Just what is an “inexpensive jeweled watch”? Often such a mechanism is defined by its manufacturer, like New York Standard. Regrettably, that really does not define the actual features that categorize a piece as an “inexpensive jeweled watch”. In the marketplace, a plain jeweled, 6-size New York Standard mechanism would compete head-to-head with a Waltham plain jeweled, “U” material Seaside. Only the New York Standard piece would be defined as an “inexpensive jeweled watch”, not the Waltham. Why? Can someone explain this? Thanks!

Try fixing them, or just disassembly and cleaning. That will help explain the difference.

Mark, I totally agree with David on this. Both watches might be 7J, but the tolerances on the NY Standard are very sloppy. The tolerances on the 7J Waltham will meet the same high standards as a 17J watch. As David said--tear apart one of each and reassemble. You will readily see the difference.

Tom

Tom;
Thanks for fleshing-out Dave's comment. Erratic construction is certainly something I can understand. Unfortunately, I no longer have the motor control in my hands to actually dismember a watch movement. However, accepting what you and Dave say, I must wonder how did New York Standard remain independently in business for so long and for what possible reason were they acquired by the Keystone Case Company in 1903. Any thoughts?

Mark, Contact Lindell and see if you can buy a copy of Michael Harrold's "American Watchmaking, A technical history of the American Watch Industry". IHC 185 got some recently to sell to members.

https://ihc185.infopop.cc/eve/f...1042382/m/9911065382

This is good reading and gives you a full deatiled history of American watch manufacturing, including detailed "family tree's" of the American watchmaker's. It was first ublished as supplement to Spring 1984 magazine, and is a most valuable addition to any American Watch collector's library.

Mark, What I have read and heard about New York Standard is that they filled a certain nitch in the watch market. Their watch was a jeweled watch, that offered a porcelain dial and a choice of case, but their price was just above a dollar watch that did not give the above options. So, it was the low price and the options available that made them a seller.

A NY Std watch was a decent timekeeper, ie 2-3 minutes/day, which matched a dollar watch for performance. The problem was getting them worked on by a jeweler. Watchmakers hated them. Because of the sloppy tolerances, they took longer to reassemble, and then, once reassembled, there was no guarantee that the watch would work correctly or keep time.

I've experienced the same things on working on New York Sdt watches. It takes me three times as long to reassemble one. That goes for a 16S 3/4 plate also. The hairsprings were very soft and bend easily. Also, the overly violent action of the balance/escapement caused an inordinate amount of broken roller jewels. It is not uncommon to find many NY Std watches with broken roller jewels. It is also common to find a cheap fix of a roller jewel where someone inserted a metal pin in place of the roller jewel.

Tom

Dave & Tom;
Not only do I have a copy of Michael Harrold's "American Watchmaking, A technical history of the American Watch Industry" I have read it too! Although that was a few years ago and I certainly could not go wrong by re-reading it. In part, Mike’s writing prompted my question. When I read “They [inexpensive jeweled watches] used lower grade materials and finish” it just did not ‘click’. I needed more. What both of you have provided is the missing link: the inexpensive jeweled mechanisms were produced in a sloppy and erratic fashion. In short, the individual component pieces were not well produced. This also explains what you have been saying, Tom – they are a “bear” to work on. Inexpensive jeweled watches may have provided a wider choice of appearance options than those offered by dollar watches, but their unpredictable operational nature doomed them once the market was saturated. Thanks.

Well, Looks like I should have read this archived file before I bought this Perfection. Oh well, we'll see what it looks like when I get it!
Won't be the first mistake I ever made.

Dave for $20.50 you may have a chance if the balance staff is OK. I make more expensive mistakes choosing the wrong restaurant. (Hint, if the parking lot is empty, STAY AWAY!)

Thanks Dave,
I hear you.

Here's some more pictures. Can't quite identify this grade. Anyone able to help me nail it down?
Looks like some mismatched hands? What's that hour hand from?

Ser. No. 6652965
Can't seem to find any production numbers anywhere.

It is a New York Standard Watch Co., "Perfection" model. In running condition a 16 or 18s hunter NYS "Perfection movement in an OF case would value at <$75.00. It is "guesstimated that NYS made up to 30 Million wwatches from 1885-1929. I would put this at about 1920.

I have inexpensive jeweled watch Elgin 7 jewels
that can put few 21 jewels to a shame (runs like RR watch) its my cary in salesman case to show the movement why ? runs like tank and its better them any quartz out there and its inexpensive jeweled watch.
Cheers all!

An interesting discussion. I fully agree with Dave and Tom. The New York Standard was the Timex of the day in my mind. Better than the dollar watch but when they break not worth fixing. I have owned several NYS movements in the original red cardboard boxes and I remember an old watch maker from years ago telling me that they just used to put in a new movement a lot of times rather than try to do extensive repair work on them. I do not know the truth of that but it sounds reasonable.

Well, I have this Perfection cleaned, oiled and running, but as the picture shows the hands are not correct but I'm trying to use them anyway, until I see how reliable it is.
Problem is the minute hand was loose. So... I got out the old staking set and tightened up the hole. Now the hole is too small and I don't have any broaches!!!

Need a little education on replacing hands. As shown above, in the picture of this old Perfection, the Minute hand and second hands appear to be correct and the color is blue. The hour hand however is purple and does not appear to be correct.
How do I go about finding a decent pair of hands that will fit?
What tool(s) do I need to make a hand fit properly?
Do I need one of these and then some broaches?

YES! A little watch oil on the broach helps too. Also, when using the broach, slide the "old" hand (or base piece if hand is broken off) on the broach and with a marking pen, mark next to the size part toward the small end of the broach. This allows you a marker guide to stop before you oversize the hand.

Thanks Dave, I've never seen this done, so I appreciate the instruction.
I just posted a WTB for some hands for this watch. The minute hand looks correct, but the hour hand doesn't and is also purple, not blue.
My $20 watch is running decent, (missing the minute hand).