If a watch movement contains more jewls does that means the movement is better for example
Watch X got 30 jewls and watch Y got 15 jewls does this means watch X got a better movement?

 

Not always. Sometimes non-functional, purely decorative jewels are installed so as to write the big number (say, 30) on dial and make people believe the watch is better, which it isn't. On an uncomplicated movement there are only so many places where a jewel will actually do a job, aditional ones do nothing.

 

The more the merrier (well, with the Waltham anyway). Wikipedia to the rescue:

 

An interesting aspect about this topic:

The number of jewels in a caliber can have more economic reasons.
For example: To keep tax applied by the US customs on the number of jewels low, Zenith has developed an El Primero caliber with 17 instead of the usual 31 jewels.

(These watches with this 17 jewels movement are usually marked with the brand Movado, since Zenith had problems with the naming rights in the US at that time.)

 

The Waltham 100 models all featured "100 working jewels" but 83 of them were under the rotor

 

To a small degree it does if your comparing a 1 jewel watch with a 17 jewel watch.


@Archer has some good threads on them

Why jewels are better

https://omegaforums.net/threads/why-i-like-jewels-instead-of-bushings.12438/


And how they make them

https://omegaforums.net/threads/watch-jewels-how-its-made-40s-style.11245/

He did have a post about this exact subject but I can’t seem to find it

 

I only have two jewels; it's a family tradition.

 

One could say that more than two jewels causes a more awkward movement.

 

I've got three: two "bezel set", one "friction fit'"

 

Im planning on getting CK2998 but the only thing thts holding me back is the movement isn't that impressive compared to a modern seamaster 300 with 8800 caliber co axial

 

One glaring error in the Wikipedia item is the comment that “marine chronometers have only seven jewels”! The Hamilton series XXI marine chronometers (as shown), have 14 jewels, and the series XXII Hamilton (as shown) has 21 jewels.

 

The 1861 is not a bad movement, been in the moon watch for years and the co-axial isn’t the best movement since sliced bread.

The marketing of the co-axial paints it as such a better movement to anything else, but to me a vintage 551 movement is capable of just as good accuracy.


Don’t get caught up in the Co-axial Kool-aid. It has some issues like every movement. ( and remember a $10 Casio is capable of better accuracy than nearly every manual watch. If you want accuracy buy a x-33 Speedmaster )

 

So you're saying i should go for the ck2998?

 

Yes

Omega specs for the1861 are an average daily rate of between -1 and +11 seconds per day


Here is a detailed view of a 1861

https://www.thenakedwatchmaker.com/land-omega-speedmaster-professional

 

I would not be surprised that the accuracy gains of the recent co axials come from the silicon hairspring. We can only dream of a 1861 upgraded with one, because they don't want you to know that slightly upgraded 1960s technology still kicks serious ass : you just have to look at some rolex movements (not exactly groundbreaking, but very accurate with these hairsprings) to know it does.

Also just for fun:

 

If you compare a watch that only has co-axial added to it and no other changes, this answers your question. The only model I know of off the top of my head is the Cal. 3303 and 3313. Both had free spring balances to start with (1120 to the 2500 added co-axial and a free sprung balance so not an apples to apples comparison) and the accuracy spec is just the same before and after implementation of the co-axial. Real life servicing experience shows no accuracy improvement due to the co-axial escapement, and of course in training we were told specifically that it wasn't about accuracy, but service life.

I can pretty much guarantee that the increased accuracy comes from having perfect balance springs that don't change over time, and has little/nothing to do with the escapement...

 

Thanks for confirming my thoughts. i don't have much experience with co axials, so I preferred voicing my opinion with some precautions...

 

A friend at work had one removed, he still keeps good time!

 

I imagine he needed some bed rest first

 

Most manual watches made in Switzerland with 17 jewels were considered a safe bet reflecting quality and durability..

Earlier models with 15 jewels lacked the shock protection and the center wheel did not have a jewel pivot where the bushing would wear prematurely causing side shake. The addition of the extra jewel minimized the premature wearing. One would of course always service their movements to avoid any form of oversight

Self winding watches (automatic) with 21 jewels or more were considered to also reflect the same safe bet..

There are also 17 jewel automatics that one would wonder whether they are less superior to the manual version containing the same number of jewels which obviously would have required more jewels to justify the automatic assembly Especially reverser wheels was always an issue if any servicing was overlooked.

Most of the Felsa movements that I have come across in automatics have a rotor jewel which in my opinion is a classier setup than the Rolex naked axle sleeve and Omega rotor post on rivets. In this case the rotor jewel added in that area makes one wonder if adding more jewels to a movement makes it better? Begs the question is it myth in some ways and fact in other ways!!