Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted

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.  

IMG_2549.thumb.JPG.0dba09cc8cbaf5ad1d6cd741a5716480.JPGIMG_2554.thumb.JPG.4422506c44535a4119bb17d476bc0010.JPGIMG_2560.thumb.JPG.30e478263d19f2642e9357dbfddea420.JPGIMG_2562.thumb.JPG.9bc0922e1a2169e8075d66db485c77cf.JPG

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.

IMG_2581.thumb.JPG.7fe078cf1fb3b82a30c6c3d1e13a9ac9.JPG

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

IMG_2593.thumb.JPG.fd3e481d58d836726e001331809520c3.JPGIMG_2594.thumb.JPG.cada6837617b325a68cf894a331132b8.JPGIMG_2587.thumb.JPG.b840aee2079c8f4d072028ad2b77557c.JPGIMG_2591.thumb.JPG.e9c412c88fe0f427ce2677ad351c12c2.JPGIMG_2589.thumb.JPG.b96b3b93367e86dff0ccab685010a3e4.JPG

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.

  • Like 5
Posted

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.

Posted (edited)

@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 by Endeavor
  • Like 1
Posted
27 minutes ago, 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 :)

 

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!

Posted

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 ......  :)

Posted
23 minutes ago, 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 ......  :)

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.  ^_^

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

    • it would be nice to have the exact model of the watch the or a picture so we can see exactly what you're talking about. this is because the definition of Swiss watch could be a variety of things and it be helpful if we could see exactly the watch your dealing with then in professional watch repair at least some professionals they do pre-cleaned watches. In other words the hands and dial come off and the entire movement assembled goes through a cleaning machine sometimes I think a shorter bath perhaps so everything is nice and clean for disassembly makes it easier to look for problems. Then other professionals don't like pre-cleaning because it basically obliterates the scene of the crime. Especially when dealing with vintage watches where you're looking for metal filings and problems that may visually go away with cleaning. Then usually super sticky lubrication isn't really a problem for disassembly and typically shouldn't be a problem on a pallet fork bridge because there shouldn't be any lubrication on the bridge at all as you typically do not oil the pallet fork pivots.  
    • A few things you should find out before you can mske a decision of what to do. As Richard said, what is the crown and all of the crown components made of . Then also the stem .  The crown looks to have a steel washer that retains a gasket. So be careful with what chemicals you use to dissolve any stem adhesives or the use of heat. You might swell or melt the gasket unless you are prepared to change that also . The steel washer maybe reactive to alum. Something I've just used to dissolve a broken screw from a plate. First drilled out the centre of the screw with a 0.5mm carbide . Dipped only the section that held the broken screw in Rustins rust remover. This is 40 % phosphoric acid. 3 days and the screw remains were completely dissolved, no trace of steel in the brass threads. A black puddle left in the solution.
    • I suppose this will add to the confusion I have a roller jewel assortment. It lists out American pocket watches for Elgin 18 size and even 16 size it's a 50. But not all the various companies used 50-50 does seem to be common one company had a 51 and the smallest is 43. American parts are always interesting? Francis Elgin for mainsprings will tell you the thickness of the spring other companies will not even though the spring for the same number could come in a variety of thicknesses. But if we actually had the model number of your watch we would find it probably makes a reference that the roller jewel came in different dimensions. So overlook the parts book we find that? So it appears to be 18 and 16 size would be the same sort of the arson different catalog numbers and as I said we don't have your Mongol know which Log number were supposed to be using. Variety of materials garnered her sapphire single or double but zero mention about diameters. Then in a section of rollers in this case rollers with jewels we do get this down in the notes section Roller specifications but of course zero reference to the jewel size. I was really hoping the roller jewel assortment would give us sizes it doesn't really. But it does show a picture of how one particular roller jewel gauge is used  
    • Seems to still do it through my mobile data, I use an android phone almost exclusively, but I'll double check it. Thanks mark Strange, I'll try my laptop that utilities edge. I've been on site half hour since I got home, it hasn't done it yet. Thanks John
    • At work, I'm on MS Edge, not through chose, on my phone, chrome, no issues with either. 
×
×
  • Create New...