In another thread on the MB, I mentioned I was working on a Zenith bumper automatic wrist watch for a friend. There was a reply to the post requesting a picture. At that point, I was waiting for parts. It is finally done (mind you, I have thought that, previously! This is one of those watches you hope you never see again!) I have no idea what the designer of this movement was smoking when it was designed! But it is an odd design. Almost makes you believe the designer missed the movement design classes that every other movement designer went to!

- Make, Zenith
- Calibre133.8
- S# 4577440
- Jewels 20
- Bumper automatic wind.
- Era, circa 1956
- Case, stainless steel

 

That's a nice-looking watch. Worth the effort IMO.

 

With respect, that is quite an extraordinary assertion! The movement, and its predecessor (cal. 133), were designed by Ephrem Jobin, who also designed the cal. 135, which is widely considered to be one of the finest manual-wind movements ever produced!

Zenith also won many Observatory competitions and awards on the basis of Jobin designed calibers. I would also add that the 133.8 was, in my (lay/collector) experience, the best finished high-production bumper movement that was produced by any manufacturer.

So, what, exactly, are your objections to the 133.8 design?

 

Put it this way. First, it is an unusual deign, and obsolete. I had to find a part for it which my supplier was unable to supply. I found a part from a supplier in Australia. It took a month to get here! Now, time to put it back together, but it’s unusual design slowed that process down as it had been in pieces for a month. This is a 65 year old watch with a lot of miles on it. I finished it several weeks ago, and it ran for three days, and quit! Dam roller jewel fell out, and I was unable to find it. It was a very tiny jewel, but I found another, and shellacked it in place. Somehow (and I have no idea how), in the process of removing the roller table and putting it back on, the top pivot of the balance staff was broken. More delay! Finally, today, it runs again. The auto wind system on this thing operates only in one direction…..like most bumper automatics. Right now, it runs because I hand wound it. I have to let it run down, then try it on the watch winder to test the auto wind. Old watches are often an especial challenge. This one in particular. If I were ever confronted by another one (unlikely), it may not seem so strange to me. But this is the first of these I have encountered.

 

I’m not a watchmaker but I thought the 133 series were innovative for their time. Parts should be easy to find as there are plenty out there.

 

And as a watchmaker shouldn’t you be able to make parts?

 

Lots around? Not where I live! Canada.

Make parts? I have made parts for watches, but not a jewelled lever (pallets), and that is not something pretty well every watchmaker would not be able to make! Balance staff? My supplier was able to supply. This calibre has a very tiny balance staff. I’ve made balance staffs, but nothing that small! Were you under a delusion that any “watchmaker” should be able to make ANY part of any watch, if he has difficulty finding the part he needs? Give your head a shake!

 

Surely you understand that bumper movements are, by definition, obsolete, and that fact has nothing to do with the quality of any particular design. As for parts availability, what, exactly, does that have to do with design flaws? Parts availability for vintage watches depend on a variety of factors, and unless a design was so poor that production was quickly abandoned, eccentricities of design are not likely to be a major problem.

It seems that you are conflating an intrinsically limited design (i.e. Zenith had no option to produce a full-rotor automatic at that time), with more modern designs. To reasonably assess the quality of a bumper movement, one must first compare it to other calibers in the same category. So, for example, if you were to compare the 133.8 with, say, an Omega 351, you might be able to tell us what it is you prefer about the Omega design, and why.

.

 

I wonder why my opinion on this movement is so important to you! You like it! I don’t. Simple as that! My biggest regret is that I even bothered to start this thread.

 

That response suggests that I may have been wrong to have given you the benefit of the doubt at the outset, as you haven't been able to articulate a single specific criticism of the design of a movement.

So, the next time that you are tempted to exclaim something like this:

let alone about a movement designed by a man who was responsible for one of the great calibers of the Golden Era of watchmaking, I would suggest that you should be prepared to articulate your specific criticism(s).

Of course you are entitled to your opinion, but stating that you "don't like" a movement design, without any elaboration, is of virtually no use to readers, and makes your original, hyperbolic assertions seem even more absurd.

 

There may not be many in Canada but on the internet they are plentiful and easy to get

 

I don’t feel obliged to have to justify my opinion to you, or anybody else. Especially ascerbic comments such as you made in this post!

 

Presumably the extraordinary irony of you, who wrote this in your original post:

chastising me for having authored "ascerbic" comments, will not be lost on readers.

As for obligations, in my view anyone launching such an attack should feel obligated to justify it, and especially when challenged. Your pointed failure to do so was precisely the catalyst of my sharp criticisms.

 

I may be wrong, but I imagine that Tony was interested in your opinion because you have experience servicing the movement. While many forum members (myself included) admire the aesthetics, technical features, and performance of various movements, relatively few are watchmakers who have interacted with these movements on a more intimate level (e.g. disassembly, adjustment). I wonder if there are any specific components that you found to be oddly designed?

Here are some photos of a cal. 133.8 in various states of assembly: https://watchguy.co.uk/cgi-bin/library?action=show_photos&wat_id=2484

 

Thanks for your reasoned comments on this topic. I had made the reasons for my opinion clear in my previous posts, and I am tired of having to deal with the contrary opinions of some others. It would be my preference if the thread was totally deleted.

 

Yes, that is correct. I'm not a watchmaker, nor am I suggesting that there were necessarily no flaws in the 133/133.8 design.

Every time that you say something that lacks credibility, like the above, I'll respond again. Not with a contrary "opinion", though, but rather with contrary facts.

You have yet to articulate a single specific criticism of the design of the movement. The details that you provided were either irrelevant (e.g. "obsolete"; hard to source parts, etc.), or reflected frustrations that you had with some issues specific to that particular movement (e.g. " roller jewel fell out"; "top pivot of the balance staff was broken", etc.). None of those could reasonably be considered to have been flaws in the original design of the movement.

Frankly, your frustration with how the thread has unfolded stems entirely from your apparent inability to either reasonably justify your original criticisms, or walk them back. Had you done either of those things, I would have said "thank you", and that would have been the end of it.

 

Unusual in what way? If it works and tells time it’s not obsolete.

 

Mechanical watches in general work and tell the time. They are still obsolete.

 

The dial reminds me of the 1st Gen Nivada Antarctic from 1958.