Jump to content
  • 0
LiamB

Omega with plastic case back

Question

I have an omega with a plastic case back. I am fairly sure that it's not original and that ithe acrylic glass was added at some point and has cracked around the edges. Does anyone know how to remove this so the watch can be serviced? 

Thanks

IMG_1112.JPG

IMG_1113.JPG

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

14 answers to this question

Recommended Posts

  • 0

  it may be epoxy.   if you can get the mvt. out of the case thru the front and deal with the case later.  if it is epoxy, use a jewelers saw and cut the crystal at the edge.   vin  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
2 hours ago, marcoskaiser said:

Hello Liam! Please let us know how did it work. I have a venus 170 missing the case back, and started to consider this option.

On the basis that the cost being minimal, and you do no damage by using glue, why not give it a go? I have successfully used acrylic crystals as case backs on several watches that would otherwise have been scrapped. 

Phil

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
1 hour ago, philipk5 said:

On the basis that the cost being minimal, and you do no damage by using glue, why not give it a go? I have successfully used acrylic crystals as case backs on several watches that would otherwise have been scrapped. 

Phil

That’s encouraging. I will do so. Thanks for the push!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

I could not resist and started to make a case back to eventually fit a sapphire glass. I took an old orient case as raw material.

On the lathe, I gave up mesuring and only listened to the cutting to get hairs off the internal diameter of the stainless ring. Got a fit, but also a question: those of you who made the thing for real, what quality/hardness stainless steel should be used? And is there an optimal angle for the fittings of these click-on backs? 

Thanks!

marcos

7D3016AC-6F56-4DC6-B85A-4082B27AEC14.jpeg

537CA103-5280-466C-867D-122929CB5EB7.jpeg

Edited by marcoskaiser
Accuracy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

316L is the standard stainless for watch cases. Around 3-4 degrees for the angles, you don't want a sharp lip though, there will be a cylindrical land. Fitting is of course a bit of trial and error so a good fixture that allows removing and replacing on the lathe without introducing eccentricity is a must

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
4 minutes ago, nickelsilver said:

316L is the standard stainless for watch cases. Around 3-4 degrees for the angles, you don't want a sharp lip though, there will be a cylindrical land. Fitting is of course a bit of trial and error so a good fixture that allows removing and replacing on the lathe without introducing eccentricity is a must

Thanks nickelsilver! I turned a brass holder and left it on the chuck until the end. Only trouble was securing the steel. I used cianoacrylate, and washed it with acetone to release the piece. But heat would melt the glue. Must research some glue for this purpose. Any thoughts?

Best,

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

I use cyanoacrylate very often, it's super handy. For something like this case I might use a friction chuck, usually plastic (pvc or delrin), that the case fits onto. Typically a short spigot that friction fits an inside diameter and a square shoulder to butt up against. Of course it only holds for light cuts with sharp tooling.

There are fairly sophisticated chucks that can be used but friction chucks are the traditional method, in the past they were generally wood.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
4 hours ago, nickelsilver said:

I use cyanoacrylate very often, it's super handy. For something like this case I might use a friction chuck, usually plastic (pvc or delrin), that the case fits onto. Typically a short spigot that friction fits an inside diameter and a square shoulder to butt up against. Of course it only holds for light cuts with sharp tooling.

There are fairly sophisticated chucks that can be used but friction chucks are the traditional method, in the past they were generally wood.

Wood is surely more sustainable and cheap than brass...

I noticed that sometimes people like clickspring (makes videos on tooling and clockmaking) use some kind of superglue to hold metal together. 

At 6:54, if you get bored...

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Answer this question...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

  • Recently Browsing

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • Topics

  • Posts

    • Installation of the PWM Controller. This needed two new mounting holes to be drilled in the main base of the watch machine, the old rheostat fixing points being way too far away to be useful. Thankfully - and by one of those happy coincidences that just make your day, when they happen - two new fixing holes could be drilled and they would be hidden by the old control knob when it was in place. Happy Days! As can be seen in the photos below, the new controller occupies far less space and, just by itself, is a much safer solution than the original.  I also hope that motor speed control will be far smoother than with the original. I will still make up an internal cover of sorts, just because I can, and I because am minded to. I cleaned up the old Bakelite knob a little and ran a little silver paint into the arrow head engraving, to brighten it up. And, as can be seen, the two new mounting holes for the PWM controller are hidden by the knob. Result! Finally, I replaced the original mounting screws for the old controller, so I did not have holes left on the dial. I think this is the best compromise I could have arrived at, as at least from the outside, the old machine looks to be still original and nothing visibly takes away from its undoubted age. After all - I am dealing with something likely to be over 75 years old and I was trying to take nothing away from that. That's it for the base unit - so all that remains is to remount the motor etc. to the base and rewire it all. The jars have been cleaned, I have fitted new rubber seals to the jar lids - I decided against cork as although likely to have been more original - I also had some nitrile rubber sheet to hand and used that instead. I can always refit this with cork later, if I find out for sure these old National machines used cork.  Nothing "build related" for a couple days as I have other work to do, but hoping to get it finished at the weekend. Maybe a short testing video sometime after that. Thanks for reading.
    • I certainly did not want to replace the motor, as this is so very visible, all attempts at maintaining the illusion of originality would fail. A solution to the problem could only be achieved with a safer, replacement speed control, which could work with the original mains voltage motor. Fortunately, these are readily available in the form of a Pulse Width Modulated (PWM), motor speed controller circuit. These will take in the 220V incoming mains supply and provide a variable output of between 50V and the incoming supply voltage. These are well known devices and proven to work with even simple (old) motors. So, a PWM circuit was obtained (at incredibly reasonable cost), and measured up. In an attempt to at least have the "illusion" of originality, I was determined to use the original hole for the rotary speed control, as well as the original Bakelite control knob. With the shaft on the rotary potentiometer too short for this, I had to do some more metal bashing. As can be seen below, I used the old rheostat as a donor, for a short length of it's shaft, which I would mate to the new potentiometer, allowing the Bakelite knob to operate. This was cut to shape and filed to mate with the new potentiometer shaft. This was then soldered together and thus ready for installation. You can see in the photo, the size and technical comparison between the old rheostat and the new PWM controller circuit.  
    • Next up is the motor speed control. I did think long and hard about my original aim of maintaining as much originality as possible. And, there is no doubt that the original speed control rheostat was a) original and b) functional. But - as I was an electronics technician in an earlier life, and also health and safety professional in a more recent life, the safety aspects weighed heavily upon my concience. Logic played it's part as well - with the original rheostat put back into service, albeit with some hand-made guarding to keep out the fingers of the unwary, it would be safe-ish, for me to use, as long as I kept my wits about me. BUT NOT SAFE FOR ANYONE ELSE unaware of what was underneath. Only the knowledge of what lurked underneath would be keeping me safe, but anyone else might not have a second chance. As can be seen from the photo below, all of the wire on the resistors is not only unguarded, but within millimetres of the level of the base. Also, the incoming mains terminals to the rheostat are also dangerously unguarded. With today's knowledge, it is difficult to fathom how this ever could have been considered safe to use.
    • Back to the job in hand. I managed to find the cork I thought I may have had, lurking in a box under the stairs. It was the most part of an A4 sized sheet, so more than enough for my purposes - to sit the jars on whilst they are in the machine. Looking at the metal bases, I really can't be convinced if there ever was any cork or any other material for that matter there. But for me anyway, the idea of the glass jars sitting directly on the metal base just seems wrong and I would prefer some cork there as a cushion. It's about as tidy as it needs to be, given the shape of the metal webbing. I suppose I could have cut-out squares of cork, but then it would leave potential weak, unsupported areas of cork, which would likely need some form of strengthening. Anyway - this application suits me and helps the jars sit a bit more stable in their locations. Whilst I am in the vicinity, so to speak, I have also added an earth lead which will bond the chassis to the incoming mains lead, once fitted. This is visible in these photos.  
    • A little further research and then on with the show... A quick browse through patent databases, shows that one Saul Lanzetter applied for and was awarded a patent for this design of watch cleaning machine in October 1937. A brief narrative is reproduced here: Interestingly, the patent application is entitled "Improvements in apparatus for cleaning watch parts and other small parts of machinery." It may be reading too much onto this title to assume that there may have been a previous patent, pre-dating this one, as this one refers to "improvements". Also of interest, there were 2 patent applications from US companies in 1944 and 1945 which cite the Lanzetter patent, and three from Germany in 1956, 1960 and 1961 (only one of which was actually published), which also cite the Lanzetter patent as a reference. Incidentally - the two US patents refer to machines which look strikingly similar to the National Model VI-C above, and the National No 4. machine in the earlier advert, showing the four jars side by side ( this seems to be referred to as a lab machine, rather than a repair shop machine). Naturally, all patents or applications referred to above are now expired. For me anyway, I think this may clear up which watch cleaning machine may have come first (at least in this machine format anyway): The S. Lanzetter National Electric Watch Cleaning Machine, circa 1937.  
×
×
  • Create New...