dvn Posted June 26, 2006 Report Share Posted June 26, 2006 Here is picture of the supposingly an ETA movement from SiChuan's $100 Rolex ETA special, can any movment experts here confirm it? how good the condition of this movement is? thank you Bjarneb of RWI for the excellent picture: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
r11co Posted June 26, 2006 Report Share Posted June 26, 2006 This looks suspiciously like the 17 jewel movements that were popping up in Subs from Abay (now Aspire) and Silix about 10 months ago. They were identified as an ETA design that had been out of production for almost a decade. Silix stopped supply immediately when they were alerted and refunded/replaced watches already shipped to customers, and Paul offered to exchange the movements for 2824's at the time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Category 5 Posted June 26, 2006 Report Share Posted June 26, 2006 Iyt definitely isn't the 2824 or 2836 movement that we see in most good reps (and expect to see). It is missing the screw regulator. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chrgod Posted June 26, 2006 Report Share Posted June 26, 2006 Interesting.. I must have missed this post about supisious "ETA" movements 10 months ago... I am monitoring an online auction where this movements is advertised as ETA.. It has the same [censored] engravings on the rotor, but obviously it has the ETA-engravings under the balance wheel, and a proper regulator... By the way... What is the story behind the "1940 S.A."?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bignasty Posted June 26, 2006 Report Share Posted June 26, 2006 (edited) That doesn't even look like the 17 jewel version I have seen. Here's link to the 17 jewel 2824-2. It still has the ETA regulator w/ screw mechanism. http://www.christophlorenz.de/watch/moveme...2824_2.php?l=en To be 100% sure you'll need pictures of the engravings on the main plate below the balance wheel. Jon Oh and as far as the supposed engravings on the rotor. Those are engraved stickers that could be applied to any movement. Edited June 26, 2006 by Bignasty Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dvn Posted June 26, 2006 Author Report Share Posted June 26, 2006 That doesn't even look like the 17 jewel version I have seen. Here's link to the 17 jewel 2824-2. It still has the ETA regulator w/ screw mechanism. http://www.christophlorenz.de/watch/moveme...2824_2.php?l=en To be 100% sure you'll need pictures of the engravings on the main plate below the balance wheel. Jon Oh and as far as the supposed engravings on the rotor. Those are engraved stickers that could be applied to any movement. @Bignasty the following thread in RWI has more pictures, can you take a look: http://www.replica-watch.info/forum/about4319.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bigpops Posted June 26, 2006 Report Share Posted June 26, 2006 It looks like an ETA 2846 to me, but without the usual engraving on the rotor. They're 17 jewels, and 21,600bph, and look very very similar to that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
r11co Posted June 26, 2006 Report Share Posted June 26, 2006 It looks like an ETA 2846 to me, but without the usual engraving on the rotor. They're 17 jewels, and 21,600bph, and look very very similar to that. That's the ones! There's actually nothing wrong with the movement per se, and it is actually a good choice for a vintage rep which requires the lower beat frequency. Pretty stinky though if you were expecting a 28,800bph 2824 though.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ubiquitous Posted June 26, 2006 Report Share Posted June 26, 2006 It looks like an ETA 2846 to me, but without the usual engraving on the rotor. They're 17 jewels, and 21,600bph, and look very very similar to that. 2846 is actually 21j... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ubiquitous Posted June 26, 2006 Report Share Posted June 26, 2006 (edited) For some reason, the more and more I think about it, the more I seem to recall the prior 'ETA Debacle' with the watches from Paul and Silix involving some Racine (Enicar spelled backwards) movements... Does anyone else remember this? Or maybe I'm taking crazy pills Edited June 26, 2006 by ubiquitous Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bigpops Posted June 26, 2006 Report Share Posted June 26, 2006 I stand corrected. It does look like a 2846 though right? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pugwash Posted June 26, 2006 Report Share Posted June 26, 2006 2846 is actually 21j... If these are 2846 ETA movements, doesn't this mean they may be better for Co-axial reps and vintage reps? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ubiquitous Posted June 26, 2006 Report Share Posted June 26, 2006 It does look like a 2846 though right? It does look like a 2846, except for the rotor; the rotor in the original post is more characteristic to a 2836 than a 2846. But, that's not to say that rotors can't be swapped But, to be fair, the 2846 is basically the same mainplates and bridges as a 2836; if you look at ETA's schematics, they list the 2836 and 2846 on the same spec sheet. If these are 2846 ETA movements, doesn't this mean they may be better for Co-axial reps and vintage reps? They would indeed! As a matter of fact, I do this very swap in all of my MBW vintage Rolex watches Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cwai02 Posted June 26, 2006 Report Share Posted June 26, 2006 So it's a better movement for the vintage. Do you think I can put this movement in the MBW? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ubiquitous Posted June 26, 2006 Report Share Posted June 26, 2006 So it's a better movement for the vintage. Do you think I can put this movement in the MBW? Yes. I've installed 2846's into these (all MBW): Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dvn Posted June 26, 2006 Author Report Share Posted June 26, 2006 So what is the verdict? can someone give me a summary of the whole discussion? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
that_watch_guy Posted June 27, 2006 Report Share Posted June 27, 2006 Wow, I thought that deal was a little too good to be true, and it looks like it was. That movement looks like it was alive and ticking back during the Nixon administration. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bignasty Posted June 27, 2006 Report Share Posted June 27, 2006 If it is the 2846 I wouldn't mind having it for my 1680 sub! Jon Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Category 5 Posted June 27, 2006 Report Share Posted June 27, 2006 It does look like a 2846, except for the rotor; the rotor in the original post is more characteristic to a 2836 than a 2846. But, that's not to say that rotors can't be swapped But, to be fair, the 2846 is basically the same mainplates and bridges as a 2836; if you look at ETA's schematics, they list the 2836 and 2846 on the same spec sheet. They would indeed! As a matter of fact, I do this very swap in all of my MBW vintage Rolex watches Vintrage Rolex's indeed, but it would be up in the air whether or not you'd want these for a co-ax rep. The first and second edition co-ax movements ran at 28,800bph. they switched to 25,200 to "add to the power reserve", but I've heard the real reason is mfgr. tolerances for the co-axial escapement. The co-ax movements are so accurate, they do not lose accuracy by dropping the beat rate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
r11co Posted June 27, 2006 Report Share Posted June 27, 2006 (edited) If these are 2846 ETA movements, doesn't this mean they may be better for Co-axial reps and vintage reps? Helloooo!! Am I invisible or something?? Did I not say that?! PS. There is a 17j version of the 2846 also... Edited June 27, 2006 by r11co Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pugwash Posted June 27, 2006 Report Share Posted June 27, 2006 Helloooo!! Am I invisible or something?? Did I not say that?! You implied it, whereas I wanted unambiguous confirmation. I wonder if we'll see a flurry of movement trades now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now