Boardman and wells 1816- 1837

[Darrmann39]

This is one of 3 clocks i picked up yesterday. Boardman and wells mahogany 30 hour weight driven wood movement , hour strike. With president Jefferson reverse painted.
Hung on wall and running with little effort.
One question for those who know about these clocks. It looks like the movement is put together then the sides nailed on to movement then the whole thing nailed to the back. If you want to remove to take apart and clean the brass parts how do you go about it? Or do you? I'm a carpenter and seems to me would be pretty difficult without damaging some of it.
And in the written description on paper that was in it said og shelf clock. It has a wall hanging hook also. Were these also considered shelf clocks or maybe a mistake in describing. Just curious

 

[Jerome collector]

According to Spittlers & Bailey's Clockmakers & Watchmakers of America (2nd ed.), Boardman & Wells were in business from 1832-1843. The ogee case suggest an early 1840s date for the clock.

After taking off the weights, the movement is removed by sliding the three retention pins (nails) out. They're visible in the two lower access holes and the upper right access hole. If you push them from inside the access holes, you should be able to then pull them free from inside the weight tracks. It's best to do this with the clock lying flat. The movement will then lift straight out.

When you say you want to clean the brass parts, I hope you realize that the only brass components are visible from the front (the escape wheel and escape wheel bridge). The internal components are wood (gears and pinions) and steel (arbors).

The clock is considered a shelf clock, although many people hang them on the wall.

Based on Snowden Taylor's identification scheme, the movement was made by Elbridge G. Atkins, Edward K. Jones, or Hotchkiss & Fields. Boardman & Wells are not known users of any of their movements. Given that Boardman & Wells were prolific movement makers, I am doubtful that the movement is original to the case.

 

[Darrmann39]

According to Spittlers & Bailey's Clockmakers & Watchmakers of America (2nd ed.), Boardman & Wells were in business from 1832-1843. The ogee case suggest an early 1840s date for the clock.

After taking off the weights, the movement is removed by sliding the three retention pins (nails) out. They're visible in the two lower access holes and the upper right access hole. If you push them from inside the access holes, you should be able to then pull them free from inside the weight tracks. It's best to do this with the clock lying flat. The movement will then lift straight out.

When you say you want to clean the brass parts, I hope you realize that the only brass components are visible from the front (the escape wheel and escape wheel bridge). The internal components are wood (gears and pinions) and steel (arbors).

The clock is considered a shelf clock, although many people hang them on the wall.

Based on Snowden Taylor's identification scheme, the movement was made by Elbridge G. Atkins, Edward K. Jones, or Hotchkiss & Fields. Boardman & Wells are not known users of any of their movements. Given that Boardman & Wells were prolific movement makers, I am doubtful that the movement is original to the case.

Thanks for the clarification. I just wasn't positive about the internals being totally wood. First wood movement.
And i did see those 3 nails and yes i think can be pulled out fairly easily. Wasn't positive there weren't more in back plate.
Now knowing this i don't have to remove.
Thanks

 

[Darrmann39]

According to Spittlers & Bailey's Clockmakers & Watchmakers of America (2nd ed.), Boardman & Wells were in business from 1832-1843. The ogee case suggest an early 1840s date for the clock.

After taking off the weights, the movement is removed by sliding the three retention pins (nails) out. They're visible in the two lower access holes and the upper right access hole. If you push them from inside the access holes, you should be able to then pull them free from inside the weight tracks. It's best to do this with the clock lying flat. The movement will then lift straight out.

When you say you want to clean the brass parts, I hope you realize that the only brass components are visible from the front (the escape wheel and escape wheel bridge). The internal components are wood (gears and pinions) and steel (arbors).

The clock is considered a shelf clock, although many people hang them on the wall.

Based on Snowden Taylor's identification scheme, the movement was made by Elbridge G. Atkins, Edward K. Jones, or Hotchkiss & Fields. Boardman & Wells are not known users of any of their movements. Given that Boardman & Wells were prolific movement makers, I am doubtful that the movement is original to the case.

I question the movement not being original. I see no signs it isn't. The nails show no signs of ever being pulled. As a carpenter i see no way of pulling those nails without showing signs especially the ones going threw back But i know very little about these so I'm sure it's possible.

 

[Jerome collector]

Not sure which nails you're referring to. If you mean the nails serving as retention pins, those are definitely not original. The nails going through the back (back of the case?) don't factor into whether the movement is original or not.

 

[Darrmann39]

Not sure which nails you're referring to. If you mean the nails serving as retention pins, those are definitely not original. The nails going through the back (back of the case?) don't factor into whether the movement is original or not.

I'm not sure what i was thinking on that. Lol. Yes your right. Especially since you told me the 3 nails only need pulled

 

[Burkhard Rasch]

a nice clock,congrats! The plates are oak,not mahogany, as with most of thee movements.
Best regards
Burkhard

 

[rmarkowitz1_cee4a1]

This is one of 3 clocks i picked up yesterday. Boardman and wells mahogany 30 hour weight driven wood movement , hour strike. With president Jefferson reverse painted.
Hung on wall and running with little effort.
One question for those who know about these clocks. It looks like the movement is put together then the sides nailed on to movement then the whole thing nailed to the back. If you want to remove to take apart and clean the brass parts how do you go about it? Or do you? I'm a carpenter and seems to me would be pretty difficult without damaging some of it.
And in the written description on paper that was in it said og shelf clock. It has a wall hanging hook also. Were these also considered shelf clocks or maybe a mistake in describing. Just curious

View attachment 639330 View attachment 639331 View attachment 639332 View attachment 639333 View attachment 639334 View attachment 639335 View attachment 639336 View attachment 639337

The Andrew Jackson tablet is a later printed reproduction and is not original.

a nice clock,congrats! The plates are oak,not mahogany, as with most of thee movements.
Best regards
Burkhard

The plates are oak. However, there are wooden works movements with mahogany plates.

RM

 

[Darrmann39]

The Andrew Jackson tablet is a later printed reproduction and is not original.



The plates are oak. However, there are wooden works movements with mahogany plates.

RM

The guy i got them from told me Jefferson so i went with it. Are you saying they didn't have one from this company with Andrew Jackson? It's definitely antique glass and hand painted. Just like more details.
I'm thinking the mahogany refers to the case not the movement. My phrasing tied it to the movement so I see why you said that. The last pic doesn't have the movement and mahogany together that was my mistake

 

[Darrmann39]

According to Spittlers & Bailey's Clockmakers & Watchmakers of America (2nd ed.), Boardman & Wells were in business from 1832-1843. The ogee case suggest an early 1840s date for the clock.

After taking off the weights, the movement is removed by sliding the three retention pins (nails) out. They're visible in the two lower access holes and the upper right access hole. If you push them from inside the access holes, you should be able to then pull them free from inside the weight tracks. It's best to do this with the clock lying flat. The movement will then lift straight out.

When you say you want to clean the brass parts, I hope you realize that the only brass components are visible from the front (the escape wheel and escape wheel bridge). The internal components are wood (gears and pinions) and steel (arbors).

The clock is considered a shelf clock, although many people hang them on the wall.

Based on Snowden Taylor's identification scheme, the movement was made by Elbridge G. Atkins, Edward K. Jones, or Hotchkiss & Fields. Boardman & Wells are not known users of any of their movements. Given that Boardman & Wells were prolific movement makers, I am doubtful that the movement is original to the case.

I am doubtful that the movement is original to the case.

I was just looking at the wood movement forum and came upon this Boardman and wells the guy had questions on and seems to be identical to mine. 1st pics mine 2nd pic his
So I'm just wondering why you think it's not original

 

[Jerome collector]

In NAWCC Bulletin No. 208 (Oct 1980), Snowden Taylor published his research on shop details seen in movements by wood works makers. His identification scheme uses 10 features of the movement to enable identifying the maker. One of those shop details is the orientation of the count wheel retention spring. On a Boardman & Wells, it's positioned at 7:00 (as seen on the second movement you posted from a Boardman & Wells clock). Yours is positioned at 4:30. Believe it or not, that one shop detail is enough to prove that your movement was not made by Boardman & Wells. I encourage you to read his publication (you can download it from the NAWCC Bulletin archives webpage). While he updated his research over the years, the fundamentals of his original publication are still valid.
Mike

 

[Darrmann39]

In NAWCC Bulletin No. 208 (Oct 1980), Snowden Taylor published his research on shop details seen in movements by wood works makers. His identification scheme uses 10 features of the movement to enable identifying the maker. One of those shop details is the orientation of the count wheel retention spring. On a Boardman & Wells, it's positioned at 7:00 (as seen on the second movement you posted from a Boardman & Wells clock). Yours is positioned at 4:30. Believe it or not, that one shop detail is enough to prove that your movement was not made by Boardman & Wells. I encourage you to read his publication (you can download it from the NAWCC Bulletin archives webpage). While he updated his research over the years, the fundamentals of his original publication are still valid.
Mike

That is the one difference i saw but don't know enough to know that wasn't able to move in the other position . Pretty remarkable that is the one tell tale sign. I wasn't trying to say you were wrong i don't know anything about wood movements. I like to know the why and you gave it to me. Thanks

 

[Jerome collector]

The remarkable thing is that Snowden was able to see the differences and to build a coherent story out of them. To many, many people, the significance of these differences wasn't known until he published his research. If you plan to pursue your interest in wood works clocks, then you really need to read his work.

 

[rmarkowitz1_cee4a1]

The guy i got them from told me Jefferson so i went with it. Are you saying they didn't have one from this company with Andrew Jackson? It's definitely antique glass and hand painted. Just like more details.
I'm thinking the mahogany refers to the case not the movement. My phrasing tied it to the movement so I see why you said that. The last pic doesn't have the movement and mahogany together that was my mistake

Well, the image of the tablet in your clock is in the center flanked by Jefferson (as rendered by Gilbert Stuart) on the viewer's left and Jackson (as rendered by Thomas Sully) on the viewer's right:



Also, the image could have been quickly checked by pulling a $20 bill out of your pocket (Jackson) and a nickel (Jefferson).

So, whom do you think the image in your clock's tablet most resembles??

No doubt the tablet is a printed later repop glass. The back of the glass gives it away, too.

There were period tablets of prominent people. I'm not sure about Jackson, but I have seen Franklin and the like. Those tablets look nothing like your tablet. Paul Hennion has published some good articles in the Bulletin about tablets and how they were decorated as well as postings on the Forums (search him as Paul H). Might be worthwhile doing a search.

RM

 

[Darrmann39]

Well, the image of the tablet in your clock is in the center flanked by Jefferson (as rendered by Gilbert Stuart) on the viewer's left and Jackson (as rendered by Thomas Sully) on the viewer's right:

View attachment 639695 View attachment 639693 View attachment 639692

Also, the image could have been quickly checked by pulling a $20 bill out of your pocket (Jackson) and a nickel (Jefferson).

So, whom do you think the image in your clock's tablet most resembles??

No doubt the tablet is a printed later repop glass. The back of the glass gives it away, too.

There were period tablets of prominent people. I'm not sure about Jackson, but I have seen Franklin and the like. Those tablets look nothing like your tablet. Paul Hennion has published some good articles in the Bulletin about tablets and how they were decorated as well as postings on the Forums (search him as Paul H). Might be worthwhile doing a search.

RM

I posted this a few hours after i got it. So said Jefferson again because that's what he told me. When you said that i immediately looked and realised you were right. When Jerome collector told me the movement wasn't original and i asked why he told me and i thanked him because i want to be able to know what to look for.
You say "
No doubt the tablet is a printed later repop glass. The back of the glass gives it away, too." Can you tell me how you can tell that on both statements Because it's not obvious to me. That's all i was asking. Excuse me for not knowing the difference.

 

[Jim DuBois]

Per your ask about the tablet in your clock, it also appears to me the glass is a fairly recent replacement, as it does for some others who have looked at your photos. Stylistically, it is unlike any period glass I have seen in a few thousand clocks. It is quite like some new replacement glasses that have been offered on a famous auction site for some years. The detail work on the portrait portion is unlike most period work. The backside of your tablet appears to be an overpaint of perhaps a decal on the glass. Also, not entirely correct for a period tablet. The "gold" stenciling around the tablet is unlike period work, it just does not look "right" to some of us who tend to scrutinize such things. Here are 4 images of period glasses, from about the same time as your clock. They have a much different look about them, IMO. The next 3 photos are the backsides of period glasses. More of what one expects to see, not a completely blacked-out background. The last photo is a contemporary tablet done by Tom Moberg and is more how the backside of tablets tend to look when well executed and overpainted. Someone spent some time on your tablet, the when and the who is not clear, but while it looks fine, it just doesn't look "right" to some of us who really like period tablets.

 

[Darrmann39]

Per your ask about the tablet in your clock, it also appears to me the glass is a fairly recent replacement, as it does for some others who have looked at your photos. Stylistically, it is unlike any period glass I have seen in a few thousand clocks. It is quite like some new replacement glasses that have been offered on a famous auction site for some years. The detail work on the portrait portion is unlike most period work. The backside of your tablet appears to be an overpaint of perhaps a decal on the glass. Also, not entirely correct for a period tablet. The "gold" stenciling around the tablet is unlike period work, it just does not look "right" to some of us who tend to scrutinize such things. Here are 4 images of period glasses, from about the same time as your clock. They have a much different look about them, IMO. The next 3 photos are the backsides of period glasses. More of what one expects to see, not a completely blacked-out background. The last photo is a contemporary tablet done by Tom Moberg and is more how the backside of tablets tend to look when well executed and overpainted. Someone spent some time on your tablet, the when and the who is not clear, but while it looks fine, it just doesn't look "right" to some of us who really like period tablets.

View attachment 639754 View attachment 639755 View attachment 639756 View attachment 639757 View attachment 639758 View attachment 639759 View attachment 639760 View attachment 639761

Thank you. That's what i was asking for. I'm not an artist or knowledgeable on what I'm looking at. So i appreciate the great explanation.
I just looked at the other clock i got with it. I imagine this is what it should look like from the back also. Much more like the ones you provided. I haven't looked at this one close till now.