Jump to content

Sundays Clock Quiz


oldhippy

Recommended Posts

I'm torn between number 3 and number 2 as the earliest but I think 3 would be the earliest of the clocks from the very small picture I can see it has half hour markers common to clocks from 1670 to 1705, the hood has barley twist pillars that where in use until 1705 and the minute chapter appears to be on the outer edge of the chapter ring so I think this clock would be 1670 to 1695.

Number 2 is of a very similar period marquetry cases where used on the most expensive cases 1675 to 1720 and only in London the dial has half hour markers so that would move the date to 1675 to 1705 it appears to have a outside minute track so that narrows the date to 1675 to 1695, but the hood pillars are of a rather plain style which I dont think would have been common for that period.

I really think now 2 and 3 are of the same date no later than 1695.

Number one is the latest of the 3 brass dials ran until 1770 moon rollers came in  1770 and ran until 1830 minute numbers at every 5 minutes 1770 to 1800 so I think this must be one of the earliest of the moon rollers and date to 1770.

These are rather inexperienced observations

As a note to anyone interested in clocks I can recommend the following books I am currently reading for dating clocks,

English Domestic Clocks by Herbert Cesinsky and Malcom R. Webster ( rich in detailed illustrations)

English House Clocks, 1600-1850 Anthony Bird ( Good section as it happens on Verge to Anchor conversions in chapter 11 )

White dial clock by B.Loomes

CARRIAGE CLOCKS - HISTORY & DEVELOPMENT by Charles Allix and Peter Bonnert

All out of print but can be bought very cheaply of ebay

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

37 views and only 1 reply.:pulling-hair-out:


I'm only a hobby watchmaking enthusiast so can't add anything constructive in answer to your quiz but please hold back on the hair pulling. Personally I find them very informative and educational and add to my enjoyment of this forum.

This one is of particular interest as I've just inherited the family grandfather clock which had been in the family for at least 4 generations. No idea of its age so was planning to post some pictures at some stage. Won't hijack your thread with these now but thanks for your posts and keep them coming.



Sent from my moto g(6) play using Tapatalk

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No winner with this quiz. The correct answer is 2 C1695 3 C1730 1 C1840

Early good longcase clocks will most certainly have a glass in the door (sometimes they are called a bullseye). This was so you could see the pendulum. If you come across such a clock and you are not sure if the movement is correct, if you cannot see the pendulum it sure is a different movement. Early Longcase clocks always had narrow long doors. The latter the clock the shorter the door and it will be wide.

Thank you for taking part. Even if it were only two. Members do not be shy next time have a go.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I shall have to digest my books some more, but thanks for sharing your wealth of knowledge I know it has certainly kindled a thirst of knowledge in me, I haven't worked on a watch now for over a month but I have serviced  the following clocks in that time I shall have to post some pictures of them they include a Winterhalder 3/4 Westminster, Lenzkirch ting tang, R and C striking carriage clock, various timepiece carriage clocks, various french striking clocks and  I've an unusual German Blackforest striking clock on the way that I look forward to working on, the only problem with going from watches to clocks is the room they take up !

Many thanks for taking the time,

Wayne

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks for the feedback. wis1971 you should post your work. It will also be interisting for me and others. How about a before and after. It will also be interesting for me and others. How about a before and after.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


The late Victorian Longcase clocks those that were called county clocks were plain and dull and not very good full painted dials. It was also a time where many people were involved in the making. You would have the movement makers, dial makers and painters, false plate makers and cabinetmakers.    

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.



  • Recently Browsing

    • No registered users viewing this page.
  • Topics

  • Posts

    • As far as I know, the only time an epilame treatment has potential drawbacks is when something is rubbing on the treated part w/o lubrication in between creating abrasive dust. That is, I don't believe in the method of "running the watch to make a groove through it first in the pallet stones where the lubrication is then placed". So, I think the rule would be; do not epilame treat parts where rubbing is going on without lubrication. Other than that I don't think we have anything to worry about. That said, I'm not an expert, and I'm always happy to learn more. Has any other repairer than Alex suggested or explained the "making-a-groove" method? My impression is that it's just something he constructed in his mind. I have not perceived it as a generally practiced method. Again, I could be wrong!
    • Post some pictures , some good close ones of the parts you've described. 
    • Ive never used epilame H only information i have read and mentally stored about it mostly from Nicklesilver here and elsewhere ( the fork horns thing ), maybe the residue powder that is removed has some grinding effect ? So probably a good idea to limit its application areas to only the absolute necessary. Yes as far as i know epilame rubs off relatively easy, the technique of running the watch to make a groove through it first in the pallet stones where the lubrication is then placed. This i understand creates the barrier for the lube to sit up to. If i can find a good balance of pros and cons of its use then thats one process i can avoid by using a thixotropic lube on the stones. The epilame i would say allows for a more fluid lubrication to be used that would increase amplitude on low beat movements. The stearic acid powder is extremely cheap, the problem is the fuming process to coat parts, is not selective , the whole part has to treated in this method. If epilame residue can cause wear then thats not good, if I remember the conclusion was not proved entirely just a general assumption between watchmakers. The thread is out there somewhere, the same discussion is also old on a facebook group. Ive never used epilame H only information i have read and mentally stored about it mostly from Nicklesilver here and elsewhere ( the fork horns thing ), maybe the residue powder that is removed has some grinding effect ? So probably a good idea to limit its application areas to only the absolute necessary. Yes as far as i know epilame rubs off relatively easy, the technique of running the watch to make a groove through it first in the pallet stones where the lubrication is then placed. This i understand creates the barrier for the lube to sit up to. If i can find a good balance of pros and cons of its use then thats one process i can avoid by using a thixotropic lube on the stones. The epilame i would say allows for a more fluid lubrication to be used that would increase amplitude on low beat movements. The stearic acid powder is extremely cheap, the problem is the fuming process to coat parts, is not selective , the whole part has to treated in this method. If epilame residue can cause wear then thats not good, if I remember the conclusion was not proved entirely just a general assumption between watchmakers. The thread is out there somewhere, the same discussion is also old on a facebook group. If its a potential problem for amateurs to use then i would prefer not to take the risk .
    • Following on from my question about identifying screws in the AS2063 movement that basically fell out of the case in bits, I’m pleased to report that I’ve got it all back together, and the movement is running pretty well.    But… There’s something wrong with the keyless works and hand setting. It’s fine in winding and quickset date position - these work - but in hand setting position winding the crown turns the whole gear train.  I don’t really understand how it’s meant to work. It doesn’t have a traditional friction fit cannon pinion.  The second wheel is unusual with a pair of smaller pinions on it, which seem to interact with the barrel and the motion works.    Could this be the problem? I must admit I just cleaned it and popped it in place when reassembling the gear train. I’ve lubricated the pivots but didn’t do anything to the extra bits on the second wheel.    Does this make sense and is anyone able to figure out what I’m doing wrong? Thanks in advance, as always.    ETA - the parts list calls it the Great Wheel, not second wheel. 
    • You're thinking metal to jewel in general I guess. Maybe it would be a good idea to peg the pallet staff jewel hole on the main plate after the epilame treatment. I think that could work as it is my impression that the epilame doesn't sit very hard, but I could be wrong about that so feel free to educate me. I didn't remember that 9501 was thixotropic (thanks for the link). That would mean it's even runnier during impact (lower viscosity) so perhaps it's time I get some fresh grease as mine seems a bit too runny. What I have seen is a whitish surface after washing but it goes away if I scrub the surface with a brush in a degreaser (Horosolv). I don't think it embeds itself in the metal but sticks very hard to the metal. I don't worry too much about the cleaning solution. I just want perfectly clean parts and my solution can be replaced for little money (ELMA RED 1:9). Anyway, I quite often need "to strip back and rebuild" and scrubbing parts by hand isn't exactly the most stimulating part of a service. Just got confirmation that Moebius 9501 has a lower viscosity (68 cSt at 20° C) than 9504 (305 cSt at 20°). The viscosity of Molykote DX is 285-315 cSt at -25° to +125° C. I was surprised to see that the viscosity of Moebius 9010 (thin oil!) is higher (150 cSt at 20°) than my 9501 grease!
×
×
  • Create New...