Jump to content

Accurist movement help


Danh

Recommended Posts

Have you looked under the balance for the I D, my sight is not that good but I think I can see something under the balance. Or take the movement out, remove hands, dial, if nothing there take a photo of the dial side and post, many I D's can be recognized by the setting leaver work.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think it is a FEF 6664. I say think because these style of movements look very similar to each other. To be certain you need to take measurements of the movement & also take what measurement if you can of the old balance staff. 

http://www.ranfft.de/cgi-bin/bidfun-db.cgi?00&ranfft&a&2uswk&FEF_6664

 

to do your own research use this

 

http://www.ranfft.de/cgi-bin/bidfun-2uswk.cgi?1&ranfft

 

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

OK getting the balance is the challenge. If the staff is the same as cal. 6600 or 430 then the staff can be purchased from the link below..

I might have one in my own stock.!!!!!

My "bestfit" book does not show the 6664. So I suggest use the measurements shown @ the balancestaffs site for the 430 to see if it is the one required. 

 

http://www.balancestaffs.com/fef.php

 

or

 

http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/3-piece-vintage-FEF-6600-Swiss-made-Balance-Staff-For-Watchmaker-265-/262805841601?hash=item3d3072e6c1:g:~pgAAOSwaB5XjdWG

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would certainly say that it was part of the same family of movements as the 6664 but there are a number of differences.

The 6664 has a push pin stem release and an adjustable stud carrier. The OP's watch has a screw stem release, a fixed stud carrier, and a completely different set lever bridge/spring. It also has a cut away around the outer edge of the train wheel bridge, although this may simply be cosmetic.

I'm not saying that it definitely isn't a 6664 as it is not uncommon for there to be slight variations within a particular calibre, however, this level of deviation is usually accompanied by a change in designation.

Of course it may make no difference at all in this case as it could well be that the same balance staff is used across the whole movement family, but then again if there are variations in (for instance) beat rate within the movement family, this may also mean variations in balance design and potentially different staffs.

It goes without saying that whatever it turns out to be it needs a non-shock protected staff and not the Incabloc illustrated on Ranfft.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 19/01/2017 at 9:49 PM, Danh said:

Hi All

hope you all well

i am stuck trying to find out who made this movement, I need a new balance staff for It

it measures approx 18mm x 15mm (6.75x7.75?)

21 jewels

thank you

dan 

IMG_7286.JPG

Hi Dan I've got one similar and it's marked eta 2487 if that's any use.

IMG_0150.PNG

regards 

Kaz

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 20/01/2017 at 10:43 PM, oldhippy said:

BUSAKAZ, I know your trying to help, but your movement is nothing like the Accurist, apart from size and shape. Just look at the difference in the plates and wind up mechanism, do you see how different they are.

 

Oldhippy I can obviously see it is different but if it got him out of trouble he could of had the movement for free.:thumbsu:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

51 minutes ago, BUSAKAZ said:

Oldhippy I can obviously see it is different but if it got him out of trouble he could of had the movement for free.:thumbsu:

Too small I am afraid my friend, but I very much appreciate the thought - very very kind of you

Link to comment
Share on other sites



  • Recently Browsing

    • No registered users viewing this page.
  • Topics

  • Posts

    • This is not rare at all, the dial code and case code don't usually match.
    • Good question!! Anyone know of a substitute movement??!! 🤔🙏
    • Interesting issue that I just noticed: this Seiko 5actus Watch from 1977 has a calibre listing on the dial of 7019-8030R but on the case back it says 7019-8010!! Like a mis-printed coin, is this watch therefore worth a lot of money for its rarity?? 🤪😲🤔🤪
    • I wish that was the case. The Aegler movements used in the early days by Wilsdorf & Davis (for brands like Rolex and Rolco) came in several sizes and without designated calibre numbers that survive.  They become a bit easier to identify during the 1920s. Below is an Aegler-Rebberg, 25.74mm in diameter. It’s from a woman’s Rolex wristwatch. Stamped Rebberg and 500 on the dial plate (but it isn’t a Rebberg 500, it’s the wrong size).  I’d be interested if anyone can identify the movement.  It is based off the Aegler Nr.1, circa 1903, but they based many many calibres of different sizes on it. The closest I have to a positive ID is the  ‘Rolex Nr.50’ circa 1917, but no dial side images or movement sizes are available in the references. There are identical looking movements in many sizes.  The 25.74mm of this movement is a particularly strange size for the era, it equates to 11.41 lignes.      Best Regards, Mark
    • It looks like this movement comes with a number of different shock settings. Emmywatch shows that it comes in versions with no shock settings, 'Incabloc', 'shock resist', and 'Supershock'. Perhaps the different settings position the impulse jewel/roller table in a non-ideal position relative to the pallet fork/guard pin. Are you able to check under high magnification if the pallet fork and roller table are able to operate without any interference? Just for fun I took a look and I have one FHF 70 in my collection, a West End Secundus with a non-shock protected FHF70. I had a note with the watch that said, "Movement is stamped 'FHF 70', but the FHF70 looks to have sub-seconds instead of center seconds movement (??)" but that a google search turned up both types for this movement. EDIT: I just took a look in my parts drawer and I have a few of these movements, both in center seconds and sweep seconds, but they all are non-shock protected.  
×
×
  • Create New...