400 Day Clock Identification

[Ipswichbrian]

I I have recently purchased the clock shown in the attached photos. I am starting my clock collection, much to my wife’s chagrin, but I managed to persuade her I needed this one. I’ve looked up the patent, it’s for a different style disc pendulum than the one with the clock now. That was a disc with some sort of special suspension designed to compensate for atmospheric changes. I’m presuming that either broke, or just didn’t work well.

From the style of the clock face I’m guessing the clock dates from somewhere between 1903 (date of patent) and 1920 (presuming the low serial number, 6470, is from an earlier manufacture date).

I appreciate it’s missing the torsion guard. But any information on maker and probable age would be greatly appreciated.
Thanks.

 

[etmb61]

Greetings and welcome to the world of torsion clocks!

I was looking hard at that one but I guess you got there first.

Your clock was made by Uhrenfabrik Ph. Hauck of Munich sometime in 1905. They made good quality movements. It's plate number 1056 in the Horolovar Repair Guide. Unfortunately it is not all original. The hands are replacements which isn't unusual as the originals were very slender and often broken.

Your pendulum is from a later Gustav Becker clock. The original would have been like this one:

As far as I know all Hauck disk pendulums were solid brass.

The patent number refers to an Andreas Huber Co. design that was available as an option for several years with Hauck and Jahresuhrenfabrik (JUF) clocks. The markings don't mean your clock had one though, and none of the temperature compensating pendulums solved the problem anyway.


The base and columns of your clock are typically found under a JUF movement. Other than yours, the only others I've recorded with a Hauck movement also have a dial marked "Urania" which was Huber's brand, but your clock was made before Hauck supplied clocks to Huber so I think you have a later marriage.

There were no spring guards in use when your clock was made.

The only other thing I have to say is the columns are not stacked correctly. The top should be like this:


Eric

 

[Ipswichbrian]

Thank you for the detailed reply. I appreciate that we don’t talk values here, so I’ll just work on that basis that since you were looking, and in the end I negotiated a lower price than shown, I’ve not made a complete fool of myself with this purchase, despite it being a bit of a hodge-podge of parts and pieces. Thanks also for the advice on the pillars. I’ll correct that another day, as this clock is super picky about being level and has been a bit of a pig to get to run. Now it’s level it’s seems happy to work, but without any levelling feet, it’s all propped and wedged at the moment.
Anyway, thanks for the detailed reply. Much appreciated. It may be a marriage clock, but I like the look of it.
Cheers!

 

[etmb61]

We can talk values as long as everyone understands it's an opinion and not an appraisal. I would say the original asking price was a tiny bit high, but it looks like it's in good shape, and it's not a bad marriage. The base and movement are from the same time. Like I said, when I went back for it it was gone. The older ones are getting harder to find and people want more for them. If you got it for less than the asking price I'd say you got a good deal.

Eric

 

[Ipswichbrian]

We can talk values as long as everyone understands it's an opinion and not an appraisal. I would say the original asking price was a tiny bit high, but it looks like it's in good shape, and it's not a bad marriage. The base and movement are from the same time. Like I said, when I went back for it it was gone. The older ones are getting harder to find and people want more for them. If you got it for less than the asking price I'd say you got a good deal.

Eric

Thanks Eric,

much appreciated.

Best Regards.

Brian

 

[Bod]

Very good photographs.

Bod