Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted

IMG_4286.thumb.jpg.b620dbb5accefbb999559ac1e0b60272.jpg
Yet another Rolex has landed on my bench — this time a Sea-Dweller, ref. 16600, equipped with the trusty calibre 3135, the same calibre as the last one I worked on. The time and date settings are completely dead. I guess the yoke has slipped out of engagement with the sliding pinion. It remains to be investigated. If that is the case, it certainly makes you wonder how it can occur, considering the outstanding quality of these movements. Perhaps it was subjected to trauma? Perhaps a sloppy assembly of the keyless works?

RateAmpBE.jpg.7582b30fc3ba68fd3402e1728b9388d7.jpg
However, it is running very well. A you can see, the maximum delta is seven seconds. The maximum acceptable delta for this movement, as specified by Rolex, is 10 seconds. The average rate fully wound in five positions (crown down, left, up, dial up, and dial down) is 1.8 seconds per day. The rate tolerance as specified by Rolex is -2/+4 s/d. So it's all looking pretty perfect.

What's very strange, though, and something I can't get my head around, is that the first time I measured it on my timing machine, fully wound (I could hear the mainspring slip in small steps while being wound), it performed quite poorly. The rates and beat errors were fine, but the horizontal amplitudes were around 235°, and the vertical amplitudes were all below 200°, which is the minimum amplitude as specified by Rolex after 24h. Performing that poorly, being fully wound, I felt it wasn't much use to measure it again after 24h. However, to be thorough, I nevertheless did and to my astonishment, I got the results as seen in the table above - "Fully wound minus 24h (Not Serviced)" - At that point, I decided to give the watch another full wind and take another measurement, and I got the results as seen in the above table - "Fully wound (Not Serviced)". If anyone has any idea about why I got such a poor performance the first time around, please let me know!

Capjeweloil.thumb.jpg.05399f0c81d6d09323f13087f2f4f474.jpg

As can be seen, the oil beneath the cap jewel is noticeably depleting. If it wasn't for the faulty date and time setting, I think this amazing watch could have been left alone for another year or two, but considering it has to be repaired, why not service it as well? Especially considering the funny behaviour in amplitude I described in the previous paragraph. What do you think? All opinions are appreciated, but if one of our much-appreciated pros, such as  @Jon, @JohnR725, @nickelsilver, or @nevenbekriev could weigh in, I'm sure it would be appreciated by many.

IMG_4287.thumb.jpg.f56dc5e915b115afe354301a00aee719.jpg

The fit between the bracelet ends and the lugs was very tight, and I couldn't get the bracelet out by simply pressing the spring bar from one side through the drilled lugs. I'm sure there's an original Rolex tool for it unavailable to enthusiasts, and even so would cost a small fortune.

CustomSpringBarTool.thumb.jpg.1c68f1a1956a75e5863019cb1398b1c8.jpg

During the years, I've bought a small fortune worth of tools. Some of those tools have been a complete disappointment and a waste of money, such as the spring bar tool in the picture, which I've never used and have been meaning to resell for a long time. However, as I couldn't get the bracelet out, I came to think of it, and cut myself two pieces of brass rod, deburred and polished the ends, bent them and inserted them in the tool. It worked like a charm. I’ve got to say, I’m kind of proud of this little bit of brilliance. If I’d read something like this when I was just starting, eight or nine years ago, I would’ve been super impressed. Especially considering I could barely tell which end of a screwdriver to use back then. Okay, maybe I’m exaggerating a bit, but you get the gist!

Rubberball.thumb.jpg.f69c64411ec275c955babae8a9aca9ea.jpg
I just hate it when you can't unscrew the case back by using a rubber ball. Is it really necessary to screw the case back on so hard? It's a sincere question. Maybe it is necessary for a true diver's watch like this Sea-Dweller. Fortunately, I had the right size, a number five Rolex die in my set.

BigGun.thumb.jpg.803278d47fd2fc85483e0df78002b2c3.jpg

Getting the case back off, I had to bring out the "Big Gun". Even so, I had to apply what felt like an insane amount of force. I actually worried the tool might break, and it was not a pleasant experience. So, two thumbs down for the previous repairer, who...

Scratchedcaseback.thumb.jpg.0cbdd277513de1f5a056a3078d65826d.jpg

...also decided it was necessary to scratch up the inside of the case back lid, which likely halves its market value. I wouldn't be surprised if the same guy caused the setting problems by being sloppy while assembling the keyless works. We shall see!

I’m really looking forward to hearing your thoughts on my questions and musings!

  • Like 3
Posted (edited)
18 minutes ago, Kalanag said:

There might be something wrong with the mainspring. I don‘t hear any slipping when I fully wind my 3135.

That could be another sign it's up for some TLC. Perhaps too much, too little, or the wrong type of grease was applied to the barrel walls. Perhaps it occasionally slips too much, which could explain the funny initial timing machine readings. Thanks for the input!

On second thought, probably not, as it was doing perfectly 24 hours later... Hmm...

Perhaps there is some debris floating inside, getting caught and uncaught between some teeth and pinion leaves!?

If there is one thing I’ve truly learned over the years, it’s that you must be extremely meticulous about cleanliness and observant of different types of debris that can end up in the movement, such as dust, skin flakes, clothing fibers, etc.

Edited by VWatchie
  • Like 1
Posted
6 hours ago, VWatchie said:

Is it really necessary to screw the case back on so hard?

isn't it nice to have a decent case open or when the case doesn't want to be opened? In the case of a Rolex watch that supposed to pass specific water resistant testing you probably do need to tighten the back down. But they shouldn't be tightened so much that they risk stripping the threads out. Then the other problem that comes up is the gaskets can start to disintegrate and then getting the back off can be quite a challenge unless you have a really good tool and perhaps some penetrating oil to loosen things up.

Yes really nice case marking. When I was in school we were taught to mark the cases and  the American watch and clockmakers Institute even had a? So if you joined at one time they would give you an identification number. They were explaining or giving an example of if the watches ever found in you have a unique number they can perhaps figure out the history of the watch or identify the body it's attached to for instance not that that probably comes up that often. So you got a unique number and even made a special metal stamp that you can purchase. It wasn't a super big aggressive stamp but still it left a mark in the back of the case.

Then I heard from people at work on Rolex watches they were using a felt pen indelible but later on they decided that was bad because apparently the ink could release  chemicals although it seems like once it's dry that shouldn't be an issue. Then of course today was nice is you can keep computer records sealed have to mark anything at all I personally find it's best to leave no reference behind that you were even there. Especially when you have a beautiful watch that has no markings at all and now it has your scribbling all over it not good

6 hours ago, VWatchie said:

but considering it has to be repaired, why not service it as well? Especially considering the funny behaviour in amplitude I described in the previous paragraph. What do you think?

typically if there is a typical and watch repair?  a lot of minor repairs you don't need to do a complete servicing. But beyond a certain point you're going to have to take apart a lot of stuff you're going to disrupt the lubrication even if it looks perfect right now and yes you might as well just go ahead the service the whole thing. also in a watch like this where a lot of things seem to be going on the complete service would be better then you'll know exactly where you stand versus dealing with unknown mysteries for prior repair.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Posted

What are your thoughts @VWatchie on adding your service marks to the inside case? I have 2 methods. The first being, if there are already engraved marks from previous services, then ill add mine engraved as well. Kind of tells a story. The other being, if I'm the first one to service it, ill use a fine point sharpie instead, so as not to be the first one to scratch it up. I do like when there are service marks, as it can kind of help me gauge how much I should be examining the movement, before I send my quote out. I found 13 on a vintage Hamilton I service recently, so that's the current high score.

Posted (edited)
On 4/27/2025 at 3:35 PM, VWatchie said:

"Fully wound (Not Serviced)". If anyone has any idea about why I got such a poor performance the first time around, please let me know!

How long had it been without any wind before you first put it on the timegrapher?  Perhaps there was some debris / old lubricant that loosened up while you were waiting to do the 24 hour reading?
I recently serviced a Seiko 6319 that immediately after service was absolutely horrible on the timegrapher - 24 hours later (without me doing anything) it was rock solid!  I was a little surprised by this (as I have seen improvements in amplitude after letting it run in but never a watch going from useless to great!).

I was suspicious that some dirt must still be in there so I took it apart and cleaned and lubcricated it again and had exactly the same experience - snow storm that after some hours turned into a nice straigh line with good amplitude 🤷‍♂️

Edited by ColinC
  • Like 1
Posted
35 minutes ago, SwissSeiko said:

What are your thoughts @VWatchie on adding your service marks to the inside case? I have 2 methods. The first being, if there are already engraved marks from previous services, then ill add mine engraved as well. Kind of tells a story. The other being, if I'm the first one to service it, ill use a fine point sharpie instead, so as not to be the first one to scratch it up. I do like when there are service marks, as it can kind of help me gauge how much I should be examining the movement, before I send my quote out. I found 13 on a vintage Hamilton I service recently, so that's the current high score.

Well, my fundamental stance is that I want to go in and out without leaving any trace other than a shining, perfectly running movement. So, no scratchings on the inside of the case back lid, no marred screws, no debris, no fingerprints, and so on. That is, my goal is to make it impossible for the FBI to track me down.

As a professional, I suppose you might want to keep track of returning watches, but as @JohnR725 mentioned, we can keep detailed computer records without marking the watch at all. That may not be true for every watch, but luxury and COSC-certified movements do have unique numbers. John also says it’s best to leave no sign you were ever there, and I couldn't agree more.

Now, suppose the Sea-Dweller I'm working on is one day scrapped, and you want to sell the case-back separately (perhaps the case was destroyed in a plane crash). Then the scribbles on the inside no longer reflect the current movement inside the case. Also, the engraving will likely halve the market value of the case back.

59 minutes ago, ColinC said:

How long had it been without any wind before you first put it on the timegrapher?  Perhaps there was some debris / old lubricant that loosened up while you were waiting to do the 24 hour reading?

It had been "sleeping" for about a week and a half.
Yes, the "debris/old lubricant" theory is my hypothesis as well!
It will be interesting to see what I find once I have time to start disassembling the movement.

  • Like 2
Posted
4 hours ago, VWatchie said:

That may not be true for every watch

Where I work everything incoming watches whatever detailed descriptions are taken entered into a computer program and photograph of each item. Then ideally although it depends on who's doing the paperwork detailed descriptions can be quite good other times there lacking. Like I really like it with pocket watches if they would record the serial number it avoids confusion later on. Then when watch repairs are completed that is also entered in.

It's one of the amusements I learned when I was in school instructor had a shop and commented about the important aspect of keeping detailed records of repairs. Because oftentimes a customer who got a new crystal will come back later on when the watch doesn't work and expect you to fix the entire watch for free. Then you can remind them that they just got a crystal. Strangely enough that keeps coming up or occasionally comes up where I work now.

7 hours ago, SwissSeiko said:

t can kind of help me gauge how much I should be examining the movement, before I send my quote out. I found 13 on a vintage Hamilton I service recently, so that's the current high score

One of the problems of using the service marks on the case is that in the case of pocket watches oftentimes that's not the original case. Then case marks? What I was doing warranty work for a company I used to describe a code number in the back of the case and it would tell me the next time I see the watch that basically what I did I made no attempt at keeping track of customers because we had literally thousands of them I think they sold 30,000 of these watches and they would come back by the hundreds because they had a lifetime warranty. Yes that's a story all of itself but I would put a code number that would reference what was done to the watch the last time and think I had a date in there somehow so it did tell a story if you knew the code. Another shop I once worked out the number would reference the page in the book. So other than knowing we had been in there you would have no idea what happened because you have to go look at the page in the book to see what happened.

Then the problem of how you examine a watch you should examine the watch in detail every single time to avoid complications. Although on vintage watches and this is a of amusement I have at work when people ask something and I say of the watches done when it leaves. This is because on vintage oftentimes problems won't show up until the watches much farther into the repair like it's now running and you discover things that you can't discover before because it wasn't running to discover them that also become sometimes difficult to have exact rigid prices are estimates of repairs or in the case of a pocket watch you may not find out if a casing problem to later on when you case it up in the watches running.

5 hours ago, VWatchie said:

John also says it’s best to leave no sign you were ever there, and I couldn't agree more.

I was just thinking for all those people that would like to leave a mark maybe you should learn to do what some of the past watchmakers did? Leave a mark but leave it in such a way that no one will ever find it? Typically not done for repair purposes but done for other reasons like identifying it's legit. I have a friend with a Gruen watch and one of the Roman numbers the bottom line that just looks like a line under extreme magnification actually says Gruen watch company or something equivalent. So here's a link showing how to mark your watch without being seen although that's not the actual title. So if you can learn micro engraving you can engrave the watch someplace probably just about any place you just have to remember where you put it.

https://cnaluxury.channelnewsasia.com/obsessions/how-to-prove-if-watches-are-authentic-secret-signatures-182516

 

  • Like 2
Posted

Rolex3135BrokenSettingWheelTeeth.thumb.jpg.6bd0503cf6107d16c3b9fbbdc84f75f9.jpg
I spent a few hours with this 3135 Rolex yesterday, and as we can all see, the reason the date and time can't be set is obvious.

Had I known this—I was expecting a dislocated yoke—I would have refrained from running it, as we have no idea where those broken-off teeth are located inside the movement. It could very well explain the funny timing machine readings.

Hopefully, the damage is limited to the first (there are two) setting wheel, but we shall see as the disassembly continues. It's a good sign that the sliding pinion teeth seem to be intact.

It also raises the question of how something like this can happen. Perhaps too little or the wrong type of grease in the cannon pinion, and when it became difficult to set the time, the crown was turned with force and too quickly. That reminds me of another movement (years ago) where the cannon pinion was way too tight, and I still tried to set time, which broke off the teeth on the minute wheel. However, it was a scrap Vostok, so no real harm done.

  • Like 2
Posted (edited)
2 hours ago, VWatchie said:

It also raises the question of how something like this can happen.

The 268 mechanism cover has this gear that’s friction fit to a post and like a cannon pinion it can become loose, creating too much slack and allowing for improper meshing. Instead of the broken setting wheel I often see broken teeth on the gear underneath. This is from the last 3135 I serviced…

IMG_0680.thumb.jpeg.e79447493b24a9c4bcf0b070725d07c5.jpeg

…it’s really kind of a poorly designed part…and why is it all one part? 🧐

…and on this one I never found the missing tooth. Did the previous service provider just replace this broken part?

Edited by rehajm
  • Thanks 1
Posted

Thanks for sharing @rehajm! It will be really interesting to see what I find once I get the time to continue the disassembly. I wouldn't be surprised if the broken setting wheel isn't the only part that will have to be replaced/repaired.

Posted
On 4/27/2025 at 6:35 AM, VWatchie said:

As can be seen, the oil beneath the cap jewel is noticeably depleting. If it wasn't for the faulty date and time setting, I think this amazing watch could have been left alone for another year or two, but considering it has to be repaired, why not service it as well? Especially considering the funny behaviour in amplitude I described in the previous paragraph. What do you think?

10 hours ago, VWatchie said:

Had I known this—I was expecting

Up above you asked a question now you have the answer. Well at least one of the answers why should give you a complete servicing auto wash that just needs possibly may be a minor repair?

It's one of the frustrations I have with repairing pocket watches occasionally they look like they might just need cleaning but along the way additional complications can come up. Or even after it's all serviced casing issues will come up. Where I can never really give anybody a hard clear answer of when is this watch going to be done other than the say when it leaves whenever that may be.

 

8 hours ago, rehajm said:

The 268 mechanism cover has this gear that’s friction fit to a post and like a cannon pinion it can become loose, creating too much slack and allowing for improper meshing. Instead of the broken setting wheel I often see broken teeth on the gear underneath. This is from the last 3135 I serviced…

One of the annoying thing is in watch repair is the lack of proper technical documentation. So for instance for the 3135 there's a really beautiful color document explaining everything except does it really explain everything?

Often times watch companies have supplemental information on specific tasks. They definitely have supplemental on lubrication. Or Omega will have general instructions sheets for specific a grouping of calibers covering well stuff like this unique situations that require either changing components or special lubrication or something. So in the case of Rolex to does upgrade components it would be really nice if we had the supplemental information that we do not. As conceivably this was covered the writer problems here might've been covered with upgrade components or some documentation specifying lubrication that would be better somehow etc.

  • Like 1

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

    • Moebius 9010. A small drop on each end cap jewel (top and bottom)…enough to cover at least half the jewel, but not all the way to the edge. I was conservative.   I like this analogy. And yes, it’s imperfect, because surgeons don’t start with live people. 😂 It’s definitely one of the things I learned with this watch, where I’d fix one issue, but then introduce 1-2 others, often not necessarily getting at the root cause of the “illness.” Well, this watch wasn’t totally destroyed…Unfortunately, I wasn’t able to do enough up-front diagnosis before I started pulling everything apart. This was one major lesson learned to me, but tbh, I don’t think I would have learned it had I not pulled everything apart and seen the interactions of all the different systems (just inside the balance assembly itself!). I have a few other Hamilton 974s that I’ll be able to work on more thoughtfully. I definitely heard your advice, and I think a few others echoed it, but I’m fairly certain I would have introduced more problems by attempting that fix. I don’t have the necessary skill or tools to (1) bend the cock and (2) assess exactly how much it has been bent. I can’t machine a brass plate to attach the cock while bending, I can’t measure the amount of deflection I’ve introduced. And it’s the kind of thing where botching it seemed like it would be irreversible. I’ll attempt to look at the hairspring to see if it’s touching anywhere. The central challenge is that I don’t have a reference point. I don’t have that for end shake or for anything else. I could compare to my ST36, but that seems like an apples-oranges comparison to me (new movement v. 100+ years old). That’s one of the main challenges for me when learning a lot of this stuff – you create reference points yourself! The next thing I was thinking of getting was a JKA Feintaster bench micrometer, tbh. After watching Alex Hamilton measure staffs and pivots, it seemed like it would be a good purchase. They’re just expensive. I’ll need to sell a watch or two first. 🙂  A lathe seems like something where I need to collect more experience before I pick one up. Perhaps you convince me otherwise.
    • Thanks for the reply Andy, I will take a look .
    • I don't think @praezis / Frank actually has a website. If you want his software message him and you'll get the info. I've used Witschi LCD and Vibrograf paper machines since last century, and it really is the best of both worlds. Picks up anything, however dirty (looking at you Witschi), with a readable result.   If you pay for the pro, it tells you exactly where the poise error is for dynamic poising, and it's damn accurate. I can't speak highly enough about this software. Some mics don't work, some do, you might have to solder something, but in all the above Frank can help with a solution. And it's unbelievably affordable.
    • Well, as I have said not once, for the beginners in watchmaking, the hairspring, especially when there is overcoil, is the source of the most of the problems. This is the case here too. The end shake... I told You to regulate it by bending the cock. If it was done, then would be no wondering if the shim is seated correctly every time. You still have to understand how much end shake is normal and correct. One exercise for this purpose:  remove the hairspring from balance. Put the balance in the movement with the cock. Use thin sharp pointed tweezers to grasp the balance staff  where the hairspring collet seats and try to move the staff up/down. The amount of movement should be more or less as much as in escape wheel or pallet fork arbor. In the same time You will see how easy the balance rotates when it is free and without hairspring. Moving the balance up/down by holding it by the rim is not the same, as it forces it to tilt and some shaking may be result of the radial free play of the pivots in the  bearings even if there is no endshake at all. Of course, You can grasp the roller too. You can also grasp the rim, but observe the staff movement, not the rim shake. One should be able to check and say if there is end shake and if it is normal without hesitation, no matter if the movements works well or not at all, and not to wonder if the reason for the not normal working is endshake. Now about the hairspring. You spring is touching somewhere. The fact that this slight lifting of the stud changed the situation proves it. The spring probably touches the arms of the balance, but You are the one that can look at the spring, so it is up to You only to find where it is touching. The spring should be parallel to the plane of balance and thus on equal distances from the cock  or from the balance arms in every position of the balance when it rotates. The coils of the spring must not touch each other. The overcoil also should be parallel and not touching the cock. The spring should not touch (be on some distance from) the regulator pins or the stud bottom. All this must be true also in DU position, not only in DD.  This is achieved by slight bending and twisting close to the stud  or of the overcoil.
×
×
  • Create New...