Jump to content

Testors paint for minute hand?


SiZi

Recommended Posts

I am restoring a Seamaster that has black paint on its minute and hour hands. It is starting to chip off though and I’d like to refresh it. Can I use  testors modelling paint for this and are there any tips you could share? Thank you!

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, m1ks said:

Assuming that's enamel, then yes you could. Thin it with appropriate thinner or white spirit, mount the hand on a cocktail stick and use a small brush.

 

11 hours ago, CaptCalvin said:

To get the most even and uniform results, make sure to coat the entire surface in just one stroke.

Thank you!

it seems as if the hands were painted on from the back so that a layer of paint would just fill the gap and this way the finish from the front looks perfect 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What you're describing sounds like the way lume is applied, if the hands are hollow and the paint shows through its a bit trickier as the consistency has to be right for the surface tension to hold without making the paint too thick.

With enamel you'll get a smoother and better finish properly thinned and with a second coat if necessary, it needs to level and cure and oil based model enamels have a long cure time and are hard wearing.

Unthinned and trying to do it in one coat will be counter productive and potentially leave the paint too thick.

Edited by m1ks
Link to comment
Share on other sites



  • Recently Browsing

    • No registered users viewing this page.
  • Topics

  • Posts

    • That's very interesting information. I haven't tried to see if my bombé jewel holes have olive holes but I think I should be able to tell on the larger jewels at least. See if I get a chance to have a look later today. This little story was very comforting to read for a "bungler" like myself. That success isn't a given even for a pro. Thanks for sharing!
    • I forgot that I said I would do that. Will take some tomorrow and post them up post haste.
    • I've seen some really nice early 20th century pieces where all the jewels, including center wheel, were convex. Definitely to reduce friction. It can be quite hard to tell if a jewel has olive holes, especially on small sizes, but that again reduces friction- as well as accommodates small misalignments better. Why they aren't used more often? I imagine it was found that at a certain point in the train the actual advantage became negligible, and the added cost on high production movements is why it's not seen on those, just higher-end pieces.   I did an experiment on a little 5x7"' AS 1012 a few years back. These things run OK sometimes, but often are absolute dogs. And AS made gajillions of them. I had a NOS novelty watch in for a service, ran OK flat, massive drop in amplitude vertical. Made like 3 staffs for it trying different pivot sizes, no change. Tried high quality (not Seitz) convex/olive jewels, no change- the original were flat, but could have been olive hole. Same for the pallet fork, then escape wheel, no change. Probably had 20 hours in the watch, new staff and new hole jewels through the escape wheel, no difference in running. Just a dog of a movement. But if I were making a watch I would use them, just because.
    • When Nicklesilver mentioned the use of them on non coned pivots on older high end watches closer to the escapement.  That suggested to me  probably fourth wheels and possibly third wheels. The square shoulder rotatating on the much smaller surface area of a dome as opposed to a flat jewel surface. I'm curious as to why they are not used predominantly?
    • That's what I thought, but as I said, it makes sense. See if any of our pros will have something to add.
×
×
  • Create New...