Hello, fellow keepers of the time. Last Sunday I retrieved a small catalog from my local newspaper for watches by the London-based subject. I never heard of this individual but the booklet states he uses Swiss (ETA #?) movements. Does anyone have any further info or own any of these timepieces? Thanks for your time and comment. Sincerely,
John Wood (Code 5550) e-mail: w...@itd.nrl.navy.mil Naval Research Laboratory 4555 Overlook Avenue, SW Washington, DC 20375-5337
> I never heard of this individual but the booklet states he uses Swiss (ETA > #?) movements. Does anyone have any further info or own any of these > timepieces? Thanks for your time and comment. Sincerely,
> Thanks much for the prompt reply and info. Sincerely,
> John Wood (Code 5550) e-mail: w...@itd.nrl.navy.mil > Naval Research Laboratory > 4555 Overlook Avenue, SW > Washington, DC 20375-5337
Nice story, good sense of humour (e.g. three men on a boat), great pictures and quotes: http://www.christopherward-usa.com/ I don't know (yet) what to think of it.
> > Thanks much for the prompt reply and info. Sincerely,
> > John Wood (Code 5550) e-mail: w...@itd.nrl.navy.mil > > Naval Research Laboratory > > 4555 Overlook Avenue, SW > > Washington, DC 20375-5337
> Nice story, good sense of humour (e.g. three men on a boat), great > pictures and quotes:http://www.christopherward-usa.com/ > I don't know (yet) what to think of it.
> Hello, fellow keepers of the time. Last Sunday I retrieved a small > catalog from my local newspaper for watches by the London-based subject. > I never heard of this individual but the booklet states he uses Swiss (ETA > #?) movements. Does anyone have any further info or own any of these > timepieces? Thanks for your time and comment. Sincerely,
> John Wood (Code 5550) e-mail: w...@itd.nrl.navy.mil > Naval Research Laboratory > 4555 Overlook Avenue, SW > Washington, DC 20375-5337
> > Hello, fellow keepers of the time. Last Sunday I retrieved a small > > catalog from my local newspaper for watches by the London-based subject. > > I never heard of this individual but the booklet states he uses Swiss (ETA > > #?) movements. Does anyone have any further info or own any of these > > timepieces? Thanks for your time and comment. Sincerely,
> > John Wood (Code 5550) e-mail: w...@itd.nrl.navy.mil > > Naval Research Laboratory > > 4555 Overlook Avenue, SW > > Washington, DC 20375-5337
Interesting story: "they try harder", but not having any control of the assembly, they cannot control the quality.
Sellita movement: its use is not a question of costs, it's the proof that CW's suppliers don't obtain ETA movements any more, (their supplier eagerly replaced the movement to use the genuine ETA for some other purpose), disqualifying CW as a bona fide Swiss Brand.
QC seems to be a bit lacking but overall the customer's complaints I thought were trivial if not wrong - an UNregulated ETA does not come with the regulator cranked over to one side but rather centered - the fact that the regulator was off to one side meant that the watch HAD been regulated by CW. CW does not seem worse than a lot of other brands, although I realize that's damning by faint praise.
I'm not quite sure of your meaning - a Sellita movement IS bona fide Swiss by all measures (unlike the Claro Semag which is "Swiss" only in the flimsiest legalistic sense). It is more or less identical to the ETA although of course you can order whatever finish you like in either brand - it appears that at some point in an effort to save $ CW went to a sand blasted finish instead of a decorated one. The functionality of the watch is not affected by this at all. That being said, I don't see the "value proposition" of the CW watch, unless you can get one for really cheap.
"SWG" <swisswatch...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > Hello, fellow keepers of the time. Last Sunday I retrieved a small > > catalog from my local newspaper for watches by the London-based subject. > > I never heard of this individual but the booklet states he uses Swiss > > (ETA > > #?) movements. Does anyone have any further info or own any of these > > timepieces? Thanks for your time and comment. Sincerely,
> > John Wood (Code 5550) e-mail: w...@itd.nrl.navy.mil > > Naval Research Laboratory > > 4555 Overlook Avenue, SW > > Washington, DC 20375-5337
Interesting story: "they try harder", but not having any control of the assembly, they cannot control the quality.
Sellita movement: its use is not a question of costs, it's the proof that CW's suppliers don't obtain ETA movements any more, (their supplier eagerly replaced the movement to use the genuine ETA for some other purpose), disqualifying CW as a bona fide Swiss Brand.
> QC seems to be a bit lacking but overall the customer's complaints I > thought were trivial if not wrong - an UNregulated ETA does not come with > the regulator cranked over to one side but rather centered - the fact that > the regulator was off to one side meant that the watch HAD been regulated > by CW.
Jack, what I would expect of regulated ETA 2824 is not regulator cranked over to one side or another, because in fact regulator is hidden under self winding mechanism and is not visible. It simply should be in right position to achive proper effective lenght of hairspring.
But the CORRECTOR should be CENTERED, thus making future corrections easier.
I agree w/ you. But the customer complained the opposite (I think) - that the Etachron fine regulator (what you call the corrector) was not centered was in his view a sign that CW had not done any (fine) regulation, when in fact they had (but did it the sloppy, easy way - as you say a new watch should come w/ the Etachron centered).
> "Jack Denver" <nunuv...@netscape.net> wrote in message > news:3sgKm.10516$_b5.185@newsfe22.iad... >> QC seems to be a bit lacking but overall the customer's complaints I >> thought were trivial if not wrong - an UNregulated ETA does not come with >> the regulator cranked over to one side but rather centered - the fact >> that the regulator was off to one side meant that the watch HAD been >> regulated by CW.
> Jack, what I would expect of regulated ETA 2824 is not regulator cranked > over to one side or another, because in fact regulator is hidden under > self winding mechanism and is not visible. It simply should be in right > position to achive proper effective lenght of hairspring.
> But the CORRECTOR should be CENTERED, thus making future corrections > easier.
>I agree w/ you. But the customer complained the opposite (I think) - that >the Etachron fine regulator (what you call the corrector) was not centered >was in his view a sign that CW had not done any (fine) regulation, when in >fact they had (but did it the sloppy, easy way - as you say a new watch >should come w/ the Etachron centered).
I know that naming convention is of lesser importance but as a layman I've checked ETA technical document:
In fact ETA calls it corrector (see part no 303/5 on page 2 and 4 as opposed to part 303/2 without corrector but with ETACHRON). So according to ETA, their ETACHRON is a complet system of regulation consisting of: stud and stud holder, index-pins unit with index holder.
You are of course correct as always but I must admit I have never heard anyone refer to this part as a "corrector" despite ETA's use of the term. I believe the most common term would be "fine regulator" or a "patent regulator" (in contrast to a conventional pointer type regulator whose design is so old that it is unpatentable). The latter term is more from the pocket watch days and has fallen out of use. For that matter, fine regulators themselves have fallen out of favor - I guess the electronic time machine has made them less important. I've also heard ETAchron used , even though it more correctly refers to the entire system.
> "Jack Denver" <nunuv...@netscape.net> wrote in message > news:nYsKm.11869$Zu5.790@newsfe24.iad... >>I agree w/ you. But the customer complained the opposite (I think) - that >>the Etachron fine regulator (what you call the corrector) was not centered >>was in his view a sign that CW had not done any (fine) regulation, when in >>fact they had (but did it the sloppy, easy way - as you say a new watch >>should come w/ the Etachron centered).
> I know that naming convention is of lesser importance but as a layman I've > checked ETA technical document:
> In fact ETA calls it corrector (see part no 303/5 on page 2 and 4 as > opposed to part 303/2 without corrector but with ETACHRON). > So according to ETA, their ETACHRON is a complet system of regulation > consisting of: stud and stud holder, index-pins unit with index holder.
Nothing against Sellita movements. They are just as good and as Swiss Made as ETA's. What I implied is the fact that the bona fide Swiss Brands (those really having a brick and mortar company & operation in Switzerland) obtain ETA movements.
On Nov 10, 5:23 pm, "Jack Denver" <nunuv...@netscape.net> wrote:
> QC seems to be a bit lacking but overall the customer's complaints I thought > were trivial if not wrong - an UNregulated ETA does not come with the > regulator cranked over to one side but rather centered - the fact that the > regulator was off to one side meant that the watch HAD been regulated by CW. > CW does not seem worse than a lot of other brands, although I realize that's > damning by faint praise.
> I'm not quite sure of your meaning - a Sellita movement IS bona fide Swiss > by all measures (unlike the Claro Semag which is "Swiss" only in the > flimsiest legalistic sense). It is more or less identical to the ETA > although of course you can order whatever finish you like in either brand - > it appears that at some point in an effort to save $ CW went to a sand > blasted finish instead of a decorated one. The functionality of the watch is > not affected by this at all. That being said, I don't see the "value > proposition" of the CW watch, unless you can get one for really cheap.
> "SWG" <swisswatch...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > > Hello, fellow keepers of the time. Last Sunday I retrieved a small > > > catalog from my local newspaper for watches by the London-based subject. > > > I never heard of this individual but the booklet states he uses Swiss > > > (ETA > > > #?) movements. Does anyone have any further info or own any of these > > > timepieces? Thanks for your time and comment. Sincerely,
> > > John Wood (Code 5550) e-mail: w...@itd.nrl.navy.mil > > > Naval Research Laboratory > > > 4555 Overlook Avenue, SW > > > Washington, DC 20375-5337
> > Knowing that I probably wouldn't buy CW watch.
> > Wojtek
> Interesting story: "they try harder", but not having any control of > the assembly, they cannot control the quality.
> Sellita movement: its use is not a question of costs, it's the proof > that CW's suppliers don't obtain ETA movements any more, (their > supplier eagerly replaced the movement to use the genuine ETA for some > other purpose), disqualifying CW as a bona fide Swiss Brand.
> You are of course correct as always but I must admit I have never heard > anyone refer to this part as a "corrector" despite ETA's use of the term. I > believe the most common term would be "fine regulator" or a "patent > regulator" (in contrast to a conventional pointer type regulator whose > design is so old that it is unpatentable). The latter term is more from the > pocket watch days and has fallen out of use. For that matter, fine > regulators themselves have fallen out of favor - I guess the electronic time > machine has made them less important. I've also heard ETAchron used , even > though it more correctly refers to the entire system.
> > "Jack Denver" <nunuv...@netscape.net> wrote in message > >news:nYsKm.11869$Zu5.790@newsfe24.iad... > >>I agree w/ you. But the customer complained the opposite (I think) - that > >>the Etachron fine regulator (what you call the corrector) was not centered > >>was in his view a sign that CW had not done any (fine) regulation, when in > >>fact they had (but did it the sloppy, easy way - as you say a new watch > >>should come w/ the Etachron centered).
> > I know that naming convention is of lesser importance but as a layman I've > > checked ETA technical document:
> > In fact ETA calls it corrector (see part no 303/5 on page 2 and 4 as > > opposed to part 303/2 without corrector but with ETACHRON). > > So according to ETA, their ETACHRON is a complet system of regulation > > consisting of: stud and stud holder, index-pins unit with index holder.
If anything, the 7750 proves that d530 is right - it has the "Etachron" regulator but a "semi-fine rate regulation device" (as Odets calls it) of its own design.
"SWG" <swisswatch...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> You are of course correct as always but I must admit I have never heard > anyone refer to this part as a "corrector" despite ETA's use of the term. > I > believe the most common term would be "fine regulator" or a "patent > regulator" (in contrast to a conventional pointer type regulator whose > design is so old that it is unpatentable). The latter term is more from > the > pocket watch days and has fallen out of use. For that matter, fine > regulators themselves have fallen out of favor - I guess the electronic > time > machine has made them less important. I've also heard ETAchron used , even > though it more correctly refers to the entire system.
> > "Jack Denver" <nunuv...@netscape.net> wrote in message > >news:nYsKm.11869$Zu5.790@newsfe24.iad... > >>I agree w/ you. But the customer complained the opposite (I think) - > >>that > >>the Etachron fine regulator (what you call the corrector) was not > >>centered > >>was in his view a sign that CW had not done any (fine) regulation, when > >>in > >>fact they had (but did it the sloppy, easy way - as you say a new watch > >>should come w/ the Etachron centered).
> > I know that naming convention is of lesser importance but as a layman > > I've > > checked ETA technical document:
> > In fact ETA calls it corrector (see part no 303/5 on page 2 and 4 as > > opposed to part 303/2 without corrector but with ETACHRON). > > So according to ETA, their ETACHRON is a complet system of regulation > > consisting of: stud and stud holder, index-pins unit with index holder.
> You are of course correct as always but I must admit I have never heard > anyone refer to this part as a "corrector" despite ETA's use of the term. > I
So have I Jack :)
> believe the most common term would be "fine regulator" or a "patent > regulator" (in contrast to a conventional pointer type regulator whose
In Poland it's called "microregulation" as we rather substitute "fine" with "micro" not only in watchmaking domain.
|
