I can't take better pictures gal...S9... :(.
You need to be aware that there is a difference between how many jewels it is said a movement has and how many are actually used in the movement. I don't know the details of this particular movement but for instance a Raketa 2609 where the fourth wheel goes through a hollow centre wheel only needs 16 jewels. But it can have more if some of the wheels have cap jewels on top of the hole jewels.
Here is what I think - a replaced bridge.
The early 17j 2414 were bevelled edge, with added cap jewel on the escape wheel (on that stamped train bridge). Soon after 2414 were produced with a step edge.
here's an example of mine
So in order to keep it bevelled edge, someone might've replaced the bridge with a kirovskie one. No cap jewel.
Does it make sense?
Either that ore some were produced with older bridges, which I kinda doubt.
PS: Actually now I have to open all my 2414 and check what's going on.
Last edited by Kamburov; 3 Weeks Ago at 17:55.
In one of my 2414 poljots I found a 16j bridge too. The mainspring bride was stepped, so obviously a mix of bridges, who knows what else. So I opened my spares boxes and I found some bevelled 17j 2414. One is even from the same model as the one we're talking about.
That tells me they were produced exactly as described in the catalogue.
Now I have a movement to defranken, but I also got the spares. Thanks to the OP for opening the subject! I wouldn't have noticed otherwise.
I don't know if the plot thickens, or I have a franken too, but I have the same watch as OP which does not indicate jewel count on the dial, and it is 16 jewels as well.
I also found this one with obviously wrong hands, crown, and non-magnifier crystal, but without jewel count indication on the dial and 16 jewels inside. So, I think it's at least possible these early Poljots were produced using 16 jewel movements. It wouldn't need to be a replacement from a Kirovskie if it were early or during the transition from many brands to single brand of Poljot that happened 63-64 that also corresponds to the old Poljot diamond logo. Maybe 16 jewel, when jewel count was not indicated on the dial, was correct from back when Poljot was a single-model name? Just a thought.
Last edited by AaParker; 3 Weeks Ago at 22:03.
I'm no expert and I may be wrong. It still happens to me often, so I never presume to be 100% certain.
It's just that my experience corresponds to the catalogue. Maybe earlier production of the models were with 16j and at some point changed to 17j.
Maybe some info shows up to proove just that. The subject is still open, I guess.
Last edited by Kamburov; 3 Weeks Ago at 22:32.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)