I'm going to remember that quote! Seriously what Stewart says is absolutely true, there is no joke at your expense. It would be a lot of money to fabricate a balance staff. I would say that reading this thread, I am a bit lost as to how running the chronograph sorts the balance issue and it may be that others think the same. I can't see how this could happen (Stewart, I suppose you missed that comment unless I am mistaken). Interested to see if Al or Maurice have an opinion. Cheers, Chris.
I've been thinking about that Chris. The only effect that running the chronograph should have is to drop the amplitude by anything up to, maybe, 40 degrees on a well adjusted movement (40 degrees is the tolerance on an 861) What I can't see is, how dropping the amplitude would make the timekeeping better unless the watch was regulated with the chronograph running.
Thanks Stewart. Good information to know and seems like a small adjustment if that is the case. I am leaning the same way as MSN and thinking that another watchmaker is in order, sorry Rawarcher. It may also be that you misunderstood the explanation as you hinted. This is fairly complex stuff. Good luck whichever way you go. Cheers, Chris.
As suggested I'd also be looking to switch to a watchmaker that has had a lot of 321s over his bench. I used to go to a local guy who was pretty decent until he told me my Cal 320 18K chronograph couldn't be fixed because the inner pushers (pieces that screw into the outer gold pushers) had been rusted beyond repair and no parts are available. My current watchmaker then spun a pair of new pieces out of stainless and had it fixed for $90 a day later.
Thanks everyone. Will definitely look into finding a better watchmaker! He's only been "my" watchmaker for 1 week (and one watch) so there is no emotional attachment here. As to the question as to whether it runs fast or slow when the chronograph is off, I do not know as I've had it on 100% of the time since I got it back. Will test it out and post the results. Thanks, Tom