With or without levelling feet?

The fact is that the first torsion clock with levelling feet appears in 1951, but when is the last torsion clock without levelling feet made?
(Continued from the previous topic old ref::here)

[Jeff C]

Wouldn't it be fair to say 1952 and later? I'm sure any stock without feet would have been used up prior to and into the transition of using leveling feet on bases.

Just my opinion

[shutterbug]

That's a good question. About that time, there was a rush to produce the cheapest (cost wise) clock and beat the competition. Many things were sacrificed in order to defray costs, and feet would probably rank pretty high on the "unnecessary" list. I would not be surprised if a footless clock was manufactured well into the '60's.

[Andy Krietzer]

I'm not sure when they stopped making them, but Staiger of Germany made the tiny 8 and 10 day torsion clocks, and they don't have levelling feet. I was thinking they made these in the 1960s and possibly into the 1970s. Remember there were a lot of companies that were making anniversary clocks in the 1950s, so not all added levelling feet at the same time.

Andy

[John Hubby]

Andy is correct, none of the Gebrüder Staiger 8-Day torsion clocks had leveling feet, and they were produced into the late 1960's/early 1970's. There were others as well but I'm away from home at the moment and can't check all my references.

One other point: If we include all torsion clocks, the earliest commercial introduction of leveling feet was by J. L. Reutter on some Atmos I models made in the early 1930's. All of the Atmos II models have leveling feet from 1938 onward.

One that I know for sure that "didn't" have leveling feet is the 1981 Schatz 100-Year Anniversary special edition. That clock is a replica of a 1884 Harder/JUF clock, made long before the introduction of leveling feet.

John Hubby

[Tom McIntyre]

I suppose it is just a matter of definitions, but any feet are useful for leveling even if they are not screw adjustable.

If you don't have any feet, you can't readily slip something under a round base to adjust for level operation. You need to put two shims under the rim to be stable.

[John Hubby]

Tom, you are correct on both points. Any clock with fixed feet can be easily leveled using shims. The 400-Day variety with round bases need two shims to ensure stability.

Having said that, the "usual" definition used in the torsion clock world for leveling feet is one or more built-in devices located in the base of the clock, usually including some kind of screw arrangement, that can be adjusted to level the clock without the use of shims.

John Hubby

Thank you all for the info! I will put two shims under my W. Petersen clock from c. 1952, (see previous topic old ref::here) and now I know that i have a S. Haller-wannabe clock made c. 1960 by Tissnis and a Georg Wurthner-wannabe clock made in the mid 1950-ties by Hervo. Is this correct?

[kirklox]

I do not usnderstand your reference to wannabe's?

[John Hubby]

Tranibor, I think you have it backwards. Your first clock was NOT made by Tissnis, it was made by S. Haller for Tissnis. The second clock was NOT made by Hervo, it was made by Georg Wurthner for Hervo.

It was very common for both S. Haller and Georg Wurthner to make clocks for third parties. Both companies are well documented to have produced 400-Day clocks both for their own market as well as to sell to others. For example:

* Haller made clocks for HECO (Henry Coehler), Robanne Corp., Hamilton HYL and others.
* Wurthner made clocks for John Wanamaker, H. Eule, H.X.M. and others.

Almost all of the post-WW2 makers sold movements and complete clocks to third parties, most of them "branded" with the reseller's name. The most prolific maker for third parties was Kieninger & Obergfell (Kundo); others included Uhrenfabrik Herr, Edgar Henn, M. Reiner, Konrad Mauch (KOMA), Kern & Söhne, Hermle, Schatz, Uhrenfabrik Neueck, etc.

Neither Tissnis or Hervo were ever recorded to have made any 400-Day clocks, my research indicates both were resellers.

John Hubby