Jump to content

Jewelling question


Recommended Posts

When cleaning a movement in my ultrasonic a jewel in one of the bridges came out and needs to be put in again using my not so often used Seitz set.1950b9f19b3baebe193f575ffb1dd32b.jpg

 

When inspecting the hole I note a couple of tiny (maybe 1/4 of the hole diameter)circles at the edge that I started to suspect may come from a previous trial to tighten the hole just slightly with a punch around the hole edge.

 

I have attached a photo that I hope shows what I think can be the punch marks.

 

Would this be an ok method to tighten the hole and something I can repeat as I guess the jewel will not sit very safely when pressed in again?

 

When viewed from the top side, I note that the hole is lined with a brass ring that doesn’t go all the way through. Why were these brass linings used? Softer material?

 

 

 

 

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Can you post a pic of the other side? Sometimes on normal grade pieces they were retouched around the jewel hole after plating to show the brass and give the impression that the jewels were set in chatons.

Hard to tell if a previous attempt was made to close the hole. You can try a domed (convex) punch to close it a little. Try a punch where the round face is about 50% bigger than the hole. I like to do a little from both sides.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi,

Photos are attached and I think you are probably correct. Looking closer, what I thought was a boundary between the chaton and the bridge inside the hole, probably is just the edge between plating and brass.

Hopefully you can judge from the photos?



24a8b7ec4a1c4354ea0d0353ed8a92e5.jpgcfeb29b8e3a98009e991e7fe24d47f72.jpg


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, bsoderling said:

Hi,

Photos are attached and I think you are probably correct. Looking closer, what I thought was a boundary between the chaton and the bridge inside the hole, probably is just the edge between plating and brass.

Hopefully you can judge from the photos?



24a8b7ec4a1c4354ea0d0353ed8a92e5.jpgcfeb29b8e3a98009e991e7fe24d47f72.jpg


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Yes, those are "fake chatons". The bridge itself is made to look like it's 3 separate cocks. What's interesting is some makers went through such efforts to make the product look more high-end, while it was fairly certain the only person to ever see the movement would be a watchmaker.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the "fake chatons" and general attempts to show off generally dates to earlier in the century when customers were more likely to see the watch movement in the shops, especially if it was a shop-built watch made to order. It was common back then to choose a particular movement and have it mounted in a standard caselike a Dennison model, for example.

One other thing you sometimes see is an enlarged cap jewel which is visible when looking at the balance cock, yet the cap jewel fitted to the plate is much smaller. Purely cosmetics to "wow" the customer.

Then in the 1970's we have the fight for maximum jewel count, with superfluous cap jewels everywhere.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

One thing is sure; human behavior never seize to amaze...

A quick update on my progress.

I decided to fit the jewel without trying to reduce the hole first, just to see how loose it would be. When pushing the stone in, after a bit it suddenly shatters in small pieces. I suspect there was an edge or burr or something that pinched too hard at some local point.

Almost caved in at that point but decided to have a look around some other less fortunate movements in my drawers. And indeed, an old pin pallet movement I never got to run had a jewel with the same dimension and this time the pushing-in worked better and the jewel seem to sit safely.

Regarding the technique to reduce the hole with a domed punch, I suppose one has to be very light handed to not overly deform the edge of the hole too much?

As I see it, all the force from the punch will be focused on that tiny area where the dome meets the hole corner. I suppose what one wants is to have material deeper into the hole to expand and reduce the diameter, without creating burrs and deformations on the edge?



Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Link to comment
Share on other sites

One thing to check (which you may have already done) is the hole size (which then corresponds to side-shake) when you selected the new jewel. You can simply take the relevant wheel and sit its pivot in the new jewel hole and observe the angle which the pivot is permitted to move from side to side. You can judge this by eye.

Link to comment
Share on other sites



  • Recently Browsing

    • No registered users viewing this page.
  • Topics

  • Posts

    • Does anyone knows what size case a need for a dial diameter 20.60mm?
    • Sounds like the story with my Rolex. Poor (expensive) job done by an official Rolex dealer with an "in-house" watchmaker, hence I learned watchrepair and did the servicing myself. Same story as I learned with the Omega 861, again poor job by an "in-house" watchmaker by an official Omega dealer. Once your watch goes through that back-door, you have no idea what is going to happening to it 🫣   Quite nice that they sent back the parts which had been replaced !
    • yes that's definitely not right at all. I have a picture one of my friends has a Omega coaxial there was having issues to lose asking me where he should send it. As that's a specialty watch I suggested the service center. When he got it back he sent me a picture so the replace the dial as you can see the hands the mainspring barrel and I think the price was really quite decent considering all the stuff they can replace. So I do know they do change the barrels but the other person I worked at the service center when I would ask questions and unfortunately I can't remember all the answers. I think a lot of the changing a parts is at the discretion of the watchmaker. Plus I don't know enough about the chronographs and whether that would be considered a vintage watch? I take some of the vintage watches may have been sent directly to Switzerland or another service center. Obviously with a watch like the one down below they probably have a infinite supply of parts is its relatively modern vintage stuff becomes more interesting even the watch companies don't have necessarily infinite supply of parts. But no matter what the watch shouldn't disintegrated six months that's definitely an issue.        
    • glad it worked out, those ESA movements are obsolete but new old stock is still out there, now that you know the make/model you could also do a cross reference to see if something more current would line up with the dial feet and hands...for future use if needed 👍
    • I wish they would have done so in this case. The whole story went like this: I sent my speedmaster to an omega service center about 10 years ago (at that point of time I haven't even started watchmaking). After the watch came back to me it had only about 6 months wristtime until january 2024 (not fair for this nice watch but the other pieces of my collection want wristtime too 🙂). So my conclusion is that the barrel was already faulty when it came back from service, can't imagine that amount of wear in 6 months wristtime. In january 2024 the performance on the wrist was quite bad, so I decided to have a look by myself. I have to admit that I didn't check the barrel close enough as I thought it must be ok, couldn't have issues after official omega service. That was a mistake, I will learn from that. Follow the golden rule: Nothing is certain except death and taxes.
×
×
  • Create New...