Jump to content

Smith - From Cheltenham To Essex


Recommended Posts

Some time ago, I read an interesting post on Robert Loomes "Made In England" watches. I was idly looking at a Loomes catalogue on the net recently, aware that his movements are basically NOS Smiths movements. His watches cost between £7,000 and £16,000 depending on this and that - mainly whether they're rose-gold or not - whereas a Smiths watch today can cost a fraction of that. Just for fun, I took a screenshot of the movement from his "Robin" range and popped it next to a photo of my grandad's BR presentation watch ("De Luxe" movement) from 1965. So - Smith's owners everywhere - should we get out our engraving tools and get scribing... smile.png

 

Smith-Loomes.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Spooky! I was just looking at that Robert Loomes movement yesterday, there is very little difference between yours and it.

 

Apart from the engraving and the touching up of the different parts - no difference whatsoever. That's because Loomes discovered a hoard of NOS Smiths movements in Holland or somewhere like that, bought them to England and proceeded to found his "Made In England" business on the back of tarting them up.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's interesting, isn't it? Note how the original movement engraving - number of jewels, Made in England, serial number - has all been polished away to be replaced by Loomes's own signature and his version of "Made In England". The movement has also been decreased in diameter - take a look at the space between the bridge screws and the edge. I wonder if he's increased the number of jewels as part of the mod - doubt it - and it looks as though the balance wheel is the plain, unweighted version as well.

Edited by WillFly
Link to comment
Share on other sites

it looks as though the balance wheel is the plain, unweighted version as well.[/size]

I think the balance does have screws. The movement appears to be running and the screws are a blur just outside the diameter of the wheel.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes - as you say - a blurred balance. In any case, in spite of my slight cynicism, I can't see them using a plain old "Empire"-type movement in a watch of this price!

 

Incidentally, did I read somewhere that one of the Jaeger-Le-Coultre watchmakers - someone called Lenoir -  acted as a consultant or director of Smiths when they were refining their movements upwards? The double screws on the balance cock remind me of a J L-C.

Edited by WillFly
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I worked on these for Robert in Stamford for a while.

It was mind numbing, but all the folks at Robert Loomes are fantastic. In particular, Craig is an exceptional watchmaker and I can say that a huge amount of man hours went into the build of the Robin. I know Don knows what I am talking about.

:)

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Should it not have been the Loomes Lovick then!

I like that - rolls off the tongue.

 

"Ooh - nice watch - what is it?"

"Oh, it's a Loomes-Lovick."

"Very sweet!"

Edited by WillFly
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

    • Just thinking about the above, if the banking pins are angled 'V' shape (which they look like in the photo)  then due to end shake of the pallet fork the distance the pallet fork will travel when in the dial up will be different from the distance it will travel in the dial down, which will make regulation very difficult if not impossible.
    • I'm not sure that we want a really see the pictures but there are a few pictures in another discussion found at the link below. then we looking at the pictures maybe it's an optical illusion maybe it's my imagination but I'm not sure the pins are exactly where there supposed to be. Especially as the holes to not quite look like there where there supposed to be but as I said it's probably just an optical illusion hopefully?    
    • That's a thorough method Joe, i can't argue at all with your approach of stripping a balance back to check everything, I like it👍.  It does require a lot of skill though, so not so much of a beginners way of doing things. 
    • Yes, I always detach the balance complete, before working on shock spring.  It also gives me a chance to check the coil ( nothing replaces looking directly down the coil ) , check the collet, alignment of hair spring  leaving the collet with stud pinning. Also the hole of settings housing, have plenty to show where pivot has rubbed and grind the hole, and many more checking & adjusting. Detach & instal balance complete is a very neccesary task in mechanical watch repair, pivots break, H/ S ruined beyond repair, rotating the collet ... etc.  I find pegging upper balance pivot risky with balance attached. Rgds
    • 100% agree- I would rather make a balance staff than a pallet fork arbor. Unless: -unless they are threaded. Not that making the thread is so hard (though it can be), but you have to really have all your measurements spot on as there is no recourse for height adjustment.   Funny thing, well funny to me- the first fork I made was because of a threaded arbor. Watchmaker tried to knock out the arbor thinking it was friction fitted, but it was threaded, and the fork split in two. Maybe it's funny to me because it was my brother who did it 😂.
×
×
  • Create New...