Jump to content

Cleaning


RogerH

Recommended Posts

Hi, I have another lovely Smiths Mantle Clock on the bench. the case is in good condition but inside it appears to have been drenched in some gunky oil and left in a garage!!

The time and chime trains have cleaned up ok but the back plate looks awful. it's been lacquered and is very dark as well as rusty. Would the Laquerre have been put on by the manufacturer? is this something that should been stripped off? I've not had one so grubby before so any good tips on how best to clean it would be much appreciated. 

In the picture shows you can see the right hand side which I've given a bit of a clean.

Smiths Plate.jpg

Smiths Plate2.jpg

Edited by RogerH
Photo added
Link to comment
Share on other sites

That flaking/corrosion at the holes is likely to spread oil. Sometimes you can remove lacquer with water-based cleaner like Elma 9:1 and perhaps with heating applied. On a later clock like that, I would personally use ultrasonic action too.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, rodabod said:

That flaking/corrosion at the holes is likely to spread oil. Sometimes you can remove lacquer with water-based cleaner like Elma 9:1 and perhaps with heating applied. On a later clock like that, I would personally use ultrasonic action too.

Thanks Rodabod....if only I had an ultrasonic cleaner 😉 I may try the Elma route and just strip it right back. As you say, the holes are already in quite a state.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The lacquer is put on at the time of manufacture. I don't recommend ultrasonic cleaners.   Horolene Clock Cleaning Concentrated Fluid is best make sure you completely  cover the plates. Nail varnish remover will also remove the lacquer.  

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

do I need to re-lacquer the plates afterwards or will a polish do - possibly the chalk method? I've looked up both Elma and Horolene and both do a similar job. tbh I'm leaning towards Horolene - I'll give it a go and let you know.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 hours ago, oldhippy said:

Horoline its ammonia based

you also want to be careful in that you mix it properly and it doesn't actually say in the instructions but I would not heat it up. Ammonia does a really beautiful job of cleaning but it can get carried away and start etching things you want to keep an eye on it.

 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Panic not my friends, I'm not a complete novice with Ammonia based cleaner - I currently use Andrew Firth Cleaner which sounds pretty similar to the other versions and so far it's done quite a good job with cleaning. I've just generally cleaned the main plates by hand so as not to damage them - it was just that this particular plate is pretty bad and I didn't know if there was a better way. I'll send the pics when done.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I can't actually remember where I got it from but it seems pretty good. I now have some Horclean so I'll try that and compare.

Meanwhile see the final plate cleaned and buffed. It has a few historical scratches and marks but overall doesn't look too bad.

20210809_075005.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, oldhippy said:

That looks better. Never ever machine buff any part of any clock. it can cause irreversible damage. Making it nice and shiny will not make it work better.  

it was all done by hand, I just meant I buffed it up with a cloth. It's always satisfying when you take an old clock in a poor state and bring it back to life.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, rodabod said:

Looks nice and clean now. Did you lose the perlage finish? 

Sadly yes, it was all part of the lacquering so once that was gone it was just back to the smooth finish. So not as fancy but still a lot better than it was. Interesting though as I thought that sort of finish would have been part of the plate but once the lacquer was removed there was no sign of it. It maybe they put it on so as to make it look more expensive than it actually is.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.



  • Recently Browsing

    • No registered users viewing this page.
  • Topics

  • Posts

    • I suppose this fits "best" in this forum 😃 Im looking for some wall 'art' that doubles as a reference. Specifically Id like to find an ETA 28xx or Sellita exploded movement view. 2824/2836 would be ideal. Have any of you seen/found such a thing - there seem to be a lot of these for specialized movements, and none of them ready to print or to be had as a poster. Why help is appreciated.
    • The diameter is that of the ring - afaik, will have to look it up. “Wiggle room“ doesn‘t matter as long as the spring length is in the ball park.  Essential sizes of a mainspring are thickness, width and length. Diameter is just a hint if you can push into the barrel directly or will need a winder, it is no property of the spring. Frank
    • Hi @Zendoc, I guess you're like me and you don't have a mainspring winder.  I searched GR mainspring for the AS 1686 mainspring and I now understand your dilemma. The exact one is discontinued. To answer you question more directly, I see two good alternatives for you: a) GR4485 with 1.60 x .10 x 280 x 8.5 ( I guess this one is the one you found): https://www.cousinsuk.com/sku/details/mainsprings-by-list-watch-pocket/GR4485 OR b) GR4477 with 1.60 x .095 x 320 x 9. https://www.cousinsuk.com/sku/details/mainsprings-by-list-watch-pocket/gr4477   As you know, the the AS 1686 spring is supposed to be 1.60 x .10 x 300 x 9. - both of the above will fit and you'll manage to insert them from the retention ring without need for a mainspring winder (provided you know how to do it). - GR4485 will give you more power (=higher amplitude), but less power reserve (due to shorter length) than the original. - GR4477 will give you the same power reserve as the original. However, a bit less power.   Personally, I'd take GR4477 for two reasons: 1. Well, the power reserve is better. 2. With modern lubricants and modern mainspring metal alloys, you tend to get a higher amplitude anyways. You'd maybe even end up with too much amplitude (knocking) if you go with the original size and use thin synthetic oils-- see discussion here: https://www.watchrepairtalk.com/topic/10580-omega-calt17-help/#comment-248101      
    • Your setup is correct. The smallest diameter of one pulley must correspond with the largest of the other one, else not speed variation. Frank
×
×
  • Create New...