Jump to content
  • 0
Paumanok

Landeron 248 misaligned second recorder.

Question

Hi all, I've finally put my foot through the door of the world of chronographs, and I got an excellent deal on a gold cased Luxor chronograph with a Landeron 248 movement. The dial looks perfect, so perfect at such a price I assume it was either redialed or a miracle occurred when my offer was accepted.

The only flaw to the watch is the second recorder resets to about 1 -2 minutes past 12, every time. I thought initially the second hand just needed adjustment, until I noticed the minute recorder will advance a minute when the second recorder crosses midnight exactly, but still resets at 1-2 past 12. This means a recorded minute is actually 58ish seconds.

So adjusting the second hand won't solve this problem, and I'm very curious what about this movement syncs these two registers.

 

If anyone has advice, it would be appreciated.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

7 answers to this question

Recommended Posts

  • 1

Crap sorry, I was thinking the minute recorder was not resetting to "12". May still be a simple matter of resetting the hand, but then the minute jump will be off, which means moving the finger on the chrono runner.

What I actually suspect is that the hammer is out of adjustment, and is making full contact with the minute counter but not the chrono runner, and you want the reverse of that. Depending on the version you have it may have an adjustable hammer, or may require filing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 1

Yes it should be a tapered screw, it forces the hammer arms apart or lets them come closer together. They are often really tight. Put some oil around the perimeter of the head and coax it in both directions. A little turning usually makes a big adjustment, careful!

You may not need to adjust it though, do you have clearance with the minute cam? Also, the jumper spring that brings the hammer in contact with the cams doesn't generally have a lot of power. It needs to be greased and reliably coming into contact with the cams. The hammer faces will need a light coat of grease where they contact the heart cams.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

I think you can just remove the hand and set it at zero when in reset position. If that doesn't do it there's a laundry list of potential issues, on which books have been written. Try that and if you still have a problem it can be addressed.

Share this post


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

I think you can just remove the hand and set it at zero when in reset position. If that doesn't do it there's a laundry list of potential issues, on which books have been written. Try that and if you still have a problem it can be addressed.
 

Thanks. That was going to be my first step. I asked because I was curious if the "resets wrong but advances right" was indicative of something specific that I haven't come across in discussions yet.

Worst case scenario, I line up the second hand and don't think about it much when the minute recorder advances.

Share this post


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

Crap sorry, I was thinking the minute recorder was not resetting to "12". May still be a simple matter of resetting the hand, but then the minute jump will be off, which means moving the finger on the chrono runner.

What I actually suspect is that the hammer is out of adjustment, and is making full contact with the minute counter but not the chrono runner, and you want the reverse of that. Depending on the version you have it may have an adjustable hammer, or may require filing.

Oh that's interesting, that totally gives me something to research which is exactly what I was after. I'll post in here if I make any discoveries.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

It appears there is an eccentric screw to adjust the hammers as seen from here:https://watchguy.co.uk/technical/Landeron/1472_Landeron 148.pdf

The only thing is its extremely tight and won't adjust either way. I really don't want to force anything on this movement as its otherwise very nice. Also the whole hammer assembly moves which makes it very difficult.

EDIT: It seems that its not an eccentric screw despite being in that table. Its just a screw with a tapered head. Regardless, it may be that the previous watchmaker was showing off feats of strength when putting this watch back together.

Edited by Paumanok

Share this post


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

Yes it should be a tapered screw, it forces the hammer arms apart or lets them come closer together. They are often really tight. Put some oil around the perimeter of the head and coax it in both directions. A little turning usually makes a big adjustment, careful!

You may not need to adjust it though, do you have clearance with the minute cam? Also, the jumper spring that brings the hammer in contact with the cams doesn't generally have a lot of power. It needs to be greased and reliably coming into contact with the cams. The hammer faces will need a light coat of grease where they contact the heart cams.

I have some proper oils coming in soon, so I can try that as well. This watch has the non-grooved pushers so I was able to pop the movement out and recenter the second hand. I didn't quite get it the first time but I was tired last night and didn't want to push it.

This is my first chronograph and despite getting a solid deal, probably the nicest watch I currently own. So I need to balance my confidence in servicing simple movements with my desire to wear this watch.

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

    • GLAD TO BE HERE NEED SOME EDUCATED HELP ON A ETERNA MILITARY THE SERIAL NUMBER DATES THE WATCH 1942.THE MOVEMENT LOOKS ALMOST LIKE A 852S BUT FROM WHAT I HAVE READ THE 850,852 AND THE 852S WERE ALL 15 JEWEL.MY WATCH HAS A POLISHED SURFACE 17 JEWEL CENTER SWEEP WITH SLIGHT VISUAL DIFFERENCES FROM THE 852S .NOW I DID READ THAT ETERNA MADE ETA'S 853 THROUGH 859 AND THERE IS NO DOCUMENTATION ON ANY OF THOSE.AND THE LAST THING IS THE HOUR HAND HAS 2 DOTS FROM WHAT I HAVE READ THEY COULD HAVE BEEN USED AS A PILOT WATCH .I HAVE RESEARCHED THIS FOR A LONG TIME AND HAVE NOT SEEN ANOTHER ONE FROM ETERNA OR ANY DOCUMENTATION ANY HELP WOULD BE GREAT THANK YOU AND GLAD TO BE HERE.
    • My hairspring fixing is not good, but I suppose I could have a go.
    • Hi As a starter google watch/clock repairers in the area around where you live it will give you an indication of what is available
    • Hi The train wheels are all free running,  does the pallet (fork) snap backwards and forwards cleanly when moved, without the balance in , If the action is sharp and crisp the fault lies within the balance area, Is it in beat is balance spring fouling the cock, is the spring concentric, is impulse pin loose , Pallet stones in good shape and not loose, pallet stones locking and un locking ok these are but a few pointers to check before trearing it to pieces again. Doubtless other members will have other actions for you to look at.
    • Here are a couple of other images of the Seiko and yesterday's Timex. The only issue with the otherwise excellent Seiko is that some ham-fisted  baboon (not me), has attempted to open the back with a crowbar. I can't decide if the Seiko is from 2004 or 2014, but I suspect 2004 from the styling. I have spotted a couple of Pulsar models with the 7N32 caliber from 2004, and even a couple of Seikos from 2014, so in fact it could be either. 
×
×
  • Create New...