Jump to content

Please help me identify this pocket watch mainspring of an FEF movement


Alessio

Recommended Posts

Hello

This is my very first watch service, and I need some help identifying the mainspring, and perhap also the movement.

What I know so far is:

BWC pocketwatch

41mm FEF movement, no serial number or any other code I can see in it.

The mainspring is: 1.22mm height, 0.25mm thickness, ~51cm long. The barrel has an internal dimeter of 16.21mm.

I've opened all the FEF documents I could find in the cousinsuk website, but I was unable to get my one.

Can you please help me finding the replacement for the mainspring since the bridle is broken?

I found this one that seems very similar, but I dunno if it would be ok or not considering that the measurements are donw with a caliper

 

Thanks in advance for all the help.

Alessio

IMG_0342.JPG

IMG_0343.JPG

IMG_0344.JPG

IMG_0345.JPG

IMG_0346.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Go here and scroll down to the FEF movements at the bottom of the list (FEF41B-49H).  They look similar to your movement (if not the same).  The mainspring measurements do not agree with yours precisely but close.  Pick the one that you think is closest and then do a google search on that number.  When I did this, google scans all of bidfun and gives you all the watches using this mainspring.  That may help you find a replacement.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

All those nice pictures except the one that we need? It would be really nice to see the backside of the movement so we can see the setting parts. There is a system used to identify watches if we have the movement size and a picture the setting parts we can possibly identify who really made this.

2 hours ago, Alessio said:

The mainspring is: 1.22mm height, 0.25mm thickness, ~51cm long.

It would've but also nice to see a picture of the inside of the barrel just for my curiosity. But since you have the mainsprings size we can go to the mainspring catalog not worry about who made the watch. I snipped out an image even though you measured 1.22 it's probably 1.20 mm. The thickness is problematic it's much better to use a micrometer. So here's spring is that would work.

 

mainsprings 1.2 mm.JPG

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, LittleWatchShop said:

Go here and scroll down to the FEF movements at the bottom of the list (FEF41B-49H).

Many thanks for your answers, I confirm that pic 1 and 2 from the FEF41B-49H are exactly the one I have.

47 minutes ago, JohnR725 said:

It would've but also nice to see a picture of the inside of the barrel just for my curiosity.

Sorry, I actually had the pic but forgot to add it into the thread, attached this time 🙂

Checking the informations present in the ranfft website it seems to me that the watch was probably serviced long time ago and fitted with a compatible spring.
I'll go ahead and search for an original one and if can't find it, will back up to one similar to the the one I have.

Thanks again guys!
Alessio

IMG_0347.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, Alessio said:

Checking the informations present in the ranfft website it seems to me that the watch was probably serviced long time ago and fitted with a compatible spring.
I'll go ahead and search for an original one and if can't find it, will back up to one similar to the the one I have.

It would be interesting if you put the old mainspring back in and notice if there is a height discrepancy?

Then for future reference if you had the setting parts and the diameter the movement we might get lucky and identify the watch that way. So I snipped out some images see you can see you how that works. It also see there's a height difference in their movements which of course changes the mainspring sizes a little bit.

FEF mainspring.JPG

FEF movement identification.JPG

FEF pocket watch.JPG

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I took a pic of the spring installed in the barel, but I dunno if it's enough for you to spot any issues. I haven't noticed anything wrong when I open it, but for sure that was due to my inexperience.
I'll go ahead and order a spring based on the above charts and let you know.

Many thanks for your help
Alessio

IMG_0348.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hello Alessio,

it is not really needed to  know the calibre of your watch to find a correct mainspring. An optimal spring can be found by a bit math, based on the inner diameter of the barrel.

From your picture the existing spring thickness is easily found as 0.19 mm.

A spring calculator supplies 0.19 mm for your barrel, too. Optimal length 480 ... 530 mm!
Now you just should check if height 1.20 mm is right.

Frank

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites



  • Similar Content

  • Recently Browsing

    • No registered users viewing this page.
  • Topics

  • Posts

    • Yes I have that in my watch list a JUF if cheap enough I will have a go , if nothing else it will be good for spares, I have a few JUF’s
    • Less give a damn- more **BLEEP** it! …nice that it is keeping time I’ve done a couple of these (one with your assistance) and there’s a third that needs work on the tension between what drives the hands and the barrel. Did you have any issue with that? …and I saw Ranfft make a small comment in a thread re: pin pallets- a couple drops of Tillwich blu, let it run down the pins. It is good for 20 degrees of amplitude… I’m using this oil as a cheat code on my unmotivated Venus chrono…
    • This is a very sad day for the industry.. For most of us being amateurs the cost of replacing parts for ETA,s etc will be beyond affordability for the customers.   see full statement below   We have now received the decision from Judge Michael Green on whether or not the High Court has jurisdiction to hear our claim against Swatch, and sadly it is not the decision we had hoped for.   As we have pointed out in previous news items (see below),the rules that Judge Green had to apply strictly prevented him from examining in any way how the Swiss Court arrived at its verdict, even if it is blatantly obvious that the verdict is wrong.   As Swatch’s lawyer was summing up in the last few minutes oft he hearing, the Judge twice pinned him asking if it was alright if, as a result of the Swiss verdict, consumers had to pay 50% more for their watch repairs. After some stumbling, their lawyer’s reply was “Yes”, so  I am quite sure that Judge Green left his court fully aware that the Swiss verdict does not reflect the norms of British Competition Law. However, the rules simply do not allow him to take that simple fact into account.   Judge Green noted that our two arguments relating firstly to British Competition Law now being different from that of the EU, and secondly to the contention that the legality of the Authorised Service Networks has not been tested, had both been mentioned in the Swiss verdict. Because they had been mentioned, he felt that to allow us to argue them again would constitute re examining the Swiss case, and could not be allowed.   As to our claim that we were denied our right to be heard because our evidence was not considered, our lawyers had argued that the evidence we provided could not have been looked at because had the Swiss Court done so, it could not have reached the conclusion that it did. In his verdict, Judge Green highlighted general statements in the Swiss verdict that evidence had been looked at, and acknowledged the arguments we made to him, but again he considered that this was re-examining the Swiss verdict, and could not be permitted.   Our case has attracted considerable interest within the Legal community, and within minutes of the decision being made public we were approached for comment by one of the largest subscription news services, Global Competition Review. They asked us two very pertinent questions, and I reproduce them for you below along with our responses, as they neatly summarise the consequences arising from our case.   What are the key takeaways?   Enormous damage has been done to the fundamentals of UK and European Competition Law by the Swiss courts. It has always been the case that the effect on consumers and competition has to be considered in any decision making, but we now have a ruling that states even monopolists can remove wholesale markets from the supply chain without any consumer benefit based justification. Those entities looking to subvert Competition Law and exploit consumers for their own benefit will be looking at this very carefully.   Has the court made the wrong decision? If so, will you appeal?   The issue lies not with the High Court, but rather with cross border jurisdiction treaties that have no requirement in them for foreign jurisdictions applying UK law to take account of the Ratio Legis [a legal term for the fundamental reasoning why the law was written] of that law, and have no remedy within them for UK Courts to overcome decisions that clearly do not.    After eight years of work, and a very considerable sum in legal costs, I can not begin to tell you how disappointed I am at this outcome. For the time being, there is no further route through the British Courts that Cousins can follow. However, I promised that we would fight to the end, and that promise stands.   The UK is no longer part of the Lugano Convention, whose rules Judge Green has applied, and as yet nothing permanent has replaced it. The political tide turned against repair prevention by restricting supply of spare parts some time ago, and our efforts on behalf of the Watch Repair industry have resulted in high level contacts within several Government Departments. You can be sure that we will keep working to overcome this unjust situation that we now all find ourselves in.    I will keep you advised.   Kind regards   Anthony
    • Dell fancy a challenge🤣   https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/285785684626?itmmeta=01HT29WVJY21Q94C73GYHGBTFX&hash=item428a277a92:g:15YAAOSwNRVmBAUz&itmprp=enc%3AAQAJAAAA0DIe4QLQBW66rSyIMiyBuk8GY%2B86pQ%2BQnxGbcNq7egAGe5DIs9YMmiWJIbZtMSxwNJIiJxuojbq523IeUSBQ6pJEIQ0tfz2ChrBR03BksmKINyklg1IK4GAfAcYY9Hta9wVeSZSZN7ZCNAfZTgKs9c4%2BUIUZ3Qjc3QjUXDn2uPRo1FiYOEewMG5A26EXb%2BclBgrqtbOmM6P3bea%2F8ZImOAXNI1HtbmtMk84pIGoM6ISwaM1PKFuADtTFMccS5e3ZjndCbXYXHrW3CecsV0edw3M%3D|tkp%3ABk9SR8q588nQYw Darwin’s theory of evolution has not been proven to be absolutely.  😀 
    • A already know the size movement I have the problem is the dial a had purchased has a dimension 20.6mm wide a want to find a watch case that going to fit the dial perfectly 
×
×
  • Create New...