Jump to content

Revue 56 w. Incabloc (or not)


Recommended Posts

Hello,

As a beginner in the field of watch service/repair I have stumbled through a few movements and picked up so much value and guidance through Mark's videos. 

Lately I have taken a fancy to a couple of old Revue Sport watches with Revue 56 movements. These are supposedly late 30's or early 40's and the ones I have are fitted with Incabloc protection even though I have understood and seen examples on the web that the non-inca may be more common. 

In one of my movements I have a broken balance pivot and would prefer to swap out the complete balance (# 721) for a new one as I don't have the tools/skills yet to swap out the staff only. I find that there are different versions for the staff (inca/non-inca) available and the dimensions are close to identical, there's only a diameter that differs very slightly in the numbers.

I have found suppliers for the 721 non-inca balance complete part and my question is if that part will run in my inca version of the movement?

With the overall staff length identical between the staff versions, there should be a decent chance or...?

Grateful for any advice out there...

/B

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi and thanks for the quick response!

I had based my statement on the info attached, where the "Noveau" version is identical in length but differs in the B and F dimensions. 

So it would appear that there is a 3rd staff version out there...?

But you are right, there would be more end shake with a non-inca staff balance. The difference is 20 micron, which in my world doesn't sound like much :-) 

Maybe I should just get one and try it out...

/B

 

 

revue 56_inca.jpg

revue 56_noveau.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

Hi again,

Been thinking what to do here and decided to step up my ambition a notch.

Went hunting on ebay for a staking tool set and have one coming in soon. Supposedly a bit surface rust on it but hopefully I can get that cleared...

What I wasn't fully aware of was the need for a device to remove the roller from the stem. And it seems there wasn't one included in the set I purchased, even though I'm far from understanding all the potential use of the parts in there.

Looking around, there seems to be a variety of tools and add-on's available for this purpose, ranging from the highly professional (that I see Mark using in a video) to the really simple one like the picture I included here.

Does anyone have advice on where to go here? I am intrigued by the simple approach (and cost) of the one in the picture and was thinking this might be a good starting point.


5b981372bbab9f5a2da5834e5a95db9a.jpg


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 months later...

Hi all,

Time flies and I realize it's now two months since my latest activity on this thread.

I wanted to round this one off with my latest experiences and findings that might be of some general interest.

I went ahead and purchased a complete non-inca balance and an inca balance staff.

The hope was that the non-inca balance would work in spite of the expected larger end-shake.

Result: negative! When mounted the balance got pinched and wouldn't move freely at all, which was kind of the opposite of what I had expected. The only conclusion I can make is that the pivot shapes are somewhat different and not compatible between inca and non-inca....?

Having gathered enough courage I decided today might be as good a day as any to make a try with the correct balance staff and my new staking set, to which I have also added a staff remover.

Watched Mark's Cyma video a couple of times and went to work with riveting etc.

And to my immense surprise it works!

Without even cleaning the movement it starts to run on first attempt with an amplitude around 250 degrees and a beat error at 1,2 ms. Easily regulates down to a few sec's as it lies on my work bench.

I see a bit of slow beat waves on the timegrapher curves, which I presume is connected to some wobbling (can't see any though) or imperfect poising. Comments to this behaviour (that I have seen on other movements) is appreciated.

Crossing my fingers it will still run in the morning and happy for now...

/B




Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites



  • Similar Content

  • Recently Browsing

    • No registered users viewing this page.
  • Topics

  • Posts

    • hmmmm.... maybe there is a way to skin that cat 🙀 let me think on it... unless anyone else has any ideas? I left the opening in the side of the base and ring quite large to maybe allow you to grip the crown, but appreciate this may not always be possible, especially for small movements where the crown will not extend past the outer wall of the holder. I noticed this also, but after using the holder for a while I noticed that the ring/holder began to wear into shape (rough edges/bumps worn off) and the size became closer to the desired movement OD. Maybe with some trial and error we could add 0.5 mm (??) to the movement OD to allow for this initial bedding-in?
    • Hi nickelsilver, thanks for the great explanation and the links! I'll take a good look in the article.  Especially this is great news to hear! Looking through forums and youtube videos I was informed to 'fist find a case and then fit a movement for it'. But seems that's not the case for pocket watches at least?  I guess I should be looking to find some 'male square bench keys' for now. I was thinking of winding the mainspring using a screwdriver directly, but I found a thread that you've replied on, saying that it could damage the spring. 
    • Murks, The rate and amplitude look OK, and the amplitude should improve once the oils you have used get a chance to move bed-in, also I notice that you are using default 52 degrees for the lift angle, if you get the real lift angle (assuming it's not actually 52) this will change your amplitude - maybe higher, maybe lower. I notice that the beat error is a little high, but not crazy high. At the risk of upsetting the purists, if the balance has an adjustment arm I would go ahead and try and get this <0.3 ms, but if it does not have an adjustable arm then I would probably leave well alone. Just my opinion.
    • Hi everyone on my timegrapher it showing this do a make anymore adjustment someone let me know ?    
    • Maybe I'm over simplifying this and I'm a little late to the discussion, but just by my looking at oil when I use it on a treated cap jewel  the oil stays in one nice bubble, but when I don't it spreads out to the edges of the jewel. I'm not sure (but could well be wrong) but the analogy of a waxed car and rain is accurate in this case, the wax is very hydrophobic and repels the water, however, the process epilame works by is a different physical process based upon cohesion/adhesion (oleophilic) not repulsion (oleophobic)  at least as far as I have read/observed. If one were to use a oleophobic substance equivalent to wax (hydrophobic) then one would need to create a donut shape to fence in the oil, however if one used such a strategy with a epilame which is oleophilic then the oil would sit on the ring of the donut and not in the 'donut hole', exactly where you don't want it. Even if the oil is smeared then the oleophilic epilame should pull it back to the center (see diagram below). Reference For interest the chemical in epilame is 2-(PERFLUOROHEXYL) ETHYL METHACRYLATE, CAS NO: 2144-53-8
×
×
  • Create New...