can see this bracelet even has tool-less spring bars and my watch has drilled lugs (very nice) making springbar removal even easier.

Heck even my old faithful has this style of easy to keep clean bracelet with no gunk catchers.

So for tips on how to clean your watch (its pretty simple really) you may as well pop over to the Hodinkee site that I poached that image from and have a quick read.

Lastly as I said at the start this sort of gunk gets into and indeed grows in places like you wouldn't believe ... have a look inside a typical rotating head toothbrush ... after I found this I put mine in a small jar of alcohol (vodka) every day (I keep a small jar by the sink).

Hopefully you can avoid one more place of gunk in your life now.

gaining weight

 I've never liked heavy watches and while I accept that for some specific roles a watch is a tool and that tool needs to be sturdy, very few of us actually need (dunno how many want) massive 300meter dive watches.

So I thought I'd explore how porky modern watches have become with this assortment

The SNK805 tips the scales at 61.5g

yet my beautiful 1965 Sportsman dress watch a mere 39g

Moving on to the more modern SPRE's with a metal band tips the scales at 123.5g (and this isn't my heaviest bracelet)

while its sibling in green with leather straps a much lighter (but still hefty) 71.3g

while my much more elderly 1979 model Sports 100 screw down crown semi-diver (which has been diving a bit) is 80.9g

which is pretty darn close (9g) to the SRPE with light weight leather pants on.

So to my mind watches are getting chunkier and heavier and (as I showed earlier) thicker. 

The thicker a watch is, the further out from the wrist it sits and the more you notice its weight.

I have no idea why this trend is, all I can think is that everyone is starting to just follow the fashion started by Rolex; making things bigger.  Sadly the Rolex classics (such as the Goldfinger Bond or the Col Kurtz Rolexes) are actually not as thick and chunky ... I have no idea why everyone is after these bricks, are they compensating?

Currently the watches I have which feel most comfortable to wear are the Sportsman, the SNK805 and most comfortable and balanced of all is the Sports 100.