翻译征稿

nomorewatch · 发表于 2013-6-9 14:28:30

本帖最后由 nomorewatch 于 2013-6-15 19:18 编辑

移除

nomorewatch · 发表于 2013-6-10 07:19:33

本帖最后由 nomorewatch 于 2013-7-16 17:01 编辑

removed

nomorewatch · 发表于 2013-6-10 14:31:21

本帖最后由 nomorewatch 于 2013-6-18 22:12 编辑

连接失效

nomorewatch · 发表于 2013-6-12 06:31:28

本帖最后由 nomorewatch 于 2013-6-18 22:32 编辑

链接作废

nomorewatch · 发表于 2013-6-12 06:33:15

本帖最后由 nomorewatch 于 2013-7-16 17:02 编辑

removed

nomorewatch · 发表于 2013-6-14 12:42:17

http://mb.nawcc.org/showwiki.php?title=Railroad_Time_Service

nomorewatch · 发表于 2013-6-14 14:13:41

In later years, improvements in manufacturing and machine accuracy made it possible to, in effect, design and manufacture the components with such precision that they required very little final adjusting and "tweaking". The Hamilton 992B and the rest of the "B" family of watches are a good example. They could experiment with a few prototype watches to see what gave the best accuracy and reliability. Then the new precision machinery and manufacturing processes being introduced in the late 1930s allowed them to accurately reproduce the features from the prototypes into the mass-produced watches. That, along with such developments as the vastly improved Elinvar Extra hairsprings used with monometallic balances reduced or eliminated much of the need for hand work in finishing and adjusting new watches, and kept the costs down.

Over the production life of the new models it was possible to eliminate many features that were for appearance only, such as rounded spokes and gold finish on train wheels and polishing the edges of plates, thus further reducing costs without having any detrimental effect on the accuracy of the watch. Hamilton even eliminated the damaskeening that produced the parallel line finish that was pretty standard on many of their watches by means of a new process called "milliskeening" that was able to produce the same effect using milling equipment, but likely at a lower cost. That change took place in 1952, so if your Hamilton watch was made after that (no, I don't have an exact date) don't say it is damaskeened; say instead that it is milliskeened, and you'll have people wondering what you are talking about or asking "who's Millie?" <];>)

The "bottom line" is that by the mid to late 1920s most movements were being cased and timed in their cases at the factory to that the makers didn't have to depend on the fancy damaskeening to attract customers. Simpler, plainer finishes had replaced the fancier, more intricate damaskeening patterns by then or a little later but the watches were no worse for it, and probably were better.

nomorewatch · 发表于 2013-6-14 14:15:22

Even back in the late 19th and early 20th Centuries, many of the very finest European and American watches did not have to rely on fancy damaskeening to demonstrate their fine craftsmanship. Of course many of those watches weren't full-plate watches, either, and full-plate watches are the subject of this thread.

I'll admit that it is harder to demonstrate craftsmanship on a full-plate watch, because as I mentioned in an earlier post, many of the "goodies" are hidden away under the full plates, which is undoubtedly why their manufacturers turned to damaskeening. Many of the finest watches were the"bridge-models", which don't lend themselves to damaskeening. Although I do have some full-plate watches in my collection (mainly Ball), that"s why I prefer the bridge models, with 3/4-plate watches somewhere in the middle!

One thing that sticks in my mind was the first time I took the dial off an Elgin 18-size, full-plate "B. W. Raymond" grade movement. That was probably 40 years ago and I don't remember the model, but I was really impressed by the beautiful finish hidden away under the dial where only a watchmaker (and later a collector) might ever be able to appreciate it. To me that demonstrated pride in craftsmanship more than the any amount of damaskeening.

Above all, I certainly don't expect (or even want) universal agreement on this subject....so why would you say that you really would like to agree with me, but.....? For better or for worse, many of my "tastes", horological and otherwise, are not always "mainstream" (if there is such a thing!).

To me, the dullest, most uninteresting threads and posts are the ones where everybody is in agreement and like the same things!