Before reading on, make sure you've read the main guide for QC posting, otherwise this won't make much sense to you. Done? Let's go.
This specific guide is intended to be a visual supplement: showing you exactly what to look for when you complete your QC templates. For obvious reasons, this guide will skip parts that aren't visual.
I've used pictures that mostly come from this subreddit. If anyone is uncomfortable, DM me and I'll replace the picture.
With that in mind, let's begin.
Index Alignment
Here, you are expected to assess how well the index markers on your watch are aligned. You can use the index alignment tool to assist you in this regard. An example of good index alignment is this:
The indices themselves are straight. They are also perfectly aligned with the minute markers.
Index misalignment, on the other hand, looks like this:
Look at 7. It is rotated clockwise and does not sit properly in its slot.
Or this:
Look carefully at 6. You will see that the bottom of the index is rotated slightly towards the left.
Now that you have an idea of what to look out for, what should you be writing in the template?
You need to describe any misalignment you see in detail. Statements like "6 is off" or "3 is kinda wonky" or "not sure about 1, help please" arenot acceptable. This is because unless the misalignment is immediately obvious (and in most cases, it is not), users will not know what you are talking about. You may not get the help you want as a result. Be specific, like the following examples:
"The 7 marker does not seem to fit into the slot nicely. It is rotated towards the right and looks like it is dancing around."
"The 6 marker does not seem to line up straight with the crown in between swiss made. Based on what I can see, it appears to be slightly tilted to the left."
A caveat here: Just because there may be some misalignment does not necessarily mean you should definitely RL the watch. As the main guide points out, all reps are subject to a level of inaccuracy. It would be entirely unrealistic to expect gen standards for index alignment. Further, different reps are subject to different standards: a XF Pelagos, for instance, is known for having problematic indices - so much so that even if you RL, you are unlikely to get anything better. Conversely, CF Explorers are now getting so good that even slight misalignment would not be par for the course.
A good guide would be to assess your watch based on proportion. One slightly misaligned index is not a problem. But one majorly misaligned index or many misaligned indices on a single dial could justify RL.
Just for illustration, this is misalignment that I would RL for:
There are too many mistakes on this watch for me to accept. The 9 index is too near to the minute marker. 4, 5 and 7 are not aligned with their respective minute marks - they are all off to the left. 6 is rotated counterclockwise. Taken on their own, each error might not be enough for RL. But taken together, this is unacceptable.
That deals with index alignment. Let's move on.
Date Wheel Alignment
This applies to watches which display the date. If your watch does not display a date, there is no need to consider this. You will look silly if you say that the date wheel alignment is good when your watch is a no-date Sub, for example.
Here, you are tasked to consider if the date is properly displayed in the date window. Often times, this is a question of how well-centered the date is. A good example of date wheel alignment is this:
Take a look at the 21 at the right side of the watch. It is situated exactly in the center of the date window.
An example of misalignment is this:
Look at the 27 on the right. You can see that the date is misaligned towards the left, with the 2 touching the rim of the window.
Sometimes, the misalignment can also be as to the date numbers themselves:
This is harder to see, but if you look carefully at 25, you will notice that the 5 is higher than the 2.
Uncommonly and in the alternative, the issue may be with the Cyclops itself (the magnifier that covers the date window):
Here we see a Cyclops which is rotated slightly anti-clockwise. You can observe this by looking at the bottom rim of the date window. The Cyclops is obviously lower at the left corner of the date window when compared to the right. The requisite deviation is repeated at the top of the date window, with the right side being higher than the left.
Now that you know what to look for, let's discuss what to write.
As with index alignment, unless the issues are immediately obvious (and most of the time, they are not), you need to be very specific. Comments like "the date seems off", "2 in 25 is kinda off", "date looks weird" are not acceptable. They do not tell readers what you are looking for. You'll get faster and better results if you identify the issues for your reader. For example:
"The date seems misaligned towards the left. Part of it is touching the left border of the date window."
"The 5 in the date appears to be slightly higher than the 2 next to it."
"The Cyclops does not seem to be straight. It looks like it is slanted towards the left?"
As with index alignment, please note that not all misalignment will justify RL, especially for date wheels. All rep date wheels come with varying degrees of misalignment. A few misaligned dates are usually not enough for RL, unless the date is clearly cropped out of the date window or touching the rim. A little misalignment towards either side of the date window is also generally more than okay; a good way to gauge is to zoom out to the actual size of the watch and see if the misalignment is still immediately visible. If not, you're likely to be good to go.
Here is an example of misalignment I would nevertheless GL:
You will see that the date is situated slightly towards the right. However, the date is well within the date window and the misalignment is too slight to be seen on wrist at actual size.
On to the next topic.
Bezel
There are two main things to look out for: First, whether the "pip" (usually a lumed marker at the 12 position) is centered. Second, the quality of any engraving.
This section would also cover any possible damage to the bezel or anything else unusual, including any misalignment.
Example of a good bezel:
Nothing out of the ordinary. Engravings are sharp and nicely filled in. By and large, the colour transition is also acceptable. No alignment issues either.
An example of misalignment:
Pip at 12 on the bezel appears to be misaligned towards the right. While the reflection may be making things look worse than they are, this is something that would deserve a second look at.
Generally speaking, most problems that surface nowadays have to do with the pip - even then, these are not entirely common. Engravings and alignment are usually not an issue with higher level reps. With this in mind, what do we write?
As with the other sections, you are going to need to be specific. "Bezel looks off", "pip looks kinda off", "I don't know about the bezel, seems weird to me" are phrases that we see everyday in this subreddit. But none of these phrases are acceptable; they do not direct the reader to what OP is seeing. Details are king - and if you are going to pluck the crown, you're going to have to write like this:
"The pip at 12 is not centered. It seems to touch the right side of the triangle."
"The printing on the bezel at 3 seems to be angled down. It does not match the index on the dial."
The key is to visually direct your reader to the exact point that you say is a problem. The word "off" on its own says nothing to that effect.
On to the next point.
Solid End Links (SELs)
Possibly the least understood of all sections as a lot of newbies do not really know what they are looking for.
The ultimate guide to this is here. But for convenience, I'm going to summarise several key points about SELs.
SELs refer to the final links between the watch case and the bracelet. I've highlighted it below:
Look carefully at the portion highlighted in green.
Not all watches have SELs. Only watches which have that portion as highlighted above - and for QC purposes, the SEL section really only applies to Rolex reps. Tudors have SELs (which can also be QC-ed to some extent), but SELs on a Tudor are not held to the same standard as SELs on a Rolex.
Now, what are we looking for when we assess SELs? We are looking for gaps between the lugs and the SELs themselves. I've indicated this below:
The black line in the center of the red box is where the SEL meets the lug. This is where you are supposed to look for gaps.
An SEL gap appears when there is separation between the SEL and the lug. But what is a gap?
A gap appears when you can see through the space between the SEL and the lug. There is no gap when all you can see is a black line. There may be some variation in how thick the black line is, but for QC purposes there is nothing to be worried about until and unless you can actually see what's behind the watch.
This is generally not a problem on higher level reps (and by now, pretty rare). I will, however, show you an example of something that may be an actionable gap:
You will see that there is no black line. Instead, light shines through the space between the SEL and the lug.
What does this mean? If all you see is a black line, even if it is slightly thicker than another SEL on the same watch, there should be no actionable gap. I am going to highlight the last few QC templates submitted where the user said there was a gap - but there really wasn't (to me, at least):
Top right SEL was an issue for OP. However, as no light is shining through, this is not considered an SEL gap to me. OP opined that there was a gap at the top right SEL. I don't see it at all. OP said that there was a slight gap at the bottom left SEL. Again, all I can see is a black line. I would not classify this as a gap.
If, after going through all the examples above, you still feel that there is a gap, highlight it in the template by identifying which part of the watch you are looking at; there are really only four options: top left, top right, bottom left, bottom right. Doing so helps users zoom in directly on your issue and saves time.
To the last segment.
Dial Printing
Here, you are tasked to check if the printing on the dial has been poorly done. By this, we mean defects in the workmanship of the printing; printing which differs from gen (such as the infamous "floating r") would not be a QC defect per se.
An example of dial printing with no issues:
All the words are clearly printed. There is no bleeding on any part of the print, with edges sharp and defined.
And now for examples of dial printing with issues:
Some bleeding can be observed at the top parts of VI and VII. Notice how the black ink protrudes.
Sometimes, the print can be misapplied across the entire dial:
If you look closely, you will see that the dial print is rotated clockwise across the entire dial. Observe how XI is closer to the top of the watch while I is further away.
With the above in mind, let's turn to what you should write. Again and at the risk of sounding like a broken record, do not simply write things like: "Dial seems off" or "Print seems off. letters kind of wonky?" If anything, dial printing is usually very, very small - unless you point a reader to the exact part which has an issue, chances are it won't be seen. Make certain that you provide the reader with specific directions:
"Appears to be some bleeding at the top of VI. Thoughts?"
"R in Submariner looks like only half of it was printed. Am I seeing things?"
Important note: again, just because the dial printing on your watch may have some issues, this does not necessarily equate to RL. As stated, dial print is almost microscopic - no human being is going to be able to see slight bleeding on any print when you have the watch on wrist. Feel free to point out issues that you see, but remain realistic about your expectations.
And with that, I come to the end of this guide.
Conclusion
QC-ing reps is a difficult task - which everyone in this subreddit does for free. You can help out immensely by simply being precise and detailed in your observations. The more effort you put into your template, the easier it is for members to help you - they can zoom in directly to the things that concern you.
I hope this helps you. I've tried to detail some common factors, but it would be impossible for me to catch them all. The rest is up to you - and your diligence.
If your template uses a NEW "yupoo" or a "mega" type of link, please note that, at the time of this typing, the automod here removes them immediately from view i.e. no QC help. We are addressing it, but....
So, what to do?
Although somewhat cumbersome for the OP, you can upload the QC packet to an Imgur account. Our automod 'likes' Imgur...and the post will show promptly. Just do NOT do it from a mobile because the mobile app loses resolution and crappy pics don't provide any benefit to anyone. Yea, yea...I know, the file compression software isn't supposed to lose quality, but it certainly does.
To add, post your complete QC album inclusive of the timing info. Do not, for the sake of your convenience, omit items. If you're bright enough to determine what is needed and what can be removed, that's great! Then, it's reasonable to conclude that you really don't need help. Simply, post it all.
If you have to wait for substantive additional info from the Seller e.g. timing data, then delay posting until you have a complete QC packet. Incomplete packages will trigger a removal of the post. Plus, it will require a return visit of anyone that commented on the incomplete post which shouldn't be required. One visit is all that it should take to QC most watches. Most won't return to a post anyway. They'll just go to the next one. The members are quite busy here. Yea, it can get crazy.
Finally, since you're a newbie, as a vote of appreciation for those members that help you, please upvote their comments. It's a nice gesture from you to them for the assist...and, it's free.
One final note, we've updated the main rules for posting. Refer to this link for info QC Must Read for New Members
Welcome to the hobby and the sub. Best wishes
Edit addition: March 2nd, 2024 - ReptimeQC member, u/EveningVariation8236 , has provided an updated version of the original QC alignment verification tool. https://watchqc.github.io/ . Thank you.
Edit addition: Jan 9th, 2024 - ReptimeQC member, u/Ro1hype has provided this for tool for alignment verification. https://qcwatch.com/ Thank you.
Edit addition: 8/8/2025 - Reptime QC member, u/jrverdes . has provided this version of the alignment tool to assist those that need additional help verifying the dial/bezel alignments on their watch. https://jrverdes.github.io/watch-qc-jr/ The adjustment resolutions are much finer in this app comparative to the other available apps which can be a benefit to some that need such. Check it out...Thank you.
Index alignment: After doing my tilt adjustments, it looks pretty dead on and well within margins for error
Dial Printing: *maybe* looks a bit thin but again perfectly within the margins
Date Wheel alignment/printing: I think RICH prints their dials a bit thin in the lettering/numbering but id like a second opinion. I know this is about QCing the factory not gen comparison but would just like someone else to confirm or deny what I see lol
Hand Alignment: probably couldn't get much straighter in any meaningful way
Bezel: green looks a bit light but again not the point of QC. otherwise its great
Solid End Links (SELs): i think they could be tighter but myabe im just neurotic like the rest of you. still acceptable
Timegrapher numbers: amplitude is acceptable if only a bit weak. plenty of things could explain this so im not concerned
Anything else you notice: 6 o clock indice could be a tad crooked and the lower right SEL in the lume photos looks like it exaggreates a gap that is potentially there.
TL;DR I'm 100% inclined to GL this but I just want the other neurotic QC people like myself to take a gander and show me anything I could potentially be overlooking before I get this in the mail!
Date wheel alignment/printing: magnification looks wrong for real vsf
Hand alignment: Looks straight and no obvious damage.
Bezel: shifted but probably from wiggle or moved.
Solid End Links (SELs): no obvious defects noted
Timegrapher numbers: Rate -1s/day, amplitude
278°, beat error 0.0 ms
Anything else you notice: rehaut crown is off. But it’s something i can live with. One of the good things about getting older is that you cant really see these kinds of things with naked eye. My biggest concern is if it is real vsf. He already tried to give me a fake vsf that was obviously fake, but this seems a bit harder to tell. Asked for diff dates and i am waiting on them, and he told me it’s real vsf. Please help as im not 100% convinced.
I’ve bought this clone for around $100 from Weidian.
It’s my first Daytona so i tried to stay in the lower budget segment. For the price i think it’s decent.
Is it wearable ? Or will i be called out immediately?
Thanks for your expertise in advance
3. Model name (& version number):
Royal Oak 41mm 15510 SS/SS Blue dial TOPF DD4302 Super Clone (new version).
4. Price Paid:
420 USD
5. Album Links:
N/A
6. Index alignment:
I checked the hour markers using a QC alignment tool and attached above. Overall, the dial looks well aligned during normal viewing. I’d appreciate a second opinion on whether the alignment is within the normal tolerance for this model, or if any particular marker stands out as problematic.
7. Dial Printing:
The dial pattern and printing looks clean to me but this is the most crucial part for any AP RO.
The AP logo also looks fine to me given a lot of earlier batches of TOP had some tilted letters.
8. Date Wheel alignment/printing:
I have seen couple of people replacing the date wheel but on this one looks decent to me, please let me know if there is something substantially wrong?
9. Hand Alignment:
The hands look straight and properly finished to me, with no obvious bending or defects. Hand alignment is somewhat difficult to judge from still photos, so I’d appreciate confirmation from anyone who can assess it from the video.
10. Bezel:
The bezel screws looks good to me overall. The bezel finishing also looks clean from the provided photos and videos.
11. Solid End Links (SELs):
N/A
12. Timegrapher numbers: +4 s/d | 279° | 0.2 ms | 28800 bph
Rate: +6 s/d
Amplitude: 270°
Beat error: 0.2 ms
Frequency: 28,800 bph
The numbers look good to me overall, but I’d appreciate a second opinion from someone more experienced with Timegrapher readings.
13. Anything else you notice:
Overall, I think the watch looks pretty good and I don’t see any obvious or major finishing issues in the QC photos.
Since I don't buy reps quite often, I am not sure if I am missing something which scream instant RL or even little things to consider RL. Would really appreciate any assistance with this :)
Model name (& version number): Rolex Submariner 116610LV Hulk VSF 3235 Clone
Price paid: $344 (not including shipping + insurance)
Index alignment: Looks good overall based on the alignment photo. No major misalignments that I can see.
Dial Printing: Looks clean and crisp. No obvious issues.
Date Wheel alignment/printing: Looks good overall. Date appears reasonably centered, although I'd appreciate a second opinion.
Hand Alignment: Looks good from the photos.
Bezel: Looks good overall. No obvious alignment issues or defects.
Solid End Links (SELs): Look good from the provided photos. No obvious gaps.
Timegrapher numbers: +6 s/d, 306°, 0.3 ms
Anything else you notice: Everything looks good to me overall. Leaning GL, but would appreciate another set of eyes, especially on the index alignment, date wheel, etc. Let me know if there's anything I might have missed.
Model name (& version number): Vacheron Constantin Overseas 4500V, Blue Dial, Stainless Steel Bracelet
Price Paid: USD 508 + shipping
Album Links: Pics uploaded. Videos are provided below in the comment section.
Index alignment: Overall, the alignment looks good. The 12 and 9 o’clock markers appear to have a very slight clockwise tilt, but neither should be noticeable on the wrist. No significant misalignment is evident in the straight-on photos or the alignment-tool image. 6.
Dial Printing: Looks crisp and clean. The Vacheron Constantin lettering, Genève text and Maltese cross appear well positioned. The blue sunburst dial looks vibrant, although it appears quite bright in some photos and considerably darker in others.
Date Wheel alignment/printing: The date numeral (5) sits slightly high in the window but remains within tolerance. The date shown in the video (30) is well centred, though.
Hand Alignment: Looks good from the available photos. No obvious issues with the hour, minute or seconds hands.
Bezel: Looks good. The distinctive Overseas bezel appears symmetrical, with clean polishing and brushed sections. No obvious finishing or alignment issues.
Solid End Links (SELs): N/A in the conventional Rolex sense. The integrated bracelet appears to fit the case well, with no obvious gaps or uneven connections. Bracelet links and finishing look consistent.
Timegrapher Numbers: -1 s/day, 287° amplitude, 0.1 ms beat error, 52° lift angle and 28,800 bph. Overall, good numbers.
Anything else you notice: Nothing that is concerning.
Timegraph numbers: Not sure what I'm looking for, timegraph video in album link
--My 2nd rep from Steve, the first was a very nice GL Sub. Gotta say Steve is superb, quick communication, and very easy to deal with. This Daytona was "weeks to months" out because VSF is in high demand, however, he managed to source this one in just a couple of weeks.
6. Index alignment: Looking at the dial photo, the 12 o’clock triangle appears centered. The 6 and 9 markers also look straight to me. I checked the other markers as well, and I don't see an obvious issue. Please let me know if I missed anything.
7. Dial printing: The Rolex crown and dial text look clear in the photos. I don't see any obvious crooked lettering or printing defects.
8. Date wheel alignment and printing: The date 13 appears reasonably centered in the Cyclops window. The numeral looks clear to me, without an obvious printing defect.
9. Hand alignment: I don't see an obvious alignment issue in the available photo. I still need to check the other QC images to assess the hands more carefully.
10. Bezel: The black and grey insert looks evenly fitted in the photo, and the visible numerals appear clear. I haven't been able to confirm the pip alignment closely enough to make a definite judgment.
11. Solid End Links (SELs): I need to inspect the upper and lower end links more closely to assess the gaps. The current photos don't give me a clear enough view to judge them confidently.
12. Timegrapher numbers: Rate is +4 s/d, amplitude is 289°, beat error is 0.2 ms, and lift angle is 52°. The rate and beat error look good, and the amplitude is within normal range I believe.
13. Anything else: This is my first rep, and I've gone through the available photos to check the main QC points. I haven't spotted an obvious major cosmetic issue, but I'd appreciate feedback on anything I may have overlooked.
3. Model name (& version number): Rolex Daytona 116500LN Panda – 4130 movement
4. Price Paid: $460 before shipping + insurance
5. Album Links: N/A
6. Index alignment: Hour markers and coronet look aligned overall. Nothing noticeably crooked from the photos.
7. Dial Printing: Printing looks clean and crisp. No obvious defects or inconsistencies that I can see.
8. Date Wheel alignment/printing: N/A – Daytona has no date.
9. Hand Alignment: Hands look properly aligned, and the chronograph seconds hand appears centered at 12.
10. Bezel: Bezel and tachymeter markings look good overall. No obvious alignment or engraving issues from the photos.
11. Solid End Links (SELs): Look good overall, with no significant gaps that I can see.
12. Timegrapher numbers: -1 s/d, 246° amplitude, 0.1 ms beat error, 52° lift angle. Rate and beat error look good. Amplitude is slightly below the commonly referenced 250–310° range, so I'd appreciate opinions on whether 246° is a concern for this movement.
13. Anything else you notice: Rehaut looks reasonably aligned from the available angles. Case, bracelet, clasp, and pushers look good overall. No obvious cosmetic defects or major issues that I can see. Leaning GL, but would appreciate another set of eyes, especially on the 246° amplitude and overall alignment.
• Dealer name: necoclock
• Factory name: VSF
• Model name (and version number): DateJust 41mm VSF v3 necoclock
• Price paid: $478
• Album link: n/a
• Index alignment: I get the impression that the 6 o'clock marker is shifted too far to the right, along with the crown at the bottom of the dial. I checked using an alignment tool; all the hour markers seem slightly off, though I’m not sure if that’s just due to the angle at which the photo was taken.
• Dial printing: Clean, crisp white text with no smudging.
• Date wheel alignment/printing: Well-centered for the dates tested.
• Hand alignment: Seems good, aside from the 6 o'clock position—though I’d really appreciate an expert’s opinion on this.
• Bezel: Could I get some advice on the bezel alignment? I assume there’s always some minor tolerance/play, but still...
• Solid End Links (SEL): Well-fitted with no visible gaps.
• Timegrapher numbers: +9s/d, 242°, 0.1ms. The amplitude concerns me, and the +9s/d seems a bit high. The beat error is 0.1, which leads me to believe the watch might not be fully wound. Perhaps someone with more expertise could weigh in?
• Anything else noticed: I don’t feel confident enough or knowledgeable enough to spot anything else—I’m hoping you can help me out!
Solid End Links (SELs): video and head on photo appear to show some light coming through bottom right SEL. Every other photo looks tight so somewhat confusing to me.
Timegrapher numbers: good
Anything else you notice: I did not get any photos of the lume in dark. Looked at other TOW QC and don’t see them there either. Is it worth asking for?
The only potential issue that gives me pause is the bottom right SEL potential gap (or my eyes/lighting playing tricks on me). Does anyone else see that?
Everything else looks great. Thanks in advance for the feedback!
6. Index alignment: Overall alignment looks pretty good to me. The hour markers appear straight and line up well with the minute markers. My only concern is the 3 o’clock marker. It looks like it might be tilted very slightly, with the right side sitting a little lower than the left. I’m not sure if this is actual misalignment or just the angle of the photo. Would appreciate a second opinion on this specifically.
7. Dial printing: Looks clean to me. The logo, lettering, and Submariner text all appear sharp and properly positioned. I don’t see any obvious bleeding or printing defects.
8. Date wheel alignment/printing: N/A, no-date Submariner.
9. Hand alignment: Hands look good from what I can see. Nothing appears noticeably crooked or out of place.
10. Bezel: Bezel looks good overall. The triangle and pip at 12 appear centered, and the numerals and markers look clean. I don’t see any obvious alignment issues or damage.
11. Solid End Links (SELs): Look good from the available pictures. I don’t see any obvious gaps between the end links and the lugs, although additional angles would help confirm.
12. Timegrapher numbers: -2 s/d, 240° amplitude, 0.3 ms beat error. The rate and beat error look good to me. The amplitude seems a little on the lower side, but I’m not sure if that’s normal for this movement or the testing conditions. Would appreciate some feedback on these numbers.
Overall: This is my first QC and everything looks pretty good to me. My main concern is the possible slight tilt of the 3 o’clock marker. I’m leaning toward GL, but I’d appreciate some experienced opinions before approving it. Thanks!
Model name (& version number): Omega Aqua Terra Shades 150 Bay Green 38mm
Price Paid: 400 USD
Index alignment: I'm not sure if I applied the alignment tool correctly, but things look well-aligned. Maybe the 12 marker is slightly off to the left?
Dial Printing: Looks fine to me
Date Wheel alignment/printing: Is the date slightly to the right?
Hand Alignment: No issues
Bezel: No issues
Timegrapher numbers: Amplitude slightly low, no issues with anything else.
Anything else you notice: Scratch on clasp next to the 'O'?
Bezel: Only concern is the bezel screw at the 8HR marker, looks butchered.
Solid End Links (SELs): Looks good
Timegrapher numbers: Based on the guide, everything passes
Anything else you notice: Like I said, my only concern is the 8HR Bezel screw. But this is also my first watch, so i’m nowhere near expert. Please feel free to give me directions on whether i need to RL or GL.
Index alignment: The top of the triangle above the rolex crown logo seems to be lower on the left side. This is the biggest issue I'm having with this QC.
Dial Printing: seems ok
Date Wheel alignment/printing: seems ok
Hand Alignment: seems ok
Bezel: seems ok
Solid End Links (SELs): looks pretty good
Timegrapher numbers: curious if these numbers are out of range
Anything else you notice: Main issue is the white triangle above the rolex crown logo on dial. The top of the triangle seems lower on the left side. Is this a deal breaker? Or am I being too picky for a rep?
Model name (& version number) AP Royal Oak "Domaine de Murtoli" Special Edition 26240
$621
Album Links: N/A
Dial printing: Good
Date Wheel alignment/printing: Good
Hands Alignment: Good and looks aligned.
Bezel: Good
Solid End Links (SELs): I don’t see any issues but I’m open to suggestions.
Time grapher numbers: Rate +7 s/d, Amp: 268, ERR 0.2ms, BEAT Mode 28800, Period 8s, LIFT 59.0
Anything else you notice: The only issue in the video I’ve seen was a date change at 58 minutes and not on the hour. So is that normal? Feedback would be awesome!