Jump to content

The loopy Luch, or, why beginners should and shouldn't work on Russian watches


Recommended Posts

This is part 1 of my walkthrough of my Luch 2209 project, the second watch I have successfully repaired after taking Mark's course and working on the 6497 clone. This was the second mechanical watch I ever bought, and the one that marked my descent into obsession. I got into Russian watches because it's a cheap way to get started in mechanical watch collecting and repair, and because I've always been into Russian history. I confess, the kitsch factor played a role.

It seems I don't have a "before" picture of the watch. Suffice to say it's a first-gen 2209 "ultra-thin" with a somewhat scratched, but still lovely, silver dial. This watch was clearly someone's daily wearer for many years. It's old and banged, but still classy, in a well-worn kind of way. The watch cost me $50 Canadian from a pretty unknown Ebay seller, so I was pleasantly surprised when the watch turned up and appeared to keep reasonable time.

So how did I proceed? A simple service, I thought. I popped this on the timegrapher and saw straightish lines and good amplitude in one position, over about 20 seconds. Good enough, I thought. A first critical mistake, but never mind. Here is the watch as I'm beginning disassembly. A bit dirty, but a handsome movement.

image1.jpeg.7aa5f1eb8a39e0a57484af9bd21247ee.jpeg

Disassembling the train. Here the Luch's key innovation is just visible below the large third wheel, i.e. the lower train running off the barrel that, by pushing the main train off to the side, allows the balance to not overlap any other wheel. There is a good history of the 2209 here: https://steemit.com/watch/@coupeborgward/history-of-vintage-soviet-watches-with-2209-movement-vympel-polet-luch .

image2.jpeg.a51ffbfdcb6d13e63f4e20273ec6cc7b.jpeg

This grimy old mainspring was a challenge to service. As you can tell, it's left-hand winding, and I do not have an appropriate mainspring winder. Furthermore, the mainspring has a special bridle which must be inserted in corresponding slots in the barrel and lid. With repeated efforts and a lot of cursing, I finally got it in. I clearly pushed too hard and with the wrong finger - my right index finger was sore for several days afterward!

image3.jpeg.778ef80158451c4f7f52ec38fc1e5b00.jpeg

So that's the end of part 1 - the watch disassembled and all going well. A breeze, I thought! It was not to be.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Part 2 is the nadir, a true heartbreak. All was going so well. I have few pictures of the reassembly, but a few of the sad results.

I cleaned all the parts by hand, twice, using naptha and a fine paintbrush. All pivot holes pegged out. I then reassembled the watch following Mark's guidelines. Oiling was a matter of instinct, with a little help from a professional watchmaker acquaintance. In particular, I was unsure how to oil the central seconds pinion. The answer is on the bushing, not anywhere else on the extended pivot.

Here's the watch reassembled, before going on the timing machine. Nice and clean, with a Canadian quarter thrown in to show off to my siblings and friends.

image4.jpeg.aea29e7dbcc89461742bbda377926be8.jpeg

I was triumphant. Then this happened.

image1.jpeg.29604a788b276d39ec72af449f1b3a5a.jpeg

Calamity, utter calamity. The watch would not settle into any kind of steady rate. The watch wasn't magnetized, just seemingly haunted by erratic, inexplicable rate changes. Seemingly no consistency - not down then up, and not coming regularly. Sometimes the watch would run happily for 2-3 minutes, and then, out of nowhere, change daily rate by 50 seconds or more. Amplitude was sometimes great - 300 - and sometimes poor - 170. The watch did this in all positions.

At this point, I did one right thing and one wrong thing. The right thing was watching all of Mark's fault-finding videos several times, and completely stripping and re-cleaning the movement. I looked very closely at all the parts of the train, although I was too chicken to tackle the mainspring again. The only fault I could find was some slop in the barrel due to barrel arbor bearing wear, but this did not seem severe enough to cause the problem. Back together, the watch still ran terribly.

In desperation, I made a critical error. The hairspring, I thought, was slightly out of poise - better adjust it, following Mark's YouTube videos. So I took the collet off the balance, grabbed carefully with my tweezers, and, with careful and deliberate effort, permanently ruined the hairspring forever.

As I said, the nadir. Trolling Ebay, I found a running donor movement for 30 bucks. So I put this movement aside and went on to other misadventures.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Part 3 is a sort of redemption, or at least some lessons learned. The donor arrived about six weeks later (thank you Covid) and I quickly transferred the balance complete.

The wavy traces quickly returned. So I stripped the movement again, paying close attention to the barrel arbor bearings. Looking closely, I could see that the barrel had actually been scraping the bottom of the barrel bridge. Manipulating the barrel with the bridge on and the train removed, I could also see that, under torque, the barrel would foul both the bridge and possibly the mainplate.

Swapping in the donor movement bridge, the wavy traces continued. The free running of the train was okay with the pallets removed, but, turning my attention to the mainplate barrel arbor bushing, I could see this was slightly out of round. Under torque, the barrel would still hit the bridge.

So that was it. I could not close the barrel arbor bearing hole, so after repeated reassemblies and inspections, I became convinced that the original movement was a goner. Thankfully, I had the donor, which I decided to service and install in the watch. In truth, the donor looked to have very little wear - I am unsure what kielbosched it in the first place.

I serviced the donor and prepared to install the balance complete. Here tragedy struck again, as it appears that one of the problems in the donor was that the regulator arm was improperly seated in the balance cock, or the pins were just too short. Closing the regulator pins, the hairspring caught the closing arm and became kinked in the terminal curve. Here I finally did Mark's video justice, carefully massaging the hairspring until it was again smooth throughout the curve.

A final hurdle: the balance on the donor movement had no endshake - none at all. Having watched Mark's video on unexpected endshake problems, I looked for a shim under the balance cock. Sure enough, Minsk Watch Factory had indeed made a shim under the cock, near the screw, which I had flattened as I had rubbed the tarnished mainplate with pegwood. So I got my screwdriver, and made a painful jab into my newly-cleaned donor movement. Reinstalling the cock, it ran strongly! Hurrah.

Here are the results, positive and negative. On the positive, the watch runs strongly and relatively straight in all positions. There is also relatively little positional error (maybe 5-10 seconds a day, but I can live with that).

IMG_3080.JPG.f8acfa32cc3bd406aa0737236e491ada.JPG

But here's the heartbreaking thing. This donor, this seemingly babied donor with no major signs of wear, has exactly the same problem of wavy traces and variable amplitude as the original movement! It's less pronounced, sure, but it's there - a 15-20 degree variability in amplitude at seemingly random intervals, with the associated wavy lines. A reflection on that below.

Battle-ready once again, but not without difficulty. Another charm(?) of the Luch is that the dial does not sit flush with the movement, so you need to be extremely careful when seating the hands to make sure they won't hit the dial.

image4.jpeg.f8f6f5cafa4826de3034ee38467717ce.jpeg

And back on my wrist, at long last.

image5.jpeg.2892a3ecc4b0ed9270714244133db65a.jpeg

So, a summary. Why should you, an absolute beginner, try to diagnose and fix a battered Russian watch that hasn't been opened since Gorbachev?  Well, first, you won't break the bank. These are plentiful, and if you get a plain dial they are cheap as chips.

Second, you will use a lot of Mark's lessons. Not just chapter 2, but 3 as well. I watched every single video repeatedly, and tried to apply them all. If not for his video on barrel arbor bearing wear, I would never have found the problem.

Last, I practiced a lot - a lot - of skills. I'm still bad, but getting this Luch back on my wrist has made me feel like I'm on the road to being a real watchmaker, whatever that means.

And why should you avoid articles like this? One reason: poor, inconsistent build quality. From the shim, to the regulator pins of incorrect length, to the badly-seated dial, it doesn't take a George Daniels to see that these things were absolutely slapped together. This makes them hard to work on and diagnose. And even when you find a good donor that was seemingly retired after only a few years in service, you may find that it has the same fundamental problems as the donor you thought was deeply, unusually defective. So just live with it, and know when good is good enough. Don't make perfect the enemy of the acceptable, because they sure didn't when they built these things in the first place.

So that's it. If you're exceptionally patient or you didn't have anything better to do tonight, thanks for reading this far. And thanks to the people on this forum for helping me out with this project - I am very glad I joined. Cheers!

 

 

Edited by JohnC
  • Like 12
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Great write-up!

The wavy lines you have on the end movement is not uncommon on these watches. It's more than likely a fluctuation of power output in how the wheel teeth and pinions mesh and as there are so many of them in the train (as you have the two intermediate wheels with their own bridge driving the double third wheel). A little too much end or side-shake, or a slightly bent arbor and you get the wave, or even a badly tarnished pinion leaf or three, that causes a slight bind. A lot of these come with a thin berrillium bronze/brass shim under the balance cock which someone may have left off, which doesn't help when trying to get the correct end-shake for the balance.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

That is a beautiful dress watch, can't beleive prices have gone up so much, I bought ten brand new luch in Minsk, for about $6 a piece about twenty years ago, non is as beautiful as this one of yours. 

I agree with jon, power fluctuation, possible combination of effects from two faults.

Regards Joe

 

 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

31 minutes ago, yankeedog said:

I have never messed with a luch,but find other Russian makes acceptable when compare to low end watches made elsewhere.

Doesn't Luch put poljot movements in some of their watches?  Google shows several types.

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks all for your comments. @Nucejoe, yes, to my knowledge the Luch 2209 and Poljot 2209 are the same movement. My understanding was that the movement was first used in watches branded Vympel, and later rebranded at Poljot. The movement was also produced under the name Luch at the Minsk Watch Factory.

@HectorLooi @Jon About the wavy lines. Before cluing into the wear on the mainplate barrel arbor bearing on the original movement, in desperation I started swapping out parts. Specifically:

Barrel bridge - no change

Barrel complete - no change

Upper train - no change

Lower train - no change

Pallets - no change

This was before I realized that the barrel was hitting the underside of the bridge. After I realized the lower bushing was also worn, I checked the barrel sideshake again and realized it could still hit the bridge even after the bridge had been replaced.

On the replacement movement, the barrel sideshake is still excessive, even though it's not hitting the bridge. I suspect this is what is causing the same problem in the donor movement.

@yankeedog About this Luch, and Soviet watches generally. Maybe I've been unduly harsh on this Luch. To its credit, it was still running when I got it, despite being well-worn and probably not serviced in many years. There are no service marks inside the caseback, so that says something about its robustness. And in fairness, maybe I just got two pretty worn-out movements. However, finding that the donor movement had basically the same barrel-slop problem as the original movement, in combination with the watch's cosmetic problems (dial fitting), I perhaps was maybe too harsh on the build quality of this Luch and Soviet watches in general. Maybe this thread should have been entitled, why beginners should and shouldn't work on beat-up old watches, of any origin!

However, having collected quite a few Soviet watches at this point, I think I can make a couple propositions that suggest that I maybe didn't just get two bad movements in a row. Certainly I'm not the first to point out the wavy trace issue (see https://adjustingvintagewatches.com/russian-zim-2602-wristwatch/ ). However, I would add:

1. A clear, rapid decline in movement finishing across all brands, beginning in the 1970s and continuing through the collapse of the USSR. See, for example, the shocking decline of the Molnija 3602: http://www.ranfft.de/cgi-bin/bidfun-db.cgi?10&ranfft&&2uswk&Molnia_3602& . See also the ZIM 2602 and Raketa 2609.

2. Simplification of dial and case finishing, in the same time period. Here pictures of two of my watches, both Raketa 2609s, both gold-plated, made approximately 25 years apart. Both of these are good runners, and I really love the 1980s one, but the difference in sophistication is obvious.

image1.jpeg.07ae9987907ab95fdac2eeec2361837d.jpeg

Obviously there are some big exceptions. The 1980s Raketa 2628s, for example, tend to come with sophisticated cosmetics (the waffle dial is my favourite). But overall, I think there's evidence in favour of an decline in both sophistication and build quality in the 1970s and 1980s.

3. Obvious, inexcusable failures of quality control among even the top brands. Here is my one and only Poljot, a 1970s 2614. This is not a bargain-basement watch - automatic, date complication, gold plated. However, note the position of the hole in the dial. It is definitely not centered -  I checked with a ruler.

image2.jpeg.37129e09d8c50505c1509045f6403fa9.jpeg

4. Big variability across brands. I've had the best luck with Raketas and Vostoks, and the worst with Poljots and Pobedas (both 1MWF, if I'm not mistaken).

Obviously I am relying heavily on cosmetic evidence here, and cherry-picking watches from my collection. Maybe it's just a general rule that when working on vintage stuff, you should know when to quit. I'd be happy to hear about other people's experiences with Soviet watches - variation in quality, which movements are better or worse timekeepers, etc. And I would say, despite being a bit hard on them here, Russian watches are still weird and wonderful and a great way to get into the hobby. Cheers.

Edited by JohnC
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have worked on a lot of Russian watches over the years and have to say that I have generally been fairly impressed by the mechanics, but disappointed by the cases and dials.

As far as the movements are concerned, these were often to be found in relatively low value watches here in the UK. One of the best examples that I can think of was the Raketa 2609.HA in a chrome or gold plated snap back case re-branded as Sekonda in the 1970's and '80's. One of their advertising tag lines was "beware of expensive imitations", and they would point out that you could get a complete new Sekonda for the price of a replacement crystal on a Swiss watch.

As with a lot of inexpensive watches the cost of servicing would have been disproportionately high compared to the price of the watch so servicing was rarely carried out. And as with any watch that gets used day in, day out without proper maintenance it starts to wear out. And this is the state that these watches are often found in today. I would suggest that the excessive wear in the barrel arbor  bearings in the main plate and bridge is more due to poor maintenance than it is poor build quality in the first place.

 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I like the raketa  2609ha. It just might be my favorite  russian movement. You can usually  get good amplitude  out of them and the moveable  hair spring stud makes it easy to adjust beat error.  I am not so fond of the 2609 however. Maybe the ones I have run across  have been  overly  worn but I just dont seem  to have the same luck.The Achilles heel  of the raketa has got to be the case.As for the vostok,I will take a 22xx over a 24xx any day of the week  and twice on Sunday. The vostok  cases  in general  seal better  than the raketa while  movement  quality  is similar. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
On 9/8/2020 at 5:51 PM, JohnC said:

So I took the collet off the balance, grabbed carefully with my tweezers, and, with careful and deliberate effort, permanently ruined the hairspring forever.

I was drinking a can of sparkling water when I read this sentence. I snorted so hard that I got water up my nose. Well written!

...

I love this story. It's full of great detail and good writing, and is the exact sort of thing that triggers a buying spree on my part.

Really great read!

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 9/9/2020 at 10:31 PM, JohnC said:

@MarcAbsolutely fair, and I should say even that hackneyed Poljot runs great. It would be interesting to see some timegrapher shots from a really mint 2209, and for someone to check the barrel sideshake there. 

Here's a shot of one I recently worked on with my students. Not a bad trace on the timegrapher. I think the trick is to really get the pegwood and some autosol in the pinion leaves to polish. Same with the pivots. Some of these movements are really tarnished and need the extra attention, but it also depends on how much abuse the watch has taken. You can't polish a turd!

It's a great watch to learn about indirectly driven centre seconds, that doesn't use a brake spring because of the double third wheel arrangement.

20200525_212731.jpg

20200421_142354.jpg

20200421_131206.jpg

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Jon said:

Here's a shot of one I recently worked on with my students. Not a bad trace on the timegrapher. I think the trick is to really get the pegwood and some autosol in the pinion leaves to polish. Same with the pivots. Some of these movements are really tarnished and need the extra attention, but it also depends on how much abuse the watch has taken. You can't polish a turd!

It's a great watch to learn about indirectly driven centre seconds, that doesn't use a brake spring because of the double third wheel arrangement.

20200525_212731.jpg

20200421_142354.jpg

20200421_131206.jpg

Nice one ....!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites



×
×
  • Create New...