quote:

Originally posted by P220 Smudge:
Bald1, that SeaHunter is eye-catching. Did you charge up the lume before taking those pics, or is it always like that? Looks awesome.

It was from the cellphone flash believe it or not. It illuminates, then meters and trips the shutter

As an aside this was a limited edition run of 300 pieces back in 2001. Zeno took their popular 300m diver and simply installed an ETA GMT movement in it and changed the bezel from 60 minute to 24 hour. Worked for me.

quote:

Originally posted by bald1:


As an aside this was a limited edition run of 300 pieces back in 2001. Zeno took their popular 300m diver and simply installed an ETA GMT movement in it and changed the bezel from 60 minute to 24 hour. Worked for me.

Looking at the picture, the hand configuration is interesting. It appears the GMT hand is on top of the sweep second hand - is that correct?

If so, I have never seen that configuration. Typically, the GMT hand is the first hand of the stack and closest to the dial.

RMD

No. The GMT hand is lowest with the hour, then minutes and finally second hand stacked on top.


Again a quick lousy cell phone picture, but it illustrates the hands well enough.

quote:

Originally posted by bald1:

quote:

Originally posted by P220 Smudge:
Bald1, that SeaHunter is eye-catching. Did you charge up the lume before taking those pics, or is it always like that? Looks awesome.

It was from the cellphone flash believe it or not. It illuminates, then meters and trips the shutter

Oh, I believe it. I got a good laugh from that.

quote:

Originally posted by bald1:
No. The GMT hand is lowest with the hour, then minutes and finally second hand stacked on top.


Again a quick lousy cell phone picture, but it illustrates the hands well enough.

Thanks.

RMD

this is not the most fancy or expensive watch, but it was a gift from a great customer. figured i should show it off a bit.

dozer

This is a fascinating article detailing the history of one of my favorite movements, the Valjoux 7750. If you are into movements and the history behind them you will probably enjoy this article.

Valjoux 7750: The World’s Greatest Chronograph Movement By Far (By Popularity And Numbers)

I had no idea during the 1970’s the company responsible for creating the Valjoux 7750 Thought automatic movements were on their way out and ordered the complete destruction of all tools, plans exc. Thankfully the destruction of the movement and all tooling to build it fell on the shoulders of the person who created it. Rather than destroy his creation the designer Edmond Capt decided to put the 7750 tooling into storage. When mechanical watches began to witness a revival going into the 80’s they were able to resume production which had ended in the late 1970’s.

I read that once. I think that might not even be the only case of where the tooling for epic movements was hidden away. I believe the El Primero has the same sort of story.

Then again, these watchmakers seem to glow in lore. So, it's probably as much that the stuff was stored, and the story was formed in later marketing.

I was wondering about that myself. I suppose it is possible that as the watchmaking world adjusted to the quartz revolution that more than one amazing mechanical design was ordered to be destroyed as it was viewed as obsolete. The shot callers & big wigs at businesses are often not nostalgic for ingenious designs at all and tend to only care about money and sales.

Of course on the flip side, having and interesting story of surviving orders to be destroyed is also a wonderful marketing tool. Especially when you consider this is an an industry that places a TREMENDOUS value on the history and the story behind various movements. It’s possible the stories are embellished or outright lies but it is also conceivable that a few of the stories are true.

I want to believe those stores are true but I completely understand the skepticism.

Here it is!

...In response, Vermot sent a letter to Chicago, hoping to convince the owner to not abandon the automatic chronograph it had recently acquired, which he believed still had an important role in the future of the company. It was in vain, though. Vermot was ignored, and in 1975 the old Martel Watch Company building was closed down and the El Primero (and all other calibers being made at the time) condemned. The tools, machines, and components were to be dumped or sold.

This wasn't a problem unique to Zenith. Thirty-five miles away, the same decision was reached at Valjoux (now ETA SA). The production of the caliber 7750 chronograph was halted, and, for a moment, there were almost no more self-winding chronographs being made in Switzerland - the Chronomatic hung on for dear life.

It could well be the straight up god's truth!

Excellent article. Thank you rOgue for finding and sharing that!! That was a fantastic read. I have a true affinity for mechanical designs that are able to survive the test of time and continue to be appreciated over many decades.

I just loved reading how Charles Vermot spent time hiding the manufacturing parts to the El Primero and even included instructions on how to resume manufacturing in the attic of the building. The fact that it ended up helping to save the company later on is just incredible.



On the subject of chronos.....this thing is wild.

There's a whole saga about how the 7750 tools, diagrams and parts were secretly stored away to arise again later.

First movement using a computer to design.

Glad it survived, mine is really accurate and so many modern mechanical chronographs use it today.

Supposed to be durable too. We'll see...

As a Rolex guy since '82, I am interested to see how this compares.

I am not an ETA person, in fact I rather dislike the thought. That said, Valjoux isn't ETA in origin, so although mine came from ETA, it isn't designed by them. This comforts me.

Still, it's not what I'm used to.

What carry's me is the fact that I like lower end Seiko movements and the top 7750 is better than those.

Still have to wrap my mind around it.

Wish the Lemania 5100 would come back in spades and not just as the quasi ETA C01.211.

I've owned both 7750s (last was a Kobold Endurance A I flipped and yes I know it is sought after these days) and 5100s and for my money the 5100 wins hand down. Extremely rugged (eg G forces it can handle, etc.). No 7750s in my inventory any more, their quirks in hacking, etc. drove me nuts.

My Lemania movement watches

I’ve taken my Valjoux 7750 powered Ball trail riding on my mountain bike twice now. I probably shouldn’t have but I was taking it pretty easy once I realized it was on my wrist. One of the reasons I am so fond of the movement is because I don’t have to baby it or worry too much about breaking it.


Question for you knowledgeable watch enthusiasts. Does running the chronograph function on a Valjoux 7750 have any impact on the power reserve? I read that unlike some quartz battery powered chronos this movement doesn’t care at all if you run the chrono all day every day as far as the power reserve is concerned. Is this correct?

quote:

Originally posted by stickman428:
Question for you knowledgeable watch enthusiasts. Does running the chronograph function on a Valjoux 7750 have any impact on the power reserve? I read that unlike some quartz battery powered chronos this movement doesn’t care at all if you run the chrono all day every day as far as the power reserve is concerned. Is this correct?

If you're wearing it, it will continue to auto-wind so power reserve is a non-issue. But if you want to compare it resting on your dresser, yeah most automatic chronographs will have a slightly less run time with the chrono function engaged as that uses more energy.

More important is understanding your chrono's clutch function. For example the Seiko column wheel chronos, like the 6138, whose normal state is with the chrono active, the clutch being used to stop the chrono function. Therefore NOT constantly running the chrono puts stress and wear on the movement, specifically the clutch. Most other chrono designs are the opposite with the natural or rest movement mode being with the chrono function not operating.

My Seiko 1972 vintage 6138-3009

Speaking of Seiko, just got this back from the spa.



Previous guy that worked on it and regulated it made it -1 min/day AND when asked to fix whatever was keeping the triple lock crown from fully screwing down, couldn't be bothered.

Found that a wrong O-ring was fitted to the stem, preventing the crown from full motion. Also found that the regulation was forgotten entirely.

Had it running all weekend through today, so far so good. Position sensitive, so by changing position variously over the weekend, by today it is +1sec/day. I do not expect this if I wear it, so time will tell when I do. Fast or slow we can not tell - just yet.

What I do know is that it's now back, tanned, rested and ready.

Be careful who you let work on your watches!

As to the peculiarities of the 7750, I hear you.

I understand the Top and Chronometer version of the 7750 use different materials and finishes than the bottom grades, not only decoration but more precision in components besides different materials for escapement and other parts. But for 6 position regulation on the chronometer version and the 5 position regulation of the Top, they are identical in all aspects.

Now, does this make them durable? We're going to find out. Rumor has it they are extremely durable - beast durable. Been a Rolex guy for a long time, that's a tall bar to live up to. I beat my watches like rented mules, so we'll see.

ETA

I also brought my wife's new to her 2004 Turnograph to the same guy for regulation and relume. The lume on 2003/2004 Rolex was a transitional error. Had 3 from that era so far, all with defective lume. All have been addressed, two by Rolex warranty and the Turnograph by hand replacement as I could not get a dial, but I could get a fresh set of OEM hands.

The Turnograph is now running correctly and the lovely and talented Mrs. Snapping Twig can read it at night.

Snapping Twig,
Nice Seiko. And yeah I've had a run in with a cretin repair guy before too.



I miss Chuck Maddox. We lost him in May 2008. He was a fountain of information and common sense on things horological. And had a great sense of humor.

Here's his take on the Lemania 5100 vs Valjoux 7750 (http://chronomaddox.com/why_i_like_5100.html). Obviously dated, but still....

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

What makes you say that, Chuck? I know you're a big fan of the 5100, but what makes you say this would be an "upgrade?"

The typical assortment of reasons, some rational others not so much so... More later...


I may well be mistaken, but don't many consider the 5100 inferior to the 7750? Please feel free to tell me exactly how wrong and foolish I am.

Only the dim, goofy, ignorant and/or certifiably insane... Whoops! sorry but you did say to tell you exactly... =) Really, I am only kidding 7750 lovers out there. It's a fine chronograph movement. I own a number of them myself and I do like the movement. I just like the Lemania 5100 better.

In all seriousness I have some strong reasons for preferring the Lemania 5100 movement even though I am also a big fan of the Valjoux 7750 and also a big collector of them as well...

Some of the reasons I prefer the 5100 include:

The 5100 is the only chronograph movement that, because of its construction, can withstand high shocks without the sweep secondhand stopping, as the chronograph functions are powered directly.
I'm not 100% certain (I learned this from a 1999 issue of Chrono's Magazine that was quoted in a post here on TZ....) as Lemania has come out with a new movement that is similar to the 5100 but has a more conventional Tri-Compax layout that also may share this feature.
It can withstand vertical acceleration of up to 7 g, without the accuracy decreasing noticeably.
Its robustness is also legendary, the movement forgives hard blows and has very few claims for servicing. I have heard the 5100 likened to the Soviet T-34 tank or the AK-47 in terms of being able to take abuse and still function properly...
Its extraordinary accuracy is consistent over a long period and the intervals between required servicing are long, 4-7 years are usually quoted.
It is or at has been used by a large variety of manufacturers including:, Sinn, Bell&Ross, Fortis, Tutima, Alain Silberstein, Paul Picot, Orfina-Porsche Design, Hamilton, Tourneau, Heuer, TAG-Heuer, Revue Thommen among others.
It has been in continuous production for over 25 years parts availability is not an issue and likely never will become an issue.
Then there is the aesthetics...
The 5100 has more features than the base 7750. You typically see more 5100's with the full Day-Date Treatment than you do with 7750's. You also have a 24-hour military time subdial which you typically only see on 7751 variants of the 7750 (which typically cost more. Even though there is a special 24/GMT version of the 7750 that has been available to firms who wish to encorporate it in their product line for a number of years:
I also prefer the layout of the 5100's dial...

You'll notice that the main difference between the two is that while the Valjoux uses two of the three sub registers for Chronograph functions the Lemania moves the Chronograph Minute hand to the "SST" on the main pinion. This allows for a much larger and hence more visible and easier to read under duress hand.

Another observation that I have made on my examples is that while Lemania c.321's and c.861's as well as Valjoux 7750 and Valjoux c.72 seem to be susceptible to "Chrono Hour Creep". I have yet to see a Lemania 5100 (or 1342 as used for Omega c.1041 and c.1040 movements) exhibit this behaviour.

That's most of it. I like Valjoux 7750's... Some of my favorite watches are 7750's: Gallet Black PVD, Porsche Design IWC (Both Titanium and Delryn bracelet model's), Heuer Pasadena, and of course the Omega Seamaster Professional Chronograph... But I just really like the 5100's better.

The best car analogy I can find is the Valjoux 7750 and the Lemania 5100 are the Chevy 350 and the Ford 351-C of watches. Both are tried and true designs, nigh bulletproof when treated with a modicum of care, with outstanding parts availabilty and as common as dirt. It is really hard to go wrong in a major way with either one, but some applications are better suited for one over the other. For example, if you wanted to stick either into a Jaguar XKE (just for fun and to shock the hell out of the Cobra Crowd), you'll find the Ford 351c is a much easier conversion because it is about 1-3 inches narrower where there is the tightest clearance around the fuel pump... Because the Jag has such a long snout the frame rails get in the way. However, on a Datsun Z-240/260/280 this isn't a problem, and the Chevy has slightly easier parts availability... I mean when cut I bleed Ford Blue and Silver so I'd want a 351c in either, but I think you get my meaning and analogy...

-- Chuck

quote:

Originally posted by bald1:...most automatic chronographs will have a slightly less run time with the chrono function engaged as that uses more energy.

I must disagree with this. The power reserve is based on how many revolutions the barrel makes, whether the barrel is driving two, three, or many hands. There is more than enough power in the mainspring to handle the load of full operation, and so it is not using more energy, only using what would otherwise be untapped energy. In order for the power reserve to be less, the watch would have to be running faster, and that obviously is not the case.

quote:

Originally posted by BrianO:

quote:

Originally posted by bald1:...most automatic chronographs will have a slightly less run time with the chrono function engaged as that uses more energy.

I must disagree with this. The power reserve is based on how many revolutions the barrel makes, whether the barrel is driving two, three, or many hands. There is more than enough power in the mainspring to handle the load of full operation, and so it is not using more energy, only using what would otherwise be untapped energy. In order for the power reserve to be less, the watch would have to be running faster, and that obviously is not the case.

Ok, I'll fess up. I have assumed the prior line of thinking, but now in hearing your explanation, I realize I'd been wrong all along. Haha! COOL! Always learning. and then forgetting....

7750 video


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1KnI_UaodGI