Reply With Quote£230 seems a fair price for you to end up with what is effectively a new watch with a warranty.
Morning all, I have one of these sitting in the back of the cupboard after it started loosing a massive amount of time and then eventually stopped running at all,not great as it was only just out of warranty at the time. It seems from google that this 6r35 movement is a bit crap.
Seiko said they would just replace the movement but it’s £230 which I thought pretty steep. Any suggestions for a repair/service outside seiko uk? Thanks
£230 seems a fair price for you to end up with what is effectively a new watch with a warranty.
Doubt you'd get a service/fix much cheaper than that. Seiko service centre is pretty good IME.
I suppose if it comes back as new it’s not so terrible but there was only mention of the movement replacement. Guess I’m just a bit disappointed it failed so soon In such a major way
I suppose if you bought an NH35 and took it to your local watch repair for a swap it would cost you about 100-150 quid.
Or you could give it a go yourself....
And THEN take it to Seiko.
Sent from my SM-M325FV using Tapatalk
For a watch that's not long out of warranty to deteriorate like this isn`t acceptable in my opinion, and £230 for Seiko to replace the movement isn`t great either. When I service a watch I like to be able to replace the mainspring if required or if there's any doubt about the condition, Seiko don't list springs separately so the spring and barrel have to be replaced. That's fine if they're available but Cousins have this listed as 'discontinued'!
This movement doesn`t seem to have a good reputation, I`ve read what Duncan (Thewatchbloke) had to say about regulating them and it's a bit offputting. The older Seikos are OK for what they are, they can always be sorted out one way or another, but Seiko seem to have fallen between two stools with this, they've upped the spec and pushed it upmarket without getting the quality right. Not a good advert for them as a brand.
If the OP sends me a PM I`ll discuss taking the job on, if not I won't be too bothered!
You could try contacting Paul at https://www.tempusmods.co.uk/
I had a very interesting email exchange with him about 6R movements and the problem with trying to regulate/repair them. Basically, he wouldn’t do it anymore as it costs him too much in ongoing returns. He’s replaced a few 6R movements now with NH35 movements which are cheap, more reliable and easier to regulate. The only downside is loss of the longer power reserve and warranty; but I’m guessing that’s not really much of an issue now…
That’s an interesting conclusion (the NH35 switch out option) - and one I had come to myself.Originally Posted by timor54
Indeed, I was discussing my SPB143 which is still under warranty. Consequently it’s just come back from Seiko who ‘regulated’ it. Remains to be seen how it performs; initially it does seem to like being fairly fully wound and actively worn, but dislikes being left on a table overnight. Only time will tell…
Surprised to learn about the problems with the 6R35. Swapping for an NH35 seems a backward step but if it gets the watch running reliably I guess it makes sense. It would be worth paying a repairer to fit an NH35 and do the necessary adjustment and tweaking to get it running well, they’re a bit hit and miss from new and usually benefit from a bit of work. Last one I fitted was an upgrade for my own 20 year old Seiko 5 fitted originally with a 7S26, I wanted the hand - winding capability so it made sense to swap. I ended up using parts from my 7S26 in repair jobs so it worked out OK. The NH35 gave good amplitude, tge balance spring was nice and true, so all I did was set the beat error accurately and regulated the watch. Timekeeping has been within a few secs/ day, haven’t checked rigorously, but I’m happy with it, I was prepared to strip the new movement and rebuild it carefully but there really was no need.
I have done a bit of reading on the 6R35. Apparently, it seems that the mainspring is very thin, to give the longer power reserve, which in turn means it magnetises easier. This theory seems to have some substance as using a demagnetiser definitely helped with an SPB143 I owned.
Not convinced, the material mainsprings are made of is non-magnetic, I`ve just tested one to confirm this. Demagnetising your watch may have helped, but not for this reason.
Longer power reserve can be achieved by reducing the beat rate, changing the gearing ratio of the train wheels, or putting a longer spring in the barrel. If a longer spring is used in a barrel with the same dimensions it has to be thinner and assuming the spring material isn`t changed the torque provided will drop in a cubic relationship to the thickness. Increasing the barrel height to take a thicker spring will mitigate slightly, but that's only a linear relationship with the strength of the spring so the change in thickness can`t easily be compensated for. Changing the spring material is another variable, possibly that's what Seiko have done, I'm curious to find out.
Redesigning the movement to reduce friction is necessary if a longer spring made from the same material is used, the movement will then require less torque. Accepting lower amplitude, albeit over a longer 'flatline' period, may also be necessary. Rolex claimed to have reduced friction in the escapement by careful redesign, but judging from the problems encountered with the 32xxxx movements the development work hasn't been as thorough as it needed to be.
Unless a movement is designed from scratch, or extensively re-engineered, manufacturers are basically trying to get a quart out of a pint bottle, they're trying to squeeze out an advantage by making modifications that all result in compromise. Is it really worth messing about with a tried and tested design, potentially jeapordising performance, simply to add a longer power reserve? I think not, but Rolex and others don't agree! for years a power reserve of between 40 and 50hrs was deemed perfectly acceptable, so why bother aiming for 70hrs after all this time?
Maybe I`m missing a trick, perhaps there is a new stronger material being used for mainsprings? If that's the case it all starts to look more feasible. Manufacturers like to boast about silicon hairsprings etc but I haven`t heard similar claims for the humble mainspring.
If a design isn`t faulty, don't fix it, and don't solve problems that don't exist. I`m sure the quest for longer power reserve is driven by marketing, in the same way that high water resistance figures has become a marketing ploy. The mechanical watch is an anachronism, perhaps it should be accepted for what it is, trying to make a silk purse out of the proverbial sow's ear isn`t sensible.
I`m all for silicon hairsprings, which overcome the magnetism problem, I like sapphire crystals because they don`t scratch, I like luminova lume because it doesn`t age, I like free-sprung balances because they do (theoretically) give better precision and isochronism even though they're tricky to regulate, but re-engineering a movement simply to increase power reserve seems pointless to me unless it can be done without compromise. From what I`m seeing the compromises are producing a definite downside in the mid-long-term performance of the watches.
Posting Permissions
