WWT Shows CLICK TO: Join and Support Internet Horology Club 185™ IHC185™ Forums

• Check Out Our... •
• TWO Book Offer! •
Go
New Topic
Find-Or-Search
Notify
Tools
Reply to Post
  
M1892 Guard Pin Question "Click" to Login or Register 
posted
I've just puchased a very nice looking Waltham M1892 2 tone P S Bartlett Movement. It was running sluggishly on the bench so I pulled it down & discovered what I think is a "butchered" Guard Pin. It's my understanding that this pin should be more or less straight up? The attached pic shows how this is bent in an "S". Perhaps the pin was rubbing against the edge of the roller table? It's a single roller. If this pin should stand straight up, then any suggestion on how I go about straighening it without breaking it off.

Many thanks,

Phil

 
Posts: 28 | Location: Mosman, NSW Australia | Registered: January 02, 2007
Picture of Jerry Treiman
posted
Don't touch it -- that is the correct shape.
 
Posts: 1455 | Location: Los Angeles, California USA | Registered: January 14, 2003
posted
Jerry, thanks for the quick reply. I just found out why the balance is running sluggishly......whoever replaced the upper & lower balance pivot jewels, used jewels with undersized holes.Thus the pivots were actually bearing ON the holes, not running in them.The balance also needs poising but that's another issue.

Once again, many thanks.

Phil.
 
Posts: 28 | Location: Mosman, NSW Australia | Registered: January 02, 2007
posted
Just one other thing....I noticed the roller table is not sitting right up against the bottom of the hub. Is this correct or should the table be flush against the bottom surface of the hub??

Thanks,

Phil.
 
Posts: 28 | Location: Mosman, NSW Australia | Registered: January 02, 2007
Picture of Jerry Treiman
posted
Yes, the roller table should be up against the bottom of the hub. It sounds like someone replaced the staff, not the jewels. That could explain all of your problems - the pivots are too large, it needs poising (and perhaps truing), and maybe the staff needs to be polished down to allow the roller table to seat properly. Forcing the roller table flush on a staff that is too large could split the roller. As long as it is the correct staff otherwise, all of these adjustments are typical.
 
Posts: 1455 | Location: Los Angeles, California USA | Registered: January 14, 2003
posted
Hi Jerry

The jewels have definitely been replaced. I could tell as soon as I looked at the lower jewel. Bright pink in colour & the setting colour matched none of the others in the movement either. Looked just like the unuseable small hole ones I bought from the web recently. Also the upper cap jewel wasn't seated properly, so someone had done that upper jewel as well. The staff looks OK as far as I can tell with a 10X loupe. It run true in my calipers, but I suppose that's not the whole picture. I just miked the roller table shaft & it's 0.58 which is supposed to be a nominal 0.60. Both upper & lower pivots measure 12. The staff is a 1703A. I'll proceed carefully & report back!

Thanks again.

Phil.
 
Posts: 28 | Location: Mosman, NSW Australia | Registered: January 02, 2007
posted
Well I just attempted to stake the roller table to the staff. Went on way too easy & when it got to the base of the staff up against the base of the hub, it went on way way too easy & now it rotates on the staff with almost now pressure. My question is, what is the best way to close the hole in the roller table? Round face punch? Or as they suggest in the K & D "Staking Tools & How to Use Them", using the triangular pointed punch?

Thanks.

Phil
 
Posts: 28 | Location: Mosman, NSW Australia | Registered: January 02, 2007
IHC Member 229
posted
I believe the tri-sided punch method is frowned upon...but it works....check the roller table carefully...one side might be chamfered...the other side of the hole may not...which side goes up against the balance hub...I forget?
 
Posts: 148 | Location: Somerville, New Jersey USA | Registered: November 28, 2002
Picture of Jerry Treiman
posted
Any method of modifying the roller is frowned upon for a couple of reasons. One is that the next time a staff is installed, if the dimensions are correct the roller will then be too tight and might split. Closing the hole is usually done on just one side and therefore it is snug on only one edge and the table can rock, although if it snug against the hub that should stabilize it. The three-corner punch contributes to the risk of splitting the hub. The proper way is to use a staff with the proper dimensions, and this should be checked when selecting the staff before installation. All of these things being said, a lot of people do just close the hole. You should take into account the quality/value of the watch when deciding between correctness and expedience.
 
Posts: 1455 | Location: Los Angeles, California USA | Registered: January 14, 2003
posted
Even though the hole only has to be closed a very small amount, I'm going to use another staff as suggested by Jerry. The reason is, it's a nice movement & I want to keep it. Now my next question is, would this balance be riveted or would it be friction? I've had a look & can't see where it has been riveted. Can I just press the balance off the staff I will I have to use a lathe to cut off perhaps a riveting that I can't see with my 10X loupe?

Phil
 
Posts: 28 | Location: Mosman, NSW Australia | Registered: January 02, 2007
Picture of Jerry Treiman
posted
The 1892 model Waltham uses a riveted balance staff.
 
Posts: 1455 | Location: Los Angeles, California USA | Registered: January 14, 2003
  Powered by Social Strata  
 


©2002-2023 Internet Horology Club 185™ - Lindell V. Riddle President - All Rights Reserved Worldwide

Internet Horology Club 185™ is the "Family-Friendly" place for Watch and Clock Collectors