Roskopf Watch Movement "The Pin-Lever Escapement" brought to you by ChatGPT
So here goes another in the ChatGPT series.
I thought I would ask ChatGPT to write an article on the famous/infamous Roskopf movement. The movement that democratized watches before the invention of the quartz movement.
The is the movement that @Porthole always complains about due to its disposable nature once there is an issue with the movement (I think one of his was an Oris pin-lever reference). No easy fixes...like a Swatch...when it stops working...you toss it.
************************************************************
The Roskopf watch movement is a unique and historically significant movement that was developed in the late 19th century by the Swiss watchmaker Georges Frederic Roskopf. Roskopf was a prolific inventor who developed a number of new watch movements and mechanisms, but it was his inexpensive and durable "pin lever" movement that would become his most enduring legacy.
The pin lever movement was revolutionary for its time. It was designed to be cheap and easy to manufacture, making it accessible to a wider range of consumers. The movement was made up of a small number of parts and was simple to assemble, which made it affordable for many people who had previously been unable to afford a high-quality watch.
The pin lever movement was also highly accurate and reliable. It did not require the same level of precision in manufacturing that other movements did, but it was still able to keep time accurately. This was because the movement relied on a unique escapement system that used a pin rather than a traditional balance wheel. The pin lever system reduced the number of moving parts in the watch, which made it more robust and less susceptible to wear and tear.
The Roskopf movement was an immediate success, and it quickly became popular throughout Europe and beyond. The movement was used in a wide range of watches, from cheap and affordable timepieces to more expensive and high-end models.
The popularity of the Roskopf movement continued into the early 20th century, but eventually, it began to decline in popularity as newer and more advanced watch movements were developed. However, the Roskopf movement continued to be used in some watches up until the 1970s.
Today, the Roskopf movement is primarily of historical significance. While it is no longer widely used in modern watches, it remains an important part of the history of watchmaking. The pin lever movement was a groundbreaking invention that made high-quality timepieces more accessible to a wider range of people, and it set the stage for the development of newer and more advanced watch movements in the years to come.
Overall, the Roskopf watch movement is an important part of watchmaking history. It was a groundbreaking invention that helped to make high-quality timepieces more accessible to a wider range of consumers, and it remains an important part of the development of modern watch movements. While the Roskopf movement is no longer widely used today, its impact on the history of watchmaking cannot be overstated.
***********************************************************
If you want more on the topic of the "escapement", then this article from HODINKEE is just what the doctor ordered...
https://www.hodinkee.com/articles/the-modern-watch-escapement-and-how-it-got-that-way
I really like chronographs especially vintage ones.
Love the “Unbreakable Mainspring” label.
Thanks for that! I enjoyed reading it.
You what ChatGPT? High on your own data?
The pin pallet escapement was widely used because it was easier to manufacture, basically. Reliability and accuracy be damned, which it’s contradicted itself a little bit on, it’s because they were cheap and many brands were stuck using them due to The Swiss Watch Statute, otherwise they would have disappeared into the annals of history much sooner.
If you look at a traditional lever escapement you have two angled faces (the locking face and the impulse face, which engage the teeth of the escape wheel). They both must be adjusted to the correct angles for the escapement to function as a whole, otherwise it doesn’t work. In a pin pallet escapement these faces are just designed into the shape of the escape wheel teeth to avoid all the palaver of getting angle right; clever, but it comes at a cost as friction wears them down over time.
The metal pins used have much higher friction than jewelled pallets, and combined with the relaxed manufacturing tolerances this made pin pallets less accurate. The metal pins also wear quicker. Pin pallet timepieces are usually too cheap to justify repair, and are usually replaced when they wear out.
Timex and Oris did have jewelled movements, but the fundamentals remain the same. You can have many jewels (known as deck jewels) which deal with accuracy on a number of moving parts, but the main heart of the movement is still flawed. The best description I have ever seen for a high jewel-count on an EB movement was from 17jewels.com where he called it a “Jewel grave”.
You what ChatGPT? High on your own data?
The pin pallet escapement was widely used because it was easier to manufacture, basically. Reliability and accuracy be damned, which it’s contradicted itself a little bit on, it’s because they were cheap and many brands were stuck using them due to The Swiss Watch Statute, otherwise they would have disappeared into the annals of history much sooner.
If you look at a traditional lever escapement you have two angled faces (the locking face and the impulse face, which engage the teeth of the escape wheel). They both must be adjusted to the correct angles for the escapement to function as a whole, otherwise it doesn’t work. In a pin pallet escapement these faces are just designed into the shape of the escape wheel teeth to avoid all the palaver of getting angle right; clever, but it comes at a cost as friction wears them down over time.
The metal pins used have much higher friction than jewelled pallets, and combined with the relaxed manufacturing tolerances this made pin pallets less accurate. The metal pins also wear quicker. Pin pallet timepieces are usually too cheap to justify repair, and are usually replaced when they wear out.
Timex and Oris did have jewelled movements, but the fundamentals remain the same. You can have many jewels (known as deck jewels) which deal with accuracy on a number of moving parts, but the main heart of the movement is still flawed. The best description I have ever seen for a high jewel-count on an EB movement was from 17jewels.com where he called it a “Jewel grave”.
Thanks for correction. I left ChatGPT to its own devices. Clearly it needs some feedback. 😉
Love the “Unbreakable Mainspring” label.
Nothing to do with the escapement, and very common to see in a dial. It refers to the "white" metal used in the spring, a nickel, chromium alloy with varying amounts of cobalt, molybdenum, or beryllium, as "unbreakable” in comparison to the “blue” steel mainsprings that were previously in use. I’ve also seen these called “Lifetime” springs, but that annoys me as if a breakage is the death of a spring, then all springs are lifetime springs. An unbreakable spring doesn't exist, as everything will (eventually) break.
Some manufacturers referred to the slipping clutch system used in automatics as "unbreakable" as many people believe too much winding leads to a broken spring. It should be noted that many of these also used the “white” metal spring material.
Thanks for correction. I left ChatGPT to its own devices. Clearly it needs some feedback. 😉
That paragraph was painful to read… I’m worried that without proper checks and balances this sort of thing will just rewrite large swathes of history. You cannot accept these things on face value.
That paragraph was painful to read… I’m worried that without proper checks and balances this sort of thing will just rewrite large swathes of history. You cannot accept these things on face value.
Agreed - I was just being a bit lazy and not wanting to rewrite the ChatGPT article. There is often effusive adjectives applied and some misleading results...must be something in the algorithm. I have all of this research on Roskopf and have been meaning to write my own article, but just gave it to ChatGPT due to lack of time.
You should see the article it drafted on the history of the Swiss brand Choisi...I never knew that Louis-Ulysse Chopard founded Choisi 😂 It's so bad especially since a simple Google search will reveal the proper history of the brand.
The robots are not taking over any time soon.
Agreed - I was just being a bit lazy and not wanting to rewrite the ChatGPT article. There is often effusive adjectives applied and some misleading results...must be something in the algorithm. I have all of this research on Roskopf and have been meaning to write my own article, but just gave it to ChatGPT due to lack of time.
You should see the article it drafted on the history of the Swiss brand Choisi...I never knew that Louis-Ulysse Chopard founded Choisi 😂 It's so bad especially since a simple Google search will reveal the proper history of the brand.
The robots are not taking over any time soon.
It’s novel… I think it’s impressive it can trawl the net to find this stuff and dump it into a conversation when prompted, but garbage in > garbage out. The end game concerns me a little, because you’ve effectively asked it to generate an article, but it’s fundamentally flawed in places. I know you know it’s flawed, but not everyone does. If a lazy hack-journo would use it, they’d take this wholesale and it then ends up in the wild, almost legitimising the inaccuracy. ChatGPT is not a reference, it’s a bot.
Oh, Baumgartner 866 btw - the pic. I feel like I’m due to start breaking out in hives when I see one of these.
This is a link to a really great translation of a treatise from 1914 on the Roskopf Watch.
Fascinating reading, if you have the time...
https://www.watkinsr.id.au/Buffat.pdf