New JUF needs a date

[AndyDWA]

I received this clock today from a chap who thought it was a Kienzle. Since I had not seen the "C" suspension bracket before (except in pictures), I thought he may be right.

Looking through the book and searching the forum, I now believe it to be a JUF from somewhere around 1908-1910 (plate 1146?), but I am unclear on how to accurately date it.

Serial number is 65808 and the letter "F" is stamped in the lower-left corner. The disc pendulum has no serial number.

It has square brass bases beneath the columns.

It came from a chap who services watches and overall it is in pretty decent condition, but I think it could still use a service and a bit of a clean-up to get dry polish out of crevices. It also came without a dome, suspension guard and bottom block.

Any info appreciated.

 

[Laird]

A nice addition to your collection, Andy.

To help you compare, I have 3 of these with the C-bracket, which I'm posting here.

They look like yours, though I think they are Plate 1255. I agree Plate 1146 does look identical, but the maker's name is designated as 'G'. I don't know who 'G' is/was. Perhaps someone more knowledgeable will comment and shed some light.

On your clock the suspension bracket is screwed onto the outside of the plate. I think that's an error, and it should be on the inside of the plate, with the screw heads on the outside.

 

[etmb61]

Andy,

Very nice! I would guess 1909 or 1910. Not too long after yours was made JUF switched to the shorter column finials like on Laird's examples.

It amazes me how often the suspension bracket shows up outside the back plate. You would be well served to put it back between the plates where it belongs. The clock will operate better.

Eric

 

[AndyDWA]

Ha ha, thanks both. I have barely looked at it other than taking the pictures and hadn't even noticed the bracket reversal issue.

I think it's spent a long time without a dome so there's a lot of dust in the otherwise-clean movement. I will dismantle it soon, clean it up, sort that bracket out and see if it will run.

The more I read about the back plates, the more confused I become. Sometimes it seems the F/G stamp is used to date the movement, and other times it seems it is seen only as an example and could be any of several letters in that position. One thread featuring a similar clock (but with Grivolas markings) would suggest this might be plate 1101.

I was working on the assumption that "F" would come before "G" and that the serial number is lower than many I've seen in the threads I've read and thinking this might be from 1908. But maybe the F/G thing doesn't work that way. Still, anything pre-1912 becomes our oldest 400-day clock so far.

It also features the solid anchor discussed in some threads, so Ill post a pic of that when I can.

Any suggestions on how the C-bracket adjustments work would be appreciated. I assume the side screw allows for sideways rotation and the top screw provides a fulcrum so the bracket can swing back/forth. But how tight should the top screw be?

 

[etmb61]

The top screw should be installed deep enough to prevent removal of the "C" gimbal but still leave a gap at the bottom where the spring is attached to allow for fore and aft movement of the gimbal.

There is no pattern to that letter in the corner of the back plates. They probably relate to some obscure shop practice (like "Inspected by F"). The world may never know.

Eric



After examining my selection of lettered movements I would say that it's very likely the individual letters represent specific workers.

 

[AndyDWA]

After examining my selection of lettered movements I would say that it's very likely the individual letters represent specific workers.

That would suggest the F/G shown on the back plates in the book is not indicative of the model/age.

 

[AndyDWA]

I've dismantled the movement and given it a simple clean. There was quite a bit of gunk in there, presumably because it's spent a while with no dome. I also discovered the anchor pin was bent so I've "straightened" it. I have reassembled it, with the suspension bracket mounted properly. This has left the anchor pin almost touching the bracket but it seems to be running so I'll leave it be for now.

The numbers 30 and 2 are stamped on the inside of both plates. I have attached a pic plus a pic of the solid anchor since this seemed to be a talking point in another thread.

 

[etmb61]

Andy,

The number 30 is a match mark for that movement. You should find the same on the barrel and arbor, on the minute wheel and its bridge, on the pediment where it contacts the front plate, and on the cannon pinion. The other wheels will have a set of punch marks that should all match.

The meaning of the other number has not been determined.

Eric

 

[AndyDWA]

Thanks Eric. There is a 30 stamped on the underside of the pediment but I can see nothing on the cannon pinion. I'll have to wait until I disassemble it again to check any other parts. It has run overnight and all day with almost 270deg rotation, so it may be a while before I pull it apart again.

 

[AndyDWA]

Here's a pic of the whole clock, running and keeping time.

Is there a name for the "Tim Burton" style of numerals?

 

[etmb61]

Andy,

Beautiful job!

Unless you like it that way, the capital for the support column should be below the movement support plate rather that directly under the finial.



Eric

 

[AndyDWA]

Thanks Eric. I actually didn't do anything cosmetic with this one. It was already pretty shiny when I got it. I just ran over over some parts with an old toothbrush with some wax on it. It has a fairly even tarnish/patina all over.

I would much prefer the capitals to be located properly so I will take a look at that. Of course, this will lift the movement and pendulum a little so I won't have that tiny space I quite like under the pendulum.

Hopefully the finials will move. The steel pins in the back plate resisted every attempt to shift them, including serrated surgical clamps. I had to dismantle using the front plate screws.

 

[MartinM]

...Hopefully the finials will move. The steel pins in the back plate resisted every attempt to shift them, including serrated surgical clamps. I had to dismantle using the front plate screws.

I haven't met one yet that a pair of needle-nose pliers with one jaw on the tip of the pin and one on the post, (and above the other end of the pin) won't get out.

 

[AndyDWA]

I haven't met one yet that a pair of needle-nose pliers with one jaw on the tip of the pin and one on the post, (and above the other end of the pin) won't get out.

I need to introduce you to this one Martin I tried small and large needle-nose in the manner you describe but to no avail. I became scared that a sudden release under that sort of pressure could result in catastrophic consequences.

I thought about touching a soldering iron to one end of each pin to see if a bit of expansion and contraction might "crack" the bond

 

[pollythecat]

I have been using a small pair of Mole (vice) grips to remove taper pins, they exert a lot of pressure in a controlled way.

 

[MartinM]

Are you absolutely sure you're trying to remove the pin in the correct direction.
if it's been pulled-on previously from fat end and the person slipped, some material can be removed, making the fat end look like the skinny end.
If that's not it, the heat may help. Other than that, drilling it out is the only other non-destructive path I can think to try.

 

[Laird]

Give it a squirt with WD40 and put it in the freezer for half an hour, and then tap it our with a plastic hammer.

 

[AndyDWA]

The pins are mostly clean and well-tapered so I was definitely pushing the right way. I did try some light oil but it didn't help.

For now the clock is running and keeping time so it may be a while before I look at it again. If things haven't loosened up then, I'll give WD40 a try.

I've battled tight pins before, but this is the first time I've failed to shift them.