# Jewels, Does More Equal Better?



## Raptor (May 1, 2010)

Quick question really, does more Jewels in a watch

equate to better quality?


----------



## citizenhell (Jul 12, 2010)

Raptor said:


> Quick question really, does more Jewels in a watch
> 
> equate to better quality?


IMHO which isn't expert by any stretch I would have thought the following;

If you mean an individual manufacturers 29J is better than it's 23J - possibly.

If you mean ANY 29J is better than ANY 23J - probably not.


----------



## Silver Hawk (Dec 2, 2003)

Raptor said:


> Quick question really, does more Jewels in a watch
> 
> equate to better quality?


Depends why there are more jewels....google "Waltham 100 jewel watch"


----------



## ollyhock (Feb 9, 2009)

lubricants play just as bigger role as jewels.

alsoit depends on the amount of complications a watch has, there just there to assist vital wear points


----------



## tixntox (Jul 17, 2009)

Do they wear where they wear a coat of oil or wear where there is an oiled jewel where there is less wear than where they don't? If so, where is it better to wear the wear resistant coating? Where indeed!









Mike


----------



## AlexC1981 (Jul 26, 2009)

That's a bit like asking if two pies are better than one pie. Generally yes, but not all pies are created equal and sometimes you want a quiche.


----------



## Chromejob (Jul 28, 2006)

It's like toppings on a pizza. Some people love the "meat lovers' special," with 6 types of meat, one cheese, a little sauce, and antacid tablets you have to provide yourself. For others, a simple pizza with 4 cheeses, good tomato sauce, and thin crust takes the day. Either done well are delic'. Either done by idiots will leave your stomach upset and your gf giving you dirty looks for a day or two.

As I understand it, the more layers or transitions a watch has (or needs), the more jewels needed for gears to spin in. But I think my mom's old Caravelle (hour, minute, sweep seconds, manual wind) is a 7-jewel movement that keeps to +/- 3secs/day. I know I've seen diagrams/photos of watch movements sportin' 40 or more jewels, uncounted parts (500-1000?), and all I could think was, "Gads, that must cost a lot to service every 5 years." :huh:  :dontgetit:

So, no, I don't think Q = (J * x).


----------



## Raptor (May 1, 2010)

Just to clarify, if I had two identical model Rolex Sub's(I wish) same year

of manufacture and one had 15 jewels and the other 21 would the 21 jewel

technically be better.

Forget pizza and pies 

The reason I ask is that I have seen a watch with 17 jewels which is

exactly the same as a model I have but mine has 21 jewels. It's really

to try and understand why a watchmaker would produce the same watch

but with a different amount of jewels.


----------



## Drum2000 (Apr 2, 2010)

I would like to state here for the record, and lets be perfectly clear about this, in light of all which has been said before on this topic, that it is my considered opinion that I honestly don't know.


----------



## Morris Minor (Oct 4, 2010)

My understanding is that watches don't really need more jeweling than the typical 17 to function accurately and reliably. However, it's quite clear that makers (and the buying public) equate more jewels to higher price, and to higher quality - i.e. better quality of parts and finish, more accurate adjustment at the factory. So although higher jewel count may only have some limited benefit technically, I reckon it's more of an indicator of higher build / adjustment standards. An example I know is the Citizen 'Leopard' high beat watches of the early 1970's based on their 7xxx series of movements - 28,800bph with 24 jewels were the least expensive, next came 26j variants, with 28j models running at 36,000bph, some graded at chronometer grade, being most expensive. Finally, at the top of that tree was the Glorious Citizen, with 31 jewels, again based on the 7xxx movement.

Stephen


----------



## Chromejob (Jul 28, 2006)

Raptor said:


> Just to clarify, if I had two identical model Rolex Sub's(I wish) same year
> 
> of manufacture and one had 15 jewels and the other 21 would the 21 jewel
> 
> technically be better.


No. And they can't be identical, the 21-jewel unit almost certainly has a different movement, perhaps a date wheel or automatic wind.



Raptor said:


> Forget pizza and pies
> 
> The reason I ask is that I have seen a watch with 17 jewels which is
> 
> ...


It's not a matter of decoration, the jewels in a watch movement refer to functional requirements. More intrinsically means more complicated (presumably more accurate, or just more functions). I would guess day, date, moon phase would qualify.

I thought I'd read this being covered before, here or elsewhere. You will find your 17-jewel vs. 21-jewel answer in here (including why always an odd number):

The More jewels the better! Or not!

Jewels? (incl. superb explanation by Mr. RLT)

How many jewels? (with Mr. RLT again providing perspective)

Jewels

How many jewels?

Kinds of movements,... jewels, etc?

Jewels in Mechanical Movements

17,21,25 Or 31 Jewels... Why?

Not saying it's a tired out topic, actually fascinating and always interesting to read new insights into watchmaking.


----------



## watchnutz (Jan 18, 2008)

Just for the record, I am currently carrying a 100 year old pocket watch with no jewels and it is keeping time. Also have 50-60 year old Timexes with no jewels that run and keep reasonable time.


----------



## Chromejob (Jul 28, 2006)

John Harrison's H-1 was made of a type of wood (I can't remember what, but it's discussed in the PBS NOVA program "Longitude," from the book) that would require minimal lubrication. It still keeps super-accurate time today, hundreds of years after its manufacture.


----------



## broken guzzi (Jan 6, 2010)

Thanks for the info on the jewels, I always wondered when a movement would reach a reasonable limit and I know now that more jewels are not necessarily better!once again thanks for taking the time to link the threads to give us not so knowledgeable a better insight. Regards, jim


----------



## Roger the Dodger (Oct 5, 2009)

Here's a link to another site about  Watch Jewels  but you've probably read enough by now!!


----------



## Raptor (May 1, 2010)

Hmmm, plenty of reading material there. I suppose it would

be possible that a watchmaker might use different jewelled

movement's simply to use up leftover stock and in the process

produce the same watch but with the differing jewel count?

Here's what I have seen. The first is a 17 jewel SERVICES

manual wind movement with date.










This is my 21 jewel SERVICES manual wind movement with date.










And that's where I started this from. They are exactly the same. Same

dial same case same hands.


----------



## howie77 (Jun 21, 2009)

To each their own, of course, but both work equally well with chips.


----------



## stevieb (Feb 12, 2010)

Its difficult to distinguish if the 21 jewel movement is better because watchmakers trade on the consumers asumption more jewels better movement.

If you consider a clever watchmaker who's main aim is to make money they can fit the additional jewels in places that are cheaper and easier to get to or if it was pre 1974 fit jewels that give no real performance benefit and could have been simply for decoration.

If you wish to understand fully if the 21 jewel version is better you need to firstly work out where the additional are fitted. Then with this information take a look a quality 21 jewel movement.

If your additional jewels are in the same location as these then you can say the 21 jewel version is conciderably better than the 17 jewel and anywhere inbetween is an improvement.

What you'll hope to find is this:-

Third Wheel- 2 jewels.

The Centre Wheel - 2 jewels

The 4th Wheel - 2 jewels

The Escape Wheel - 2 pivot jewels and 2 cap jewels

The Pallets - 2 jewels

The Lever - 2 pivot jewels and 2 cap jewels

The Impulse Pin - 1 jewel

The Balance - 2 pivot jewels and 2 cap jewels

Total 21 jewels.

Its difficult to say what you'll find.

I hope this has at least put you in the right direction of finding out for your self. If dont know where these pivots are you'll find an exploded drawing on google images.

Regards steve

Edit for typo


----------



## Stan (Aug 7, 2003)

I have a Hamilton `Trent` fitted with the well respected grade 770 movement that has 22 jewels. This is a dress watch and not designed for rugged use, but the accuracy of the movement seems to be in the order of +4 seconds a day on the wrist (this watch is hand wound, not automatic).

http://myweb.tiscali.co.uk/stanzplace/html/hamilton_trent.html

The movement seems to have been "built to last" unlike the casing, which is typical for a dress watch of that era. It would have been easy to "bugger up" a watch like this with a little carelessness, which is unfortunate considering the quality of the mechanicals.

I've always been amazed at the ruggedness and utility of Timex mechanical watches with their pin pallet movements. The TV adverts I saw as a kid certainly got me attracted. 

The Swiss non- jeweled pin pallet watches that advertised themselves as having "21 Medals" (and other bullshine)didn't impress as much as the honest non- jeweled pin pallet watches from Timex and its associate brands.

I might have to buy a few more Timex mechanicals, I can't afford the Hamiltons these days.:wink1:


----------



## Chromejob (Jul 28, 2006)

Raptor said:


> Hmmm, plenty of reading material there. I suppose it would
> 
> be possible that a watchmaker might use different jewelled
> 
> ...


Absolutely. Some makes might use movements sources from different sources, or designs.



Raptor said:


> And that's where I started this from. They are exactly the same. Same
> 
> dial same case same hands.


*... different movements*. You need to see the movements to see what's inside.


----------



## mel (Dec 6, 2006)

The same maker (Services) also produced or had produced by others, movements without jewels and anything from 1 jewel upwards. They still work fine - as Mach will testify, owning almost the world's supply of Services watches, all different grades. :yes:

And whilst Timex is known for pin pallet pressed steel movements of the utmost simplicity, those also keep good time even after many years - but Timex also used 21 jewel movements in some watches, and these are well respected movements :notworthy:

And our own SMITHS used 1, 5 and 7 jewel movement as well as pin pallet and high jewel count innards - you paid yer money and took yer choice!









If you like it, and it keeps times, it's good enough for me!


----------



## Morris Minor (Oct 4, 2010)

Raptor said:


> Here's what I have seen. The first is a 17 jewel SERVICES
> 
> manual wind movement with date.
> 
> ...


Nothing to do with jeweling, but I noticed that my Citizen Auto-Dater from 1965 has the same bezel as your Services - do you know when yours was made?:










Stephen


----------



## Raptor (May 1, 2010)

Morris Minor said:


> Raptor said:
> 
> 
> > Here's what I have seen. The first is a 17 jewel SERVICES
> ...


Hi Stephen, I have been informed by the sites

Services guru(Mach) that it dates roughly 60's/70's.

Hope that helps.


----------



## mach 0.0013137 (Jan 10, 2005)

Raptor said:


> Morris Minor said:
> 
> 
> > Raptor said:
> ...


It`s possible to roughly date Services watches by the style of the logo...










Illustration by Rich (rhaythorne)

It`s begining to look like I might be able to add to this chart so watch this space :wink2:

I should add here that there was an earlier version...

*Services** `Calender`, (Swiss Made) 17 Jewels circa late 1950s*










also both Oris & Newmark had near identical watches one of which was most likely supplied to Services :wink2:

BTW, loving that Citizen :wub:


----------



## Raptor (May 1, 2010)

mach 0.0013137 said:


> Raptor said:
> 
> 
> > Morris Minor said:
> ...


I opened mine up the other day and the movement

is marked *TRICE WATCH INC*, does anyone

know anything about them?

I posted a pic here

http://www.thewatchforum.co.uk/index.php?showtopic=15079&st=345


----------



## Morris Minor (Oct 4, 2010)

Just realised that your Services dial is marked water 'resistant' so that would put it post 1970 wouldn't it? i.e. when makers couldn't mark as water 'proof' or in Citizen's case 'parawater'.

Stephen


----------



## mach 0.0013137 (Jan 10, 2005)

Morris Minor said:


> Just realised that your Services dial is marked water 'resistant' so that would put it post 1970 wouldn't it? i.e. when makers couldn't mark as water 'proof' or in Citizen's case 'parawater'.
> 
> Stephen


 Good point, I`d forgotten about that


----------

