- Posts
- 6
- Likes
- 4
killshot
·Wear it! You can always service it down the line
Should I not wear vintage Speedy before service?
- Posts
- 28,037
- Likes
- 71,565
Archer
··Omega Qualified WatchmakerYou are putting my statements in incorrect context, intentionally I suppose. The examples you had shown previously had absolute minimum wear, and that is what I referred to as merely needing a slight polish. The examples you showed now are, of course, beyond polishing.
I will retract from this discussion. I just had intended to note that what is not bad needs not to be repaired/replaced (i.e. the examples with absolute minimum marks, not the ones shown in your response now). I am a private person, attend to my own watches only, and do not need to make a living from repair work, luckily. And I do not mind, if "the entire watch industry" wants to sell new main springs and the related work. If a watch runs down 30h with good amplitude, I will for sure not give it to a professional service person for fitting of a new main spring. Why should I?
Cheers, Bernhard
P.S.: Each time I purchase a watch I of course look into it and service/repair it, if the amplitude is insufficient or something is wrong. And do not use it until serviced, if I find that it needs a service.
If you actually go back to the first post I made with photos, and look at the seconds wheel pivot, you will see that it's the same as the first photo in this last post with photos, one that you described as having "slight marks" but is nearly worn completely through. So nothing incorrect about the context at all.
The remaining photos again are to illustrate that this kind of wear is extremely common, not that these should be polished, because it's obvious they cannot be. So again, not putting your words about polishing in any false context, just illustrating that the idea you presented that this kind of severe wear is rare, is completely false.
On the mainspring, and the pivots that you would polish instead of replacing the wheel, the fact you are just servicing your own watches creates a very different mindset. When you are performing work for others as a professional, you are obligated to repair the watch to the highest standard, and that includes a new mainspring with every service, which is the standard in the industry. It also includes replacing anything that is questionable, because you are not only concerned about the performance of the watch right after the service is done, but you must also be concerned about how it runs 5 or 7 years from now. These are not concerns for the amateur tinkerer, so what you are willing to let go is very different from what I would be willing to let go...
Cheers, Al
- Posts
- 625
- Likes
- 2,085
Bernhard J
·I just need to get this right. In my 7:05 pm post I cited your 4:10 pm post. In your 4:10 pm post you showed 3 examples for looking "closely", see below. That was the context. Not anything where one needs not to look closely to see severe damage.
Aside this, "amateur" work is not necessarily to lower standards than "professional" work. Actually occasionally the contrary is true, if the amateur knows what he is doing. You apparently are a rare exception in the professional field (and I mean this serious).
I once gave a Rolex GMT Master II away for service to an alleged local expert for vintage watches, stupid me. I got it back after 3 months and paid 400 €. And found that it had not even been opened (I had placed a mean tell tale artifact, just to know). I did not complain by the way, just put him on my black list for purchases and decided to continue servicing (and repairing) myself. I therefore respectfully ask that amateur work not be disparaged in such a general manner, especially if the quality of e.g. my amateur work is not known. You are correct that really awfull bodging does occur by amateurs, but just the same is true for professionals. Concerning the latter, you know only afterwards AND with the necessary own knowledge.
Cheers, Bernhard
Aside this, "amateur" work is not necessarily to lower standards than "professional" work. Actually occasionally the contrary is true, if the amateur knows what he is doing. You apparently are a rare exception in the professional field (and I mean this serious).
I once gave a Rolex GMT Master II away for service to an alleged local expert for vintage watches, stupid me. I got it back after 3 months and paid 400 €. And found that it had not even been opened (I had placed a mean tell tale artifact, just to know). I did not complain by the way, just put him on my black list for purchases and decided to continue servicing (and repairing) myself. I therefore respectfully ask that amateur work not be disparaged in such a general manner, especially if the quality of e.g. my amateur work is not known. You are correct that really awfull bodging does occur by amateurs, but just the same is true for professionals. Concerning the latter, you know only afterwards AND with the necessary own knowledge.
Cheers, Bernhard
How closely are you looking? Here's a customer's watch that he gave to his father new, 7 years before it came to me for service, and was worn daily...ETA 2824-2 inside. Looking at the condition of the jewels before disassembly, you see either dried up oils or products of wear. Here are the jewels and the condition of the pivots - escape wheel:
Intermediate wheel:
Third wheel:
Seconds wheel:
In my experience, it's rare to have a watch come in for service that doesn't have at least 1 worn part inside...
- Posts
- 28,037
- Likes
- 71,565
Archer
··Omega Qualified WatchmakerI just need to get this right. In my 7:05 pm post I cited your 4:10 pm post. In your 4:10 pm post you showed 3 examples for looking "closely", see below. That was the context. Not anything where one needs not to look closely to see severe damage.
Yes, this is the post that you replied to, with this:
If I notice marks on pivots like the ones shown, I slightly (!) polish them and thats it. But that is not too often.
Slightly polishing is not fixing anything in that set of photos, with the exception of the escape wheel maybe, as I stated. Again the seconds wheel is the last photo - the pivot is nearly worn through...
Aside this, "amateur" work is not necessarily to lower standards than "professional" work. Actually occasionally the contrary is true, if the amateur knows what he is doing. You apparently are a rare exception in the professional field (and I mean this serious).
I once gave a Rolex GMT Master II away for service to an alleged local expert for vintage watches, stupid me. I got it back after 3 months and paid 400 €. And found that it had not even been opened (I had placed a mean tell tale artifact, just to know). I did not complain by the way, just put him on my black list for purchases and decided to continue servicing (and repairing) myself. I therefore respectfully ask that amateur work not be disparaged in such a general manner, especially if the quality of e.g. my amateur work is not known. You are correct that really awfull bodging does occur by amateurs, but just the same is true for professionals. Concerning the latter, you know only afterwards AND with the necessary own knowledge.
Cheers, Bernhard
Yes, I know some very talented amateur watchmakers, and some are on this forum (along with a few professionals as well). What we all try to do here is bring the level of work up...if you visit the watchmaking section there are many threads there that may be of use to your learning process. If you have any technical questions, feel free to ask - I and others are always willing to help those who will listen.
And yes, I regularly see poor work done by professionals, and regularly criticize it. As I've said many times here and in other forums, in most places in the world the title of watchmaker is no longer protected, so anyone can call themselves a watchmaker if they want to, and have zero training. I see many YouTube videos where watchmakers who have terrible habits are charging others to teach them those same terrible habits, which is shameful. I'm not an apologist for professional watchmakers who don;t do the work properly.
We need to recognize what is good work and what isn't, no matter who is doing it.
- Posts
- 625
- Likes
- 2,085
Bernhard J
·One reason for our discussion might be that we come from different ends. You are a professional and deal mostly with "modern" stuff, where there is an option to replace parts by new ones or nos instead of repairing worn components. That is of course the best option. I come from the vintage end and in most cases there is no chance to replace parts. You must make new ones youself (or have them made, $$$$$ if you find somebody). Here are some recent examples, I just recently began such documentation. Admittedly a bracket clock and insofar rather easy, it is from about 1800. But I have also made escapement parts for vintage pocket watches and know e.g. how to adjust a spring detent to work correctly.
The first is an escape wheel arbor, which carries a sweep second hand, the arrow points to the part, which runs in the hole in the front plate. The second is a post, which was broken. The foot is the original one, the actual new post shrunk into a hole drilled into the foot. The third a hollow square for the minute hand, which had been cut down by some bodger for whatever reason (sweep seconds were completely missing) The round part of the square also shrunk into the enlarged hole in the minute pipe. The general maxime in this field is to save as much original substance as possible. Finally, I do not know the english name, but look and tell which one is new and which one original.
The missing second hand needed to be made also, including pipe. Finally just for your delight (hopefully) a view on the escapement.
Cheers, Bernhard
The first is an escape wheel arbor, which carries a sweep second hand, the arrow points to the part, which runs in the hole in the front plate. The second is a post, which was broken. The foot is the original one, the actual new post shrunk into a hole drilled into the foot. The third a hollow square for the minute hand, which had been cut down by some bodger for whatever reason (sweep seconds were completely missing) The round part of the square also shrunk into the enlarged hole in the minute pipe. The general maxime in this field is to save as much original substance as possible. Finally, I do not know the english name, but look and tell which one is new and which one original.
The missing second hand needed to be made also, including pipe. Finally just for your delight (hopefully) a view on the escapement.
Cheers, Bernhard
Edited:
- Posts
- 28,037
- Likes
- 71,565
Archer
··Omega Qualified WatchmakerOne reason for our discussion might be that we come from different ends. You are a professional and deal mostly with "modern" stuff, where there is an option to replace parts by new ones or nos instead of repairing worn components.
No, most of my work is vintage...and yes I do repair or make parts when needed, or have them made. That really isn't the main difference in how we approach things...
As a professional, my obligation is to do the work in the most cost efficient manner for the customer, while getting the best result. I don't know how you "polish" the pivots we discussed earlier, but for me the time to set up the Jacot tool, get out the burnishers, burnish the pivots, then clean the wheels is far more money spent than just replacing the part. Time is money, and I would have to charge more for doing it this way, because I actually make a living doing this. It isn't fair for the customer to pay for my farting around polishing pivots on a wheel that costs $17 to replace.
If I do need a part that can't be found, I'm more likely to farm it out to "my guy" because he does nothing but fabricate parts for watchmakers as his full time job. It's not that I couldn't do it, but he does it every day, day in and day out. He is fully equipped with the right tools and materials to make just about anything that's needed, so again it's far more cost effective for my customer if I have him do it, rather than me take 3X as long to do it here.
You have all the time you want to take working on your own stuff, so if you want to do things in what to me is a very inefficient way, it doesn't cost you anything. Nothing wrong with that, but we are in very different worlds...
- Posts
- 625
- Likes
- 2,085
Bernhard J
·If I can get a new part for peanuts money, I of course also do not get out my Jacot tool. Just recently I made a Buser wristwatch movement going again (some heavy handed "repairer" apparently had broken off one escape pivot, I bought it broken) by purchasing a nos escape for less than the postage was 😁. It would be silly to try to repivot the escape in such case. But such happy moments are, unfortunately, rare with my pocket watches. In case of the wristwatches I indeed never yet (except said Buser movement) was faced with the need to replace. Presumably luck or just being picky when buying. In most cases a movement with problems is identified by a close look inside.
You presumably are correct that you as a professional must assume the "worst case", i.e. that the customer wears the watch you attended to 7/24 and even under the shower or when going for a swim in the sea. And expects it to continue running well still after many years. Luckily I, in contrast, need to decide every day, which of my about 40 wrist watches I want to wear on this particular day, providing about a factor of 40 less failure risks 😁
Cheers, Bernhard
You presumably are correct that you as a professional must assume the "worst case", i.e. that the customer wears the watch you attended to 7/24 and even under the shower or when going for a swim in the sea. And expects it to continue running well still after many years. Luckily I, in contrast, need to decide every day, which of my about 40 wrist watches I want to wear on this particular day, providing about a factor of 40 less failure risks 😁
Cheers, Bernhard
- Posts
- 6,809
- Likes
- 22,011
M'Bob
·One interesting aspect of this thread is whether “wear” can be objectified if it’s subtle. In other words, is it a binary function (any wear noted, part gets replaced); or, is it part-dependent, meaning certain parts are permitted a bit of wear, but are still acceptable, whereas others must be replaced.
I see many of the parts in this thread that have been deemed “worn” have been subject to magnification to what appears to be beyond a typical loupe. I wonder what standard most watchmakers use to confirm wear, and whether the loupe is the typical assessing tool.
I see many of the parts in this thread that have been deemed “worn” have been subject to magnification to what appears to be beyond a typical loupe. I wonder what standard most watchmakers use to confirm wear, and whether the loupe is the typical assessing tool.
- Posts
- 28,037
- Likes
- 71,565
Archer
··Omega Qualified WatchmakerOne interesting aspect of this thread is whether “wear” can be objectified if it’s subtle. In other words, is it a binary function (any wear noted, part gets replaced); or, is it part-dependent, meaning certain parts are permitted a bit of wear, but are still acceptable, whereas others must be replaced.
I see many of the parts in this thread that have been deemed “worn” have been subject to magnification to what appears to be beyond a typical loupe. I wonder what standard most watchmakers use to confirm wear, and whether the loupe is the typical assessing tool.
A 10 or 12X loupe is not enough magnification - you need to use a microscope. Also, understand that the photos I'm showing were all taken as part of the documentation of the service performed on a customer's watch, and that documentation is presented to the customer when the service is completed. I'm trying to show an "untrained eye" what is wrong with the part that I am replacing, so the high magnification is in part needed to illustrate why I'm charging them for a new part. If they want to and have the ability to see the parts under magnification, they can confirm what is shown as the parts are returned to them.
The determination of what is acceptable wear is open to some amount of interpretation, but Omega does have standards for this. In their technical documentation (Omega work instruction 14) they show various types of marks that can be on pivots, and tell you if it's acceptable for re-use, or if it must be replaced. Nothing I've shown in this thread would be considered acceptable for re-use by Omega's standards. I won't show the photos, but the description of the marks that are not acceptable is as follows:
"Traces of wear, scratching, groove, rust or traces of oxidation."
This work instruction also shows what is acceptable on the rest of the watch, such as hands, dials, cases, crystals, etc.
- Posts
- 6,809
- Likes
- 22,011
M'Bob
·A 10 or 12X loupe is not enough magnification - you need to use a microscope. Also, understand that the photos I'm showing were all taken as part of the documentation of the service performed on a customer's watch, and that documentation is presented to the customer when the service is completed. I'm trying to show an "untrained eye" what is wrong with the part that I am replacing, so the high magnification is in part needed to illustrate why I'm charging them for a new part. If they want to and have the ability to see the parts under magnification, they can confirm what is shown as the parts are returned to them.
The determination of what is acceptable wear is open to some amount of interpretation, but Omega does have standards for this. In their technical documentation (Omega work instruction 14) they show various types of marks that can be on pivots, and tell you if it's acceptable for re-use, or if it must be replaced. Nothing I've shown in this thread would be considered acceptable for re-use by Omega's standards. I won't show the photos, but the description of the marks that are not acceptable is as follows:
"Traces of wear, scratching, groove, rust or traces of oxidation."
This work instruction also shows what is acceptable on the rest of the watch, such as hands, dials, cases, crystals, etc.
Just curious from your experience in the field: would you hazard a guess as to whether most independents use magnification to assess wear on parts, or simply rely on the loupe?
- Posts
- 28,037
- Likes
- 71,565
- Posts
- 17,768
- Likes
- 26,944
- Posts
- 21,735
- Likes
- 49,324
