Jump to content

Rolex 8 3/4 Hunter (0528) parts


Recommended Posts

Hi, any advice on interchangeable parts for a 1948 ladies Rolex Oyster.  The movement has the following markings 

Rolex 8 3/4 Hunter 0528  17 Jewels. The Pallet fork and the roller table are both damaged and I don’t have the skills to repair / make replacements. Can anyone advise if other Rolex movements share the same parts which I can substitute as I’m hitting a blank searching on the movement details.

 

Thanks in advance

 

Edward4CEBB892-AB3F-4214-A87A-7F47F93E73D0.thumb.jpeg.627a578d18f49a1b0d72c31e4a68e79e.jpeg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Edward said:

Hi, any advice on interchangeable parts for a 1948 ladies Rolex Oyster.  The movement has the following markings 

Rolex 8 3/4 Hunter 0528  17 Jewels. The Pallet fork and the roller table are both damaged and I don’t have the skills to repair / make replacements. Can anyone advise if other Rolex movements share the same parts which I can substitute as I’m hitting a blank searching on the movement details.

 

Thanks in advance

 

Edward

Unfortunately Rolex parts are difficult to source. For vintage almost impossible your only hope is troll the net looking for a donor movement.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There may be more clues as to what the movement is by showing a picture of the other side, its a early calibre so is almost certainly produced by Aegler  and with 17 jewels is a Prima  varient these 8 3/4 movements where also the base calibre for the first Rolex Automatics.

Aegler movements where not just supplied to Rolex, Alpina and Gruen also used Aegler supplied movements and some parts for these are inter-changeable.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Quote

 

Think that the 0528 is a serial number. Check on ebay for donor movement. Seen a  some  Rolex 8 3/4 there. Didn't Rolex borrowed movement from other brands from the beginning ? Like FHF30 is Rolex 59 . 

Check Jules borel if they share any parts on other movements. http://cgi.julesborel.com/cgi-bin/matcgi2?ref=ROL_H_8_3/4_L

Edited by rogart63
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

1 hour ago, wls1971 said:

There may be more clues as to what the movement is by showing a picture of the other side, its a early calibre so is almost certainly produced by Aegler  and with 17 jewels is a Prima  varient these 8 3/4 movements where also the base calibre for the first Rolex Automatics.

Aegler movements where not just supplied to Rolex, Alpina and Gruen also used Aegler supplied movements and some parts for these are inter-changeable.

Search on the answer i got on Jules. Gruen 823 came up. When i search on ebay i found some parts . So think that they at least share some parts like stem and balance. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The movement is a Rolex calibre 510 most parts are common to the 500 series of movement see sheets below for part numbers5b2b393cbdeab_500I.thumb.jpg.b75b005a26f83b80da0e287986fb1fc1.jpg510.thumb.jpg.08c040acd3c80bd0ebe3faebc513b312.jpg

Interchangeable parts with other calibres:

The roller is also used  in Gruen calibres 818, 819, 823, 833, 879, other Rolex calibres 170, 250, 600, 620, 630, 635, 640, 645

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites



  • Recently Browsing

    • No registered users viewing this page.
  • Topics

  • Posts

    • https://watchguy.co.uk/cgi-bin/files?showfile=Venus/Venus 178.pdf&filename=Venus 178.pdf&dir=Technical Manuals&action=documents   The hour recorder is driven by the barrel and it will only stop if it is held by the hour recorder stop lever 8690. So I would check if this lever (powered by the spring 8691) is really holding the hour recorder in the "chrono off status". I haven't worked on a Venus 178 so far, but on an Omega 861 I chose 9501 grease for the friction spring as it's moving very slow at quite high tension.
    • All I do is use a fine marker (sharpie) to put the service date on the back cover, this way it can be removed with some IPA and does no permanent damage to the watch. I'm in two minds about the whole service marking thing, sometimes it's good/bad to see the markings on the watch case back as you know it's been worked on and vice versa. However, if I took my car in for a service and the mechanic scratched some code into the housing of my engine I wouldn't be too impressed. Hence, I think my sharpie solution is a reasonable compromise.
    • 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.
×
×
  • Create New...