Most visitors online was 4107 , on 14 Jan 2023
-
Upcoming updates
Over the next couple of weeks we will be performing software updates on the forum. These will be completed in small steps as we upgrade individual software addons. You might occasionally see a maintenance message that will last a few minutes at most.
If we anticipate an update will take more than a few minutes, we'll put up a notice with estimated time.
Thank you!
Ok. so what do you think of these clocks?
- Thread starter jspinnler
- Start date
-
- Tags
- clocks
Not sure what type of response you are seeking. I might say that I would prefer a 1990 Chateau Latour over a 1991 Gallo with a Seth Thomas "Arno" model, but it is an American clock and not French.
Later - OK, I just saw your other post, and I am now making the assumption that you want to compare a couple of adamantine Seth Thomas mantle clocks with the Seth Thomas clock world. I am not knocking these fine old clocks, but in the hiearchy of collecting clocks would not fall in the same league with weight driven regulators, double dial calendar clocks, Sonora chimes on bells, and etc. or near the scarcity of Seth Thomas Plymouth Hollow models particularly the early Pillar & Scrolls. The nice thing about collecting is there is such a wide variety. You really don't have to judge one line of clocks or generation of clocks against another. Although, generally pricing and availability have their own way of separating tiers of collecting. There is much that can be said and volumes that have and could still be written. It is a broad subject, and I will back away and enjoy comments from others.
Later - OK, I just saw your other post, and I am now making the assumption that you want to compare a couple of adamantine Seth Thomas mantle clocks with the Seth Thomas clock world. I am not knocking these fine old clocks, but in the hiearchy of collecting clocks would not fall in the same league with weight driven regulators, double dial calendar clocks, Sonora chimes on bells, and etc. or near the scarcity of Seth Thomas Plymouth Hollow models particularly the early Pillar & Scrolls. The nice thing about collecting is there is such a wide variety. You really don't have to judge one line of clocks or generation of clocks against another. Although, generally pricing and availability have their own way of separating tiers of collecting. There is much that can be said and volumes that have and could still be written. It is a broad subject, and I will back away and enjoy comments from others.
I'd be interested in knowing the techniques used in the restoration. In particular, the metal trim looks very good--has it been gold electro-plated? Even if you think the clocks look over-restored it is interesting to see how they must have looked when new.
DenisG, I am not sure that 'over-restored' is possible? I would think restored would cover these. My wife and I often have this argument. I like them restored, she likes them partially restored. As I am doing the work, I normally get my way.
Cheers
Peter
Last edited by a moderator:
J
jspinnler
Well I personally like the "over restored" look. LOL
My question is, which one do you like more and why.
My question is, which one do you like more and why.
For me it depends on the clock: For this type of clock - elegant - detailed, etc. I LIKE it. A railroad regulator? A dry goods regulator? A schoolhouse clock or gingerbread kitchen clock? I want them to look old - worn - used. They never were elegant. I want a stressed, old finish, tarnished bob, timeworn and stained dial, etc. These? This is how I would want them.
I like the six column better. Although I think the gilding to the scroll work is a little over the top (not sure this would have been an original feature). I have a Sessions with the same case, but with a more ornate bezel. I think the six column lay out is more pleasing to look at.
I agree with Scottie-TX, in a way, some clocks look good with age. All I would say is either leave them as found or fully restore them. Half restored clocks look like half a job to me!
Cheers
Peter
Last edited by a moderator:
W
Webgemcanada
I love black clocks and yes they are both very shiny 
. I prefer the two colum over the six for it's simpler elegance .
Go on. Buy both. You will only find out which is your favorite if you have both to enjoy.
Barry
. I prefer the two colum over the six for it's simpler elegance .Go on. Buy both. You will only find out which is your favorite if you have both to enjoy.
Barry
I pefer the two-column job. It's got a nice combination of poise and cuteness. The 6-column job is a bit big for me.
As for degree of restoration, I like unrestored clocks that retain clear hints of how nice they were when new. But when a clock gets grungy-looking I think it is better to completely renew it.
Michael
As for degree of restoration, I like unrestored clocks that retain clear hints of how nice they were when new. But when a clock gets grungy-looking I think it is better to completely renew it.
Michael
Both look fine to me, but these things are soooo subjective.
As an aside, I always think that if you leave a very old clock covered in tarnish and corrosion, you are insulting the maker who cannot reply. Yes, I know what the antique dealers say, but I choose to disagree with them vehemently on this count.
Originality is not dirt. Originality, to me, is not doing things like scrapping movements in older clocks that require a few hours work to fix.
As an aside, I always think that if you leave a very old clock covered in tarnish and corrosion, you are insulting the maker who cannot reply. Yes, I know what the antique dealers say, but I choose to disagree with them vehemently on this count.
Originality is not dirt. Originality, to me, is not doing things like scrapping movements in older clocks that require a few hours work to fix.
Specific to the two Seth Thomas examples and some back to a few basics ideas.
The two Seth Thomas adamantine are exceptional in appearance, high luster and gold ornamentation (paint or otherwise). “Beauty is in the eye of the beholder.”
I agree with those collectors who believe that an original condition (finish) does not include dust, dirt with years of grim and abuse. The original owners would have kept such an important (and expensive for the era) timepiece in tip-top appearance proudly displayed on their mantel.
When I first started collecting, I cut my teeth on cleaning up adamantine cases. When I found a case at a flea market with a dull, dirty and dingy (few chips and no large missing pieces) I verified the movement at least was running and chimed with no broken springs, and then bought it for the right price.
My adamantine case cleaning method.
Remove the movement, bezel and ornaments (some held in place by screws or will hidden brass nails).
Give the case a light hand washing with mild soap and water (to remove any loose dirt only)
Then wax/polish the case using a high quality car cleaner/wax, having just a touch of rubbing compound.
(I prefer Meguiar’s products) Buff to the desired shine.
The next decision - The Ornaments:
1) Light cleaning only
2) Lightly polish (Simichrome metal polish for me)
3) Paint (gold)
4) Re-plating by a professional
Depending on the condition I’ve done all but #4. Preferred order: 1, 2, and 3.
A little TLC and elbow grease can bring satisfaction and a good looking clock into your home at a reasonable price.
I still maintain three Seth Thomas adamantine mantels in my collection. Perhaps not as shiny are the two above, but they all stand tall in my eyes.
Black mantel clocks are as good a start as any for a novice collector.
The two Seth Thomas adamantine are exceptional in appearance, high luster and gold ornamentation (paint or otherwise). “Beauty is in the eye of the beholder.”
I agree with those collectors who believe that an original condition (finish) does not include dust, dirt with years of grim and abuse. The original owners would have kept such an important (and expensive for the era) timepiece in tip-top appearance proudly displayed on their mantel.
When I first started collecting, I cut my teeth on cleaning up adamantine cases. When I found a case at a flea market with a dull, dirty and dingy (few chips and no large missing pieces) I verified the movement at least was running and chimed with no broken springs, and then bought it for the right price.
My adamantine case cleaning method.
Remove the movement, bezel and ornaments (some held in place by screws or will hidden brass nails).
Give the case a light hand washing with mild soap and water (to remove any loose dirt only)
Then wax/polish the case using a high quality car cleaner/wax, having just a touch of rubbing compound.
(I prefer Meguiar’s products) Buff to the desired shine.
The next decision - The Ornaments:
1) Light cleaning only
2) Lightly polish (Simichrome metal polish for me)
3) Paint (gold)
4) Re-plating by a professional
Depending on the condition I’ve done all but #4. Preferred order: 1, 2, and 3.
A little TLC and elbow grease can bring satisfaction and a good looking clock into your home at a reasonable price.
I still maintain three Seth Thomas adamantine mantels in my collection. Perhaps not as shiny are the two above, but they all stand tall in my eyes.
Black mantel clocks are as good a start as any for a novice collector.
The dials should not look like they were made yesterday, even if they were. The original dials are a distinct part of the clock that shouldn't be changed unless they are quite bad to look at. JMHO
Harold
Harold
Mike's statement made me think. Clockmakers put ornaments on their clocks because they wanted the clocks to have bright features. Ditto for the gilt-finished clocks.
All clocks are intended to look their best. IMO the only time when you should not clean is if you know some parts of the clock cannot be safely cleaned and would look out of place if everything else were more clean. A clock would look best when all its parts look like they aged together.
This does not mean people should not let their clocks just stay looking old and perhaps grungy if that is what they like. So long as it doesn't cause an old clock any damage the attraction of the patina is in the eye of the beholder.
Michael
Last edited by a moderator:
I like the small two column, I have had that model running on a mable top chest for about twenty years. It has a cute history. A friend and I were at a big flea market and he had passed this clock dealer, looked at the clock but wanted to see the rest of the dealers before buying. I passed the dealer a little later, liked the clock and bought it. Now, whenever he visits he calls it the "The Clock I bought out from under him"
He did find the same model some years later and bought it, so we both have that model.
I think the narrow black mantels are well proportioned. The adamantine finish is also nice to work with.
My preference is to shine the heck out of them, never (almost never)replace the dial, and do the best you can on the trim if the original finish is totally gone. I must have ten or fifteen gold paints, gold waxes, gold whatevers and none of them do better than "OK", if there is any original finish I clean it, put some kind of wax or even satin lacquer on it and leave it be.
He did find the same model some years later and bought it, so we both have that model.
I think the narrow black mantels are well proportioned. The adamantine finish is also nice to work with.
My preference is to shine the heck out of them, never (almost never)replace the dial, and do the best you can on the trim if the original finish is totally gone. I must have ten or fifteen gold paints, gold waxes, gold whatevers and none of them do better than "OK", if there is any original finish I clean it, put some kind of wax or even satin lacquer on it and leave it be.
I think they both look nice, but the gilt metal ornamentation is too new for me too. I've noticed on many (at least in the bronzed finish) they are patinated from the factory. I had to redo some bronzed ones on an Ansonia open escapement black mantel. I would've liked to keep it original, but the base metal was all that was left on the majority. I used copper leaf to "plate" it. With that finished, it was way too obvious and did not come close to original as evidenced on one capital. I decided to patinate it with burnt umber oil paint, forcing it into the details like the original and stippling the rest to age it. It looks much better. I like bright and shiny, but sometimes it obsures the details (sometimes you need dirt in the detail to show it up.)
By the by, I love black mantel clocks, can't get enough of them!
By the by, I love black mantel clocks, can't get enough of them!
Ahk, you guys cut down dirt.
Dirt is interesting. It is part of life and speaks a story.
Me, I like wood that is murky and dusty old. I even like the way it smells. Dusty and old.
I like to see a greasy almost penny brown brass movement, who's only shine is from the reflection of an oily surface.
I want to see old abandon spider's webs in the corner of the old clocks. With even a few broken cock roach eggs.
I like to see iron rusted and blackend steel which I know has been cleaned and oiled so the rust halted.
I like the ideal of restoring said clocks with as much of these qualities as I can maintain and yet do enough restoration to ensure longevity.
To blend both worlds seemless.
For when I look at a clock that has been restored squeeky clean I see a clock that has been stripped of it's history.
Age has a feel to it. A spirit that you can sense.
But I do recognize that some would be correct in saying that a person who does not clean thier clock is lazy.
Restoration is a necessity.
But the true art is in how we restore them.
Dirt is interesting. It is part of life and speaks a story.
Me, I like wood that is murky and dusty old. I even like the way it smells. Dusty and old.
I like to see a greasy almost penny brown brass movement, who's only shine is from the reflection of an oily surface.
I want to see old abandon spider's webs in the corner of the old clocks. With even a few broken cock roach eggs.
I like to see iron rusted and blackend steel which I know has been cleaned and oiled so the rust halted.
I like the ideal of restoring said clocks with as much of these qualities as I can maintain and yet do enough restoration to ensure longevity.
To blend both worlds seemless.
For when I look at a clock that has been restored squeeky clean I see a clock that has been stripped of it's history.
Age has a feel to it. A spirit that you can sense.
But I do recognize that some would be correct in saying that a person who does not clean thier clock is lazy.
Restoration is a necessity.
But the true art is in how we restore them.
Know Your NAWCC Forums Rules!
RULES & GUIDELINES
RULES & GUIDELINES
Staff online
-
Steven ThornberryUser Administrator
Forum statistics
- Threads
- 179,952
- Messages
- 1,569,764
- Members
- 54,328
- Latest member
- redepicted
- Encyclopedia Pages
- 911
- Total wiki contributions
- 3,090
- Last edit
- How To Open A Pocket Watch Case by Kent