Jump to content

Tool ID


chadders1966

Recommended Posts

Hi

My turn to ask ;). I bought some of the following files recently, and can't figure out the ones in the middle. From my (limited) knowledge the ones on the right have square handles and so are escapement files, the ones on the left round handles and are needles files. The escapement files are slightly smaller and finer. The ones in the middle look more like shorter broaches with the tapering handles but they seem like files to me, when you look closely you can see the teeth. They are smaller but even finer than the escapement files. One is marked Stubbs, the rest Antoine Glardon. Are they just a different style of escapement file?

20160508_111641.jpg

20160508_111647.jpg

 

In the lot I bought there were also these three which I can't figure out. They look like screwdrivers or holders of some kind, however as you can see the hole in the end doesn't extend into the body, just covers a few mm. Also there are no holding screws, or spaces for them, to hold anything in place. Any ideas? Thanks

20160508_103905.jpg

Stephen

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The round files are called rat tail. I tend to call them all needle files, you are correct in thinking the very fine ones are mostly used for escapement work. Many needle files I used for filing and shaping clock teeth. In general files can be used for a number of things in the watch/clock making businesses.

I haven't a clue about the other tools.    

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi

Thanks for the response. I don't believe they are rat-tail files, or at least not all of them. As far as I am aware rat-tails are always round, and nearly half of these are square. Also the teeth seem much finer than any rat-tail I have - although perhaps I just don't have any fine ones! Thanks anyway.

 

Stephen

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Its only the round files that are rat tail the handle can be square so it holds in a handle for a better grip. I has some rat tail files that were very fine these would be used as a finishing file. There are hundreds of different needle files. I had a large draw full of the little blighters.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Files like these are also used extensively in the jewelry trades in general. Much like jeweler saws, there is a Swiss table that lists the pattern of the file and the aggressiveness of the cut. Some files are close to being burnishers they are so fine. The three, fives, and sixes you see stamped on the files are part of that specification. 

The other items obviously are handles of some sort. Can you take some closer pictures of the tips and that notch area? It could be also that they are missing some parts. 

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

    • Good morning,   To be honest, I'm not sure I trust my own logic anymore 😅. But here's a picture of my own (failed!) attempt to install a new rotor axle. I punched way to hard and even split the metal of the rotor. My thinking was that, in my case, the axle sits "deeper" in the rotor and hence the rotor would be closer to the movement plates. Vice versa, I was thinking that a very light punch could cause the rotor to sit rather high. But not sure that makes sense because in both cases, the flat part of the axle and the rotor align equally.     Sorry, but is he saying that the outside of the caseback has been polished to such an extent that the inside of the caseback has deformed/sunk??? That sounds crazy to me because those casebacks are thick! Can you see any signs of that on the inside of the caseback? Have you tried screwing in the caseback a litte bit more or less so that the supposedly "sunk" part of the caseback would move from 9 o'clock to e.g. 6/7 or 11/12 o'clock?  If the caseback is truly deformed, maybe it could be punched/pressed back into shape (e.g. with glass/caseback closing press).      I agree with your choice. But yea, Rolex makes it VERY hard for independent watchmakers to do a perfect job because we can't get (original) parts easily.      Your pictures aren't too bad. But still impossible to see if the rotor isn't perfectly flat. You'd have to look at it with your loupe, from the side (like the pictures), and turn the rotor to see if the gaps (with the automatic bridge plates) increase/decrease.     Finally... how is the up/down play of the rotor? To test, take a toothpick/pegwood and press on the small triangular side of the rotor next to the axle (NOT the big side where the weight is. But the opposite side.). Does that lift up the weight-side of the rotor? There can be some play, but it should really be minimal. If there's too much play, a new spring clip is the first thing to do. After that, one could play around with the jewels. This is too much:
    • could start a new sub-brand: Bergeon-Pro Worked for Apple phones! Ah they already beat me to it:  
    • Hello, those RR pocket watches are nice watches, there are still parts around...
    • The hairspring looks to be in good condition from the photographs, it is natural that the balance will perform slightly differently in different orientations. Assuming there is no damage, the difference may be caused by the balance moving relative to the jewels, not the hairspring itself. So too much space between the jewels (endshake) and the difference will be greater, if one jewel is oiled and the other not, then again a lower amplitude in one position than the other....and so on. If the difference is reasonable (like your 13 seconds) the the best thing to do is to make one position slightly fast (+7 seconds, and the other position slow -7 seconds) then this averaging of the error will make for a more accurate watch in use. If the difference was much greater eg 100 seconds, then you would need to troubleshoot the problem. Additionally, you need to let the watch run-in for 24-48 hours after a service to allow the new oils to work their way in to all the jewels and pivots etc before you make a 'real' timegrapher test, otherwise you can get strange results. For example the oil in the top shock setting may be evenly spread, but not (yet) in the bottom setting = high difference.... after 24 hours this oil will probably have sorted itself out and the difference may be much better.
    • Oy! No bad words in our forum please.
×
×
  • Create New...