Originality?

[whatgoesaround]

I am soliciting opinions on the originality of this clock. There are two things that make it suspect. The biggest is the door is generally what one would find on a chiming clock with the material insertion. The other is the screws that are going into the supports. These look older, but I can not imagine why a company would do this as it is sloppy looking when it could have been glued. Of course, it would be something an owner did for whatever reason, but it certainly would have been in their capabilities to glue it.

I have not seem many in the case like this, but I have seen some. The shelf for the movement is what I have seen in examples of other clocks in similar forms. It does have 100 years of dust on it. All the wood seems the same age and colors seem to match up. The hands look appropriate, but that is just my opinion. There is ample room for the pendulum.

Looks to be plate 1387.

Thank you for any input.

 

[Mike Phelan]

Is it just that the same case was used for chiming, striking and just timepiece clocks, as it's looking like an early mass-produced clock from the early 20th century?

 

[whatgoesaround]

Yes, Mike, the case is my major concern here, with the back door having the cloth insert that I would have thought was only used on striking clocks.

 

[etmb61]

It could well be original even with the cloth on the back door. I would only question it if I found some evidence that the case originally had some other movement installed, like extra holes that once had screws in them. Kienzle sold other torsion clocks in wood cases. I have not recorded any others by them of this type but my sample size for Kienzle is small.

The pendulum you have is correct for the movement and type of dial (celluloid) as described in Kienzle catalogs.

The movement was made by Huber.

Eric

 

[KurtinSA]

Would the serial number on the clock be associated with the Kienzle scheme or would it be for Huber? I have some Kienzle clocks and they have 100000+ serial numbers and date in the range of 1910-1912. I don't have much in the way of Huber serials. If Kienzle numbering, then this is pretty early.

Kurt

 

[whatgoesaround]

Thanks, Eric. I also thought about the fact that if there was a gong, there should be evidence where it was once attached to the case. I found none. Of course, it could have had a bell attached to the movement. I associate that with a French movement, though, but I really am only going on a feeling there, as there are probably movements from all countries that could have bells attached to the movement. Still, I am feeling a tiny bit more positive, now.

The serial# is 35836 and now, Kurt, you have me very curious about its date, also.


I almost passed up the clock, but the seller told me that if it was a marriage, I could send it back. I am feeling the urge to keep it.

 

[etmb61]

Huber was granted DRGMs for pin pallets and lantern pinions in torsion clocks in 1911 and 1912 respectively. The DRGM numbers were stamped in the back plates during the protection period. The Kienzle clock in this thread was made after those protections expired, after 1916 or so.

The more I look into numbers on Kienzle and Huber movements the more confusing it gets. For now I'll just say that I have in my records a later production Kienzle clock with a Kienzle movement and a 5 digit number when others of the type had 6 digit numbers. On my shelf I have a Kienzle clock with a Huber movement with a 5 digit number, and a Huber clock marked Huber Uhren sold by SELSI with a 5 digit number. All three of these clocks had their numbers applied with the same set of stamps. We are missing something in their histories. Huber and Kienzle must have had some type of close working relationship.

Eric

 

[Dells]

Because the back door can be seen through the glass front they may have put the cloth on the back door to cover the rough wood.

 

[whatgoesaround]

Just wanted to thank all of those who responded and helped me feel much more positive that this clock and case probably do belong together.