Thread: what are the worst movements you've worked on, and why?

[GaspardColigny]

I'm curious; what movements have you found to be a pain to work on, and why?

I'll start off of course. My top contender is the Citizen 5204, it has 4 tiny springs in the day-date complication. They are an enormous pain;
I've lost, found, and lost again, multiple of these springs.  

Good runners up are the Cattin 66 and Jeambrun 75: cheap French movements, that I have spent too much time on to get running reliably, and failing often.
My limited experience is definitely a factor in this, but I've had quite a few of these movements just not wanting to cooperate, in contrast to many other movements.
 

Looking forward to your 'angstgegners'!

Edited January 31, 2022 by GaspardColigny
typo

[clockboy]

Many here will have their tales of woe with movements but for me in regard to performance is movements with pin lever escapements. Once serviced they run just fine BUT on a timegrapher a nice snow blizzard is the picture.  Example:  I recently serviced a Ingersol pocket watch for a friend which is a very simple movement but a single plate holds all of the wheels and balance. So really fiddly to assemble but after a clean and lubrication and running it keeps really good time but the reading on the timegrapher is atrocious. But the important part is the customers are pleased.If I was to try and explain about a timegrapher reading and beat error etc their eyes would just glaze over. 

 

 

[mikepilk]

Funny you should mention the Citizen 5204. I too have mentioned to people what a pain it was with all those springs in the day/date. It's the most complicated non-chronograph watch I've worked on.

I made a note when I was cleaning it to remind me which went where.

I only ever buy watches with at least 15 jewels, I've never worked on one with less.

[spectre6000]

I had a 40s vintage Certina where I was not the first amateur inside. Nothing intrinsically challenging about the movement as a movement, so much as the history of that particular movement and my relative naiveté when I tore into it. Mainspring was wrong, balance and/or fork were wrong, and I still haven't made it happy. On top of that, the crystal was super weird and special, and that was a whole thing on its own. It's currently in the "when I have more skill/tools" box.

[oldhippy]

Any watch that has Timex on it all bloody crap movements in my opinion. Russian watch movements back in the 70's and 80's were also sods to repair rough and ready finish on them. Give me a high end watch to work on any day.

[jdm]

7 hours ago, mikepilk said:

Funny you should mention the Citizen 5204. I too have mentioned to people what a pain it was with all those springs in the day/date.

Then Seiko came and taught'em how to make a calendar without any spring 

 

15 minutes ago, oldhippy said:

Give me a high end watch to work on any day.

And give to me the associated income and reputation 

[nickelsilver]

For me it's JLC 426 and its several derivatives. They never run well, absolute struggle to get decent amplitude, then there's a ~80 degree drop from horizontal to vertical. Set the escapement to the living limits. Change mainspring thickness by 0.005mm and it rebanks, flatten pivots to get the horizontals to drop off. But the new spring is 10mm shorter/longer and it doesn't hit the power reserve anymore (for those with Bergeon mainspring winders this is like a 000). Luckily when I worked on these it was for a manufacturerer and they'd eat it if it took 40 hours to get a 6 position delta of 40s. And it often took that long.

 

 

Then you deliver, the contrôleur sticks it in the demagetizer and whoooop back it comes because it now has 45s delta. Then we'd charge for the extra 12h to get it to 40 again haha.

 

Worked on many 101s and 104s, way fewer issues. Made staffs, pinions, stems, setting springs, all kinds of stuff for them.

 

Actually the JLC 103, oval movement between the 104 and 426, had to vibrate a hairspring with a beat of 22,200. They were more lenient on the rate there (still under 40s!). Also rebuilt the mainplate in steel on one of those.

 

For regular movements I actually hate the ETA 2892, and way more the 2000. The 2000 is an absolute anomaly, even if I don't like the 2892 it's a good movement.

Edited January 31, 2022 by nickelsilver

[GaspardColigny]

1 hour ago, jdm said:

Then Seiko came and taught'em how to make a calendar without any spring 

 

And give to me the associated income and reputation 

I have an early 60's Seiko Champion and after servicing it runs +_ 2 secs per day, amp of 270 and BE of 0.0, I've come to really enjoy Seiko over the last months..

[GaspardColigny]

26 minutes ago, nickelsilver said:

For me it's JLC 426 and its several derivatives. They never run well, absolute struggle to get decent amplitude, then there's a ~80 degree drop from horizontal to vertical. Set the escapement to the living limits. Change mainspring thickness by 0.005mm and it rebanks, flatten pivots to get the horizontals to drop off. But the new spring is 10mm shorter/longer and it doesn't hit the power reserve anymore (for those with Bergeon mainspring winders this is like a 000). Luckily when I worked on these it was for a manufacturerer and they'd eat it if it took 40 hours to get a 6 position delta of 40s. And it often took that long.

Then you deliver, the contrôleur sticks it in the demagetizer and whoooop back it comes because it now has 45s delta. Then we'd charge for the extra 12h to get it to 40 again haha.

Worked on many 101s and 104s, way fewer issues. Made staffs, pinions, stems, setting springs, all kinds of stuff for them.

Actually the JLC 103, oval movement between the 104 and 426, had to vibrate a hairspring with a beat of 22,200. They were more lenient on the rate there (still under 40s!). Also rebuilt the mainplate in steel on one of those.

For regular movements I actually hate the ETA 2892, and way more the 2000. The 2000 is an absolute anomaly, even if I don't like the 2892 it's a good movement.

That is a small movement!  40 hours to get it within spec, damn, sounds like a major mood killer haha.

[mikepilk]

I guess the lesson to learn is, small movements = avoid.

I have an Omega 455 (16mm dia) waiting for a new hairspring. I thought I had the skills to 'tweak' the hairspring. But as it's only about 3mm diameter, I didn't stand a chance ! 

[spectre6000]

8 hours ago, nickelsilver said:

For me it's JLC 426 and its several derivatives. They never run well, absolute struggle to get decent amplitude, then there's a ~80 degree drop from horizontal to vertical. Set the escapement to the living limits. Change mainspring thickness by 0.005mm and it rebanks, flatten pivots to get the horizontals to drop off. But the new spring is 10mm shorter/longer and it doesn't hit the power reserve anymore (for those with Bergeon mainspring winders this is like a 000). Luckily when I worked on these it was for a manufacturerer and they'd eat it if it took 40 hours to get a 6 position delta of 40s. And it often took that long.

 

 

Then you deliver, the contrôleur sticks it in the demagetizer and whoooop back it comes because it now has 45s delta. Then we'd charge for the extra 12h to get it to 40 again haha.

 

Worked on many 101s and 104s, way fewer issues. Made staffs, pinions, stems, setting springs, all kinds of stuff for them.

 

Actually the JLC 103, oval movement between the 104 and 426, had to vibrate a hairspring with a beat of 22,200. They were more lenient on the rate there (still under 40s!). Also rebuilt the mainplate in steel on one of those.

 

For regular movements I actually hate the ETA 2892, and way more the 2000. The 2000 is an absolute anomaly, even if I don't like the 2892 it's a good movement.

Lots of wow in that post. I'm trying to imagine lining wheel pivots of that size and presumed fineness up into a 3/4 plate... All of that, presumably a new movement, and the regulator adjustment is nearly pegged. I haven't tried anything small by my standard yet with the new microscope, but I'm not sure how much it would help with something like that. And I'm only considering basic servicing, not the sort of manipulation you're dealing with. Wow.

[Manxcat]

I am still very new...but I thought it would be fun to work on a Timex and as mentioned above, learned a hard lesson!  I had a model 74 from 1968 which is kind of a pin level but the pins were jewels!  It was just that dang keyless works!  Having everything lined up between the two plates sucked, but adding that keyless works...3 days...never again...ok, maybe...it did feel great to get it together again.

Honorable mention to Pulsar pusher c-clips...

[TimpanogosSlim]

Locust 7J pocket watch movement. Someone decided it would be cool if the train bridge had a convex surfaces for the train wheel pivots to dance around on. 

But also, yes, these low-jewel-count pin pallet movements are so noisy that the Weishi 1000 is at a complete loss.