Jump to content

Rolex Lubricants


Recommended Posts

Hi Guys :)

I have search and read here many things about the Rolex Lubricants

But there is no really sorted Answer. Everyone use another Oil or Greese.

So maybe we can sort it a little by the Rolex Numbers?

The Question is which Lubricant can we use as Alternative?

I start with my things that I have sorted so far.

 

Rolex Oil sheet Numbers

1 = Moebius 9010

2 = Moebius 941

3 = PML-163 (HP1000)

4 = MR-1 (Moebius 8200)

5 = MR-2 or KT22

7 = FHMR-3

8 = Moebius 9415

9 = MR-4 (Moebius 9501)

 

PML-163 can replaced with FHMR-3

MR-2 can replaced with FHMR-3

FHMR-3 = Moebius 9501

 

It would be great if someone have some input if the list is so far right? Or what can be used for which Number.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Zocker,

There are a couple of members on here who have worked on Rolex watches, but I don't think that they had access  to much by way of Rolex branded lubricants. From what I can gather they are not easy to obtain and are rather pricey, so they adopted general good practice and used alternative products. 

I think that the problem with compiling a list of direct equivalent products is finding any technical data from Rolex. Without that it's a matter of guess work, judgement, and experience. As these are all rather subjective, you will find as many different opinions on what is best as there are watchmakers. 

I guess that if you can pull together a selection of opinions from different people then a composite list can be derived using products selected on the basis of best concensus. You may even arrive at a list which is better than the Rolex spec, after all I doubt that Rolex has tested every product out there.

I think that a couple of points worth bearing in mind though are that the differences between brands  (especially the bigger names) are minimal, and that in just about every instance, oiling technique is as important, even more important than product. Get that wrong and the product you use becomes irrelevant. 

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah that's true, but it don't answer the Question for the Alternative Lubricants.

That one Watchsmith say these Oil is good and another Watchsmith say the other Oil is better, is normally.

So the list should more be helpful for People that check for the differents.

For Exsample is MR-4 an Oil or Greese 

And Rolex didn't change the Numbers in there sheets over all the Years.

So will be an alternative list very helpful I think ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not quite technically correct on Rolex changing the datasheets the problem is you don't get to look at current datasheets they're all on line by account only. So simplistically we don't get to see anything modern and see any of the modern lubrication numbers. Then anyone that is working on Rolex watches doesn't care about an equivalent because if they want to keep their Rolex account they have to use the Rolex lubricants.

http://www.awci.com/wp-content/uploads/ht/August2012.pdf

At the link above is an article on lubricants it explains what the MR-4 and a few others on your list.

Then you list is made up of a mix of things for instance number 3, 941 is an oil specifically for lubricating escapement's number 8 is something interesting it's a grease except on impact it becomes more like an oil it's used for escapement's. At one time 941 was for lower beat watches 9415 was for fast. Knowing that watchmakers are cheap most of the data sheets will say either or. Rolex on the other hand uses RL-2

One of the biggest problems we have of scientifically comparing the various lubricants is we don't get to have a exacting datasheets on lubricants. Most of the time for horological lubrication all we get is viscosity which is not really enough to compare why one is better than another.

Then here's a link to a website that talks about some of the Rolex lubricants

http://hiro.alliancehorlogere.com/en/Under_the_Loupe/Lubrication.html

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites



  • Recently Browsing

    • No registered users viewing this page.
  • Topics

  • Posts

    • I've remained silent on this thread, and at the risk of upsetting everyone, the thing that worries me the most the the apparent absence of Mark. The moderators do a great job and the members also pitch in, and the site seems to run itself, but it is a concern for the future of this forum when the owner is absent for all intents and purposes. Like many of the comments above I would hate to log in one day and things be closed down as I rely on this site for ideas and knowledge and also cheer me up. maybe the Moderators could reach out to him, assuming he does not read this thread, and express our concerns and let us know the plans going forward? some kind of WRT ark
    • That was the exact reason for me starting this thread watchie. Still we haven't worked out how the regulars are going to hook up if it goes tits up. I honestly think something should be arranged to stay in contact, we all help each other so much. 
    • Yeah ive watched that a few times before,  i couldnt find my old school dividers to scribe it up 😅 Yep thats the guy i bought a roll from . Thanks Nicklesilver that answers that perfectly and more or less what i thought an experiment over time would prove . The jumper arm is quite thick along its length, i left it that way intentionally, i thought the original was probably very thin, i didnt see that it was already missing. Setting isn't particularly stiff as such just positive, i still need to take it out and polish where it mates with the stem release. 
    • Yes, "Sold out" is difficult to understand. There doesn't seem to be a lot going on. It's been nine months since any new video was published on the Watch Repair Channel. The Level 4 course on watchfix.com has been in progress for what feels like forever (several years!?). Maybe Mark's enterprises aren't doing well or perhaps already so profitable there's nothing much to motivate him for more material. Or, perhaps these days he's more into crochet. The real reason is probably something entirely different but it would be nice/interesting to know. I don't mean to sound gloomy or pessimistic, but I wouldn't be surprised to be met by an HTTP 404. Every day feels like a gift. Speaking of watchfix.com I've been postponing the "Level 5: Servicing Chronograph Watches" course for a very, very long time. Anyway, I just enrolled on it so it's going to be very interesting to see the videos. I must say, IMO there's nothing really that can compete with Mark's courses when it comes to presentation and video quality. It's simply world-class and makes me associate with some really expensive BBC productions.
    • Steel has some funny properties, or at least counterintuitive. The modulus of elasticity is effectively (not exactly, but close enough) the same for steel that is annealed and hardened. What changes is the point of plastic deformation* . If the movement of your spring doesn't pass that, it should work fine. It looks a little thick, I would thin it a bit maybe from the main body out about halfway, maybe 10-20% thinner (not in thickness, along its form). But if it works it works!   *So- if you have two bars of the same steel, one annealed, one at 600 Vickers (general hardness watch arbors might be), clamp them to a table so the same length is hanging out, and put a weight on the ends, they will bend the same amount. But if you continue to add weight, then remove it, at a point the annealed bar won't return to its original straightness. That's the point of plastic deformation. But up to that point, as springs, they are the same. However- their wear characteristics will be very very different. And getting the hardened bar past its point of plastic deformation takes a lot more effort.
×
×
  • Create New...