Jump to content

Recommended Posts

I want to show others how you can modify the inner diameter of a hole jewel. For this movement, I have a high grade Waltham that has it's pallet fork jewel broken. Sure, I could order a new jewel, but I have a large assortment on hand. To start, you'll need to remove the old jewel, if yours is broken. Find a jewel that is the required thickness and OD, and one that has an ID that is smaller than the pivot it will match with. Now there is a few ways to modify the jewel. You can place it in a jewel chuck, or you can mount it in it's plate, and then center the hole on the lathe. I for some reason have never purchased jewel chucks, so I have it mounted in its cock, and that is mounted in a face plate. For widening the hole, you also have a few options there. You can use a piece of thin wire that is charged with diamond paste, or you can turn a piece of hardened steel to fit the pivot. I have done it both ways, and I haven't had much luck with the wire method that Daniels demonstrates. When making the steel burnisher, turn it on a slight taper. The end of the rod should protrude just past the back of the jewel. Then, with the rod mounted in you tailstock, add some diamond paste to it. I purchase diamond powder of varying micro size, and then mix it with a bit of oil to make the paste. With the headstock turning roughly 1-200 rpms, advance the diamond charged steel rod into the jewels hole. Retract it every second or so to keep it even. Little pressure is needed, but the paste will work its way off the steel rod, so it needs to be reapplied often. I like to rotate the tailstock spindle while I do this as well, advancing and retracting the spindle to continue cutting the jewel. This isn't a fast process, but should only take you 5 minutes or so. You'll notice in the beginning, that it seems like the steel rod is advancing quick quickly, but this is due to it also being polished and shaped by the diamond paste. It will eventually confirm itself to the jewel hole shape, and it will be less noticeable that it's diameter is being reduced. You may be thinking, isn't the steel much softer than the sapphire jewel? Won't the steel be the only thing that's being removed? And you'd be right to a point. But the steel becomes charged with the diamond paste, embedding it into the surface. After you reach the point of the steel rod conforming to the jewels hole, little diamond paste is added from then on. Below are some pictures of how I have it set up.

Here is the setup with wire. I don't really like this method.

PXL_20250401_014722673.thumb.jpg.e2e53bb2a0bf65199020363e792d82f3.jpg

 

PXL_20250401_014738957.thumb.jpg.5dfdea81219a54bdf6f1d687f31aef96.jpg

 

 

 And here is the setup with a hardened steel rod

PXL_20250401_024545998.thumb.jpg.52169d932c3014fcd6dff90f82a5e5b2.jpgPXL_20250401_024559223.thumb.jpg.e454893a219130652ee2fc692f9f6b6f.jpgPXL_20250401_024609813.thumb.jpg.e1eb134b49901ad7af1695adb94be790.jpg

  • Like 5
  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Neverenoughwatches said:

How about using the pivot of a balance staff in place of the rod ?

That might be possible, but with the cone of a balance staff, it would eventually start to touch the jewel, possibly before you have reached your desired ID. Plus, I don't have balance staffs on hand, I generally make them. Its much faster for me to just turn a piece of steel the correct size. And the very slight taper is important, similar to a reamer.

40 minutes ago, Nucejoe said:

Thanks for sharing Pal, didn't know any of this. 

Regs

Absolutely. I don't think many people are aware you can do this, which is why I wanted to share. You arent going to be able to make huge changes in the size, but if you have a jewel that's very close, this is an excellent way to make it fit. You may also wonder why I dont just turn down the pivot of the part im making the jewel for, and thats because I dont want to alter the strength of the pivot. 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You demonstrate on a relatively large pocket watch jewel (even though the pallet cock is near the smallest in the watch) - would you use the same technique on a small wristwatch jewel with a hole size of only .07 or so?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, Neverenoughwatches said:

Is the taper just to start the grinding in the hole ?

 

Mostly, and to maintain a constant pressure on the hole, and to keep the rod aligned 

11 minutes ago, mbwatch said:

You demonstrate on a relatively large pocket watch jewel (even though the pallet cock is near the smallest in the watch) - would you use the same technique on a small wristwatch jewel with a hole size of only .07 or so?

Yes I use the same technique on balance pivot holes as well. This is just what is currently on the bench for this type of repair. The smallest I've done is 0.09, but It should scale down, although I haven't done a 0.07 hole yet. I have some sapphire rod, maybe ill cut a slice off and see how small of a hole I can make someday. I would someday like to start a YouTube series on lathe work, from basic gravers, to making your own jewels and threading attachments. But I'm swamped, have roughly 35 watches in the backlog.

  • Like 6
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is the taper within the hole negligible ? I was reading a little something the other day of reducing side friction on a pivot to increase vertical amplitude. Replacing the jewel for a thinner one, though it has the con of potentially eating up the side of the pivot.  I just wondered if the hole taper has much effect on reducing friction.

With the bottom of the jewel hole being narrower than the top.

Or whichever end the grindout is started.

The wire method is the way Seitz made their jewels. Theres a great video on it kicking around in the forum somewhere. 

Edited by Neverenoughwatches
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Neverenoughwatches said:

Is the taper within the hole negligible ? I was reading a little something the other day of reducing side friction on a pivot to increase vertical amplitude. Replacing the jewel for a thinner one, though it has the con of potentially eating up the side of the pivot.  I just wondered if the hole taper has much effect on reducing friction.

With the bottom of the jewel hole being narrower than the top.

Or whichever end the grindout is started.

The wire method is the way Seitz made their jewels. Theres a great video on it kicking around in the forum somewhere. 

The taper is pretty negligible. You would reverse the jewel setting in the lathe, and grind again from the opposite side, to counter the taper if it was too much. I haven't tested as far as amplitude gains for either one, or if it's a detriment to not reverse the jewel and regrind from the other side. I'm usually taking off very little, and the burnisher conforms to the jewel surface, so I don't think it makes a ton of difference, but it's a very good point to bring up!

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, SwissSeiko said:

The taper is pretty negligible. You would reverse the jewel setting in the lathe, and grind again from the opposite side, to counter the taper if it was too much. I haven't tested as far as amplitude gains for either one, or if it's a detriment to not reverse the jewel and regrind from the other side. I'm usually taking off very little, and the burnisher conforms to the jewel surface, so I don't think it makes a ton of difference, but it's a very good point to bring up!

If you could get the tapers to meet in the center you'd end up with something very similar to an olive jewel.

But I as you said, I guess there is more  grinding, conforming going on of the burnisher than of the jewel , so the hole probably finishes pretty cindrical anyway.

Good subject, i think you gave some information a while back about reducing the OD as well. I think jewel modification is a terrific step in being independent.  With all the talk about parts running out it's becoming increasingly important to learn how to make what isn't available. 

Edited by Neverenoughwatches
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 hours ago, SwissSeiko said:

turn a piece of hardened steel to fit the pivot.

Thanks for describing your method in such detail. I can imagine needing to do something similar in the future, and you will have saved me a lot of trouble.

Why does the steel need to be hardened? Also, what were the difficulties you had with the wire method? Could it work better for olive jewels?

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was thinking of a way to increase the ID without installing the jewel in the movement and mounting to a face plate, something that i dont have. I came up with a 2-3  mm brass rod in the lathe, drill off the center to the pivot diameter or slightly larger. Shellac the jewel and center it on the rod then grind in the new ID. I wonder how accurate a drill press would do this, it's not drilling a new hole, so I'm thinking the grinding rod would keep the jewel on center.

Like Klassiker I thought a mild steel, bronze or brass rod might impregnate with cutting paste better than a hard steel. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, Neverenoughwatches said:

I was thinking of a way to increase the ID without installing the jewel in the movement and mounting to a face plate, something that i dont have. I came up with a 2-3  mm brass rod in the lathe, drill off the center to the pivot diameter or slightly larger. Shellac the jewel and center it on the rod then grind in the new ID. I wonder how accurate a drill press would do this, it's not drilling a new hole, so I'm thinking the grinding rod would keep the jewel on center.

Like Klassiker I thought a mild steel, bronze or brass rod might impregnate with cutting paste better than a hard steel. 

I’ve seen for sale jewel collets that are brass and rather than using a draw bar you insert it into a normal collet. Collet in collet if you know what I mean. You should be able to knock those up on your lathe but would need a fine slitting saw and interesting work holding.

 

Tom

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

👍 I missed out on a set of jewel chucks a few weeks ago. They're used for making chatons as well.

I have some phosphor bronze rod on order for making something similar.  No split, just a step inside the rod to seat the jewel into. Accurately slicing the rod might be difficult with the gear I have, so i would shellac the jewel in.

I fancy having a go with some brass now this afternoon lol.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Neverenoughwatches said:

If you could get the tapers to meet in the center you'd end up with something very similar to an olive jewel.

But I as you said, I guess there is more  grinding, conforming going on of the burnisher than of the jewel , so the hole probably finishes pretty cindrical anyway.

Good subject, i think you gave some information a while back about reducing the OD as well. I think jewel modification is a terrific step in being independent.  With all the talk about parts running out it's becoming increasingly important to learn how to make what isn't available. 

Bingo on the tapers meeting to make an olive jewel.

6 hours ago, Klassiker said:

Thanks for describing your method in such detail. I can imagine needing to do something similar in the future, and you will have saved me a lot of trouble.

Why does the steel need to be hardened? Also, what were the difficulties you had with the wire method? Could it work better for olive jewels?

 

I harden it so it doesnt deform as easily. The issue I have with the wire method is work holding. I dont like having the wire run through the headstock, as you have to be very careful not to let it rub on the drawbar, or it will break. It's a much more delicate operation and takes longer, so the steel rod is my preferred way.

2 hours ago, Neverenoughwatches said:

I was thinking of a way to increase the ID without installing the jewel in the movement and mounting to a face plate, something that i dont have. I came up with a 2-3  mm brass rod in the lathe, drill off the center to the pivot diameter or slightly larger. Shellac the jewel and center it on the rod then grind in the new ID. I wonder how accurate a drill press would do this, it's not drilling a new hole, so I'm thinking the grinding rod would keep the jewel on center.

Like Klassiker I thought a mild steel, bronze or brass rod might impregnate with cutting paste better than a hard steel. 

If you cant drill the brass with the tailstock, you could cut the center with a graver first, then use the drill press. Or you can drill it freehand with a pin vise. 

Now I'm seeing you want to grind it with a drill press. I'm not sure on the runout on you drill press, but they seem to average about 0.16mm, where as my Moseley is 0.001mm

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

40 minutes ago, SwissSeiko said:

Now I'm seeing you want to grind it with a drill press. I'm not sure on the runout on you drill press, but they seem to average about 0.16mm, where as my Moseley is 0.001mm

I'm not sure about mine, but a press certainly wont have anywhere near the accuracy of a lathe . Would be interesting to see how it turns out.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, tomh207 said:

I’ve seen for sale jewel collets that are brass and rather than using a draw bar you insert it into a normal collet.

Jewel chucks seem to be the only consistently affordable watchmaker's lathe accessory. $50 for a set is on the high side.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

If you dont mind me tagging something onto this thread of modifying jewels Cole. I had a little play at changing the outside diameter of one, no lathe required.  I used a very small dc motor, the type that were used in Scalextric cars. I turned the very end of the 2mm spindle down to 0.8mm, then shellaced a 1.2 mm jewel and centred it while heating and running. Using the spindle directly minimises any run-out, that can also be futher improved by shortening the spindle, but for the 8mm sticking out,  I couldn't see any at x40. Once mounted I used a 2000 diamond file on the side of the jewel , which quickly ground down the size. In the pictures you can see the outside edge is a little rough and chipped from the file. The jewel did polish up much better with some diamond dental strips. But as I was finishing up, I got a bit heavy handed.... the shellac gave way and the jewel flew 😂. You'll have to take my word for the finish, though it did need some diamond paste ( on its way from AliExpress) to complete the job. The initial diameter reduction was rapid, at the last measure before it disappeared the OD was 1.13mm, which took less than 2 minutes. 

20250414_171257.jpg

20250414_171348.jpg

20250414_171352.jpg

20250414_224402.jpg

20250414_224448.jpg

20250414_224510.jpg

20250415_084435.jpg

Now I just need to check in a mirror, I seem to have something in my eye 🤣

  • Like 5
  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Basically what you have here is a very very cheap wax chuck lathe. De Carle shows turning a staff in a hollowed out spindle.

20250415_140622.jpg

3 minutes ago, mbwatch said:

Did you just take a graver directly to the running motor or did you disassemble it to get the spindle into a real lathe?

Straight off the motor Michael, the graver needs to be sharp , I used a carbide tooth removed from a tungsten bench saw blade.

6 minutes ago, mbwatch said:

Did you just take a graver directly to the running motor or did you disassemble it to get the spindle into a real lathe?

What do mean ? This is a real lathe !!!  🤣

So these motors are incredibly cheap, cheap enough to dispose of after each use,but it will be interesting to see how long one will last. I got a keyless chuck from Ali that fits the spindle, so I'll be ramping its workload up to 6" 😄

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Neverenoughwatches said:

If you dont mind me tagging something onto this thread of modifying jewels Cole. I had a little play at changing the outside diameter of one, no lathe required.  I used a very small dc motor, the type that were used in Scalextric cars. I turned the very end of the 2mm spindle down to 0.8mm, then shellaced a 1.2 mm jewel and centred it while heating and running. Using the spindle directly minimises any run-out, that can also be futher improved by shortening the spindle, but for the 8mm sticking out,  I couldn't see any at x40. Once mounted I used a 2000 diamond file on the side of the jewel , which quickly ground down the size. In the pictures you can see the outside edge is a little rough and chipped from the file. The jewel did polish up much better with some diamond dental strips. But as I was finishing up, I got a bit heavy handed.... the shellac gave way and the jewel flew 😂. You'll have to take my word for the finish, though it did need some diamond paste ( on its way from AliExpress) to complete the job. The initial diameter reduction was rapid, at the last measure before it disappeared the OD was 1.13mm, which took less than 2 minutes. 

Good Stuff! Try it again, this time having a bit of water on the file, that should minimize chipping. The only issue I could see with this method, is just how true the spindle runs. Even a few hundredths of a mm could cause issues once you install the jewel, causing it to not line up with the opposite jewel. Let me know how this ends up on the second attempt!

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

36 minutes ago, SwissSeiko said:

Good Stuff! Try it again, this time having a bit of water on the file, that should minimize chipping. The only issue I could see with this method, is just how true the spindle runs. Even a few hundredths of a mm could cause issues once you install the jewel, causing it to not line up with the opposite jewel. Let me know how this ends up on the second attempt!

The run-out is on my mind, but very unlikely a spec would be available for such a cheap thing. I'm going completely by eye, x40 magnification is the highest I have, that I can get it under. I can't detect any run-out at all on the slowest speed, which is where it's most visible, i had thoughts of cutting the spindle tight back to the bearing, but as it was so good with the 8mm length I decided against it. At the moment it's just a play thing, but this might have an application yet.

The good bit is the chance for someone to experience a little lathe work for practically nothing.  The motors are 33p, the speed controller 50p and if you have a spare 5v usb adapter plug, another potentiometer as a usb plug-in power supply £1.60p or an old 6v plug in transformer as the motors are 6v rated...8,000 rpm.  Who remembers whizzing their Scalextrics cars through figures of 8 under mum and dad's dining room table at xmas 👋

Screenshot_20250415-154343_AliExpress.jpg

1 hour ago, SwissSeiko said:

Try it again, this time having a bit of water on the file, that should minimize chipping. 

I did use some 9010 with the dental strips and it was coming along great. Then I caught the back of the jewel ....it must have removed the remaining shellac holding the jewel in place, then used my eyeball as a vertical trampoline 😄

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.



  • Recently Browsing

    • No registered users viewing this page.
  • Topics

  • Posts

    • I often think about painting clear varnish on the coil.
    • I hate this battery release design in Ronda movements. It's an accident waiting to happen. One slip and the coil is gone. I wonder if it's a deliberate design.
    • so let's break this down the words restaffed balance wheel correctly would mean no distortion at all on the balance wheel. Which can be done but often isn't. Oftentimes balance wheels end up and times particularly discussing a bimetallic all bent up like the one in this discussion. If the balance wheel is out of round you definitely get a poise issue. You also get an issue if somebody pleases and out around balance wheel and then you fix the out of round now the wheel is poised incorrectly because somebody didn't physically make sure the balance wheel was correct in the first place. Yes people really do poise balance wheels that are neither flat or round it's quite annoying and then it typically with anything vintage there's an extreme likelihood of timing issues. Like the fun I had yesterday the wall thumb was 400 seconds fast and had a 202nd positional problem. So yes it's extremely common on vintage watches you're going to have things to fix from prior inappropriate repairs typically and it depends upon how it nitpicky you want to be here. In other words if you are statically poising the definition of poised would be if you give the balance wheel of push it will rotate eventually come to a stop and it will not rock back and forth at all is considered perfectly poised. Typically when I poise I don't worry about that I will let it rock back and forth because it still going to be within 15 seconds typically. Now the problem with statically poising absolutely perfectly is that it does not take into account the hairspring. This is why ideally if you are really obsessed you statically poise until your close and then finish with dynamic poising. This will take into account the hairspring collet that's probably not a poised collet. Yes Hamilton had another companies had poised collet's they hairspring itself affects the poise so for absolute perfect you have to dynamic poise. So the suggestion has been that it absolutely poised dynamically done balance wheel will not be statically poise absolutely perfectly.    this is an interesting one? In the United States of America over a time span and I don't remember the exact but it ended in the 60s there was a tear off on watches to protect the American watch industry. I've read the books on the tariffs specifications it would bump up the cost of better watches to making them expensive. This is why you will often see a nice Omega watch for instance that was regulated was adjusted and was still keeping really good time will be marked not adjusted. Because the quantity of jewels each jewel bumped up the cost adjustment adjustment and variety of positions bumped up the cost so a huge percentage of watches imported into this country will be not adjusted but they were adjusted at the factory it's just a terra thing then I suspect that even the cheapest of watches probably were somewhat adjusted because if they had zero adjustments I have no idea how bad the timekeeping would be? It's one of the problems of we don't actually have numbers of what the watches really should be doing we only have numbers of timekeeping basically when timing machines exist or for things like railroad grade watches where they absolutely had to know what the timekeeping is doing. So railroad timekeeping specification in this country is of watch Dependent up has to be within plus or -30/2 per week. Which if you compare it to the specifications of chronometer grade will ask which I think could be up to six seconds a day is better than a Rolex. this is one of my amusements at work. There we have that really nice which he timing machine full automatic microphone we look at every single watch and six positions and my boss once the watches all the keep really good time. So basically the watchmakers have learned to let the boss adjust the watches it seems to make him happy and we can do other things like service watches. So yesterday's fun on the 18 size Waltham to get the 400 timing down to think he got it down to 15 seconds it might've been better than that the Delta was still might've been within a minute much better than what it was before but still took more than an hour of time. When we don't specifically charge for this we charge for servicing of the watch we do not typically charge to make your watch keep time in multiple positions so yes it wastes a lot of time unless you're getting paid for it where it can definitely eat up a lot of time to fix vintage watches that I've had interesting repair histories. sorry I don't remember the brand name we once had a watch that was one of I take 1000 it actually was engraved number or something of something in other words it was a very expensive Swiss watch and I believe there was at least one shim under something. I always think of at the factory level if you have to place a shim to me it's a sign of poor manufacturing but there was a Swiss watch a nice watch that had it done. Of course what it may also be a sign of limited quantity of watches where things or adjusted at the factory we end up with interesting problems and I will pick on American pocket watches again with interesting repairs that can happen? For instance pocket watches dropped balance staff is broken possibly the whole jewels are broken and sometimes cap stones get broken. or worst-case I had a Hamilton 992 it actually had little notches taken out of the main plate I always wonder if it got hit by a train and things were dramatically bent in this watch somebody had ground the pallet fork bridge down to accommodate the balance wheel because the balance bridge had been bent to insane proportions it was bent so much it was no longer up and down in alignment so I always wondered if this particular watch got hit by a train. With its ultimate repair it would've been better to just replace the whole movement but instead we cannibalized another movements to replace all of the horribly mutilated parts. Now back to not watches hit by a train while somebody was crossing the railroad track. If the balance jewels are broken they are replaced but the same problem like we have on this group where do you get replacements? This means people in the field will get creative if they replace things with size differently than the original things will change. In other words the total length of the balance staff conceivably will change because they've changed the jewels and they're not properly sized. Then there's a problem of replacement balance staffs I personally have often theorized in the case of  bestfit  that they deliberately made the staffs oversize so the watchmaker can reduce the size. But what if you don't have a lay then what happens? A for instance the Hamilton 992B only has one balance staff as it's of friction staff but often times the friction staff doesn't fit because the replacement staff is slightly oversize which should be impossible but it happens. Often times I have to go through an assortment of staffs to find one that fits because I don't feel like reducing at the size to fit. More common though would be staffs with pivots that are too long and if the watchmaker does not have a lathe again how do they fix that problem well undesirable for us that have to deal with it down the road so an ideal perfect world the adjusted by the factory to whatever the specification was at the time and on a seven jewel American pocket watch it's not going to be railroad timekeeping. If we replace the staff in a proper fashion without bending or distorting anything the watch should keep time within the specification when it was originally made except of course we don't know what the specification was and they definitely did not have timing machines when this watch was made. If we replace the balanced staff with a factory original factory staff and everything should fit perfectly if the jewels were broken and we used factory jewels everything once again would be perfect. Although if you look in the parts book typically for American pocket watches for certain parts they recommend sending the entire watch or parts of the watch back because American watch manufacturing at least until the not sure exact date but sometime past the 20s definitely by the 50s watches were made in batches which is why everything has a serial number and the tools over the course of the batch tend to wear a little bit. So conceivably something made at the beginning and the end of the batch may not fit without adjustments. Plus of course there's variations in parts I like the pic on Elgin because they have one balance staff that comes in four different size variations and then a whole bunch of pivot variations all with the same part number so yes and an absolute perfect world which doesn't exist changing a balance staff with everything factory new would not require poising or truing the balance wheel because everything should still be perfect. But unfortunately in the 100+ year life of your watch things have happened. If you want to grasp that go back and start on page 1 of this discussion as the balance wheels in this discussion have had issues they're not flat the probably out of round there were issues with the jewels there is issues possibly with the staffs. Oh and yes apparently there's a donor watch and if the donor watch is not within a very close serial number range of the original watch it will have very likely sizing differences especially for anything related to the balance wheel because all the vintage watches were adjusted individually in the factory. If you look at a video on I can find it if you want to watch it on YouTube from I believe the 30s where you will see on escapement related stuff every single watch is adjusted which is why you can't just grab the balance wheel from one watch shove it into another one as they were adjusted at the factory                    
    • I see a lot of URLs pointing to 1drv.com which appears to be a CDN for OneDrive.
    • Hello and welcome from Leeds, England.  
×
×
  • Create New...