So You Want A Standard for Comparison
Part 1 of 3

by Watchking

Recently I bought a water-resistant watch with a Vu-back.  Inside there was a 25 jewel ETA 2824-2 movement. I inspected it at my workbench, surrounded by a number of mid-sized lights to provide even light without shadows. I turned the movement slowly back and forth watching the rotor move around it's axle. The light glinted off of the parts that were gold-plated, and shimmered on the parts that were nickel or steel. There was lots of engraved lettering on the bridges and on the rotor. Everything was clean, with a new, unsullied look. It was too new for a watchmaker to have disassembled it, bathed all the parts in cleaner and then lubricated it with a tiny syringe-like oiler. As nice as it was for the money, it was an inexpensive quality watch, screw-down crown and all.

Some friends were visiting and we were all sitting around on padded stools. We were trading watches and everyone was wearing a loupe on a wire. I reached down to a case and took out an Omega watch from the 70s. Very workmanlike parts stared at me. There was much more tiny engraved lettering this time because the movement was adjusted for 5 positions and temperature. The watch had 24 jewels and it was a precision instrument. It had a confident look about it. This watch would be a great timekeeper. Don't misunderstand me, this watch was nicely made, but unexciting. More followed, Jaeger LeCoultre, Longines and Breitling 25 jewel movements and then, an Elgin 761, 27 jewel automatic. Everything was steel, clean and precise.

But sometimes, there can be a brighter glow of inspiration. I asked my friends to carefully open the watch that they were wearing. Everyone agreed and we worked quickly with the faint air-filtering noise in the background. After we had all opened the watchbacks we passed around our prizes. The IWC Caliber 85 automatic (8541B calendar) with its concentrically engraved machine circles was very nice, in a Germanic sort of way. The Bucherer Bidynator chronometer resembled the IWC. The wind-up Audemars Piguet, with it's 17 jewel, 2003 movement had simplicity and neat tiny rows of Cote des Geneve surface finishing. There were nice patterns of machine circles all through these watches. The watchmakers who built them really cared about what they were making.

That's what a standard of comparison should be like. It should show that the maker cared about that particular watch. But how does one obtain a "standard"?  Who can really justify more than a $1,000. or even a $5,000. watch that just keeps time, or maybe it is automatic and shows the date. Museums, as well as people who can afford to own them, are fitting homes for watches like these, even if they are fun to wear. But what if you still want a "standard" to keep you from buying too much average stuff and you don't have a big budget. When a collector has obtained 5 or 6 very nice everyday watches, that is enough timekeepers to meet most typical needs. You might have a generator powered  Seiko or a Movado Visio and/or some other very nice, precision watches either mechanical or quartz. But after a while you may want to own a watch that is of the finest quality and workmanship. How do you do this on a reasonable budget?

You step back in time. As I compared one great watch against another with my friends we discussed the three great eras of watchmaking craftsmanship. Unfortunately, we were not living in one of them. I pulled out a South Bend pocket watch I had recently bought at auction for $71. The watch had a 19 jewel, model 429 movement, adjusted for 4 positions. As we passed the watch around we all agreed, it would be incredibly expensive to make watches like this now-a-days. The watch we studied had the most beautiful pinstriped damaskeening and the engine turned surfaces throughout the watch were perfectly aligned. All the plates had been frosted, and the screw heads were brilliantly polished as well. The South Bend model 429 is a 12 size watch with a solid pink gold train. The micrometer regulator is spring tensioned against a screw that has four deep slots to make it easy and precise to move the regulator stud changing the hairspring length, and it looks much like the Grossman Glashutte style. The watchmaker who had built this watch in 1918 really knew how to make the watch work beautifully and it looked like a work of art. The solid gold jewel cups were polished and held in place by two or three tiny screws. It all meshed together to make for a superbly precise system for measuring time.

Click here for Part 2