Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted

A friend of mine stopped by today with a problem with his watch.  It was a brand new Seiko aviators watch.  A smart  looking watch with an E6b calculator on the Bezel. He'd picked it up in Asia.  It was "keeping random time"  as he complained.  

On to the vibragraph and it had an amplitude of 140 and a beat error of 1.8. Nasty for a new watch, but the amazing thing was,  it was actually still running within 60 sec per day. 

Off with the back and straight away I could see that the spring curb pins had rotated nearly 90 degrees and the Hair spring was looking very distorted!  The curb pins on this movement appear a cheap looking brass attachment fitted into a fork type arrangement on the regulator arm.  After a bit if manipulation,  I figured that it was history,  as the curb pins kept snapping back  to the 90deg position.  Perhaps a manufacturer error or a botched assembly.  Shame as Seiko really are usually  a good product. 

Everything  looked fairly familiar to the earlier movements.   So after a rummage in the junk  parts box I came up with a 7S26 assembly, balance cock and all.  The curb pins on this are the typical riveted in kind.

A good clean up and the appropriate tiny dot of oil on the end stone and it fitted straight in.  Watch is now  clattering away with excellent numbers,  just like a brand  new one...

So what's the rub on the changes to the regular arm?  Cheaper?  Better? 

 

 

  • Like 1
Posted

Seiko would do well to remember the old adage "If it ain't broke don't fix it.)  If they have altered it as a cost saving measure what would be the saving?  a millionth of a penny?  If everyone of this model has the same problem and all are returned under guarantee that will be mighty expensive for Seiko.  One of the main requirements of a regulator is that it does not move under any normal conditions and in the case of Rolex,  even under abnormal conditions, as it does not have a regulator but is free sprung.

Posted (edited)
2 hours ago, Bimroy said:

The curb pins on this movement appear a cheap looking brass attachment fitted into a fork type arrangement on the regulator arm.

That's actually the Seiko version of Etachron, newer than the fixed regulator pin, and is generally considered a progress. Long thread and great discussion:

 

Edited by jdm
Posted

Thanks for  the replies,  I've been having a close inspection of the offending parts,  and there is no way that I can get the curb pins to remain in the correct position,  they seem to by  spring effect of the forked regulating arm,  rotate back to close to  90deg position.  

 

 

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 am puzzled by something a snipped out something from your image and what exactly disassemble tell us? my confusion is the symbol for FHF looks like image I have below year symbol as a star and righted this instant are not finding what that means? I suppose we could use the fingerprint system to verify it really is what it claimed to be. Size itself is really interesting there's almost no watches in that particular size. Then were missing details in the photograph above like diameter of movements to verify it really is the size and are missing the setting components.   went to the bestfit book looking at the symbols didn't see it. Look at the link below I did find it back to the bestfit book and yes it really is there https://reference.grail-watch.com/documents/history-of-ebauches-sa/ then bestfit book says lists the size as 10 1/2. one of the problems with vintage watches is finding parts yes a donor watch would be good.
    • Actually, this could be the issue. Drag from the module could be overcoming the cannon pinion. It was definitely not at the point that the driving wheel was loose on the cannon pinion, it took a little bit of effort to rotate it when applying the grease. Maybe I need to look again at applying oil to the pivots.    Yeah, it's very annoying. I don't want to give up on it, so back on with it over again until I catch a break. 
    • The sping is not pushing directly on the cap, but is pushing against the spindle. So, even if the usual black cap is replaced with the micrometer cap, the spindle is still pushed up.
    • But he tells that the micrometer cap doesn't screw into the spindle. How can the spring push the spindle up if there's nothing to grip? There is a screw visible on top of the micrometer cap so should it be able to screw into the spindle? I'm feeling really dumb now. Does anyone manufacture that cap as an aftermarket item? Might be worth investing. Ok so the spindle is different, now I get it.
    • I suppose? If it worked before and it doesn't work now I guess the question would be why does it not work now? That would come back to if you did not have the chronograph module on will it work or is the chronograph module sucking too much power out of the watch basically 99 usually when they go bad you can hold on the tube part and usually just spin the wheel because it has zero holding at all so usually when they go bad they go bad very bad. You should build hotel when you set the watch as to whether it seems to have any friction or not. I'm just wondering if the chronograph module is the problem.
×
×
  • Create New...