waltham Are Waltham Pallet Forks Compatible with Similar Size Movements?

[robmack]

Hi, 

I have a Waltham 1899 Riverside pocket watch with a broken pallet fork pivot. I'm searching for a replacement fork from a scrap movement. The movement I have is 19 jewels, built in 1906. I am challenged to find the exact same movement as a "AS IS" unit in the usual places, but I see much better selection of other Waltham 16 size movements of the same vintage - the odd 17J Riverside but many more 15J 620, and 17J 625 and 635 examples.

Can I replace the pallet fork in my Riverside with one from these lesser, but more common models?

- Robert

[JMElam]

The short answer... No.

The longer answer, unless the pallet fork is specifically made for the movement, it is highly unlikely that all of the dimensions will be correct. 

[JohnR725]

So the 1899 had choices for pallet fork image attached from the material book. One of the problems with interchangeability of early American parts is there almost always custom fit. If you look at the early videos the operator is always adjusting things very few things just pop in. Then the material book I was looking it didn't list the other models it's probably in a different version than what I have.

[robmack]

Attached is an image of my broken pallet fork.  Based on the material book listing above, I'd say this is a 4838 (double roller, straight pivots).

Would it be reasonable to find a donor pallet fork from a similar grade movement and remove/restake the arbor? Ipostulate that this would maintain the custom adjustments performed by the operator for this particular movement, retaining the pallet arbor to escapement and pallet arbor to balance distances.

Edited December 29, 2016 by robmack

[JMElam]

The repair/replacement of the pallet arbor is the only option for this instance. Finding a donor pallet fork for just the arbor would be a viable option. However be aware that you may have to ream the hole for the new arbor as these are friction fit, upper and lower jewels may need to be replaced or the new arbor burnished to fit the current jewels and end/side-shake must also be checked and corrected.

Another option would be to drill out the old arbor pivots and replace with drill rod, turn, burnish and fit accordingly. 

[robmack]

Well, option 2 is well beyond my capabilities.  I guess if I obtain a parts movement, the pallet arbor and pivot jewels from the donor movement will be a set, and can be installed in my movement as a set.  Then, it's checking and adjusting any clearance for proper end shake.

There comes a point where the cost spent to restore the movement exceeds the movement's value.  This watch is very unmolested.  It has a Canadian RR dial (24 hours) and A.W.C. nickel case complete with all the original inspector marks on the inside of the screw back.  There is significant history with this watch and I have a passion to maintain that history rather than send this watch to the scrap heap.

[JohnR725]

So there are two separate arbors determined by shape of pivot. At one time of course it would've been able by just the arbor. Of course at the same time he would've been able to buy a new pallet fork perhaps. It would be nice with Waltham If we had cross reference a part numbers because conceivably there may be others that these parts fit.

[robmack]

Cheers JohnR725.

 What confounds me is that Waltham offered "replacement" pallet assemblies and sub-assemblies at one time, available through their catalogue.  They had to be FRUs, otherwise, why go to the trouble of assigning them part numbers and listing them in a catalog?  Given that the watchmakers at the time could obtain a part for field replacement, what good would that have done if each and every movement was minutely unique in its construction and the replacement part would not have fit? That's what has been discussed in this thread after all.  Did the watchmaker spend hours fettling the part to get the watch operational?

[Tmuir]

I always thought that Walthams (and Elgins) started the mass produced watches.

I don't means this in a bad way I meant that parts were interchangeable between watches of the same model without fiddling, or am I wrong on this?

It was these mass produced watches along with the Swiss watches that spelt the end to the English cottage watch making industry.

[JohnR725]

Interchangeability is an interesting term when related to pocket watches especially American. So mass-produced interchangeable parts at least if we believe the catalogs. So two different videos below Elgin worked really hard to maintain tolerances of all their parts. But even so some stuff is still hands fit or hand adjusted. Things like poise the balance wheel shows up in both videos being hand done. Yet in the catalogs we could buy a replacement hairspring which will not replace the one we have without adjustments. The Illinois video is interesting in that it looks like way more hand fitting.

So let's take a real world example 12 size Illinois. The 12 sizes are interesting because there's only five different models. But even the parts book the models have different plate layouts but still have the same model numbers there's two different plate layouts for some of each of these models. Then they break up into grades and there's a lot of those. So let's pick on one particular 12 size that can be found at the third link below. So it is a model three and in the parts book all the model three parts should interchange. If we look at the Canon pinion and Hour Wheel for the 12 size They interchange with all five models. Except if you have access to a lot of these you discover that they don't interchange. A lot of things don't interchange even though the parts book says They interchange. So the link below there were 60 different Runs for the Autocrat. I suspect that the parts only interchange within the grouping that there manufactured in. It may be that was some parts they may interchange within a bigger than the grouping perhaps the year or something but they do not interchange across-the-board universally just because the parts book says they should.

Pallet forks providing there were no variations with it the balance wheel and escape wheel you should Be able to interchange it. But you're probably still going to have to do a little bit of adjustment on the escapement. But adjusting the escapement at least in Antique pocket watches Sooner or later you have to learn how to do that anyway. Lots of things that are adjustable and lots of ways that they can be adjusted inappropriately especially over the last hundred or so years.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ys4ChOWYNy8

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vTQT6PwgJTA

http://illinoiswatchguide.com/gradeautocrat.html

[robmack]

UPDATE: This past weekend, I picked up a NOS Waltham 4856 arbor with straight pivots and replaced the broken arbor with this part.  The operation was straight forward although it took me much longer to do it because I was learning a new skill and working with new-to-me tools.  I used a staking tool to press out the old arbor and to fit the new one into the original fork.  The pallet fork is back in the watch and appears that it will work once I am able to replace the broken mainspring.

[JGrainger]

I'm pleased this looks to be sorted.

With few exceptions most parts like this (along with vintage machine tools and cameras) were often either made in runs, or with the parts made and selected to fit each other. This means there are plenty of nearly correct parts which may be adapted if not quite the correct part for that particular run / mating parts, or sometimes that the correct part may not fit without spending some time on it. I've fallen somewhat out of love with the idea of trying to order parts in the hope they will be a straight swap/ fit. Once I ordered a genuine replacement Longines staff for the specific model and designation (from memory a size 12 or thereabouts), only to find the endshake was on the verge of being too great for what seemed an unmolested movement.