Horolovar plate # for this Nisshin (Nisshindo Watch Co) "Master" 400-day clock?

[Spaceman Spiff]

Hi, all.

I'm trying to determine the movement's back plate number from the Horolovar guide for this clock, but I'm thinking it's not showing--at least not in the 9th edition of the book.

My clock's back plate seems at first to match Plate #1461C, except mine has rounded corners unlike the square corners shown (which is pointed out specifically regarding this plate in the Appendix 57 reference). There are two other plates with rounded corners (1461E and 1461F), but both of those have an extra hole directly above the stamped logo. Mine doesn't have this extra hole.

Can anyone tell me if there is another variation of Plate #1461C showing in the 10th edition of the book which might match my clock? I'm trying to figure out the approximate year my clock was made. It looks too "new" to date from the 1950's.

Thanks!!

 

[shutterbug]

Hey, Space - could you pull off that spring guard and take another shot?

 

[Spaceman Spiff]

Hey, Space - could you pull off that spring guard and take another shot?

Sure, here it is.
(Sorry it's such a poor shot--I did it rather quickly, the light was poor, and I had to adjust the plate to point away at something because it's so shiny it reflects everything).
Thanks!

 

[jeules0]

Can anyone tell me if there is another variation of Plate #1461C showing in the 10th edition of the book which might match my clock? I'm trying to figure out the approximate year my clock was made. It looks too "new" to date from the 1950's.

Thanks!!

Hi, had a look, but can't find any other versions in the 10th edition either.

 

[shutterbug]

I'm pretty sure you're right - 1461C. The book is based on drawings and it's easier to make square corners.
Now a photo compilation of 400 day clock backs would be pretty cool. A lot of extra work though

 

[John Hubby]

1461C is the correct plate. The deal is that the first clocks made had square corners on the back plates but later ones all had the round corners.

To make this a little more interesting, there is a significant question about the manufacturing dates shown in the plate ID section of the Repair Guide. In the "400-Day Clock Events by Years" Section 2, Terwilliger says on page 21 that Nisshindo first made these clocks in 1965, NOT 1955 as shown in the plate ID section. He further says that initial sales were mainly to US servicemen in Viet Nam and around Asia which would very definitely be the '60's and later.

I have tried to find catalogs or other literature that would confirm when they were actually made but this effort has so far been unsuccessful. Like John, I think they look too "new" to have been made in the 1950's. For example they used a lot of plastic, vacuum metalizing, and other finishing techniques that only came along in the '60's and '70's. They also used synthetic oils for their mainsprings and on some models (100-Day and 200-Day) sealed the barrels so they were not intended to be opened for service. All this points to the clocks being made at least 10 years later than shown in the Repair Guide.

Here is an online references pointing to the later dates: http://www.clockscanada.com/japane~1.php

If anyone knows of original catalogs or advertisements for these clocks I would really appreciate getting a photocopy for documentation purposes, be sure to include any copyright or printer name info, etc.

Last item, I think John's clock is from the late '60's to early '70's.

 

[John Hubby]

I'm pretty sure you're right - 1461C. The book is based on drawings and it's easier to make square corners.
Now a photo compilation of 400 day clock backs would be pretty cool. A lot of extra work though

Shutt and all, just for info all of the back plate illustrations in the Repair Guide were taken from actual clocks. This was done with the old technique of fixing vellum paper over the plate and then using a No. 2 carpenter's pencil (has wide lead) to stroke over the plate and transfer an exact image to the vellum. This was then made into a clear line drawing for publication, so in theory there would be no errors when the final was complete. I have a couple of the original vellum transfer papers from the Terwilliger files.

Even doing this (and noting which holes were threaded and which were unthreaded) a few errors crept in. There are several plate drawings that are missing pivot holes, threaded holes, and even pallet inspection holes.

I agree a photo library of actual back plates printed to scale would be a phenomenal resource. Maybe some day . . .

 

[Spaceman Spiff]

Thanks, John H., for great info, as usual!
I appreciate your time and explanations.

As for shutterbug's comment...

I'm pretty sure you're right - 1461C. The book is based on drawings and it's easier to make square corners. ...

Adding to what John H. already explained, I just wanted to point out (as mentioned in my first message) that Plate 1461C in the Horolovar book specifically references Appendix 57, which states, "The movement can be identified by the fact that the plates have square corners."

Such specific notation of square corners vs. round corners (which are similarly specifically mentioned in Appendix 58 with regard to Plate 1461E) would indicate that Terwilliger and/or his staff/assistants were acutely aware of the differences and thus would have taken care to make sure the plates were represented in the drawings as accurately as the models available to him would allow, not just because it was "easier to make square corners" in the drawings.

Thus, based on the Appendix references as well as on what John Hubby has said, I think it more likely that Terwilliger simply did not have a model at the time exactly matching mine in order to create an additional drawing to represent that particular plate.

I agree that the 1960's seem much more logical than the 1950's for the probable period in which these clocks were produced. For now, I'll go with the ballpark figure of 1967, since (when adding the additional 10 years to allow for the likely typo) it matches the dates of the other rounded-corner Master models.

Thanks again everyone for the comments and help!

 

[shutterbug]

And all this time I thought someone was a great artist