Wrong Movements Installed in Unimatic U1?

Come on in and introduce yourself!
General watch talk.
JBZ
Mr. Tasseled Loafer
Posts: 11224
Joined: Wed Oct 27, 2010 10:03 am
Name: Jeff

Re: Wrong Movements Installed in Unimatic U1?

Post by JBZ » Fri Oct 12, 2018 9:49 am

logan2z wrote:
Fri Oct 12, 2018 8:10 am
JBZ wrote:
Fri Oct 12, 2018 6:01 am
This is an extreme example, and there are certainly examples of QC issues with the big boys (or outright fraud *cough* Panerai *cough*)
I don't want to open up the 'Brooklyn Bridge' can of worms, but I don't think I'd go as far as calling it fraud. Panerai didn't advertise that the movement was beautifully finished and it wasn't. Of course there was a more-than-reasonable expectation that the movement would be finished to a high standard given the price point and the fact that the watch was an LE, but I don't think there was anything fraudulent about it. FWIW, Panerai did offer to swap in a fully decorated movement free of charge to anyone who wanted it.

Despite not being beautiful on the inside, the PAM 318 was properly engineered and wasn't literally falling apart as users handled it. This Unimatic situation is in a completely different league.
I'm pretty sure I could bring an unfair trade practices claim against Panerai for the Brooklyn Bridge LE, at least in CT. Maybe I wouldn't win, but I have a very colorable argument.
Image

User avatar
Axelay2003
Posts: 5916
Joined: Sat Dec 04, 2010 9:03 am
Name: Gerard
Location: City of Oranges, FL

Re: Wrong Movements Installed in Unimatic U1?

Post by Axelay2003 » Fri Oct 12, 2018 9:49 am

I was going to list quite a few watches in the coming weeks and the Unimatic U1 DW is one of them, BNIB. It was delivered August of 2017.

How should I approach this now that the ugly head has been unleashed. The case back on mine has 21800 bph, different from what Jake had on his video. Should I even contact the company or should I even bother? I really don't want to open the case since then it would have been considered "used".
It's a beautiful world! Gerald.
Image

User avatar
logan2z
IT Admin
Posts: 11739
Joined: Sat Nov 24, 2012 1:08 am
Name: Andrew
Location: SF Bay Area, CA

Re: Wrong Movements Installed in Unimatic U1?

Post by logan2z » Fri Oct 12, 2018 9:58 am

Axelay2003 wrote:
Fri Oct 12, 2018 9:49 am
The case back on mine has 21800 bph, different from what Jake had on his video.
That's exactly what was on the case back in Jake's video.

User avatar
Graeme
Owner - SAS & Míleata
Posts: 1273
Joined: Tue Dec 01, 2009 2:08 pm
Name: Graeme
Location: Ireland
Contact:

Re: Wrong Movements Installed in Unimatic U1?

Post by Graeme » Fri Oct 12, 2018 9:59 am

With movements such as eta 2824, miyots 9015, sw200 etc you need a movement spacer ring because the diameter of the movement is much smaller than that of the dial. The vast majority of watches are assembled from the back so the case is wide enough to take the dial therefore leaving a big gap between the movement and case.

You can use a different movement in a case if the distance between the centre of the stem and the top of the dial are the same measurement and you would make a ring to suit.
Using a plastic spacer is very cheap and common on cheap quartz watches. It's more normal to make a metal ring to suit.

Regards Graeme

Image

Image Image

User avatar
toxicavenger
President Tranny
Posts: 48071
Joined: Fri Mar 12, 2010 8:25 am
Name: HeadDIK
Location: Colorado Springs

Re: Wrong Movements Installed in Unimatic U1?

Post by toxicavenger » Fri Oct 12, 2018 10:03 am

Axelay2003 wrote:
Fri Oct 12, 2018 9:49 am
I was going to list quite a few watches in the coming weeks and the Unimatic U1 DW is one of them, BNIB. It was delivered August of 2017.

How should I approach this now that the ugly head has been unleashed. The case back on mine has 21800 bph, different from what Jake had on his video. Should I even contact the company or should I even bother? I really don't want to open the case since then it would have been considered "used".
Honestly there is nothing to say. There is nothing wrong with the watch, it just has better movement than what the caseback says. It has a plastic movement ring, and no company ever list what movement ring they use. So go for it. :cheers:

User avatar
toxicavenger
President Tranny
Posts: 48071
Joined: Fri Mar 12, 2010 8:25 am
Name: HeadDIK
Location: Colorado Springs

Re: Wrong Movements Installed in Unimatic U1?

Post by toxicavenger » Fri Oct 12, 2018 10:05 am

Graeme wrote:
Fri Oct 12, 2018 9:59 am
With movements such as eta 2824, miyots 9015, sw200 etc you need a movement spacer ring because the diameter of the movement is much smaller than that of the dial. The vast majority of watches are assembled from the back so the case is wide enough to take the dial therefore leaving a big gap between the movement and case.

You can use a different movement in a case if the distance between the centre of the stem and the top of the dial are the same measurement and you would make a ring to suit.
Using a plastic spacer is very cheap and common on cheap quartz watches. It's more normal to make a metal ring to suit.

Regards Graeme
Now we have someone who knows what they are talking about. :mrgreen:

User avatar
Ryeguy
Posts: 5514
Joined: Fri Sep 09, 2011 1:03 pm
Name: Chris
Location: Rye

Re: Wrong Movements Installed in Unimatic U1?

Post by Ryeguy » Fri Oct 12, 2018 10:09 am

toxicavenger wrote:
Fri Oct 12, 2018 9:39 am
Ryeguy wrote:
Fri Oct 12, 2018 4:21 am
First, yes, from everything I've read and talked about with Dan from OWC, watch cases are machined to accept specific movements. It is challenging to swap movements for exactly the reasons Jake demonstrates in that video. The other issue is the stem height. I haven't checked of the difference between the 9015 and the 6r15, but I'd be concerned about stress on the keyless works and even water resistance if they are not identical.

Seeing how loose that movement was in the case as Jake fiddled with the crown makes me wonder about the 300m water resistance. You'd think the seals in the stem tube would've been a bit more snug on the stem.

I do think the 6r movement could have possibly been used if a proper / custom spacer had been manufactured (again, assuming stem height was the same).

Where they went sideways was using that cheap nylon spacer from some random quartz movement. It didn't provide the necessary rigidity.

Someone with a 3D printer could probably make a spacer pretty quickly, but as previously stated, you shouldn't need to do any of this with a new watch.
Chris you are correct. I was not exactly translating what I meant to say. What I was trying to say that is when a case is made it can be machined to fit multiple movements. The movements are not notched into the case. Then you use a movement spacer/movement screws to fit that movement to the case. Correct? As long as the stem height, stem location, movement thickness, etc are all the same.

So basically this watch was upgraded to a better movement then what the caseback implied?
Not quite, but I will agree the Seiko is better than the Miyota.

Jake is actually correct (at least in respect that I've heard exactly the same thing from Dan at OWC) that the movement ring is designed to be interference fit with the case itself. Dan went so far as to custom machine his movement rings locally so he was assured a snug fit for the movement within the case.

Miyota, Seiko, ETA, etc. all publish the OD of their movement ring along with their stem height. This way brands can specifically design their case to fit their chosen movement.

In my opinion, what Unimatic did in this case was ghetto-fabricate a solution likely due to losing their supplier at the last minute or maybe there was just an internal mis-communication as the dial and hands are all made for the Seiko movement and the case clearly is not.

The problem isn't that Unimatic is using a movement spacer. The problem is they are actually using 2 movement spacers. The first is the stock Seiko grey Derlin / nylon spacer you can see in the above photograph showing the dial feet. The second spacer is the white nylon / plastic spacer you see Jake pulling out with his tweezers.

If the case was properly machined for the Seiko movement, that second white spacer would have not been necessary.

I'm not a watchmaker, but I suspect companies who sell movements to 3rd parties (such as Seiko, ETA, Miyota, etc.) intentionally use movement spacer rings so they can publish a very consistent OD for their movement while allowing for production variances to the movement itself. The OD of the movement itself might vary a fraction of a mm between manufacturing series, but the ring allows for these variances and keeps everything consistent for the brand using the movement.

As far as I know, Rolex is one of the few brands who dosn't use a movement ring. The 3135 is clamped directly to the case.

User avatar
Selym
Posts: 3046
Joined: Thu Nov 17, 2011 8:16 pm
Name: Myles
Location: Massive Two Shits

Re: Wrong Movements Installed in Unimatic U1?

Post by Selym » Fri Oct 12, 2018 10:15 am

toxicavenger wrote:
Fri Oct 12, 2018 9:08 am
Selym wrote:
Fri Oct 12, 2018 8:59 am
toxicavenger wrote:
Fri Oct 12, 2018 8:57 am
Matt,

All movements have play once the spacer is removed. The spacer is there to make the movement fit the case snugly. Is this what it does when installed? There is a lot of companies who use a movement spacer to fit the watch.
The Seiko movement has an integrated spacer. It's meant to fit snugly in the case as-is, not with another spacer surrounding it.

This is a hot mess.
Maybe you are right. I don't know. But I do know a movement holder is common place. And as low down on the movement the Seiko spacer is in that picture I see no way in hell on how it would keep a movement secure in a case unless it had movement holder screws.
There's no "maybe" about it. The Seiko movement has an integrated spacer. The Unimatic case is not machined properly for the Seiko movement. :shrug:

User avatar
toxicavenger
President Tranny
Posts: 48071
Joined: Fri Mar 12, 2010 8:25 am
Name: HeadDIK
Location: Colorado Springs

Re: Wrong Movements Installed in Unimatic U1?

Post by toxicavenger » Fri Oct 12, 2018 10:32 am

Selym wrote:
Fri Oct 12, 2018 10:15 am
toxicavenger wrote:
Fri Oct 12, 2018 9:08 am
Selym wrote:
Fri Oct 12, 2018 8:59 am
toxicavenger wrote:
Fri Oct 12, 2018 8:57 am
Matt,

All movements have play once the spacer is removed. The spacer is there to make the movement fit the case snugly. Is this what it does when installed? There is a lot of companies who use a movement spacer to fit the watch.
The Seiko movement has an integrated spacer. It's meant to fit snugly in the case as-is, not with another spacer surrounding it.

This is a hot mess.
Maybe you are right. I don't know. But I do know a movement holder is common place. And as low down on the movement the Seiko spacer is in that picture I see no way in hell on how it would keep a movement secure in a case unless it had movement holder screws.
There's no "maybe" about it. The Seiko movement has an integrated spacer. The Unimatic case is not machined properly for the Seiko movement. :shrug:
Then maybe...................... :mrgreen:

JBZ
Mr. Tasseled Loafer
Posts: 11224
Joined: Wed Oct 27, 2010 10:03 am
Name: Jeff

Re: Wrong Movements Installed in Unimatic U1?

Post by JBZ » Fri Oct 12, 2018 10:35 am

My overall point is that the big guys mess up and the micros mess up. But if Rolex or Omega or JLC or... had machined cases that didn't fit their movement, they would have come up with a reliable fix (and if the fix didn't work, they would have stood behind their warranty). Rolex had the recent cyclops issue, but they agreed to replace it upon consumer request. Even Panerai offered to replace the BB movement when they got called on the table for it (after a bit of arm twisting, but still). If memory serves, Ed just had a problem with a JLC that wasn't fixed to his satisfaction, and his AD ultimately agreed to take the watch back and refund him.

In this case, the fix was to fit in a poorly integrated plastic spacer. Most likely because it was the only thing the company could afford at that point. Micros, even the good ones, are working on much tighter margins than the big boys. It may very well have been cost-prohibitive to order new cases, order different movements, or even manufacture/purchase a truly integrated spacer.

So, the issue I see is not that all established companies are good and all micros are bad. It's that, when faced with the same problem, a micro is far more likely to use a cheaper alternative to correct it, which may or may not cause problems down the road. And I don't have as much faith that the micros will ultimately stand behind their warranty (though there are plenty that do). It's much more of a crap shoot.
Image

User avatar
toxicavenger
President Tranny
Posts: 48071
Joined: Fri Mar 12, 2010 8:25 am
Name: HeadDIK
Location: Colorado Springs

Re: Wrong Movements Installed in Unimatic U1?

Post by toxicavenger » Fri Oct 12, 2018 10:37 am

Ryeguy wrote:
Fri Oct 12, 2018 10:09 am
The problem is they are actually using 2 movement spacers. The first is the stock Seiko grey Derlin / nylon spacer you can see in the above photograph showing the dial feet. The second spacer is the white nylon / plastic spacer you see Jake pulling out with his tweezers.
I guess I don't see the spacer as a problem as long as it holds the movement correctly. In this case it did not. But this is the first instance we have heard of this.

User avatar
Graeme
Owner - SAS & Míleata
Posts: 1273
Joined: Tue Dec 01, 2009 2:08 pm
Name: Graeme
Location: Ireland
Contact:

Re: Wrong Movements Installed in Unimatic U1?

Post by Graeme » Fri Oct 12, 2018 10:57 am

JBZ wrote:My overall point is that the big guys mess up and the micros mess up. But if Rolex or Omega or JLC or... had machined cases that didn't fit their movement, they would have come up with a reliable fix (and if the fix didn't work, they would have stood behind their warranty). Rolex had the recent cyclops issue, but they agreed to replace it upon consumer request. Even Panerai offered to replace the BB movement when they got called on the table for it (after a bit of arm twisting, but still). If memory serves, Ed just had a problem with a JLC that wasn't fixed to his satisfaction, and his AD ultimately agreed to take the watch back and refund him.

In this case, the fix was to fit in a poorly integrated plastic spacer. Most likely because it was the only thing the company could afford at that point. Micros, even the good ones, are working on much tighter margins than the big boys. It may very well have been cost-prohibitive to order new cases, order different movements, or even manufacture/purchase a truly integrated spacer.

So, the issue I see is not that all established companies are good and all micros are bad. It's that, when faced with the same problem, a micro is far more likely to use a cheaper alternative to correct it, which may or may not cause problems down the road. And I don't have as much faith that the micros will ultimately stand behind their warranty (though there are plenty that do). It's much more of a crap shoot.
Not all micros are the same.

Regards Graeme

Image

Image Image

User avatar
manitoujoe
Posts: 3443
Joined: Tue Dec 01, 2009 2:37 pm
Name: Mark
Location: Louisville, KY

Re: Wrong Movements Installed in Unimatic U1?

Post by manitoujoe » Fri Oct 12, 2018 11:13 am

Graeme wrote:
JBZ wrote:My overall point is that the big guys mess up and the micros mess up. But if Rolex or Omega or JLC or... had machined cases that didn't fit their movement, they would have come up with a reliable fix (and if the fix didn't work, they would have stood behind their warranty). Rolex had the recent cyclops issue, but they agreed to replace it upon consumer request. Even Panerai offered to replace the BB movement when they got called on the table for it (after a bit of arm twisting, but still). If memory serves, Ed just had a problem with a JLC that wasn't fixed to his satisfaction, and his AD ultimately agreed to take the watch back and refund him.

In this case, the fix was to fit in a poorly integrated plastic spacer. Most likely because it was the only thing the company could afford at that point. Micros, even the good ones, are working on much tighter margins than the big boys. It may very well have been cost-prohibitive to order new cases, order different movements, or even manufacture/purchase a truly integrated spacer.

So, the issue I see is not that all established companies are good and all micros are bad. It's that, when faced with the same problem, a micro is far more likely to use a cheaper alternative to correct it, which may or may not cause problems down the road. And I don't have as much faith that the micros will ultimately stand behind their warranty (though there are plenty that do). It's much more of a crap shoot.
Not all micros are the same.

Regards Graeme
^^This. It’s ignorant to make sweeping statements like that. Lots of micros that are great.

This is about Unimatic not doing it right and MacGuyvering a $600 watch, hoping no one would open it up until after warranty apparently.

They are crossed off my list now. Especially since they are deleting posts and not responding to emails sent since this thread started.
Some people just have a way with words, and other people … oh … not have way.

Steve Martin

JBZ
Mr. Tasseled Loafer
Posts: 11224
Joined: Wed Oct 27, 2010 10:03 am
Name: Jeff

Re: Wrong Movements Installed in Unimatic U1?

Post by JBZ » Fri Oct 12, 2018 11:23 am

Graeme wrote:
Fri Oct 12, 2018 10:57 am
JBZ wrote:My overall point is that the big guys mess up and the micros mess up. But if Rolex or Omega or JLC or... had machined cases that didn't fit their movement, they would have come up with a reliable fix (and if the fix didn't work, they would have stood behind their warranty). Rolex had the recent cyclops issue, but they agreed to replace it upon consumer request. Even Panerai offered to replace the BB movement when they got called on the table for it (after a bit of arm twisting, but still). If memory serves, Ed just had a problem with a JLC that wasn't fixed to his satisfaction, and his AD ultimately agreed to take the watch back and refund him.

In this case, the fix was to fit in a poorly integrated plastic spacer. Most likely because it was the only thing the company could afford at that point. Micros, even the good ones, are working on much tighter margins than the big boys. It may very well have been cost-prohibitive to order new cases, order different movements, or even manufacture/purchase a truly integrated spacer.

So, the issue I see is not that all established companies are good and all micros are bad. It's that, when faced with the same problem, a micro is far more likely to use a cheaper alternative to correct it, which may or may not cause problems down the road. And I don't have as much faith that the micros will ultimately stand behind their warranty (though there are plenty that do). It's much more of a crap shoot.
Not all micros are the same.

Regards Graeme
Never said they were. In fact, I went out of my way to say the opposite. But from a monetary perspective, it's still more risky to buy a micro than an equally priced watch from an established brand.
Image

JBZ
Mr. Tasseled Loafer
Posts: 11224
Joined: Wed Oct 27, 2010 10:03 am
Name: Jeff

Re: Wrong Movements Installed in Unimatic U1?

Post by JBZ » Fri Oct 12, 2018 11:27 am

manitoujoe wrote:
Fri Oct 12, 2018 11:13 am
Graeme wrote:
JBZ wrote:My overall point is that the big guys mess up and the micros mess up. But if Rolex or Omega or JLC or... had machined cases that didn't fit their movement, they would have come up with a reliable fix (and if the fix didn't work, they would have stood behind their warranty). Rolex had the recent cyclops issue, but they agreed to replace it upon consumer request. Even Panerai offered to replace the BB movement when they got called on the table for it (after a bit of arm twisting, but still). If memory serves, Ed just had a problem with a JLC that wasn't fixed to his satisfaction, and his AD ultimately agreed to take the watch back and refund him.

In this case, the fix was to fit in a poorly integrated plastic spacer. Most likely because it was the only thing the company could afford at that point. Micros, even the good ones, are working on much tighter margins than the big boys. It may very well have been cost-prohibitive to order new cases, order different movements, or even manufacture/purchase a truly integrated spacer.

So, the issue I see is not that all established companies are good and all micros are bad. It's that, when faced with the same problem, a micro is far more likely to use a cheaper alternative to correct it, which may or may not cause problems down the road. And I don't have as much faith that the micros will ultimately stand behind their warranty (though there are plenty that do). It's much more of a crap shoot.
Not all micros are the same.

Regards Graeme
^^This. It’s ignorant to make sweeping statements like that. Lots of micros that are great.

This is about Unimatic not doing it right and MacGuyvering a $600 watch, hoping no one would open it up until after warranty apparently.

They are crossed off my list now. Especially since they are deleting posts and not responding to emails sent since this thread started.
I did not make a sweeping statement like that.
Image

User avatar
jeckyll
Honorary Assistant Jr. Hall Monitor in Training
Posts: 11906
Joined: Thu Feb 25, 2010 10:11 pm
Name: Björn

Re: Wrong Movements Installed in Unimatic U1?

Post by jeckyll » Fri Oct 12, 2018 11:31 am

toxicavenger wrote:
Thu Oct 11, 2018 1:16 pm
I borrowed a first edition U1 and it didn't have this issue with movement play. I bet the company that assembled these watches had a mix up. I don't think this is uncommon at all though. I have a 1200T Doxa here that was suppose to come with a 2824-2, but it actually has a SW200 in it.
At least those are supposed to be interchangeable thought Terry. I don't think that's quite the same, quite a number of companies even spec'd either the 2824-2 or SW200 in their watches based on available supply.

Edit: Was responded to later in the thread. Though I'm not certain there is a quality different between SW200's and 2824's but my sample size is small ;)
We all have the same enemy. The enemy is the tyranny of the dull mind. - - Tom Robbins

User avatar
manitoujoe
Posts: 3443
Joined: Tue Dec 01, 2009 2:37 pm
Name: Mark
Location: Louisville, KY

Re: Wrong Movements Installed in Unimatic U1?

Post by manitoujoe » Fri Oct 12, 2018 11:46 am

That wasn’t directed at you personally just to the comments made about micros in this thread outside of Unimatic.

No offense meant or taken.
Some people just have a way with words, and other people … oh … not have way.

Steve Martin

User avatar
jeckyll
Honorary Assistant Jr. Hall Monitor in Training
Posts: 11906
Joined: Thu Feb 25, 2010 10:11 pm
Name: Björn

Re: Wrong Movements Installed in Unimatic U1?

Post by jeckyll » Fri Oct 12, 2018 11:50 am

Terry: I think that one spacer is fine, having two is a shitshow given what it lead to. Frankly it's a "Roadkill(tm)" solution if I've ever seen one.
As in, doesn't matter how long the 'solution' lasts, just do it and get it out the door and on the road.

Sucks for those that own the watch, though who knows, some buyers may not care. Might actually be a good opportunity for someone to manufacture & sell a better 2nd spacer that is less likely to shift / compress and allow a loose movement. I mean, it sounds like a fairly easy fix if that part existed...

My question is, did the company spec the movement and then ship a different one? If so, certainly not kosher.

Overall I think the less is "don't buy Italian" :lol:
We all have the same enemy. The enemy is the tyranny of the dull mind. - - Tom Robbins

User avatar
Ryeguy
Posts: 5514
Joined: Fri Sep 09, 2011 1:03 pm
Name: Chris
Location: Rye

Re: Wrong Movements Installed in Unimatic U1?

Post by Ryeguy » Fri Oct 12, 2018 11:59 am

toxicavenger wrote:
Fri Oct 12, 2018 10:37 am
Ryeguy wrote:
Fri Oct 12, 2018 10:09 am
The problem is they are actually using 2 movement spacers. The first is the stock Seiko grey Derlin / nylon spacer you can see in the above photograph showing the dial feet. The second spacer is the white nylon / plastic spacer you see Jake pulling out with his tweezers.
I guess I don't see the spacer as a problem as long as it holds the movement correctly. In this case it did not. But this is the first instance we have heard of this.
Didn't Mfxr just post this morning that his dial also shifts very slightly when moving the crown?

I suspect this issue will be endemic across all Unimatic watches to at least some degree.

I think it is also important to remember the issue that Jake was meant to address wasn't dial movement. The issue his client had was failure to auto wind. The diagnosis was the rotor was hanging up on the secondary spacer probably due to it being slightly deformed when the case back was tightened.

The movement of the dial within the watch was a secondary issue, not the primary concern. I doubt the owner would've even sent the watch in if he was just experiencing a little dial movement (at least I likely wouldn't have - just not a big enough deal on a $600 micro).

The use of the cheap and flimsy secondary spacer to make the Seiko movement fit in a case designed for the Miyota is absolutely a jury-rig solution that any watchmaker worth the title would not endorse. The proper fix for this mistake would've been to machine a solid spacer from either metal or nylon which would not deform and allow dial movement or rotor interference. The use of the off-the-shelf quick-fix speaks volumes about the brand's character.

If Dan, a one-man-band watch brand owner in Australia can take the time to have custom metal spacers machined for his watches, then Unimatic could've done exactly the same thing as well.

JBZ
Mr. Tasseled Loafer
Posts: 11224
Joined: Wed Oct 27, 2010 10:03 am
Name: Jeff

Re: Wrong Movements Installed in Unimatic U1?

Post by JBZ » Fri Oct 12, 2018 12:34 pm

manitoujoe wrote:
Fri Oct 12, 2018 11:46 am
That wasn’t directed at you personally just to the comments made about micros in this thread outside of Unimatic.

No offense meant or taken.
Gotcha, no worries, and no offense meant by me, either.
Image

User avatar
toxicavenger
President Tranny
Posts: 48071
Joined: Fri Mar 12, 2010 8:25 am
Name: HeadDIK
Location: Colorado Springs

Re: Wrong Movements Installed in Unimatic U1?

Post by toxicavenger » Fri Oct 12, 2018 12:52 pm

jeckyll wrote:
Fri Oct 12, 2018 11:31 am
toxicavenger wrote:
Thu Oct 11, 2018 1:16 pm
I borrowed a first edition U1 and it didn't have this issue with movement play. I bet the company that assembled these watches had a mix up. I don't think this is uncommon at all though. I have a 1200T Doxa here that was suppose to come with a 2824-2, but it actually has a SW200 in it.
At least those are supposed to be interchangeable thought Terry. I don't think that's quite the same, quite a number of companies even spec'd either the 2824-2 or SW200 in their watches based on available supply.

Edit: Was responded to later in the thread. Though I'm not certain there is a quality different between SW200's and 2824's but my sample size is small ;)
My comment was that Doxa specifically said the watch came with a 2824-2. It did not. And there is a quality difference and price difference between those two movements for sure.

User avatar
toxicavenger
President Tranny
Posts: 48071
Joined: Fri Mar 12, 2010 8:25 am
Name: HeadDIK
Location: Colorado Springs

Re: Wrong Movements Installed in Unimatic U1?

Post by toxicavenger » Fri Oct 12, 2018 1:14 pm

Ryeguy wrote:
Fri Oct 12, 2018 11:59 am
toxicavenger wrote:
Fri Oct 12, 2018 10:37 am
Ryeguy wrote:
Fri Oct 12, 2018 10:09 am
The problem is they are actually using 2 movement spacers. The first is the stock Seiko grey Derlin / nylon spacer you can see in the above photograph showing the dial feet. The second spacer is the white nylon / plastic spacer you see Jake pulling out with his tweezers.
I guess I don't see the spacer as a problem as long as it holds the movement correctly. In this case it did not. But this is the first instance we have heard of this.
Didn't Mfxr just post this morning that his dial also shifts very slightly when moving the crown?

I suspect this issue will be endemic across all Unimatic watches to at least some degree.

I think it is also important to remember the issue that Jake was meant to address wasn't dial movement. The issue his client had was failure to auto wind. The diagnosis was the rotor was hanging up on the secondary spacer probably due to it being slightly deformed when the case back was tightened.

The movement of the dial within the watch was a secondary issue, not the primary concern. I doubt the owner would've even sent the watch in if he was just experiencing a little dial movement (at least I likely wouldn't have - just not a big enough deal on a $600 micro).

The use of the cheap and flimsy secondary spacer to make the Seiko movement fit in a case designed for the Miyota is absolutely a jury-rig solution that any watchmaker worth the title would not endorse. The proper fix for this mistake would've been to machine a solid spacer from either metal or nylon which would not deform and allow dial movement or rotor interference. The use of the off-the-shelf quick-fix speaks volumes about the brand's character.

If Dan, a one-man-band watch brand owner in Australia can take the time to have custom metal spacers machined for his watches, then Unimatic could've done exactly the same thing as well.
Matt said now he notices a slight play. Yes that is correct. But funny it wasn't noticed before? Maybe knowing this info enhanced?

Don't mistake watch assemblers with watchmakers. Two totally different things. And NOT all watchmakers are the same. That is true of every profession. What one sees as a issue isn't always true for everyone else.

Is Dan even a good comparison to this discussion? What Dan's choose to do himself for his company is good. But is that the standard that should be held for all companies because "Dan did it"

Like Graeme said, not all microbrands (brands period) are the same. And they all choose to handle things differently. But that doesn't mean it is necessarily wrong? Maybe in the case, I really don't know.

I do have to wonder as a fellow microbrand why Jake wouldn't have contacted the company and give them the courtesy to reply back? It sounds like he didn't give a shit about their reputation. And in all honestly reputation is very important. If I was in his position I would have wanted the same courtesy.

Disclaimer::::: I do help out a few microbrands with issues and manufacturing. Unimatic is not one of them and I do not know who does their work.

User avatar
Ryeguy
Posts: 5514
Joined: Fri Sep 09, 2011 1:03 pm
Name: Chris
Location: Rye

Re: Wrong Movements Installed in Unimatic U1?

Post by Ryeguy » Fri Oct 12, 2018 2:08 pm

toxicavenger wrote:
Fri Oct 12, 2018 1:14 pm
Ryeguy wrote:
Fri Oct 12, 2018 11:59 am
toxicavenger wrote:
Fri Oct 12, 2018 10:37 am
Ryeguy wrote:
Fri Oct 12, 2018 10:09 am
The problem is they are actually using 2 movement spacers. The first is the stock Seiko grey Derlin / nylon spacer you can see in the above photograph showing the dial feet. The second spacer is the white nylon / plastic spacer you see Jake pulling out with his tweezers.
I guess I don't see the spacer as a problem as long as it holds the movement correctly. In this case it did not. But this is the first instance we have heard of this.
Didn't Mfxr just post this morning that his dial also shifts very slightly when moving the crown?

I suspect this issue will be endemic across all Unimatic watches to at least some degree.

I think it is also important to remember the issue that Jake was meant to address wasn't dial movement. The issue his client had was failure to auto wind. The diagnosis was the rotor was hanging up on the secondary spacer probably due to it being slightly deformed when the case back was tightened.

The movement of the dial within the watch was a secondary issue, not the primary concern. I doubt the owner would've even sent the watch in if he was just experiencing a little dial movement (at least I likely wouldn't have - just not a big enough deal on a $600 micro).

The use of the cheap and flimsy secondary spacer to make the Seiko movement fit in a case designed for the Miyota is absolutely a jury-rig solution that any watchmaker worth the title would not endorse. The proper fix for this mistake would've been to machine a solid spacer from either metal or nylon which would not deform and allow dial movement or rotor interference. The use of the off-the-shelf quick-fix speaks volumes about the brand's character.

If Dan, a one-man-band watch brand owner in Australia can take the time to have custom metal spacers machined for his watches, then Unimatic could've done exactly the same thing as well.
Matt said now he notices a slight play. Yes that is correct. But funny it wasn't noticed before? Maybe knowing this info enhanced?

Don't mistake watch assemblers with watchmakers. Two totally different things. And NOT all watchmakers are the same. That is true of every profession. What one sees as a issue isn't always true for everyone else.

Is Dan even a good comparison to this discussion? What Dan's choose to do himself for his company is good. But is that the standard that should be held for all companies because "Dan did it"

Like Graeme said, not all microbrands (brands period) are the same. And they all choose to handle things differently. But that doesn't mean it is necessarily wrong? Maybe in the case, I really don't know.

I do have to wonder as a fellow microbrand why Jake wouldn't have contacted the company and give them the courtesy to reply back? It sounds like he didn't give a shit about their reputation. And in all honestly reputation is very important. If I was in his position I would have wanted the same courtesy.

Disclaimer::::: I do help out a few microbrands with issues and manufacturing. Unimatic is not one of them and I do not know who does their work.
I am using Dan / OWC as an example of a micro brand who is trying to do the right thing, the correct thing. What Dan does isn't necessarily unique, but he is an example of someone doing his level best to deliver a quality product. I'm sure Graeme and Graham (see what I did there :grin: ) are no different.

Has Dan had to make compromises? Yes. A case in point is he used the same watch case for Seagull versions of both the 2824-3 and the 2892-2 (I forget the Seagull model numebers). These two movements have different thicknesses. The way Dan made it work was by machining a custom metal spacer ring which fit between the dial and the rehaut to make up for the thinner movement and ensure the stem was centered in the pendant hole.

Dan's actions are not the standard. The standard is quality. Dan / OWC simply meets that standard. Unimatic apparently does not.

Regarding Jake's decision to post the video shaming a competitor, that is another question. I'm not certain how I feel about it. On one hand, I think Unimatic did a crappy thing and I'm glad to have the information. On the other hand, maybe he could've first tried to connect with Unimatic and make some suggestion for a needed corrective action. For all I know, maybe he did and was rejected, so this video was his recourse.

As a side note, the more I look at the photos, the more I think a custom spacer would have be somewhat more complex than a simple flat ring. If I am seeing things accurately, I think a proper spacer ring would require a lip to fit between the outer edge of the existing Seiko ring and the watch case, then get thick enough to allow the case back to push it forward, creating the "sandwich" to hold the movement securely between the rehaut and the case back. The lack of this lip is what is causing the dial to shift back and for a tiny bit even in Unimatic watches which don't have the auto wind issue.

User avatar
Ryeguy
Posts: 5514
Joined: Fri Sep 09, 2011 1:03 pm
Name: Chris
Location: Rye

Re: Wrong Movements Installed in Unimatic U1?

Post by Ryeguy » Fri Oct 12, 2018 2:17 pm

skunkworks wrote:
Fri Oct 12, 2018 8:03 am
BacoNoir wrote:Is it possible the owner bought it second hand and that the previous owner did the movement swap after f-ing up the original movement? This seems too fubar to come from someone who’s been in the business that long. This is JV league shit.
Did Jake look at the dial feet? We're they there or was the dial dotted on? Either way the dial seemed too small for the dial opening, weird. I had to fast forward thru parts of that video so might have missed it.

Edit:. That's a dial foot right there I believe. 9015 and Seiko have different feet locations, so they must have made dials for the Seiko mvmt.



Image
Go back to the video at about 9:38 in Jake comments that the dial is secured to the Seiko movement ring by only 1 post. He comments the other post location is empty.

I wonder (and I'd have to see side by side dials to compare) if Miyota dials and Seiko dials in fact do share a single post location.

Again, it is really just and academic discussion, but I'm kind of curious about how far down the production process did Unimatic get before deciding to change the movement. Maybe the dials were also in fact made for a 9015 and had to be retrofitted as well?

User avatar
CGSshorty
Admin
Posts: 33918
Joined: Tue Dec 01, 2009 5:18 pm
Location: Boynton Beach, FL

Re: Wrong Movements Installed in Unimatic U1?

Post by CGSshorty » Fri Oct 12, 2018 2:21 pm

toxicavenger wrote:
Fri Oct 12, 2018 12:52 pm
jeckyll wrote:
Fri Oct 12, 2018 11:31 am
toxicavenger wrote:
Thu Oct 11, 2018 1:16 pm
I borrowed a first edition U1 and it didn't have this issue with movement play. I bet the company that assembled these watches had a mix up. I don't think this is uncommon at all though. I have a 1200T Doxa here that was suppose to come with a 2824-2, but it actually has a SW200 in it.
At least those are supposed to be interchangeable thought Terry. I don't think that's quite the same, quite a number of companies even spec'd either the 2824-2 or SW200 in their watches based on available supply.

Edit: Was responded to later in the thread. Though I'm not certain there is a quality different between SW200's and 2824's but my sample size is small ;)
My comment was that Doxa specifically said the watch came with a 2824-2. It did not. And there is a quality difference and price difference between those two movements for sure.
Sellita actually produces a large percentage of the "ETA" 2824s under contract with the Swatch Group. In my experience there is absolutely zero difference in quality between the SW200 and the 2824.
"It's such a fine line between stupid, and clever."
David St. Hubbins

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot], Google [Bot], mfxr, TLgdeL and 445 guests