Leaderboard

You appear to have completely missed the point of this experiment, which as @mikepilk quite clearly stated, was to see if a lip of moved metal could be seen to form in the filed groove due to the buffing process. Any lip did not have to fill the groove to be a proof of metal moving rather than being removed, it simply had to be there. As the excellent macrophotography shows quite beyond doubt no visible lip was formed. It is fair to conclude that in this specific instance the evidence strongly suggests that the process removed material rather than reshaped it. However, rather than proclaim that this was the last word on the subject Mike, in accordance with what has become established as "The Scientific Method" invited others to repeat the experiment, perhaps using different equipment, to see if a different result could be achieved. The experiment was a perfectly valid test of the hypothesis, a hypothesis which in this instance was found to be lacking. Regarding the terminology it would seem that "buffing" and "polishing" can be used either way round within the world of watchmaking and silver/goldsmithing. As your Esslinger link demonstrates one usage so another Jewelers supplier does the other; "Polishing: This process removes surface material, improving the surface and preparing it for buffing. This is generally a coarse operation involving sandpaper and/or coarse polishing compounds. Buffing: This process makes the surface smooth producing a high luster and mirror finish if desired. This is done with the use of buffing wheels and buffing compounds. Buffing can be divided into two steps; cut buffing and color buffing." https://www.pjtool.com/buffing-polishing-terms/ Even Tag Heuer describes " Polishing and a final hand buffing make the metal and the surface smooth." https://www.tagheuer.com/en/watch-finishings/polished-watches Suggesting that buffing is a process that follows polishing. As I stated in my post at the top of this thread; This remains true and no amount of context specific Googling has come up with a definitive definition. At no point in this thread or in @bojan1990's thread " Problems with polishing a watch case" have I implied or made a "blanket statement that "buffing ruins edges"." in fact what I did say was; and; completely contrary to your impression. I did state that machine buffing incurred a high risk of things going wrong due to the speed at which the process takes place, especially in unskilled hands. I stand by that statement. If you want an example of a blanket statement that clearly demonstrates someones pre-concepts and intolerance of anothers techniques, try " Never use abrasive paper on a watch case, is very bad for a (self appointed) watchmaker to suggest that.", and "As mentioned already I have left this discussion, it's not my duty to educate. Feel free to sandpaper your or your friend' s watches, just.don't don't expect to be told that is right by anyone that does it the correct way." both of which can be found here; https://www.watchrepairtalk.com/topic/7395-problems-with-polishing-a-watch-case/ If the video, from which all of the images I used were taken, was an example of buffing being done incorrectly, why was it posted as an example of "correct" procedure? Why would anyone do that? If the ding is only 0.1mm deep then only 0.1mm of material needs to be removed to lose it. This can be as easily and accurately achieved using wet/dry silicon carbide paper (also works for masonry) as it can using a buffing wheel, just as overdoing can be as easily done with a buffing wheel as with "sand paper", as perfectly demonstrated by the video. http://forum.tz-uk.com/showthread.php?216809-Lapping-machine-case-example-pics-on-page-3/page2 http://forum.tz-uk.com/showthread.php?323843-My-go-on-watch-case-lapping http://microarcwelding.com/services/ http://www.laserweldingservices.co.uk/ There are many more, the internet is a wonderful tool.... At no point has anyone said that you can't, and I don't envisage anyone holding their breath to go blue in the face waiting for you to fail. Buffing is clearly a skill that you have mastered and that is a good thing as it keeps a skill set alive. However, I do not believe that it is the only correct way to refinish or repair a damaged watch case, there are other equally effective and valid techniques that can be applied. The title of this thread is " Buffing; Myth or Fact?", the ? indicates that it is a question as it was an attempt to encourage discussion about the relative merrits of the technique and to try and flush out some evidence for the claim that buffing moves the metal about, or at least a metallurgically sensible explanation for how such a mechanism works. So far neither evidence nor explanation has been forthcoming. So far........

I started to blabber on about 99.9% of micrometer barrels are a very careful interference fit into the frame and I wouldn't try to remove it...when the brain says, "I think I have one of those". Yup, so I took it apart for you. Take the screw right out, its just a detent holding the barrel in the frame - you can see the dimple it sets in on the barrel. Put a block of wood underneath business end (anvil in micrometer parlance) and carefully screw the micrometer down into it. It will push the barrel out of the frame. The threads are very robust, much more so than a 40 tpi micrometer...after all its designed for pressing. It came out with minimal force, you won't hurt it apparently mine too needs a good cleaning....I wonder what might dissolve the grime without damaging the crinkle/wrinkle finished (that I wish I could do)

Good answer above. I did once exchange emails with someone at Horia - I think it might have even been the owner, seems quite a small company for making such a great range of tools. I was asking about this very subject, but unfortunately I must have deleted the correspondence. I'm pretty sure the procedure was the same or similar. However when I told him that I wanted to buy a 4mm spindle from him so I could use the tool interchangeably with both 3mm and 4mm pushers he told me he wouldn't advise it, that the spindle and/or the tool might be damaged by repeatedly inserting and removing and it should only be done if necessary. Whether he was trying to get me to buy another tool who knows? He did seem quite genuine, and was fine that I didn't buy the extra spindle and pushers I was going to. I think when you buy a tool like this 2nd hand as a general rule it is highly likely to be in good condition as someone paid a lot of money for it new and will have looked after it. Given the cost of a new one they also probably knew how to use it properly as well ;). Stephen

Of the items in the staking is set circled should be the reamers for the jewelling attachment for the staking set that casually appears to be missing? Then the ministry tool is also missing something. It's known as a Balloon Chuck may go by other names and other parts of the universe. It's used to hold a balance wheel in a lathe they can polish the pivots. Which without a picture showing it probably makes no sense at all by my description. But I did find you a picture online at least showing the balance wheel in the tool. You do have to scroll quite a ways down the page but it's there. http://www.geocities.ws/dushang2000/Lathe Tools/Lathe Tools.html

What you have is a incomplete combined jewelling and staking set , it is perfectly serviceable as is as a staking set but there are parts missing which will make it useless as a jewelling tool, the pins are for pushing out friction jewels, the other odd looking part I have no idea but if its Kendrick and Davis it will probably be on the following site somewhere, http://kanddinverto.weebly.com/