I wonder how much bigger your bottles going to have to be if you decide to treat more of the watch?Īs I explained above I can't give you the whole documents and reveal the source of work comes from so I went through and snipped out almost the entire manual. Then if the students that went to the school compare notes depending upon usually the teacher It can have some dramatic differences in teaching. I suspect That I already know which school but what year were you there? What becomes interesting for some schools are it's always referred to as an absolute by those on the outside. Yet we don't see that in any of the normal service guides. This is where all the nifty technical documentation is which tells you that every single watch they have as far as I can tell all the balance staff pivots are surface treated. What about ETA I wonder what they think about that we didn't see it in either the documents that we had obviously it's a? This is where you need the ETA manufacturing information sheets in addition to their normal technical documentation they have manufacturing information sheets.
Except Omega in a document I have the 50s they put the solution on pith wood and you push the pivot of the balance In. Then there is all the other bits and pieces of technical information that we may or may not ever see that have occurred over time what about that? For instance what about the balance pivots should they be treated? Seems like that might be a nice thing to do but don't think they're currently recommending it. It makes you wonder how fast technical documentation migrates from one company to another and exactly like our discussion whether the various companies even are going to listen to each other at all? Or even if we could Ignore the problem with dates who should we believe? I was in a bickering match with someone on another discussion group all because I pointed out that moebius On their current and several generations back of lubrication charts points out something that conflicts with what everyone else in Swatch group is recommending. One of the amusements I have is with horological documentation is who should we believe? Plus the problem of when the various documents came out? For instance two separate ETA calibers were mentioned above both of them having different quantity of parts treated I suppose we should look at the date to see which one may be correct.