Jump to content

Dumont 5Ti tweezer review


Recommended Posts

I bought these to work on Accutrons because the are non magnetic.  I have many tweezers which I inherited and most are Dumont.  I have two #3s I use daily--a sharp pair and a dull pair.  Sharp ones for delicate work and the dull pair to muscle things around (bending, shoving, etc.).  I love them both...very delicate feel that suits me.  I bought a new pair of Dumont 3C last year and was disappointed with the feel.  Harder to squeeze...I was too accustomed to my old Dumonts.

I bought a cheap pair of Ti tweezers earlier this year.  They are not sharp, have hard feel and just not all that useful.

So, I was skeptical when I purchased the Dumont 5Ti.  Figured they would disappoint.  Well, they did not.  After one full day of use working on an Accutron, I am very happy with them.  Delicate touch, sharp, and light.  I would be happier if they were heavier, but they are Titanium, duh.

So I highly recommend the Dumont 5Ti tweezers.

  • Like 1
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

    • 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?
    • Hello As I am learning, does anyone have any recommendations  on Repair and sourcing in Gold Coast, Qld, Australia ? eg old Seiko coil 4002920 Thanks. Cheers, Ken
    • Is this what all you're looking for? 
×
×
  • Create New...