# Can a Sherline lathe make watch parts?



## Tef

Hello,

I have a workshop with a cnc Sherline lathe and a cnc mill (i am upgrading at the moment)

Has anyone used a sherline lathe to make watch parts on? if so what results did you get? I have tried several times to use the sherline for serious work but I get mixed results.

Is it better to buy a dedicated watchmakers lathe? Or do you think the sherline can do it?

By the way I was useing the lathe in a manuel mode, not CNC!

Thanks,

Andy


----------



## radger

A watchmakers lathe is extremely accurate with no discernible runout.
I'm afraid your Sherline doesn't come close and would be unsuitable for
most watch work.


----------



## lysanderxiii

Which watch parts?

Case tubes and rings, yes.

Movement parts, no.


----------



## watchknight

I used sherline lathe and mill to make wheels, pinions and repivoting of clocks. I have asked around, there are mixed opinions. Some said watchmaker lathes are easier to make watches, some said sherline lathe is not as effective as watchmaker lathes, some said sherline is more accurate. I don't know. Generally it depends on your skills, your knowledge on machinery and how you go about doing it which is employing the right techniques with the right sherline accessories. I know many people who make watches completely from watchmaker lathe, I have known 1-2 who make watches from sherline. It is not impossible to make watch parts from sherline, it is how you go about doing it. Most horological books revolved around watchmaker's lathe, so far none on sherline. You have to be creative and used accessories you can find, make accessories you can't find. CNC is definitely the way to go if you know how.


----------



## Somewhere else

A friend of mine who occasionally posts on this forum uses Sherline to make balance staffs for both pocket watches and wrist watches. I also know many other people who cut gears on it and do all manners of high precision work on the Sherline. The NAWCC uses it for their clock making school and William J. Smith Jr., one of America's greatest watch and clock makers has written extensively on using it in clock making and watch making.

The Sherline is designed for much higher precision work than most watchmaking calls for and for much tighter tolerances. The slightest overview of some of the projects people use Sherline will be enough to convince the average working watch maker that criticism of this lathe are based on lack of knowledge of its' true capacities, no more and no less.

The watchmakers lathe that most watchmakers are now using are anywhere between sixty to 100 years old, maybe even older. To compare these lathes which were made with basically 19th Century technology to a Sherline, which is made with the most modern precision technology available shows me at least, that people are not looking too carefully at what their own aging watch maker's lathes are.

Watchmakers tend to be very conservative about tools and techniques. This is truly an example of this phenomena.

I use Sherline collets in my watch maker's lathe, and their circularity as measured by magnetic circular gauge is excellent. I also use their WW 8 mm adapter to mount three jaw chucks , four jaw chucks and jacobs chucks on my watch maker's lathe.

Not only is the Sherline a highly versatile tool, but the wide range of attachments they make for WW 8mm lathes of fine quality and very reasonable in price. Even if you do not want to use a Sherline itself, I do urge everyone to take a look at their excellent accessories made for WW Watchmaker's lathes, a line they have in addition to their own Sherline lathes, which I think deserves much more publicity than has been given to it.


----------



## P. Loatman

I'd have to agree that Sherline's would be acceptable as a watchmakers lathe. I don't own one myself, but i've used one and they're quite accurate. If i can cut wheels and even pinions with an old Webster Whitcomb, then a modern, high quality lathe shouldn't have a problem either. Like what's already been said, "watchmaker" lathes are old fashioned and obsolete. There are modern alternatives that work just as well if not better, the only upside to older lathes is that they're usually cheap, but to be honest, i think most people buy them because they don't know of any good modern alternatives. If you search around for new "watchmaker" lathes then you end up finding stuff from Switzerland, stuff that could cost up to 20 or 30 thousand for a full set. I met a lot of fellow watchmaker students in school that had never heard of Taig or Sherline.

BTW, another good lathe manufacturer today is Taig, also made in the U.S..


----------



## rmelle

As for the Lathe I use the Austrian Emcomat 8-6 and for milling a German Wabeco.
Wabeco is little known mill and Lathe brand but very high presicion.
module 0,24 is for this relatively BIG milling machine no problem.
I agree absolutely with Somewhere else, Watchmakers/Clockmakers are way too conservative! here in NL the ONLY good lathe according to the classic clockmaker is the over 50 years old English myford 7 or ruper 7. Wy do you think the stereotype watchmaker is the one with white beard and hollow back, always making philosophical remarks....... ;-) Some romantic view made by non-horologists...
Now you explain to me why aren't we all driving around in 50 years old cars???
About precision: the machine is as precise as the man who works with it!

nice day,
RJ van Melle.


----------



## lysanderxiii

Well, I may get one, I need something to make case parts, be nice if it can handle movement parts as well....


----------



## Tef

Hi everyone

Thanks for all the responses. :-!

Right so from what you I see here a sherline can make watch parts however you have to know how to use it, and have the right fittings (as with all lathes).:thanks

Does any one know what acuracy is required to make watch parts - I am upgrading my mill to be C7 (0.05mm) acuracy...is this going to be enough? perhaps not - I looked at a Cowells lathe, it was very nice looking machine and very sturdy however I was informed it was graded to be 0.005mm acurate...I think my mill have some way to go!:roll:

This guy uses a cowells lathe - and I am green with envy:

http://watchmaking.weebly.com/cowells-90cw.html

I do like wabeco lathes - especially their cnc model interestingly the D4000 look a bit like an old style lorch. One of the more intersting lathes I found was from china...yes a watchmakers lathe from china....the only thing that put me off was name 'Sincere' - in the picture it appears to be well - at an angle! Not a good advert for a quality lathe. If any one has used one of these please let me know your thoughts!

http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/New-Unused-Mi...emQQptZLH_DefaultDomain_0?hash=item414eb6f773

Hmmm I tried to think of a philosophical remark and could not - does that mean I stand no chance of making a watch 

At the age of 32 I dont have a white (or any other color) beard....looks like I have someway to go:-d


----------



## rmelle

Well Dear Teff,
At 36, I don't have a beard either hahaha, or the hollow back.
though driving around in vintage VW T2 '75, 2 Saabs of '76 and '83.
but about presicion you can talk about evenings long...
And make filosofical remarks I think ;-)
My Emco 8-6 is NOT suiteble for watchmaking, google it and you see why...
after cleaning and re-setting dove-tails, nonius clearings etc etc.
I turn over a lenght of 350 mm only 0,005 mm conus shape!
This lathe is not suposed to do this at all.
With Bergeon collets Swiss made and a Swiss made 4 chuck and Austrian made 3 chuck. It is the back bone of everthing I do.
Made a setup fot hand turning with Chisel (correct English??)
What I like is the stability you have on such a big machine.
Also here: I am thé only person to operate it, if a friend of mine, a goldsmith, only looks at it with asking eyes I say NO WAY you may use it... Then I can start all over again... :think:
But: in a sence I am not a real watchmaker! I am a restorer of antique large clocks, watches I do only for clients who I like... I just don't want it to be main income...
but drilling 0,15 mm happens often, always on my Emco 8-6 some say it can't be done, it can be done! Yes we can.. AHA: obama philosophy ;-)
The presicion is in your HANDS, not the MACHINE!!!
Maybe that is why the a machine can perform up to date although it is almost 70 years old: it is in the hands of the craftsman who operates it.
The oldest lathe I have is mid 18th century, can post a picture if you like.
This is actual the best lathe I have, for some tricky stuff I alway use that one... it is in money value and technical value unpriceless.
French made around 1760's
one turn of nonius only 0,35 mm advance (one turn!), incredible!!! only VERY difficult to operate, always calculating... :think:
further has it one rough nonius of only 0,75 mm advance (one turn), this one you use to finetune the real nonius when turning, Yea I know sounds complex, it IS! This is thé most incredible machine there is....
The Wabeco mill is just, O Well, just VERY German!
IE: near perfection, expensive though, payed almost 8500 Euro's for it. NO TOOLING!!! and it was second hand new from a bankrupt compagny, only 4 months old... 
The Emco looks like a T ford next to it ;-)
I like a thread about the machines we use!

regards,
RJ van Melle

PS: Here in Breskens (NL) and region with quite a few Marine Compagnies (for large shipping) I know a man around his 50's makes prop shafts of 8 meters long with a tolerance of only 0,5 mm and a bore over 800 mm. talking about precision!
No CNC involved here, He dislikes it: I can do it as good as CNC he says!
The age of the the lathe: about the same as the man...


----------



## radger

Somewhere else said:


> A friend of mine who occasionally posts on this forum uses Sherline to make balance staffs for both pocket watches and wrist watches. I also know many other people who cut gears on it and do all manners of high precision work on the Sherline. The NAWCC uses it for their clock making school and William J. Smith Jr., one of America's greatest watch and clock makers has written extensively on using it in clock making and watch making.
> 
> The Sherline is designed for much higher precision work than most watchmaking calls for and for much tighter tolerances. The slightest overview of some of the projects people use Sherline will be enough to convince the average working watch maker that criticism of this lathe are based on lack of knowledge of its' true capacities, no more and no less.
> 
> The watchmakers lathe that most watchmakers are now using are anywhere between sixty to 100 years old, maybe even older. To compare these lathes which were made with basically 19th Century technology to a Sherline, which is made with the most modern precision technology available shows me at least, that people are not looking too carefully at what their own aging watch maker's lathes are.
> 
> Watchmakers tend to be very conservative about tools and techniques. This is truly an example of this phenomena.
> 
> I use Sherline collets in my watch maker's lathe, and their circularity as measured by magnetic circular gauge is excellent. I also use their WW 8 mm adapter to mount three jaw chucks , four jaw chucks and jacobs chucks on my watch maker's lathe.
> 
> Not only is the Sherline a highly versatile tool, but the wide range of attachments they make for WW 8mm lathes of fine quality and very reasonable in price. Even if you do not want to use a Sherline itself, I do urge everyone to take a look at their excellent accessories made for WW Watchmaker's lathes, a line they have in addition to their own Sherline lathes, which I think deserves much more publicity than has been given to it.


I find it amazing that somebody can turn a balance staff for a wristwatch on a Sherline lathe. Do you know if he turned the staff in a wax chuck? Did he use the compound slide or can you mount a rest so as you can
turn with a hand graver? 
I'm amazed, I truly am...I honestly thought that these were only good
for clockmaking and less accurate watch work such as stems and the like.
Those Unimats are supposed to be good lathes too, I read that somewhere.


----------



## Somewhere else

radger said:


> I find it amazing that somebody can turn a balance staff for a wristwatch on a Sherline lathe. Do you know if he turned the staff in a wax chuck? Did he use the compound slide or can you mount a rest so as you can
> turn with a hand graver?
> I'm amazed, I truly am...I honestly thought that these were only good
> for clockmaking and less accurate watch work such as stems and the like.
> Those Unimats are supposed to be good lathes too, I read that somewhere.


It's Vespasian, who sometimes posts on this forum.I think he turned them between centers, and used the compound slide. Ask him for full details the next time he posts.

He shaped the cone shaped part of the pivots in a Jacot tool, which is what they are for, but everything else was done on the Sherline. I also know a clockmaker who was once called on to make regulator pins for a very fine wrist watch. He turned them on his Sherline.

I think it's odd to occasionally hear that Sherlines are "only good for clock making". Since when is clock making any less precision than watch making? The Short Pendulum, and some Russian variations on it have only been matched for accuracy by atomic clocks.

The only criticism I've heard of Sherline is that some people find it hard to work on using a hand graver. But I've never heard anyone who owned one criticize its' accuracy.

I don't know anything about Unimats, but William J. Smith has written on using them in one of his books, I believe.


----------



## rmelle

When turning between the centers, The size of the lathe doesn't really matter only possible play in the bearings, if none you could make a balance staff even on an industrial Lathe (theoratical spoken).
Maybe watchmaking appears to be less precise as you can SEE your parts when working on them, and touch then with your fingers/hands.... ;-)

Nice weekend everyone!

RJ van Melle.


----------



## radger

Well I'm very interested in tools also, but I'm not concerned with
shiny new tools straight from the box claimed by some young
whippersnapper to be the best thing since sliced bread as I'm a
white haired hollow backed stereotypical old **** straight out of
the dark ages with tools to match...But I do know that the tools
I have, although old, are very accurate and suitable for the job.

I think that this idea that any old lathe will do provided that the
operator is skillful is ludicrous, even the best turner on the planet
would find it impossible to turn to tolerances of 1/100th mm if the machine
has a runout of 1.5/100ths of a mm.

A good Swiss watchmakers lathe that has been cared for and used correctly
can be just as accurate 60 years after being bought new, mine certainly is,
it is the self centering nature of the cone bearings which means that any
wear can be taken up and the lathe is just as accurate.

Turning between centres is a different kettle of fish and as RMelle has
pointed out, a balance staff could theoreticaly be turned on an industrial
lathe as well as a Sherline, if it is turned between centers. The finest
tool for turning very small, high tolerance parts between centres is
undoubtably the Swiss turns and one of these can be had fairly cheaply but
the skill to use one has to learned.

It's been stated that the Jacot tool is used to form the pivot on a staff
and that is what the tool is for. This is incorrect, it is used for the
final finishing of the pivot ie polishing and burnishing. The forming of
the pivot should be done on the lathe, to grind it to shape on a Jacot drum
would soon ruin the bed. I grant that it could be done but it would be far from
ideal and I reckon to turn a wristwatch staff on a Sherline involves a lot
of improvisation and tool ruining techniques to obtain less than satisfactory
results.

Here are the old and decrepit tools that I use....

An EW 2.5 inch centre lathe .....this lathe is probably from the fifties
or sixties. It is screw cutting and backgeared. I drive it through a counter
shaft and so get a large variety of speeds for machining different materials.
With the backgear engaged the rotation is very slow and it is good for machining
even cast iron. The lathe is fully equiped and has accessories and tooling
which allow it to be used as a mill. It's a lot smaller than a Myford 7 and
is ideal for my small workshop.
This EW is an acurate lathe, it was previously used in a toolmakers shop and
hasn't been abused, it is ideal for clockmaking tasks but to turn a wristwatch
balance staff it falls far short.










I don't have a clue how old this Lorch & Schmidt watchmakers lathe is but
it is the finest and most accurate lathe you could imagine for turning tiny
parts... some will argue that the Sherline is better because it is modern and
new and shiney and it is made with modern and better techniques so it must be
better...they are wrong.
Personaly, I prefer the Swiss pattern to the US or English watchmakers lathes.










Here it is set up with mandril head, used for uprighting and accurate drilling










These are Swiss turns, I used to use these a lot to size bushes, turn arbors,
accurate drilling and even pivot polishing. The work being driven between
the centres by a bow and cotton or horsehair. To the left can be seen a selection
of runners, turning arbors and split pulleys which are used to carry the work
in the turns and the pulleys facilitate the drive from the cotton.
Nowadays this tool never sees the light of day.










My Jacot tool, essential for final finishing or refinishing of pivots.
This is an old tool, I don't know how old...a lot older than me, probably
as old as the combined age of this forum, who knows. Being so old and made with
ancient techniques then this tool shouldn't be very good...and you'ld
be right it isn't very good....it's superb.










As Somewhereelse says...

"The watchmakers lathe that most watchmakers are now using are anywhere between sixty to 100 years old, maybe even older. To compare these lathes which were made with basically 19th Century technology to a Sherline, which is made with the most modern precision technology available shows me at least, that people are not looking too carefully at what their own aging watch maker's lathes are."

Well, that's me told... I guess it's time for me to throw out all my old junk
and upgrade to a Sherline.


----------



## radger

rmelle said:


> The oldest lathe I have is mid 18th century, can post a picture if you like.
> This is actual the best lathe I have, for some tricky stuff I alway use that one... it is in money value and technical value unpriceless.
> French made around 1760's
> one turn of nonius only 0,35 mm advance (one turn!), incredible!!! only VERY difficult to operate, always calculating... :think:
> further has it one rough nonius of only 0,75 mm advance (one turn), this one you use to finetune the real nonius when turning, Yea I know sounds complex, it IS! This is thé most incredible machine there is.


I'd like to see your old lathe, I like old...get thee behind me Miyota.


----------



## tomshep

The answer to the OP is clearly yes, if a balance staff can be turned on it, then it is good enough. Compared to the traditional watchmaker's lathe, it is rather cumbersome and there is the question of vibration from the motor to be considered. It is certainly more versatile but it is the hand on the end of the tool that makes the part. If you work better with a Sherline than with a Boley, then good enough. If you have no experience of either, take a look at the Chinese watchmakers' lathes as well as the Sherline. They are new and complete. 
The most useful skill to have will be facing the tools. That is something I still find difficult but it is essential to good work.
But it is the man that matters. Don Corson built his first watch using a £200 Proxxon mill. He did a lot of rework but it does prove that it can be done.


----------



## Somewhere else

radger said:


> Well I'm very interested in tools also, but I'm not concerned with
> shiny new tools straight from the box claimed by some young
> whippersnapper to be the best thing since sliced bread as I'm a
> white haired hollow backed stereotypical old **** straight out of
> the dark ages with tools to match...But I do know that the tools
> I have, although old, are very accurate and suitable for the job.


You're fortunate to have these tools. I've been in the watch making business since before digitals and quartz. Somehow I don't seem to have picked up your attitude of opposition to technical advances per se, and I am willing to judge a tool by it's performance. I feel that many tool in watch making are judged by their mystique.



> A good Swiss watchmakers lathe that has been cared for and used correctly
> can be just as accurate 60 years after being bought new, mine certainly is,
> it is the self centering nature of the cone bearings which means that any
> wear can be taken up and the lathe is just as accurate.


Cone bearings, which are somewhat like a Morse taper wear like any other bearing. A very common fault of older cone bearing lathes is that they are running elipitically because years of use has caused pressure on one side of the bearing. They then need to be turned and machined to bring them into circularity. There is no tool or bearing I know of that is self healing. There is no tool or bearing that I know of that will resist the ravages of time. These faults are common enough to be written in all books on watch makers lathes. Indeed, I have recently redone my lathe because of scoring of the cone bearings. Have you checked your lathe for circularity lately?



> Turning between centres is a different kettle of fish and as RMelle has
> pointed out, a balance staff could theoreticaly be turned on an industrial
> lathe as well as a Sherline,


Turning between centers used to be the only way to make watch parts as prior to the invention of the watch maker's lathe in the USA and the mandrel in Europe, the turns were the only tool that watchmaker's had.



> The finest
> tool for turning very small, high tolerance parts between centres is
> undoubtably the Swiss turns and one of these can be had fairly cheaply but
> the skill to use one has to learned


Really? I'm sure an English, French, German or Dutch turns will do the job just as well. There is nothing special or unique about a Swiss made set of turns. Indeed, Saunier advises all watch makers to make their own turns



> It's been stated that the Jacot tool is used to form the pivot on a staff and that is what the tool is for. This is incorrect....


 Kindly do not misquote me.I said that the Jacot tool was used to form the cone of the pivot (shoulders). It would have been clearer if I had included the word "shoulders" perhaps. The entire staff including the pivots were made on the Sherline and the Jacot tool was used to form the cone of the shoulders. There is nothing wrong with this procedure. As Freid says "...This tool undoubtledly offers one of the very best methods of reducing or polishing pivots to size and shape..."This is what this tool was designed for. The Jacot tool is basically a turns. Anything you can do in a Jacot tool you can also do in a turns. You can't damage a Jacot tool or a turns by making balance staffs in them.



> My Jacot tool, essential for final finishing or refinishing of pivots.
> This is an old tool, I don't know how old...a lot older than me, probably
> as old as the combined age of this forum, who knows.


 the Jacot tool was invented towards the middle end of the 19th Century about the same time as the American pattern watchmaker's lathe. Saunier, writing in 1870 doesn't even mention it . Like the watchmaker's lathe or mandril, it's not an ancient tool



> As Somewhereelse says...
> 
> "The watchmakers lathe that most watchmakers are now using are anywhere between sixty to 100 years old, maybe even older. To compare these lathes which were made with basically 19th Century technology to a Sherline, which is made with the most modern precision technology available shows me at least, that people are not looking too carefully at what their own aging watch maker's lathes are."
> 
> Well, that's me told... I guess it's time for me to throw out all my old junk
> and upgrade to a Sherline.


While I did not have anyone specifically in mind when I wrote this, I've seen similar sentiments to yours on several forums. Commonly they attribute what I consider mystical virtues to "Swiss made" and insist that no contemporary manufactured tools will reach the so-called "standards" of accuracy necessary to do watchmaking. These standards sound to me like they would be excessive anywhere outside of a space program. Also, it's typical of these posts that all the machines that encompass these mystical Swiss virtues have now long since gone out of production, or reached prices so stratospheric as to require a second mortgage on your house at the very least.

In contrast to this, the Sherline offers a lathe of extremely high accuracy that can be adapted--perhaps not perfectly--for watchmaking and give satisfactory results. It exists here and now and for a reasonable price. It will do everything required of it. What is more, it looks to the future as well as the past as it is CNC capable.

It is a attractive modern alternative to tools which are no longer available. If your have these older tools you are lucky. If not, then the Sherline (and Taig) are alternatives that all amateurs and many professionals might want to seriously consider, at least as a first step into the more complex areas of watch making.


----------



## tomshep

Hear, hear.


----------



## radger

Somewhere else said:


> You're fortunate to have these tools. I've been in the watch making business since before digitals and quartz. Somehow I don't seem to have picked up your attitude of opposition to technical advances per se, and I am willing to judge a tool by it's performance. I feel that many tool in watch making are judged by their mystique.
> 
> Or perhaps a traditional watchmakers lathe is so well designed
> and of such good quality that it's yet to be improved. Even
> brand new Bergeon watchmakers lathes are built on traditional
> designs...You seem to be saying that the Sherline lathe is not only
> suitable for watchmaking, but is actually an improvement on traditional
> design and accuracy.
> 
> Cone bearings, which are somewhat like a Morse taper wear like any other bearing. A very common fault of older cone bearing lathes is that they are running elipitically because years of use has caused pressure on one side of the bearing. They then need to be turned and machined to bring them into circularity. There is no tool or bearing I know of that is self healing. There is no tool or bearing that I know of that will resist the ravages of time. These faults are common enough to be written in all books on watch makers lathes. Indeed, I have recently redone my lathe because of scoring of the cone bearings. Have you checked your lathe for circularity lately?
> 
> Have you ever wondered why so many old watchmakers lathes are
> still in use? Surely you don't think that watchmakers all over the world
> are using rattly old machines which wobble and chatter all over the
> place because their bearings have worn eliptical. The whole point of
> the cone bearing is to retain circularity as it wears, of course it has
> to be adjusted from time to time and any endshake taken up. If your
> lathe is running elipticaly then that suggests the cone bearings need
> tightened or somehow they got out of shape.
> 
> Turning between centers used to be the only way to make watch parts as prior to the invention of the watch maker's lathe in the USA and the mandrel in Europe, the turns were the only tool that watchmaker's had.
> 
> Really? I'm sure an English, French, German or Dutch turns will do the job just as well. There is nothing special or unique about a Swiss made set of turns. Indeed, Saunier advises all watch makers to make their own turns
> 
> Well I called them the Swiss turns because that is the name of the tool
> to which I was referring.
> 
> But you miss the point.....
> 
> We are referring to wether or not a Sherline is suitable for watchmaking.
> 
> I apply the ultimate test....can it be used to turn a wristwatch balance
> staff. You reply yes it can because you know someone who's managed
> it....but it turns out that he used the Sherline as a set of turns, and yes
> anyone can make a set of turns, two nails and a piece of wood can be
> made into turns.
> 
> Kindly do not misquote me.I said that the Jacot tool was used to form the cone of the pivot (shoulders). It would have been clearer if I had included the word "shoulders" perhaps. The entire staff including the pivots were made on the Sherline and the Jacot tool was used to form the cone of the shoulders. There is nothing wrong with this procedure. As Freid says "...This tool undoubtledly offers one of the very best methods of reducing or polishing pivots to size and shape..."This is what this tool was designed for. The Jacot tool is basically a turns. Anything you can do in a Jacot tool you can also do in a turns. You can't damage a Jacot tool or a turns by making balance staffs in them.
> 
> You said
> 
> "He shaped the cone shaped part of the pivots in a Jacot tool".......
> 
> Fair enough, I had visions from your statement that your friend was
> grinding away on the Jacot drum with abrasives a bit coarser than
> diamantine.
> 
> Since the Sherline was being used as turns, then with a tool rest and
> graver the pivots could be formed, no doubt.
> 
> It might be very awkward though and my point was that a cheap
> pair of Swiss, Dutch or even homemade turns would do the job better,
> after all that's what these tool were designed to do. The Sherline was
> not designed to be used as watchmakers turns but could be converted
> to 'turns'
> 
> the Jacot tool was invented towards the middle end of the 19th Century about the same time as the American pattern watchmaker's lathe. Saunier, writing in 1870 doesn't even mention it . Like the watchmaker's lathe or mandril, it's not an ancient tool.
> 
> But don't you find it amazing that these tools were so good that if used
> correctly and cared for they are still viable workshop tools 100 years on.
> 
> While I did not have anyone specifically in mind when I wrote this, I've seen similar sentiments to yours on several forums. Commonly they attribute what I consider mystical virtues to "Swiss made" and insist that no contemporary manufactured tools will reach the so-called "standards" of accuracy necessary to do watchmaking. These standards sound to me like they would be excessive anywhere outside of a space program. Also, it's typical of these posts that all the machines that encompass these mystical Swiss virtues have now long since gone out of production, or reached prices so stratospheric as to require a second mortgage on your house at the very least.
> 
> I know you didn't have me in mind specifically:-d...
> 
> I'm here as the defender of traditional, high quality tools and I like
> debate.
> 
> There's nothing mystical to the virtues of traditional tools, be they
> Swiss US or English. It is an evolutionary trait that tools are tweaked
> and improved, I just don't see the Sherline as being the peak of that
> evolution.
> 
> In contrast to this, the Sherline offers a lathe of extremely high accuracy that can be adapted--perhaps not perfectly--for watchmaking and give satisfactory results. It exists here and now and for a reasonable price. It will do everything required of it. What is more, it looks to the future as well as the past as it is CNC capable.
> 
> It is a attractive modern alternative to tools which are no longer available. If your have these older tools you are lucky. If not, then the Sherline (and Taig) are alternatives that all amateurs and many professionals might want to seriously consider, at least as a first step into the more complex areas of watch making.


Your summing up is good and you put a good case for the Sherline as a
serious watchmaking tool, even though you seem to have a distinct lack
of experience with the machine.

But although this machine undoubtably has uses in the workshop I still
maintain that the ultimate test would be...
Can it produce a wristwatch staff'? and by that I mean as a lathe
with blued steel chucked in a collet or by other means and turned
by the lathe itself and not turned on dead centres....

So far ....
traditional watch maker lathes Lorch, Boley etc etc ...
umpteen millions of staffs produced.
Sherline
One staff produced

Edit....My replies are in blue inside the quoted box


----------



## tomshep

And that naturally makes it an inferior machine and the rest of us wrong.
Poor argument.
If modern machinery evolves to make the job more easy or productive, then it is the way of the craftsman and tradesman to embrace them which is why we no longer use oxen for ploughing. How many of today's staffs are turned by hand anyway?


----------



## radger

tomshep said:


> And that naturally makes it an inferior machine and the rest of us wrong.
> 
> Poor argument.
> 
> If modern machinery evolves to make the job more easy or productive, then it is the way of the craftsman and tradesman to embrace them which is why we no longer use oxen for ploughing. How many of today's staffs are turned by hand anyway?


Are you saying that the Sherline lathe is the peak of modern
machinery evolution for the watchmaker?
Jeepers

edit .... I replied in more detail to the previous post only my answers are in
blue inside the quoted box so could easily be missed I can't seem to make the multi quotes work.


----------



## tomshep

I neither said nor suggested anything of the sort. The question has been asked and answered. You have suggested without any grounds whatsoever that the use of this lathe damages tools and that the production of a single staff (although the poster mentions staffs in plural) is no indication of its suitability. The opinion of one who makes his own Tourbillons ought to be respected in my view. 
Watchmaking is a mature technology and production methods evolve. You would do well to evolve with them as discovery of new techniques is one of the things that make the subject so fascinating.


----------



## radger

I do respect the opinion of others...honestly I really do. But there has
to be some basis in fact.
Anybody who does serious watch repair on watches where parts are no
longer available will understand the need to accurately machine tiny parts
such as staffs...
If this is not your requirement then perhaps the Sherline is for you, I can see
that it would have uses in the workshop, but I also think it would
have serious limitations too. For example, I can't see how you could
bush and upright, say the dial plate center hole to a watch with the Sherline.
Would it be accurate enough to machine the lever or escape wheel arbors and pivots
in a small movement without first converting it into a set of turns.
These are tasks that a dedicated watch makers lathe can handle as a matter
of course.

I would suggest, as far as wristwatches are concerned that any job
that can be adequately executed in a three jaw chuck then the Sherline lathe is
OK or even very good.....but if your work demands the accuracy attained by wire collets then a dedicated Watchmakers lathe should be the choice.


----------



## P. Loatman

radger said:


> I do respect the opinion of others...honestly I really do. But there has
> to be some basis in fact.
> Anybody who does serious watch repair on watches where parts are no
> longer available will understand the need to accurately machine tiny parts
> such as staffs...
> If this is not your requirement then perhaps the Sherline is for you, I can see
> that it would have uses in the workshop, but I also think it would
> have serious limitations too. For example, I can't see how you could
> bush and upright, say the dial plate center hole to a watch with the Sherline.
> Would it be accurate enough to machine the lever or escape wheel arbors and pivots
> in a small movement without first converting it into a set of turns.
> These are tasks that a dedicated watch makers lathe can handle as a matter
> of course.
> 
> I would suggest, as far as wristwatches are concerned that any job
> that can be adequately executed in a three jaw chuck then the Sherline lathe is
> OK or even very good.....but if your work demands the accuracy attained by wire collets then a dedicated Watchmakers lathe should be the choice.


The accuracy of the chuck doesn't matter for staffs (and a lot of other horologically related things), the accuracy of the headstock spindle is what matters. As you already know, staffs are turned in one piece without turning the piece around in the chuck. When you chuck up a rod in a 3 jaw chuck and it's not perfectly centered all you have to do is turn it down to the point where the portion you've turned down is centered and running true. Obviously if the headstock spindle is running true then no matter how inaccurate the jaws of the chuck are they have a rotational center governed by the headstock spindle, so as you turn the rod it'll eventually be turned down to become parallel with the headstock spindle.

The only thing that would prevent the making of an average wristwatch staff on any lathe would be the accuracy of the headstock, not the chuck you use. Obviously if the jaws on the chuck aren't bored perfectly concentric then you wouldn't be able to re-chuck anything you're turning.

If that's the only issue we're talking about then it's also a non-issue because Sherline makes adapters for WW pattern split chucks which can be used on their lathe, they even make their own chucks. They clearly wouldn't be making chucks that go down to .3mm if the headstock wasn't accurate enough to use it properly. They also make a t-rest for hand graving if you prefer that over the cross slide.

As i already said, i've used one myself and it was very accurate, i'm sure a Sherline would be acceptable as a watchmakers lathe. There's always a person controlling the lathe and that's what factors in most anyways.


----------



## Somewhere else

P. Loatman said:


> The accuracy of the chuck doesn't matter for staffs (and a lot of other horologically related things), the accuracy of the headstock spindle is what matters. As you already know, staffs are turned in one piece without turning the piece around in the chuck. When you chuck up a rod in a 3 jaw chuck and it's not perfectly centered all you have to do is turn it down to the point where the portion you've turned down is centered and running true. Obviously if the headstock spindle is running true then no matter how inaccurate the jaws of the chuck are they have a rotational center governed by the headstock spindle, so as you turn the rod it'll eventually be turned down to become parallel with the headstock spindle.
> 
> The only thing that would prevent the making of an average wristwatch staff on any lathe would be the accuracy of the headstock, not the chuck you use. Obviously if the jaws on the chuck aren't bored perfectly concentric then you wouldn't be able to re-chuck anything you're turning.
> 
> If that's the only issue we're talking about then it's also a non-issue because Sherline makes adapters for WW pattern split chucks which can be used on their lathe, they even make their own chucks. They clearly wouldn't be making chucks that go down to .3mm if the headstock wasn't accurate enough to use it properly. They also make a t-rest for hand graving if you prefer that over the cross slide.
> 
> As i already said, i've used one myself and it was very accurate, i'm sure a Sherline would be acceptable as a watchmakers lathe. There's always a person controlling the lathe and that's what factors in most anyways.


P. Loatman gets right to the heart of the matter. As well as P.Loatman, Vespasian, another watch fan who posts from time to time on WUS uses it too, and here has made any number of balance staffs on his Sherline. I also use Sherline collets and attachments.

The harsh fact is that most of us, whether we are doing hobby or a profession, do not have the money to spend on machines that are astronomical in price. Furthermore, all the machines mentioned in a preceeding post, such as Schaublin, Lorch and Boley are made by companies that have long since gone out of business and disappeared from the scene. Finding the spare parts or attachments for them seems to be not only a matter of considerable money, but also considerable luck .

The Sherline may not be perfect for watchmaking, but it can, with some improvising and thought do everything demanded of it.

To me, it seems that a perfect shop for those of us with fairly modest means would be a good quality reconditioned watchmaker's lathe and also a Sherline. Both have strengths and weaknesses that the other doesn't and they compliment each other well.


----------



## radger

P. Loatman said:


> The accuracy of the chuck doesn't matter for staffs (and a lot of other horologically related things), the accuracy of the headstock spindle is what matters. As you already know, staffs are turned in one piece without turning the piece around in the chuck. When you chuck up a rod in a 3 jaw chuck and it's not perfectly centered all you have to do is turn it down to the point where the portion you've turned down is centered and running true. Obviously if the headstock spindle is running true then no matter how inaccurate the jaws of the chuck are they have a rotational center governed by the headstock spindle, so as you turn the rod it'll eventually be turned down to become parallel with the headstock spindle.
> 
> The only thing that would prevent the making of an average wristwatch staff on any lathe would be the accuracy of the headstock, not the chuck you use. Obviously if the jaws on the chuck aren't bored perfectly concentric then you wouldn't be able to re-chuck anything you're turning.


Hmmmm, I'm very surprised nobody picked you up on this total piece
of nonsense.

Consider this... you have a headstock which is perfectly true, you
have a chuck who's center is 2mm off center to the headstocks center
and you chuck up a 1mm rod which you want to turn down to 1/2mm.

So your 1mm rod is orbiting the headstock center at a 4mm diameter from the true center to its own center and a 2.5mm radius from the headstock center to the outer diameter of the work....and you tell me that this
does not matter!!!! That all I have to do is turn down the work till
it runs parallel with the true center!!!!....
How do I do that then?



P. Loatman said:


> As i already said, i've used one myself and it was very accurate, i'm sure a Sherline would be acceptable as a watchmakers lathe. There's always a person controlling the lathe and that's what factors in most anyways.


I agree that the person controlling the lathe is a big factor, a thorough
understanding of the tools one uses is essential.


----------



## radger

Somewhere else said:


> P. Loatman gets right to the heart of the matter. As well as P.Loatman, Vespasian, another watch fan who posts from time to time on WUS uses it too, and here has made any number of balance staffs on his Sherline. I also use Sherline collets and attachments.
> 
> The harsh fact is that most of us, whether we are doing hobby or a profession, do not have the money to spend on machines that are astronomical in price. Furthermore, all the machines mentioned in a preceeding post, such as Schaublin, Lorch and Boley are made by companies that have long since gone out of business and disappeared from the scene. Finding the spare parts or attachments for them seems to be not only a matter of considerable money, but also considerable luck .
> 
> The Sherline may not be perfect for watchmaking, but it can, with some improvising and thought do everything demanded of it.
> 
> To me, it seems that a perfect shop for those of us with fairly modest means would be a good quality reconditioned watchmaker's lathe and also a Sherline. Both have strengths and weaknesses that the other doesn't and they compliment each other well.


A watchmakers lathe isn't expensive, provided you don't mind
buying used.

The world is awash with watchmakers lathes
since the Quartz revolution made countless machines redundant.
They are available on Ebay all the time, two just finished on ebay
uk both at less than £200 and one that had 20 wire collets sold for
£158.00. Sometimes the prices go high but patience pays dividends. 
Potential buyers should avoid watchmakers lathes which are being sold
by model engineers as they probably had abuse for which they weren't
designed.
Lathes which come from old watchmakers shops are the best buy because
in all likelyhood they have been well cared for.


----------



## Somewhere else

radger said:


> A watchmakers lathe isn't expensive, provided you don't mind
> buying used.


Also, if you don't mind repairing your lathe and you know how. I've said it before. There is no machine which resists age, no matter how well care for. Very few contemporary (made post 1950) lathes come up to auction. The average lathe that one finds at auction was made between 50 to 100 years ago. Almost all of these need repair of one sort or another.

This by the way is one thing you can use a Sherline for, particularly if you have a post grinder.


----------



## rmelle

dears,
I go completely with Radger.
I have several Lorch's only one is used.
the other ones are just way too much....USED....
0.3 mm off center in between centers is just too much.
everything on a lathe or mill should be dead centered!
without play, ok, the play in a headstock thread there is always present, but you can adjust them to an absolute minimum.
If a lathe or mill has any play: solve it, or don't use it.
In my shop and livingroom is a nice small collection of very old tools wich are nice to look at but hat is all.
when turning or milling THE most important thing is SETTING TO ZERO!
If you can't trust these setting you are rowing on a river with quite some current without proper oars!!!
You can only turn and mill to a certain precision when you can TRUST the machine you are working with. 
this connection between the machine and the craftman is I think the most important factor there is.
maybe sounds like "new age thinking" to you but it is true!
Now we DO have one more philisophical remark here HAHAHA :-d
This connection can only be made by years and years working on the same machines.
Quite a few people think that when new made with modern production standards the turning or milling will be autimatic OK but that is one big lie!
When I bought my Wabeco it took me about 6 months to get a proper result when milling bridges for clocks for example.
fortunately brass isn't that expensive....
Turning and milling is just difficult simple is that!
What to think of milling gears? the first gears made went straight to scrap! Now I don't even have to think when milling a gear beceause: 
The connection between the Wabeco and me! and I can TRUST my Wabeco.

regards,
RJ van Melle.

PS: O yea when googling on milling gears it is almost always a succes story in pictures on the web! don't believe them, pictures can lie HAHAHA
They often look OK but ARE they really ok? something to think about! ;-)


----------



## Somewhere else

rmelle said:


> dears,
> I go completely with Radger.
> I have several Lorch's only one is used.
> the other ones are just way too much....USED....
> 0.3 mm off center in between centers is just too much.
> everything on a lathe or mill should be dead centered!
> without play, ok, the play in a headstock thread there is always present, but you can adjust them to an absolute minimum.
> If a lathe or mill has any play: solve it, or don't use it.
> In my shop and livingroom is a nice small collection of very old tools wich are nice to look at but hat is all.
> when turning or milling THE most important thing is SETTING TO ZERO!
> If you can't trust these setting you are rowing on a river with quite some current without proper oars!!!


This reminds me of a Swiss factory I often used to go to. On the first floor was all the dirty work, such as stamping parts. On the second floor was all the production machinery, such as milling machinery and lathes, and on the 3rd floor was assembly.

They only used one machine on the entire second floor, a comparatively modern semi-automatic six station milling machine. Why? "None of the rest are accurate". When the factory was sold some years later, the first thing the new owners did was take every machine to the scrap heap and throw it in.

The factory has all new production machinery now.


----------



## P. Loatman

radger said:


> Hmmmm, I'm very surprised nobody picked you up on this total piece
> of nonsense.
> 
> Consider this... you have a headstock which is perfectly true, you
> have a chuck who's center is 2mm off center to the headstocks center
> and you chuck up a 1mm rod which you want to turn down to 1/2mm.
> 
> So your 1mm rod is orbiting the headstock center at a 4mm diameter from the true center to its own center and a 2.5mm radius from the headstock center to the outer diameter of the work....and you tell me that this
> does not matter!!!! That all I have to do is turn down the work till
> it runs parallel with the true center!!!!....
> How do I do that then?
> 
> I agree that the person controlling the lathe is a big factor, a thorough
> understanding of the tools one uses is essential.


Yeah, i guess if a chuck was that far off center then you'd have a problem, but i highly doubt the jaw chucks Sherline makes are that inaccurate, and now you're just sidetracking anyways. We're talking about Sherline, not some hypothetical situation. Not to mention for a second time that you don't even have to use the 3 jaw chuck that the lathe comes with since you can buy WW style split chucks.

You ignored the rest of my post in your reply, is it really so hard to just have an open mind and think that a modern lathe is as good as an old one? I use an original 8mm Webster Whitcomb lathe and a 6mm Geneva style Lorch, i have no problem with new or old machinery as long as they work as they should, but you seem to have a real issue with new tools simply because they're not old.

What exactly is your issue with Sherline again? Accuracy? Prove that it's not accurate using the split chucks they sell and then i'll agree with you, but until then you have never even used one and you don't listen to those who have, so what's the point in even entertaining you?


----------



## rmelle

Back to Sherline then!
I found this picture, I don't know Sherline but Google helps a lot!








If we are talking this lathe:
It will take some serious tooling and upgrading on making this lathe suiteble for the jobs we are discussing.
And one more personal point of view:
The MOTOR: it is very SMALL!!!!
I power my Lorchs and other lathes with outside powersource/motors (IE belt driven) with an extremely heavy 3 phase 380 volts 750 Watt!!! , 1750 revolutions/minute with electronical rev control.
the advantage is: ultimate & extremely steady running.
As I have 3 phase 380 volts in the shop: why not use it HAHAHA :-d
What I would do: take the silly small motor of and start with upgrading that one.
Here in Europe we say: You Americans always say: size DOES matter, or: Can't beat the CUBES in combustion engines ;-):-d
Did find some very nice looking Sherlines also, but OLD!!!

nice day!


----------



## P. Loatman

rmelle said:


> Back to Sherline then!
> I found this picture, I don't know Sherline but Google helps a lot!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If we are talking this lathe:
> It will take some serious tooling and upgrading on making this lathe suiteble for the jobs we are discussing.
> And one more personal point of view:
> The MOTOR: it is very SMALL!!!!
> I power my Lorchs and other lathes with outside powersource/motors (IE belt driven) with an extremely heavy 3 phase 380 volts 750 Watt!!! , 1750 revolutions/minute with electronical rev control.
> the advantage is: ultimate & extremely steady running.
> As I have 3 phase 380 volts in the shop: why not use it HAHAHA :-d
> What I would do: take the silly small motor of and start with upgrading that one.
> Here in Europe we say: You Americans always say: size DOES matter, or: Can't beat the CUBES in combustion engines ;-):-d
> Did find some very nice looking Sherlines also, but OLD!!!
> 
> nice day!


_ANY_ lathe will need a lot of upgrading if you're going to be doing real watchmaking, you can't fault Sherline for NOT selling their base lathes with every accessory available. It doesn't make a difference if it's old or new, it's not as if a vintage or antique lathe comes with all necessary and available attachments.

In fact, i had to make a few attachments for my old lathes simply because i couldn't find them available anywhere for any price. I wouldn't have had to do that if i had a Sherline because they make quite a lot of accessories for their lathes. Did you not read what i wrote about their WW pattern split chucks and t-rest? If you bought those two things then you would have a lathe just as functional as any older, base model, watchmaking lathe.

Also, motors are subjective as well, do older watchmaking lathes come with high powered motors for the same price as a base Sherline lathe? I think not.

Take a look through their website and look at all the attachments they sell.


----------



## radger

Somewhere else said:


> Also, if you don't mind repairing your lathe and you know how. I've said it before. There is no machine which resists age, no matter how well care for. Very few contemporary (made post 1950) lathes come up to auction. The average lathe that one finds at auction was made between 50 to 100 years ago. Almost all of these need repair of one sort or another.


It sounds like you had a bad experience with a worn out watchmakers
lathe.
I've had 3 Geneva pattern 6mm headstocks from ebay, all cheap...
very cheap, and I swear that there is no discernible runout in any of
them and one of these is possibly 100 years old.

I agree that there will be wear in the bearings, but as I've said before,
the bearings are designed to wear concentrically, all that is required is
periodic dismantling to clean them and tighten the endshake.

If a machine has in the past been used by a watchmaker, then it's
very likely that the machine has been used correctly and not
abused.
It will have been correctly maintained and adjusted and the
oil cups lovingly filled with very best French Carriage clock oil during
its easy life....
Very easy life if you consider the very light work which a
watchmaker of old would use his lathe for. There wouldn't be a great deal
of side thrust on the bearings machining tiny parts with a hand graver,
and these cone bearings, miracles of micro precision wouldn't exactly
be groaning under the exertion...

But if your lathe is an 8mm then it might have had a harder life.
It might have been used by a clock maker to turn large steel arbors
with a compound slide....or even worse, by a model engineer to turn
cast iron cylinders for a steam engine project, or some kid might
have used it as a stick.

My watchmakers lathe is 6mm, these are a lot less likely to have 
had heavy work as clockmakers usualy bought 8mm.
I don't know where you get your info that the auction watchmakers
lathes almost always need repair, it certainly isn't my experience.

If the cone bearings are damaged in any way then they have to
be reground as you pointed out, personaly I'd just scrap it for parts
and buy another headstock and take my chance.



Somewhere else said:


> This by the way is one thing you can use a Sherline for, particularly if you have a post grinder.


No, I'm afraid you couldn't use a Sherline for that operation...well you
could but there's no way you could grind the bearings to the tolerance
required for a watchmakers lathe. To do this job properly requires
toolmaking equipment of the highest precision and very very expensive.


----------



## tomshep

I'm willing to bet that you can! Although I take the point that watchmakers' lathes are cheap and good (which they are,) I think that if you can turn a staff on one then you can refinish cone bearings to the point where the final lapping takes place.
With regard to the 90 Watt motor fitted to the Sherline, it is quite sufficient for watchmaking work.


----------



## radger

P. Loatman said:


> Yeah, i guess if a chuck was that far off center then you'd have a problem, but i highly doubt the jaw chucks Sherline makes are that inaccurate, and now you're just sidetracking anyways. We're talking about Sherline, not some hypothetical situation. Not to mention for a second time that you don't even have to use the 3 jaw chuck that the lathe comes with since you can buy WW style split chucks.


Yes, no chuck would be that far out but the 'hypothetical situation'
wasn't me 'sidetracking' as you put it.
The 'hypothetical situation' was deliberately exagerated simply
to illustrate the absolute nonsense of your lecture on how the runout
of a chuck is of no importance...after all, people reading your lesson
might have believed it, and that is how urban myths are born.

The truth of the matter is that the smaller the part you are machining,
then any runout no matter how small has a greater effect on your
ability to accurately machine the part, you may be able to machine it
but if you understand the geometry of what's happening then you'll
realise that the work isn't exactly circular.



P. Loatman said:


> You ignored the rest of my post in your reply, is it really so hard to just have an open mind and think that a modern lathe is as good as an old one? I use an original 8mm Webster Whitcomb lathe and a 6mm Geneva style Lorch, i have no problem with new or old machinery as long as they work as they should, but you seem to have a real issue with new tools simply because they're not old.
> 
> What exactly is your issue with Sherline again? Accuracy? Prove that it's not accurate using the split chucks they sell and then i'll agree with you, but until then you have never even used one and you don't listen to those who have, so what's the point in even entertaining you?


I didn't ignore the rest of your post, I read it honestly I did. 
And in reality I'd love to own quality, modern, high precision tools...
but I can't afford £20,000 for a lathe so have to make do with
old. The fact that I find old tools very good and suitable for
the purpose isn't because I have an issue with the new, it's
because the tools are such good quality...and cheap.
I've plenty new tools too,

I have no issue at all with the Sherline lathe, nice lathe and very cheap.
If I didn't have my EW I might have bought one, as I said before it would
have its uses but I still maintain that it's not accurate enough as a serious
watchmakers lathe. Oh it's a precision machine, I have no doubt, but
there's precision and there's precision and the tiniest gain in accuracy
has to be paid for exponentialy in pounds.

You don't have to bother about entertaining me, this is a public forum.
In fact it's the only site on the whole internet pushing the Sherline as
a serious watchmakers lathe capable of making balance staffs
for wristwatches.

The danger is that yet another urban myth is born, which might prove
costly to unsuspecting readers who assume that the 'experts' know what
they are talking about.


----------



## radger

rmelle said:


> dears,
> I go completely with Radger.
> I have several Lorch's only one is used.
> the other ones are just way too much....USED....
> 0.3 mm off center in between centers is just too much.
> everything on a lathe or mill should be dead centered!
> without play, ok, the play in a headstock thread there is always present, but you can adjust them to an absolute minimum.
> If a lathe or mill has any play: solve it, or don't use it.
> In my shop and livingroom is a nice small collection of very old tools wich are nice to look at but hat is all.
> when turning or milling THE most important thing is SETTING TO ZERO!
> If you can't trust these setting you are rowing on a river with quite some current without proper oars!!!
> You can only turn and mill to a certain precision when you can TRUST the machine you are working with.
> this connection between the machine and the craftman is I think the most important factor there is.
> maybe sounds like "new age thinking" to you but it is true!
> Now we DO have one more philisophical remark here HAHAHA :-d
> This connection can only be made by years and years working on the same machines.
> Quite a few people think that when new made with modern production standards the turning or milling will be autimatic OK but that is one big lie!
> When I bought my Wabeco it took me about 6 months to get a proper result when milling bridges for clocks for example.
> fortunately brass isn't that expensive....
> Turning and milling is just difficult simple is that!
> What to think of milling gears? the first gears made went straight to scrap! Now I don't even have to think when milling a gear beceause:
> The connection between the Wabeco and me! and I can TRUST my Wabeco.
> 
> regards,
> RJ van Melle.
> 
> PS: O yea when googling on milling gears it is almost always a succes story in pictures on the web! don't believe them, pictures can lie HAHAHA
> They often look OK but ARE they really ok? something to think about! ;-)


0.3mm out between centers is a lot, I'll bet that lathe was dropped
sometime in its life.
You are right, a workman knows his own tools and works best with them.
I've worked with tools all my life and they seem to somehow shape
themselves to your hand... to the extent that if I pick up anothers
exactly similar tool I know instantly.


----------



## P. Loatman

radger said:


> Yes, no chuck would be that far out but the 'hypothetical situation'
> wasn't me 'sidetracking' as you put it.
> The 'hypothetical situation' was deliberately exagerated simply
> to illustrate the absolute nonsense of your lecture on how the runout
> of a chuck is of no importance...after all, people reading your lesson
> might have believed it, and that is how urban myths are born.
> 
> The truth of the matter is that the smaller the part you are machining,
> then any runout no matter how small has a greater effect on your
> ability to accurately machine the part, you may be able to machine it
> but if you understand the geometry of what's happening then you'll
> realise that the work isn't exactly circular.


You're hypothetical situation is what's nonsense, you pretty much said so yourself. What's the point in making an argument if all you can do to is give hypotheticals? We're not talking about a hypothetical lathe, we're talking about reality.

A wrist watch staff pivot on average is about .05 to .10mm. So what you're saying is that a Sherline has a tolerance less than that? Where's your proof?



radger said:


> I didn't ignore the rest of your post, I read it honestly I did.
> And in reality I'd love to own quality, modern, high precision tools...
> but I can't afford £20,000 for a lathe so have to make do with
> old. The fact that I find old tools very good and suitable for
> the purpose isn't because I have an issue with the new, it's
> because the tools are such good quality...and cheap.
> I've plenty new tools too,
> 
> I have no issue at all with the Sherline lathe, nice lathe and very cheap.
> If I didn't have my EW I might have bought one, as I said before it would
> have its uses but I still maintain that it's not accurate enough as a serious
> watchmakers lathe. Oh it's a precision machine, I have no doubt, but
> there's precision and there's precision and the tiniest gain in accuracy
> has to be paid for exponentialy in pounds.
> 
> You don't have to bother about entertaining me, this is a public forum.
> In fact it's the only site on the whole internet pushing the Sherline as
> a serious watchmakers lathe capable of making balance staffs
> for wristwatches.
> 
> The danger is that yet another urban myth is born, which might prove
> costly to unsuspecting readers who assume that the 'experts' know what
> they are talking about.


So what your saying is that unless a MANUAL (not numerically operated) lathe is only good for watchmaking if it costs around 20,000 pounds? This implies that your old lathes each were worth around that price (relative to the value of the currency of the time) when brand new, or maybe even more since obviously they didn't have CNC equipment back then to make highly precise machine parts with ease, but those lathes were definitely not that expensive, wake up, the Swiss can sell their lathes for such high costs because it's Swiss, not because it's super accurate. I bet you believe all modern Breguet watches are completely hand made part for part too.

At the cost of one of those new "watchmaker" lathes it would be a much more logical choice to simply buy a CNC lathe, and at that price you could easily get one that could hold tolerances up to .005mm for even less than that price.


----------



## radger

P. Loatman said:


> You're hypothetical situation is what's nonsense, you pretty much said so yourself. What's the point in making an argument if all you can do to is give hypotheticals? We're not talking about a hypothetical lathe, we're talking about reality.


Good evening Paul,
Your point is well taken and you are correct, we're talking reality and
just as all good watchmakers do, then you and I love to examine
the minutiae.
I'll have another attempt at answering your original diatribe (without
the use of hypotheticals to illustrate my points) ...

Ok, I need to pull up the original post from which this conversation
degenerated because I can't remember what it was exactly that you
said ( to which I was replying) and I do understand the need for
accuracy.

You said....Quote

"The accuracy of the chuck doesn't matter for staffs (and a lot of other horologically related things), the accuracy of the headstock spindle is what matters."

I think the U.S term for this statement is Hogwash.

You said....Quote

"As you already know, staffs are turned in one piece without turning the piece around in the chuck. When you chuck up a rod in a 3 jaw chuck and it's not perfectly centered all you have to do is turn it down to the point where the portion you've turned down is centered and running true. Obviously if the headstock spindle is running true then no matter how inaccurate the jaws of the chuck are they have a rotational center governed by the headstock spindle, so as you turn the rod it'll eventually be turned down to become parallel with the headstock spindle."

I still think this is complete and utter nonsense, and the part about
staffs being turned in one chucking as if doing it that way is
common place I would say is 'probably' way off the mark
too, we are still talking wristwatch staffs I assume.
Crikey to turn a staff in two chuckings is difficult enough, but I know
that the gods of watchmaking can probably do it in one chucking.

Who in here besides Paul turns their wristwatch staffs in one chucking?,
...it will be interesting to find out if this really is the common practice.

I use two chuckings...'ahaha' I hear you say, 'he's heading for doom
and gloom there'. But I re-chuck into a wax chuck, made in seconds
for the job from a piece of brass rod with the center caught true by the graver.
I sink a cone into it in which I shellac the staff. The staff centers in
the cone and I run it true with pegwood. I don't know if I made
myself clear but if you think about it you'll realise that this
method negates any error you would have by rechucking into
the wire collet and so a staff can be turned in two chuckings by
lesser mortals such as I.

You said....Quote

"The only thing that would prevent the making of an average wristwatch staff on any lathe would be the accuracy of the headstock, not the chuck you use. Obviously if the jaws on the chuck aren't bored perfectly concentric then you wouldn't be able to re-chuck anything you're turning."

Paul, you keep pushing this point and so you obviously believe totally in
the veracity of your statement.

I agree that hard facts are needed and confirmation from half a dozen
artisans who have produced wristwatch balance staffs using the
methods you describe would be enough for me to eat humble pie.

Is there anyone in here as well as Paul who has turned a wristwatch staff
in one chucking in a three jaw chuck, and preferably on a Sherline
model makers lathe? We need your expertise to resolve this issue.



P. Loatman said:


> A wrist watch staff pivot on average is about .05 to .10mm. So what you're saying is that a Sherline has a tolerance less than that? Where's your proof?
> .


I really don't understand what you are trying to say here and I
absolutely am not saying what you suggest I'm saying.
In fact I can find no reference to ever having suggested at whatever
it is you are trying to say that I'm saying.

Do you believe that if the runout of the headstock is less than the
diameter of the part which you wish to machine then everything
will be OK?... If that is the case then I can understand what it is
that you think that I am saying and the answer would still be no..no
I'm not saying that at all, you are making to many assumptions.

I have no proof of anything but I do know a little about the Sherline hobyists lathe.
I looked up the headstock tolerance and it's guaranteed to be better
than 0.0005" and typically as good as 0.0002" - 0.0003".
I have a very high precision Batey dial guage, 6 jewels and not
your common or garden machinists 'clock', it reads easily to 0.00005".
It detects no runout in my watchmakers lathe, but it would easily
detect the runout on the Sherline.

To fit a collet to the Sherline you need a collet adapter, I can find
no information on the runout of these adaptors but there will be some
and then there is the collet, these collets may well be as good as
watchmaker collets but when used in a Sherline they won't have the magic effect of turning it into a super accurate lathe.



P. Loatman said:


> So what your saying is that unless a MANUAL (not numerically operated) lathe is only good for watchmaking if it costs around 20,000 pounds? This implies that your old lathes each were worth around that price (relative to the value of the currency of the time) when brand new, or maybe even more since obviously they didn't have CNC equipment back then to make highly precise machine parts with ease, but those lathes were definitely not that expensive, wake up, the Swiss can sell their lathes for such high costs because it's Swiss, not because it's super accurate. I bet you believe all modern Breguet watches are completely hand made part for part too.
> .


Jeepers....

You must think I'm totally stupid, maybe I am.

Love the part about the Swiss being able to command such high prices
for their lathes simply because they are Swiss and not because they are
super accurate. I'll bet many a professional watchmaker must be peeved when they find that their new £20000 Bergeon lathe is no better than
a Sherline...providing your statement is accurate of course. I have
no proof one way or the other, it is your statement.

Watchmakers lathes were far cheaper in the past...they were mass
produced and had a large client base.


----------



## P. Loatman

radger said:


> Good evening Paul,
> Your point is well taken and you are correct, we're talking reality and
> just as all good watchmakers do, then you and I love to examine
> the minutiae.
> I'll have another attempt at answering your original diatribe (without
> the use of hypotheticals to illustrate my points) ...
> 
> Ok, I need to pull up the original post from which this conversation
> degenerated because I can't remember what it was exactly that you
> said ( to which I was replying) and I do understand the need for
> accuracy.
> 
> You said....Quote
> 
> "The accuracy of the chuck doesn't matter for staffs (and a lot of other horologically related things), the accuracy of the headstock spindle is what matters."
> 
> I think the U.S term for this statement is Hogwash.


Why exactly is it "hogwash"? (Hardly anyone here says this btw).

I've turned balance wheels in 3 jaw chucks that didn't run perfectly concentric, yet the wheel turned out to be nearly perfectly concentric from it's center hole. My statement wasn't from theory it was from experience.



> You said....Quote
> 
> "As you already know, staffs are turned in one piece without turning the piece around in the chuck. When you chuck up a rod in a 3 jaw chuck and it's not perfectly centered all you have to do is turn it down to the point where the portion you've turned down is centered and running true. Obviously if the headstock spindle is running true then no matter how inaccurate the jaws of the chuck are they have a rotational center governed by the headstock spindle, so as you turn the rod it'll eventually be turned down to become parallel with the headstock spindle."
> 
> I still think this is complete and utter nonsense, and the part about
> staffs being turned in one chucking as if doing it that way is
> common place I would say is 'probably' way off the mark
> too, we are still talking wristwatch staffs I assume.
> Crikey to turn a staff in two chuckings is difficult enough, but I know
> that the gods of watchmaking can probably do it in one chucking.
> 
> Who in here besides Paul turns their wristwatch staffs in one chucking?,
> ...it will be interesting to find out if this really is the common practice.
> 
> I use two chuckings...'ahaha' I hear you say, 'he's heading for doom
> and gloom there'. But I re-chuck into a wax chuck, made in seconds
> for the job from a piece of brass rod with the center caught true by the graver.
> I sink a cone into it in which I shellac the staff. The staff centers in
> the cone and I run it true with pegwood. I don't know if I made
> myself clear but if you think about it you'll realise that this
> method negates any error you would have by rechucking into
> the wire collet and so a staff can be turned in two chuckings by
> lesser mortals such as I.


This is how i was taught, honestly i DID think this was common practice, it even explains this in Fried's book, the only part i use a cement chuck for is when finishing the lower pivot, and polishing the lower section, since you obviously can't finish that in one chucking, but ALL of the rest is turned in one chucking where i was taught no matter the size.

I guess this is all subjective, not everyone learned the same way, but the way i was taught is that you can't rely solely on the accuracy of your chuck (cement or split/wire) for something like a balance staff where accuracy is the number one priority.



> You said....Quote
> 
> "The only thing that would prevent the making of an average wristwatch staff on any lathe would be the accuracy of the headstock, not the chuck you use. Obviously if the jaws on the chuck aren't bored perfectly concentric then you wouldn't be able to re-chuck anything you're turning."
> 
> Paul, you keep pushing this point and so you obviously believe totally in
> the veracity of your statement.
> 
> I agree that hard facts are needed and confirmation from half a dozen
> artisans who have produced wristwatch balance staffs using the
> methods you describe would be enough for me to eat humble pie.
> 
> Is there anyone in here as well as Paul who has turned a wristwatch staff
> in one chucking in a three jaw chuck, and preferably on a Sherline
> model makers lathe? We need your expertise to resolve this issue.


I do indeed absolutely believe in that statement, if your headstock is running true then all you need are good chucks and you'll be able to turn a staff if you have the skill necessary for the job



> I really don't understand what you are trying to say here and I
> absolutely am not saying what you suggest I'm saying.
> In fact I can find no reference to ever having suggested at whatever
> it is you are trying to say that I'm saying.
> 
> Do you believe that if the runout of the headstock is less than the
> diameter of the part which you wish to machine then everything
> will be OK?... If that is the case then I can understand what it is
> that you think that I am saying and the answer would still be no..no
> I'm not saying that at all, you are making to many assumptions.


Ok, if you're not saying that, then what exactly are you saying? If the headstock is as accurate as you say below, then what else is going to prevent anyone from turning a staff on it using the wire collets they sell?



> I have no proof of anything but I do know a little about the Sherline hobyists lathe.
> I looked up the headstock tolerance and it's guaranteed to be better
> than 0.0005" and typically as good as 0.0002" - 0.0003".
> I have a very high precision Batey dial guage, 6 jewels and not
> your common or garden machinists 'clock', it reads easily to 0.00005".
> It detects no runout in my watchmakers lathe, but it would easily
> detect the runout on the Sherline.
> 
> To fit a collet to the Sherline you need a collet adapter, I can find
> no information on the runout of these adaptors but there will be some
> and then there is the collet, these collets may well be as good as
> watchmaker collets but when used in a Sherline they won't have the magic effect of turning it into a super accurate lathe.


The split collets will be more accurate than the 3 jaw chucks because they don't hold things from 3 or 4 relatively small points, they surround the rod and hold them much more concentric than a jaw chuck is capable of on average. I assumed you would already know this, why do you think they use wire collets in watchmaking lathes to begin with? They're more accurate than jaw chucks.



> Jeepers....
> 
> You must think I'm totally stupid, maybe I am.
> 
> Love the part about the Swiss being able to command such high prices
> for their lathes simply because they are Swiss and not because they are
> super accurate. I'll bet many a professional watchmaker must be peeved when they find that their new £20000 Bergeon lathe is no better than
> a Sherline...providing your statement is accurate of course. I have
> no proof one way or the other, it is your statement.
> 
> Watchmakers lathes were far cheaper in the past...they were mass
> produced and had a large client base.


I've seen the workbenches of many high end restorers and independent watchmakers and none of them had a Bergeon lathe, noone who knows better would spend their hard earned money on that lathe, when you ask a real watchmaker about a machine manufacturer they tell you Schaublin, Haas, Leinen, Aciera, Boley, Lorch, Webster Whitcomb, etc. Not "Bergeon". I never said the Sherline was a replacement for the Bergeon, maybe you need to stop assuming too much.

Also, if your lathe is THAT accurate, then why use a cement chuck at all? Why not just turn it around in a normal chuck?


----------



## Somewhere else

radger said:


> You don't have to bother about entertaining me, this is a public forum.In fact it's the only site on the whole internet pushing the Sherline as a serious watchmakers lathe capable of making balance staffs
> for wristwatches.
> 
> The danger is that yet another urban myth is born, which might prove
> costly to unsuspecting readers who assume that the 'experts' know what
> they are talking about.


This isn't an "urban myth" . Vespasian (you can send him a PM if you feel like it) hasn't posted for a while, but he may be busy. He started out making pocket watch staffs on the Sherline and then progressed to making wrist watch shafts. The last time we exchanged mails, he had turned a staff for a Landeron on his Sherline, staked it and the watch was running perfectly.

Like I say, ask him. I you feel skeptical, no reason not to.


----------



## KineticProblem

Hi, my first post in this forum. 

There is a absolutely Yes, No and a perhaps to initial questions in this thread. 

Yes you can use a Sherline lathe if you are a very, very skilled and superb equipped proffesional, very experienced in the way of handling a lathe and to "Zero in" and take advance of your lathes errors or mere inaccuracy. Usualy a real expert/skilled can make the smallest part on a sherline type/size lathe. 

No, unless you can identify to some/all above skills. 

Perhaps, is if you take six months training on your spesific lathe, know your lathe errors and know your personal lathe skills then perhaps. 

I see examples of skilled person able to create wonders on almost any lathe, they are skilled to a grade where they become excellent and specialists in superb craftmanship. Those of this skill are useless to compare as an example for what's possible for a student on a lathe, time and experience is a factor a novice must reach for and obtain over time. 

I have the last twenty years used and learned from watchmaking to engine/shipbuilding the smallest to some of largest lathes and mills in Europa, my thougts are clear and my experience tell same story every time. It is the operator whom deside what's possible on any lathe. 

Sorry for grammar/spelling fault, I am from Norway


----------



## P. Loatman

KineticProblem said:


> Hi, my first post in this forum.
> 
> There is a absolutely Yes, No and a perhaps to initial questions in this thread.
> 
> Yes you can use a Sherline lathe if you are a very, very skilled and superb equipped proffesional, very experienced in the way of handling a lathe and to "Zero in" and take advance of your lathes errors or mere inaccuracy. Usualy a real expert/skilled can make the smallest part on a sherline type/size lathe.
> 
> No, unless you can identify to some/all above skills.
> 
> Perhaps, is if you take six months training on your spesific lathe, know your lathe errors and know your personal lathe skills then perhaps.
> 
> I see examples of skilled person able to create wonders on almost any lathe, they are skilled to a grade where they become excellent and specialists in superb craftmanship. Those of this skill are useless to compare as an example for what's possible for a student on a lathe, time and experience is a factor a novice must reach for and obtain over time.
> 
> I have the last twenty years used and learned from watchmaking to engine/shipbuilding the smallest to some of largest lathes and mills in Europa, my thougts are clear and my experience tell same story every time. It is the operator whom deside what's possible on any lathe.
> 
> Sorry for grammar/spelling fault, I am from Norway


Your grammar is better than most people on the internet, even native English speakers, so i wouldn't worry too much about it. |>

Now, i completely agree with you, like i said earlier in one of my posts: There's always a person controlling the lathe and that's what factors in most anyways.

I hope you stick around here because it would be nice talking about other machining related things.


----------



## tomshep

Those of us with less turning experience would consider na affordable CNC lathe that was capable (and despite Radger's assertions, it certainly is capable) of turning a balance staff to be an advance for the hobby/amateur/part time professional watchmaker akin to replacing the horse with the car. The ability to series produce parts once you had initially made them correctly (and I don't believe that anybody gets it right first time, every time,) sounds incredible. I'm glad to live in the twenty first century!


----------



## rmelle

Welcome Kineticproblem!
striking words in a nut shell!
That is exactly the same as I pointed out before.

regards,
RJ van Melle.


----------



## KineticProblem

I hope to enjoy this forum for a long time, and possible contribute with a little bit. 

I also hope you have in mind my blunt way of writing, might sound harsh but not harsh intended 

When i started 1st year in watchmaking school s long time ago 1987 we had to dismantle our lathes, measure and in 1:1 draw every bit and piece of our personal lathe, in front, from right and above. I still remember some of my measurings on the 0.0001 scale it was perfection or godbye. 

So even before testing my lathe I knew it in detail, all details. 
Next in line was the gear cutter and a milling machine, never broke a part on those machines. 

If ever slightest error in any piece I was told to check, zero and adjust my lathe. Last word every day: have you oiled your lathe mr?..

We were forced to realy care for our tools, and only by care and knowledge for my lathe it was able to return those perfect little gears and axels - old style but a well functioning filosophy. 

I do not have a lathe pr today, so I have searched on the www for a nice object and a Schaublin 70 is my target, but in my search I have read many forums and question like this Sherline question and found few advice for practicing and obtaining a higher - learning by doing approach to those new to handling these machines. More of tech spec data and accuracy, also I read about jumping from scratch to CNC!... 
Ok, I'm old fashioned may be, but I really think of learning to walk before kickstart a Harley 

I realy love to use lathes, mills and all equipment belonging. It's an adventure in mind and tecniques, ability to take advance of all possible use of the available tools and create, but not a single day in a workshop without a new learning process and a new idea for next time. 

For a new lathe of any kind or brand, use it and use it, measure and measure until you realy know your lathe and see small horologic wonders even on an low budget lathe. 

I think I talk too much.....


----------



## Somewhere else

KineticProblem said:


> Hi, my first post in this forum.
> 
> There is a absolutely Yes, No and a perhaps to initial questions in this thread.
> 
> Yes you can use a Sherline lathe if you are a very, very skilled and superb equipped proffesional, very experienced in the way of handling a lathe and to "Zero in" and take advance of your lathes errors or mere inaccuracy. Usualy a real expert/skilled can make the smallest part on a sherline type/size lathe.


Vespasian, who I keep mentioning as the fellow who makes balance staffs on his Sherline is almost as badly equipped as I am, but unlike myself he is not a trained watchmaker, instead a talented amateur. I think his day job is something having to do with insurance. Also, from what he tells me, I don't think he has a lot of experience handling lathes.

He's patient, has an understanding of what he wants to achieve and the Sherline seems to work for him.


----------



## radger

Welcome to our new member Kineticproblem and thank you for joining
this discussion.

An old saying is that 'a craftsman should never blame his tools
as an excuse for a bad job'....and that is perfectly true, the point
being that he should never have been using inadequate tools in the
first place.

A craftsman will always have the correct tool for the the job in hand,
and I don't say that lightly... workers who think 'why use a hammer when
a brick will do' will never become an artisan and produce high quality
work.

Believe me, I know that skill is of the primary importance in the use
of any tool if you want high class work.. but I also know that good
tools are of VITAL importance too.
There are tools and there are tools as every craftsman knows and I'm
sure our new friend from Norway would concede that point.

An improper tool in the hands of even a highly skilled craftsman can
and will produce less than adequate work in any trade and in watchmaking
in particular this holds true.

A highly skilled watchmaker who has spent countless hours learning to
turn on watchmakers turns can a turn a staff on any small lathe, or any
large lathe for that matter, he would simply convert it into a set of
turns, I concede this fact.

I did straight from the start when Somewhereelse pointed out that
Vespasian, for example, regularly turns staffs on his Sherline,
but he obviously has the neccessary skills on the turns and so is able
to improvise and use the lathe as a set of turns.

But, and I made this point once before, why bother to use a Sherline
converted to a set of turns to turn a staff when a set of turns is
more suited to the job in many ways?
If someone can already use the turns then they'll surely have a set
lying about....
Why not use the Sherline to produce a nice set of turns, I could
understand that....
but it's a moot point anyway because using the Sherline as a
set of turns is no test of the tools ability to ACCURATELY turn a
balance staff.

The concensus of the 'experts' in this forum is definately that 'the
Sherline lathe is eminantly suitable as a watchmakers lathe which is
easily capable of producing balance staffs for wristwatches'.
In fact I'm probably the only one expressing any serious doubts
as to the tools suitability for this purpose.

I often go on about urban myths being born on the internet and we
are in real danger of creating one here if we haven't already
done so.
Type only Sherline lathe into Google and this discussion is page 2,
Type Sherline lathe watchmaking and this discussion is page 1.
The Sherline marketing men will be lapping this up and perhaps in
gratitude they'll give us all a free lathe LOL....me too, after all
I've always maintained that it's a nice little lathe and it would
definately have its uses.

So let's look at that concensus....

For the Sherline being eminently suitable as a watchmakers lathe
capable of producing wrist watch balance staffs to a satisfactory
quality we have.....

P. Loatman,
Paul obviously loves the Sherline and has actually used one once.

He doesn't say if he used it to produce a balance staff but if
he did then he would probably chuck up his steel in the three jaw chuck
and somehow manage to turn his staff in one chucking because Paul
maintains that the inaccuracy of the chuck is unimportant.

I'm afraid that this is a total misconception, and it is very dificult
to explain in words without the use of hypertheticals to conjure up
in the imagaginings why this a misconception.

Ah but, and I can hear you all saying that 'Paul is a highly skilled
workman and that's what matters most'...well I've no doubt that
Paul is a skilled workman in many areas but I have serious doubts
as to ANY mans ability to rapidly move a graver in and out maybe
0.0005 inch in total tune with the headstock and chucks error and so
cancelling out concentricity errors, ie opposing points from the
datum axis and also at the same time cancelling out the total
runout of the machine ie the surface deviations relative to the
datum axis...in fact I know that do that would be impossible so we
are left with a balance staff which looks the part but is less
than adequate when its accuracy is brought into question.

He could of course cancel out one error by the use of a wax chuck
but surface deviation error would still be present due to the runout
of the headstock spindle.

Errors of surface deviation and concentricity, could be measured with
high quality precision guages given the spec of the Sherline, but with
a dedicated watchmakers lathe although these errors exist they are
almost impercptible and can only be measured with instruments such
as the projection microscope. 

Of course one could argue that what do these errors matter if I can
produce a staff which looks the part and I put it in a watch and it
actually ticks, especially when it is well known that a watch is
full of tiny errors anyways.
Well the reasons are simple...
errors, no matter how tiny or negligible that you think they are, should
never be introduced into a watches escapement if they can possibly be
avoided and the errors of concentricity and surface deviations we are
talking about here can be avoided with the use of the proper tool....
and skill of course.

When errors are introduced into the escapement then the problems come
when it's time to adjust the watch for reasonable time keeping...and of
course a highly skilled workman can probably spend a few hours
re-working the staff and improving these errors....but then the
highly skilled workman would have been using the appropriate tool
in the first place so these issues wouldn't even arise.

Somewhere else

He backs the Sherline to the hilt because his friend Vespasian,
has one and uses one as a set of turns to turn staffs....
this does not prove that the lathe could turn a wristwatch staff through the
headstock and chuck, be it collet or other, to a good standard.

Tom Shep,

Backs the Sherline as a lathe which should be seriously considered
as a suitable machine to produce wristwatch staffs and despite
admitting that he doesn't understand all the issues is quick to run
with the pack. He is under the misconception that if a machine is
connected to a computer then it is magicaly transformed into a super
accurate machine.

RMelle and others.....possibly sitting on the fence I don't know.

Radger.
Thinks it's unsuitable for reasons which I try my best to explain.
I suppose it's becuase I have old fasioned values of craftsmanship,
quality and the use of the appropriate tools for the job in hand. so
personally I won't be using a Sherline to turn wristwatch staffs...
I don't need to anyways as I have the proper tool.

Radger


----------



## tomshep

Once again, your pig headedness gets ahead of your comprehension. Were you able to understand what I had written, in plain English you would not have been able to twice misrepresent all that I had said. Indeed your attitude to accuracy appears to be so variable (and it is a mindset that watchmakers cannot exist without having,) that it is highly unlikely that you are the craftsman that you would have us think that you are. You imply that as I don't know all that there is to be known I am, therefore an ignoramus and should bow down to your superior opinion. 

Radger, you're being a troll, just like you were over the Stereo microscope. The rest of us must be fed up with it as you have not made a single positive contribution to this thread at all.


----------



## radger

I'm sorry if you think I imply that you are an Ignoramus, I didn't
mean to imply that at all, and reading what I wrote then I could have
certainly put it better, once again I apologise for my lack of subtelty.
I don't believe any man knows everything there is to know about watchmaking,
and I freely admit that my own knowledge is far from complete and so therefore
I must be an ignoramus also.

You say it is "highly unlikely that I am the craftsman that I would have
you think that I am". Well to be honest, I never intend to blow my own
trumpet and I stay out of the discussions involving the fitting of movements
to cases, dials and hands to produce custom watches becuase that's not what I do.
There are the those who do it so much better. I saw the recent photo of a superb
production of a wristwatch case which Paul Loatman had made and cased within it
a superb old Hamilton movement. I thought at the time, this lad's a craftsman. I
don't reply to many posts patting people on the back but that doesn't
mean that I don't respect the ability of others. Come to think of it, didn't
I pat you on the back for your workbench production.

Any abilities that I have, have been hard won simply by learning
the correct techniques, aquiring the correct tools and countless hours of
practice from which I've gained experience and skills...believe that or
not as may be, it is of no concern to the validity of my points in this
discussion and I have no ego that can be hurt.

You call me a Troll, I remember those ugly little plastic dolls, they
were poular back in the seventies LOL, and Tom, honestly I don't expect
you to bow down to my superior opinion as you put it, I always expect
the contrary in fact.


----------



## P. Loatman

We all have our opinions, and i don't think most people here will change theirs so easily.

Radger, i don't really "love" the Sherline (or any machine for that matter), but i do respect it's abilities even if it's marked as a "hobbyist" lathe due to it's price point. I realize i never did mention what i used it for, the Sherline i worked on to make about 5 stems for an old ETA wrist watch movement. It was equipped with both the watchmakers collets and the t-rest, so i used it like my Webster Whitcomb and i honestly felt nor saw any difference in performance. They weren't wrist watch staffs, but i don't think i would have too hard of a time doing that on the same Sherline.


----------



## Somewhere else

radger said:


> I did straight from the start when Somewhereelse pointed out that
> Vespasian, for example, regularly turns staffs on his Sherline,
> but he obviously has the neccessary skills on the turns and so is able
> to improvise and use the lathe as a set of turns.


Let me set you straight for once and for all I NEVER SAID THAT VESPASIAN USED HIS LATHE AS A SET OF TURNS. I hope the capitalization makes you understand that I am getting very tired of your misquoting me.

I said he "turned it between centers". As far as I know (and I haven't asked in detail) he chucked one end in a 3 jaw chuck and had a live or dead center for the other. Or maybe he just chucked it in the three jaw chuck and turned it that way. I used to know an English watchmaker who turned very nice concentric staffs that way too.


----------



## rmelle

Dear Loatman,
indeed a sherline is I think a perfect little lathe to make a stem and other bigger parts of a watch/pocketwatch and the smaller parts of a large clock.
I think The Sherline can be a good little lathe.
I have this emco also:









This one off the net.
It was my father's when he was a boy to turn small cannons for his model ships.
it is about 50 years old. Last week I made a stem on it and that just works fine.
A staff I wouldn't do on it.
O yea: powered with my big oversized electrical motor......
We are all quite focussing on staffs... 
There are so many parts, other then the staff, wich needs turning also!
On this same lathe I once made the base for a pocketwatch barrel before milling, and after the milling... And a crownwheel of a travellers clock driving the escapement, only to be around 7 mm diameter, module 0.24
worked alricht!
bearings BTW are changed to SKF bearings, now it runs steady as ....?....
@ Radger: what does it means that I am sitting on the fence? ;-)

nice day!
RJ van Melle.


----------



## radger

P. Loatman said:


> We all have our opinions, and i don't think most people here will change theirs so easily.
> 
> Radger, i don't really "love" the Sherline (or any machine for that matter), but i do respect it's abilities even if it's marked as a "hobbyist" lathe due to it's price point. I realize i never did mention what i used it for, the Sherline i worked on to make about 5 stems for an old ETA wrist watch movement. It was equipped with both the watchmakers collets and the t-rest, so i used it like my Webster Whitcomb and i honestly felt nor saw any difference in performance. They weren't wrist watch staffs, but i don't think i would have too hard of a time doing that on the same Sherline.


OK Paul, thank you for the clarification, I can see that
the Sherline would be an ideal little lathe for making stems.


----------



## radger

Somewhere else said:


> Let me set you straight for once and for all I NEVER SAID THAT VESPASIAN USED HIS LATHE AS A SET OF TURNS. I hope the capitalization makes you understand that I am getting very tired of your misquoting me.
> 
> I said he "turned it between centers". As far as I know (and I haven't asked in detail) he chucked one end in a 3 jaw chuck and had a live or dead center for the other. Or maybe he just chucked it in the three jaw chuck and turned it that way. I used to know an English watchmaker who turned very nice concentric staffs that way too.


Whoooa, I can see where the misunderstanding came from, and
I'm very sorry for not quoting your exact words.

quote....

"I said he "turned it between centers". As far as I know (and I haven't asked in detail) he chucked one end in a 3 jaw chuck and had a live or dead center for the other."

end quote

The method you describe here is not 'turning between centers' and so
that's where the confusion arises.


----------



## radger

rmelle said:


> Dear Loatman,
> indeed a sherline is I think a perfect little lathe to make a stem and other bigger parts of a watch/pocketwatch and the smaller parts of a large clock.
> I think The Sherline can be a good little lathe.
> I have this emco also:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This one off the net.
> It was my father's when he was a boy to turn small cannons for his model ships.
> it is about 50 years old. Last week I made a stem on it and that just works fine.
> A staff I wouldn't do on it.
> O yea: powered with my big oversized electrical motor......
> We are all quite focussing on staffs...
> There are so many parts, other then the staff, wich needs turning also!
> On this same lathe I once made the base for a pocketwatch barrel before milling, and after the milling... And a crownwheel of a travellers clock driving the escapement, only to be around 7 mm diameter, module 0.24
> worked alricht!
> bearings BTW are changed to SKF bearings, now it runs steady as ....?....
> @ Radger: what does it means that I am sitting on the fence? ;-)
> 
> nice day!
> RJ van Melle.


Ah, the old Unimat.
I knew that sooner or later this machine would make an appearance and
I'm glad it has.

Many a model steam engine were produced on these and there are
clubs and fans for users of the Unimat everywhere and I know they
had their uses in horology also.

I've nothing but good things to say about these lathes and like yourself,
I know it isn't a serious watchmakers lathe, but it's the first lathe I ever
owned when years ago I used to do model enginering.

I went from the Unimat to a Myford 7, but my wife would only let me
put it in the gardsn shed and the novelty of having to work in the shed
on cold dark nights soon wore off so I sold that and bought my EW which
being a smaller lathe satisfied her indoors and she let me back in the
house.
Thanks for the pic:-!

Ah sitting on the fence just means undecided, but I see from your post
your opinion quite clearly.


----------



## Somewhere else

radger said:


> Whoooa, I can see where the misunderstanding came from, and
> I'm very sorry for not quoting your exact words.
> 
> quote....
> 
> "I said he "turned it between centers". As far as I know (and I haven't asked in detail) he chucked one end in a 3 jaw chuck and had a live or dead center for the other."
> 
> end quote
> 
> The method you describe here is not 'turning between centers' and so
> that's where the confusion arises.


Nothing you say or have said so far takes away from the fact that balance staffs have been successfully turned on a Sherline by an intelligent hobbyist who used the tools available to him.

This is a good reason for anyone with a limited budget to consider this fine machine.

Wha


----------



## KineticProblem

Sherline is absolutely a hobby lathe, for hobby parts. This lathe is by far NOT in any way fitted or intended for wathmaking or finemechanical work of precision. It is a nice hobby lathe wich some few are able to create smal piece of watch part, no matter what said about these few - Sherline is a low budget hobby lathe. 
If this lathe are sold in large nr, 1 or 2 persons are able to produce smal pieces, not Q.C by a professional watchmaker this is no certificate of quality or presicion, it is actually first in favor of mathematics more luck than anything else.

There are many lathes for hobby use, they will always be hobby lathes just because their factory specs are low and strict controlled by profit. Quality cost and continue to cost. Some lathes of quality use bearings wich of one bearing cost more than a new Sherline lathe due to precision, it is realy no point to discuss this furter. 

I put it this way. 

1 NO, a hobby lathe is NOT a machine to make watchparts on, included Sherline lathe. It simply hobby use it is constructed for.
If you really are serious about watchmaking you look seriously after seriously quality for quality watcmaking and a life long joy of a lathe who just DONT fail. 

2. If a watchmaker had to replace his old WW lathe and just loose all demands for quality and start using a hobby lathe?. The real extreme watchparts has only been possible to make by constant reach for more prescision - sherline is stonage for a watchmaker. 

There is really after reading all post one more time only one answer to first question:
NO a Sherline is not intended or capable for most to make quality watchparts on.

I think this debate would end fast if the definition of the word "Hobby" was taken in consideration.


----------



## tomshep

No, Sir. You are simply wrong. The most difficult part of a watch movement, the staff, the passing out component of watchmakers' exams, can and has been made on a Sherline. More than once. 

Which makes your posting to the contrary seem ridiculous.

The "not quality controlled by the factory" jibe is especially laughable.

Of course it is suitable. It has been demonstrated to be so.

Now stop carping and congratulate the user of that lathe on his skill and workmanship.

Well Done Vespasian. A lot of us could benefit from your tips, advice and know how.


----------



## KineticProblem

I do salute his excelent work, his skills and craftmansship. By all means.
We go back to thread starters question a second, and for all others eager to find out if this lathe can make watch parts?. 
You and others have clearly taken the point of skilled and able operator to create watch parts on this lathe. Ok that is one person capable doing this on his lathe, for argue sake it's propably more capable of same result on same or equal lathe. 
Still we talk about people capable to acomplish these results on a HOBBY lathe, how do you really figure out that this is possible for general hobby watchmaking and for a general answear when same time in this thread it is only possible to refer to ONE person with the necessary skill and equippment to do this fine work?.

At least 95% of those buying a hobby lathe would never be able to do same work and produce same quality, no offence but you are little bit orbiting from common sense, to generally say yes it is possible you also must point out the reality. It is realy impossible to create perfection on a lathe unless it is talk about really skilled operators. 
These machines are by far NOT precision tools, they are not built with very high precision standards compared to a lathe 3-4 times the price, if they are then I need a better documentation. 
I personally have overhauled small lathes where new bearings (3) and each cost around ca $570. To meet minimum precision demands from factory to obtain specs and letter of guarantee and measuring. I do know theese things wery well and a debate over quality hobby v.s pro lathes including production standards I find odd. I have been involved in production and controlling parts to enhance radar equippment on F-16 fighterplane at NERA in Norway. I do really have to at least have an idea about theese things du to my approval of capability to understand, operate, maintain machines to produce these parts many equal to watch parts in size and quality, accepted and approved by USAF tech staff, NAD tech staff, Norwegian measuring office, machine manufactors tech staff to controll and be supervisor for these products and tools in production line, you can compare as much as you wish but there is a BIG difference. Hobby is hobby and pro class is lightyears away in all parts. 

I don't really want to be a schmuck and a besserwisser but to say yes a sherline lathe is capable to make watchparts in general I say sorry mate, you are wrong. 

The choosen few are in their own class, superb to achieve theese results in a inferior lathe. The right thing to do is to give those few a pro lathe and se more fantastic results, to use them as alibi to answear yes to threadstarters question is plain wrong. 

I say NO, you say YES and I can agree to not not agree but I can not read a yes without put some reality in it. 

Also if watchmaking is to be a hobby of high standard and quality, we all should advice newbees to best of best, but any newbee on a lowbudget who ask a question like this in this thread it is best to point out limitations and corners cutted so they know what they are buying. 

An Olympic 400m sprint gold winner uses sneakers, it is possible to tell all kids that if they buy Hobby sneakers they also can win 400m Olympic gold.


----------



## watchknight

my 2 cent, http://www.craftsmanshipmuseum.com/Kieffer.htm jerry kieffer whom taught sherline works at nawcc workshop is an expert in sherline. if you look at the website, and scrolled to the bottom you can see those running engines are make from sherline. back to the topic, i have chat with him many months ago and he is currently on many projects which one of it is making a repeater watch using sherline lathe and mill. I guessed this topic is best discussed in the nawcc forum where he is frequently spotted. i was told to control the machine, not let the machine control you... just look at how the ancient people make watches few centuries ago without any electronic machine..


----------



## rmelle

I am getting off my Fence now: ;-)
Thanks for explaining what is means!
There are 2 mayor differences between a pro and an amateur:
TIME, TIME and TIME!!!!
Offcourse it is possible to obtain magnificant results on Sherline or my old and small Unimat but it simply is not a profesional Lathe.
I worked a few years on a shaubelin, a lathe that can't be beaten on reliability/quality/steadieness/repeatebility etc etc etc!
Some of my clients are very serious amateurs clockmakers/steamengine builders. They built a clock or steamengine in a period of over 2 years.
then they do have a serious masterpiece! 
But for a pro it just isn't economical interesting/profitmaking!
trust in a machine/setting to zero/repeatebility are mayor factors in any machine you work on.
that is why the industries world wide have at this moment such an enourmous quality in presicion.
This is not based on one or 2 or maybe 3 succceses made on a lathe of say 200 Euro's/Dollars.
The parts I made succesfull on my Unimat is only based on my own personal experience, not having to think how the part should be, just turning on an automatic base.....
one more small example: the edge of a bridge of a 18th century pendulum clock: An amateur client of mine asked me how to:
I said: "Don't think, take a file look at the original and file it with ONE and only ONE stroke of your file! then you have a correct edge on the bridge!"
The person didn't believe me: made a complete setup on his small unimat makeing parts to chuck it down and after 3 evenings he had the edge on the bridge. came to me with a big smile on his face.
There was only one problem: his one was machine made, mine was hand made. He stopped smiling when he compared his one with mine.
Mine WAS actualy according to the original, his one was ......O well..... just machine made......
mine cost about 5 minutes work, his I don't know...
What I want to say:
THERE IS MORE INVOLVED IN MAKING ANY PARTS THEN ONLY THE MACHINE WORKING ON!!!!

Nice day and regards,
RJ van Melle.


----------



## Somewhere else

One shop I worked in kept a collection of old badly damaged clocks, some as old as 300 years old. The owner figured that if he had to do a clock repair on a clock 2300 years old, it was best to use metal from another clock made during that era.

Another thing he had us do whenever business was slow as to make skeleton watches so we could train our hands.

I think I could go on telling stories for the rest of the day to say how much I agree with what you say.

"It's the singer, not the song".


----------



## rmelle

Dear,
My collection of gold is the collection of 17th 18th and 19th century iron/steel and brass!
this is really priceless in restaurations.
funy you say about making skeleton clocks! When an aprentice I had to do that also..... getting the feeling when filing, the clock/part must become a part of yourself and yourself only.
My boss at that time went quite far in this thinking:
He advised me to even listen to classic music of the same era of the clock!
So at the age of 36 I also have a wide knowladge of classical music ;-) 
besides the beastieboys of which I am a great fan, or even pitbull with "I know you want me"! (



) HAHAHAHA
it actually works it really does!!!
BUT: working with the Toccata en Fuga of Bach is just magnificant on my super modern Wabeco mill.........




 (sorry for the lousy video)
really gives a thrill to the spine of your body......

regards,
RJ van Melle.

PS: the clock 2300 years old must have been a roman sundial? :-d


----------

