Hello everyone

New here. Thank you for accepting me.
Question, I have been buying, collecting and selling a few timepieces.
I always send watches to my watchmaker, either I am going to keep them or sell them.
After a conversation with him, he doesn't "believe" in timegraphers. He inspects every part, assemblies the watch and observes it for a while before he delivers it to the clients. What do you think about this method?
He is a watchmaker more than 50 years. He said that once he used timegraphers but they were unreliable and they didn't produce a practical result. In the sense that a watch on the wrist is very different from a watch static on the timegrapher.

Also, he does a great job with watches. He services my watches, I take care of them using the timegraph at home and I have watches for years being amazing.

 

I’m with your watchmaker on this, although I’m only a collector.

 

Sounds like a great watchmaker to me.
The timegrapher is just another tool, it helps.
If he really inspects every detail with great attention and services accordingly - the result should speak for itself. I wish I had such a watchmaker.

 

Carefully inspecting parts doesn't negate the use of the timing machine (the two things are largely unrelated), so it's a rather strange stance to be honest. If he wasn't getting anything from the timing machine, he likely wasn't using it correctly, or at least to its fullest capacity...

 

I have a broken timegrapher. The old paper tape transistor style. Most of my watches work within a few minutes a day (Probably keep siderial time.) I keep procrastinating fixing or upgrading the one I have. I could have got one of those cheap modern ones, I decided I would rather spend my limited funds on more watches or parts.

I rotate my watches often, So I wind and set them before use and set them to the network time on my computer or cell phone. If they keep time for the few hours I use them I am happy. This may come from that I work with electronics and programming. So the watchmaking is the antithesis of that. I do like to fantasize or anticipate making my own hybrid test tools. I think it is more about the wanting than about the having.

The old machines certainly were clunky. One problem with fixing the transistor version is that most were sold using vacuum tubes. I suspect the caps (condensers) have dried out. (this sort of failure may eventually affect the cheap ones as well although they are mostly digital.) I can see how someone who was practicing 50 years ago could hold a poor opinion of what is probably a useful tool.

Still the watchmaker in question has to have some sort of accurate time source. Or is well versed at stellar observation. Even if the watchmaker is using radio pips, the watchmaker is using some sort of timing tool to adjust the observed parts.

With the advent of time and date stamps on everything (even the pipe organ electronics I work on) The way watches are used has changed immensely in the last 50 years. Back in the 1970s and 1980s the old tower clocks never seemed to work. The school clocks never really kept time either at least when compared to other time sources. Now they seem to be pretty much spot on. I think we now are more demanding in the performance of our time sources.

Ironically when they tore down the classrooms I went to school in I got some of the clocks. I always knew that I would be staring at that clock in the English class forever. Another project I procrastinate on is to connect this to a WWVB receiver. I could also use NTP packets as I often work with UDP. These old clocks synced at 6:30 using counter weights to drop the hands when a different voltage was applied. If the counterpoise was not set right the clock would not sync the same as the others.

The pickup on my broken timegrapher can be adjusted to all sort of positions. From what I have seen the cheap ones use some sort of 3D holder, although it looks like it was based on the old ones. I think the new ones use condenser mics rather than piezio crystals. So the positional argument seems weak. I do recall that when I was learning 30 years ago. watches were placed onto the auto winding machines that simulated the rotation of the arms. (Not the spinning type.)

Now I see that this is probably another case where modern practice has superseded the old ways.

 

Thank you for your insights.

My main reason for the question was that on certain watches you cannot correct the beat error easily- the ones that you have to rotate the pinion on the balance. This situation makes me go back and forward in order to get a good result and I am afraid I am wasting time and money unnecessarily.
This leads me to a next subject. When it comes to the working movement, he claims that a watch working properly, you just wind it and it immediately starts working without having to shake it. Also, he does a "test" where, with power, he stops the balance and if it automatically starts working once he releases the balance, the watch is good working order, if it doesn't start working he changes the "registry" (I don't know the correct name of the part in English but it is above the balance).
He already did this tests with me looking at it but when I got home and tested it on the timegrapher the results of the beat error would be high (7-9). I have already asked him to see the position of the anchor between bridges when the watch has no power and that it has to be in the middle in order to reduce the error but something keeps happening that a good result for him doesn't reflect on a good beat error.

The question here is, am I being to picky on the beat error? For me it is simple, the ones I can fix I do it, but the ones you have to take the balance out, I am affraid to do it (because I have already messed one).

What would you do if you were me?

 

Rotating the collet is what you likely mean. Yes, it can be tedious, but it doesn't normally take more than 2 or 3 adjustments to get it to an acceptable level. Most companies (Omega for example) will specify a maximum beat error of 0.8 ms, and honestly if you get it to 1 ms or below, it will not affect timekeeping at all.

No, you are not being too picky. A beat error of 7-9 ms is far too much.

Find another watchmaker. I know it sounds brutal, but some of the tests you have described he uses are rather strange, and by any modern standard the work is sub-par.

I'm sure there are plenty of watchmakers who have been doing it for 50+ years that do very fine work. However I do see many of these "old school" watchmakers who learned the trade in a time where the business was very competitive (there was a watchmaker on every corner, and they were all competing), and many short cuts and poor practices were used to stay competitive. A service might cost $5 or $10, so speed was the priority, not necessarily doing the best work. Those things are not easy to change, so the poor practices and bad habits can carry over.

 

The thing is that he does a real good job when servicing the movement. Parts come clean, oils the correct parts, the oil is correctly applied and all. It is just the beat error that bothers me but he fixes it every time and doesn't charge more for it.

He does it for 50+. I appreciate taking watches there because you see his work. You see the watch disassembled, you see the watch on the cleaning solution and on the machine cleaning etc...
I see your point with the shortcuts but I don't think that it is appropriate with him, he really goes the extra mile, he just fails on that situation in my personal opinion.

Also, I had other 3 watchmakers. One took 1 year and 6 month to "service" an Omega 552- I say "service" because I got made and collected the watch by parts he did not perform anything. Another one tried to scam me by charging for a gold plate that he only polished. And the third was very good but it was 4/5 times the price that I pay today and it makes a big difference.

 

He services your watches for £/$50?!

 

50+ years I think, from the OP’s first post? - $/£50 would be great as I have a few cheaper watches that could do with a service

 

It sounds like you have already decided that you want to continue with the status quo, so I don't know why you are asking. Why ask for advice and then argue with the people who give you advice? It sounds like you are willing to accept his limitations.

 

To clarify he is been doing it for 50+ years now, I pay a few more for services.
Regarding the "issue". Taking into consideration his availability and that at the end the watches are well serviced, I will take the "loss" when I have to return there to rotate the collet. I have already had a conversation with him and he will for sure pay more attention to that, let's see what happens.
I feel comfortable because I know he does a good job and at the end I have never been harmed by his service. And another things, it i hard to come across watchmakers these days.

Thank you for your comment Dan. I guess you understood me incorrectly, I didn't ask for advice, I asked for opinions. And another thing, I was never arguing with anyone, I was just talking. I guess you just have to change the way you look at things.

I really appreciate everyones time.

 

Firstly per my understanding timeograph is important for fine tuning the watch. In most cases if it is serviced well it should be fine. but for vintage watches based on who serviced it before and how it was serviced it can make a difference. Since not all watch makers are the same. most people want a service watch to keep time within 20 sec not 2 min. if he is observing the watch over night he can tell if the watch is keeping or losing time within a margin. plus i am sure he can tell the BE to some margin with his experience.

The question for me is have you timed to watch before service and after service to see how they are performing? I would like to know this? plus where is the watch maker? i am looking for a good one as well?

for me why service a watch if it will not hold time? plus high BE can cause problem in the future.

 

Hello everyone,

Just to update you on the matter.
I have took into consideration everyone's comments and decided that my watchmaker was not the way to go.
I had a talk with him, explained him the situation and he understood. As I previously said, he is a watchmaker for 50+ years and he used timegraphers in the past. After I explained him the situation and said that I was not going to "hire" his services anymore he showed me his methods in pratice, I wasn't conviced so I manteined my position and he suggested that he was going to change his methods and start to use the timegrapher.
He showed me his methods (that he used to do without the timegraph) and in pratice (measuring with the timegraph) they work but there's "good" and there's "very good"- meaning that his methods gave a "good" measure but there's room to improvement. He was surprisingly open to the suggestions and at the moment let's see how it goes.

And to those who are interested his methods include two things: first stopping the balance carefully. If you stop the balance and you release it and it doesn't start working immediately, it means that it needs adjustment on the beat error (the jewel). Also, the other test was the movement of the balance with no power, it can't move easily, that translates into you wind it it has to start work immediately and it doesn't require you to shake it (I can't really explain this point well).
I don't know how everyone feels about it (I appreciate comments). He showed me with the timegrapher the changes and it was evident but as I said there's "good" and there's "very good". Let's see how it goes moving forward.

I appreciate your comment @RainMAN 777 . It is a very good idea, next time I send a watch to service I will do it- results before and after.

Thank you all.

I really appreciate if you can add something taking into consideration this new changes. Personal opinions are appreciated as well.

Regards

 

I have to agree with this comment. So the watch is inspected, cleaned and serviced. Ok but then every watch needs to be to some degree regulated. It’s like rebuilding an engine and not tuning it and adjusting the timing. How is it expected to run perfectly without it?

 

You are welcome

 

100% agree

 

Thanks for the follow-up explaining his methods.

I can't say I really understand this one - is he saying that it shouldn't move easily with no power on the mainspring? If so, that doesn't make sense. The second part of that, saying that the balance should start with few winds makes more sense, but is not used as a definitive test that I've ever heard of in watchmaking school or brand training I've been through. This is generally referred to a self-starting ability, and it's not just about beat error, but includes some escapement design aspects as well.

The test he uses where he's stopping the balance and checking its ability to start when you let it go, that is something I've not tried specifically with a large beat error, so I just did this morning. I took an ETA 6498 movement from my stock, and wound it up, put it on the timing machine, and moved the stud carrier in one direction as far as it would go:



The beat error is 5.7 ms, so far outside the 0.8 ms beat error that would be allowed on this movement - over 7 times the allowed beat error in fact:



Once I adjusted the movement to have this large beat error, I placed it under my microscope, and filmed stopping the balance, and then letting it go several times:

Based on this result, I conclude that this test is meaningless for detecting beat error...

 

And what I love about this is that you didn't just think about it a nay-say it, you tested it and shared the results. Can't ask for any more than that.