Is this glass original?

[Jeremy Woodoff]

I am posting part of a longer message on the Clocks forum to try to get some opinions from our reverse painting specialists. The glass pictured here is on an Eli Terry & Sons pillar and scroll clock. The glass itself is old and wavy and has an obvious crack. It is otherwise in perfect condition, and I believe is a proper design for this clock. It also seems to be very well done. It is held in with putty, but it is not the original putty, was sloppily applied, and is somewhat soft. The upper glass is also old, but is held in only with glazing points; there is no putty at all on the upper glass.

I'd appreciate opinions on whether the painted tablet could be original. Also, thoughts on whether to apply an epoxy like HXTAL to the crack to add strength and make the crack less visible. Finally, you will notice that the lower left side of the glass is not flush with the door molding. I don't whether it was installed this way on purpose or out of carelessness. Should I attempt to remove the putty and reset the glass?

I will appreciate all thoughts on this.

[Chris Radano]

Of course I am not the most knowldgeable of these. However, one way I tell if the painting is redone is the use of black outline on the tree leaves, grass, and building structure. The original painters did not use the black outline.

[Jeremy Woodoff]

Whatever outlines there are, are hand-inked. It is not one of the later, transfer glasses filled in with color. If it is a reproduction glass, it was certainly done by one of the expert reproduction glass painters to match an original painting.

[laprade]

Jeremy,

Very often, copyists, restorers, or fakers, who try to emulate "primitive" painting, forget to paint like a primitive.

primitive painters are called such, because they have not mastered the art of "perspective". In reality, they can't paint! Hence, tables that look as if everything on them will slide off. Out of scale buildings, as is the case with this tablet, is another feature.

flora tend to be "stiffly" painted and the use of "dabs" is often used to emulate leaves atc.

Examine the brush strokes closely and compare them with verified examples.

laprade

[Thyme]

I am posting part of a longer message on the Clocks forum to try to get some opinions from our reverse painting specialists. The glass pictured here is on an Eli Terry & Sons pillar and scroll clock. The glass itself is old and wavy and has an obvious crack. It is otherwise in perfect condition, and I believe is a proper design for this clock. It also seems to be very well done. It is held in with putty, but it is not the original putty, was sloppily applied, and is somewhat soft. The upper glass is also old, but is held in only with glazing points; there is no putty at all on the upper glass.

I'd appreciate opinions on whether the painted tablet could be original. Also, thoughts on whether to apply an epoxy like HXTAL to the crack to add strength and make the crack less visible. Finally, you will notice that the lower left side of the glass is not flush with the door molding. I don't whether it was installed this way on purpose or out of carelessness. Should I attempt to remove the putty and reset the glass?

I will appreciate all thoughts on this.

To answer your questions (IMHO): yes, yes and yes (absolutely). :)

The putty looks to be an amateur's attempt at repair. Also, it appears the case has been refinished, but to the benefit of the clock's appearance. The inside of the door is probably a clue to the way the original finish looked before restoration. ;)

[Jeremy Woodoff]

Thanks for your thoughts, everyone. I think I will try removing the putty to see how it goes. If it looks as though I can re-set the glass, I'll order some HXTL.

As far as the case goes, I'm going to look at the door interior closely again to compare it with the outside of the case. It looked at first more as though either the finish had been re-amalgamated or rubbed down with mild abrasive, rather than actually stripped and refinished. If it was refinished, though, it was a job I would be very happy with if I had done it myself. It has the kind of mellow glow of furniture you see in museums--restored, but neither looking new or like it has 200 years of wear.

[Sooth]

I have seen thousands of tablets, and seeing this one, I'd hesitantly say that it's original. I have seen really nicely done copies (Moberg, Davis, etc) and it's usually fairly easy to spot them. Even if it is a copy, it's in very good condition, even though it's cracked, and I would not consider replacing it.

[fume happy]

Man, that's a tough call.

http://www.antiqueclockspriceguide.com/indexlinks.php?manufacturer=Terry_and_Sons

There are some more Eli Terry and Son clocks there, all with very similiar designs, but there are no close ups of the glasses that give the detail necessary. There is one with a similar border pattern. Anyone out there have a detail of linework from a confirmed original they can share?
~Fumey

[Eckmill]

Tough call Jeremy. I think Davis or one of his students would have to examine the tablet in situ for an expert opinion on originality.

The border appears to be perfectly made suggesting a stencil and bronze dust but from the photo I can't tell the difference between stenciled bronze and gold leaf work. The brilliance of gold leaf isn't revealed in the photos.

The amount of detail and ink work on the glass suggests work executed in the past 20 to 30 years. The use of what appears to be "double-loaded" brush work in the tree follage within the inked outlines is suspect.

Overall, to my critical eye, there appears to be an excess of detail in the tablet for it to be the product of one of the early Seth Thomas tablets.

Forgive me if I have misjudged. I can only reply to your query with my opinion.

Les

[Jeremy Woodoff]

Les,

The border is gold leaf with the shading done by scratching through the gold, allowing the black backing to show through.

[laprade]

Have you checked to see how old the glass is. Pre "Pilkington float" (1850)should show either; lines (concentric) if "crown", or roller marks if it is "cylinder".

[Jeremy Woodoff]

laprade, the glass is wavy, but wavy glass was used here well into the 20th century. I don't know enough to be able to determine if it is 1830s glass or later.

[Thyme]

Les,

The border is gold leaf with the shading done by scratching through the gold, allowing the black backing to show through.

This may run contrary to seeking absolute proof, but in my limited experience I've found that, more often than not, it can be a reasonably safe assumption that a part IS original to the antique piece, unless there is compelling reason to doubt that it is.

On this board I've read too many times where someone automatically assumes a part is not original - for no reason to think that is so.

[laprade]

Having had quite a few American clocks and glancing at the picture in this thread, when it first came up, I had assumed that the picture would be "primitive”.

It was the house that gave me that impression, but, when I looked again, I noticed that the house has a slight problem: its gable is shown to be “in front” of the big tree, when it should be “be hind” it.

Then I got to looking at the composition of the trees themselves. They are well designed, both in drafting and colouring. They are not in the “primitive style”, they have “perspective”. Neither is the grass “primitive”: it also shows signs of perspective. The gilt areas, though a bit clumsy in places, are of a complicated design.

As Thyme suggests, in most cases the original is what is there.

A clue as to the originality of the picture is the “house”. While the trees and grass have “perspective”, the house, although it is at a “supposed” angle, has none. So it would seem that it was put onto the glass at the wrong time, or in the wrong place. To me, this would seem to indicate that it is original, and was the result of “haste” in the assembly line. It could even be a completely wrong addition, because, really speaking, it is too big for the picture and the space it is supposed to fit into.

A replacement (repro) tableau would not have made that mistake.

Or would it?

[Jeremy Woodoff]

Two things led me to question the originality of the glass. First was the new putty, though it seems that anyone who would have gone to the trouble and expense to obtain such a good quality reproduction tablet, on old glass, would have done a better job of puttying it in. Second was the fact that, except for the crack, the paint is absolutely perfect with not a bit of loss or lifting.

I haven't studied enough original and reproduction paintings side by side to know the subtle differences. But based on what I have seen, this one certainly looks original in composition, color, and technique.

Laprade, that's an interesting observation about the tree branch behind the gable. However, if the tree were close enough to the house, it is possible that a branch could arch over the building and be partially obscured. The house had to have been at least inked first, and then it would not have been possible to put anything in front of it.

[laprade]

Jeremy, I thought hard about the tree, and came to the conclusion that the base is too far in front. It would be interesting, with a bright light, to see if the tree is visible through the house.

I agree that the house is a separate transfer, otherwise it would have been better placed in the design.

[Jim DuBois]

Regarding the "is this original glass?" question it would seem the question was pretty well answered by Jeremy in his first post.

How does one reasonably ascertain a glass to be original to a clock? I suggest the following critera would apply 1) held in with original putty, 2)correctness of style, execution, and methodology 3)condition / age / wear 4) glass details (wavy / bubbled / thin)

Since the first condition was not met, the rest hardly matter. Original putty is tenacious to a fault. It is very difficult to remove original putty in my experience and I have done it some fair number of times. Further, it is nearly impossible to remove original putty from a clock door frame without breaking or otherwise damaging the glass, or the paint on the glass.


I have seen circumstances where a clock has been stored in humid conditions where the putty is more readily removed, but that usually results in a significant loss of paint on the glass too.

What I would do is precisely what you have suggested, remove the recent and poorly applied putty, and re-putty the glass, crack and all, with well applied early 19th century style "putty" and color it to appear more correct. Such work will not fool experts but restoration work should look “proper”.
The unfortunate point in all this is even if the glass should be original (and I think it is not) it will always in the best case be suspect, for a number of reasons several people have already pointed out

[harold bain]

Here is something to think about. Lets say the glass broke when the clock was a year or two old. Would it have been possible for a local repair person (or the owner of the clock) to buy a replacement glass at that time? Perhaps he didn't have the skill to mount the glass properly, but it looked good enough from the outside.

[Jeremy Woodoff]

The interesting thing is that the existing glass was not originally held in place with the soft, modern putty that was holding it when I got the clock. There are remnants of older, hard putty on the glass itself. I would think that whenever the glass cracked, the putty would have remained relatively intact, and there would have been no reason to remove it unless the glass was to be replaced. However, is it possible that when the glass cracked the putty was already cracked and loose? It might then make sense to remove the putty and reset the glass. It appears that this happened to the existing glass, whether or not it is the original glass. Perhaps the existing glass is an old, period glass from another clock.

[Thyme]

The interesting thing is that the existing glass was not originally held in place with the soft, modern putty that was holding it when I got the clock. There are remnants of older, hard putty on the glass itself. I would think that whenever the glass cracked, the putty would have remained relatively intact, and there would have been no reason to remove it unless the glass was to be replaced. However, is it possible that when the glass cracked the putty was already cracked and loose? It might then make sense to remove the putty and reset the glass. It appears that this happened to the existing glass, whether or not it is the original glass. Perhaps the existing glass is an old, period glass from another clock.


Jeremy,

There are several points that are unclear here:

In your photos, we see putty that looks as though it was varnished over or stained over, just as the interior of the door looks refinished in the same way (rather sloppily). Yes?

Did you remove that top, soft layer of putty, to then find another intact layer of harder putty beneath it?

Don't try to speculate what 'might' have happened (at least not yet) - instead evaluate/judge what IS: accurately gather and record the remaining evidence that you actually see.

Anything is possible. Instead, concern yourself with observations based upon the evidence, then begin considering what hypothesis fits best, and is most likely in this case. ;)

[Jeremy Woodoff]

What you see in the "before" picture is recent, soft putty sloppily applied. It did not appear to be coated, but had coloring through it. When I removed it, there were remnants--small bits--of older, hard, white putty on the edge of the glass and on the door frame. This was not holding the glass in place, but appeared to have done so at one time, before most of it was removed. There were no, or minimal, remnants of any putty on the old upper glass, it being held in with glazing points. The finish on the inside of the door is old, could be original or possibly recoated at some time. It's not especially sloppy, just old.