Reply With QuoteGood on them but I can't say I'm desperate to upgrade. I have an ETA powered DS30 and timing is exceptional. Last wearing cycle it averaged -0.9 secs per day.
Apologies if posted elsewhere,
I found this quite interesting:
https://www.damasko-watches.com/medi...4w8YQ1FbEH.pdf
Essentially an in-house movement with a supposedly improved hand winding and bidirectional automatic winding function. Available now in the DS30 replacement (DK30), for a 50% increase in price.
I can’t see what accuracy claims, warranty and service intervals are suggested, though intriguing that many parts are interchangeable with the 2824, meaning it should be readily serviceable.
It looks a bit under-finished to me and that rotor is minging, but the utilitarianism fits the brand, I guess. A great movement for a solid steel case-back.
It’s interesting that Damasko’s movement seems to serve wear resistance rather than something directly tangible to the user like power reserve (cf Oris 400) or service intervals (assuming these aren’t in fact extended).
Like the Oris 400, given the choice, I’d personally save the money and stick with the ETA but applaud them for their efforts. If there was price parity, I’d give the Damasko A26 a go.
Good on them but I can't say I'm desperate to upgrade. I have an ETA powered DS30 and timing is exceptional. Last wearing cycle it averaged -0.9 secs per day.
The modifications are solving problems that don’t need solving in my opinion, but I guess it’ll impress some folks.
Eh? So the ratchet wheel failures common to ETA 28nn and Sellita SW200 movements is a problem that doesn't actually need solving now?Originally Posted by walkerwek1958
I guess main driver is to move away from ETA supply dependency while having flexibility of parts while servicing?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Hasn’t Damasko done its usual engineering trick? Applied engineering ingenuity to make the watch movement more robust, with significantly less chance of breaking.
While the ETA’s generally reliable, I gather it had (only) two weaknesses: hand-winding and the rotor mechanism. Damasko has fixed the hand-winding failure point (replacing brass with hardened steel). But the real cleverness looks like the rotor system: Damasko has done things differently so the rotor is no longer a significant failure point. I wish Damasko had decorated the rotor, but I guess it’s in line with Damasko’s Germanic-engineering-look.
Long Island Watch did an excellent video (with explanatory animations) about this Damasko movement. See from about 11 minutes onwards: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=ictSUwMGBRY
Yes. Agreed, the whole approach is very much in keeping with the brand.
The thing I keep coming back to is, though those are known issues, how often did those faults really occur? As such, would I pay a £500 premium to avoid the risk of a problem which happens to 1 in 50 watches after 5 years of wear? Probably not... if it was more common, or a smaller difference in price I might reconsider.
Again, I think it’s great to see brands doing these innovations, and I genuinely applaud it. Maybe an economy of scale will make it more appealing
Indeed!
One can only speculate as to why that issue hasn't been resolved.
Seems like the winding mechanism is based on Seiko's magic lever construction which is praised in general, so apparently not a bad decision.
These modifications can be viewed as unnecessary, but IMO the ETA movements are not perfect. Even though they are very good on accuracy and generally reliable work horses, but most of them are the brainchild of the seventies. (OK, not exactly but I mean no significant modifications have been done since?) Priorities back then were the cheap but precise mass production and planned replacement of the "weak" parts during servicing were also cheap. Labor prices still not in the sky etc.
To improve on the known weaknesses is a welcomed approach. (Should have been done by ETA already.)
Sent from my SM-A202F using TZ-UK mobile app
Not everyone wears their mechanicals for work. I only wear mine as a luxury, for short durations out of work and rely on handwinding to sustain them, particularly if only worn for a weekday evening. This acts as a disincentive to spontaneous use of my 2824s which I now only wear for periods of a full weekend.
For this reason, coupled with the robust design of their screwdown crown, I welcome this development from Damasko.
No, they are NOT common failures! The ratchet wheel fails when the reversers stick and the ham- fisted owner applies undue force in a determined attempt to hand- wind the watch. The root cause us lubrication of the reversers failing, thus causing them to stick, but thus us due to lack if service ir inadequate lubrication from new. The design is inherently sound in my opinion. Sellita modified the ratchet wheel and crown wheel by altering the tooth profile slightly to make the parts stronger.
One aspect if the 2824 I don’t like us the tendency for the back of the winding wheel to rub against the mainplate when the watch is hand- wound, eventually thus can cause the mainplate to be scrap in extreme cases. I always grease this wear point even though the ETA service manual doesn’t specify it.
With all due respect, working on watches provides an insight to problems that an owner or avid internet reader would never be aware of .........I don’t make this stuff up!
Last edited by walkerwek1958; 28th December 2020 at 23:29.
"Common to" as-in a feature in-common to both movements. I've not the slightest doubt you know what you're talking about, nor the wrecking consequences of lack of maintenance - but the question remains, why have Damasko made the changes they have if they have no merit? Does it not derive from their own experiences repairing 2824s and SW200s? And surely it matters less where we apportion blame (stingy manufacturers vs us cack-handed, neglectful owners), and rather more to anticipate the Better Idiot that nature is always inventing with a stronger, more foolproof component?
This discussion arose on WUS, and Konrad Damasko posted his reply on the forum personally:
TBF Paul, every time the subject of ETA servicing or hand winding said movements pops up you're the first to mention the weakness of the reverser wheels, but now you're blaming it on ham-fisted handed owners and lack of lubrication from the factory?
Regardless of the cause, the fact is that they are a weakness and prone to failure and Damasko's decision to switch to a pawl lever system is a genuine upgrade.
I'm not sure how they're going to patent it though as it appears almost identical to the 'Magic Lever' Seiko have been using since the 60's.
Caliber Corner's catalogue-of-horrors is part-responsible for my own over-emphasis on the ratchet wheel -
(those of a nervous disposition may want to look-away)
( SW200 )
As an aside although Seiko patented their pawl and transmission wheel autowind system in 1959, the truth of the matter was that back in those days they were hardly a harbinger of original developments in wristwatch movement design.
However, they were excellent at taking proven designs and developing them further and this is what they did with their magic lever system. 'All' Seiko did was simplify the Pellaton autowind system developed for IWC by Albert Pellaton which was patented in 1950. They applied some logical thought and dispensed with Pellaton's multiple complex pawl components and reduced it down to a pawl lever and eccentric rotor post.
Pellaton's system was also used by Smiths in the late 1950's in their calibre 0144G which at the time was the only 100% British made autowind calibre. Seiko did what they had been doing since the formation of the company and improved on an existing good idea but it wasn't until much later that they started coming up with truly original engineering solutions.
As you were!
Have to say I’m impressed by the simplicity of the Seiko design, it looks crude but it does the job and continues to function effectively despite the neglect that most Seiko watches suffer.
As for the ETA broken ratchet wheel, I’ve had several of these to deal with and in each case the underlying cause is malfunction of the reversers combined with a determined owner hand- winding the watch. Re- designing to eliminate the reversers has some merit, but there’s a huge number if these movements that don’t suffer this problem and on that basis I think the design is sound, but I’m the sort of guy who has the good sense not to hand- wind a watch when something obviously feels wrong, it’s called mechanical sympathy and it cones from growing up with mechanical items. We now gave a generation of folks who’ve grown up with soft- touch buttons that just make things happen by magic and perhaps watches have to be idiot- proofed to accommodate their limitations. It’s hard to believe, but there are folks out there who can’t hand- wind a watch with confidence and there are folks who will twist the crown until something breaks........trust me I’ve seen examples of both!
Posting Permissions
