Wrong Movements Installed in Unimatic U1?

Come on in and introduce yourself!
General watch talk.
User avatar
Selym
Posts: 1548
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 2:26 pm

Ryeguy wrote:
Fri Oct 12, 2018 2:08 pm
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.
Right. The annular space between the integrated spacer and the inside of the case needs to be addressed, as well as the space between the case back and the integrated spacer. Not to mention, if there are stem height differences between the Miyota and Seiko movements, that would have to be addressed with a spacer that sits between the dial and rehaut.

What a mess.

User avatar
Erratic101
Posts: 2212
Joined: Wed Jan 08, 2014 7:40 am
Name: Justyn

Re: Wrong Movements Installed in Unimatic U1?

Post by Erratic101 » Fri Oct 12, 2018 3:52 pm

Just to summarize: this thread has lots of words, no pictures, and no boobies. Oh and some company is shafting its clients by sending out a movement other than advertised, poorly fitted in a case made for the advertised movement.

User avatar
mfxr
Posts: 1560
Joined: Tue Jan 25, 2011 12:19 am
Name: MattF
Location: Australia

Re: Wrong Movements Installed in Unimatic U1?

Post by mfxr » Fri Oct 12, 2018 3:54 pm

To answer a few questions:

My caseback does not state bph.

Yes the movement has the grey Seiko spacer attached, then the white one is just placed on top. It just sort of fitted in the gap, and came out easily.

The white spacer does not look custom made, it has a bunch of slots and notches that don't match or meet up with anything particular.

I have no problem at all with the use of a spacer, or that it is plastic. For me it is that it does not tightly fit, but rather has the potential to move slightly and not do its job. The Dagaz video was the worse end of the scale where it had moved or deformed enough to touch the rotor.

I did not notice dial movement before. Now that I have opened it up, I have obviously moved things slightly, so that the spacer is not applying the same pressure to the movement assembly. I would say anytime anyone opens this watch, the potential for things to move around is there.

Simply put, a better fitting spacer that relies more on friction fit, rather than caseback pressure would sort this out.
People that own Unimatics don't need to go and throw them in the ocean because of this - if you don't have an issue with movement, you are fine.

I opened mine, and risked this for myself because I was curious to compare to the Dagaz video, and I don't intend on selling the watch.
I think I could easily ghetto fix this issue, but I actually would prefer, and will try a proper and correct solution in my spare time. (I have 2 young kids, so I don't have any spare time :doh: )

I will be opening the case again, so if anyone wants detailed photos of anything let me know.

Matt

:salute:

User avatar
mfxr
Posts: 1560
Joined: Tue Jan 25, 2011 12:19 am
Name: MattF
Location: Australia

Re: Wrong Movements Installed in Unimatic U1?

Post by mfxr » Fri Oct 12, 2018 3:55 pm

Erratic101 wrote:
Fri Oct 12, 2018 3:52 pm
Just to summarize: this thread has lots of words, no pictures, and no boobies. Oh and some company is shafting its clients by sending out a movement other than advertised, poorly fitted in a case made for the advertised movement.
The movement they advertise is correct. It just appears that the case they use was made to natively fit a different movement.

Oh and they made a typo on some of the casebacks in relation to bph

User avatar
toxicavenger
President Tranny
Posts: 41559
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 3:56 pm

Erratic101 wrote:
Fri Oct 12, 2018 3:52 pm
Just to summarize: this thread has lots of words, no pictures, and no boobies. Oh and some company is shafting its clients by sending out a movement other than advertised, poorly fitted in a case made for the advertised movement.
The company advertised the movement in it. The caseback has the wrong beat rate on it. And the watch doesn't have a metal movement holder. So this might lead to fitment issues, you know the ones no one complained about for 2 years. :mrgreen:

User avatar
toxicavenger
President Tranny
Posts: 41559
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 4:03 pm

CGSshorty wrote:
Fri Oct 12, 2018 2:21 pm
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.
Chris I can tell you for a fact there is a difference. Most of last week I was working with my watchmaker trying to find out an issue on a SW200 and we were comparing it to a 2824-2 under a loupe. The finish work is not even close the 2824-2. But this doesn't mean they don't produce them the same factory. There is just levels of quality like most factories.

Now the SW300 is a different story. It definitely compares to the 2824-2. I have had no issues with the SW200's I have owned in the past. But within the last month we had multiple ones come in with a reoccurring issue. Aj has a good topic on it https://www.ajbarse.com/a-third-regener ... -timelord/
Last edited by toxicavenger on Fri Oct 12, 2018 4:42 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
mfxr
Posts: 1560
Joined: Tue Jan 25, 2011 12:19 am
Name: MattF
Location: Australia

Re: Wrong Movements Installed in Unimatic U1?

Post by mfxr » Fri Oct 12, 2018 4:07 pm

toxicavenger wrote:
Fri Oct 12, 2018 3:56 pm
Erratic101 wrote:
Fri Oct 12, 2018 3:52 pm
Just to summarize: this thread has lots of words, no pictures, and no boobies. Oh and some company is shafting its clients by sending out a movement other than advertised, poorly fitted in a case made for the advertised movement.
The company advertised the movement in it. The caseback has the wrong beat rate on it. And the watch doesn't have a metal movement holder. So this might lead to fitment issues, you know the ones no one complained about for 2 years. :mrgreen:
I would guess most of the watches have no discernible problem, as the spacer fitment is "good enough" in most cases.
Having seen it first hand, I would also guess that at least a few would suffer movement.
I have disturbed the "compression sandwich" on mine now, so have kind of brought this on myself.

The things I do for science :doh:

User avatar
toxicavenger
President Tranny
Posts: 41559
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 4:12 pm

Ryeguy wrote:
Fri Oct 12, 2018 2:08 pm
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.
Chris great discussion. And I do agree watch companies should put more effort. That is true on all things in life imo.

Since you are using Dan as a example we can talk about that also. I do not agree with all Dan's efforts though. He could have got a watch case made for the movements he was using. :salute:

User avatar
toxicavenger
President Tranny
Posts: 41559
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 4:15 pm

mfxr wrote:
Fri Oct 12, 2018 3:54 pm
The white spacer does not look custom made, it has a bunch of slots and notches that don't match or meet up with anything particular.
I have seen some watches with a universal spacer. They are made to fit multiple designs. So try it a few different ways to see if it matches up better in a different position.

User avatar
toxicavenger
President Tranny
Posts: 41559
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 4:18 pm

Selym wrote:
Fri Oct 12, 2018 2:26 pm
Ryeguy wrote:
Fri Oct 12, 2018 2:08 pm
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.
Right. The annular space between the integrated spacer and the inside of the case needs to be addressed, as well as the space between the case back and the integrated spacer. Not to mention, if there are stem height differences between the Miyota and Seiko movements, that would have to be addressed with a spacer that sits between the dial and rehaut.

What a mess.
This model is almost two years old and this is the only issue we have heard :think: . Pretty small mess actually. We all know that if the stem angle is wrong there would have been issues within the first month of delivery if not sooner.

User avatar
Ryeguy
Posts: 2959
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 5:14 pm

toxicavenger wrote:
Fri Oct 12, 2018 4:12 pm
Ryeguy wrote:
Fri Oct 12, 2018 2:08 pm
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.
Chris great discussion. And I do agree watch companies should put more effort. That is true on all things in life imo.

Since you are using Dan as a example we can talk about that also. I do not agree with all Dan's efforts though. He could have got a watch case made for the movements he was using. :salute:
Terry, to be clear, I did use the word "compromise" when describing Dan's decision to have a single case design support two different movements. The word "compromise" was actually Dan's description too.

At the very least, Dan made the situation as correct as possible by taking the time to have custom shims and spacers manufactured. He didn't take the Unimatic route and just use some random plastic bit.

Continuing on the OWC topic, Dan has consolidated his movement selection, likely due to no longer being willing to accept compromise solutions.

I'm fine if you want to defend Unimatic or minimize this discovery. I'll even agree most Unimatic customers will likely not suffer issues within the warranty period other than loose dials.

My opinion differs. Seeing half-ass solutions implemented irks me. I am a "do it right or don't do it at all" kind of person. I can't help thinking "this is the shortcut taken we can see. I wonder what other shortcuts were taken we can't see?" Who wants to bet that Unimatic case can't pass a 100m test, let alone 300m as stated on the dial?

What probably makes it worse is I actually like the looks of many of the Unimatic models and I like the Seiko movement. With a properly machined case or properly fitted spacer, I could see myself wearing one.

User avatar
Axelay2003
Posts: 5184
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 5:20 pm

toxicavenger wrote:
Fri Oct 12, 2018 4:18 pm
Selym wrote:
Fri Oct 12, 2018 2:26 pm
Ryeguy wrote:
Fri Oct 12, 2018 2:08 pm
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.
Right. The annular space between the integrated spacer and the inside of the case needs to be addressed, as well as the space between the case back and the integrated spacer. Not to mention, if there are stem height differences between the Miyota and Seiko movements, that would have to be addressed with a spacer that sits between the dial and rehaut.

What a mess.
This model is almost two years old and this is the only issue we have heard :think: . Pretty small mess actually. We all know that if the stem angle is wrong there would have been issues within the first month of delivery if not sooner.
Exactly! Hopefully Jake reached out to UNIMATIC to discuss the issue before showing the world this localized debacle just to respect each other’s profession. At least give Unimatic time to investigate and prepare for corrective measures. The video could possibly shut down Unimatic for good.
It's a beautiful world! Gerald.
ImageImage

User avatar
Selym
Posts: 1548
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 5:27 pm

toxicavenger wrote:
Fri Oct 12, 2018 3:56 pm
And the watch doesn't have a metal movement holder. So this might lead to fitment issues, you know the ones no one complained about for 2 years. :mrgreen:
It's not the fact that is doesn't have a metal movement holder, it's the fact that it has two movement holders. In my estimation, this is a bodge done to accommodate a movement other than the one the case was designed for.

ToxicNATOs produces excellent products. What Unimatic does has no bearing on the reputation of ToxicNATOs or any other unrelated brands. :shrug:

By the way, would you consider Mk II to be a "micro brand"? :scratch:

User avatar
mfxr
Posts: 1560
Joined: Tue Jan 25, 2011 12:19 am
Name: MattF
Location: Australia

Re: Wrong Movements Installed in Unimatic U1?

Post by mfxr » Fri Oct 12, 2018 6:40 pm

Fitment take 2:

I think I can see how this works now, or at least speculate.

The bottom of the top white spacer fits over the "factory" grey spacer like a shroud. It then narrows to fit closer to the movement.
There is a bump on the side of the spacer that fits in a groove of the case to locate the spacer so it doesn't rotate. On the opposite side there is a cutout for the crown stem.
IMG_20181013_100350.jpg
There is window cutouts at intervals around the white spacer. The cutouts make it so there is a thin bridge and on top of these bridges there is a bump that protrudes up. These bumps are what makes contact with the caseback. The bump is pushed down when the caseback goes on, the thin bridge flexes downwards (kind of like a thin plastic leaf spring)
When the watch is first made, the plastic is new and unflexed. When the caseback is screwed down, the plastic flexes downward and forms quite a tight fit. Things are good, everybody is happy.
Over time, the watch endures normal movement and shocks etc, which will inevitably cause micro flexing up and down of the bridges on this plastic spacer, losing tension and integrity on a small scale, and eventually opening up the prospect of unwanted movement.
IMG_20181013_100216.jpg
IMG_20181013_101231.jpg
IMG_20181013_101235.jpg
When the watch is opened like I did, all pressure is removed from the plastic bridges, but the plastic stays put, because plastic doesn't like to flex up and down too much before getting fatigued and losing integrity/tension.

All in all, a spacer on a spacer is not optimal, and relying on thin plastic bridges to maintain force/tension is also not optimal in the long term.

I don't think it is a burning train wreck like some some people are making out, just a manufacturers design decision that is not as good as it could be.
This is a cheap micro watch after all. (I do think this kind of quality puts an upper limit on the pricing of a watch like this though. I think they should ditch the Seiko movement and use 9015s, or make the cases to natively fit the Seiko. Anything else IS a compromised solution.

I hope people benefit from knowing what is going on inside here, but also I think torches and pitchforks aimed at Unimatic is a bit much. If it was a big expensive Swiss brand, then hell yes they should get flamed, but in the context of a cheap micro not so much (IMHO)

For me, I flexed the plastic bridges up a bit and reattached the caseback. This has improved the moving around, probably back to the level it was before (when I didn't notice it) Obviously I notice any movement now (ignorance is bliss I guess)
u1b.jpg
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.

User avatar
Erratic101
Posts: 2212
Joined: Wed Jan 08, 2014 7:40 am
Name: Justyn

Re: Wrong Movements Installed in Unimatic U1?

Post by Erratic101 » Fri Oct 12, 2018 7:55 pm

toxicavenger wrote:
Erratic101 wrote:
Fri Oct 12, 2018 3:52 pm
Just to summarize: this thread has lots of words, no pictures, and no boobies. Oh and some company is shafting its clients by sending out a movement other than advertised, poorly fitted in a case made for the advertised movement.
The company advertised the movement in it. The caseback has the wrong beat rate on it. And the watch doesn't have a metal movement holder. So this might lead to fitment issues, you know the ones no one complained about for 2 years. :mrgreen:
See!! I can’t even summarize it right because there’s too many words!!

User avatar
Erratic101
Posts: 2212
Joined: Wed Jan 08, 2014 7:40 am
Name: Justyn

Re: Wrong Movements Installed in Unimatic U1?

Post by Erratic101 » Fri Oct 12, 2018 7:56 pm

toxicavenger wrote:
Erratic101 wrote:
Fri Oct 12, 2018 3:52 pm
Just to summarize: this thread has lots of words, no pictures, and no boobies. Oh and some company is shafting its clients by sending out a movement other than advertised, poorly fitted in a case made for the advertised movement.
The company advertised the movement in it. The caseback has the wrong beat rate on it. And the watch doesn't have a metal movement holder. So this might lead to fitment issues, you know the ones no one complained about for 2 years. :mrgreen:
See!! I can’t even summarize it right because there’s too many words!!

User avatar
manitoujoe
Posts: 2960
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 9:02 pm

It’s all about integrity. Do it right or make it right. It’s simple.

$600 is a lot of money to most people. Not all of us, but enough. There’s nothing cheap about a $600 watch. Let’s get that right.

I’ve no idea what happened to this model of their watches. Like you said maybe it would take awhile, perhaps the entire length of the 2-year warranty before this was discovered.

Regardless it happened, was discovered, and in a previous post a link of the video was sent to the company and they deleted it.
As far as I can tell, no one that said they emailed the company has heard back yet either. Doesn’t look good.

I’d love to hear what they say about it. If it’s no big deal like some of you are saying then it should be a simple thing to explain.




Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
Some people just have a way with words, and other people … oh … not have way.

Steve Martin

User avatar
dnslater
Posts: 5436
Joined: Mon Apr 25, 2011 6:52 pm
Name: Nick
Location: Indiana, USA

Re: Wrong Movements Installed in Unimatic U1?

Post by dnslater » Sat Oct 13, 2018 3:44 am

mfxr wrote:
Fri Oct 12, 2018 6:40 pm
Fitment take 2:

I think I can see how this works now, or at least speculate.

The bottom of the top white spacer fits over the "factory" grey spacer like a shroud. It then narrows to fit closer to the movement.
There is a bump on the side of the spacer that fits in a groove of the case to locate the spacer so it doesn't rotate. On the opposite side there is a cutout for the crown stem.

IMG_20181013_100350.jpg

There is window cutouts at intervals around the white spacer. The cutouts make it so there is a thin bridge and on top of these bridges there is a bump that protrudes up. These bumps are what makes contact with the caseback. The bump is pushed down when the caseback goes on, the thin bridge flexes downwards (kind of like a thin plastic leaf spring)
When the watch is first made, the plastic is new and unflexed. When the caseback is screwed down, the plastic flexes downward and forms quite a tight fit. Things are good, everybody is happy.
Over time, the watch endures normal movement and shocks etc, which will inevitably cause micro flexing up and down of the bridges on this plastic spacer, losing tension and integrity on a small scale, and eventually opening up the prospect of unwanted movement.

IMG_20181013_100216.jpg

IMG_20181013_101231.jpg

IMG_20181013_101235.jpg

When the watch is opened like I did, all pressure is removed from the plastic bridges, but the plastic stays put, because plastic doesn't like to flex up and down too much before getting fatigued and losing integrity/tension.

All in all, a spacer on a spacer is not optimal, and relying on thin plastic bridges to maintain force/tension is also not optimal in the long term.

I don't think it is a burning train wreck like some some people are making out, just a manufacturers design decision that is not as good as it could be.
This is a cheap micro watch after all. (I do think this kind of quality puts an upper limit on the pricing of a watch like this though. I think they should ditch the Seiko movement and use 9015s, or make the cases to natively fit the Seiko. Anything else IS a compromised solution.

I hope people benefit from knowing what is going on inside here, but also I think torches and pitchforks aimed at Unimatic is a bit much. If it was a big expensive Swiss brand, then hell yes they should get flamed, but in the context of a cheap micro not so much (IMHO)

For me, I flexed the plastic bridges up a bit and reattached the caseback. This has improved the moving around, probably back to the level it was before (when I didn't notice it) Obviously I notice any movement now (ignorance is bliss I guess)

u1b.jpg
Great post and explanation. This is one of the fears people have about microbrands and why I like my cheap beater watches to say a Seiko on the dial. That plastic spacer is very flexible and while this watch might perform great for a few years the spacer could start causing problems after 5 to 10 years, and good luck getting a replacement down the road. A metal spacer will last a lifetime.

Some see a $600 Watch as a disposable fun watch. Others see this as a massively expensive watch that should last a lifetime with proper maintenance.

User avatar
Ryeguy
Posts: 2959
Joined: Fri Sep 09, 2011 1:03 pm
Name: Chris
Location: Rye

Re: Wrong Movements Installed in Unimatic U1?

Post by Ryeguy » Sat Oct 13, 2018 5:42 am

I suspect you can find a replacement plastic movement ring. In the photos the movement ring Unimatic used doesn't look like a custom part.

A quick google image search finds bags of similar looking rings available from a variety of vendors in assortment of sizes for less than $10 for the entire bag. If you could identify the exact size (or movement the ring was originally intended for) you can probably pick up a bag of them for a few dollars.

As to value, search for the tear down thread of an Alpha Explorer GMT homage. I think it was either on WUS or TZ-UK. That $75 Alpha used a plastic movement ring that looks remarkably similar to the one found in these Unimatics, but at least Alpha only used one spacer instead of needing two.

User avatar
deepcdvr
Flipper Extraordinaire
Posts: 10099
Joined: Tue Dec 01, 2009 2:29 pm
Name: Paul

Re: Wrong Movements Installed in Unimatic U1?

Post by deepcdvr » Sun Oct 14, 2018 5:55 am

Ryeguy wrote:
Sat Oct 13, 2018 5:42 am

As to value, search for the tear down thread of an Alpha Explorer GMT homage. I think it was either on WUS or TZ-UK. That $75 Alpha used a plastic movement ring that looks remarkably similar to the one found in these Unimatics, but at least Alpha only used one spacer instead of needing two.
.... and only charges 75 bucks :grin:

///

I just read this entire thread and was fascinated. As a non-WIS, though, my 2 cents is that no matter the cost - $2 or 10k, you should receive what you are paying for.

In my line of work, where we deal with weapons, demolition, navigation systems, etc, there is zero tolerance (pardon the pun) for substandard parts or shoddy work. A considerable percentage of the cost of military gear is the requirement for government (ie independent) inspection and testing of vendor supplied equipment during the acquisition phase before the government fields said equipment. The process requires rigorous testing in various environments before we send a lot of taxpayer dollars to a vendor. (I know, there have been spectacular mistakes made in the past - just explaining how it’s supposed to work).

In this case - again, pardon the pun - the watch company designs, manufactures, inspects, tests and sells the public a product. We, the consumers, have to trust that the vendor is 100% above board in performing the QA before taking our money. I understand what Terry is saying about this maybe not being such a big deal, but watching how they react to this isssue would tell me a lot about wether they are a company to deal with or not..
VR/
Paul

NEVER SETTLE!

User avatar
watchdawg
Posts: 442
Joined: Fri Dec 04, 2009 8:54 pm
Name: Vic
Location: Colo Spgs/ Abu Dhabi

Re: Wrong Movements Installed in Unimatic U1?

Post by watchdawg » Sun Oct 14, 2018 11:02 am

deepcdvr wrote:
Sun Oct 14, 2018 5:55 am
Ryeguy wrote:
Sat Oct 13, 2018 5:42 am

As to value, search for the tear down thread of an Alpha Explorer GMT homage. I think it was either on WUS or TZ-UK. That $75 Alpha used a plastic movement ring that looks remarkably similar to the one found in these Unimatics, but at least Alpha only used one spacer instead of needing two.
.... and only charges 75 bucks :grin:

///

I just read this entire thread and was fascinated. As a non-WIS, though, my 2 cents is that no matter the cost - $2 or 10k, you should receive what you are paying for.

In my line of work, where we deal with weapons, demolition, navigation systems, etc, there is zero tolerance (pardon the pun) for substandard parts or shoddy work. A considerable percentage of the cost of military gear is the requirement for government (ie independent) inspection and testing of vendor supplied equipment during the acquisition phase before the government fields said equipment. The process requires rigorous testing in various environments before we send a lot of taxpayer dollars to a vendor. (I know, there have been spectacular mistakes made in the past - just explaining how it’s supposed to work).

In this case - again, pardon the pun - the watch company designs, manufactures, inspects, tests and sells the public a product. We, the consumers, have to trust that the vendor is 100% above board in performing the QA before taking our money. I understand what Terry is saying about this maybe not being such a big deal, but watching how they react to this isssue would tell me a lot about wether they are a company to deal with or not..
So true

User avatar
hoppyjr
HJ
Posts: 30904
Joined: Thu Feb 24, 2011 9:05 am
Name: Hoppy
Location: Washington State

Re: Wrong Movements Installed in Unimatic U1?

Post by hoppyjr » Sun Oct 14, 2018 11:11 am

manitoujoe wrote:It’s all about integrity. Do it right or make it right. It’s simple.

$600 is a lot of money to most people. Not all of us, but enough. There’s nothing cheap about a $600 watch. Let’s get that right.

I’ve no idea what happened to this model of their watches. Like you said maybe it would take awhile, perhaps the entire length of the 2-year warranty before this was discovered.

Regardless it happened, was discovered, and in a previous post a link of the video was sent to the company and they deleted it.
As far as I can tell, no one that said they emailed the company has heard back yet either. Doesn’t look good.

I’d love to hear what they say about it. If it’s no big deal like some of you are saying then it should be a simple thing to explain.




Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
^ THIS!

User avatar
tattoo chef
<Will Skull for Food>
Posts: 4477
Joined: Thu Mar 11, 2010 8:03 pm
Name: Don

Wrong Movements Installed in Unimatic U1?

Post by tattoo chef » Sun Oct 14, 2018 4:23 pm

So, I saw this post on Facebook while scrolling through today. Jake actually posted it and has it as a sponsored Facebook post.

Apparently someone emailed Unimatic and sent them the link and their response was “haters gonna hate”

Image


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Last edited by tattoo chef on Sun Oct 14, 2018 4:23 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
jeckyll
Honorary Assistant Jr. Hall Monitor in Training
Posts: 10528
Joined: Thu Feb 25, 2010 10:11 pm
Name: Björn

Re: Wrong Movements Installed in Unimatic U1?

Post by jeckyll » Sun Oct 14, 2018 5:51 pm

tattoo chef wrote:So, I saw this post on Facebook while scrolling through today. Jake actually posted it and has it as a sponsored Facebook post.

Apparently someone emailed Unimatic and sent them the link and their response was “haters gonna hate”



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
W
O
W
.

Blah blah smrt phone

If you believe the doctors, nothing is wholesome; if you believe the theologians, nothing is innocent; if you believe the military, nothing is safe.
--Lord Salisbury

User avatar
matt.wu
Wu
Posts: 27531
Joined: Tue Dec 01, 2009 1:33 pm
Name: m@
Location: SF Bay Area, CA, USA

Re: Wrong Movements Installed in Unimatic U1?

Post by matt.wu » Sun Oct 14, 2018 6:20 pm

tattoo chef wrote:So, I saw this post on Facebook while scrolling through today. Jake actually posted it and has it as a sponsored Facebook post.

Apparently someone emailed Unimatic and sent them the link and their response was “haters gonna hate”



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Loll

Took a page out of Orion's book.
:htfu:

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bill L., Bradystraps, ChuckW, CoachH, Google [Bot], kempoman, outtatime, Ryeguy, TSD and 33 guests