Jump to content

ETA 963.125, Fake Rolex - Replacement or repair


Ullas

Recommended Posts

Hi all, this is my first post here. I repair watches as a hobby, and usually work on my own watches. This particular watch, along with two others, were give to a friend of mine, by his father, about three days before he passed away recently. The three watches, hence have an emotional value to my friend, and so, I wanted to get them going again. I fixed the QMax (Replaced battery), Titan (PCB and Coil, new battery, glass), and am working on this Rolex now. Almost all Indicators of a genuine Rolex that I have read of online, are absent, hence making me believe its most definitely a fake. i.e. No serial number or any stamping anywhere on case, no Logo on crown, Dial looks as if its been lacquered, bad finish, bracelet, and most importantly, no markings on the movement, and the movement was not used on any Rolex to my knowledge. Please enlighten me on this, if I am wrong.

The issue I have now, is that, on the movement, there were no markings whatsoever, of the make or model. There were only serial numbers that read as "34B - 963125". After searching a lot, I realized, its an ETA 963.125, and photos on the internet matched with the movement I have. No marking of ETA on the movement (a fake again?). Its in a pretty rough shape, with the quartz oscillator (forgive my lack of knowledge of its correct name, as mechanics call it a "condenser" here), fallen apart. I did a preliminary  search with the mechanics and spares shop here, and they all said its very old and parts are not available. Only one said, he will get me a scrap movement, but I am a bit doubtful. I was able to get a service manual for ETA 963.124 online. My question now is, is it possible to get these spares, or the whole movement anywhere in Bangalore, India? (my place), or is it possible to replace the whole movement with a different one, with the day and date windows matching with the dial? Or is it possible to reuse the same day and date rings on a different movement? Can anyone advice me on this? TIA. Pictures attached, forgive the lower quality, problem with my mobile cam.

  

IMG-20171017-WA0003.jpg

IMG-20171017-WA0004.jpg

IMG-20171017-WA0008.jpg

IMG_20180116_121128613.jpg

IMG_20180116_121136058.jpg

IMG_20180116_121143059.jpg

IMG_20180116_121200518.jpg

IMG_20180116_121223001.jpg

IMG_20180116_121257067.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, rodabod said:

MovementInterchange.pdf

Can try an ISA 1198. Or alternatively could fit an ETA automatic, but check overall thickness and most importantly “stem height”. 

No attachment. ETA automatic seems very out of place on a fake.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The forum automatically tries to embed PDF files to view, but seems to have failed. 

It’s a fake watch, so no movement is technically correct. However, for early ETA quartz, sometimes the closest available equivalent is a mechanical. For example, ETA 536: ETA 2836. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

39 minutes ago, clockboy said:

What worries me with copies/fakes is if after a repair it is then sold on as genuine. Am I then party to the fraud even if I only repaired it. A grey area in law that I would not like to challenge.

A remote concern in some (if any) 1st world countries. Not elsewhere where problems at hand are more substantial. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, clockboy said:

There will be an equivalent movement for sure you might have to take measurements or a internet search. Whether it is worth doing is up to you, personally I would not bother as it is not even a good copy of the genuine.

Thank you. As i did mention, its not the monetary issue here, but its more of a memory to my friend of his father. 

4 hours ago, rodabod said:

MovementInterchange.pdf

Can try an ISA 1198. Or alternatively could fit an ETA automatic, but check overall thickness and most importantly “stem height”. 

Thank you sir. I guess I'll keep it quartz as much as possible.

4 hours ago, clockboy said:

What worries me with copies/fakes is if after a repair it is then sold on as genuine. Am I then party to the fraud even if I only repaired it. A grey area in law that I would not like to challenge.

Didn't quite understand in what way this was meant sir, but if it was regarding me selling this watch, you can see its in a very rough shape for anyone to buy it. And I definitely don't want to add to the menace of fake Rolex watches that exist here already.

17 minutes ago, rogart63 said:

watcheseek closed this question . I think we would do the same here? Would have been better if you just asked about the movement? Not saying it's a fake Rolex. 

Ill take that into account next time sir. I was just being honest. Yes, the question was closed within few hours of me posting it there. More important for me than the "Fake Rolex", even though I initially mentioned it, is to get this watch running for my friend. Its a kind of a gift he recieved from his father just about four days before his sudden demise, so it holds a special place to him. Doing repairs as a hobby, I have decided not to take money for this work from him.

 

Thank you all for your response. The exchange chart mentioned only an ETA 963.124 and not a 125. I was bit doubtful, so asked here. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, rogart63 said:

watcheseek closed this question . I think we would do the same here? Would have been better if you just asked about the movement? Not saying it's a fake Rolex. 

Good point, topic closed.
One last note from me, I often hear of "sentimental value" as a compelling reason to spend money and effort on what not repairable or unreasonable to repair. Instead I think that a good way to respect the memory of who is no more, is not throwing good money after bad, just like as the person wold probably have done.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • jdm locked this topic
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.


  • Similar Content

  • Recently Browsing

    • No registered users viewing this page.
  • Topics

  • Posts

    • Hi Fernando, read carefully what @eccentric59 wrote, it is the key to You problem. Lubricate the cannon pinion. Take care to understand what is it's function. When You set time, the train doesn't move, but only the cannon pinion moves. Put hte lever back in it's place, it has nothing to do with time setting
    • Hi fernando. Let us know how you get on.
    • OK, in You case You will assemble the movement with the line attached to the barrel and fusee and will  wind the line  entirely on the barrel after that. It is important when replacing the line to know the correct lenght of the line. The rule is that when line wound on the fudsee entirely, about 1/4 turn still to remain on the barrel. Yes, no tension. The ratchet is not placed yet, the spring in the barrel is complitelly unwound. At the end of the step the fusee is empty and the line is attached to it and strained perpendiculary to it, not on tangent. The escape wheel. Use whatever that will not damage anything. Yes, this is typing mistake, sorry. The word 'pendulum' here is not correct, You should use 'anchor' and yes, it is removed from the movement at this point, according my instruction 1 (Ihave used the word 'lever' there):   Ok, let sey the barrel arbour makes 6 full turns when winding the spring in the barrel from unwound to fully wound state of the spring. Let sey that the barrel makes 4.5 full turns when winding the clock from fully unwound (the line is on the barrel) to fully wound (the line is on the fusee) state. This means that You should not wind the spring in the barlel when adjusting the initial tension to more than 1.5 turns of the arbour of the barrel.  If You make 2 full turns, then when winding the clock, the barrel will be able to turn to only 4 turns, so the limiting device will not limit the rotation of the fusee arbour and You will be able to force the line much more than when the limiting device acts, also the power reserve will be less. Hope this is clear now... Yes, but again - not the pendulum, but the anchour.   About the loosing time... In this kind of escapement, the frequency pritty much depends on the torque. The higher torque - the highrer frequency. This is because this escapement forces the pendulum to oscillate significantly faster than it's own resonant fequency. The frequency depends on the 'depth' of the escapement too - the deeper escapement is, the lower the frequency, and the higher amplitude of pendulum oscillations. The heavier the pendulum is, the harder to the movement (the escapement torque) to force the pendulum to oscillate faster than it's own frequency. And in the end, the own pendulum frequency depends only on the pendulum lenght and a little on the suspension spring 'strenght' This are all the relations between all the factors. You can try to use the old spring (if it is not broken) and see if the clock will work faster with it. Yes, the old springs of fusee clocks sometimes give bigger torque than modern ones, no matter if they seem to be 'set' You can shorten the pendulum to achieve correct frequency. If the torque is reduced, but enough for the movement to work reliably,  then reduced torque will only lead to lessen the wear. The torque in fusee movements is more or less constant all the time, this is the function of the fusee. You can use the Clock Tuner  free app for android to adjust faster the clock rate. You will need to know the BPH of the movement, so count the teeth of the wheels and pinions and calculate the BPH
    • Hi! My bad. I meant to say that when the pallet fork is installed I cant move the wheels "using the crown in the setting position" Really in truly my number 3 was redundant and badly written (trying to explain myself went all wrong). I dismantling partially the watch (calendar, remontoir, Balance and Pallet fork). I think I would need to go that way...  Thanks for your comments...    
    • this is what happens if you don't fully do all of your research. I found the safe answer I found your exact caliber we got a mainspring number we got a price at a decent price for the original spring verified that the spring number at least on bestfit agrees with what we have so it was safe yes I did look in the GR catalog I had seen that 200 watch has a spring similar to what you perceive it should be. But to be honest I never looked at the 200 watch to see what its mainspring was. then the other amusement I went back to the bestfit online because if the 200 have the same spring I were to see that when I snipped out the image up above. Turns out they don't even show a 200 listing at all.  
×
×
  • Create New...