Help dating a Wag on the Wall

[cuilvona]

I'm currently working on a friend's Wag on the Wall clock which he picked up at an auction, so doesn't know the background history of it. My (inexpert) guess is that it is a German Black Forest Stollenuhr, probably from the mid to late 1800s. There is no maker's mark, but there is the number 12 stamped on the front edge of the top plate.
I'd be grateful if anyone could either confirm my suspicions or alternatively put me right. Any further observations or comments would also be most welcome. I have put the heavier (2 Kg) weight on the going side & the clock runs surprisingly well given that the pivots are running in wood (other than for the pallet arbor which is in iron(?) bushes). But it is loud - when running in the garage I can heat it from the back door!
Many thanks,
Arthur

 

[Ticktocktime100]

Hi,

A fine clock. You are correct - it is indeed a Black Forest « wag on the wall » and based on the steel axles I would place it around 1870, definitely after 1850 as until that time the gears had wooden axles. As an aside, the brass and mother of pearl inlay on the frame indicates that the clock was exported, like a great many others, to England (or indeed Scotland or Ireland), where such a style was common at that period.

Regards.

 

[cuilvona]

Thanks for the confirmation & further details. The clock was bought in Scotland where they are affectionately referred to as Waggit the wa' clocks. (Think Wagging on the wall with an Aberdeenshire accent). Whether or not it has spent all its life here, I don't know.
Out of interest, I managed to spruce up the mother of pearl inlays with a little warm water & soap. They are still not pristine, but much better than they were.
Best regards,
Arthur

 

[Kevin W.]

Nice looking clock, what are you running for weights?

 

[cuilvona]

I think that the weights are lead with a brass casing. It seems to run happily with the heavier (2 Kg) one on the going train & the 1 Kg one on the strike. Initially I tried it the other way round but the clock would only run for a couple of minutes.
Normally I would assume that the heavier weight should be on the strike train but it may be that the pivot holes on the going train are dirty & consequently more power is needed. However I chickened out of dismantling the wooden frame to examine them as gentle leverage seemed to be damaging the wood rather than separating the plates. I wonder if someone had glued them at some stage in the past.
Best regards,
Arthur

 

[Betzel]

I like it. The movement being a tandem (earlier) is a dating reference, as many by this time were side-by-side (later). I think the later clocks stick out from the wall a great deal, but the tandems do this even more. So, many people build a perch to support these from below to reduce sag, and keep it from popping off the wall.

If you look closely, you will likely see small brass inserts pressed into the wood which locate the pivots and provide a bearing surface. They are hard to see and even when new were quite loose. The originals were rolled brass, like a rolled location pin, rather than turned bushings, which is how I replace them. I think this permitted them to actually run dry for a while, yet keep on ticking. Replacing them is not hard if any of yours are worn past the point of acceptability. Disengagement of any train under power is a sad train wreck.

These are quite loud. But, if the movement is clean, "tight" and lubricated properly, the amount of weight needed to drive the time train can be safely lowered. My 30 hour was OK even at 500 grams (25% of that 2kg!) but yours may need more to be consistent. This will reduce the pendulum arc, decrease the noise, lengthen the useful life of the components and create less "pull" off the wall, which over a long time tends to sag, or bend past the right angles of the wood-box design from all the weight.

All the best with it and thanks for sharing!

 

[Mike Phelan]

The weights on the ones I've come across have always been cast iron.

 

[cuilvona]

I like it. The movement being a tandem (earlier) is a dating reference, as many by this time were side-by-side (later). I think the later clocks stick out from the wall a great deal, but the tandems do this even more. So, many people build a perch to support these from below to reduce sag, and keep it from popping off the wall.

If you look closely, you will likely see small brass inserts pressed into the wood which locate the pivots and provide a bearing surface. They are hard to see and even when new were quite loose. The originals were rolled brass, like a rolled location pin, rather than turned bushings, which is how I replace them. I think this permitted them to actually run dry for a while, yet keep on ticking. Replacing them is not hard if any of yours are worn past the point of acceptability. Disengagement of any train under power is a sad train wreck.

These are quite loud. But, if the movement is clean, "tight" and lubricated properly, the amount of weight needed to drive the time train can be safely lowered. My 30 hour was OK even at 500 grams (25% of that 2kg!) but yours may need more to be consistent. This will reduce the pendulum arc, decrease the noise, lengthen the useful life of the components and create less "pull" off the wall, which over a long time tends to sag, or bend past the right angles of the wood-box design from all the weight.

All the best with it and thanks for sharing!

Thanks for your helpful comments.
As mentioned, I had decided that completely dismantling the wooden frame was more likely to damage it than to be beneficial, so I don't know whether or not the clock has the brass inserts. It would certainly make sense if it did as I could not understand why the pivots had not worked away at the wood. Maybe I'll have to look again.
It is also interesting that your clock runs with a considerably lighter weight, than my one, though the weights do look original, so I don't think that they have been beefed up.
I had also been wondering about the total weight hanging on the wall, but reasoned that the pegs on the back plate (the stollen) would provide a counterbalance to the stresses on the frame - though a supporting bracket would certainly do no harm.

Best regards,
Arthur

 

[Betzel]

Hi. This board has been very helpful to me, so I'll pass some of that on.

Your pegs provide relief, but also keep the clock from tilting on the wall when winding by "yanking on the ring." which is how most owners do it, rather than relieving the weight's stress during the pull. The total weight on the "overhang" is more than considerable on these tandems, and the risk is still there for side-by-side designs like mine, which has some sag. If you could measure total "pull-down" at a focal bend-point, it would be interesting to note. We've all seen fence gates with a diagonally mounted turnbuckle to compensate for the sag? This is why modern collectors have built wooden "perches" for these - to remove that stress and support these from the bottom boards. See the side shot photo and you'll get an idea. Though it may be the camera angle, note how the boards are not parallel with the red box outlining my text?

In days of old, most clock makers used overly heavy weights to be sure their clocks always ran "no matter what" giving them a good reputation and repeat business. Yours is very ornate, but the base movement on which these were made were designed to be everyday work horses. Not disposable, but durable. So although the weights may be original, they were intentionally overkill to overcome user ignorance, lack of service, etc. to grind right on through. This becomes less true with the finer the clocks, as it was a different class of maker and user combination, more preventive service was performed, replacement parts were expensive, so greater accuracy and longer life were achieved - but at a cost.

Over the years, cages (like fence gates) sag, meaning the horizontal parts (top and bottom) will give way to a downward sloping with slight loss of perpendicularity at the vertical plates, which in turn stresses and wears all the pivots, creating even more drag on front and back pivots resulting in a bowling pin/curved shape. If this happens, it will require even more weight than it otherwise would just to drive the trains until they grind themselves smooth. But, if the pivots are serviced to be perfect and the plates are parallel, everything well lubricated and the wear of other components is addressed, you can run these on a LOT less weight. The pendulum arc will be smaller, and the tick-tock noises will be far less. And, it may last another generation or two rather than generate a service call a few years down the road that may not be worth doing/paying for.

On my first attempt to service mine, I too was stumped by the wood (awful pun intended). The main cage is designed to stay together for life, so you were right not to go there. But see the other photo. There are usually ingenious "trap door" style arrangements which permit original assembly and disassembly for inspection, cleaning and repair. Your clock will likely have a similar arrangement, but keep in mind the loop-ended mini-nails holding them in place were "one and done" style so they may not be as tight going back in. Remove them gently (twist and pull) to reduce that. A drop of clean water and a day to dry will return some hole tightness, just like taking dents out of an old tabletop. Check for sag and give your pivots a test wiggle with a pair of tweezers to see how much freedom they have. Tolerances are more generous on these than modern clocks, but if yours are heavily worn and you have sag, it's life will be short.

It's a lot of work to do it right. Good luck whatever you decide?

 

[cuilvona]

Phew - that must have taken you a while to write. But your time & comments are very much appreciated & have been printed off for future reference. I had though that I had done as much as I could on the clock, but I've a feeling that it may well have just become next winter's project!
A quieter tick would certainly make it a more acceptable house clock.
Best regards,
Arthur

 

[Betzel]

Sure thing. This website is only as good as we all make it, and it's served me well over the years, so I joined the organization and try to help. The data seems safe here going forward, but I print things out, too. Adding oil with a paper clip into the holes will create a destructive paste of dirt and oil that will accelerate destruction, so I would clean it up nicely first, but it's your call.

I hope your winter project is enjoyable, the sound level becomes more tolerable, and folks incessantly inquire and admire. Write back if you have questions during the project. We're here. With service, it'll keep going another century or so... I probably won't

 

[JimmyOz]

Here is a beha cuckoo clock that I repaired, the side view photo is of how the levers are held in by pins and the back views are of how the slats are held in by pins. They come apart quite easy, just be carefull of the lever pins that you pull them out at the same angle they went in as the timber cut outs may breake off, however can be reglued if this happens.
This is a spring driven movement of course, however they are all made up in the same way.

 

[Betzel]

Thanks for posting, Jimmy.

I have not yet seen a spring-driven model. The train pivots run in brass (your photo shows the trace ring of the brass sleeve well!). Mine had sheet brass with a slot for the cuts in the actuating lever shafts, held in by a nail. Yours looks to also use a steel (nail?) bent around the narrower section of the steel arbors to hold them firm. Both work,I guess, but brass would seem both more durable and less prone to rust-freezing. Is steel on steel original, I wonder? Or a fix done later on? Would you have an idea when springs first appeared on these types of wood-frame clocks?

My experience with loose holes on these is that a carefully placed drop of hot de-mineralized water (like from an A/C condenser) dripped in from a wire will often swell the wood a bit to hold the original nail snugly again. I've also made shims from compatible wood in cases of deep rot or abuse.

Some days it's a bit of dentistry, eh?