Demonstrating winding crown vs rotor

[kieselguhr]

I noted the other day that a fellow member was advising that winding the mainspring of a watch via the crown was detrimental to a mechanical watch and that the best way to start a dead stopped watch is shaking the watch which moves the rotor.

Most modern automatic mechanical movements (Rolex/Tudor included) utilize a slipping spring that allows the mainspring to disengage when pulled strongly at peak tension. This negates any potential damage to the mainspring should the user overwind via the crown and is in fact beneficial to automatic movements because it allows the rotor to continue moving and likewise not overwind the mainspring while the wearer is in motion.

Another reason to use the crown to wind a dead stopped watch is efficiency. I will be using the Tudor North Flag powered by the MT5621 to illustrate.




This is the power level of the NF when the mainspring is fully exhausted.




Well start by violently swinging the NF by hand using circular motions to forcefully rotate the rotor.




After 10 violent rotations



Nothing


After 10 more violent rotations



I think the power reserve and the seconds hand moved a little bit but still not enough to start the watch.


Ok let’s go for 80 violent rotations.



Finally, at 100 total violent rotations thus far the watch begins to move and the power reserve budged.


Let’s go for another 100 rotations



It moved a little more!


Ok. This is taking too much effort and time. Let’s try winding the crown instead.




Let’s start with 1 full turn of the crown



Looks like 1 full turn moved it as much as violently swinging it 200x


Let’s give it 10 full turns




Another 10




And after 10 more full turns, it’s at full capacity



Well there you have it. Hopefully this information will be useful for newer members who are fearful of winding the crown.

In any case, I am in no position to tell anyone how to wind their watch. It is your watch that you purchased with your money. Therefore wind it the way you choose to.

[Wooster]

Thanks for the detailed post.

[joli160]

Nice thread

[padi56]

Originally Posted by Wooster

Thanks for the detailed post.

Yes but anyone with any common sense should no thats why Rolex has a winding crown on there watches to manually wind the watch if needed.Today many believe that by using the crown they will damage there watches which is complete nonsense.Yes by wearing perhaps will keep them running but many today are not so active to fully wind there watches to peak power-reserve.So to give a full manual wind say once a week or so not any problem whatsoever even when worn been doing that for the past 40 odd years.

[SydR]

Thanks. My automatics get rotated with others in my collection so are often at a stop when it’s their ‘turn’ for wrist time. I restart my Sub, for example, by giving it 40 turns on the crown.

[vistec]

Great write up. Thank you!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Rashid.bk]

Originally Posted by joli160

Nice thread

Originally Posted by vistec

Great write up. Thank you!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Jona]

Makes sense, thanks!

[AJV_36]

Awesome! Thanks for info. I wear mine daily so it hasn’t ever stopped since my initial 40 turns but great info to have. Thanks


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Bigblu10]

Anyone who claims to be a knowledgeable watchmaker that says winding a stopped Rolex by using the crown is detrimental and damages the moving parts is a charlatan at best. Winding the watch by "shaking it" so the rotor spins and winds it up fully? Somebody is smoking some bad dope. It is actually bad to violently shake a watch to start the movement. After owning 6 Rolex over approximately 30 years and having to wind all of them to get the movement started I have no idea where these silly ideas come from.

[djyolky]

Originally Posted by Bigblu10

Anyone who claims to be a knowledgeable watchmaker that says winding a stopped Rolex by using the crown is detrimental and damages the moving parts is a charlatan at best. Winding the watch by "shaking it" so the rotor spins and winds it up fully? Somebody is smoking some bad dope. It is actually bad to violently shake a watch to start the movement. After owning 6 Rolex over approximately 30 years and having to wind all of them to get the movement started I have no idea where these silly ideas come from.

Let me show you where these "silly" ideas come from and you or anyone can feel free to discuss why you think he's wrong.

Please contact Kelly Hayes, a Rolex 21 year certified watchmaker.

949.454.1550
https://www.hayesjewelers.net/


Sent from my SM-G925V using Tapatalk

[Bluside]

Great post and photography. Thanks.

[Bigblu10]

Originally Posted by djyolky

Let me show you where these "silly" ideas come from and you or anyone can feel free to discuss why you think he's wrong.

Please contact Kelly Hayes, a Rolex 21 year certified watchmaker.

949.454.1550
https://www.hayesjewelers.net/


Sent from my SM-G925V using Tapatalk

I am not going to get into a debate with you nor your watchmaker. The Rolex booklet that comes with a new watch explicitly says to wind the watch for " at least 20 turns" for a new watch or if it stops.

[djyolky]

Originally Posted by Bigblu10

I am not going to get into a debate with you nor your watchmaker. The Rolex booklet that comes with a new watch explicitly says to wind the watch for " at least 20 turns" for a new watch or if it stops.

This has nothing to do with me. YOU questioned where "these things come from". I provided you the source. Up to you what you do with it.

Sent from my SM-G925V using Tapatalk

[Dirt]

Originally Posted by Bigblu10

I am not going to get into a debate with you nor your watchmaker. The Rolex booklet that comes with a new watch explicitly says to wind the watch for " at least 20 turns" for a new watch or if it stops.

Yes.
This is entirely valid and absolutely correct.
However, it is intended as a good guide for a new owner who may or may not be new to the watch world to get their watch up and running in an expedient manner and on their way to many years of trouble free enjoyment of their timepiece.
In the event of an operational issue they are also encouraged to seek help through the dealer/boutique network where it can be dealt with either at the dealer level as part of a customer service experience or referred to the nearest RSC for a possible warranty claim.

It's entirely possible and highly likely the watch will have miraculously started of its own accord during the un-boxing stage if given as a gift let alone by the time 10, 15, 20, 30 or 40 winds(whether they be full winds or not) have been imparted to the mechanism.
It's not gospel.

It's also important to note that at no stage does the official Owners manual make any recommendations for the owner to Google the internet and ask a bunch of faceless people all of whom have an opinion(Just like watchmakers) on a watch forum how to start their brand new watch in the event they may have problems with the watch

[214270Explorer]

In today's world some (what percentage?) folks are only used to having the auto-wind feature using rotors. They think that is all that is required.

What they need to know is that the more modernized models are actually STILL manual-wind type movements that simply have an ADDED AUTO-WIND feature.

Somehow they get the misconception that to manually wind a watch is a bad thing and will cause destruction. It is actually the preferred method, especially to fully wind a run-down watch.

Times change and certain things become lost to society. Sort of as with today, where many children/young people do not know what "clockwise" and "counter-clockwise" refers to.

[Dirt]

Originally Posted by 214270Explorer

In today's world some (what percentage?) folks are only used to having the auto-wind feature using rotors. They think that is all that is required.

What they need to know is that the more modernized models are actually STILL manual-wind type movements that simply have an ADDED AUTO-WIND feature.

Somehow they get the misconception that to manually wind a watch is a bad thing and will cause destruction. It is actually the preferred method, especially to fully wind a run-down watch.

Times change and certain things become lost to society. Sort of as with today, where many children/young people do not know what "clockwise" and "counter-clockwise" refers to.

In today's world, some seem to think that Auto wind movements simply have the Auto wind mechanism just attached to what is basically a Manual wind watch as if it were just some sort of an optional accessory or a labour saving devise.

The reality is that the Auto wind feature is a fully integrated part of the design from the ground up which is expected and intended to be the primary means of winding by the designer. The engineering of the movement reflects this, and is fully evident when one places a Manual wind movement next to an Auto wind movement and studies them a little and observes all the mechanisms that come into play and the way the relevent parts interact.
In some instances, dating back to before some on this forum were born, the Auto wind mechanism is the exclusive means of winding the Mainspring.

In the case of this thread and for dramatic effect, which can only be intended to skew or impart a certain bias to the conversation.
The action that's described to wind an Auto wind movement as violent shaking is utterly ridiculous.
When a gentle arcing, rocking motion is all that's required.
With gentle being the operative word.
And technique being even more critical.

Of course, not all Auto wind mechanisms are the same with some being bi-directional and others unidirectional.
And others have a large swinging weight while another example may have a micro sized weight. Both of which would require a slightly different technique to wind when imparting a rocking action.

It should also be noted that a highly respected watchmaker on this forum has stated quite clearly that excessive manual winding of our modern Rolex watches creates extra servicing requirements. Or words to that effect.
Recently, it has been suggested that another highly respected watchmaker has indicated that it's unnecessary to fully wind(through the Winding crown) our modern Rolex watches.
There is plenty of evidence both substantative and anecdotal to suggest that on the balance of probability, this is absolutely correct.
Of course this assumes all is well and working correctly with the watch

The original post is not entirely scientific for obvious reasons as outiled above and I put it to the forum that it is bordering on a troll post designed to insite heated debate or argument

[djyolky]

Originally Posted by Dirt

In today's world, some seem to think that Auto wind movements simply have the Auto wind mechanism just attached to what is basically a Manual wind watch as if it were just some sort of an optional accessory or a labour saving devise.



The reality is that the Auto wind feature is a fully integrated part of the design from the ground up which is expected and intended to be the primary means of winding by the designer. The engineering of the movement reflects this, and is fully evident when one places a Manual wind movement next to an Auto wind movement and studies them a little and observes all the mechanisms that come into play and the way the relevent parts interact.

In some instances, dating back to before some on this forum were born, the Auto wind mechanism is the exclusive means of winding the Mainspring.



In the case of this thread and for dramatic effect, which can only be intended to skew or impart a certain bias to the conversation.

The action that's described to wind an Auto wind movement as violent shaking is utterly ridiculous.

When a gentle arcing, rocking motion is all that's required.

With gentle being the operative word.

And technique being even more critical.



Of course, not all Auto wind mechanisms are the same with some being bi-directional and others unidirectional.

And others have a large swinging weight while another example may have a micro sized weight. Both of which would require a slightly different technique to wind when imparting a rocking action.



It should also be noted that a highly respected watchmaker on this forum has stated quite clearly that excessive manual winding of our modern Rolex watches creates extra servicing requirements. Or words to that effect.

Recently, it has been suggested that another highly respected watchmaker has indicated that it's unnecessary to fully wind(through the Winding crown) our modern Rolex watches.

There is plenty of evidence both substantative and anecdotal to suggest that on the balance of probability, this is absolutely correct.

Of course this assumes all is well and working correctly with the watch



The original post is not entirely scientific for obvious reasons as outiled above and I put it to the forum that it is bordering on a troll post designed to insite heated debate or argument

Thank you for your this well written post.

Sent from my SM-G925V using Tapatalk

[Devildog]

Originally Posted by Dirt

In today's world, some seem to think that Auto wind movements simply have the Auto wind mechanism just attached to what is basically a Manual wind watch as if it were just some sort of an optional accessory or a labour saving devise.

The reality is that the Auto wind feature is a fully integrated part of the design from the ground up which is expected and intended to be the primary means of winding by the designer. The engineering of the movement reflects this, and is fully evident when one places a Manual wind movement next to an Auto wind movement and studies them a little and observes all the mechanisms that come into play and the way the relevent parts interact.
In some instances, dating back to before some on this forum were born, the Auto wind mechanism is the exclusive means of winding the Mainspring.

In the case of this thread and for dramatic effect, which can only be intended to skew or impart a certain bias to the conversation.
The action that's described to wind an Auto wind movement as violent shaking is utterly ridiculous.
When a gentle arcing, rocking motion is all that's required.
With gentle being the operative word.
And technique being even more critical.

Of course, not all Auto wind mechanisms are the same with some being bi-directional and others unidirectional.
And others have a large swinging weight while another example may have a micro sized weight. Both of which would require a slightly different technique to wind when imparting a rocking action.

It should also be noted that a highly respected watchmaker on this forum has stated quite clearly that excessive manual winding of our modern Rolex watches creates extra servicing requirements. Or words to that effect.
Recently, it has been suggested that another highly respected watchmaker has indicated that it's unnecessary to fully wind(through the Winding crown) our modern Rolex watches.
There is plenty of evidence both substantative and anecdotal to suggest that on the balance of probability, this is absolutely correct.
Of course this assumes all is well and working correctly with the watch

The original post is not entirely scientific for obvious reasons as outiled above and I put it to the forum that it is bordering on a troll post designed to insite heated debate or argument

Some very good points.

Whilst I believe the thread starter’s post was made with the best of intentions, it misses the point that the rotor on an automatic watch is designed to oscillate significantly more in the average day than the number tested. As a result, the automatic winding mechanism will be geared quite differently to the crown.

There’s a school of thought on here that the automatic winding mechanism on a modern Rolex will only maintain the watches power reserve as hand wound, rather than fully tensioning the mainspring.

Whilst that may be true for the most sedentary of wearers, my experience differs. A few winds from stopped is all any of my watches need. Simply strapping the, on and wearing them is always sufficient to achieve a fully wound mainspring (as evidenced by available power reserve)

My understanding is that an automatic Rolex’s primary winding mechanism, by design, is the rotor.

[Dirt]

Originally Posted by Devildog

Some very good points.

Whilst I believe the thread starter’s post was made with the best of intentions, I’d misses the point that the rotor on an automatic watch is designed to oscillate significantly more in the average day than the number tested. As a result, the automatic winding mechanism will be geared quite differently to the crown.

There’s a school of thought on here that the automatic winding mechanism on a modern Rolex will only maintain the watches power reserve as hand wound, rather than fully tensioning the mainspring.

Whilst that may be true for the most sedentary of wearers, my experience differs. A few winds from stopped is all any of my watches need. Simply strapping the, on and wearing them is always sufficient to achieve a fully wound mainspring (as evidenced by available power reserve)

My understanding is that an automatic Rolex’s primary winding mechanism, by design, is the rotor.

Perhaps you are right about the OP's intentions
And I agree with your position substantitively

I would like to bring you back to my reference to technique.
A violent shake(for the want of a better expression) is almost guaranteed to not be as efficient as a gentle swinging/arcing motion as described in the old Seiko manuals.
Of course one can actually feel the gyrations of the rotor and gauge the efficiency of one's action/motion.
As a kid it was obvious, when performing the task.
But then again it was a more hands on and tactile world where a child could replace a lightbulb or chop wood with a reasonable degree of competance let alone wind a manual wind watch without being "triggered". Then having to google if they're doing it right. But I digress.

A 31xx movement would be hard for anyone not experienced enough with the required technique, to gauge whether they're doing it right as the rotor action is virtually imperceptible.
A Valljou 7750 is going to be at the other end of the spectrum, whilst the old Seiko's definately lay somewhere in the middle. It's not like there's no feedback through the watchcase as to what's going on.

Sadly the OP's description doesn't compare to the simple diagram and description in the old Seiko owners manual.
I label the OP's account of the process as poorly constructed and conveyed at best. But the description and language used was seemingly intended to impart a bias.
At the very least it exposed a skewed point of view.
It was based on ignorance and along the lines of "the blind leading the blinded".

But then my reference point is the old Seiko manual and too many years of experience

Of course i'm no absolute authority and this is obviously a sphere where even professional opinions will vary.
I've heard all sides of the argument and see all points of view as being valid as it's entirely up to the individual what they do with their watch in this case across the full spectrum.
But I do take exception to misinformation being constantly peddled.
I'm sure you will agree the forum probably deserves better

[Devildog]

Originally Posted by Dirt

Perhaps you are right about the OP's intentions
And I agree with your position substantitively

I would like to bring you back to my reference to technique.
A violent shake(for the want of a better expression) is almost guaranteed to not be as efficient as a gentle swinging/arcing motion as described in the old Seiko manuals.
Of course one can actually feel the gyrations of the rotor and gauge the efficiency of one's action/motion.
As a kid it was obvious, when performing the task.
But then again it was a more hands on and tactile world where a child could replace a lightbulb or chop wood with a reasonable degree of competance let alone wind a manual wind watch without being "triggered". Then having to google if they're doing it right. But I digress.

A 31xx movement would be hard for anyone not experienced enough with the required technique, to gauge whether they're doing it right as the rotor action is virtually imperceptible.
A Valljou 7750 is going to be at the other end of the spectrum, whilst the old Seiko's definately lay somewhere in the middle. It's not like there's no feedback through the watchcase as to what's going on.

Sadly the Pop's description doesn't compare to the simple diagram and description in the old Seiko owners manual.
I label the OP's account of the process as poorly constructed and conveyed at best. But the description and language used was seemingly intended to impart a bias.
At the very least it exposed a skewed point of view.
At the very least, it was based on ignorance and along the lines of "the blind leading the blinded".

But then my reference point is the old Seiko manual and too many years of experience

Of course i'm no absolute authority and this is obviously a sphere where even professional opinions will vary.
I've heard all sides of the argument and see all points of view as being valid as it's entirely up to the individual what they do with their watch in this case across the full spectrum.
But I do take exception to misinformation being constantly peddled.
I'm sure you will agree the forum probably deserves better

Indeed.

As a minor addition, you can still purchase brand new automatic Seikos today with no manual wind facility.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Andad]

Originally Posted by Devildog

Some very good points.

Whilst I believe the thread starter’s post was made with the best of intentions, it misses the point that the rotor on an automatic watch is designed to oscillate significantly more in the average day than the number tested. As a result, the automatic winding mechanism will be geared quite differently to the crown.

There’s a school of thought on here that the automatic winding mechanism on a modern Rolex will only maintain the watches power reserve as hand wound, rather than fully tensioning the mainspring.

Whilst that may be true for the most sedentary of wearers, my experience differs. A few winds from stopped is all any of my watches need. Simply strapping the, on and wearing them is always sufficient to achieve a fully wound mainspring (as evidenced by available power reserve)

My understanding is that an automatic Rolex’s primary winding mechanism, by design, is the rotor.

The ‘school of thought’ is mistaken.

[kieselguhr]

Hey Dirt. First and foremost thank you for your insightful reply to this thread. You offer a differing perspective and provide valid arguments allowing for discussion which is the whole purpose of a forum

I would like to point out that this thread was not started with any intention to incite anything. As Scott pointed out, it started off with the best of intentions. I do not like misinforming people and I do invite our resident watchmakers to point out any flaws in my OP. If the information provided is detrimental in any way I would even invite a moderator to take down the post entirely as to prevent the spreading of misinformation.

Originally Posted by Dirt

In some instances, dating back to before some on this forum were born, the Auto wind mechanism is the exclusive means of winding the Mainspring.

I am aware of the existence of these types of mechanical movements. In fact, I had one. It was the Lemania 5100 movement which only had a rotor and no crown winding functionality.

The first point of my OP was to inform that modern watches with crown winding capabilities often utilize a slipping spring. A clutch mechanism if you will where the mainspring is connected to the mainspring arbor on one end and has a bridle at the other end that allows it to disengage as opposed to being attached to the barrel wall. A slipping spring would make it unlikely for the user to damage the mainspring by over-winding the crown.

Originally Posted by Dirt

In the case of this thread and for dramatic effect, which can only be intended to skew or impart a certain bias to the conversation.
The action that's described to wind an Auto wind movement as violent shaking is utterly ridiculous.
When a gentle arcing, rocking motion is all that's required.
With gentle being the operative word.
And technique being even more critical.

You're correct on one account, the language used was intended for humorous dramatization. Not for bias or incite. Let's be honest, discussions regarding mechanical watch movements is bleached bone dry reading at best for a good majority of the watch enthusiast community. Injecting some humor and dramatization was intended to make the post a lot more tolerable to read.

Originally Posted by Dirt

The original post is not entirely scientific for obvious reasons as outlined above and I put it to the forum that it is bordering on a troll post designed to insite heated debate or argument

Yes you are correct that this is not a scientific study nor was it intended to be. But neither did I ever state that it was. I merely presented a simple demonstration. A peer reviewed scientific study of this nature would have required a laboratory environment and proper equipment. I had an Iphone and a hobby table at my disposal.

Furthermore, I wasn't going to attempt testing variables multiple times at varying rates from baseline as that would have taken a tremendous amount of time. I did what best I could in 20 minutes. Also, forget running t-tests and chi square tests to verify significance. That would have been a headache as analytics is not my forte and would have probably introduced errors.

[Dirt]

Originally Posted by kieselguhr

Hey Dirt. First and foremost thank you for your insightful reply to this thread. You offer a differing perspective and provide valid arguments allowing for discussion which is the whole purpose of a forum

I would like to point out that this thread was not started with any intention to incite anything. As Scott pointed out, it started of with the best of intentions. I do not like misinforming people and I do invite our resident watchmakers to point out any flaws in my OP. If the information provided is detrimental in any way I would even invite a moderator to take down the post entirely as to prevent the spreading of misinformation.



I am aware of the existence of these types of mechanical movements. In fact, I had one. It had the Lemania 5100 movement which only had a rotor and no crown winding functionality.

The first point of my OP was to inform that modern watches with crown winding capabilities often utilize a slipping spring. A clutch mechanism if you will where the mainspring is connected to the mainspring arbor on one end and has a bridle at the other end that allows it to disengage as opposed to being attached to the barrel wall. A slipping spring would make it unlikely for the user to damage the mainspring by over-winding the crown.



You're correct on one account, the language used was intended for humorous dramatization. Not for bias or incite. Let's be honest, discussions regarding mechanical watch movements is bleached bone dry reading at best for a good majority of the watch enthusiast community. Injecting some humor and dramatization was intended to make the post a lot more tolerable to read.



Yes you are correct that this is not a scientific study nor was it intended to be. But neither did I ever state that it was. I merely presented a simple demonstration. A peer reviewed scientific study of this nature would have required a laboratory environment and proper equipment. I had an Iphone and a hobby table at my disposal.

Furthermore, I wasn't going to attempt testing variables multiple times at varying rates from baseline as that would have taken a tremendous amount of time. I did what best I could in 20 minutes. Also, forget running t-tests and chi square tests to verify significance. That would have been a headache as analytics is not my forte and would have probably introduced errors.

Ok.
Sounds good
But as you can see from some of the responses and without you declaring up front that it was a little toung in cheek, some can easily take it seriously and continue it on until the thread is closed.

The issue of the validity and or necessity or even the extent of manual winding is emotionally charged.
Some are more triggered than others.
In summary, coming on the back of the other recent thread you referenced as the reason behind this thread. Perhaps we could've done without the added angst injected into the forum.

I'll sign off now and get back to violently shaking the shit out of my watches in the vain attempt to get them kick started in the most efficient manner

[kieselguhr]

Originally Posted by Dirt

Ok.

Sounds good

But as you can see from some of the responses and without you declaring up front that it was a little toung in cheek, some can easily take it seriously and continue it on until the thread is closed.



The issue of the validity and or necessity or even the extent of manual winding is emotionally charged.

Some are more triggered than others.

In summary, coming on the back of the other recent thread you referenced as the reason behind this thread. Perhaps we could've done without the added angst injected into the forum.



I'll sign off now and get back to violently shaking the shit out of my watches in the vain attempt to get them kick started in the most efficient manner

Got it

I too will get back to furiously winding the shit out of mine to set world records at jump starting mechanical watches!

[extra260]

This goes to show that a non active person will have issues keeping a watch fully wound without giving it a boost from time to time with the crown.

[beshannon]

Thanks

Hopefully this help some to realize that the winding crown actually does have a purpose

[HogwldFLTR]

Thanks for the post; love it!!!!

Additionally hand winding watches have always been available with watches. This goes back to the earliest pocket watches. I've no idea why anyone would believe that winding does damage to a watch. I can see it if one was always winding it 24 hours per day or something excessive like that. No way normal use is going to affect any problem for a modern watch.

My thoughts are that those that preach not winding are tying to create a name for themselves in some way or other.

[Dirt]

Originally Posted by HogwldFLTR

Thanks for the post; love it!!!!

Additionally hand winding watches have always been available with watches. This goes back to the earliest pocket watches. I've no idea why anyone would believe that winding does damage to a watch. I can see it if one was always winding it 24 hours per day or something excessive like that. No way normal use is going to affect any problem for a modern watch.

My thoughts are that those that preach not winding are tying to create a name for themselves in some way or other.

That's not entirely correct.
To be clear.
Those of us who were around back in the day when a Seiko automatic was the great value "go to" starter out watch, can attest to the fact that there was absolutely no manual wind function available what so ever.
We had to gently swing and rock our watch a little to wind and kick start it before setting the time and go on our merry way.
So in that regard the old Seiko technique is entirely valid as long as one is not hung up on a transitional period whilst the watch is winding up on the wrist where isocronism is not optimal. Not that one would notice in service anyway

I still have a fully functional Seiko watch around here somewhere that operates exactly in the manner I describe

[djyolky]

Originally Posted by HogwldFLTR

Thanks for the post; love it!!!!



Additionally hand winding watches have always been available with watches. This goes back to the earliest pocket watches. I've no idea why anyone would believe that winding does damage to a watch. I can see it if one was always winding it 24 hours per day or something excessive like that. No way normal use is going to affect any problem for a modern watch.



My thoughts are that those that preach not winding are tying to create a name for themselves in some way or other.

I'm definitely not trying to "start a name for myself". I'm simply trying to impart to the forum what I've been told by an expert who was trained by Rolex.

Cheers.

Sent from my SM-G925V using Tapatalk