Jump to content

Please point me in the right direction.


Recommended Posts

Hello Everyone,

I came here because I figured this would be the right place for my newbie questions. I don't have much knowledge of watch repair, I am looking for some kind of manuals or catalogues where I can find watch parts dimensions of high-end watches Rolex, etc... I am in the business of custom watch accessories ex. bezels, bands etc..and I am looking for information like inner and outer dimensions of a bezel, link sizes and thickness for different models of particular brands. Any help is appreciated.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, superdarkhorse said:

Rolex

I'm reasonably sure Rolex never published for the general public any technical specifications about anything they ever made. That's because they get really excited about anyone who even thinks about copying anything they ever made.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, JohnR725 said:

I'm reasonably sure Rolex never published for the general public any technical specifications about anything they ever made. That's because they get really excited about anyone who even thinks about copying anything they ever made.

I've been reading recently about the movement manufacturer Aegler that made movements for Rolex and Gruen and then exclusively for Rolex. It seems Rolex had a very firm hold of how Aegler operated. Even to the extent of having their name front and center on their advertising pictures of Aegler's factory. Gruen also did this in their adverts. The same factory with two different brand names shown. One reason i noticed that some rolex and gruen movements are identical. Rolex 🤔 maybe not so "The big I am ".  Rolex eventually bought the company in 2004.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Neverenoughwatches said:

gruen movements are identical. Rolex

Yes I've heard the same story in the early days they purchased movements. But supposedly now it's all in-house And if it's not in-house and you talk about it men in black will come and take you away and you'll change Your story shortly Or you'll never be seen ever again.

 

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, JohnR725 said:

Yes I've heard the same story in the early days they purchased movements. But supposedly now it's all in-house And if it's not in-house and you talk about it men in black will come and take you away and you'll change Your story shortly Or you'll never be seen ever again.

 

Haha i will wait for the black Hummers to roll up my driveway and Rolex's swat team to abseil from a circling helicopter.

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.

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

    • The Chaika 1601A bridge styles look more like something from an earlier time. It is also finished relatively well for the 1980s, as a lot of manufacturers by then had started a race to the bottom in terms of finishing and materials as a result of the quartz crisis. If you compare it with a comparable Swiss movement from the same period, you will find they have much less elaborate bridges, and other cost cutting measures. Straight cut bridges with no bevel on the edges are much cheaper and simpler to produce than the curved bridges of the Chaika 1601A. They even went to the trouble of stamping a serial number on the movement. A practice which only the higher end Swiss manufacturers were bothering with by this point. The Chaika 1601A does have a relatively cheap balance though. The 'timing screws' in the balance are for decoration only. Having said all that, the USSR caliber designs were fairly conservative, and produced for relatively long periods. This was partly as a result of the command economy, which tended to lead to relatively little innovation in design, and partly because they weren't chasing after the fickle flights of fashion that arguably drove some of the changes from other manufacturers. Some of the USSR designs were licensed or even "borrowed" from Swiss and French designs.   For example I have a Sekonda pocket watch (which may be the next one on the bench for a clean and service). It has a Chelyabinsk Watch Factory "Molnija" 3602 caliber in it, which was based on a Cortébert movement used in Swiss watches from around 1940. Here is one of the examples from Ranfft. You can see that it is similar to the Chailka with curved bridges. They even had Breguet over coil hairsprings and "Geneva" striping. Some had shock protection, some did not.   The Sekonda is in its original 1980s plastic presentation box, complete with "manufacturers guarantee" (although Sekonda obviously didn't manufacture it). This same Molnija  movement was produced in the Chelyabinsk Watch Factory with little change, except notably in the level of finishing, from around 1947 until the early 2000s when production ceased. For comparison, here is a Swiss ST96 from around the same period. Smaller jewels, flat and unrefined finishing, and all in all, a little bit lacklustre. .. and a Rolex 600 from around 1922   The Chaika, despite being from the 1980s, to my eye at least, looks a little closer to the Rolex than the ST96  
    • Elaborate on this statement. What sorts of things define calibers from different decades? The only thing I can think of short of the pocket to wrist watch shift around WWI and quartz is shock settings starting... late-40s, early-50s?
    • I'm not sure who "we" is as I'm not a part of how "we" do it. Most of "us" develop their own method(s). Please re-read what has been said;  
    • Nice one Andy- a very ‘blingy’ 404 with all those jewels…
    • It's a matter of preference really. You should keep the #5 aside and just use them for fine hairspring work though; otherwise they will end up damaged and be useless for that. Some like #1, some #2, some #3 for general work. Some use brass or nickel tweezers for general work- this is good as they are less likely to scratch delicate parts, and are much "grippier". On that note, the finer the tweezer, the more likely it will be to want to launch parts.   I have a bunch of nickel tweezers that have been retouched so many times they are like 30% shorter than new. Those become handy for when you need very strong tweezers- just used a pair to unscrew the bond from inside a floating barrel. My general use tweezers the last few years are a couple of pair of #5 that have been sharpened enough times that the ends are now very strong; useless for hairspring work, great for general work. These are Dumont Dumostar, which is a much more tough alloy than the Dumoxel, and less brittle than their carbon steel ones.
×
×
  • Create New...