Screw Balance Opinions

[RobbieG]

I love the look of the screw balance and it is used by virtually all the high end makers, but wonder if it really is superior? Certainly one could find a physical and theoretical reason for why it might be for very fine adjustment, but in practice and reality can a fine screw regulator adjustment achieve rate results just as good all other things being equal? Just curious as to whether tradition is really all that drives the choice. Of course that is fine by me as I personally love to look at them and I think it is amazing how much more mundane a movement looks with a non-screw balance. Anyway, I'll look forward to the opinions.

[FxrAndy]

I think with modern production methods these are realy just for show unless there is no other adjustment but they do look better, i have one in my vintage pam thingy from molnja. you can just make out the screws on this one. I think i paid $15 for this in a watch and it runs perfectly

[RobbieG]

Interesting. What is the origin of that movement? Don't know that I have seen that particular Asian version before Andy.

[FxrAndy]

it is russian, this a a 40 yr old one but the newer ones look similar, the first Fiddy reps came with these and you can still get some vintage pam reps from DSN with them but the movement on its own can be ripped from any cheep russian pocket watch

have a look on the bay search molnija

screwed balance on this one here

This one from DSN had one in it, not sure if it was a screwed balance though, as the photo are gone. The newer versions had 19 j and the older ones were 17j.

[Shundi]

I think the screws change the effective diameter and thus the timing... I know Rolex uses them and I read somewhere that some watches in the 50's -80's had screws on the balance that didn't do anything simply because watchmakers thought "high quality" movements HAD to have them... I've read TZ arguments over which movement is better (Omega Cal 1120 or Rolex 3135) and Rolex fans usually point (right or wrong) to the 3135 due to the fact that (I'm paraphrasing) Omega movements (and ETA mvt's in general) have a regulating needle which can be supposedly be knocked out of place or can't be as finely adjusted as balance screws and thus the screwed balances are more likely to maintain their timekeeping in the long run...

I own watches with the 3135 movement, the 2500 movement and (just arrived) my second SMP with the 1120 movement... all three watches keep COSC time around +1-2 seconds... my Bond SMP is from 2006 and my TT datejust is from 2006...two years in, they're keeping the same time and I beat the hell out of the SMP (diving, running, golfing, tennis... the things you're not supposed to do with automatics!)...

My humble opinion is that screwed balances are a pain in the ass to adjust and are on high end watches because they've been seen as a mark of quality for many years... that being said, the reason Omega switched to a screwed balance in their new 80xx series movement was because they added a free-sprung balance and (I think) Breguet overcoil which are features that are said to enhance stability and timekeeping in the long run... part of me thinks they did it because they wanted to move toward the highest quality for their own personal reasons but in reality Omega needed an in house movement to compete with Rolex... I'll be picking up a new Seamaster once they incorporate the 8100 movement into the line! I hope anyone who has experience with both standard and screwed balance movements will chime in with whether or not there is a marked difference between these manufactures.