Please help to date this Kienzle Plate 1435

marylander

Registered User
Sep 9, 2008
882
39
28
Maryland
Country
Region
Hello, I just acquired this Kienzle clock with plate number 1435 and serial number 133735. The clock plates, wheels and pendulum were gold plated. They are still in very good condition. The main spring were full with dried grease which turned into varnish. The arbor of the main spring could hardly move. After cleaned up the movement and main spring the clock runs quick well with pendulum turns almost 360 degree. The pendulum weights 388.4 grams. I used a full length 0.0037" suspension spring to bring it to regulation range. The clock is missing those two suspension guard rings. Other than that, it is quick perfect.

Please help me to date the clock. Thank you in advance.
Ming
 

Attachments

Last edited by a moderator:

marylander

Registered User
Sep 9, 2008
882
39
28
Maryland
Country
Region
Dear Moderator,

Please help me to correct the post title. the plate number should have been #1435, not 1425.
Thanks,
Ming
 
Last edited by a moderator:

marylander

Registered User
Sep 9, 2008
882
39
28
Maryland
Country
Region
Thank you Kurt for your answer. I came to the same conclusion as yours. But I want to know if it is 1913 or 1914. It depending Kienzle's annual production quantity.

Many thanks to our Moderator for changing my typo on the post title.

Ming
 

MartinM

Registered User
Jun 24, 2011
3,091
113
63
El Dorado, CA
Country
Region
My last data shows a best guess of 8/26/1914.
John's likely updated the Kienzle data in the interim.
 

marylander

Registered User
Sep 9, 2008
882
39
28
Maryland
Country
Region
My last data shows a best guess of 8/26/1914.
John's likely updated the Kienzle data in the interim.
Thank you Martin for the dating. One of my Kienzle clock with C suspension gimbol was dated as the end of 1914. Now I have two clock with same back plate and two different suspension gimbols were made 4 months apart. I wonder if this clock should have ring suspension guards or tubular suspension guard. By the way, both clocks have their matching pendulums.
Ming
 

etmb61

NAWCC Member
Oct 25, 2010
2,856
295
83
Mascoutah, IL
Country
Region
My records indicate that your clock with the "T" pediment and the gimbal suspension would also have had the ring suspension guards. I have recorded a cluster of clocks around your serial number with that configuration. My records also indicated that clocks with the "C" suspension would have had the tubular guard.

Eric
 

KurtinSA

NAWCC Member
Nov 24, 2014
4,504
293
83
San Antonio, TX
Country
Region
Doesn't the back plate indicate which guard is needed? I see the double holes, and supposedly, one of those holes is threaded, the other is not. That would indicate it was designed for the ring suspension...which matches what Eric says about the "T" pediment.

To counter that a bit, the link to Ming's previous clock also has the double hole arrangement, with screws in place on one of those holes. But it doesn't have the "T" pediment...if I understand what that is...at least the earlier posted clock pediment is different than this one.

Or did all back plates have the double holes and they changed the guard as needed??

So, both of mine should have the tubular guard?

https://mb.nawcc.org/showthread.php?135934-My-Collection-has-Grown!&p=1052641&viewfull=1#post1052641
https://mb.nawcc.org/showthread.php?135934-My-Collection-has-Grown!&p=1052666&viewfull=1#post1052666

Kurt
 
Last edited:

etmb61

NAWCC Member
Oct 25, 2010
2,856
295
83
Mascoutah, IL
Country
Region
Kurt,

I've recorded 76 Kienzle clocks numbered between 100505 to 160528. Out of those, every one where the back plate was visible has the double holes, even those with a tubular guard. I would wager that they all have double holes.

Should your clocks have tubular guards? I would say yes for number 134905, and no for number 119639. In my data 119639 was produced at a time where both style guards were apparently being used.

Eric
 

marylander

Registered User
Sep 9, 2008
882
39
28
Maryland
Country
Region
Kurt,

I've recorded 76 Kienzle clocks numbered between 100505 to 160528. Out of those, every one where the back plate was visible has the double holes, even those with a tubular guard. I would wager that they all have double holes.

Should your clocks have tubular guards? I would say yes for number 134905, and no for number 119639. In my data 119639 was produced at a time where both style guards were apparently being used.

Eric
Hi Eric and Kurt, my other Kienzle has tubular guard and no "T" pediment. The pediment is the same as Kur's clocks. Thank you for all you info. I learn a lot.
Ming
 

John Hubby

Senior Administrator Emeritus
Staff member
NAWCC Star Fellow
NAWCC Life Member
Sep 7, 2000
12,294
241
63
The Woodlands, TX
Country
Region
Hello, I just acquired this Kienzle clock with plate number 1435 and serial number 133735. The clock plates, wheels and pendulum were gold plated. They are still in very good condition. The main spring were full with dried grease which turned into varnish. The arbor of the main spring could hardly move. After cleaned up the movement and main spring the clock runs quick well with pendulum turns almost 360 degree. The pendulum weights 388.4 grams. I used a full length 0.0037" suspension spring to bring it to regulation range. The clock is missing those two suspension guard rings. Other than that, it is quick perfect.

Please help me to date the clock. Thank you in advance.
Ming
Ming, the dating for your clock has been provided already. I am currently working on an update that may show it to be made a few months earlier but still in 1914. Eric is correct that Kienzle, for whatever reason, made "clusters" of clocks with their version of the Würth pediment and the Würth patent No. 14 gimbal suspension. All these clocks were fitted with the Kienzle version of the double ring suspension guard (one mounting screw plus a positioning pin).

A little history:

When Kienzle started 400-Day production in second half 1907 they made clocks that looked very similar to the Würth clocks of the same year, including:

* A pediment design very similar to the one used by Würth since their startup in 1903
* A disc pendulum almost identical to the one patented by Würth in early 1906
* The front plate anchor arbor removable pivot bridge developed by Würth in late 1903
* Upper suspension bracket No. 14 patented by Würth in 1906
* A "scalloped" design movement support plate identical to the Würth design used since 1903
* The identical base design used by Würth from 1903

The main differences included:

* The large pallet inspection holes in the back plate (which Würth adopted in 1908)
* The double ring suspension guard, which Würth also adopted in early 1908 but then developed their own version with two mounting screws for each ring
* Kienzle movements had the ratchet wheel behind the front plate and Würth had the ratchet wheel on the back plate of their movements.

From these points it is obvious there was a high degree of cooperation between Kienzle and Würth from the time of Kienzle's startup, and onward until Würth stopped making 400-Day clocks in late 1910. I believe Kienzle was purchasing the No. 14 gimbal suspension from Würth and possibly other parts while at the same time Würth was likely having Kienzle make some parts for their clocks.

Kienzle continued making these "Würth Look-Alikes" as their main production from 1908 through 1910, gradually replacing them with their own design clocks starting in 1908 when they first used the Huber patent "C" gimbal upper bracket combined with the Huber patent flared bottom tubular suspension guard. After Würth stopped production in late 1910 Kienzle quickly shifted to production of their own basic design which used the Huber "C" gimbal almost exclusively.

Regarding the "pockets" of clocks that have the Würth type pediment, No. 14 gimbal suspension, and sometimes the original Würth early base design, my best guess is that many of these were made for Huber, in particular those that have the "Urania" stamp on the back plates. These were likely made from "new old stock" but would have been just fine for Huber's purposes and would have been a low cost swap for many of the lantern pinion movements made by Huber for Kienzle.

Basically you should use the ring guards only with Kienzle clocks having upper bracket No. 14, and the Huber flared tubular guard for those having upper bracket No. 18C. Also, it is my conclusion that ALL of Kienzle's solid pinion "massiv" movements were drilled and tapped with the original two-hole ring guard mounts. These could be used for either suspension guard so there was no reason to change the tooling.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

John Hubby

Senior Administrator Emeritus
Staff member
NAWCC Star Fellow
NAWCC Life Member
Sep 7, 2000
12,294
241
63
The Woodlands, TX
Country
Region
Re: Kienzle I believe

Looks to be a Kienzle...plate 1435. Interesting...same top block arrangement as the previous JUF. SN on plate and pendulum is 134905. It has a wooden base...has some red felt in the groove...likely a replacement??

Kurt
278719.jpg 278720.jpg 278721.jpg 278722.jpg
Kurt, this clock was made toward the end of 1914. If you will look closely, the upper bracket is "not" the same as used by JUF. The one with all JUF clocks is bracket No. 15 in the Repair Guide, which is incorrectly identified as being made / used by Kienzle when in fact it was used exclusively by JUF. In fact the bracket design without the "C" gimbal was used by JUF almost a year with a normal but thick upper block instead of the gimbal, before it was adapted to use the Huber "C" gimbal suspension.

The clock would have been originally fitted with the Huber flared bottom tubular suspension guide as I've explained below regarding Ming's clock. Also, note the different design of the pendulum base cover compared to your clock with serial number 119639. This cover is a design modification that Kienzle made around 1911, the one with your other clock is the original Würth design from 1906 that was used by Kienzle from 1907 to about 1912. There was overlap between the two designs. The early design had a problem with the bottom cover getting lost as it is only a press fit into the pendulum base where the later design is held in by the assembly nut on the center shaft.

I believe the turned mahogany base is original as there are a number of clocks in the 1913-1915 period with an identical base.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

John Hubby

Senior Administrator Emeritus
Staff member
NAWCC Star Fellow
NAWCC Life Member
Sep 7, 2000
12,294
241
63
The Woodlands, TX
Country
Region
Re: Another Kienzle

SN 119639 both plate and pendulum. Plate 1602. This one has the rings for the suspension guard...the previous one did not. If I see this right, the only difference is the lack of "Made in Germany".

I've been weighing pendulums...this clock's weighs 14.3 oz while the previous Kienzle only weighed 11.5 oz. But the same size spring is called out in the guide.

Kurt
278751.jpg 278752.jpg 278753.jpg 278754.jpg
Kurt, this one was made in 1912, and I agree with Eric that there was overlap in use of some features for the Kienzles at that time. However, as I explained in my message regarding Ming's clock, I have yet to find the ring guards as original equipment with clocks that have the Huber "C" gimbal No. 18C upper bracket, and conversely the ring guards ARE correct for Kienzles that have the Würth type pediment and the double gimbal upper bracket No. 14. So, I would remove the rings and install a tubular guard on this clock if you can find one. The problem is that Terwilliger evidently didn't know that Kienzle even used a tubular guard (see below).

Also as I mentioned about your clock serial number 134905, the pendulum with this clock is the earlier version that was copies (or purchased) from Würth. As a rule, these pendulums are heavier than the later one with your other clock as you have found by measurement. This difference in weight can cause the need for a stronger spring for this pendulum than the other.

With regard to information in the Repair Guide, I've not found any evidence that Terwilliger was really aware of the design differences for Kienzle clocks depending on which suspension is used, nor did he figure out that the Huber "C" gimbal was "always" used with a tubular guard instead of the double ring guard. There are "many" errors in identification of the Würth clocks, in fact not a single back plate is shown to be by Würth when in fact there are 17 (yes, seventeen) plates in the Guide that were made by Würth. All this was due to lack of information, certainly not by intent.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

marylander

Registered User
Sep 9, 2008
882
39
28
Maryland
Country
Region
John Hubby said:
A little history:

When Kienzle started 400-Day production in second half 1907 they made clocks that looked very similar to the Würth clocks of the same year, including:

* A pediment design very similar to the one used by Würth since their startup in 1903
* A disc pendulum almost identical to the one patented by Würth in early 1906
* The front plate anchor arbor removable pivot bridge developed by Würth in late 1903
* Upper suspension bracket No. 14 patented by Würth in 1906
* A "scalloped" design movement support plate identical to the Würth design used since 1903
* The identical base design used by Würth from 1903

The main differences included:

* The large pallet inspection holes in the back plate (which Würth adopted in 1908)
* The double ring suspension guard, which Würth also adopted in early 1908 but then developed their own version with two mounting screws for each ring
​* Kienzle movements had the ratchet wheel behind the front plate and Würth had the ratchet wheel on the back plate of their movements.

From these points it is obvious there was a high degree of cooperation between Kienzle and Würth from the time of Kienzle's startup, and onward until Würth stopped making 400-Day clocks in late 1910. I believe Kienzle was purchasing the No. 14 gimbal suspension from Würth and possibly other parts while at the same time Würth was likely having Kienzle make some parts for their clocks.
.
Thank you John for you confirmation of production year, the double ring S.S. guards and the history lesson. Kienzle made very good quality clocks even during WWI. As long as the differences from Wurth, you also pointed out in the past that Kienzle put the ratchet wheel behind the front plate while Wurth had it behind the back plate.
Ming
 
Last edited by a moderator:

John Hubby

Senior Administrator Emeritus
Staff member
NAWCC Star Fellow
NAWCC Life Member
Sep 7, 2000
12,294
241
63
The Woodlands, TX
Country
Region
Thank you John for you confirmation of production year, the double ring S.S. guards and the history lesson. Kienzle made very good quality clocks even during WWI. As long as the differences from Wurth, you also pointed out in the past that Kienzle put the ratchet wheel behind the front plate while Wurth had it behind the back plate.
Ming
Ming, thanks for the reminder about where the ratchet wheels are located on the movements of Kienzle and Würth clocks. I've added that to the differences between them in my summary.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Forum statistics

Threads
166,983
Messages
1,455,115
Members
87,215
Latest member
AugustaKevin
Encyclopedia Pages
1,057
Total wiki contributions
2,914
Last edit
E. Howard & Co. by Clint Geller