I hope this will be a great learning experience for everyone. It has been for me. The big question is should the cap jewels be removed when cleaning with an ultrasonic cleaner? I ran a test using my GemOro ultrasonic. The test was totally UNscientific but hoped to shed some light on how well an ultrasonic would perform on a capped jewel assembly. An Elgin 18s balance cock was cleaned (with heat) for five minutes face down, then five minutes face up, followed by five minutes face down for a total of fifteen minutes. This is about 5 minutes longer than I like to clean using this particular ultrasonic cleaner. To ensure the best cleaning possible, I used some super strong ammoniated L&R clock cleaner. The results bolster both points of view. The following pictures document the results:

Interesting results John. Especially the dirt in the jewel screws. While it's not likely that this dirt will ever find its way into the movement, I have always removed all screws when cleaning.

I use a mechanical cleaner, and will always remove cap jewels and peg out everything. It does take more time, but then again, I have never had a return due to a failure caused by my cleaning methods.

Mike,

I'm going to start using a combination of both. I purchased an old L&R mechanical cleaner last year but have not used it yet. I like using the ultrasonic mainly for case and small steel parts cleaning.
With a good jewel pusher, it takes just a few seconds to remove the balance jewels. To me, these are the most important jewels of the watch and should be treated as such.

Then again, no matter how well you clean a watch, it takes just a tiny foreign object to cause a watch to stop. I had one watch returned because it would stop, then run and then stop again. It always stopped at the same seconds position so I new it had to be either the escape or 4th wheel involved. Well, I found a tiny piece of debris that somehow got from my bench to the 4th wheel pinion. It looked something like a microscopic piece of Rodico. Anyway, a successful cleaning goes hand-in-hand with a clean job of assembly!

Thanks for your presentation John.

First, I am a student with about 2 yrs of instruction under my belt. One of the first requirements of a student is to follow the advice and direction of his teacher. I do what I’m told and I tend not to question it. In fact, I hadn’t even paid much attention to the model of cleaner or to the chemicals that we used. I was spelling Duo-lube as Duralube before it became an issue.

Second, in terms of volume, I might not find myself in the minority. In the two years that I’ve been learning, I’ve fully serviced about 160 of my own watches and have had an opportunity to time each one on a new, digital machine. This timing-machine will measure beat and accuracy, in all positions, to the thousands of a second. So, I have little doubt when my cleaning efforts are or are not successful. My teacher has cleaned, literally thousands and thousands of watches. He previously had a TV-Infomercial show where he sold over 100 watches a week…. mostly high-end and all serviced and warranted, for accuracy, for a year.

So… I have every reason to believe his advice and plenty of measurable experience as well.

That said…. I need to make several points. First, the L&R machine that we are currently using has both ultrasound and agitation. That might make a difference over merely a dunk (albeit for awhile) in an ultrasonic tank. Apparently L&R thinks so. When we clean cap-jewels, in that machine, they always face down in the basket for drainage. I realize that it is difficult for liquids to penetrate the tiny hole jewel and drain properly (you can see this when you oil). But… I’m of the opinion that the ultra-sound, plus agitation does indeed do this, under most conditions.

Your example used an 18size movement. This is curious because I DO remove the balance jewels on many 18 size top-plates. The reason is that balance jewels, on these watches, face upward. If the plate has capped jewels in the train, they will face downward. Thus, without removal, it is impossible to position the plate so that all cap-jewels will drain.

Therefore, I routinely remove the balance jewels, on these watches… but I often clean them by carefully placing them in the upper sections of the basket. Thus, I have experience and no-fear about removing and re-installing screws-in cap-jewels.

My objection to doing so, is that many of these watches have cracked hole-jewels that are still serviceable if the hole s not directly effected (ragged). Removing cap-jewels (unnecessarily) increases the chances that these jewels will be further damaged or will simply fall apart. Some of these are extremely hard to find and replace.

In the case of the 16size, 3/4th plate, the jewels are often very pale and you can easily see their cleanliness (or lack thereof) by holding them to a bright light. If they are dirty or cracked, you may need further magnification (as you noted, dirt sometimes appears as a crack or vice-versa). For that purpose, we have a very fine, jeweler’s microscope. It is binocular, 30 power and has a lovely lighted base. Jewels appear the size of beach-balls and it’s easy to see any flaws. I use it whenever I have to make a go/no-go decision on whether a cracked hole-jewel is still useable.

After assembly, each watch is timed. We are far beyond stoppage, at that point but we are trying to restore the watch to factory specs…. or beyond. I say “beyond” because modern watch timing-machines are far superior to what was available years ago.

This points up another “change” in servicing brought about by superior technology. I have read a number of books on timing watches in the early days. Without timing-machines, it was necessary for a watch-repairman to conduct many tests or “proofs” of each component. For instance, on the pallet alone, there were such tests as “drop-lock, drop-lock safety, full-lock, full-lock safety, slide, corner, guard-safety, angular, greater-angular, drop, drop-safety, curve, circular, divergence, in-beat, guard-angle.” All these were separate tests and proofs (even though they have similar names.

When all these tests were completed, the watch-repairman was assured that his components were working properly, so he could “time” the watches by simply comparing them to a known standard and adjusting time. Because of the time it took to do these comparisons, the repairman could not afford to tie-up the watch with too many tests, after assembly.

Modern timing machines allow us to test a watch, in all six positions, in moments. It will also provide a lot of diagnostics, telling us if beat is wide or narrow, whether there is any contact of the hairspring, whether the amptitude (arc of the balance) is sufficient etc. Because of this, is now possible (and proper) to clean, oil and assemble the movement and then move directly to pinpoint diagnostics, rather than "prove” the watch with all the old time-consuming tests. And, an adjustment can be quickly made and immediately tested to determine if it has resolved the problem.

What this means to our discussion, is that it is highly unlikely that dirty cap-jewels will escape detection… either visually or through the timing process.

I hate to sound stubborn, John, but… in practice, we are able to time some considerable number of watches, to near-perfection without unnecessary worry about dirty cap-jewels. When (occasionally) we find dirt (or cracks) through our visual inspection or through timing, THEN we rectify the problem. I can assure you that a dirty cap-jewel will not pass through our processes of inspection nor will it time satisfactory.

To simply call our procedures “short-cuts” basically says that we should ignore technology. Our use of technology, to save time and to safeguard fragile jewels, is no less valid than our communication, by computer, could be called less valid than time-consuming letters to each member.

I hope this helps….

Based on my empirical experience it is entirely possible to clean balance jewels without removing them. My procedure is almost the same as Peter's so I won't belabor that point. One advantage to removing cap jewels right away is that you can see if they are pitted which is often the case when there is a positional problem. I find that the disadvantage, disturbing the positioning of a working jewel and the risk of damage to the jewel, especially one that has a hairline crack that hasn't chipped out at the hole, makes removing the jewel one of the things I'll only do when problem solving comes into play and I have to start ruling out different errors. Just my two cents. I find the use of Duo-Lube interesting. I've had mixed results with that as a final rinse and found that, at least for me, it works best as a final rinse for 7j watches.

Frank "407" Kusumoto

Two points:

1. My opinion was entirely empirical, like yours, Frank. I was TOLD to do it that way, long before, I considered whether it ought to work. It does work, as I have outlined and, in those cases where it does not work (rare) it is easy to see the dirt and take action.

2. The only problem that I have noted with duo-lube is that it might leave enough residue to cause a hairspring to stick. I have, therefore, gotten into the habit of one-dipping the balance and quickly drying it with hot air before assembling it on the balance cock.

Frank & Peter,

Do you use ultrasonic cleaning methods on a capped hole jewel that is already cracked? If so, have you experienced any further damage to the jewel? If not, how do you clean the jewel assembly if the cap and hole jewel are not separated? Also, have you compared the oil retention properties of a capped, cracked hole jewel versus one that is not? Say, over a one or two year period? I haven't but logic tells me the cracked jewel is going to leak oil and possibly cause that pivot to run dry prematurely.

Do you think it is proper procedure to peg both sides of hole jewels as part of the cleaning process? If so, how do you peg a capped jewel? Would you consider the jewel assembly depicted in the ultrasonic experiment to be completely clean? It was in a very strong ultrasonic cleaner for 15 minutes with heat. I'm not sure how long most people run their ultrasonic during cleaning but 15 minutes seems like a very long time.

I understand that every watchmaker has a different cleaning process that will best serve themselves and/or their customers. Factors influencing the process may be time, parts availability, profit margins or customer cost restraints. Whatever that process might be, I just don't want our audience to think that it is acceptable practice to leave cracked jewels in a watch just because they're not cracked into the bearing area. With some possible exceptions (such as pressed-in cap jewels), I think you will find that it is still an acceptable and preferred practice to remove cap jewels for inspection, cleaning and oiling during servicing. The gains outweigh the risks. It would be interesting to know what the AWI schools are teaching in regards to the cleaning of capped jewel assemblies.

The only time I have ever had a problem with ultrasonic cleaning and jewels is when the jewels have been improperly installed (usually with superglue) in the first place.

As to their ability to hold oil.... I simply don't know, John. I've only been doing this about 2.5 yrs now and I haven't yet returned to watches that I've cleaned for recleaning. I'm figuring that with synthetics, I shouldn't have to re-clean a watch for at least 5yrs... and less if the watch is not carried and opened in our rather dusty conditions. As you know, rust is not a huge problem in our climate.

The difference in your experiment and what I do is in the machine. Our L&M uses both utlra-sound and circular agitation. Between baths, I give the baskets a very aggressive spin, outside of the liquid, to spin-off any residue. It's aggressive enough so that the baskets don't leave any liquid on my hands when I take them to the drier. It just might be the force of that spinning that drains the various baths from the jewels. I don't know. (And yes, I've worried about damage to parts from that aggressive spin... but I've yet to detect any.)

Yes, 15 minutes for a single bath is a long time. I put them in 3 different baths of cleaner for 6 minutes each. Then 6 minutes each in Duo-lube #1 and 2. So that's 24 minutes total but only 6 in each bath. As I've said, I've experienced absolutely no problem except in the case where misfitted jewels had been set with superglue. I've mentioned that we do not use any ammoniated cleaner, so we feel that our time, in the baths, is reasonable.

I'm familiar with Fried's procedures for cleaning hole jewels with peg-wood or even with a needle but I don't do either in practice. IF I remove the capped jewels (like I do with full plate watches), I normally put the jewels right into the basket. (Sometimes I use a little mesh-capsule, if the jewels appear very small or fragile.

Although I work at a commercial watch-shop, so-far I have only worked on my own watches. So profit is not a factor. I'm most concerned with the availability of jewels with some concern about the time it takes to re-jewel if one has to search and measure to find the right one through parts. Finding the correct jewel in a vial marked with the grade and model number is often a futile dream.

My decision on whether to declare a hole jewel worthless or not is simply a judgment call on my part. Certainly, my first concern is whether the hole-area is damaged. But the overall condition of the jewel is another factor as well. Certainly, the availability of jewels is another factor. All things being equal, I'd rather have a watch without cracked jewels.... of course.

Basically, I am not overly concerned with whether my judgment call is correct or not. I place the greatest emphasis on whether the watch will time, with a narrow beat and consistently in all positions. That is the "proof" that I require. There certainly have been times when I decided to keep a cracked jewel and then went back and reversed that decision based upon my inability to properly time the watch.

You might disagree but my primary emphasis is always how the watch actually times. Appearances are certainly important as well. And... if a broken and damaged part can be easily repaired... why not? For instance, If I have them.... I might replace any number of screws if the old ones are rusted, discolored or damaged.

Hope this explains things a bit.

John,

I do use ultrasonic cleaning on some capped hole jewels that are already cracked. Usually (maybe 90%-95% of the time) there is no damage. Sometimes the jewels do disintegrate or get damaged. I think in some cases this is because the dried up gunk is holding the jewel together.

The oil retention properties of any cracked jewel over even a couple months or even weeks is bad. Over a period of a year or two there's only a slight bit of oil left. With the synthetic oils this can actually be enough lubrication to leave the watch running properly. If a watch is not used or wound often running it dry or almost dry is not going to do much if anything. If it is an every day carry watch I would be concerned.

It certainly is a proper procedure to peg all surfaces of the jewels. You can't peg a capped jewel. That said, going through numerous ultrasonic cleanings in different solutions and then going through the L&R Varimatic usually obviates the need to peg the jewels.

If a jewel is cracked but serviceable I will ask a customer if they want it replaced. I inform them that it is not the best course of action to leave it and that replacing each jewel is going to cost $20-$35. I also tell them that the cracked/serviceable jewel doesn't make much difference if they're going to wind it up a few times a year to show it to a friend or relative. *SHRUG* It's the customers call.

My own opinionated observation is: For most of these watches, they aren't everyday working tools for the people that own them. The watches are collected. Very many people are happy if the watch is clean, the deterioration process is slowed down by a good servicing, and the watch will run when they pull it out of a drawer to show to someone. The new synthetic oils are a dream come true for watchmakers. Less than 1% loss of viscosity over five years, no gumming up if kept in a clean environment, means that with proper care I believe a pocketwatch can now go decades after just a decent (not perfect) service. Maybe my attitude is too laisse-faire for some but I do ask customers what they want and that's what I give them.

I respect the opinion of those who say that you cannot do a proper service without removing the cap jewels. I humbly submit that there is a difference between a "proper" service and an "adequate" service. If that sounds wrong then so be it. I get almost no "comebacks" on the watches I service. I don't do anything different when I'm servicing my own watches or a customers except that I'm much more careful during the pre-inspection with customers watches, don't want any surprises after I give an estimate.

Thanks for the questions John, interesting topic.

Peter & Frank,

Thanks so much for answering the questions and providing additional information and viewpoints. Because of your expertise, we create a good learning environment for those wanting to try their hand at watch repair and servicing. My hat's off to both of you!

And to you as well, John....

Your tutorials and open attitude will, I hope, take much of the terror out of watch-repair.

For me, watch-making generated my interest in collecting rather than vice-versa. I still don't feel that a watch is really "mine" until I've had it apart! :-)

I don't necessarily think that the ultrasonic is busting the superglue.

I'm not entirely sure what is doing it but I suspect that the heat is the culprit. The baskets, in the ultrasound, get quite warm. Then we are drying the baskets for 20 minutes at pretty high heat. I would suspect the heat more than the ultrasonic vibrations but that's just an educated guess.