'Services' Chronograph

[Leewurf]

Hi all. Having completed my first strip, clean and service of a 'proper' watch - a first world war pocket watch with a Zenith movement - I decided to push myself a bit further and bought another pocket watch with a chronograph function in 'not working order'. The crown free-wheels and the stopwatch second hand swung in whichever direction the watch was tipped, so there will be some challenges there.

The dial has 'Services' Chronometer written on it and the inner case back has a couple of stamped marks which Google didn't recognise. The movement has no makers name or serial number on it and after stripping it down it looks pretty cheap and nasty. Poor old GW toiled for 50 years only to be rewarded with a budget watch.

I'm under no illusions about the value, or lack of in this watch but it is intended to be a learning experience, so if i can get it going again it will have served its purpose. I only hope all the bits are present and correct - a few of the screws were loose so I suspect somebody has been in there already.

[mikepilk]

From what I can see, the quality looks OK.  There's an 'M' on the movement, but I can find no factory symbol similar.  Can you measure the movement, and provide a pic of the keyless works ?

[JohnR725]

19 hours ago, mikepilk said:

and provide a pic of the keyless works ?

probably wishful thinking for that one in that did you look at the inscription on the back? The 1935 is a bit of a problem I think any of the books that I have that use the fingerprint system the earliest one I have I think is 1950 and I don't know how far back the system goes with typically on vintage stuff we have issues. On the other hand taking the dial off might reveal a name often times there on the dial side on the vintage watches

20 hours ago, Leewurf said:

I only hope all the bits are present and correct

unfortunately I suspect wishful thinking on this one it looks like at least one spring is broken. I've circled the component it looks like it probably went farther and now it does not.

[mikepilk]

6 hours ago, JohnR725 said:

probably wishful thinking for that one in that did you look at the inscription on the back? The 1935 is a bit of a problem I think any of the books that I have that use the fingerprint system the earliest one I have I think is 1950 and I don't know how far back the system goes with typically on vintage stuff we have issues.

I just had a look in BestFit. I picked a random 18''' size movement, Longines 18.25, which according to Ranfft was launched in 1908. So there is a chance.

[JohnR725]

2 hours ago, mikepilk said:

just had a look in BestFit. I picked a random 18''' size movement, Longines 18.25, which according to Ranfft was launched in 1908. So there is a chance.

yes there is always a chance.

or have enough friends and send the image and get the answer back I have below. then if you are in the Seattle area the person who gave me that occasionally gives lectures on these watches yes I remember the watch with the rubber clutch just didn't remember what it look like.

This is a Pierce 130. Good luck with it. It has an internal rubber clutch that must be replaced when it is serviced.

then now that we know what it is we can search for it. a little information is found at the link below

https://mb.nawcc.org/threads/pierce-130-and-134.178909/

 

 

[CYCLOPS]

the Pierce chronos are different animals for sure, parts are sooooo hard to come by also, but who knows something might be around the corner....

[mikepilk]

9 hours ago, CYCLOPS said:

the Pierce chronos are different animals for sure, parts are sooooo hard to come by also, but who knows something might be around the corner....

I just did a search on ebay for "pierce chronograph watch", and there are parts available (mostly for a cal 134).

Interesting story https://www.fratellowatches.com/tbt-the-beloved-and-hated-pierce-chronographe-cal-134/, but I think I'll give this movement a miss!

[nevenbekriev]

 

On 4/9/2024 at 5:28 PM, Leewurf said:

... so if i can get it going again it will have served its purpose. I only hope all the bits are present and correct - a few of the screws were loose so I suspect somebody has been in there already.

See, almost all of the chronograph function parts are missing on the picture, unless You are the one that has taken them off. The movement itself probably can be esily restored as a normal watch, but firs check the winding gears, as You said the crown is spinning free...

PS Today I have to write PSs... OK, I am wrong - now I see that it is complitelly different type of chronograph an it seems almost all is there. The spring that John circled is a jumper/fixator for the column wheel and is not a problem to be made. I still am not complitelly sure which lever must lift the spring that presses the pivots of the counters and I believe that it is the main part missing here. I have never seen such kind of chronograph!

Edited April 11 by nevenbekriev

[Leewurf]

Well that moved along quickly. So its a Pierce cal.130, with a broken spring at least. Between my original post and now I was wondering how the movement accommodated driving the hands round and allowing the reset. I had come to the conclusion that friction must be involved and was going to look closer at all the leaf springs dotted around the main plate, seems there might also be a rubber or fibre component involved. I've attached photos of the dial side - plenty of wear there.

Thanks for the links, time to start learning more. That's why we do this, isn't it?

[JohnR725]

9 hours ago, Leewurf said:

rubber

I believe that is what I quoted up above rubber and apparently it needs to be changed each time you service.

I thought so we could compare things better I swiped an image off the link that I gave you up above rotated the image so there much easier to compare

 

Edited April 11 by JohnR725

[rehajm]

Dial side looks remarkably similar to a Venus 170…in case you don’t have the click and the little intermediate bridge…likely something similar on your Pierce…

 

[Leewurf]

10 hours ago, JohnR725 said:

I believe that is what I quoted up above rubber and apparently it needs to be changed each time you service.

I thought so we could compare things better I swiped an image off the link that I gave you up above rotated the image so there much easier to compare

 

Definitely seems to be a lever missing from both images in the position with the red outline. I assume this acts on the spring which is applying load to the two chrono hand 'clutches'. Need to find an image which includes this piece next.

Thanks everyone for the help so far.

[Leewurf]

While trying to find a picture of my movement with the missing bits present, I have found several in exactly the same state as mine (broken arm aside). A few which have a more complex arrangement of levers also have a different brass wheel on the chrono minute pinion. So maybe I'll concentrate on getting it back together, replace the broken bit, then see where we go from there.

[nevenbekriev]

The missing lever marked red was my idea, but it is wrong. Actually, what actuates the spring that drives the clutch is the resetting hammer itself. You (and me too) still need to understand how the clutches actually work. I doubt that there should be any rubber. Please, show some photos of the parts when dissassembled.

[JohnR725]

4 hours ago, nevenbekriev said:

still need to understand how the clutches actually work. I doubt that there should be any rubber.

It's good that there will be no rubber as apparently that's the hard part to get. Then I believe this watch uses a vertical clutch with With some sort of soft material in between.

[nevenbekriev]

Yes it must be vertical clutch. I have seen something similar with small wheels that have many (240 as I remember) V-shaped surface radial grooves like sun rays. Two wheels stay against each other and their grooves match. The wheels were not pressed to each other with force, but just kept close enough to engage by the clutch driver. There was a screw that regulated the distance of engaging. But here I don't know what is hidden...

[praezis]

If you read the NAWCC link : it says, this cal. has a fine teeth clutch, no rubber.

Frank

[Leewurf]

Off the top of my head I can't remember which was which, but one of the hands had the clutch with the very fine radial teeth as described above, the other had a flat disc with two tiny 'pins', there was what looked like the remains of something black smeared on the opposite face, maybe the remains of rotted rubber?

When I can get some good pictures of both I will post

Here we go, quite hard to get the light and focus right but these pics show the two clutches quite well. As you can see the chrono seconds has the 'washer and pins' arrangement, some black much is still visible and you can just make out the pins on the brass /bronze component. The minute hand is driven by the radial grooves engaging against the overhanging tips of the pinion gear teeth. Not sure why two different systems have been used here, surely the same could be applied in both positions.

I have ordered a replacement for the broken spring arm - postage was more than the part itself - and a new mainspring. Time to start cleaning.

[nevenbekriev]

The radial teeth are for hte seconds register, and the other (which is simple and doesn' take away significant torque from the train) for the minutes register.

[JohnR725]

8 hours ago, praezis said:

If you read the NAWCC link : it says, this cal. has a fine teeth clutch, no rubber.

To be honest I had not read the fine print. But I went back and read the fine print and let me snipped out an image.

So it appears to be I should have read the fine print. But there's also my confusing email I sent the image of the watch the somebody who I figured would know any did. So this is the answer I got back

Now we have a problem or I have a problem of not paying attention to users names in the discussion group. You'll notice in my quoted email to persons name is Jeff who happens to be the exact same Jeff in the discussion. So it's not my fault if the exact same Jeff gives us two separate answers for the exact same watch.

So apparently one of the Pierce chronographs has rubber and the other one does not.