Need Advice Please. I have a Waltham model 57, P.S. Bartlett. 11 Jwl produced Sept-Oct. 1877. Can someone tell what Balance staff is correct and where I might buy one. Thank you.

There were several styles of staff used in the '57 models as different balances were used as production went on. The original staff would have to removed and new staff matched to it. The Swartchild American staff book has part numbers but few specs and no illustrations. Years ago Roy Ehrhardt published an American staff book but my copy went AWOL. It was confusing yet still useful.

Right now on Ebay (as of Tues. 4/27) there are two different Waltham model 57 staffs, listed that way. If I remember right , those were the two most popular model 57 staffs used. (I was in the watch material (parts) trade most of my working life). I would advise you snapping them up now.

William is correct when it comes to several styles of staffs John, I am not to much of a Waltham Model 57 fan but there are in fact 7 different versions of staffs to my knowledge (but stand to be corrected though).

There were "series A" which had 3 sub-model types; "1st, 2nd & 3rd series" known as the "Old Model" once the new model arrived, with the 1st series being "Under-Sprung" and the 2nd & 3d Series "Over-Sprung".

To confuse things even more with regard to the latter there were at last 2 or 3 variations in staff size for the "Sprung-Over" models.

Then there was the "New Model" Series B which had another 2 variations in staff dimensions. So having a serial number and pictures of the movement would be more helpful, but even then it can be still a bit of a lottery without the staff measurements as William has suggested

Thank you William and Bila for your info. Not sure how I am going to solve this little problem but I am mpre than a little confused by it all,Thanks again

If you have the old staff and can get a picture of it or a pic of the complete balance that would help....Maybe some measurements too...Gary

Hi Gary: Thanks for the input. Unfortunatly I do not have the staff. Complete balence and staff were missing. I "think" I have a correct balence but that is it. I am going to look further through my "stuff" and see if I haven't got more balances etc. Propably would not bother with it except it has a nice coin silver case which I think is original. Unfortunatly even when restored it not worth much!
Thanks again.

I am wondering if anyone has a copy of "1909 Waltham Material Catalouge". Apparently it has info. on these staffs?
BTW the serial no. of my watch is 1007791, and it is underspring.. Thanks. John

The 1909 catalogue is much to late to feature the "model 57" John, whoever gave you this info is incorrect. The 1885 catalogue is the earliest I know of, (I do not know if there has been an early one found) but it has them in it, although it has no more info then what I have already gave you

Does the balance cock end-cap jewel retain with 3 screws or only 2? Because it is a sprung-under model it should take a steel non-expansion balance, these would take either a #278 (short waist) or a #279 (long waist)staff.

Hi Bila. The balance end cap is held with 2 screws.
The entire balance assembly was missing when I acquired it many years ago. Don't know why I thought it would be an expansion balance. Will have to check and see what I have in sold balances Thank you for the help.Appreciate it. John

Bila: I just checked the movement(its disassembled) and I am wrong about the hairsring. It is NOT undersprung. What does that do to the situation?

I would say John that the staff number will change and it now introduces the possibility of either solid or expansion and we probaly now have 3 or 4 choices of staffs. So it has likely made it harder without the watch in hand for precise measuring

Just went through some data I have John, you now have 3 options in staffs, the first #277 this is a short waist staff for expansion balance to my knowledge. The second is #280(probably long waist)which is for the Solid Balance and the the 3rd option is the #281 which is for the expansion balance (probably long waist).

The next problem is to determine what type of balance that is correct for this particular watch. There is no clear cut-off for the change-over from solid to expansion balance types. Also I have seen this serial range with both types, I have not a clue if the ones I have seen are original or not

Hi Bila: Thank you very much for your time and effort in helping me with this watch. However for now I am setting it aside (have lots of others to work on). I will keep looking and if you stumble on other info. would appreciate hearing from you. Thanks again

Hello, John:

I have model 1857 A, B, C and D staffs available. If you log on to watchesbyhourminsec.com and search "1857 staff" you may view them.

Regards,

Barry

Hi Barry: Thanks for the info. I am still not sure which one I need (also unsure of the balance). If I can get it figered out I will contac you.
Would you have any input re. correct balance wheel for this watch #1007797? ie steel ot expansion type.
Do you know which balance goes with which staff that you have?
John

Hi, John:

I'm sorry, but I don't know which wheel it should have or which balance staff it would require.

Hi John,
1900 Waltham Factory Ledgers says 1007001 to 1008000 are P.S.B, 11 jewel with expansion balance.
Parts page in pocketwatch database shows #281 for spring over expansion balance.
Here's a link--

https://pocketwatchdatabase.co...altham/1007797/parts

Hope this helps.
Steve

Thanks Barry and Steven. I guess I had better learn how to use PW Database!! Under my nose all this time. Special thanks Steven for your good work, John

Did you find what you needed. I have a cigar box of early 1857 parts and movements. Some complete. Balances. 260-239-7764

Hi Eugene: As yet I have not found the correct staff and balance, however I think I now know what I am looking for. Staff # 281 and Balance # 286 is what I think would be correct. I also have some stuff to go back over in my small collection of parts. With a better idea of what I need I will exhaust the possibility that I have them myself. Thank you for your offer of assistance, John