Poljot Sturmanskie 3133

[RyMoeller]

About a week back I picked up this Sturmanskie after following @Endeavor and @GeorgeClarkson through the service of their Soviet chronographs.  The seller stated the watch dated from 1988 and included the original receipt and box.  Unfortunately, I cannot read Cyrillic so I was forced to take the seller at his word; regardless of it's origin though, the watch is a beautiful specimen and I'm happy to have it.  

Unfortunately I was unable to remove the caseback until today.  I took Roland's advice and used a jeweler's hammer and a sharp razor to work my way around the caseback slowly creating enough of a gap for a case knife to exploit.  It was a nerve-wracking experience!  In the end, the caseback came away with no damage to the watch.

I'm always very anxious to gaze upon a new chronograph movement- it's certainly geeky but I'm not afraid to admit it.

It looks like I'm not the first to open this case though.  Many screws have marks on them indicating they've been removed at some point in the past and replaced.  I believed this movement to be 31659, but alas, there is no hacking mechanism that I can see.  Over all the movement is in good shape and appears complete.  It will need a proper cleaning before it's ready to wear and I'll be sure to post about it when I have the chance.

[matabog]

for the case back, did you try this one?

 

 

I bought one for a very stubborn case back and it worked.

 

 

[RyMoeller]

No, I don't have that tool (yet).  I had only just discovered it when researching how to open this particular watch.

While I wouldn't suggest using a hammer on a watch, a few light taps here and there seemed to work well in this regard and the caseback was removed without damage to the case, gasket, or movement.  The key was finding a blade that was thin enough and strong enough to work all the way around the caseback.  This watch is plated soft metal which would can easily deform.

[Endeavor]

@RyMoeller Glad you got the case open without dynamite any further damage !

Great pictures you took ........ crystal clear !!

According to the Polmax3133 guide (http://www.polmax3133.com/guide.html ) the SU 3133 stamp on the bridge was first introduced in 1990. Version #1 (1990), version #2 (1992-1993) and the last version #3 (1993-1995). By the looks of it, the SU 3133 stamp you have on the Chrono-bridge suggest version #3.

The dial and hands seem identical to the 1988 one I have. I know this type of watch has been made for a while and is therefor called "Classic", but I can't find info from when - till when it was made. Perhaps @GeorgeClarkson can fill us in?

This may help to determine whether the movement (or just the bridge) has been changed out at some point, or all is original from that period?

Nonetheless, the watch and movement looks great

 

Edited March 15, 2017 by Endeavor

[RyMoeller]

  On 3/15/2017 at 4:29 PM, Endeavor said:

@RyMoeller Glad you got the case open without dynamite any further damage !

Great pictures you took ........ crystal clear !!

According to the Polmax3133 guide (http://www.polmax3133.com/guide.html ) the SU 3133 stamp on the bridge was first introduced in 1990. Version #1 (1990), version #2 (1992-1993) and the last version #3 (1993-1995). By the looks of it, the SU 3133 stamp you have on the Chrono-bridge suggest version #3.

The dial and hands seem identical to the 1988 one I have. I know this type of watch has been made for a while and is therefor called "Classic", but I can't find info from when - till when it was made. Perhaps @GeorgeClarkson can fill us in?

This may help to determine whether the movement (or just the bridge) has been changed out at some point, or all is original from that period?

Nonetheless, the watch and movement looks great

 

Expand  

Thanks Roland. 

Yes, I compared what I've got with the Polmax guide and it looks like it's mostly an early 90's piece.  The stamping on the bridge is rough and has the "SU" prefix dates later than '88.  The balance is also from a later date.  So I'm not sure if it's a retrofitted piece, a Franken Watch, or an aberration.  Regardless, the movement is complete and in good condition and the watch was keeping time although it's in need of lubrication (and a thorough cleaning).

I'll note also that the dial and hands are in fantastic shape, as is the case.  This I'm quiet pleased of.  I also really dig the design of the sweep second hand- even my Speedmaster doesn't sport that type of swagger!

Oh, and I'm still quite happy with the purchase, but then I haven't regretted picking up a chronograph yet!

[Endeavor]

To be clear, it was not my intention to point out flaws, or whether it was a Franken or not. I only know a very little of these watches and can only go by the Polmax3133 information; "hear-say" I like to call that

I was a bit surprised to see that it wasn't a 31659 and to see a "SU" in the chrono-bridge, so I started digging. As said, the dial and hands seem completely identical with my watch, and so does the watch-case.

What can one do if the movements packs in and needs replacement? Perhaps somewhere in the '90's and was replaced with a new movement at that time. Does that make it a Franken? It's still replaced (if at all !!??) by an original Poljot movement. Basically, it's all original Poljot ! If you would have found a Seiko inside ....... sure, I would call that a Franken .......

Al in all, it's a great watch and I'm looking forward to a walk-through if you are going to do one !? Your pictures are for sure a pleasure to look at, and your descriptions / story are a joy to read ...... 

[RyMoeller]

  On 3/15/2017 at 6:17 PM, Endeavor said:

To be clear, it was not my intention to point out flaws, or whether it was a Franken or not. I only know a very little of these watches and can only go by the Polmax3133 information; "hear-say" I like to call that

I was a bit surprised to see that it wasn't a 31659 and to see a "SU" in the chrono-bridge, so I started digging. As said, the dial and hands seem completely identical with my watch, and so does the watch-case.

What can one do if the movements packs in and needs replacement? Perhaps somewhere in the '90's and was replaced with a new movement at that time. Does that make it a Franken? It's still replaced (if at all !!??) by an original Poljot movement. Basically, it's all original Poljot ! If you would have found a Seiko inside ....... sure, I would call that a Franken .......

Al in all, it's a great watch and I'm looking forward to a walk-through if you are going to do one !? Your pictures are for sure a pleasure to look at, and your descriptions / story are a joy to read ...... 

Expand  

Oh for sure- my apologies if I sounded a little defensive.  Truth be told, I'm not bummed in the slightest regarding the originality of the watch or movement.  It seems pretty clear the movement is from the 90's and although I would have been a bit more interested in the hacking 31659, the base 3133 is fine for my purposes.  I'm also interested in inspecting the non-glucydur balance.

My best guess is that the watch is simply from a later date than the seller thought.

At any rate, I set out to find a Venus 188 or Valjoux 7733 based chronograph and this fits the bill.  I'm also a bit interested in the quality of the Russian mechanical and in that respect this is may be a bit better than what I was hoping for as the movement is a bit further removed from the original Swiss engineering.

Franken is a funny term for me.  I wouldn't consider this a Franken Watch because as you pointed out, it has a proper movement inside (regardless of whether it's the original movement).  Go to the Omega forums and you'll get a completely different definition of Franken Watch!

I will be doing a full service on this piece in the near future and will post about it here too.  Thanks for the kind words regarding my photography too- I've had a year to work on it and it's evolving. 

[Endeavor]

That could be another interesting thread, you photography setup! Or as a continuation on the existing " Horology Photography Thread"; http://www.watchrepairtalk.com/topic/3985-horology-photography-thread/#comment-40451

Very curious what your "good pictures" secrets are ..... 

Well, I'm not curious, I just want to know ....... !!

Edited March 15, 2017 by Endeavor