Jump to content

Standardization?

mcass

By mcass
in Watch Repairs Help & Advice

 Share

Recommended Posts

mcass WRT Addict

mcass

Posted
Posted

Is there anything standard across all watches? For instance, will hands from a Seiko fit on a Vostok? Will a 3rd wheel from a Bulova movement fit a different Bulova movement? There could be a lot of different scenarios, but ultimately I'm curious if parts are in anyway interchangeable. Not looking to build frankenwatches but curious.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

szbalogh Super WRT Addict

szbalogh

Posted
Posted (edited)

Yes there are some examples. Usually a manufacturer makes a standard movement and add different complications. So the train, mainspring, balance... are interchangeable. 

Between different manufacturers... no way. But also here is an example. Tha HMT 021 is licenced from the same movement from Citizen. They are interchangeable. But a Vostok and a Seiko? They are completely different makes. No chance here.

An there is the question if one can change genuine eta parts with chinese copied parts? Usually, the non-delicate parts (levers, click spring....) are basicly the same, yes. But i would say a NO for a balance or jeweled bridges. But who knows?

Edited by szbalogh
oldhippy Distinguished Member

oldhippy

Posted
Posted

I can't remember the names but I had two catalogs one for watch stems and the other for balance staffs. I know it wasn't a bestfit catalog. There are movements that have interchangeable parts. I don't know about now but in the 70's and 80's you wouldn't have a Swiss part interchangeable with a Russian movement or American, we didn't have Chinese movements then, or if we did they weren't about around me.  

  • Like 1
rogart63 Distinguished Member

rogart63

Posted
Posted (edited)

Seen custom hands for example Vostok movement on Ebay and Google. So there is hands out there taht looks different then the originals . It's that is what you are looking for? Other bezels to? 

Third wheel on the Bulova could work? Depends on which movement? Check here? http://tech.gleaveandco.com/tech-sheets/bulova

Edited by rogart63
  • Like 1
JohnR725 Distinguished Member

JohnR725

Posted
Posted

So I found your question very interesting which generated considerable thought which also unfortunately results in extremely long answer. Then some of the things in the long answer were mentioned above but I'm just going to repeat everything. So standards normally that would imply that a group of people come together to define whatever's going to be in the standard. So once you have a defined standard everyone could make the same component it would fit. Or you can make multiple of components all the bits and pieces would fit together into something else. But I don't think that actually occurs in watch manufacturing at all. What does occur is if we change the question to interchangeability that does occur.

So let's start off with American watch manufacturing. The companies have to make all of their own machinery which means nothing they make will interchange with anything else perhaps. There does appear to be an early standard that is the diameter of the watch. Often times the watch cases were manufactured by another company.

Basically as I go through the answer the only time you're going to have anything resembling a standard is if something is purchased from another supplier especially if purchased as a generic component as opposed to an exact component needed in manufacturing the watch.

So for American watch companies nothing interchanges with anyone else and even with themselves. The parts book may say that a certain component will interchange with a variety of watches but it may not. If you look at the videos on YouTube on early watch manufacturing you will see the operator at each of the stages is usually hand adjusting the components. I think with the exception of screws conceivably everything else may not actually interchange Sometimes other times there's quite a bit a interchangeability it just depends.

Quite a few of the companies did not make their own cases they were purchased. Then some watches were originally sold as movements only the consumer in the jewelry store would purchase the movement and then purchase a separate case made for another company. But that doesn't mean that all movements will interchange with all cases of the same size.

So we do appear to have two standards from the beginning the diameter of the movement and the frequencies they run at. Except we can't interchange frequencies it's not a component Although it does make it easier for a later day timing machines to work that there are frequency standards.

So sizing standards allow generic case parts or cases but even that doesn't entirely work out for instance. Today to repair an old quartz watches often cheaper to just replace the entire movement. But the older movements are thicker the new movements are thinner they do not interchange. Especially if you have calendar parts then of course there is the dial feet they may not fit physical same diameters but nothing else may fit.

So modern wristwatches casing components tend to be much more interchangeable because they are usually made by other manufacturers. The bands, back gaskets, crowns, case tubes for the crowns and crystals. Although in watch repair we have a problem in that watch manufacturers like to have lots and lots of variations perhaps far too many variations like for instance let's look at crystals at the link below.
http://www.gssupplies.com/plastic_watch.html

So to quote something from the webpage. "Our warehouse in upstate New York has in stock over 8,000 sizes in 48 different crystal styles."  So we have interchangeability somebody who's making crystals to fit a variety of watches. Then as a reminder the number 8000 might seem like a big number but lots of crystals have been discontinued which means you have to have those custom fit.

 

So for wristwatches there does appear to be interchangeability amongst a variety of watch companies who seemingly have entirely different watches. his is where for this kind of interchangeability to really understand what's really going on let's look at the bestfit book. So the last the printed editions are in two volumes now their online the subscription which unfortunately has no pictures. So simplistic this book allows you to look up your watch figure out generic parts mainspring staff stem his mother parts perhaps. They even have a fingerprint section wristwatches all had different setting components. You know the size your watch you look up the size in the book you match your setting components you can figure out which watch you have.

So the company Bestfit Packages components under their own part number system. Then who made the components they sell is interesting in that if it's a really popular model they may have had their own components made. Other times they purchased from the various watch factories so these are real parts from the company's. I had heard a story someone visiting Switzerland in the morning they were casing up from a name Swiss company under their part name their numbers in the afternoon under the bestfit number system. Unfortunately I don't think they do that anymore the watch companies don't want to share.

So when you do an example for this I'm using ETA they manufacture movements almost never as far as I know cased up anything with their name on it with the exception of some minor Variations I think basically advertising purposes. So we look up just anyone in particular in this case 1170 it lists all the parts like the staff number 273. But it also lists the base model which is 1070. Somewhere in the back of the book ill tell you what the difference is between the two which parts don't interchange for our different. Then also in the back of the book we can look up the staff to see which other watches they come in.

So the staff can be found in a Benrus, for eta to a mentioned above and two more. And also vulcain and wittnauer..So we don't have a standard way basically just have one watch. This is why companies like bestfit and others become popular because the material houses would conceivably have to stock the same staff for a whole bunch a different watches were as reality it's just one staff.

Then there are some parts that at least modern companies no longer make for themselves for the most part. That would be jewels and mainsprings. But just because they purchased them does not mean we have a limited quantity of standard sizes. For instance let's look at the catalog of Generale Ressorts Sa..So first section of the book 207 pages telling you which mainspring will fit your watch. The back of the book 125 pages listing the mainsprings numerically. Like the example above for bestfit sometimes a particular mainspring could fit quite a few other watches because it possibly the same watch but it might not necessarily be it may just be that the mainspring fits a variety of Totally different watches.

Then for jewels because that's A specialty field for the most part there purchased or the probably custom manufactured for the watch companies unless your hand making a watch in which case people will make their own sometimes. Here's a very specific example we have two links the first tells you the watches their product goes in the second the variety they make. So here if you want to make use of their component you would have to conform to their standard sizes to get it to fit. Plus it back to using these in manufacturing there is some licensing and stuff involved which is why usually always find their name on the dial of where were selling something using this

http://www.incabloc.ch/en/pieces_rechanges.php

http://www.incabloc.ch/images/cat/tableau-synoptique.gif.

So I think we're seeing an evolution of interchangeability only because it allows people to purchase generic stuff not actually done by all the companies getting together and planning that everything will be a standard.

 

 

 

  • Like 2
digginstony Super WRT Addict

digginstony

Posted
Posted

Even screws are not as interchangeable as one might think. Screws used to be "Hand Cut" I believe it was Sir Joseph Whitworth, in the UK, in the 19th Century that was a pioneer in the standardisation of "Threads"

Sent from my SM-G920F using Tapatalk

  • Like 2
mcass WRT Addict

mcass

Posted
  • Author
Posted

Wow! Awesome info! I can't tell you how much I think I just learned. I didn't expect such detail of answers. Thank you for contributing!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 Share
Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...