Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted

The picture showing two movement from around the same deceade, ~1900. Both swiss. The left one is a LeCoultre and the right one has FHF logo. But what are those dots in the edge of the bridges? The left one has two, the right has four in each bridge and even in the mainplate on the dial side and in the mainspring barel cover.

2016-11-15_21_49_59.jpeg

Posted

They are pairing marks so the watch maker knew which parts went with each other. Ive had old cameras 1890 to 1910 where every piece is marked as well still got one somewhere.

  • Like 1
Posted
3 hours ago, oldhippy said:

Marks made by an apprentice. No qualified watch repairer/maker would need to do something like that on such simple movements.

Even a master would need markings when having multiple movements of a same type in parts on the bench. As indicated above that did guarantee that parts stayed together. It was necessary as tolerances weren't good at the times, and during manufacturing each part was manually adapted to each other.

Posted

This type of pocket watch movement is not as early as you might think they were manufactured as late as 1900. When I say manufactured they were made and put together in a factory by many people not just one watchmaker. So I stick by my original explanation because the factory would run out of marks, besides you don't see them on every movement of this type.  

  • Recently Browsing

    • No registered users viewing this page.
  • Topics

  • Posts

    • Thanks for the replies! Here's a photo of the front of the clock and a GIF animation of the movement (exposed by removing the black cap in the centre of the clock). You can see the behaviour of the gears. It's a fairly valuable clock from the 80s (Braun ABW 35). I'm not sure if replacing the movement would diminish the value, so I'd prefer to keep the original parts if it's easy to fix. But since the movement itself is pretty generic, I guess, maybe replacing it wouldn't make any difference with regard to the value of the clock? Or would it? I suppose the value is mostly in the design.
    • 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. 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.
    • I've repaired a few of these, having some success with stripping and cleaning the mechanism.  They are so cheap though, its hardly worth the effort in many cases.
    • Get well soon Old Hippy, torn muscles.,  not good
    • Id love to see how he has the output shaft mounted to this setup, as I have the same rotary stage and stepper in my build.
×
×
  • Create New...