Jump to content

Movement "suddenly" stopped working after dial switch


Recommended Posts

So the scenario is that I am quite new to watch repair and have managed to take apart and repair a few vintage watches, so got a basic understanding of things, but no where near pro level.
I was to help out a friend to do a simple dial switch on a relative new GMT movement, not sure which one it is as there are no serials etc. on it.
When I was taking it apart everything looked good and it ran like it should. The new dial had four dial pins, and I needed to get rid of two of them to make the dial fit. So after a few weeks when I received the file I was able to make it flush and could put the dial on the movement. However, this is where the problem begun. 
At this stage I tried to wind it up to see that It worked properly and that the balance was moving nicely etc. But when winding it, it felt strange somehow. And the balance doesn't move by itself, just for a few sec when I'm blowing some air on it. I thought maybe there are some GMT special setting (as the winding stem can be pushed in slightly) that made the movement stop first, but can't seem to find any support when searching google for that. 

I recorded a video of it, mostly to show the sound as I was hoping someone could tell if it is supposed to sound like that or if there are some clue that could be found in the troubleshooting. Not sure what else has gone wrong. I've been gently when working on it, but maybe not gently enough...? 

Any tip would be appreciated!

Link to the video 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi. I take it you took off the dial and tried again, if so what is likely to have happened is a displaced keyless work.  You will need to remove the calendar complication to be able to see the works and discern the problem.  A picture of the watch without the date ring would be useful as members can see what you have got and offer advise. Cheers

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, watchweasol said:

Hi. I take it you took off the dial and tried again, if so what is likely to have happened is a displaced keyless work.  You will need to remove the calendar complication to be able to see the works and discern the problem.  A picture of the watch without the date ring would be useful as members can see what you have got and offer advise. Cheers

Thank you for your replay! I put up some photos of it without the calander ring, hope it helps! 

011011722(1).jpg

011011722(0).jpg

011011722(2).jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you look at the intermediate wheel between the hour wheel and the date driving wheel it looks like it is upside down. It may be the angle but it looks like the pinion should be downward to engage the tenth of the date drive wheel. This could be pressed by the dial and therefore stopping the motion works.

 

Tom

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Also, the missing intermediate wheel is on back side of the plate among other wheels! 

 

unnamed (1).jpg

unnamed.jpg

20 minutes ago, tomh207 said:

If you look at the intermediate wheel between the hour wheel and the date driving wheel it looks like it is upside down. It may be the angle but it looks like the pinion should be downward to engage the tenth of the date drive wheel. This could be pressed by the dial and therefore stopping the motion works.

 

Tom

Thank you! I'll take a look at that when I get home soon! 

47 minutes ago, tomh207 said:

If you look at the intermediate wheel between the hour wheel and the date driving wheel it looks like it is upside down. It may be the angle but it looks like the pinion should be downward to engage the tenth of the date drive wheel. This could be pressed by the dial and therefore stopping the motion works.

 

Tom

Never seen a third layer of teeth before but there you go. So that shouldn't be the cause of the problem, seem to work as it should!

20230311_131637.JPG

It seems to be working after a few winds for a couple of seconds, and then come to a stop. Mainspring issue? Gah, really would like to avoid taking it apart.

 

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

    • 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 
    • Hi.  I would like to take issue here regarding battery driven , watches, clocks,etc. I will and do repair these clocks in fact I have sever al in my collection as well as the regular mechanical ones. I have one on my mantle piece over 60 years old tha belonged to my wife’s Aunt,  long gone Iam afraid and it has been cleaned etc and never missed a beat and is accurate. Every one has their preduices as regards Electrical /electronic Horology but I regard it as part of the progress time line of the art of Horology and to be treated as such. Like Darwin’s theory of evolution it evolved.  Two cavemen knocking rocks together and a shard broke off , looking at it he worked out if it was stuck on the end of a stick he would have a spear. Likewise his pal seeing what he was up to picked up a piece  and did the same, now that’s evolution. Some clockmaker decided to build a clock that ran with a battery and no spring to wind up and break, progress and both the mechanical and battery driven clocks evolved, the battery ones got better to the point that if it broke you changed the complete unit. Likewise watches did the same but both can be repaired by people who approach Horology with an open mind without preduice.  We all have our likes and dislikes bu I for one would never dismiss any technology because I don’t like it.   The mobile phone is a good example of modern technology at work as is the automotive industry. There buttons and switches in my car I don’t use because to me they are not nesessary but I still drive the car.
    • I haven't gone through all the reading of what it might be or not. The first thing I would do if nothing obvious stands out is replace the mainspring, you have to start at the source of the power. Nine times out of ten that is the problem.  
×
×
  • Create New...