First, I looked for some lint on the balance or hairspring, or anything else I may have contaminated it with, but nothing. I removed the balance to examine the pivots: good. What could it be? I actually set it aside and went to lunch. When I came back the problem became apparent. I had pulled out the stem, out of habit (because with hacking movements it will stop the balance, which is useful for adjusting the timing nuts/screws, but I didn’t push it back in. This can be a problem because now, the mainspring is turning all the gears in the going train and the motion works, the escapement and the balance, but also the setting wheel, the sliding pinion and the stem & crown. As it turns out these parts don’t turn very efficiently in most watches and this will cause a great drag on the movement.

Moral of the story: if you notice a large drop in amplitude, you just might make sure the setting train isn’t engaged before worrying about any damage you may have caused or problem you may have overlooked. This is a very common problem when working on vintage pocket watches, by the way, not so much with modern wristwatches, because most of them have hack levers.

That’s my story and I’m sticking to it.

Illustrated Professional Dictionary of Horology

One of the world’s foremost authorities on tourbillons, the venerable watchmaker, Stephen Forsey, was interviewed this past week, on the subject of tourbillons, on Swiss radio station, WRS. Stephen Forsey is the forbearer of the Forsey in Greubel-Forsey, a firm that has made a name for itself in the small but highly competitive world of precision tourbillons. In a day and age when any brand with access to a CNC machine thinks they can play “me-too” and pump out a tourbillon for its glitz and glam, it is refreshing to hear someone who has worked with this complication with its primary purpose in mind and refined it to the nth degree.

You can check out the full radio interview here.

For more information, and beautiful imagery, of Stephen Forsey and Robert Greubel’s work, I highly recommend Michael Clerizo’s Masters of Contemporary Watchmaking and Guido Mocafico’s Movement, which we have written about previously here on the blog.

During the Olympics, however its hard not to be an Omega fan. First, I cheer for the United States, Second I cheer for fine watches (Omega). For the 24th time, Omega is the official timekeeper of the Olympic Games.

My first exposure to mechanical timepieces was an old stopwatch that my father stored in his office desk. As a young child, I would pick it up, wind it, and time all kinds of stuff. I didn’t have any idea that mechanical timepieces would be my future, but I clearly was drawn to this machine which was powered by my own energy which I could store in a spring. — Later on, one of my first watches was an Omega pocketwatch which I acquired in Peru. It bears these lovely images of all the medals Omega had earned over the years.

At the Olympics, Omega’s timing capabilities are unparalleled. They are the only firm in the world capable of providing the equipment to time all the olympic events, keep track of scores, and communicate them to the public and the media. The only time in my life where I can think that the timing results were questioned was Michael Phelps in the pool two years ago in Beijing, and even that wasn’t serious. Their systems are amazing and accurate.

This spring I will be heading to Omega’s training facility for their Co-Axial Escapement course and you bet I’ll let you know all about it.

We tend to rate watch bracelets by how much life is still in them. A new bracelet is 100%, a bracelet ready to fall apart and break is 0-10%. A ten year old bracelet should be at about 70% or so under normal use. A co-worker of mine showed me her Rolex yesterday, it is 7 years old and I would rate it at 85%. She takes good care of her watch.

Lets look at a brand new bracelet:This watch, however, which I looked at yesterday is only 10 years old and the bracelet is more like 30-40%:
I’ll spare you the pictures of the body cheese that was packed inside the bracelet, but pretty much their was no open spaces at all. All that dirt and grime is just wearing away the steel and causing this bracelet to wear out prematurely. Keep your watches clean!

1. The obvious move by Rolex is to release a new version of the Stainless Steel Submariner. It follows suit, having redone the solid gold Submariner two years ago and the Steel & Gold Submariner last year.
2. I predict the Anniversary Submariner released 5 years ago in Steel will be discontinued. It doesn’t make since for them to continue it in the old case or to redesign it in the new case. This will cause a feeding frenzy to ensue for the remaining stock of this watch.
3. The No-date Submariner will remain as is - without any changes, it sells because of its classic simplicity and they would be crazy to change it.
4. Having put a full diamond bezel on 36mm Datejust models in Steel & Yellow Gold and Steel & White Gold models last year I expect (hope) we will see this expand to Steel & Rose Gold models as well as to 26mm Datejust models, but maybe 31mm models. I’m a little fuzzy on this one.

Now for what is not going to happen but I wish it would:

5. Annual Calendar - even if only in precious metal watches.
6. Pepsi GMT

Let me know what your predictions are (for Rolex, or for other brands) and what you think of mine.