Jump to content

Jeremy Harris

New Member
  • Content Count

    11
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Feedback

    N/A

Community Reputation

15 Good

About Jeremy Harris

  • Rank
    Pin Pallet
  1. Thanks for the reply, Simon. Best for me to post it to you so you can have a good look at it, perhaps. I can confirm that the dial seems to be able to rotate slightly, hence the date window looking to be a bit askew. I had wondered if this watch had a dial with feet, or whether the dial was secured at the edge with a tangential screw clamp type fixing, as I believe some Rolex models may use (could be wrong on this - I've just been looking at YouTube videos). Would you also be able to do all the other work I suspect this watch needs? The bracelet clasp is broken and needs replacing, the crystal is missing so a new one is needed, the dial could do with a clean and I strongly suspect that the movement, although still keeping good time, could do with a clean, as the crystal has been missing for several decades and even though it's been stored in small cardboard box, some dust is bound to have got inside it, I think. It was last serviced just after I came back to the UK in 1974, IIRC, so is well overdue for a service! Might be best if I gave you a ring to chat about it before just sending it off, perhaps. I have found your address and number in another post, so will try and call you this afternoon.
  2. Many thanks for the prompt reply, it's much appreciated. Here are some photos from the other thread that show the watch as it is now: Hope these help. I can take some more photos if they would be more useful. Best regards, Jeremy
  3. In this thread: I described the condition of my c.1963/4 Tudor Prince Oysterdate. I've been trying, without any luck, to find someone who would be able to repair this watch, to a reasonable high standard. I appreciate it's not a particularly valuable watch, and that the repairs may well cost a significant proportion of the value of the watch, but I've owned it for many years in this sorry state and would love to be able to wear it again. The movement seems to still work well, as I've been winding it and it runs well, and keeps reasonably good time, although the sweep second hand doesn't move. As a bare minimum the watch needs the second hand problem fixing, a new crystal, a clean and service and a new bracelet clasp (which seems to be a Rolex bracelet from c.1967). I would also like to have the case polished, and the dial cleaned, as both are a bit scruffy. Would this be something you might be able to help with, please? As a new member I've not reached the required number of posts to enable the PM system, but I'm developing an interest in simple watch repairs, having got my late Father's Rotary GT (c.1969) running, after 49 years of being stored in a loft, and am currently attempting to repair a 1956 Cyma R.458 that my Godfather gave me as an 18th birthday gift in 1970, and trying to document my learning curve in this thread: I'd be really grateful if there is anything you can suggest with regard to getting this Tudor running and usable again. Happy to contact you directly if you think you may be able to help.
  4. For my 18th birthday, my Godfather gave me his 9ct gold Cyma. This was in 1970. About a year later I was wearing it at a Hawkwind gig at the Round House, Chalk Farm Road, and on leaving I bashed it on something and the whole movement, crystal etc dropped out on to the ground. The case of this watch has the lugs fixed to the back, and the bezel ring with the crystal holds the movement in place, and it's not a very secure push fit (something I need to devise a way to fix later). So, as this watch hasn't got a lot of value, but is in pretty good condition as far as the dial, hands, case etc go, I thought I'd have a go at fixing it. I'd lost some bits, plus there seems to be an extra bit in there, but this box has been stored away for about 47 years. This is what I found when I opened the box: The face looks to be in pretty good condition for a watch that's over 60 years old: And it was easy to date as inside the case there are a full set of Edinburgh hallmarks for 1956: The movement is not too bad, but the balance wheel is missing, and the balance bridge is minus the bearing and cap jewel, plus the screw that holds the balance bridge in place is missing (I think I must have had it apart to try and fix it back when it was first damaged): So, it looks like I need a new balance wheel, complete with staff, hairspring, upper jewel bearing and cap jewel. A bit of hunting around revealed a complete movement for sale with a very badly damaged face, but the balance wheel looked OK. So for £13 I bought it, only to find that it's missing the upper balance wheel jewels! The good news is that the balance wheel and staff look to be in good condition. As the face on the replacement movement was beyond saving, I carefully pulled the hands off (they are in good condition, so will be kept as spares) and removed the face, so I could take a look at the bearing on the face side of the balance wheel. A quick check with a vernier seems to show that the bottom bearing jewels are identical to the missing upper bearing jewels. I'm now waiting for some more tools I've ordered to arrive, so the next instalment of this tale will be when I find out if I can remove the balance bridge, balance wheel and lower balance jewels from the donor movement, fit the jewels to the balance bridge and then try and put the movement back together again. It will need a good clean, as there's lots of bits of fluff in it, but first I want to find out if I can just swap the lower jewels for my missing upper ones. I'd welcome if anyone has any ideas as to how to make the case clip together more tightly. Being gold, and because the lugs are fixed to the case back, I think the tension from the strap may have slightly distorted the relatively soft case. I can clip it together easily, and unclip it with a finger nail, which is the reason it came apart and dropped the movement on the ground in the first place. I think I need something to slightly ease out the diameter of the back, so it's a tighter fit, but I've no idea if there's a special tool that will do that or if I'll have to try and make one. More to follow in a few days, when some new tools have arrived, plus a new crystal that I hope will be the right size (I've bought a couple of different sizes in case my measurements are a bit out.
  5. I think the other thing to bear in mind is that it's very unlikely that any of the watches were set to the exactly correct time back then. It depends how diligent the watch owners were at setting the time each day or two, how accurately they did this and whether some deliberately set their watches fast (my wife habitually sets all the clocks in our house about 5 minutes fast as she hates being late, for example). I would guess that there may have a master clock on the ship that passengers could use to set their watches, but that's only a guess, and it was a big ship, so there's a good chance that some of those watches may not have been set for some time. I'd say there could easily be a +/- 5 minute error between the watch displayed time and true time before the ship sank, so trying to pin down times is going to be harder than just working out roughly how long it took for a watch to stop after being immersed in water.
  6. I sold my 1960's Omega Seamaster 300 because it was too big and heavy, and felt like having an anchor on my wrist. Not sure they are in your budget, but they are certainly up there in terms of weight and bulk on your wrist!
  7. When I was working in flight test, it was mandatory that you wore an approved watch, for safety reasons (or at least, that's what I was told). I tock to wearing my Seiko 7A28-7120 when working, and got to keep it as it was written off when I stopped flying. In my case I could have worn any aviation watch approved to 80,000ft, but would have had to put a NATO strap on any personal watch simply because no ordinary strap or bracelet would fit over the top of a goon bag (a fair bit of my trials flying was done over the sea). I saw people wearing all sort of personal watches over the years, and suspect that it was only those of us who got to fly in aircraft where the cockpit altitude could get pretty high if the pressurisation failed that were warned about needing something with a high altitude rating. TBH, I always though the altitude rating thing was a bit of fake science, as the force on the watch crystal and back from an explosive decompression at, say, 45,000 to 50,000ft (as high as we went most of the time, although I remember one trip where we topped 60,000ft) wouldn't have been enough to cause the crystal to pop out, or the back to distort, I'm sure. I reckon some jobsworth just put the "must be rated to 80,000ft" thing there because that happened to be in the original spec for the issue watches. Mine lives on a leather Bundeswehr strap now, as after well over 20 years of wearing this watch every day on a NATO strap I'm just glad to be able to have something more comfortable on my wrist I did have it serviced and a new crystal fitted recently, which is why it looks reasonably clean for a 1984 issue watch!).
  8. Thanks again. I've been looking around for a repairer and found one or two on line that seem as if they may be able to do the work, including one who appears to be Rolex qualified. My main concern is whether or not the knock that broke the crystal has damaged the the parts that drive the second hand, as that just spins around freely and doesn't seem to be connected to anything. I can't see any obvious damage from the front, as the back has never been off as long as I've owned the watch, as I don't have whatever special tool is needed to get the back off an Oyster case. I've just checked it and it's still running and keeping good time, though, so I'm guessing that most of the movement must me working OK. I definitely want to get this repaired now, but it's beyond my very limited skills. My first ever watch repair was only a week ago, and that was just cleaning my late Father's 1969 Rotary, fitting a new battery and being amazed that it ran and kept good time. I did buy some tools to get the back off, plus a set of decent watchmakers screwdrivers and loupe. However, it's one thing to work on a watch that has little monetary value and that has been sat in a box in a loft since 1972 (the year he died) and quite another to work on one like this Tudor, which I suspect could be worth somewhere around £800 to £1000 when repaired and put back into good working order. I think I will build my watch repair skills slowly, on less expensive watches, and leave this one to a professional. The solid gold Cyma I mentioned in the first post may well be my next repair job. That's a 1956 model (according to the Edinburgh hall mark inside the gold case) and was damaged when the front of the watch literally dropped off, taking the movement with it (the back is solid gold with the lugs integrated to it, so the movement comes out the front). The balance wheel shaft broke and took out the jewel that supports the broken end at the top, but the dial and the rest of the movement looks to be unmarked. By luck I found another Cyma R.458 movement that is very close in serial number to mine, for sale very cheaply, with a rubbish face and hands, but it apparently tries to run, then stops I've taken the risk and bought it in the hope I can use it for spares. The photos of it show that the balance wheel looks to be in good condition and it looks as if I can just swap the whole balance wheel assembly over for the one in my movement and perhaps get it running. If I get it running I then need to find a new crystal for it and learn how to fit it, as it seems to be secured by a gold bezel ring that clips to the case and holds the watch together. If I do tackle the Cyma I'll try and take some photos and post them in a new thread, although I've found that it's not easy to get good watch photographs, even with a reasonably decent camera. Off to try and get some quotes to repair the Tudor now, hopefully the repair cost won't exceed the value!
  9. Thanks very much for the warm welcome, I'm pleased you think the dial looks OK, I was a bit concerned about the colour, to be honest. I did look up the case serial number, and that seems to give a date of between 1963 and 1964, as far as I can tell. I believe that Tudor case serial numbers are different to Rolex case serial numbers, even though the case has all the appearance of being a normal Rolex Oyster case, but I'm not at all an expert, and am going on what I've read on this forum and others in the main.
  10. I'm new here, but by way of a (second post) introduction here are two of my favourites: Firstly my recently restored Seiko 7A28-7120 that was issued to me in 1984, and which has recently been restored by a friend: Next, a watch that was given to my father when he retired in 1969 (it's engraved on the back) and which I found when clearing the contents of my recently deceased Mother's house. My father died in 1972, so the watch had been sat for over 40 years. I carefully took it apart, cleaned it, fitted a new battery and was amazed to find that it still works and keeps good time:
  11. First of all, I'm new to this forum, and new to watch collecting in general. A friend is into restoring Seiko quartz watches and was kind enough to replace the crystal, clean the pushers and generally tidy up my everyday watch, a Seiko 7A28-7120 that I was issued with in 1984, and then acquired when it was officially written off in 1997. He saw me wearing my old 1968 Omega Seamaster 300 when I went to collect my restored Seiko, and suggested it might be quite collectable, and that led to me meeting a very nice and helpful collector, and ultimately to the sale of the Omega, primarily as I never liked it much (it's too large and heavy IMHO) and also because I've always wanted to have some spare cash to get my old Tudor Prince Oysterdate restored. The Tudor Prince Oysterdate has had a rough life. I bought from a hard-up colleague for £20 in Singapore back around 1974, thinking it was a fake Rolex, and I took no care of it at all. The clasp broke and was very roughly repaired, and then I broke the crystal - banged it on a pillar in a pub in Falmouth some time around around 1976/7. Since then it's been stored away in a box with some other old, broken watches, including a solid gold Cyma that was an 18th birthday present to me from my Godfather (and which I also broke in the early 1970s!). Now I have had the time to look at the Tudor carefully, and do some research on the internet, I'm semi-convinced that it is not a fake and may well be genuine, although I would be the first to say that my knowledge of watches is next to nowt! My hope is that someone here may be able to shed some light on my watch, and whether it is worth getting repaired or not. I appreciate that it is going to be very expensive to get repaired, but it does at least run and keep good time, although the second hand no longer moves, and may have been damaged when the crystal broke all those years ago. The face has also suffered a bit, and seems to have gone a sort of browny yellow, perhaps because it's been stored away in a cardboard box for around 40 years or so. Here are the photos: The model number marked on the case is 7956 and the case serial number is 409104. The only markings on the bracelet than I can find are 67 stamped into both the pieces closest to the watch lugs. The diameter of the watch (excluding the crown) is 31mm and the distance between the lugs is 17mm. I think it may date from around 1963/4, and that the bracelet may have been added later, as I believe that the "67" refers to 1967. I would appreciate any advice that anyone can give, or recommendations for someone who may be able to restore it (as long as such recommendations are within the forum rules).
×
×
  • Create New...