Jump to content

Vintage chronograph - Valjoux??


jguitron

Recommended Posts

Hello again everyone,

I got my hands on this wonderful Eberhard 38mm chrono that was sold as a Valjoux.

It certainly looks like it on quick glance but then, for the life of me, I have not been able to identify which caliber. I've gone through pretty much all pictures of a couple databases of manual-wound valjoux chronos. It's in need of a service badly, but it still runs! All I can see under the balance wheel is a "96" which led me nowhere...

Anyways, I figured I'd post a couple pics of it here and see if anyone can throw me a bone ;-)

Thank you as always...

 

 

 

 

IMG_1062.jpg

IMG_1063.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm on the same track as @jdm here in that we're talking about a Landeron .. although my thoughts were around the 52.

Probably easier with a side by side:

image.png.17e384afa05061d10f633f02a5dabbf8.png

Now granted this isn't an exact match (the hammer and parts around that area) but we have to be on the right track as there's a distinctive match to other parts!

Reading about another Eberhard chronograph (https://shop.analogshift.com/products/eberhard-chronograph-as02089) they modified a Valjoux 65  to create their Calibre 16000. Could this be a similar situation where they've taken a standard Landeron movement and made alterations for some feature differentiation?

Edited by WatchMaker
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Its a early Landeron possibly a Calibre 13, only way to identify for sure would be a pic of the keyless works, Eberhard in my experience from a number of years ago are a very good company to deal with if you require parts they will supply if they have them in stock, they also seem to have good factory records so if you contact them with the serial number they may be able to help.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, WatchMaker said:

I'm on the same track as @jdm here in that we're talking about a Landeron .. although my thoughts were around the 52.

Probably easier with a side by side:

image.png.17e384afa05061d10f633f02a5dabbf8.png

I see more difference than similarities, on the right we have an overcoil HS and suited cock, most bridges are unlike, the cock of the wheel @ 7 is jewelled and more beefy, etc.

Edited by jdm
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi @jdm - with a comment like that I feel I've got to come back and defend my honour!

My intention was not to imply "here's a 52 - look it's a match". What I was trying to do was help @jguitron establish that, back to the original question, it's not a Valjoux and that I'm in the Landeron camp since I'd noted specific part matches to the 52. I wasn't blind to the fact that of course there are also differences! :rolleyes:

I also wanted to make the observation that Eberhard have a history of taking an established 'base movement' and making their own alterations i.e. it might not be possible to find an exact match to a Landeron on record if indeed Eberhard have made various alterations to a Landeron of whatever calibre we hopefully establish. In that regards @wls1971 had a helpful suggestion.

I just wanted to put the record straight as if you've misinterpreted the reasoning for my posting and the helpfulness I thought it could bring then other might have too.

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites



  • Recently Browsing

    • No registered users viewing this page.
  • Topics

  • Posts

    • Yes and no. I use Moebius 9501 synthetic grease and it is significantly runnier than the Moebius 9504 synthetic grease (and I assume Molykote DX) that I previously used. I haven't seen 9504 spread and it is in my opinion the best grease money can buy. However, my current method of cleaning doesn't remove it from the parts, so that's why I have decided to use the 9501 instead. I believe I read somewhere that Molykote DX too is difficult to clean off. Thinking about it, I'm pretty sure my 9501 grease which expired in June 2022 is runnier now than it was when it was new, but whether new or old it always needs to be stirred before use. So, that's why I treat the parts of the keyless works, cannon pinion, etc. with epilame. That was very thoughtful of you and something that had completely passed me by. Not sure what the epilame will do when it wears off in a non-oiled hole. Anyone?
    • Hi not found one either yet,  close relative is the 436 and 4361 according to ranff.db.   It gives quire a lot of detail but not as good as the old site.      RANFF.DB.
    • No problem to replace the setting with the staking set. Press the new setting from inside, use flat face punch with hole. The punch must be wider than the setting, the hole to be as not to press at the stone, but only on the bush. Press by hand until the setting gets flush with the plate surface, so the punch must rest on it.
    • Yes, the arbor usually makes about 3 to 3.5 turns. But usually spring takes 2/3 to 3/4 of the free space in barrel, not 1/2, so take it for the calcullations. This way the change in torque is smaller. I have a picture for You, this one is little older, but no mater
    • I overhauled a ladies Rolex and noticed erratic performance so I stripped in down again and did fault finding. This is what I saw. The lower jewel (the one in the plate) is cracked and the hole is too big. Before discovering this, I stripped down and re-cleaned the main-plate (and parts) by hand with a fine natural fiber brush. I somehow missed the fault the first time and cannot understand how it was still running. Perhaps re-cleaning it dislodged some pieces of the jewel widening the hole? I don't know. Now I need to replace the jewel but don't have a Seitz tool. The Rolex part is 2130-0913 and the top and bottom are the same. The part comes complete in brass setting with KIF elastor spring and cap jewel. Note: I have never replaced a jewel. I do have a good vintage stacking set that I've used quite a bit.  Can I replace using a stacking set? Any suggestions would be greatly appreciated.  
×
×
  • Create New...