Update: 300k+ curated watch movement parts, 25k+ calibers, and a fully rebuilt search/interchange platform
Quick update on the movement database project I’ve been building.
The main recent change is that the platform has been completely rewritten. This was the real 2026 project behind the scenes: rebuilding the core system so the database can scale properly, search more reliably, and handle parts/interchange data with fewer hidden assumptions.
A few headline numbers:
- 300k+ curated part records
- 25k+ calibers covered
- 1,200+ automated tests written across the platform
- rebuilt search logic
- rewritten matching/interchange logic
- cleaner links between calibers, parts, references, supersessions, and equivalents
🔍 Rewritten search and discovery
The search layer has been rebuilt from the ground up. The goal is to make it easier to find a caliber, part reference, manufacturer, base movement, or related family even when the input is incomplete, inconsistent, or uses a variant reference.
A lot of the work went into making searches less brittle, especially for old references, alternate formats, and manufacturer-specific numbering.
🔧 300k+ curated parts
The parts catalog is now much larger and more structured. It includes spare part references, related calibers, supersessions, stated equivalents, and interchange data where available.
For a part, the system can surface:
- calibers it fits
- stated equivalents
- replacement / supersession chains
- related references
- possible compatible calibers
The goal is still the same: make it easier to move from a caliber to the parts that fit it, and from a part back to all compatible calibers.
♻️ Donor and interchange tooling
The shared-calibers / donor explorer is still one of the areas I’m most interested in getting feedback on.
From any caliber, it compares other calibers by shared parts and produces two scores:
- Donor %: how much of the selected movement another caliber can supply.
- Overlap %: how interchangeable the two movements appear overall.
Movements that appear to share the same base ébauche are flagged as likely same base. This is meant to help identify donor movements or possible interchange options when the exact part reference is hard to find.
⏱️ Movement specs before opening the watch
The caliber encyclopedia is still being expanded. Each caliber page collects practical specs such as dimensions, height, jewels, frequency, lift angle, escapement / winding / rotor type, shock protection, complications, and related families.
The idea is to have the basic technical context available before opening the watch or digging through scattered sheets.
🕵️ Movement identification
The identification tool is also still part of the project. It helps narrow candidates for unmarked movements using size, height, jewels, shape, frequency, complications, and physical traits such as import codes, balance support type, hairspring stud type, and stem release position.
🧪 Rebuilt with test coverage
One of the biggest invisible changes is testing. I wrote over 1,200 automated tests to cover the platform logic, search behavior, part relationships, supersession handling, permissions, and expected workflows.
That does not mean the data is perfect, but it should make the system much safer to change and easier to improve without breaking existing behavior.
👥 Community corrections
The data is still incomplete, and I expect mistakes, especially around parts and interchangeability.
I’d especially appreciate feedback from watchmakers, parts suppliers, and anyone who works with donor movements on things like:
- incorrect equivalents
- broken or questionable supersession chains
- missing calibers or variants
- donor matches that do not make sense in practice
- parts linked to the wrong caliber
- manufacturer-specific reference numbers that are ambiguous, duplicated, or incorrectly normalized
The encyclopedia/spec side is open to browse. Some of the deeper interchange tools are still limited while I validate the data, but the main reason I’m posting is to get technical feedback, corrections, and real-world edge cases rather than to promote the project.
At this stage, the most useful feedback is not “nice project,” but corrections: places where the data disagrees with bench experience, parts books, supplier references, or real donor-movement behavior.
