Leaderboard

Having eagerly watched Mark's videos, it was only a small step to sooner or later join his forum! Although it seems that stripping and reassembling a watch is as easy as the videos are suggesting - a hobbyist like me can only imagine how much practise is behind such skills. This and the great respect for the numerous specific and scientific topics a watchmaker has to cover in his profession made the whole thing very interesting for me. I started to service some of my sticky vintages a few weeks ago. I even managed to put some automatic day-date watches back together recently (and they worked afterwards!) - what a progress As for my language: it is german, but I come from Austria. I really like the english language and therefore I am trying to participate here with all the watch related special expressions (there are thousands) as a training if you will. So please be lenient with my posts, and don't hesitate correcting me. Well lastly, my nick translates roughly into "someone who remembers" (celui qui rappelle) and is somewhat of a pun with my name and the term rhabilleur. Now you know it all Oh not quite: I have a small family, I am self employed, in the middle of life (hopefully) and a lover of books and music, when not working on watches. Looking forward to having a lot of nice conversation here!

It looks like it has a micro-regulator and Breguet over-coil hairspring. If so, this would date it from no earlier than 1930. Dennison cases are well made, depending on weight and I see it is 18 carat will depend on the price. If you intend to get it valued, take it to reputable dealers at least 3 and see what they say. Do you have the gold Albert for it? That is the watch chain if so are the links solid gold and hallmarked individually or is the chain hollow. If you have, it take that as well. You will get a far higher price if together. If you want it valued for insurance, you must say so as value and insurance purposes are different. Here in England you need the document from the person who has valued it for the insurance company.

I have a deep appreciation for all things mechanical and attention to detail. While good at using my hands, I was never going to make a living at it. That still never quenched my appreciation for fine workmanship - and in particular watches. I have owned a couple of nice watches over the years. The manager of the JLC boutique even invited me to experience the Gyrotourbillon, not because I could afford such a piece of art, but because he know I appreciated it. My son who is a teenager, has developed a passion for watches as well, however I could not justify spending large sums of money on a creation that he has not truely learned to appreciate yet. So that gave me a reason to indulge my passion. I had always wanted to make a watch and while that never happened for me, my son's interest at least gave me good reason to assemble a couple of what I think are nice pieces. I don't know where this will head but it is one step in an enjoyable journey no matter how long or short.

I just can't seem to figure out why there's a small play of around 0,1-0,2mm on that part which slightly draws the gear away from the clutch and makes these 2 parts not engage and therefore not drive the wheels. I don't see any damage. It's true that the movement wasn't freshly lubricated but I didn't see any dried out residue or lubricant either. Going to re-lubricate it by the book and see if I can solve the mystery. PS: I've serviced movements before just that most have been mechanical. It wasn't hard at all especially since I had marl's videos on youtube as guide as well.

This subject has been discussed at length in various posts on this site if you have the ligne size you can obtain reference books such as Bestfit, Paulsons, flume, Catalogue official and match the setting parts of the watch to diagrams supplied in these books that will allow you to find the maker and calibre because lucky for us these parts are unique to each maker and allow identification, if you dont want to buy these reference books then you can always ask on this site but you would need a picture of the front and back of the movement in order for someone to help.

Swapping the entire movement is NOT an option. We're on a watch repair forum. How can you guys so easily suggest replacing an entire movement because of a not-that-big issue.

I have already COMPLETELY disassembled the movement. The last picture is of it put back together, partially. @rodabod I know that the post that holds the wheel swings around but it's not supposed to move (I'm assuming) when the crown/stem is pulled all the way. The problem is that it moves just by 0,1-0,2mm or so and that is causing the clutch to slip instead of engage the little gear. I don't see any damage or any issues so I can't work this out... Guess I'll have to disassemble it again... PS: When I put it back together I followed Mark's video but I did notice that he didn't lubricate all the points in the manual...

You have to first identify the calibre number of the movement in this case im pretty sure its a Lecoultre cal.201 then search for a balance staff for that movement, all the usual places like part suppliers or ebay. Obsolete clock and watch has them at 25.00 a piece these movement went into aircraft clocks so parts will be scarce and costly I recently needed a staff for a military pocket watch calibre 467 £20.00 each I then needed one for a calibre 415 a much rarer movement £8.95 for 12. So first off you need to establish the calibre.

I think a fair price would fall between £800.00 to £1,200 at the moment its a nice watch but the movement is unsigned and the case is a Dennison all what you would expect for a early Rolex pocket watch but with a signed movement and W&D stamped case it would command more, 18ct Rolex pocket watch prices: Gardiner houlgate 24/5/17 18ct half hunter signed movement and dial £980.00 David Lays 16/5/2013 signed movement £1.000 W H peacock half hunter 18ct signed movement 4/6/2010 £980.00 Arthur Johnsons 18ct half hunter signed Rolex extra prima timed 6 postion all temperatures, a much more sort after watch fetched £2,400. Some of these price are from quite a while back but I dont think the market has moved much on pocket watches.

Welcome to this friendly forum. Austria is my favourite country. I have stayed their many times for holidays. I spent my honeymoon at St Wolfgang and had an unforgettable time.

Yeah, I also could have said "Guten Abend" which means Good Evening, as it was late at night - but as this forum is so international I went for "Tag" which is "day". Sorry for confusing with Tag Heuer I only have one such piece, it is a complete drowned thing with algae and all. Furthermore I think it is a fake as well. No use tinkering around with it I guess. And, yes, I take my time when messing with watches. Usually I can do some work on weekend nights, there is no such rush as on weekdays. The very first watch I ever worked on was a Junghans Quartz I bought in a lot with many others. I really liked the look of it (or "her"? Do you refer to watches as feminin like with ships and cars and things you love?). Unfortunately, the watch was losing 10+ minutes a day. Quite bad for a quartz and I thought, this must come frome dirt or something else inside, not the battery (which was new). So I started to rip it all apart and put it back again. Did this two or three times, changed some parts as I had two spare movements, and it turned out to be the electrobloc (or however this thingie is called) what was defect. My first watch was "repaired"! It is not very precious, but it is defintely a keeper and about my age as well! So I think this dragged me into watch repairing.

Yes: a little bench and a drawer full of watches to be brought back to life... Only thing missing for all those watches: time! (in every aspect)

Here is an unusual case back that I thought I would share. It is on a vintage Timex which is a non runner. The ring has wedge shaped lips that just tighten down onto the case and in turn tightens down onto the case back which has a rubber seal under it. I explained to the customer that it has little chance of repair but promised to at least to have a look as it did have sentimental value to the guy who had tried a few jewellers & watch repairers. So muggins here had a go. Well I did not take any pics but the hairspring was badly damaged, balance staff was broken and the screws were very, very badly damaged. It’s a dead one.

Generally the stronger the magnification the shorter the focal length. Therefore you will need various lopes. I have found this article on the web which explains better than I could. PS I also use a microscope for the really close stuff such as hairsprings. BASIC TECHNICAL STUFF: MAGNIFICATION AND WORKING DISTANCE The following applies to simple lenses, including all jewellers loupes. The following does not apply to 'surgeons' magnifiers which are made of two small telescopes. THE 14 INCH RULE Some magnifiers are marked with the magnification, some are marked with the focal length (working distance) in inches. The focal length (working distance) is the ideal distance between the lens and the object, not too close (or the lens won't magnify) and not too far (or the image appears wavy). And if you hold the lens MUCH too far from the object, the image will appear upside down. Most people don't understand 'focal length' and so when they see a '3' (for some reason eyeglasses are often marked like this) they think it means "3X magnification" when it really means "three inch focal length". Matters are made worse by the fact that many manufacturers are 'approximate' in their calculations, you can measure the working distance of a 1" magnifier and find it is nearer to 2". So what is the relationship between focal length (working distance) and magnification? Here is the way I used to calculate it. If you take a 'normal' working distance for reading to be 14", then a 7" magnifier brings you twice as close = 2X magnification. This '14 inch rule" is what I used in my catalogue to calculate magnification up until 2011, and the arithmetic works out like this: 1.5 inch = 9.3X magnification 2 inch = 7X magnification 2½ inch = 5.5X magnification 3 inch = 4.5X magnification 3½ inch = 4X magnification 4 inch = 3.5X magnification 5 inch = 2.8X magnification 6 inch = 2.3X magnification 7 inch = 2X magnification 8 inch = 1.8X magnification 9 inch = 1.5X magnification This '14 inch rule" is the way I used to calculate it; it is also the way our manufacturer of watchmakers eyeglasses calculates it, the numbers convert nicely from inches into more-or-less whole numbers for 'magnification', as you see from the chart above. THE 10 INCH RULE Then I discovered that according to the almighty Wikipedia the 'normal' working distance for a lens is 10 inches. This is rather neat because (as you will see if you read the extra-technical stuff below) 10 inches is about 25cm, and 25cm X4 = 1 meter (near enough), and physicists use 1 meter as the definition of 'standard' focal length (not very practicable as a 'working distance')...but don't worry about that, all you need to know is - the way I calculate magnification now falls in line with the 'official' method you find online, like this: 1 inch = 10X magnification 2 inch = 5X magnification 2½ inch = 4X magnification 3 inch = 3.4X magnification 3½ inch = 2.8X magnification 4 inch = 2.5X magnification 5 inch = 2X magnification 6 inch = 1.7X magnification 7 inch = 1.5X magnification 8 inch = 1.3X magnification 9 inch = 1.1X magnification These numbers aren't as good as the old "14 inch rule". For instance, both a 3½ inch and a 4 inch lens have a magnification of about 3X. And both a 5 inch and a 6 inch lens both have a magnification of about 2X. And I get customers who think I'm being evasive when I describe two eyeglasses as being, "about the same magnification". If you would like to try out different focal lengths and magnifications to see how they convert (using this "10 inch rule"), go to my conversion program, click here (it's an Excel file, so you might have to select OPEN). WHAT DO OPTICIANS AND SCIENTISTS SAY? This entire system of magnification being "how many times bigger than normal" (or "X magnification") mystifies opticians. What is 'normal'? It varies from person to person. For an optician, a lens has a focal length - a number that can be calculated, not a 'magnification' relative to normal'. If you really want a definition of 'normal' you should use the standard distance (focal length) used by physicists: 1 meter. But by this definition you need awfully long arms to hold a 'normal' lens in one hand and a book one meter away in the other hand. Also, the human eye often requires more than 'just a bit of help with magnification'. That is why you go to an optician - because he has spent years studying optics rather than reading an entry in Wikipedia. I am not an optician and my knowledge of the maths of optics is shamefully poor. I will, however, attempt to guide you through the mysteries of magnification in the following few paragraphs. They are a bit technical, so you may prefer to skip them and go straight to 'CONCLUSION'.. ADVANCED TECHNICAL STUFF The following calculations apply to simple lenses, including all jewellers loupes. The following does not apply to 'surgeons' magnifiers, which are made of two small telescopes, or to microscopes. FOCAL LENGTH, DIOPTRES AND MAGNIFICATION "Working distance" is the same as focal length. The focal length is the distance you hold the lens from the object that gives the most magnification and the clearest image; it is also the point at which a distant bright object (e.g. the sun) makes the smallest image (e.g. to make a fire using the sun); it is also the distance at which you can project a bright scene onto a surface (stand in a dimly-lit hallway and project the image of a bright window onto the wall). Try it with any magnifier, the distance from the lens to the object will be the same with each of the above experiments, this is the focal length of the lens. In practical terms we can also describe this as, "the [ideal] working distance." 'Dioptre' is the reciprocal of the focal length. The dioptre is the measurement used by opticians and lens-makers, it is more reliable than defining magnification as "how much larger than normal an item appears". This is because "normal" varies from person to person (there is no rule that says you have to hold a book ten inches from your eyes!). 'Dioptre' is the reciprocal of the focal length. To write this as a formula, call the magnification M (if you prefer you may say P for power rather than M for magnification...but let's keep things simple) and the focal length f (in meters not inches) which gives: M = 1 / f. But this 'magnification' is based on the physicist's 'standard' focal length of 1 meter. If you assume 'normal' working distance for a human holding a magnifier to be a quarter of a meter (about ten inches*) then you must divide by four. The formula for converting dioptre to magnification is therefore M = D / 4. * this is not because there is anything special about 10 inches, merely that it works nicely as a number, because 10 inches is almost 250mm = 0.25m, which is why we divide by four. This is one of two accepted formulae for calculating magnification. The above formula works beautifully for small powerful magnifiers such as jewellers loupes and small readers. For instance, for a magnifier with a focal length of 30mm: 1 / 0.03m / 4 = X8.33 magnification. But this formula is based on two assumptions: a) that the object is held at the 'ideal' distance from the lens (its focal length) to give maximum magnification that the lens is held very close to your eye so that your eyes are focusing into the distance (at infinity). This doesn't work for large lenses with long focal lenses. For instance, if we apply the formula to a large reading magnifier with a focal length of 500mm we get 1 / 0.5m / 4 = X0.5 magnification. Oh dear, that can't be right, it looks as if it reduces rather than magnifies. In a sense, this is true, if you place an object 500mm from the lens and hold the lens against your eye, it won't magnify at all. What you must do is move the object closer than 500mm from the magnifier (the magnification will be less) then move your eye away from the magnifier. Your eyes are no longer looking into the distance (infinity) but are focusing closer. To allow for this there is another accepted formula for calculating magnification: D / 4 + 1. Applying this to our magnifier with a 500mm focal length, we now get 1 / 0.5m / 4 + 1 = magnification X1.5, which is more plausible. All of these figures for 'magnification' are approximate, and there are many reasons for this. Firstly, it depends which formula you use (see above). Secondly, if the result looks clumsy (e.g. a magnification of X8.333) the supplier will round it up or down. Thirdly, how much closer than your 'normal' reading distance an object appears depends on what is 'normal' for you. Fourthly, if you use the "ten inch rule" (see explanation above, and also my magnification calculator) instead of the formula, you get slightly different figures because ten inches isn't exactly 250mm. Fifthly, even when you go to the trouble to measure the focal length and calculate the magnification, you will often find that what is printed on a magnifier is simply wrong. If you think this is all a little confusing, it is. In fact, it's very confusing. For instance, if you place the object too close to the lens (less than its focal distance) the magnification will be less, and if you hold your eye away from the lens, the magnification will appear to be more. One nationally-known company specialising in magnifiers consistently used the first formula, above (D / 4). As a result, most of their magnifications were listed as being less than one, indicating that they made everything appear smaller rather than larger. Then they re-printed their brochure, listing magnifications consistent with the second formula, D / 4 +1. The famous optical company Zeiss produce a standard 10X jewellers loupe with two lenses, they fold out and can be used individually or on top of each other (the two magnifications simply add together). At one time they quoted the magnification of the two lenses as 6.66X + 3.33X = near enough 10X when used together; then it became 6X + 4X = 10X; now they label it 3X + 6X = 9X. I don't believe they have been changing the lenses each time, the slight variations are due to the way they calculate 'magnification' then round the figures up or down. IF YOU WEAR SPECTACLES If you wear spectacles, should you keep them on whilst using a magnifier? When using a large magnifier (e.g. for reading) the answer is: yes. I assume, here, that you need a magnifier because the print / map / mark is exceptionally small and you need that extra help in addition to your spectacles. When using a small magnifier (e.g. a jeweller's loupe or watchmaker's eyeglass): do whichever is the most comfortable, but you must keep the magnifier as close to your eye as possible. The only time you may wish to think about whether to keep your spectacles on or take them off is if you are wearing a magnifier over your head (a binocular headband magnifier), they can be used with or without spectacles, as follows: If you are short-sighted (you have difficulty in seeing far objects, your spectacle lens prescription has a power beginning 'minus' ) you will notice that when using the magnifier without your spectacles the working distance is less than marked on the magnifier. If you are very short-sighted you will also notice that if you don't use a magnifier you can focus on very close objects - you have magnifying eyes for close objects (the only drawback being that you can't focus on far objects). The consequence is that with a binocular magnifier you may choose between two magnifications: one (weaker / further away) when you wear the magnifier over your distance spectacles and one (closer / stronger) when you wear the magnifier without spectacles, whichever you find the most comfortable. If you are long-sighted (you have difficulty in seeing near objects, your spectacle lens prescription has a power beginning "plus") you will notice that when using the magnifier without your spectacles, the working distance is more than stated on the magnifier. If you are very long-sighted you will also notice that a low-power magnifier doesn't actually magnify at all, it merely brings close objects into focus at a 'normal' viewing (e.g. reading) distance, which is exactly what your reading spectacles do: they are low-power magnifiers. The consequence is that with a binocular magnifier you may choose between two magnifications: one (stronger / closer) when you wear the magnifier over your spectacles and one (weaker / further away) when you wear the magnifier without spectacles, whichever you find the most comfortable.

I have a selection of aftermarket crystals - all high dome. I have a plastic 4 jaw chuck to turn them. Wyler is a problem, also Ernest Borel. these are among the VINTAGE watches that need a factory crystal. I think they all are in private hands. vin

I can't remember, but I may have had an issue like that on another ETA quartz movement (805.111). It ended up having a stripped winding gear on the stem itself. Maybe if one side has an angle of wear that the other side doesn't have, giving it an undesirable ratcheting effect? Just throwing it out there, as I've seen a stem get stripped at the integrated gear.

Hi! You've got a model 22 movement there, and #anilv's instructions are a good start. I have a lot of TImex service documentation that I am sharing here - Timex Documents You should be able to find a lot relevant to your watch.

I have tried balancestaff.com but to be honest all their measurements confused me, I put in what I thought were mine and nothing seemed to come close.