• Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Marc last won the day on November 18

Marc had the most liked content!

About Marc

  • Rank
    Distinguished Member

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location
    Northampton, England

Recent Profile Visitors

8,727 profile views

    Bernie, comparing your pics with my own Ciitizen 0201 it looks as though there are some minor differences in the shape of the plates and machined recesses, but all the key reference points look the same. These are Citizen 0201 for comparison; The part you are after is the hour wheel. If you measure the dimensions of yours I can tell you how they compare with the Citizen.
  2. hi marc.sorry to bother you but did you get my photos re-HMT.any help?

  3. I remembered where I got it from now. Downloadable in a variety of formats.
  4. If the design of the crown incorporates a gasket that locates between the end of the case tube and the underside of the crown (Rolex Twinlock & Triplock, Vostok Amphibia) then screwing down the crown most definitely improves the seal as it increases the compression on the gasket.

    I don't think that HMT based any of their watch models on any Citizen models as such. However, I do know that HMT used the Citizen Cal:0201, made under licence and re-branded, in a lot of their 17J manual wind watches. Post a pic of the movement and I may be able to identify it.
  6. I think you may find that this is an old style tapered canon pinion with a central shaft that needs to be driven out from the front. Have a looks here and you will see what I mean;
  7. It looks to me like it comes out the front. The milled bezel may unscrew or it may need a case knife to pry it off. Once it is removed you need to remove the stem and both of the recessed screws that allow the movement to turn when loosened. With these two screws removed the movement should come out the front. That's how I would proceed.
  8. Russian watch , crown problem

    This is worth a read if you want a better understanding of Amphibias;
  9. Russian watch , crown problem

    +1 @rogart63 and @Sopgeo. This is a design characteristic of the Amphibia and also the most common query / concern of newbie Amphibia owners. Just google Vostok Amphibia wobbly crown and you will find many examples as below; Somewhere on the net there is a really interesting article about the development and evolution of the Amphibia design which explains a lot of its idiosycracies, if I can find it again I will post a link. These are actually great watches and represent truly excellent value for money.
  10. ultrasonic cleaner solution

    L&R #111 Ultrasonic Cleaning Solution is a cleaner and needs to be followed up with a rinse. L&R #3 Watch Rinsing Solution is a rinse and should follow a cleaning bath. Neither is an all in one cleaner and rinse combined.
  11. Mainspring winder for Seiko 7S26

    I haven't measured one but it seems widely reported that the ID of the 7S26 barrel is either 10mm or 10.5mm. If you check Cousins web site it lists the bergeon winders by size. No.6 has a diameter of 9.8mm so woud be the right size.
  12. how to remover the rotor on an ETA 2452

    Pics 1 & 2 - canon pinion. This can be dismantled if needs be but there is a risk altering the tension at the friction coupling or distorting the sprung arms so I don't bother. Just run it through the cleaner as is and lubricate the friction coupling on reinstallation. Pics 3 & 4 - The date driving wheel doesn't come apart. Just through the cleaner as it is. Pic 5 - Auto winding reverser wheels. These don't come apart either. The official ETA guidance is that they shouldn't even be cleaned, just replaced. However that's is rarely required. Run them through the cleaner as they are. Lubricating these is a contentious subject. I have a 1 part 9010 to 30 parts naphtha solution that I dunk them in and then leave them to allow the naphtha to evaporate. This leaves them coated with the thinnest film of 9010, and I have never had any issues with them sticking. There is also a product called Lubeta which is specifically for lubricating reversers which is used in a similar way. Do a forum search or Google "lubricating reverser wheels" and you will find various solutions and much disagreement as to what should and shouldn't be considered. Find what works for you and ignore the critics Pic 6 - The main spring barrel. The damage doesn't look too bad but if it were mine I would use it as it is and see how the watch performed, but I would also look out for a replacement. You could try polishing out the damage but it's fiddly unless you have a lathe, in which case mount it up in a step collet and see if you can clean it up without either weakening the parts or making too much room inside the barrel. Easiest though is to replace. When you have the problem sorted check the main spring for flatness and if it is out replace it. The problem is most likely caused by a distorted M/S and highlights what can happen when a spring is inexpertly hand wound into the barrel. You should always use a M/S winder where possible, and perfect the art of hand winding for when a winder isn't an option.
  13. Heuer Cal 11 Check out above. According to Borel the part is common to all the listed calibres.
  14. Buffing; Myth or Fact?

    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." Even Tag Heuer describes " Polishing and a final hand buffing make the metal and the surface smooth." 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; 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. 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........