Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted

Took a while, and several partial assemblies and disassembles. But it’s finally done. And running surprisingly well for my first wrist watch.fae47cba67c859f9e48edddb0053f441.jpgc76b044cf85f9daa8a738511f3742aea.jpg3fff093dc42548e789530efb5a1e40f9.jpg

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
Posted
4 hours ago, ITProDad said:

 

Took a while, and several partial assemblies and disassembles. But it’s finally done. And running surprisingly well for my first wrist watch.fae47cba67c859f9e48edddb0053f441.jpgc76b044cf85f9daa8a738511f3742aea.jpg3fff093dc42548e789530efb5a1e40f9.jpg

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

:Bravo:    Looks stripped down enough to have recieved a good bath, did you brush clean too?   Cute watch too. 

 

 

  • Like 2
Posted

Very good job! I've never seen such an amplitude on a Seiko movement, are you sure you had the correct 52º lift angle on your timegrapher?

  • Like 1
Posted (edited)
14 minutes ago, aac58 said:

I've never seen such an amplitude on a Seiko movement, are you sure you had the correct 52º lift angle on your timegrapher?

It's very good value, likely taken a full wind, but not exceptional

Note that 7S, 4R and 6R all have 53° lift angle, check attached. 52° is the machine's default, and produces a very close amplitude value anyway. 

 7S26C.pdf7S26C.pdf

Edited by jdm
  • Like 1
Posted (edited)
4 minutes ago, jdm said:

Note that 7S, 4R and 6R all have 53° lift angle, check attached. 52° is the machine's default, and produces a very close amplitude value anyway. 

I'm checking your attachement, doesn't it say 52º?

Edited by aac58
Posted (edited)
56 minutes ago, aac58 said:

Very good job! I've never seen such an amplitude on a Seiko movement, are you sure you had the correct 52º lift angle on your timegrapher?

As I said, that's a very good job. Honestly I've seen (and got) amplitudes above 300º but in older manual Seiko movements as 66.

9 minutes ago, clockboy said:

Adjusting the lift angle on a Timographer only makes a marginal reading difference IMO

So, why do we care about it? And why I was corrected only a few minutes since I said it should be 52º and not, for example, 54,5º as in 6119 or 6309, which is a considerable difference?

Edited by aac58
Posted

 

59 minutes ago, aac58 said:

I'm checking your attachement, doesn't it say 52º?

Yes it does and I believe by good chance I posted the oddball tech sheet which has a wrong value. Attached three different version which say 53º. But as mentioned, it's not a big deal of difference at all.

 917_Seiko7S26A,7S36A.pdf

NH25.pdf

7S26B_36B.pdf

Posted
:Bravo:    Looks stripped down enough to have recieved a good bath, did you brush clean too?   Cute watch too. 
 
 

Not sure what “brush clean” means. I use an ultrasonic with L&R cleaner and rinse solutions. Then is peg wood to get the remainder. I had to order a couple extra balance completes as it did not come with a working balance and I ruined the first one with a slip of my tweezers. At $4 each, I ordered 5. Went through 2 before I got it right.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
Posted
Very good job! I've never seen such an amplitude on a Seiko movement, are you sure you had the correct 52º lift angle on your timegrapher?

Yes. It was set to 52 degrees. But that amplitude was only a in one position. The rest ranged from 240 to 260. Enough to be satisfied for my first wrist watch.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
Posted
2 minutes ago, ITProDad said:

 I had to order a couple extra balance completes as it did not come with a working balance and I ruined the first one with a slip of my tweezers. At $4 each, I ordered 5. Went through 2 before I got it right.

These were the Chinese ones. Very good result then, another member reported that the one he got had a bent pivot.

  • Like 1
Posted
2 minutes ago, ITProDad said:


Yes. It was set to 52 degrees. But that amplitude was only a in one position. The rest ranged from 240 to 260. Enough to be satisfied for my first wrist watch.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

These are outstanding results, congrats.

Posted
These were the Chinese ones. Very good result then, another member reported that the one he got had a bent pivot.

I ordered from the Seiko part site from Japan. Maybe I’m wrong on the price. But not by much. Oh well, it worked. I’ll look more closely next time I order a new part.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
Posted
Please post link?

I can’t find the original site. I’ve purged my browser history for government spying reasons....

However, here is a pic of one of the “extras” I purchased. I believe you are correct about it being Chinese. Though I do remember the ship-from address to be Japan.26b9433a932beeda728610c6e3b59584.jpg


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
Posted (edited)
47 minutes ago, ITProDad said:

However, here is a pic of one of the “extras” I purchased. I believe you are correct about it being Chinese. Though I do remember the ship-from address to be Japan.

Yes, also because the writing is in Chinesem and a genuine Seiko balance packaging is quite different.
Nothing strange that it comes from Japan, they trade with China just like we do and probably since a longer time :biggrin:

Edited by jdm
  • Like 1
  • Recently Browsing

    • No registered users viewing this page.
  • Topics

  • Posts

    • I am puzzled by something a snipped out something from your image and what exactly disassemble tell us? my confusion is the symbol for FHF looks like image I have below year symbol as a star and righted this instant are not finding what that means? I suppose we could use the fingerprint system to verify it really is what it claimed to be. Size itself is really interesting there's almost no watches in that particular size. Then were missing details in the photograph above like diameter of movements to verify it really is the size and are missing the setting components.   went to the bestfit book looking at the symbols didn't see it. Look at the link below I did find it back to the bestfit book and yes it really is there https://reference.grail-watch.com/documents/history-of-ebauches-sa/ then bestfit book says lists the size as 10 1/2. one of the problems with vintage watches is finding parts yes a donor watch would be good.
    • Actually, this could be the issue. Drag from the module could be overcoming the cannon pinion. It was definitely not at the point that the driving wheel was loose on the cannon pinion, it took a little bit of effort to rotate it when applying the grease. Maybe I need to look again at applying oil to the pivots.    Yeah, it's very annoying. I don't want to give up on it, so back on with it over again until I catch a break. 
    • The sping is not pushing directly on the cap, but is pushing against the spindle. So, even if the usual black cap is replaced with the micrometer cap, the spindle is still pushed up.
    • But he tells that the micrometer cap doesn't screw into the spindle. How can the spring push the spindle up if there's nothing to grip? There is a screw visible on top of the micrometer cap so should it be able to screw into the spindle? I'm feeling really dumb now. Does anyone manufacture that cap as an aftermarket item? Might be worth investing. Ok so the spindle is different, now I get it.
    • I suppose? If it worked before and it doesn't work now I guess the question would be why does it not work now? That would come back to if you did not have the chronograph module on will it work or is the chronograph module sucking too much power out of the watch basically 99 usually when they go bad you can hold on the tube part and usually just spin the wheel because it has zero holding at all so usually when they go bad they go bad very bad. You should build hotel when you set the watch as to whether it seems to have any friction or not. I'm just wondering if the chronograph module is the problem.
×
×
  • Create New...