Hunt for (a bit) more amplitude - Rolex 2135

[Neverenoughwatches]

Just now, Neverenoughwatches said:

at Rolex?? 

I see that now.

[Knebo]

1 minute ago, Neverenoughwatches said:

how old is the watch ? I wonder what Rolex actually made before they bought out who they used.

I would need to check the serial number again, but it's definitely from the late 80s or 90s.

2 minutes ago, JohnR725 said:

Yes that can be a truthful statements but it also brings up a problem from the image below

Is now past my bedtime and I'm tired I was trying to go to bed earlier this week so much for that dream is I need to get up really early on Saturday and I like to be awake when I go to the meeting I'm going to. Which is interesting meeting as many many years ago at this meeting of watchmakers hobbyists and professional somebody showed how to replace a balance staff in a Rolex where the collet cannot be removed. That by the way would explain why the balance staff is available of course the problem was he at all kinds of fancy tools well not so much fancy but had tools you don't have so yes it can be replaced but probably isn't practical for you.

Yes, somewhat contradictory if the staff is available individually. As you say, it can probably be changed, but only with special tools at Rolex. Not for me for sure.

 

Have a good night!!

[JohnR725]

5 minutes ago, Knebo said:

but only with special tools at Rolex. Not for me for sure.

Must not have been much demand for this balance staff at Rolex headquarters which would explain why there so many on eBay right now.

But you would still need some tools like a staking set which you probably don't have and? I'll do a little research for you I think this one can be changed some of the other ones still can be changed and not necessarily at the factory they can be changed in the field but you do require some tools and things you probably don't have. In fact that's guaranteed this is watch repair none of us have all the tools we need to always be something.

[Knebo]

1 hour ago, JohnR725 said:

Must not have been much demand for this balance staff at Rolex headquarters which would explain why there so many on eBay right now

hahahaha. I also doubt that they go through the trouble at HQ -- I'm sure they have sufficient supply of balance complete 

1 hour ago, JohnR725 said:

But you would still need some tools like a staking set which you probably don't have and? I'll do a little research for you I think this one can be changed some of the other ones still can be changed and not necessarily at the factory they can be changed in the field but you do require some tools and things you probably don't have. In fact that's guaranteed this is watch repair none of us have all the tools we need to always be something

I do have a nice Boley staking set. But still, please do research on it; rather use your time for better things (including sleeping) -- I'm definitely not touching this balance staff.

[eccentric59]

Two simple tests. With the shock spring closed, take an oiler or  pegwood and lightly touch the jewel (and only the jewel) at the point indicated.

 

If the oil bubble grows or moves, then the jewel is not sitting flat. Second "test" is really just an observation. With the movement running, does the pivot move around inside the hole or does it stay in the same position as shown. If the former, then you're fine, if not it may be touching the cap stone which means you don't have enough end shake (if any).

[Knebo]

21 minutes ago, eccentric59 said:

Two simple tests. With the shock spring closed, take an oiler or  pegwood and lightly touch the jewel (and only the jewel) at the point indicated.

 

If the oil bubble grows or moves, then the jewel is not sitting flat. Second "test" is really just an observation. With the movement running, does the pivot move around inside the hole or does it stay in the same position as shown. If the former, then you're fine, if not it may be touching the cap stone which means you don't have enough end shake (if any).

Thanks! This is useful!!

As for Test No2, I can already answer that it does NOT move around... I had taken a video of that a few days ago.

I also just went back to some pictures I took when the cap jewel was removed. I'm posting it below. Due to the top-down perspective, it's not easy to see if the pivot is sticking out, but it may well be the case....

By the way, this would also explain why the same issue is observed on BOTH sides of the movement.

If that's the issue, how do I move the jewel?? I have some little experience with "regular" friction fit hole jewels, but not with entire settings. Would I try to push the whole setting? EDIT: As I am thinking about it, this is a silly question. Of course, it would have to be the whole setting.

 

 

Edited February 8 by Knebo

[tomh207]

About the mainspring, if the general ressorts one is the same thickness as the original then it should be of comparable strength. If I’m wrong I’m sure the professional’s will educate us both. It may simply be that the GS spring is just a little thinner than a Rolex original. Everything else you have shown looks very good. Personally, though not by any means expert, is you have met the Rolex criteria for proper function and timekeeping as folks have alluded too earlier, I would call it good and not go further for fear of introducing problems by chasing imaginary errors.

 

Tom

[Knebo]

3 minutes ago, tomh207 said:

Personally, though not by any means expert, is you have met the Rolex criteria for proper function and timekeeping as folks have alluded too earlier, I would call it good and not go further for fear of introducing problems by chasing imaginary errors.

 

Tom

That's also a wise thought...! Thanks.

 

[eccentric59]

16 minutes ago, Knebo said:

If that's the issue, how do I move the jewel??

Before you go moving jewels, the easiest test would be to place a small piece of foil under the bridge that holds the escape wheel.  If the bubble moves and the amplitude increases, then you can think about a permanent fix.

[Knebo]

3 minutes ago, eccentric59 said:

Before you go moving jewels, the easiest test would be to place a small piece of foil under the bridge that holds the escape wheel.  If the bubble moves and the amplitude increases, then you can think about a permanent fix.

That's a great idea! I'll try that!

[mikepilk]

20 hours ago, nickelsilver said:

But he also said they don't all hit 270+ full wind minus an hour. What they do do  (gross!) is keep time really well. Your 24h amps are great and within spec, I would let this one go.

I think that this should be our motto.

It's the time keeping that counts. 

Edited February 8 by mikepilk
typo

[Nucejoe]

On 2/7/2024 at 8:29 PM, Knebo said:

What do you think? Am I over-thinking? Have you ever seen anything like this?

As long as you don't get a headache, your not overthinking. 

Your post made me think for the first time in life, and thought of a question/ test.  

If you were to turn chaton+end stone assembly  around by 180 degrees, would the oil migrate to other side? 

I agree with your point,   whats eating amplitude, might a friction and cause wear in long run.

Good luck in your pursuit of excellence.

 

 

[JohnR725]

6 hours ago, Knebo said:

I do have a nice Boley staking set. But still, please do research on it; rather use your time for better things (including sleeping) -- I'm definitely not touching this balance staff.

Then you accept that you will have possibly issues and I think that I will leave it at the mystery of how to change the balance staff which yes can be changed. Oh and yes you shouldn't practice learning how to do balance staffs on a watch that the balance complete cost more than the gross national product of some small countries.

 

4 hours ago, tomh207 said:

About the mainspring, if the general ressorts one is the same thickness as the original then it should be of comparable strength. If I’m wrong I’m sure the professional’s will educate us both. It may simply be that the GS spring is just a little thinner than a Rolex original.

The problem with a little thinner is it to be a little bit weaker. Irony posted that Rolex had two separate springs for this watch the standard spring and a slightly weaker spring. Obviously they were concerned about too much amplitude. One of the problems I have with the general's mainsprings are in the case of my pocket watch springs which are aftermarket springs of course I'm noticing the quality doesn't seem to be there on a continuous basis. I have to remove the mainsprings from the ring to insert them into the pocket watch because the various ends they have and that allows me to see the back curve of the spring and often times that totally sucks or the spring even looks partially set and those things would definitely affect the running of a watch. Typically on the wrist watches you just push it in and assume that it meets the specifications and you never see the back curve or the actual  of it. Which brings up the problem of we don't have some magical test of mainspring efficiency. In other words we can't put the mainspring barrel of the machine wind it up and measure how much torque to know if it's doing its thing. Yes that's another tool to buy I've seen a picture of the thing I'm sure none of us could afford it gets more of a factory thing so if the mainspring isn't right than the powers not right the power curve's not right and people might be unhappy because her amplitude sucks all because the mainspring isn't right. Even if the numbers seem right

37 minutes ago, Nucejoe said:

I agree with your point,   whats eating amplitude, might a friction and cause wear in long run.

On paper this looks wonderful except? We still have no way of measuring if we have the proper power out of the mainspring barrel. Then we run into all kinds of other problems of well basically everything we don't know how the watch was cleaned we didn't hear what lubrication's were used and yes lubrication especially on the escapement is a key place more key than anything else in the watch we didn't get any of that and we have to assume that end shake was right because I asked but others are indicating maybe it's wrong?

Oh and thinking about the wear and tear issue when was this watch last serviced? Because if this watch has a faulty situation which is causing the low amplitude it seems like a wearing of the pivots or whatever should have been visually noticeable?

Then the other test is how many hours does the watch run until it comes to a stop?

[Neverenoughwatches]

37 minutes ago, JohnR725 said:

Yes that's another tool to buy I've seen a picture of the thing I'm sure none of us could afford it gets more of a factory thing 

Funny you should say that i found one for sale about a year ago , Nicklesilver had to explain what it was.

[Knebo]

2 hours ago, Nucejoe said:

As long as you don't get a headache, your not overthinking. 

I DO have one! 

2 hours ago, Nucejoe said:

Good luck in your pursuit of excellence.

Thank you very much! 

2 hours ago, Nucejoe said:

you were to turn chaton+end stone assembly  around by 180 degrees, would the oil migrate to other side? 

That seems like a big and somewhat risky operation only to test if it's an issue at all 

 

 

1 hour ago, JohnR725 said:

we don't know how the watch was cleaned we didn't hear what lubrication's were used and yes lubrication especially on the escapement is a key place more key than anything else in the watch we didn't get any of that and we have to assume that end shake was right because I asked but others are indicating maybe it's wrong?

Oh, sorry about that. I thought I went through all messages and responded to everything, but I missed that one. 

Balance and escape wheel capped jewel settings: 9010

Pallet fork: 9415

Train wheels: HP1000

Barrel arbor and pivots: HP1300

Breaking grease: 8217.

While I can't show it all, I'm very confident that quantities are correct. 

Cleaning: L&R cleaning solution (one cycle) and rinsing solution (two cycles) in my ultrasonic. 8min for each cycle. 

For reference, I followed the same process for a Rolex 2035 and a 3135 in the last two months. Both get up to 290-310° amplitude at full wind. 

 

Regarding the end shake, I did check, but also said that I don't have much experience in "feeling microns". The balance wheel endshake is fine for sure (I adjusted it up and down and back to original setting via the adjustment screw). The main suspect here is the escape wheel with it's capped jewels and I'll admit that the recent thinking of the group is making me unsure of my initial assessment. 

 

Edited February 8 by Knebo

[Knebo]

Quick update:

On 2/8/2024 at 4:27 PM, eccentric59 said:

Before you go moving jewels, the easiest test would be to place a small piece of foil under the bridge that holds the escape wheel.  If the bubble moves and the amplitude increases, then you can think about a permanent fix

I shimmed the train bridge and it changed nothing. So, in other words, the endshake on the escape wheel should be sufficient.

 

On 2/8/2024 at 3:57 PM, eccentric59 said:

Two simple tests. With the shock spring closed, take an oiler or  pegwood and lightly touch the jewel (and only the jewel) at the point indicated.

 

I also pushed on the side of the  cap jewel to see if the oil migrates -- and it does not. The cap jewel sits firmly in the setting.

 

 

Edited February 9 by Knebo

[eccentric59]

1 hour ago, Knebo said:

Quick update:

I shimmed the train bridge and it changed nothing. So, in other words, the endshake on the escape wheel should be sufficient.

 

I also pushed on the side of the  cap jewel to see if the oil migrates -- and it does not. The cap jewel sits firmly in the setting.

 

 

Then I'd say you're looking for squirrels in a Baobob (barking up the wrong tree  ) 

This is why amplitude is a range and not a target. Think of it like blood pressure ... as long as you are within the over/under, there's no need to call the doctor.

[Neverenoughwatches]

2 hours ago, Knebo said:

Quick update:

I shimmed the train bridge and it changed nothing. So, in other words, the endshake on the escape wheel should be sufficient.

 

I also pushed on the side of the  cap jewel to see if the oil migrates -- and it does not. The cap jewel sits firmly in the setting.

 

 

Let it go mate, just let it go

[mikepilk]

I don't know if this has been mentioned, but -

Did you check the barrel arbor for free movment , and check the barrel lid is not concave, i.e. pushing on the spring. It's an easy way to lose amplitude, and a lot of us will miss it. I certainly have. Spent ages checking and rechecking the gear train/escapement, when it's a bent lid I missed. 

1 hour ago, eccentric59 said:

This is why amplitude is a range and not a target. Think of it like blood pressure ... as long as you are within the over/under, there's no need to call the doctor.

But I suspects @Knebo's blood pressure is dangerously close to the high end 

[eccentric59]

25 minutes ago, mikepilk said:

But I suspects @Knebo's blood pressure is dangerously close to the high end 

That's from having your mainspring wound too tight.

[Knebo]

1 hour ago, Neverenoughwatches said:

Let it go mate, just let it go

Yes, I shall!

I've taken apart the gear train again and there's absolutely nothing wrong. I also re-oiled all jewel settings. Same results as before.

 

59 minutes ago, mikepilk said:

id you check the barrel arbor for free movment , and check the barrel lid is not concave, i.e. pushing on the spring. It's an easy way to lose amplitude, and a lot of us will miss i

That's a good point. It looks all good, though.

 

 

1 hour ago, mikepilk said:

But I suspects @Knebo's blood pressure is dangerously close to the high end

34 minutes ago, eccentric59 said:

That's from having your mainspring wound too tight

Hahahaha, you guys make me laugh! Thanks for that! I needed that.

You know, I went into this hobby because when I'm working on a watch, it's like meditation for me. I forget the stress at work etc. 

But working on this Rolex made me see another side of it and of myself -- the obsessive side. And that's not healthy indeed.

I'll let it go.

I'll celebrate that it runs 100% within the Rolex factory specifications. Beyond that, it's really overthinking.

Thank you all for bearing with me!!!

[Neverenoughwatches]

10 minutes ago, Knebo said:

the obsessive side. And that's not healthy indeed.

I'll let it go.

i say this a lot. Its good to have a conscientious attitude, try not to let obsession take over. Some things you have to let go, you'd kick yourself if you slipped up while looking at another area of improvement. 

[JohnR725]

2 hours ago, eccentric59 said:

This is why amplitude is a range and not a target.

Actually it's why the watch companies specify a minimum amplitude at 24 hours. If you're amplitude totally sucked because of gremlins Or UFO abductions of your amplitude then you wouldn't get the minimum amplitude at 24 hours. So there is a target to be higher than 200° at 24 hours.

Yesterday I was looking at a Rolex discussion group somebody was upset their amplitude sucked where of I heard that before? It had just been serviced by the service center and they weren't happy and feel other people in the group seemed to think the amplitude sucked. Then along came those silly Rolex people that were authorized to work on Rolex watches or watchmakers or other silly people and they gave us this image from the idiots at Rolex because Rolex isn't specifying that magic number that we need

Oh dear as I said Rolex are idiots or are they? The assumption on the group is that my watches start off with the amplitude of 1000 to make up for imperfections not running efficiently etc. so that 24 hours later it might be hopping along at 200+ degrees. As opposed to if your mainspring is shaped properly your watch conceivably could maintain a nice amplitude which by the way is much better for timekeeping over the first 24 hours and just have that number above 200 and the silly notion is should keep time.

So to a certain degree the obsessed people want to have 300° plus which by the way is a bad thing for other reasons hoping that you'll still have your 200 at the end of 24 hours well that would indicate your watch has a problem you shouldn't have to start off with a super high amplitude and hopefully try to get your 200 at the end. So a certain degree looking at this all wrong and backwards.

Oh and I would suggest you should never work on an Omega watch because they will actually take lower amplitudes at 24 hours I'd have to go look at spec sheets and I think they might take 160 and yes that would probably be very upsetting for people on this group that the watch was doing hundred and 60 and still keeping time so I would stay away from crappy Omega's who can still keep time at low amplitudes

1 hour ago, mikepilk said:

Did you check the barrel arbor for free movment , and check the barrel lid is not concave, i.e. pushing on the spring. It's an easy way to lose amplitude, and a lot of us will miss it. I certainly have. Spent ages checking and rechecking the gear train/escapement, when it's a bent lid I missed. 

I thought there was an indication that he had a service manual? Yes if you scour the Internet you can get them or you can purchase them on the eBay there a bit pricey is a seller in Italy that likes to sell Rolex manuals so yes they are available. The reason I bring this up is for those of you who haven't seen a Rolex service manual the rather detailed and providing our OCD obsessed person was following his manual he when I got to this page. Rolex does unfortunately like Omega leave things out of the manuals because you're supposed to have the supplemental manuals which are even harder to get. But still I think it's pretty detailed of the mainspring barrel checking.

2 minutes ago, Knebo said:

the obsessive side

We end up with a interesting problem here. Yes I can understand the obsession and watch repair my obsessions sent me eventually to the hospital -2/3 of my blood with bleeding ulcers. So I try not to get obsessed well I try is an ongoing process. But?

So in thinking about this I'm going to come up with a new term for us a new specification that you must strive for or else. The new specification is what I'm not call the phantoms specifications? Phantoms specifications are obsessions of watchmakers who perceive a watch should have a certain specification that the watch company does not specify. So in this case you're phantoms specification is that my Rolex has to run at 300+ degrees or I will not be happy but who cares whether it meets the actual Rolex specifications are not.

So the problem with our phantoms specifications are as it's not specified anywhere in the universe you would really need to get more of the identical Rolex watch to compare all of them and see if any of them meet your phantoms specifications. In other words you have to define these specifications and verify that the majority of watches exceed or equal whatever specification you're striving for. Although we do know that Rolex does specify a weaker mainsprings so yes some of them can have too much power. Conceivably which you might find if we could gather enough watches the majority of them would fit in a specific range of this is their amplitude fully wound up. Conceivably some of them might actually have high amplitudes which is why they have the weaker mainspring. Then there is going to be on the percentage some of them a little or but Rolex doesn't care as long as it meets the specifications of 24 hours.Oh and of course the other one would be does the watch run for the required 48 I believe ours? If it does the watches fine and is running efficiently the watchmaker is not.

 

 

 

 

[Klassiker]

I just aim for 220 deg. in all positions from fully wound to fully unwound. Makes life a lot simpler.

[Neverenoughwatches]

14 hours ago, JohnR725 said:

Actually it's why the watch companies specify a minimum amplitude at 24 hours. If you're amplitude totally sucked because of gremlins Or UFO abductions of your amplitude then you wouldn't get the minimum amplitude at 24 hours. So there is a target to be higher than 200° at 24 hours.

Yesterday I was looking at a Rolex discussion group somebody was upset their amplitude sucked where of I heard that before? It had just been serviced by the service center and they weren't happy and feel other people in the group seemed to think the amplitude sucked. Then along came those silly Rolex people that were authorized to work on Rolex watches or watchmakers or other silly people and they gave us this image from the idiots at Rolex because Rolex isn't specifying that magic number that we need

Oh dear as I said Rolex are idiots or are they? The assumption on the group is that my watches start off with the amplitude of 1000 to make up for imperfections not running efficiently etc. so that 24 hours later it might be hopping along at 200+ degrees. As opposed to if your mainspring is shaped properly your watch conceivably could maintain a nice amplitude which by the way is much better for timekeeping over the first 24 hours and just have that number above 200 and the silly notion is should keep time.

So to a certain degree the obsessed people want to have 300° plus which by the way is a bad thing for other reasons hoping that you'll still have your 200 at the end of 24 hours well that would indicate your watch has a problem you shouldn't have to start off with a super high amplitude and hopefully try to get your 200 at the end. So a certain degree looking at this all wrong and backwards.

Oh and I would suggest you should never work on an Omega watch because they will actually take lower amplitudes at 24 hours I'd have to go look at spec sheets and I think they might take 160 and yes that would probably be very upsetting for people on this group that the watch was doing hundred and 60 and still keeping time so I would stay away from crappy Omega's who can still keep time at low amplitudes

I thought there was an indication that he had a service manual? Yes if you scour the Internet you can get them or you can purchase them on the eBay there a bit pricey is a seller in Italy that likes to sell Rolex manuals so yes they are available. The reason I bring this up is for those of you who haven't seen a Rolex service manual the rather detailed and providing our OCD obsessed person was following his manual he when I got to this page. Rolex does unfortunately like Omega leave things out of the manuals because you're supposed to have the supplemental manuals which are even harder to get. But still I think it's pretty detailed of the mainspring barrel checking.

We end up with a interesting problem here. Yes I can understand the obsession and watch repair my obsessions sent me eventually to the hospital -2/3 of my blood with bleeding ulcers. So I try not to get obsessed well I try is an ongoing process. But?

So in thinking about this I'm going to come up with a new term for us a new specification that you must strive for or else. The new specification is what I'm not call the phantoms specifications? Phantoms specifications are obsessions of watchmakers who perceive a watch should have a certain specification that the watch company does not specify. So in this case you're phantoms specification is that my Rolex has to run at 300+ degrees or I will not be happy but who cares whether it meets the actual Rolex specifications are not.

So the problem with our phantoms specifications are as it's not specified anywhere in the universe you would really need to get more of the identical Rolex watch to compare all of them and see if any of them meet your phantoms specifications. In other words you have to define these specifications and verify that the majority of watches exceed or equal whatever specification you're striving for. Although we do know that Rolex does specify a weaker mainsprings so yes some of them can have too much power. Conceivably which you might find if we could gather enough watches the majority of them would fit in a specific range of this is their amplitude fully wound up. Conceivably some of them might actually have high amplitudes which is why they have the weaker mainspring. Then there is going to be on the percentage some of them a little or but Rolex doesn't care as long as it meets the specifications of 24 hours.Oh and of course the other one would be does the watch run for the required 48 I believe ours? If it does the watches fine and is running efficiently the watchmaker is not.

 

 

 

 

So to sum up, strive towards restoring a movement so that it has low friction from barrel to balance that enables adequate consistent amplitude to maintain accurate timekeeping over a reasonable practical length of time.

Edited February 10 by Neverenoughwatches