Jump to content
  • 0
JONICURN

Rolex 1570 losing time

Question

Hi, i have a Rolex 1570 movement that loses 40 minutes a day only in dial up position.  All other positions, while on the timegrapher, measure really good.  This watch had complete overhaul by a Rolex certified watchmaker in California less than 6 months ago.   Where should i look for fault?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Recommended Posts

  • 0

If possible, either estimate the balance amplitude while in the fault state, or take a slow-mo video to make an exact measurement. My initial thoughts were the same as Clockboy's, ie. an escapement issue. Could be for many reasons.

I'd certainly want to take it back to the person who serviced it...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
1 hour ago, rodabod said:

Unfortunately the timegrapher is unable to register an amplitude reading in that photo. 

Correct, and the pattern is the so called snowfall one. That indicates a beat so irregular, and an amplitude so reduced, that the instrument shows no values rather than meaningless ones. The result is (as the OP indicated), that is is extremely slow in that position. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

What I would be interested to know is if the amplitude is indeed extremely low or if the amplitude is reasonable but the escaping action is all over the place.

I’ve had the latter when the safety roller / finger has been out of adjustment and that possibly introduces additional sounds which confuses the timegrapher. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
5 minutes ago, rodabod said:

What I would be interested to know is if the amplitude is indeed extremely low or if the amplitude is reasonable but the escaping action is all over the place.

I’ve had the latter when the safety roller / finger has been out of adjustment and that possibly introduces additional sounds which confuses the timegrapher. 

In that case the machine would show meaningful values, and some sort of pattern with scattered dots. Be reassured that's simply a case of crappy beating when resting on the upper pivot.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
10 hours ago, JONICURN said:

So, great news, and thanks to all the helpful members involved...I fixed it! 

By the way, the jeweler who overhauled the watch said their warranty didn't transfer to other owners.

Excellent! 

Pitiful attitude by the jeweler. As if he had to pay with his money. Once again proves that one should not ever bring them Watches for repair.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
On 09.02.2018 at 4:14 PM, jdm said:

Excellent! 

Pitiful attitude by the jeweler. As if he had to pay with his money. Once again proves that one should not ever bring them Watches for repair.

So what was it?

Share this post


Link to post
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.

Guest
Answer this question...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  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.

Loading...

  • Recently Browsing

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • Topics

  • Posts

    • Next up is the motor speed control. I did think long and hard about my original aim of maintaining as much originality as possible. And, there is no doubt that the original speed control rheostat was a) original and b) functional. But - as I was an electronics technician in an earlier life, and also health and safety professional in a more recent life, the safety aspects weighed heavily upon my concience. Logic played it's part as well - with the original rheostat put back into service, albeit with some hand-made guarding to keep out the fingers of the unwary, it would be safe-ish, for me to use, as long as I kept my wits about me. BUT NOT SAFE FOR ANYONE ELSE unaware of what was underneath. Only the knowledge of what lurked underneath would be keeping me safe, but anyone else might not have a second chance. As can be seen from the photo below, all of the wire on the resistors is not only unguarded, but within millimetres of the level of the base. Also, the incoming mains terminals to the rheostat are also dangerously unguarded. With today's knowledge, it is difficult to fathom how this ever could have been considered safe to use.
    • Back to the job in hand. I managed to find the cork I thought I may have had, lurking in a box under the stairs. It was the most part of an A4 sized sheet, so more than enough for my purposes - to sit the jars on whilst they are in the machine. Looking at the metal bases, I really can't be convinced if there ever was any cork or any other material for that matter there. But for me anyway, the idea of the glass jars sitting directly on the metal base just seems wrong and I would prefer some cork there as a cushion. It's about as tidy as it needs to be, given the shape of the metal webbing. I suppose I could have cut-out squares of cork, but then it would leave potential weak, unsupported areas of cork, which would likely need some form of strengthening. Anyway - this application suits me and helps the jars sit a bit more stable in their locations. Whilst I am in the vicinity, so to speak, I have also added an earth lead which will bond the chassis to the incoming mains lead, once fitted. This is visible in these photos.  
    • A little further research and then on with the show... A quick browse through patent databases, shows that one Saul Lanzetter applied for and was awarded a patent for this design of watch cleaning machine in October 1937. A brief narrative is reproduced here: Interestingly, the patent application is entitled "Improvements in apparatus for cleaning watch parts and other small parts of machinery." It may be reading too much onto this title to assume that there may have been a previous patent, pre-dating this one, as this one refers to "improvements". Also of interest, there were 2 patent applications from US companies in 1944 and 1945 which cite the Lanzetter patent, and three from Germany in 1956, 1960 and 1961 (only one of which was actually published), which also cite the Lanzetter patent as a reference. Incidentally - the two US patents refer to machines which look strikingly similar to the National Model VI-C above, and the National No 4. machine in the earlier advert, showing the four jars side by side ( this seems to be referred to as a lab machine, rather than a repair shop machine). Naturally, all patents or applications referred to above are now expired. For me anyway, I think this may clear up which watch cleaning machine may have come first (at least in this machine format anyway): The S. Lanzetter National Electric Watch Cleaning Machine, circa 1937.  
    • Impressive work. The barrel and mainspring look almost new, and the remaining pitting is no worse than some lesser movements left the factory with. I'm looking forward to the next installment.
    • Has anyone ever used Longines free service to get an extract from their archives on their watch? https://www.longines.com/certificate-of-authenticity See the above link, if you just want the extract they will post it to you for free, obviously if you want a certificate of Authenticity you need to send them your watch and pay for that, but the extract is free.   I'm going to ask for the extract on my 30LS Longines.
×
×
  • Create New...