Jump to content

Safety Cap Jewel Cleaning Tool created from peg wood


Recommended Posts

I have seen and heard of several variants of this cap jewel cleaning method, but none of them have felt really safe so I invented my own variant and was so happy with it that I recorded a video of it. Hope you like it and get use of this "safe" method for cleaning cap jewels.

 

  • Like 6
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 11/27/2021 at 3:06 AM, LittleWatchShop said:

I like it. What I have done is to just hold the cap jewel with my finger. This is not so elegant...peg wood is better.

I also like taping down the watchmaker paper. A few times I have nudged the paper and my jewel went flying. Taping is good.

Like you, I hold the cap jewel with my finger, spray a bit of lighter fluid on the paper and scrape the jewel over the wet part of the paper, you can press on the cap jewel as hard as you like. this is a lot less risky compared to the pegwood tool. ya taping down  paper is good idea I'll try it.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 11/27/2021 at 3:06 AM, LittleWatchShop said:

I also like taping down the watchmaker paper. A few times I have nudged the paper and my jewel went flying. Taping is good.

 I tape a one mm thick chipboard on flat glass . I think its called chipboard , not sure, the type of cardbiard shoe boxes are made out of. less chance of the jewel go flying.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

As I mention in the video, I tried with regular printing paper, but on closer inspection (40X using my stereo microscope) I noticed printing paper acts a bit like sandpaper creating tiny scratches on the jewel. So tiny that I'm not sure it would impede staff pivot performance. Using watchmaker's tissue paper from Cousins I couldn't detect any negative impact on the jewel so I'll be sticking to that.

  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, VWatchie said:

 Using watchmaker's tissue paper from Cousins I couldn't detect any negative impact on the jewel so I'll be sticking to that.

The paper shown in above link looks to have suitable surface, only a thicker sheet like 1.5 to 2mm thick so It wouldn't easily shrink as you rub the jewel on its surface and I am sure you like the results more if you pour some lighter fluid on the paper. 

Regs

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've typed up a half dozen responses to this since it was first posted, and I'm going to commit this time! This is not a criticism in any way of the method/tool there. Just genuine discourse, engineer to engineer. Please consider it in the spirit it is intended.

I place cap jewels flat down on a piece of watch paper (so far so good), then fold a corner over, and just rub it around with my finger tip wearing the requisite finger cot. Not sure where I picked this up, but it's such a simple solution to a task that can go so horribly wrong that I'm sure I got it from somewhere else. Mark or some other youtube person, most likely given the fundamental nature of it. What is wrong with that approach?

The only thing I can think of based on the above discussion is that it might go flying if I were to crinkle the paper or something. I've had that happen to where the jewel jumps, but never very far. I know better than to discount my own clumsiness and relative naiveté though...

What about that is this addressing, and what other issues might be being introduced?

The paper being taped down solves the fly away crinkle problem, but the stick seems like an abstraction from the manual manipulation that could (and in the not discounting clumsiness paradigm, will) result in equally annoying unplanned flight. Additionally, the tendency to apply additional force through the tool without its own escape prevention feature seems to magnify this, compared to the finger method having all that squishy finger enshrouding the jewel on all sides, prohibiting any possibility of escape during manipulation.

A simpler solution, if we allow/agree/accept/whatever that the paper being taped down is a mandatory practice to avoid Alcatraz-esque exploits in escapery, would be to replicate the cotted finger and a second sheet of watch paper over a second, taped piece of watch paper. You have the required manual control over pressure and position, the escape prevention of the finger flab, and backup escape prevention in the form of the captive second sheet of paper, combined with the sproing mitigation of the taped piece of paper.

Again, consider this in the spirit it's written AND consider the source. I'm not quite two year into learning this stuff, and that's on a as-can-find-time basis with work and a baby/toddler in a pandemic.

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites



  • Recently Browsing

    • No registered users viewing this page.
  • Topics

  • Posts

    • in general this shouldn't be any change. but in general questions like this it be nice to know the specifics of the watch in other words how was it performing before it was cased up and what is it doing now.
    • just as a reminder this watch is a Swatch group product. This will bring up a problem like spare parts and technical information. that I found some links to some information on when I talk about your watch and some of the technical and basically your watch is equivalent to 2834-2 for which I'm attaching the technical sheets. But equivalent does not mean exactly the same you want to do a search on the group for C07 as we discussed this watch before including the technical differences how it's supposed to be regulated and basically because it's watch group there is no parts availability. https://calibercorner.com/eta-caliber-c07-xxx/   https://www.chrono24.com/magazine/eta-movements-from-the-2824-2-to-the-powermatic-80-p_80840/ https://www.watchuseek.com/threads/h-10-movement-details.4636991/ eta CT_2834-2_FDE_481857_15.pdf
    • people be honest.... Swatch is evil for the watchmakers and repairers, BUT not everything in watches from Switzerland is from the Swatch-Group. As far as i know, Selitta got sacked by Swatch as a Movement-Assembler for them and they started to produce Movements in their own Name with slight Modifications. As far as i know, they sell Parts to the Market for their Movements. In most cases, if a ETA-Movement fails, it is a valid Option to replace it with a Selitta Movement, which i consider the Solution for this Mess with the Swatch-Group...... I have no Connection to anybody at Selitta, but being a Swiss-Guy, i still like to have Swiss-Made Watches, but not from the Swatch-Group.   ok ? regards, Ernst
    • Just one more greedy act by Swatch. They started a number of years ago here in the US..cutting off supplies to watchmakers that could build complications that many Swatch houses couldn't even touch. Old school masters who had gone through some of the most prestigious houses in the world. Otto Frei has some statements on their page about it. I tell all my customers to avoid new Swiss watches like the plague,..unless they just want an older one in their collection that still has some parts out on the market, or they have really deep pockets and don't mind waiting months and paying through the nose to get it back. Plenty of others to choose from..IE Seiko,..or other non-swiss brands Even a number of Chinese brands are catching up with the Swiss,..and I think that in time, their actions will be their downfall
    • Yes. If that's not what you are experiencing...start looking for something rubbing. A 1st guess is that one of the hands is rubbing against the hole in the center of the dial. Especially if you now have lower amplitude in face up/ face down positions.
×
×
  • Create New...