Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Once a movement has the dial and hands put back and it is recased, would you expect the assembled watch to have the same amplitude as when the movement is in a movement holder and is without hands and dial? Thanks

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes.

If that's not what you are experiencing...start looking for something rubbing. A 1st guess is that one of the hands is rubbing against the hole in the center of the dial.

Especially if you now have lower amplitude in face up/ face down positions.

Edited by Randy55
needed to add more info
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, OceanSprint said:

would you expect the assembled watch to have the same amplitude as when the movement is in a movement holder and is without hands and dial?

in general this shouldn't be any change. but in general questions like this it be nice to know the specifics of the watch in other words how was it performing before it was cased up and what is it doing now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, OceanSprint said:

Once a movement has the dial and hands put back and it is recased, would you expect the assembled watch to have the same amplitude as when the movement is in a movement holder and is without hands and dial? Thanks

Something rubbing with the movement of the hands, dial center hole, hands on glass. Motion works rubbing , hour or minute wheel, calander in the process of changing over ?

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

    • Yes and no. I use Moebius 9501 synthetic grease and it is significantly runnier than the Moebius 9504 synthetic grease (and I assume Molykote DX) that I previously used. I haven't seen 9504 spread and it is in my opinion the best grease money can buy. However, my current method of cleaning doesn't remove it from the parts, so that's why I have decided to use the 9501 instead. I believe I read somewhere that Molykote DX too is difficult to clean off. Thinking about it, I'm pretty sure my 9501 grease which expired in June 2022 is runnier now than it was when it was new, but whether new or old it always needs to be stirred before use. So, that's why I treat the parts of the keyless works, cannon pinion, etc. with epilame. That was very thoughtful of you and something that had completely passed me by. Not sure what the epilame will do when it wears off in a non-oiled hole. Anyone?
    • Hi not found one either yet,  close relative is the 436 and 4361 according to ranff.db.   It gives quire a lot of detail but not as good as the old site.      RANFF.DB.
    • No problem to replace the setting with the staking set. Press the new setting from inside, use flat face punch with hole. The punch must be wider than the setting, the hole to be as not to press at the stone, but only on the bush. Press by hand until the setting gets flush with the plate surface, so the punch must rest on it.
    • Yes, the arbor usually makes about 3 to 3.5 turns. But usually spring takes 2/3 to 3/4 of the free space in barrel, not 1/2, so take it for the calcullations. This way the change in torque is smaller. I have a picture for You, this one is little older, but no mater
    • I overhauled a ladies Rolex and noticed erratic performance so I stripped in down again and did fault finding. This is what I saw. The lower jewel (the one in the plate) is cracked and the hole is too big. Before discovering this, I stripped down and re-cleaned the main-plate (and parts) by hand with a fine natural fiber brush. I somehow missed the fault the first time and cannot understand how it was still running. Perhaps re-cleaning it dislodged some pieces of the jewel widening the hole? I don't know. Now I need to replace the jewel but don't have a Seitz tool. The Rolex part is 2130-0913 and the top and bottom are the same. The part comes complete in brass setting with KIF elastor spring and cap jewel. Note: I have never replaced a jewel. I do have a good vintage stacking set that I've used quite a bit.  Can I replace using a stacking set? Any suggestions would be greatly appreciated.  
×
×
  • Create New...