Newby question: do you ever smooth rough non-bearing surfaces on movements?

[NewToWatches]

I am about two thirds of the way through the first section of the Watch Repair Course, and I am getting used to seeing the careful dissection of the Seagull ST3620 portrayed there.  One of the things that catches my eye about this movement though is the rough machining work on the various pieces.  I get it: it is a mass produced movement made at a price point.  But I am fighting the urge from other hobbies of mine to smooth obvious tool marks where I see them.  I realize that it may be the investment of the wrong kind of time on the Seagull movement, which will never be an ETA movement, no matter how much TLC it gets after it leaves the factory.  But should I tamp down this urge generally and leave well enough alone?  Or put another way, won't the various gears and lateral bearing surfaces (like the plates on which the train of gears sit) function better if they were at a mirror finish?   I just want to take out an Arkansas stone every time I see those dang machining marks.

Asking in ignorance. . .

 

[JohnC]

My feeling is that if you can master the disassembly, cleaning, assembly, testing, timing, and fault finding, then you can worry about the plates! If you are like me, that might take a little while.

Edited January 5, 2021 by JohnC

[NewToWatches]

LOL.  Just trying to complete my first assessment. Stuck at 70%!  Looks like it is going to be a long night and a good long while before I am up for polishing anything . . .

[bklake]

I remember reading somewhere that the machine marks serve a purpose.  They catch and hold the various crud that is generated as the watch ages.  The Swiss stylized the swirls of course.  The real watchmakers will be along shortly to agree of crush this. 

[anilv]

It would bug me as well. Apart from the loss of plating on the bridges I guess there's no other harm.

The thing that does bother me about chinese watches is the quality of the screws and springs. These are really bad on the lower end models to the extent I dont even bother nowadays to fix them. I'm sure there are better grades but metalurgy and quality control are my main issues with Chinese watches.

Anilv

[rodabod]

There needs to be more detail in the question because there are other factors which need to be considered such as the amount of torque transferring the movement part, and also the fact that plating can in some cases offer lubricity and in some cases offer resistance to wear.

[mikepilk]

8 hours ago, NewToWatches said:

I am about two thirds of the way through the first section of the Watch Repair Course, and I am getting used to seeing the careful dissection of the Seagull ST3620 portrayed there.  One of the things that catches my eye about this movement though is the rough machining work on the various pieces.  I get it: it is a mass produced movement made at a price point.  But I am fighting the urge from other hobbies of mine to smooth obvious tool marks where I see them.  I realize that it may be the investment of the wrong kind of time on the Seagull movement, which will never be an ETA movement, no matter how much TLC it gets after it leaves the factory.  But should I tamp down this urge generally and leave well enough alone?  Or put another way, won't the various gears and lateral bearing surfaces (like the plates on which the train of gears sit) function better if they were at a mirror finish?   I just want to take out an Arkansas stone every time I see those dang machining marks.

Asking in ignorance. . .

 

I don't understand  the question - what do you mean by "lateral bearing surfaces"?

It may not look pretty, but as long as the bearing surfaces are jewelled, does it matter ?

Can you give an example (photo) of what surfaces you think would benefit from polishing?

[NewToWatches]

Sorry - the flat surface of, say, a bridge or plate on which a flat wheel or gear sits.