Jump to content

Introduce Yourself Here

New to the community? We like to know who we are chatting with :)
So why not introduce yourself here first!


4028 topics in this forum

  1. A new guy from Texas

    • 3 replies
    • 1.4k views
  2. A new hobby?

    • 2 replies
    • 700 views
  3. A new member here

    • 4 replies
    • 238 views
    • 17 replies
    • 2.8k views
    • 3 replies
    • 890 views
    • 2 replies
    • 733 views
    • 2 replies
    • 622 views
  4. A young aspiring independent watchmaker

    • 9 replies
    • 2.5k views
  5. About me

    • 2 replies
    • 1.1k views
  6. About myself

    • 1 reply
    • 774 views
    • 6 replies
    • 566 views
  7. About: Me

    • 5 replies
    • 1.2k views
  8. ABrimer

    • 0 replies
    • 841 views
  9. Abscess

    • 6 replies
    • 3.1k views
    • 7 replies
    • 1.2k views
    • 4 replies
    • 1.3k views
    • 4 replies
    • 1.4k views
    • 3 replies
    • 899 views
    • 6 replies
    • 1k views
  10. Afternoon

    • 4 replies
    • 1.2k views
    • 6 replies
    • 1.5k views
  11. Afternoon!

    • 3 replies
    • 1.6k views
  12. Ahoy, all!

    • 7 replies
    • 793 views
    • 8 replies
    • 1.5k views
    • 6 replies
    • 437 views


  • Topics

  • Posts

    • It's a matter of preference really. You should keep the #5 aside and just use them for fine hairspring work though; otherwise they will end up damaged and be useless for that. Some like #1, some #2, some #3 for general work. Some use brass or nickel tweezers for general work- this is good as they are less likely to scratch delicate parts, and are much "grippier". On that note, the finer the tweezer, the more likely it will be to want to launch parts.   I have a bunch of nickel tweezers that have been retouched so many times they are like 30% shorter than new. Those become handy for when you need very strong tweezers- just used a pair to unscrew the bond from inside a floating barrel. My general use tweezers the last few years are a couple of pair of #5 that have been sharpened enough times that the ends are now very strong; useless for hairspring work, great for general work. These are Dumont Dumostar, which is a much more tough alloy than the Dumoxel, and less brittle than their carbon steel ones.
    • Hold the end stone down in chaton with your tweezers to remove the rodico.   Once shock spring is locked in the setting, you can whipe / clean  any residue off the setting.     Swiss setting holds the spring in place but the spring in chinese setting  fall out.  To remove the srping from Swiss setting , you got to remove the setting or at least raise it .
    • I purchased a set of tweezers #1, 3 and 5). I pretty much just use the #1 all the time. Just wondering if there is a guide any guidance on when to use different tweezers. I suspect that many people have their own preferences, but given the many different shapes and sizes, there must be some method to the madness, as they say. 
    • Yeah - the spring on my incabloc seems to fall out a lot. I have noticed the people doing videos using the eta movement seems to have a much easier time manipulating the screen. I was wondering it is just more practice (probably) or if the Swiss movement just fits together better at the hinge. 
    • A Chaika 1601A based "Dupont" USSR era with a deep blue dial joins the 404 club. It needs a new crystal, which I probably have in my stash, but other than that, it needed nothing other than a clean and a new strap. The Chaika 1601A turns up regularly in Sekonda ladies watches from around the late seventies till the late eighties, although there seems to be some debate about when the Chaika 1601A went in to production, with some sites suggesting as late as 1985. It seems to me to be a much older design, with more in common with 1950s calibers than ones from the mid eighties.   It has slightly odd dimensions, for a gents watch, which I presume it is.  With the two hander dial, 17mm lugs and a case size that would not look out of place on a 1950s watch, and a touch of the beer bottle cap design of the Rolex Oyster, it is somewhat unique. Its origins are a little unclear. Mikrolisk has a couple of suggestions.  Despite its diminutive size, the relatively large 1601A balance makes for a reasonably accurate little watch. It isn't likely to make COSC standars, but it runs pretty well for what it is.   As you can see the dial changes colour quite markedly depending on the light. Quite attractive, and well worth the four quid it cost. ... and of course we have to have the "money shot" too. It may be possible to date this more accurately if anybody knows how to decode the serial number.
×
×
  • Create New...