I have a Ball 998E that will be needing a staff.

Logic would say that the 998E staffs are the same as those for the Hamilton 950E's but I'm not sure.

Does anyone know for certain or have a part number for the Ball staffs if they are different?

Also... I KNOW that the Elinvar hairspings for the Hamilton 992E's also fit the 950E's.... but will they also fit the Ball 998E's?

Peter i think the 998e staff is a bit shorter than the 950e staffs i have 3 that are marked for the ball 998e i will check the length dia. of the other parts of the staffs and see if they are different from a regular hamilton staff.

Thanks Samie.

If you have a part number, please let me know...

If not, if you could give us measurements that would be very good as well.

And finally... if we can't find a part in the shop, would you be willing to sell one?

One of our problems was that the watch was NOT running all that well. The train is very free and slick. The mainspring was suspect because the amptitude was low. We re-streched the old mainspring but amptitude did not improve.

I suspected that the hairspring might be wrong. Some time ago, I bought a half-dozen 992E hairsprings, complete with collet and stud. I am told that they will also fit the 950E but not the 992B. Again, logic would cause one to suppose that the Ball 998E and the Hamilton 950E ought to use the same hairspring since they are identical in their plate design. But.... logic can be wrong.

If we can replace the staff, I'd still like to change out the hairspring if I knew, for sure, that the 992E spring was proper.

The biggest problem in replacing broken parts with parts that look or measure the same.... is that the broken parts might have been wrong to begin with. I suspect as much as we did find traces of glue on the old staff and wheel (always a bad sign).

I kinda wish I'd left it alone (obviously). But... if I have to go through the hassle and expense of re-staffing, I might as well go all the way and restore the entire balance.

Thanks for the help.

Peter

Peter i took a look and the staffs i have are for a 999b ball not a 998e ..they measure .03mm shorter than a Hamilton 992b which was the base movement for the 999b ball i ran into a problem with endshake on one of the 999b,s and was able to get these from slarose a couple of years before they closed out.

Sorry i was sure they were for the 998e,s.

Thanks Samie.

Since almost none of the balance parts for the 992B fit the 992, I'm assuming that there will be no compatibility between the 999B and the 998E or 999. In plate design the 998E is identical to the Hamilton 950E. It's a bridge design, while the 23j 999 is a 3/4th plate.

The watch is valuable enough to warrant the fabrication of a new staff.... if none are available. I would just love someone to come up with a parts book and some specs. I'm afraid that if we use the old staff, as a guide, we are going to be reproducing an improper staff.

Anyone?

...Peter, I agree w/your logic that the staff for the 950E shud fit the 998E...the fact that there was a trace of glue at the balance seat wud support a poor friction fit and also, it's hard to imagine that Hamilton wud change shafts for the 998E just to accommodate the Ball issue...I wud be inclined to fit the #603 staff and match along w/the 992E hairspring and check the result...btw: what are the measurements of the staff found w/the 998E and do they match those for a 603?

That's exactly what I am thinking. I'll try to look-up the specs on a #603 staff and see if they match.

With a night's sleep, I'm convinced that the incident is a "blessing in disguise." The balance had multiple problems (evidenced by the glue). The watch is expensive and deserves to have a proper balance, properly reproduced.

If we cannot find the exact staff, it is possible to fabricate one. If you have a staff that is close, it can be modified it hold the balance wheel and roller-tables at the right height and to provide just the right amount of end-shake. It might be a tedious process but... when you think about it... it's just an axle, after all!

Jim Cope's suggestion worked... in a backhanded sort of way. If you have never worked in a watch-shop... read on.

Jim recommended taking a look at the Hamilton #603 staff which LOGICALLY would seem to be right.

With that advice, we searched our parts and did locate a #603 and it was wrong! I can't figure out why; maybe Webb C. Ball was determined to make his line something more than just a mere private lable of a Hamilton model.

But... in looking for the Hamilton staff, we found a plastic envelope, from Twin Cities Supply, marked "Ball 998 Staff!" Inside were TWO that had been purchased and forgotten.

Twin Cities is pretty knowledgeable. I can't believe that they would package staffs as "Ball-998" if indeed there was an ordinary Hamilton substitute!

I've decided to rebuild the balance entirely. The value of the watch supports that decision.

And... we've proved one of the most fundemental of all watch-shop rules! The ONLY way to find something is to search for something else!