Auction pick up

[90 Flhs]

Can anyone identify this movement? No marks just two arrows crossed.

 

[new2clocks]

View attachment 632192 View attachment 632193 Can anyone identify this movement? No marks just two arrows crossed.

The crossed arrows are the trademark of Hamburg American Company (HAC / HAU), a German clock maker.

Regards.

 

[90 Flhs]

The crossed arrows are the trademark of Hamburg American Company (HAC / HAU), a German clock maker.

Regards.

Good movement? It’s in a walnut case that needs some help. Worth putting some time and money into? Thanks for the information

 

[KurtinSA]

Wouldn't it be cool to track down, forensically, that finger print? I suspect it's not the new owner. Just a weird thought...the story it might tell.

Kurt

 

[90 Flhs]

Wouldn't it be cool to track down, forensically, that finger print? I suspect it's not the new owner. Just a weird thought...the story it might tell.

Kurt

Not mine. Just took it out of the case tonight. I thought the same thing about the print but what if it would lead to someone not so nice. If you get my drift.

 

[Micam100]

Yes good movement, typical of German movements of that era. I can’t see a date stamp so probably pre 1930. There are plenty of threads here that mention that prior to the Junghans takeover in 1930, HAC did not date movements.

Michael

 

[90 Flhs]

Yes good movement, typical of German movements of that era. I can’t see a date stamp so probably pre 1930. There are plenty of threads here that mention that prior to the Junghans takeover in 1930, HAC did not date movements.

Michael

Yes good movement, typical of German movements of that era. I can’t see a date stamp so probably pre 1930. There are plenty of threads here that mention that prior to the Junghans takeover in 1930, HAC did not date movements.

Michael

Here a picture of the numbers stamped. Looks like 105/27 or 05/27 this is on top of the 360 number. Could it be made in May of 1927? also does anyone know a way to freshen up this dial with out complete repaint. I like the bitina.
Thanks for the help

 

[roughbarked]

Wouldn't it be cool to track down, forensically, that finger print? I suspect it's not the new owner. Just a weird thought...the story it might tell.

Kurt

Can assure you that it isn't my fingerprint.

 

[new2clocks]

Could it be made in May of 1927?

It is possible.

Junghans and HAC had a collaboration prior to the Junghans takeover in 1930 and we have seen some HAC clocks date marked in the late 1920s during the collaboration.

Is it possible to supply a more clear picture of the inscription?

Also, are there any other markings other than what you have shown?

Regards.

 

[Micam100]

The date code on my Junghans/HAC mantel clock is formatted: YY space M. e.g. 36 7 (July 1937)

My clock also has 183/40 over 92. I believe that is Beats per minute/Escape wheel tooth count over Pendulum leader length.

So your 105/27 over 360 could be BPM/escape wheel tooth count over a number relating to the pendulum length.

Do you have a photo of the complete clock?

Michael

 

[new2clocks]

The date code on my Junghans/HAC mantel clock is formatted: YY space M. e.g. 36 7 (July 1937)

The date coding during the collaboration period and shortly after the takeover of HAC by Junghans (very early 1930s) used different dating protocols than the typical Junghans date coding and were almost always in the upper left corner of the movement like the OP's movement.

By 1936, I believe the date coding corresponded to the Junghans protocol.

This is why we need to see a better picture of the movement to confirm if the inscription is 05/27 as opposed to 105/27.

Regards.

 

[roughbarked]

Looks to me to be
05/27
330

 

[new2clocks]

Looks to me to be
05/27
330

I agree, but the OP thought it could be 105/27. The picture is not the best.

Regards.

 

[Micam100]

The date coding during the collaboration period and shortly after the takeover of HAC by Junghans (very early 1930s) used different dating protocols than the typical Junghans date coding and were almost always in the upper left corner of the movement like the OP's movement.

By 1936, I believe the date coding corresponded to the Junghans protocol.

This is why we need to see a better picture of the movement to confirm if the inscription is 05/27 as opposed to 105/27.

Regards.

Yes the numbers on mine are on the lower half of the plate. It's a different style of movement to my mantel clock (earlier?)
Michael

 

[90 Flhs]

Sorry but that’s the best I can do with the numbers. must have been stamped on a Friday when everyone was tired and wanted to go home. Here is a picture of the case I got it in

 

[Micam100]

I can see why you think it might be 105/27. There is the suggestion of the base of the 1 there.

Is the escape wheel tooth count 27? Looks feasible from what can be seen in the movement photo.

The gong block in the case has the HAC crossed arrows logo. Someone more knowledgeable than me may know when that was used. And also if the case is HAC and what period for that style.

Michael

 

[roughbarked]

I can see why you think it might be 105/27. There is the suggestion of the base of the 1 there.

Is the escape wheel tooth count 27? Looks feasible from what can be seen in the movement photo.

The gong block in the case has the HAC crossed arrows logo. Someone more knowledgeable than me may know when that was used. And also if the case is HAC and what period for that style.

Michael

Yes. That's a better photo and it does look like it is a dodgy stamping that should read
105/27
360
There's no Junghans stamps but it is in the top left corner.

 

[new2clocks]

I think the answer is as Micam stated earlier:

So your 105/27 over 360 could be BPM/escape wheel tooth count over a number relating to the pendulum length.

I did some research and the HAC movement number 36 looks like a match (courtesy tarant):



The movement was used by HAC in the 1920s and the dial appears commensurate with the 1920s.

Regards.

 

[90 Flhs]

T

I think the answer is as Micam stated earlier:



I did some research and the HAC movement number 36 looks like a match (courtesy tarant):

View attachment 632523

The movement was used by HAC in the 1920s and the dial appears commensurate with the 1920s.

Regards.

hanks guys I appreciate it. I got it without the pendulum but I had one that fit and it keeps perfect time. I ran it for about a week before I took it apart. I want to clean the movement. Would anyone know what the pendulum should look like? What should I do to dress up the dial? They had the hands on wrong and it rubbed on it. Thanks all.

 

[new2clocks]

Would anyone know what the pendulum should look like?

The following is from a 1928 HAC catalog for comparison. It is a box clock. Not sure of the length of your case, but your clock also appears to be a box clock.



Regards.

 

[Micam100]

T

hanks guys I appreciate it. I got it without the pendulum but I had one that fit and it keeps perfect time. I ran it for about a week before I took it apart. I want to clean the movement. Would anyone know what the pendulum should look like? What should I do to dress up the dial? They had the hands on wrong and it rubbed on it. Thanks all.

The dial doesn’t look too bad to me although it’s hard to judge from a photo through glass. Obviously there is some black worn off the numbers in a circular pattern but few 100 year old clocks have pristine dials.

Of course, you have a much better view. Perhaps give it a gentle clean and rinse with mild soap and a damp cloth then, when you have it back together and running on the wall for a couple of weeks, see how you feel about the complete package: dial, case and tick tock.

That’s what I’d do anyway.

Michael

 

[Betzel]

One thought before you tear it down is to measure the rough BPM and pendulum you are using. If you have an inexpensive app, like ClockMaster, you can get a decent reading in about 5 minutes without extra equipment if the room is quiet. Just looking at the EW in the first photo, I get 7 teeth between two of the 4 cross-outs, so that's 28, meaning there are likely 27 teeth on the EW?

And, if the BPM is something like 105 and change, and the length from the "theoretical" bend near the top of the suspension spring to the center of mass of the bob is about 360 mm, you may have some reliable answers ;-)