Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted (edited)

Considerations on this new arrival, based on what I have learnt of Poljot's manufacturing history:

The model stamp on the chronograph bridge is SU 3133, and the "U" has the converging tips and the font used d is a bit bolder than earlier versions. This is the third iteration of this stamp, and was adopted starting from 1993/1995. This "civil" model or better the "classic model" was introduced in 1996 BTW.

Screenshot_20170131-072938.png

Edited by GeorgeClarkson
Posted

A close up of the entire movement shows how clean this is. It has been services in the past, since there are traces of screwdriver use on some screws, in particular the screw holding the hammer.

All other parts are consistent to each other, which makes me think this is an original watch with no replaced parts, er even worse a franken.

A clean of the case, which was very hard to open BTW, and replacement of the case back o-ring since it has become too hard and brittle, and this small puppy is ready to go!

Screenshot_20170131-073522.png

Posted
23 minutes ago, Endeavor said:

Sometimes you lose, sometimes you win. This 3133 seems to be the latter :thumbsu:

Indeed it is a very nice example. The case has some issues, like the plating on the pushers that is slowly saying byebye, as the crown, but that adds to its history, doesn't it? The case back was incredibly hard to remove, and the gasket was so hard it probably cemented it. Replacing the case back was as hard though: I noticed the border has already suffered a bit, so I will fix it later on.

The only thing I do not like about it, it's the writing "chronograph" on the front of the case... As if it was not clear enough... Doh!

Posted (edited)

Good on you George :thumbsu:

Yesterday my Poljot 3133 Sport arrived and I can share your comment. Currently I'm warming up my Watch-o-scope to get an idea about Amplitude and beat error......... Seems there are two happy 3133 owners :jig:

Edited by Endeavor
  • Like 1
Posted (edited)

The Watch-O-Scope noise levels were "in-between", so the measurements aren't 100% reliable.

21600 BPH, and I took a lifting angel of 52 (not sure if that's correct for the 3133 ?)

DD -33s/d Amp 327 BE 0.3ms

DU -25s/d Amp 300 BE 1.2ms

CU -39s/d Amp 224 BE 0.4ms

CD -65s/d Amp 223 BE 0.4ms

Can't say there is something drastically wrong with this 25 years old movement. If I can assemble the courage, I may give it a service and compare the numbers ......

Edit; I just Googled and the lifting angle of the Valjoux 7734 is 48 degrees.

Edited by Endeavor
  • Like 2
Posted

@clockboy Thank you for the information clockboy ;)

Would the Russian have changed the geometry of the pallet-post? I know that they did some modifications to the Valjoux 7734.

These were the two sources I consulted for the Valjoux 7734;

http://hiro.alliancehorlogere.com/en/Under_the_Loupe/Valjoux_7734.html

http://roamer-watches.info/lift-angles.shtml

The 51 degrees is fine with me too. Especially taking the inaccuracy (due to noise) of the Watch-O-Scope in consideration ;)

Posted

Friday I decided to start servicing my new Poljot 3133. The Landeron 48 is stripped and I'm still waiting for the new main-spring to arrive ...... it all has to do with time :)

My intentions were to take pictures and make a Poljot 3133 walk-through, but right in the beginning I had already a set-back. I've seen it happen on a Poljot 3133 walk-through YouTube-video, so I was well aware and took extreme care, but mine miniature minute-recording-hand stripped off its pipe-bushing as well! Later in the weekend I've been asking around and these little 3133 hands seem to be notorious for this. This setback and because this Poljot 3133 being my first chronograph, if succeeded, I decided to concentrate purely on the watch.

I managed to get the pipe-bushing off and proceeded with the stripping. In the process of doing so, not paying enough attention to the little pivots sticking through the calendar works,  I bend one. Luckily, I could bend it back .....a narrow escape and a huge lesson learned !! All the rest went fine. The balance cap-stone springs were new to me, but didn't cause any problems. It took me quite a few attempts to get the operating lever back in its place, but after reading the instructions a few times, I finally got what was said & meant, and it fell in its place.

The watch is back together. I managed to "repair" the little hand, but I must have deformed the little pipe-bushing slightly with the pipe-vice. It's back on, but barely. I ordered some 0.2mm drills to ream the bushing in order to get a proper fit.

Last night the watch has been on my wrist and instead of -20 s/d before the service, it runs in the plus now. How much, I let the pictures do the talking. Please observe that I'm using a Watch-O-Scope, which has a known reputation of picking up (lots of) noise. On top of that, my desk is close to the kitchen in which a freezer and fridge are standing. As usual, both kicked in while I did the measurements CU and DU ........

Crown Down58984a11a3b0f_Poljot3133CD.PNG.0dc8b426c4a17e4fd29a48227c22c695.PNG

Crown up;

58984a130cf25_Poljot3133CU.PNG.a7ae2310a1806b123f0da797fdf7ac28.PNG

Dial down;

58984a1457ba8_Poljot3133DD.PNG.d747ac5e0dbd0bf666a1f9d124fbef06.PNG

Dial up;

58984a15c8bd3_Poljot3133DU.PNG.0be410384e35857aab669fc34c758ba5.PNG

This for a 25 year old movement ......... I'll adjust the daily rate and leave it as it is. The chronograph functions work as they should. I like to sort out the minute-recording-hand, but the 0.2mm drills are ordered from our Chinese friends, so that's going to be 1 to 1-1/2 month before they arrive ......

Sorry, no pictures this time, but I hope to make it up with the Landeron 48..........

My first chronograph is done ! :jig:

 

 

 

  • Like 1
Posted (edited)

@Watchtime Thank you .... ;)

It's for sure a level up. One has to be far more aware & mindful of all the extra little pivots sticking up. They are, in the 3133 case, only 0.2mm thick and it doesn't take a lot to bend them, or worse ......

Obviously, it was a well working chronograph to start off with. I made sure not to touch any of the eccentric screws. The chronograph-fun really starts when a chronograph has problems. When the eccentric screws are off and everything has to be re-adjusted. I like to get some more chronograph experience and I'm sure that the Landeron has something to tell me too :) It all adds up and one day a more challenging chronograph will come my way....

That's what makes me tick. Not the end result as such, but the tinkering. learning and problem solving. Once done, it's another watch ........ perhaps ends up by the rest, in the drawer. It's the hunt, not so much the catch. It's the Endeavor ... B) Having said that, this 3133 chronograph is a bit more special, it's my first .........:jig:

Edited by Endeavor
Posted
2 hours ago, Endeavor said:

@Watchtime Thank you .... ;)

It's for sure a level up. One has to be far more aware & mindful of all the extra little pivots sticking up. They are, in the 3133 case, only 0.2mm thick and it doesn't take a lot to bend them, or worse ......

Obviously, it was a well working chronograph to start off with. I made sure not to touch any of the eccentric screws. The chronograph-fun really starts when a chronograph has problems. When the eccentric screws are off and everything has to be re-adjusted. I like to get some more chronograph experience and I'm sure that the Landeron has something to tell me too :) It all adds up and one day a more challenging chronograph will come my way....

That's what makes me tick. Not the end result as such, but the tinkering. learning and problem solving. Once done, it's another watch ........ perhaps ends up by the rest, in the drawer. It's the hunt, not so much the catch. It's the Endeavor ... B) Having said that, this 3133 chronograph is a bit more special, it's my first .........:jig:

I am so happy you managed to bring it to a positive end. Being the first chronograph it is a special event. And the Landeron will be another first, since even if similar in structure to the Poljot 3133, it is another completely different "beast". Easier in some parts, harder on others. But amazingly interesting as is the Poljot. You will love that one also.

Posted

Now, a few days after the service. I just adjusted the daily rate down a "wee".......

From "hearsay" that Russian watches aren't much worth, but this Poljot 3133 is the best running mechanical watch I have in my possession, by far ........

Dial down;

589d945bbe34e_Poljot3133DD-2.PNG.afd03557d7c4fc3b9b929610310717c4.PNG

 

  • Like 1
Posted

Oh boy, that's pretty good. Is it similar in all positions? Just goes to show that you don't need a megabuck mechanism to get great performance.

Posted (edited)

@dadistic Because I had crown-down while adjusting the daily rate, the W.O.S picture happens to be CD. For fun, I just did the other three. I switched off the freezer and fridge, which made my wife a bit nervous, hence the shorter measurements. As usual, the W.O.S. picks up the odd interference dot, so I see the measurement more as a good indication, not as absolute values ........

Dial Up;

DU-2.PNG.6dff89379eef5c73b153b1a455043868.PNG

Crown Down;

CD-2.PNG.a564db48cede697b4e116d5a6a50d225.PNG

Crown Up;

CU-2.PNG.83fcdebc708fe2868a9cf133b6671609.PNG

For a 25 years old movement..........Of course Swiss origins, the Valjoux 7734, but improved by our friends in Russia.

I am a happy camper with the above results ....... and for a as new, in original state chronograph below €200.- .......:jig:

 

Edited by Endeavor
  • Like 1
  • 2 weeks later...
Posted

I know I have already shown macros of the Poljot 3133 movement I last got, but since my digital camera is finally working ( after a clean and new set of batteries...) I made a couple of shots, just to see if it still can deliver... and boy it can!

P5140014.JPG

P5140021.JPG

P5140022.JPG

Posted (edited)

Pixels and age aren't the problem....... your camera is great !! Some award winning pictures are taken with a "click-clack", it's the right light and the mood.

Edited by Endeavor
  • Like 1
Posted
30 minutes ago, Endeavor said:

Pixels and age aren't the problem....... your camera is great !! Some award winning pictures are taken with a "click-clack", it's the right light and the mood.

I am sure I wont win any award.... :ph34r:

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

    • The watch is from 1990 and was serviced just once around 20 years ago. No idea if the mainspring barrel was ever opened or changed before now.
    • Interesting but I think we have a problem here? We probably need to split hairs on a definition problem. For instance take a real Rolex movement put it in a real Rolex case but not the one it came in take a real dial real hands and make up a watch that is 100% real and what exactly is this? If you send your Rolex in for servicing and anything's been changed at all from what it was when it left the factory Rolex will be unhappy and remove all offending components. This does become a problem of people changing things because they think it's their watch and they want to have a different dial Lord diamonds the bezel or whatever words Rolex sees all of this as evil and bad as far as a Intel Rolex only things the watch is legit if everything is exactly what it was when it left the factory and nothing's been changed including the stem everything asked me Rolex original or their very unhappy about its existence. Then you think about a fake watch what is its real purpose? Well its real purpose is to make money for somebody and fool the customer. So all the watch has to do is look pleasant on the outside and inside can be anything. Typically nobody's going to see inside. So typically anything that's not legit counterfeit movement etc. why would someone spend so much time and effort making it look just like a real Rolex when there's no need to? Unless of course you have one or two movements to impress somebody with this is what's inside your watch but even that is problematic Now we don't end up with I've interesting problem that troubles me where I work. The owner will offend a cage your watch by looking at it carefully with a microscope the timing machine etc. and he will point out all the things that he feels are not appropriate correct or whatever for your watch. But in my example above of mixing and matching legitimate Rolex parts he wouldn't necessarily be able to tell. The problem I have with this is it often times things like his claim to telling a counterfeit is look at the second hand the quality of the secondhand is not as nice as a legitimate one. But maybe somebody replaced a second hand on a real Rolex. Or the other day at work I don't know what it was in before but there was a really pretty movement transparent back and they decided it was fake because of? Now I didn't think it was fake I took one look was beautifully manufactured but they had a reason What bothers me with counterfeit Rolex is or anything counterfeit watch related it is reminding me of a witchhunt. The early days of witch hunting how can we tell a which Manon which? That makes me wonder how many super fakes are really fake at all it's basically somebody deciding it's a fake based upon inappropriate assumptions. Like the secondhand is been changed or the watch was worked on the screws are perfect or other things. Other minor problems with super fakes for instance I have a long story the not going to tell the short version is I found the website once where they claim to be counterfeiting Rolex watches. They even had a picture to prove their counterfeit watch the problem with pictures online how do we know it's really a counterfeit watch and not a real Rolex watch that you're telling us is counterfeit. Oh and they had testimonials from all kinds of people who bought their watches and were very happy with the service of course the problem with the watch is you don't know what's inside it unless you take the back off and just because somebody shows a picture online and says this is their super fake maybe it really isn't a super fake they be there just trying to say that. We end up with a interesting problem of manufacturing a watch. Does Rolex actually make every single part found in their watch? Then the year 2004's basically irrelevant. This is because initially Rolex buys stock in the company and they manufacture Rolex watches. I'm assuming over time Rolex will acquire more stock and only in 2004 do they get the whole company. But the company itself hasn't really changed other than the name on the front of the building. The real question is did they really make every single component found in the Rolex watch from the beginning of time until end of the time? A lot of the components found in a watch would be extremely specialized did they make their own jewels or their own mainsprings for instance? But that is looking at the article they employ a heck of a lot of people now I would guess now that Rolex probably does make everything in-house. Especially when they have nifty CNC equipment like for making screws were he could make a huge batch of one type it instantly switch to another type where before he needed specialized machines for one machine for one screw now manufacturing all kinds of stuff in-house becomes very simple. But still is possible that in the early days they might have outsourced something may be perhaps. But conceivably we do have minor changes in thing is due to how things have been made over time which can lead to confusions over whether this is legit or not when it may be as a change of manufacturing methods oh and regarding the screws found in your Rolex watch? In about mid-80s I went to a school reunion in Switzerland. One of things we could do was visit a factory and I picked Rolex because I wanted to see the mass production making of Rolex watches. Which is very disappointed I did not get the sea at all because didn't see them making Rolex watches in their Geneva headquarters even though the building is really fake? So what did we get to see well after sales service because after all were watchmakers we should see that. Did learn something interesting about Rolex screws if your watch was sent to Rolex the screws that come back are not the ones that went there. As they are using powered screwdrivers they don't want to risk breaking heads off and they will replace the screws of every single watch. The other one of interest was suppose there's a scratch and you can see the brass? No problem they have a solution that basically electoral plates without electricity so the scratch goes away. The research Department was quite boring and didn't look like anyone was ever there. Then it was too long ago to remember all the details other than I was disappointed I want to see manufacturing.   Yes the joys of artificial intelligence that is more like a trained monkey that's there to please you.
    • Hey everybody! I just registered to WRT. I found this forum searching for informations about ELMA watch cleaning machines (will get one ELMA tomorrow ✌️). I'm new in watch repair, collecting watch repair tools to fill up my work space 😎.   Greetings from Vienna Michael
    • Is it not covered in the manual under Profix Cap Jewels?
×
×
  • Create New...