Post by Deleted on Aug 29, 2014 19:38:58 GMT -8
As I am going through my collection and sampling them with the Timegrapher, I am learning a lot about my various pieces.
This is a fist full of 8 watches that I earlier subjected to the Timegrapher...
There is one Citizen with the 8200 movement from the late 70s, an Enicar with the 160 calibre hand wind movement, a Seiko 7009, a Seiko 7019 and the rest are Seiko 7s26A powered watches.
The Citizen hasn't been opened and to the best of my abilities, I also have not been able to open it but it is running fairly respectably for a late 70s watch that may not have ever been service. The timegrapher puts it at about an average rate of +17 seconds over the 6 position range of the holder.
The Enicar is as rock solid as you would expect from a top quality Swiss movement. It is as good as my 7002-7039 through all positions, rate, beat error and amplitude combined!
What I am realizing is that while some of my Ramon treasures are almost as good as or better performing than factory; there are as many that look good but are abysmal when viewed on the Timegrapher.
As I examine these things and go back and remove various bits for closer examination; I am finding that visual observation is sometimes misleading. An example might be of a balance wheel with what appear to be(under magnification) perfectly good pivots. But the Timegrapher begs to differ. Upon using my vernier/calipers for the ultimate measurements; I find that the poor performing ones are actually worn. Even though the look good, they are worn enough to allow slop and wobble of the pivots in there jewel bearings.
So what I see on the TG display is two lines of dots. If only one pivot is worn then there will be a line of straight dots and another of dots jumping around. Flipping the movement over presents the same straight line of dots with the jumping line on the other side of it; ie above or below.
I'm only presenting this simple scenario as there could be and likely are other things that could affect the display. The trick is to use a known good movement and swap in in questionable parts. This mostly eliminates other worn or out of tolerance parts from the equation.
Before I goth the TG, I was running 50/50 with movements being close to spec. Most of the rest appeared to work fine but were really in need of help.
This brings up the question of whether a beater that can keep withing 10 seconds per day needs to be as pristine on the TG as one that is just fresh off the assembly line.
In other words, is a movement that can provide reliable and decent timekeeping any less acceptable than one that comes from the factory and shows a pretty TG display?
I don't know. I've been more than happy with the results I've gotten(pre TG) but now that I know, I'll probably be a little more anal
This is a fist full of 8 watches that I earlier subjected to the Timegrapher...
There is one Citizen with the 8200 movement from the late 70s, an Enicar with the 160 calibre hand wind movement, a Seiko 7009, a Seiko 7019 and the rest are Seiko 7s26A powered watches.
The Citizen hasn't been opened and to the best of my abilities, I also have not been able to open it but it is running fairly respectably for a late 70s watch that may not have ever been service. The timegrapher puts it at about an average rate of +17 seconds over the 6 position range of the holder.
The Enicar is as rock solid as you would expect from a top quality Swiss movement. It is as good as my 7002-7039 through all positions, rate, beat error and amplitude combined!
What I am realizing is that while some of my Ramon treasures are almost as good as or better performing than factory; there are as many that look good but are abysmal when viewed on the Timegrapher.
As I examine these things and go back and remove various bits for closer examination; I am finding that visual observation is sometimes misleading. An example might be of a balance wheel with what appear to be(under magnification) perfectly good pivots. But the Timegrapher begs to differ. Upon using my vernier/calipers for the ultimate measurements; I find that the poor performing ones are actually worn. Even though the look good, they are worn enough to allow slop and wobble of the pivots in there jewel bearings.
So what I see on the TG display is two lines of dots. If only one pivot is worn then there will be a line of straight dots and another of dots jumping around. Flipping the movement over presents the same straight line of dots with the jumping line on the other side of it; ie above or below.
I'm only presenting this simple scenario as there could be and likely are other things that could affect the display. The trick is to use a known good movement and swap in in questionable parts. This mostly eliminates other worn or out of tolerance parts from the equation.
Before I goth the TG, I was running 50/50 with movements being close to spec. Most of the rest appeared to work fine but were really in need of help.
This brings up the question of whether a beater that can keep withing 10 seconds per day needs to be as pristine on the TG as one that is just fresh off the assembly line.
In other words, is a movement that can provide reliable and decent timekeeping any less acceptable than one that comes from the factory and shows a pretty TG display?
I don't know. I've been more than happy with the results I've gotten(pre TG) but now that I know, I'll probably be a little more anal
