Another Sherpa Graph on eBay that looks odd to me...

[Hugger69]

I real ly can't put my finger on it but the hands looks wrong in combination...

This is what I think looks odd for this watch:
- the hour hand looks too short
- red chrono hand looks wrong
- Seapearl back lid
- wrong crown


https://www.ebay.com/itm/194463457916?hash=item2d46ece27c:g:5VwAAOSwNathdcyv

 

[JimJupiter]

Agree on the hour and Minute hands ( although they aged the same way, which puzzles me), but I can’t see any problem with caseback (except for being polished) and crown . Looks like a typical MK II in 601.xxx range for me.

Nico

 

[Hugger69]

Great info from you Nico and I really miss your knowledge regarding MKII:s on your web site!

So this Graphs didn’t have the the Sherpa 300 engravings on the back lid?
And that thinner crown is ok?

 

[wugod]

It may not be the watch face of SHERPA。。。。。。。。。。。Pay attention to the scale on the dial

 

[JimJupiter]

that looks like my MK II too. almost hidden scale.

 

[SteveHarris]

Same as my all black Mark II as well.

 

[wugod]

The minor scale is not so short

 

[JimJupiter]

Hm, I still dont get your point. Can you explain it a bit more please?

 

[wugod]

Hm, I still dont get your point. Can you explain it a bit more please?

The logo is very clear, you can tell at a glance。

 

[JimJupiter]

I don’t have better pics here at work, but short markers are not uncommon as we said:

 

[Joe_A]

The central hours and minutes hands look short to my eye, especially the hours hand. Are these hands from a Garnix?

Also, I'd feel better about the subdial hand on the minutes register if it had an arrow as is the case for the hours register.

For "the right price," it would be a nice watch for someone to own and hands do show up from time to time.

 

[SteveHarris]

Agreed. Just needs a little love. I think the chrono hand is from an early JG as well as the central part isn't painted.

 

[Hugger69]

Such great knowledge you share with us here, guys!

...and we now even got @JimJupiter to finally complete the MK II section at his superb web site https://enicar101.com
Such an amazing effort you've put in to this superb web site, a true bible for us Enicaristis!

 

[wugod]

Yes, MK II is finally archived

 

[Joe_A]

Nice the see the Mark IIs up!

It seems that the Mark II is the first Sherpa Graph with a mobile stud carrier.

All the Mark I series watches have movements with fixed stud carriers.

 

[JimJupiter]

Please help me Joe, what is a stud carrier? the small screws that holds the movement?

Thanks Nico

 

[Joe_A]

I have a graphic that I produced a while ago using an Excelsior Park movement:



The stud carrier holds one end of the hairspring onto the balance cock. On older movements, the position of it is generally not movable or "mobile." as you see in the example at the right above.

On later movements of the same caliber, true also of Valjoux, manufacturers eventually made the stud carrier movable or mobile (adjustable.)

You'll notice on all the Mark I Sherpa graph watches, that the stud carrier of the Valjoux 72 movement is a fixed part of the balance cock or metal piece that supports the balance assembly.

In the case of the later Valjoux 72 movements, the stud carrier can be easily adjusted same as for the regulator or advance/retard mechanism. The regulator is the smaller adjustable tab shown above both left and right.

I had not seen the movement in enough Mark II example watches to understand when the transition may have occurred. It seems that Enicar may have started using rhe later V72 movements beginning with the Mark II, possibly sometime in 1963.

Why does it matter whether the stud carrier is fixed or mobile?

Adjusting the stud carrier fixing point or location, adjusts the beat error of the balance. Ideally, one wants the balance to rotate exactly the same amount of time in either direction from center of the swing back and forth with the time differential being as close to zero milliseconds as practical . The time differential is (indicated) measured in milliseconds - and this is referred to as the beat error.

Before the mobile stud carrier came about, a watchmaker would have to remove the balance assembly, loosen the set screw on the outer end of the hairspring and effectively lengthen or shorten the hairspring and then reassemble and retest. The process was iterative and in the end, one settled for a reasonably good result.

With the more easily adjustable mobile stud carrier, one could get a much better result much faster. Anything at or below 0.5 msec is considered good.

Chinese made timegraphers are well under 200 USD these days and one can use them to check the state of beat error, amplitude of the beat and either regulate a watch for a single position or else take the time to balance the state of regulation for multiple positions - in other words, adjust the watch.

A timegrapher can help a user know when it's time to have the watch serviced. For example, using a timegrapher can help determine how much friction has increased in a watch and whether some positions are affected more than others, a thing that may indicate a bearing surface problem.

I may have gone a bit too far here. ;-)

Edited: for a bit more information.

 

[Joe_A]

Let's add a bit more . . .



On the left, the June 1962 watch has a fixed stud carrier that is part of the balance cock. It is copper colored like the rest of the balance cock. The only way to adjust the outside attachment point of the hairspring, to either stretch it a bit or compress it a bit, is to loosen a collet underneath and move the hairspring attachment point.

On the right, is a December 1966 watch and here one can see that the attachment point for the outer end of the hairspring is moveable. One can stretch the spring or compress the spring just be moving the white-metal tab.

Disclaimer: I am not a watchmaker; I'm just a tinkerer who has done some reading and experimenting. ;-)

I've not removed a balance cock from a watch myself nor have I had a close inspection of the collet.

In preparing the image, I noticed something which annoyed me at first, but maybe not, upon reflection?

Note that on the earlier watch, there are case screws that hold the movement to the case, one at about 10 o'clock and one at about 4 o'clock, dark gray in color.

These case screws are missing from the later watch on the right though the threaded holes are there. Did a careless watchmaker throw them away?

Perhaps not. There is no indication that a screw was ever in those holes.

As it turns out, the later watch has a notch (two, actually,) in the rim on the back of the case and there is an attachment tab with a smaller screw in it. There is another one out o view.

It is more likely that Enicar simply changed the method used to hold the movement in place within the case?

 

[Joe_A]

And finally . . .

Looking at Nico's site, it seems that the Aqua Graph Ia and the Jet Graph Ia each had the earlier versions of the V72 movement. After the Ias, sometime in 1963, all the graphs housed the later V72 movement with the mobile stud carrier.