Jump to content

Initial learning with or without gloves/finger cots


Recommended Posts

Soon I will be attempting to reassemble my first watch. Should I use gloves right from the start or is it better to learn un-gloved accepting that the watch will have to be dismantled, cleaned and re-assembled (something that will happen anyway) so that I can learn techniques before trying to do the same thing with gloves/finger cots on which I guess is much harder. This is a big step up from my previous success swapping a movement from one watch to another and getting the hands fitted correctly. The Vostok Amphibia is already disassembled but not cleaned and I intend for it to be a learning tool. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I watched the Sellita Q&A video recently and noticed that gloves were not used in some stages of assembly.

I personally dislike finger cots. The cuff is so tight that my fingers end up looking like cocktails sausages after a couple of hours. As a dentist, I used to using gloves all day long, so that's my preference.

I also noticed that with experience, it is possible to assemble a watch without leaving behind fingerprints, so it's possible to accomplish certain stages without gloves on.

But as a beginner, I would advice wearing gloves and they must be skin tight latex or nitrile rubber types. Not some baggy, flapping in the wind, food handler polythene bag.

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 hours ago, HectorLooi said:

I also noticed that with experience, it is possible to assemble a watch without leaving behind fingerprints, so it's possible to accomplish certain stages without gloves on.

It probably depends upon a lot of factors like where you learned watch repair.

I was looking for a suitable video and this one is not entirely suitable. The problem is it appears to be the initial people all wearing blue are as a lower level of learning in other words are doing machining work and I don't see anyone wearing any sort a hand protection. Which is even odd for the person doing case polishing because often times you want to wear heavy gloves when you're doing that. For where I work typically anyone doing serious case polishing is always wearing gloves. It's actually about the only time anyone ever wears gloves.

Then towards the end of the video you get to the people in white. Doing watch work and we get a mix of nothing, gloves and things on people's fingers. I supposed to certain degree it's personal preference.

https://youtu.be/yun04kam4U0

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If I'm dismantling, just before cleaning, I don't bother as any marks will be removed in cleaning. 

On assembly, I wear them on one hand, so that I can handle larger parts (bridges) without leaving a mark.

I find that cots which fit well, are much too tight at the top. So when I put them on, I cut through the top edge (the roll) with some scissors, which makes them more comfortable, and prevents "sausage finger"   

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 12/12/2022 at 4:28 AM, HectorLooi said:

I personally dislike finger cots. The cuff is so tight that my fingers end up looking like cocktails sausages after a couple of hours. As a dentist, I used to using gloves all day long, so that's my preference.

Me too.  I use nitrile gloves.  My hands sweat, but I do not keep them on continuously.

 

3 hours ago, mikepilk said:

So when I put them on, I cut through the top edge (the roll) with some scissors, which makes them more comfortable, and prevents "sausage finger"

Hmm...interesting idea.  I will try it.

 

On 12/12/2022 at 3:25 AM, oldhippy said:

I don't think finger cots were around in my day's

Certainly, my Dad never used them!  I do recall that he had a bar of Lava soap at the shop and I think he washed his hands a lot.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't like gloves or finger cots as my skin can't breathe using them which I find extremely uncomfortable. So, when holding a clean part is more or less unavoidable or just too convenient, like when using a jewelling tool, I wear finger cots and then take them off as soon as I'm done. This can sometimes mean I need to take the cots on and off several times which is cumbersome and time-consuming but the extreme discomfort they give me still makes it worth it.

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

    • Good question!! Anyone know of a substitute movement??!! 🤔🙏
    • Interesting issue that I just noticed: this Seiko 5actus Watch from 1977 has a calibre listing on the dial of 7019-8030R but on the case back it says 7019-8010!! Like a mis-printed coin, is this watch therefore worth a lot of money for its rarity?? 🤪😲🤔🤪
    • I wish that was the case. The Aegler movements used in the early days by Wilsdorf & Davis (for brands like Rolex and Rolco) came in several sizes and without designated calibre numbers that survive.  They become a bit easier to identify during the 1920s. Below is an Aegler-Rebberg, 25.74mm in diameter. It’s from a woman’s Rolex wristwatch. Stamped Rebberg and 500 on the dial plate (but it isn’t a Rebberg 500, it’s the wrong size).  I’d be interested if anyone can identify the movement.  It is based off the Aegler Nr.1, circa 1903, but they based many many calibres of different sizes on it. The closest I have to a positive ID is the  ‘Rolex Nr.50’ circa 1917, but no dial side images or movement sizes are available in the references. There are identical looking movements in many sizes.  The 25.74mm of this movement is a particularly strange size for the era, it equates to 11.41 lignes.      Best Regards, Mark
    • It looks like this movement comes with a number of different shock settings. Emmywatch shows that it comes in versions with no shock settings, 'Incabloc', 'shock resist', and 'Supershock'. Perhaps the different settings position the impulse jewel/roller table in a non-ideal position relative to the pallet fork/guard pin. Are you able to check under high magnification if the pallet fork and roller table are able to operate without any interference? Just for fun I took a look and I have one FHF 70 in my collection, a West End Secundus with a non-shock protected FHF70. I had a note with the watch that said, "Movement is stamped 'FHF 70', but the FHF70 looks to have sub-seconds instead of center seconds movement (??)" but that a google search turned up both types for this movement. EDIT: I just took a look in my parts drawer and I have a few of these movements, both in center seconds and sweep seconds, but they all are non-shock protected.  
    • Any info on this watch would help. I know that it's sterling from London but I could not match the o letter date or make out makers mark.  Is the movement maker Camberwell or Lamberwell?   If I give it a twist it will run for about ten seconds.  $45 yard sale find.  I don't think that I want to service a fusee.  What quality is it?
×
×
  • Create New...