Whats gone on here?!!

[graemeW]

I know im starting alot of posts, im just getting my head around the various things i need to tackle.

This is yet another 100+ year old watch I have. I don't think I'm going to try and fix this though, I'm not sure. I have another movement, also a non runner, but the replacement looks ok apart from having no hands or crown. Worst case I'll try and make a good one from the two.

But, the one I'm showing here. It has a worn main plate where the barrel arbor goes. It has a cracked jewel for the escape wheel, it has some badly worn teeth on the barrel too. But the subject of the photo is this pallet fork. What's gone on here! The banking pins have, by the looks of it, been filed back too. I have read that when you adjust the banking pins, they should always remain vertical. I thought the pins were worn at first, but they look filed now I look again with more experience.

I'm not trying to get a walk through on how to fix it, just a showing as it's by far the worst wear I've seen.

[GPrideaux]

I don't think that's wear. Some watchmaker has filed it to adjust the clearance between the fork horn and the impulse jewel. Probably the same person who filed the banking pin.

I couldn't comment on whether that was inspired or butchery but it was probably done by someone with a lot more experience than I have. Watches this old have probably been worked on by many different people at many different levels of expertise. Unless it's obvious that another hobbyist has had their grubby paws on it (like the ones that come drowning in oil), I'm beginning to assume that everyone who's touched a watch in the past probably knows what they're doing better than I do. So when I notice something like this, I think, "That's interesting. I wonder why they did that?" but I don't try to reverse it unless it's clearly causing problems.

[graemeW]

12 minutes ago, GPrideaux said:

I don't think that's wear. Some watchmaker has filed it to adjust the clearance between the fork horn and the impulse jewel. Probably the same person who filed the banking pin.

I couldn't comment on whether that was inspired or butchery but it was probably done by someone with a lot more experience than I have. Watches this old have probably been worked on by many different people at many different levels of expertise. Unless it's obvious that another hobbyist has had their grubby paws on it (like the ones that come drowning in oil), I'm beginning to assume that everyone who's touched a watch in the past probably knows what they're doing better than I do. So when I notice something like this, I think, "That's interesting. I wonder why they did that?" but I don't try to reverse it unless it's clearly causing problems.

That's an interesting take.

I agree that, unless obviously not, anyone that's been in a watch  before me, almost certainly knows more than I do. 

I also assume that wasn't done when it was made, so I guess it must have been done to make replacement parts work?

I hadn't considered that the fork was done on purpose. 

I wonder if it's had the roller replaced with the wrong one and the work was done to make it function.

As I say, I have a replacement movement. It will be interesting to compare the two.