Post Your W. Würth & Co. Clocks Here

[lesbradley]

Re: Another Pre Restoration Wurth

It's a Kienzle

 

[macaw]

Re: Another Pre Restoration Wurth

Oh noooooo! It's nearly identical to another one I have that's a confirmed Wurth except for the serial number and the bottom of the pendulum, and the suspension spring mounting, but I saw that in another Wurth listing here. I can't cry too hard though, it only cost me $114.00 with shipping.

 

[lesbradley]

Re: Another Pre Restoration Wurth

Apart from the round plate models Wurth have the click spring on the rear of the backplate. Kienzle and their successors have the click on the inside of the front plate. Pretty sure the base is from a Wurth clock. Never seen that style on anything other than Wurth. The finials on the pillars look JUF and the suspension bracket appears to be early JUF as well, but would need a close up to determine.

 

[etmb61]

Re: Another Pre Restoration Wurth

This one was listed as a JUF on Ebay, so I hope I didn't mess up and actually buy a JUF. The serial number 109103 seems high, and I haven't seen fabric in the groove for the dome before. Any info on it would be great!
Mark

As Les said, Kienzle all the way. The base is correct for the clock too. I have 108179 and yours is nearly identical.

https://mb.nawcc.org/showthread.php?105306-Finally-a-complete-Kienzle&p=801010&viewfull=1#post801010

Eric

 

[lesbradley]

Re: Another Pre Restoration Wurth

Looks like it is original then. Still a bit mystified about the suspension bracket. Would have expected the gimbal like Eric's or the C bracket type like the picture enclosed. Forgot I had these two some time ago

 

[macaw]

Re: Another Pre Restoration Wurth

I guess this should be moved out of the Wurth section if possible. Any idea of it's age?

 

[etmb61]

Re: Another Pre Restoration Wurth

Looks like it is original then. Still a bit mystified about the suspension bracket. Would have expected the gimbal like Eric's or the C bracket type like the picture enclosed. Forgot I had these two some time ago

I agree, and I don't think the bracket on the clock is a Kienzle or Wurth part. I haven't found a match for it yet.

Eric

 

[macaw]

Re: Another Pre Restoration Wurth

I believe it's the same suspension bracket as postings 258, 262, & 278.

 

[John Hubby]

Re: Another Pre Restoration Wurth

This one was listed as a JUF on Ebay, so I hope I didn't mess up and actually buy a JUF. The serial number 109103 seems high, and I haven't seen fabric in the groove for the dome before. Any info on it would be great!
Mark

Mark, thanks for posting! As already identified, your clock is a Kienzle, back plate is Plate 1435 in the Repair Guide. Based on the serial number it was made in the April-June quarter of 1910. The serial number is a "first indicator" that the clock wasn't made by Würth. Their highest recorded serial number to date is 24341, and the lowest Kienzle serial number is 100465. Würth possibly made more than 25,000 clocks, but so far none have been found with that number or higher. For Kienzle, my data and research shows that their lowest serial number was likely 100001, and so far the highest number found is 187250 (made in 1929).

Actually this clock is what I call a Kienzle masquerading as a Würth. The back story relates to both companies being located in Swenningen not far apart, although in late 1906 Würth moved their offices to Villengen, a short distance away. When Würth started making 400-Day clocks in 1903 Kienzle had already been in Swenningen (as Schlenker & Kienzle) for many years. It may have been Würth's innovation and early success that convinced Kienzle to start making year-clocks in 1907. Kienzle very evidently worked closely with Würth, adopting their patented features for their initial production, and then enabling Würth to do the same. Here are the known features to look for:

• The pediment. As seen on this clock, Kienzle copied the general Würth design but did make subtle changes, straightening each end and forming the "T" to be a little wider and thinner. Kienzle used this on all their glass dome clocks documented to date from 1907 to the end of 1910 at which time they introduced their own design that looks for all the world to be a JUF copy. Some Kienzles are found with this "Würth" look-alike to the end of 1911.
• The scalloped edge movement support plate. This plate is virtually identical to the Würth version that was used from their initial production in second half 1903. Kienzle used it from 1908 to 1910 and may have purchased them from Würth. A rounded corner version was used for Kienzle's initial production in 1907 through the January-March quarter of 1908, and their straight edge design was introduced in second half 1910 and used thereafter.
• The Kienzle double ring suspension guard. The Kienzle design with one threaded machine screw plus a fixed pin to position the ring was first used by Kienzle in 1907 and continued through 1910 when using upper bracket No. 14 (Würth patent). Würth adopted this design in mid-1908 (Plate 1423) but changed it in 4th quarter 1908 to eliminate the fixing pin and use two machine screws to hold the rings in place. This design was used by Würth for the remainder of their production until they closed in late 1910. When Kienzle started using the Huber patent "C" gimbal in late 1907, they also used the Huber patent tubular suspension guard. That upper bracket became the only one used in normal production by Kienzle during 1911 and even though the back plates continued to be made to use the ring guard, it was abandoned completely by 1912.
• The No. 14 Gimbal Upper Bracket. This design was patented by Würth in 1906 and used by them for many of their clocks from 1906 to 1910. Kienzle adopted it in 1907 and used it on nearly all their clocks made from then to the end of 1910, phasing it out in favor of the Huber patent "C" gimbal during 1911.
• Front plate escape arbor pivot bridge. This feature was invented by Würth and used from about September 1904 to mid-1908. When Würth started using Plates 1423 and 1427 in 1908, this feature was discontinued. However, Kienzle's first production in 1907 adopted this design and used it for all production of their Graham escapement solid pinion movements until they sold the business to Kern & Link in 1909.
• Winding ratchet, ratchet bridge, click, and click spring. All Würth movements have the winding ratchet, ratchet bridge, click, and click spring mounted on the back plate. This is a key indicator that Plate 1423 and 1427 were made by Würth instead of Kienzle as shown in the Repair Guide. Kienzle rectangular movements do not have a ratchet bridge, but the winding ratchet, click, and click spring are mounted between the front plate and the front of the mainspring barrel. Early Kienzle movements (serial numbers 100001 to 104500) have a leaf type click spring mounted to the inside front plate, later movements have a coil spring between the click and the lower left movement post (viewed from the back). Both Kienzle and Würth round plate front-wind movements have the ratchet, ratchet bridge, click, and click spring mounted on the front plate behind the dial.
• Pallet Inspection Holes. Kienzle introduced these for all their movements starting with their first production in 1907 and continued until production stopped in 1929. Würth adopted them with Plates 1423, 1427, and 1008 from mid-1908 to end 1910.
• Fancy base design. Wurth introduced a fancy, heavy beaded base with brass-plated steel center cap at the beginning of 1904 and continued using it for most of their glass dome clocks to about April-June 1909. This base has a deep concave annular section just below the heavy bead. Kienzle adopted this base design and used it with most of their "Würth look-alike" clocks to the end of 1910, including the clock discussed here. None have been found with later clocks.
• Disc Pendulum. Würth patented multiple varieties of disc pendulum designs including the one found with this clock. The Wurth DRGM is documented to have been around mid-1906, and the pendulum appears with Kienzle clocks from their first production in 1907. These had a snap-fit bottom cover that is frequently lost as with this clock. The cover would have had a serial number identical to the movement number if it was the original pendulum. Kienzle improved the design around 1911, replacing the snap-fit cover with a cover having a "dished" center that could be held on by the nut fixing the disc to the pendulum center shaft. Otherwise the design continued as originally made, including having guide pins on the adjustment weights with corresponding slots in the top of the pendulum disc. I need to point out here that pendulum No. 13 in the Repair Guide is "NOT" by Kienzle, but designed and exclusively used by Würth for about one year from 4th quarter 1908 through third quarter 1909. This pendulum has not been documented with any other maker's clocks.

In covering these details, I must point out they are all based on observations made from actual clocks known to be made by Kienzle and Würth. We don't know (yet) whether these two companies licensed their improvements to each other or just used a "gentleman's agreement" based on mutual respect and support. Someday we may know the rest of the story.

One point about this clock that is puzzling is the upper suspension bracket. I think I've seen it before but it isn't illustrated in the Repair Guide although a couple of designs are similar. I would very much appreciate close-up photos of the bracket from both sides and the top so it can be documented.

Finally, I think this clock should remain in the Würth thread for educational reasons, to illustrate how to determine if you have a Würth or a Kienzle.

 

[John Hubby]

Re: Another Pre Restoration Wurth

I believe it's the same suspension bracket as postings 258, 262, & 278.

Mark, that is what I thought your clock had to begin with. However, look closely at bracket No. 18 in the Repair Guide; which is the bracket used for those three clocks. That bracket also forms the base for the Kienzle version of the Huber patent "C" gimbal, that I have designated No. 18C. You will see that the main bracket has more slender legs, and the sides of the main bracket are "stepped" to match the shape of the platform that holds the upper block. The sides of the main bracket on your clock are curved in the same manner as the JUF "C" gimbal bracket No. 15, and appear to possibly extend above the upper block platform. Photos should prove what it is (or isn't).

 

[macaw]

Re: Another Pre Restoration Wurth

Thanks John! I'll post pictures of the suspension bracket soon.
Mark

 

[macaw]

Re: Another Pre Restoration Wurth

Got to it sooner then I thought I would

 

[etmb61]

Re: Another Pre Restoration Wurth

I think I found a match for the bracket. I think it's one of the variants of those used on early Hubers.

Eric

 

[John Hubby]

Re: Another Pre Restoration Wurth

Knew I had seen it before . . actually it's the same basic upper bracket that JUF used for their Harder patent production 1882-1887, and continued using with minor variations from 1888 to about 1900. At that time, JUF changed the upper block platform to a longer and more tapered design that is the same as Mark's and also the Huber version that Eric posted. The tapered design was used by JUF from 1900 to early 1907 when they started using the No. 15 main bracket but without the Huber "C" gimbal.

Huber used the same earlier version as JUF from 1896 to 1901 but with a slightly wider and stubbier block platform. In 1902-03 they used the newer version developed by JUF, as shown in the clock Eric posted.

The bracket with Mark's clock is definitely the later JUF (post-1900) or Huber version. However, I suspect this is a "ringer" . . since there aren't any other Kienzle's in my database that has one. Also, some 9,000 plus clocks had already been made by Kienzle, mainly using the sophisticated No. 14 gimbal and it isn't logical they would use an "obsolete" design nearly three years after it was last used by JUF.

What I think happened is that Mark's clock originally was fitted with the No. 14 Würth gimbal and that was somehow damaged or lost. The clock being otherwise complete needed an upper bracket, and someone picked this one out of his parts bin and it worked. Personally, I would try to find a spare No. 14 gimbal to use with Mark's clock.

 

[marylander]

Re: Another Pre Restoration Wurth

In addition to those differences mentioned earlier, the Kienzle clock placed main spring ratchet set between two plates while Wurth placed the ratchet outside of back plate. This is my observation, If it is not correct, please let me know.
Ming

 

[macaw]

Re: Another Pre Restoration Wurth

I have a #14 on parts clock, so I'll use that when I get around to restoring it. Thanks all!
Mark

 

[John Hubby]

Re: Another Pre Restoration Wurth

In addition to those differences mentioned earlier, the Kienzle clock placed main spring ratchet set between two plates while Wurth placed the ratchet outside of back plate. This is my observation, If it is not correct, please let me know.
Ming

Ming, you are correct. I should have included that point in my list, so I'll go back and edit it. One more difference between Würth clocks and others made by JUF, Hauck, etc that have the ratchet and click on the back plate is that Würth used a stamped ratchet bridge where the others all used a machined or fabricated piece for that part.

 

[macaw]

Wurth Clock # 12763

Finally finished this one. I only wish I could photograph without reflections.

 

[marylander]

Re: Wurth Clock # 12763

Mark, Beautiful clock and superb restorations. Thank you for sharing.
Ming

 

[macaw]

Re: Wurth Clock # 12763

Thanks Ming!

 

[etmb61]

Re: Wurth Clock # 12763

Finally finished this one. I only wish I could photograph without reflections.

Did you know your clock sold in 2012 with a silver dial?

 

[macaw]

Re: Wurth Clock # 12763

Same serial number? Where and for how much?

 

[John Hubby]

Re: Wurth Clock # 12763

Finally finished this one. I only wish I could photograph without reflections.

Mark, Great Job!

Regarding photos without reflections it's simple and cheap. Buy three pieces of white foam board (foam-filled paper surface) about 24" x 30". Tape two pieces together at the long side so they can fold together. Place the third piece on a table or counter of other solid surface, then stand the folding pieces at one corner at a 90 deg. angle. Have this facing good natural light or even use a shaded lamp to provide light. Place your clock in the center about 8-10 inches away from the vertical sides, and then orient it so that the reflection you get is just of the white board, with the camera at a small angle so it isn't reflected. Take photos. No reflections, brass is shiny and bright, and photos come out great. Here's one example:



Try it, you'll like it.

 

[etmb61]

Re: Wurth Clock # 12763

Same serial number? Where and for how much?

It sold on ebay in November 2012 for $250. At that time it had no crown piece, a tarnished silver dial, and much less damage to the eccentric adjuster.

 

[Ada]

Re: Another Pre Restoration Wurth

Mark, thanks for posting! As already identified, your clock is a Kienzle, back plate is Plate 1435 in the Repair Guide. Based on the serial number it was made in the April-June quarter of 1910. The serial number is a "first indicator" that the clock wasn't made by Würth. Their highest recorded serial number to date is 24341, and the lowest Kienzle serial number is 100465. Würth possibly made more than 25,000 clocks, but so far none have been found with that number or higher. For Kienzle, my data and research shows that their lowest serial number was likely 100001, and so far the highest number found is 187250 (made in 1929).

Actually this clock is what I call a Kienzle masquerading as a Würth. The back story relates to both companies being located in Swenningen not far apart, although in late 1906 Würth moved their offices to Villengen, a short distance away. When Würth started making 400-Day clocks in 1903 Kienzle had already been in Swenningen (as Schlenker & Kienzle) for many years. It may have been Würth's innovation and early success that convinced Kienzle to start making year-clocks in 1907. Kienzle very evidently worked closely with Würth, adopting their patented features for their initial production, and then enabling Würth to do the same. Here are the known features to look for:

• The pediment. As seen on this clock, Kienzle copied the general Würth design but did make subtle changes, straightening each end and forming the "T" to be a little wider and thinner. Kienzle used this on all their glass dome clocks documented to date from 1907 to the end of 1910 at which time they introduced their own design that looks for all the world to be a JUF copy. Some Kienzles are found with this "Würth" look-alike to the end of 1911.
• The scalloped edge movement support plate. This plate is virtually identical to the Würth version that was used from their initial production in second half 1903. Kienzle used it from 1908 to 1910 and may have purchased them from Würth. A rounded corner version was used for Kienzle's initial production in 1907 through the January-March quarter of 1908, and their straight edge design was introduced in second half 1910 and used thereafter.
• The Kienzle double ring suspension guard. The Kienzle design with one threaded machine screw plus a fixed pin to position the ring was first used by Kienzle in 1907 and continued through 1910 when using upper bracket No. 14 (Würth patent). Würth adopted this design in mid-1908 (Plate 1423) but changed it in 4th quarter 1908 to eliminate the fixing pin and use two machine screws to hold the rings in place. This design was used by Würth for the remainder of their production until they closed in late 1910. When Kienzle started using the Huber patent "C" gimbal in late 1907, they also used the Huber patent tubular suspension guard. That upper bracket became the only one used in normal production by Kienzle during 1911 and even though the back plates continued to be made to use the ring guard, it was abandoned completely by 1912.
• The No. 14 Gimbal Upper Bracket. This design was patented by Würth in 1906 and used by them for many of their clocks from 1906 to 1910. Kienzle adopted it in 1907 and used it on nearly all their clocks made from then to the end of 1910, phasing it out in favor of the Huber patent "C" gimbal during 1911.
• Front plate escape arbor pivot bridge. This feature was invented by Würth and used from about September 1904 to mid-1908. When Würth started using Plates 1423 and 1427 in 1908, this feature was discontinued. However, Kienzle's first production in 1907 adopted this design and used it for all production of their Graham escapement solid pinion movements until they sold the business to Kern & Link in 1909.
• Winding ratchet, ratchet bridge, click, and click spring. All Würth movements have the winding ratchet, ratchet bridge, click, and click spring mounted on the back plate. This is a key indicator that Plate 1423 and 1427 were made by Würth instead of Kienzle as shown in the Repair Guide. Kienzle rectangular movements do not have a ratchet bridge, but the winding ratchet, click, and click spring are mounted between the front plate and the front of the mainspring barrel. Early Kienzle movements (serial numbers 100001 to 104500) have a leaf type click spring mounted to the inside front plate, later movements have a coil spring between the click and the lower left movement post (viewed from the back). Both Kienzle and Würth round plate front-wind movements have the ratchet, ratchet bridge, click, and click spring mounted on the front plate behind the dial.
• Pallet Inspection Holes. Kienzle introduced these for all their movements starting with their first production in 1907 and continued until production stopped in 1929. Würth adopted them with Plates 1423, 1427, and 1008 from mid-1908 to end 1910.
• Fancy base design. Wurth introduced a fancy, heavy beaded base with brass-plated steel center cap at the beginning of 1904 and continued using it for most of their glass dome clocks to about April-June 1909. This base has a deep concave annular section just below the heavy bead. Kienzle adopted this base design and used it with most of their "Würth look-alike" clocks to the end of 1910, including the clock discussed here. None have been found with later clocks.
• Disc Pendulum. Würth patented multiple varieties of disc pendulum designs including the one found with this clock. The Wurth DRGM is documented to have been around mid-1906, and the pendulum appears with Kienzle clocks from their first production in 1907. These had a snap-fit bottom cover that is frequently lost as with this clock. The cover would have had a serial number identical to the movement number if it was the original pendulum. Kienzle improved the design around 1911, replacing the snap-fit cover with a cover having a "dished" center that could be held on by the nut fixing the disc to the pendulum center shaft. Otherwise the design continued as originally made, including having guide pins on the adjustment weights with corresponding slots in the top of the pendulum disc. I need to point out here that pendulum No. 13 in the Repair Guide is "NOT" by Kienzle, but designed and exclusively used by Würth for about one year from 4th quarter 1908 through third quarter 1909. This pendulum has not been documented with any other maker's clocks.

In covering these details, I must point out they are all based on observations made from actual clocks known to be made by Kienzle and Würth. We don't know (yet) whether these two companies licensed their improvements to each other or just used a "gentleman's agreement" based on mutual respect and support. Someday we may know the rest of the story.

One point about this clock that is puzzling is the upper suspension bracket. I think I've seen it before but it isn't illustrated in the Repair Guide although a couple of designs are similar. I would very much appreciate close-up photos of the bracket from both sides and the top so it can be documented.

Finally, I think this clock should remain in the Würth thread for educational reasons, to illustrate how to determine if you have a Würth or a Kienzle.

Mr Hubby,
I was reading through this post and would like to add that i have a Wurth clock higher than 25000. Mine is number 27333 and only 28 higher than the illustration plate 1603 in the repair guide shown as JuF. The serial number is also repeated on the bottom pendulum cover. What i found odd was that why would Wurth revert back to the earlier production movements with no anchor inspection holes in the backplate and no suspension guide rings.
For information the movement has a removable anchor bridge, the pendulum has slots for the weights which are also marked FS and AR like the early pendulums. There are also numbers stamped on the bottom edge of the plate shown before it was resurrected to working order. I would like to add i have only seen one other clock like this made by Kienzle with an enamelled dial instead of the silvered one on my clock.

regards,
Adrian.

 

[Kamil Urbanowicz]

Re: Another Pre Restoration Wurth

I belive that its a mistake that instead of 2 should be 1 so the serial is 17333

 

[John Hubby]

Re: Another Pre Restoration Wurth

I believe that its a mistake that instead of 2 should be 1 so the serial is 17333

Actually, my view is that this is not an error. One day ago I would also have said it is an error, as I had much earlier concluded about the serial number shown on Plate 1603 in the Repair Guide. However, in review of Adrian's clock and the illustration of Plate 1603 as well as the information in my database, there are multiple reasons to conclude that the serial number is legitimate.

a) Both the movement and the pendulum of Adrian's clock are stamped with the identical number, evidently using two different sets of dies. It would not be at all likely that the same workman did both, thus very unlikely to have been something done in error.

b) The "2" could not logically have been a "1", giving 17333. This is because ALL Wurth clocks with serial numbers in the 17xxx range and somewhat higher have been found with Plate 1427 that has a leading "0" before the serial number. For example, I have recorded 21 clocks beginning with 017243, 017346, 017555, etc. up to 021165 as of this writing, with no break in sequence.

c) The back plate is without question identical to Plate 1603 in the Repair Guide that shows serial number 27305.

The appearance of Adrian's clock thus provides the first confirmed example that the serial number on Plate 1603 is a "legitimate" number. I had concluded some time ago that serial number was an error made by the person who did the drawing. This would not be the first time such an error has been made; several such errors have been confirmed by observing the actual clock used for the drawings. This (now erroneous) conclusion was supported by the fact at the time that all known examples of Plate 1603 fell between 8975 and 13250 in my database (27 clocks out of 230 total). My guess was that the actual serial number of Plate 1603 was "12305", which fit nicely within that serial number range. That also presumed that the same thing happened here as in other examples in the RG where a "1" has been mis-read as either a "2" or a "7", and a "2" copied down as a "7".

Now it appears that the actual serial number of Plate 1603 "IS" 27305. Further, being only 28 digits lower than Adrian's clock at 27333, it would quite likely have been one of a series that all have serial numbers in that approximate range.

The problem with this conclusion is that a new "mystery" has been created regarding Wurth clocks since these numbers are completely out of sequence with those Plate 1603 clocks already documented in the much lower serial number range mentioned above. There are several hypotheses that could be raised that might explain this, such as making a special series of clocks. The design of Adrian's clock isn't common as he has mentioned only seeing one Kienzle with enamel dial having a similar configuration. I have documented several Kienzle and JUF examples, the Kienzles all having smaller diameter enamel dials than the Wurth, the JUF examples all having enamel dials about the same diameter as the Wurth. At least until now, Adrian's clock is the only Wurth documented with its particular design.

If a special set of clocks was made at the time Wurth was making clocks in the 7xxx serial number range (they were already making specific movements and clocks for Bowler & Burdick), then it could follow that adding the leading "2" would separate the numbers well away and not confuse their record keeping at the time. Just for speculation, look at Plate 1440 which has the serial number 7305 and the only difference between that plate and Plate 1603 is the "Made in Germany" stamp on Plate 1440 (and the addition of the number "2" on Plate 1603). I'm going to leave it at that for now, we need at least two or three more examples to have a better idea what really happened.

 

[R Phillips]

Help ID a 400 day clock

Well after looking through quite a few books and a lot of digging online, I have failed to find a clock with the same pendulum as this one. I initially suspected that this might be a Philip Hauck, but now I am thinking it is a JUF.
When you rotate the disc, weights move in and out from the centre and the two indicators show the approximate rate adjustment. I haven't started on this one yet, just wanted to get some background for the customer if possible.
Thoughts? Many thanks in advance.

-Rob (Watchmaker/Clockmaker)

 

[KurtinSA]

Re: Help ID a 400 day clock

Interesting pendulum. The finials are the same as one of my Würth clocks. The back plate looks like #1440 which in the repair guide says it's JUF but has been corrected by John Hubby as being by Würth. Can you take a more straight on picture of the back plate so the serial number is visible?

Kurt

 

[etmb61]

Re: Help ID a 400 day clock

That is a very scarce Wurth pendulum! I've only recorded three of them. There are several posts about it in the "post your Wurth" thread.

Eric

 

[R Phillips]

Re: Help ID a 400 day clock

The serial number is covered a bit by tape residue in the pic, but it is 5722.

 

[R Phillips]

Re: Help ID a 400 day clock

Here's an update.

 

[John Hubby]

Re: Help ID a 400 day clock

Well after looking through quite a few books and a lot of digging online, I have failed to find a clock with the same pendulum as this one. I initially suspected that this might be a Philip Hauck, but now I am thinking it is a JUF.
When you rotate the disc, weights move in and out from the centre and the two indicators show the approximate rate adjustment. I haven't started on this one yet, just wanted to get some background for the customer if possible.
Thoughts? Many thanks in advance.

-Rob (Watchmaker/Clockmaker)

Rob, thanks for posting the info and photos of your clock. As Kurt and Eric have already noted it was made by W. Wurth & Co., and Plate 1440 is the correct back plate. That plate is incorrectly identified in the Repair Guide as are ALL of the Wurth back plates, either being shown as by JUF or by Kienzle.

The "two dial" pendulum with your clock was granted design protection by DRGM 257636 on July 13, 1905 and a three-dial version was protected by DRGM 270879 on January 26, 1906. This is the fourth two-dial version now in my data, I have seen one of the three-dial versions but that was years ago and no photos or other data are available. These pendulums work on the basis of the weights being pivoted so that a rotary gear system inside the disc can rotate them inward or outward to change the timing. The pointers on top of the disc are mounted on the weight pivot shafts and show the relative position of the weights.

The celluloid dial on your clock may appear to be a downgrade from the metal or enamel dials also available, however at the time it was considered a higher quality addition to clocks. Your clock appears to be complete and all original, and you did an excellent job cleaning it up.

I am moving this to the "Post Your W. Wurth & Co. 400-Day Clocks Here" thread for ongoing discussion and archival purposes.

 

[R Phillips]

Re: Help ID a 400 day clock

Here is the pendulum in question, as you can see it is made from steel and not much care and attention is paid to appearance or quality. The central wheel has very shallow 'teeth' that engage the shallow pinions of the two arbors that the hands of the indicators are on. There is no need for two of these, and the reason they designed it with two is for symmetry and weight I'm guessing. The two arms that are spring loaded to hold the shallow pinions to the larger wheel are meant to move freely, and in this case they were bent and not functioning properly. The indicator arbors are easily displaced, there is nothing to stop them being lifted out of their lower bearings, and then the indicator will cease to work and sit at an angle. Despite being riveted, they are functional even now, and after adjusting the arms and the clearance for the tension spring, both are moving freely.

 

[John Hubby]

Re: Help ID a 400 day clock

Here is the pendulum in question, as you can see it is made from steel and not much care and attention is paid to appearance or quality. The central wheel has very shallow 'teeth' that engage the shallow pinions of the two arbors that the hands of the indicators are on. There is no need for two of these, and the reason they designed it with two is for symmetry and weight I'm guessing. The two arms that are spring loaded to hold the shallow pinions to the larger wheel are meant to move freely, and in this case they were bent and not functioning properly. The indicator arbors are easily displaced, there is nothing to stop them being lifted out of their lower bearings, and then the indicator will cease to work and sit at an angle. Despite being riveted, they are functional even now, and after adjusting the arms and the clearance for the tension spring, both are moving freely.

Rob, thanks very much for posting the internal works photos for the pendulum. One thing that our users can't see without a complete disassembly is the spiral cut plate on the bottom that moves the weights in or out from center. That plate is part of the bottom cover; if one looks closely at the side view and bottom view of the pendulum you can see the knurled edge. That bottom plate can be turned and is what actually changes the position of the three weights to regulate the time.

 

[R Phillips]

Re: Help ID a 400 day clock

Sorry, I should have included that! Here is the view with the bottom plate removed. You can see the spirals that the weights track in as they move. It very much reminds me of an old Pocket watch movt holder I still use regularly.

 

[John Hubby]

Re: Help ID a 400 day clock

Rob, thanks much for the photo! That completes the story about how this pendulum works. Actually for those who have seen them this same principle is used for the Kaiser Universe pendulums that are hidden inside the base of each clock. The Kaisers have two adjustable weights.

 

[marylander]

John, I have a piece of data for your record if you did not already have it. I just finished restoring this W. Wurth clock. It is running strong. The back plate is #1603 and the serial number is 11054. It has an adjustable pallets anchor. Inside front and back plates all stamped 44. the pendulum has an aluminum bottom cover which can be ply open. But the serial number was destroyed by some kind of tool. Looks like it was purposely taking off the number. The clock was messed up by previous repairer(s). Anyway, It is restored and running very well. I am very please with the addition especially with the crown pendulum.
Ming

 

[John Hubby]

John, I have a piece of data for your record if you did not already have it. I just finished restoring this W. Wurth clock. It is running strong. The back plate is #1603 and the serial number is 11054. It has an adjustable pallets anchor. Inside front and back plates all stamped 44. the pendulum has an aluminum bottom cover which can be ply open. But the serial number was destroyed by some kind of tool. Looks like it was purposely taking off the number. The clock was messed up by previous repairer(s). Anyway, It is restored and running very well. I am very please with the addition especially with the crown pendulum.
Ming

Ming, thanks very much for posting the information and photos about your Würth clock. You have done an excellent job of cleaning and preparation, it will be good to see the finished clock when you have it back together.

Based on the serial number your clock was made about April 1907. The back plate you mention is correct. Thanks for the detailed photos of the plates, this will enable our users to see the removable anchor pivot bridge on the front plate that allows you to assemble the movement, do the "click test" to be sure there is little resistance in the gear train, then install the anchor arbor without spreading the plates. Würth introduced this about Sept.-Oct. 1904 and it was present on all their clocks until the end of 1907.

Of great interest is that when Kienzle made their first 400-Day clocks in second half 1907, they had this same feature and that was continued until Kienzle sold their 400-Day business in 1929. By mid 1908, Würth clocks ceased to use the anchor arbor pivot bridge and began to use several Kienzle features including the double-ring suspension guard and pallet inspection holes in their back plates. These similarities have caused many including Charles Terwilliger to think the Würth clocks of that period (mid-1908 to end 1910 when Würth stopped production) were Kienzle models. Many of the Würth patented features including pendulum No 20, the basic disc pendulum, upper bracket No. 14, the pediments, the movement support plates, and even bases were very similar or identical. We have fortunately been able to distinguish the differences once we discovered that the early Würth clocks had been incorrectly identified as made by JUF or Kienzle. We now know that Würth and Kienzle exchanged many features, either through licensing to perhaps by simple barter. We also know that Würth moved their business headquarters to the adjacent town of Villengen from Swenningen in 1907 so there is a possibility they contracted some manufacturing to Kienzle during the last three years they made 400-Day clocks. There is other information too extensive to relate here, however there is no longer a question as to which clocks were made by Würth and which were made by Kienzle.

 

[marylander]

Ming, thanks very much for posting the information and photos about your Würth clock. You have done an excellent job of cleaning and preparation, it will be good to see the finished clock when you have it back together.

Based on the serial number your clock was made about April 1907. The back plate you mention is correct. Thanks for the detailed photos of the plates, this will enable our users to see the removable anchor pivot bridge on the front plate that allows you to assemble the movement, do the "click test" to be sure there is little resistance in the gear train, then install the anchor arbor without spreading the plates. Würth introduced this about Sept.-Oct. 1904 and it was present on all their clocks until the end of 1907..

John, Thank you as always for your education and dating. When I was posting the thread this morning, I realized that I do not have a full photo of the restored clock. I only had one intended for a 1906 Gustav Becker which happened to have half of this clock shown. I will take a full clock photo when I get home tonight. In the meantime, I will post the half photo for you.
Thank you again for your help.
Ming

 

[marylander]

These are the photos for completed clock.
Ming

 

[KurtinSA]

Ming -

Did you do some work on the dial on your clock? It looks very nice. I acquired a very similar clock and at the time I wasn't really sure who made it. John provided info that it was a Würth dated in 1906.

My Collection has Grown!

My dial seems to be discolored. I've not taken it down for cleaning jus yet, but should be ready to address the dial when the time comes.

Thanks...Kurt

 

[marylander]

Ming -

Did you do some work on the dial on your clock? It looks very nice. I acquired a very similar clock and at the time I wasn't really sure who made it. John provided info that it was a Würth dated in 1906.

My Collection has Grown!

My dial seems to be discolored. I've not taken it down for cleaning jus yet, but should be ready to address the dial when the time comes.

Thanks...Kurt

Kurt, I did not do anything special to clean the dial. I only used warm wet towel to clean the dial and bezzle. The dial looks a little light brownish and was in very good shape when arrived. I like the color. I lacquered the bezzle. I polished and lacquered everything else except front plate. Of course, they were not perfectly done.
Ming

 

[John Hubby]

These are the photos for completed clock.
Ming

Excellent! Great job on restoring your clock and also thanks very much for the detailed photos.

 

[Pat L.]

Hello,
This clock was acquired last week and may have been made by Wurth. It looks like it could be plate 1427 in the Horolovar book. It is in running condition with 270 deg. rotation but loses approx. 75 minutes per day, and it doesn't look like there's enough pendulum adjustment left. The book shows no. 38 as the suspension spring to use. Is this considered correct for use with this pendulum? The pendulum weighs 15.9 oz (450 gram). The movement serial number is 23539 but there is no number marked on the pendulum. Thanks for reading this, and please confirm that it was made by Wurth and whether no. 38 is a good starting point for the suspension spring.

 

[etmb61]

Hi Pat,

Yes you have a Wurth. Does the pendulum have a cover on the bottom? It's difficult to say which spring to use because the weights inside the disc are often changed. A 0.0038" spring may be fine, or not. I'm not sure that pendulum is original for your clock. It is by Wurth and very desirable, but could be earlier production.

Very nice!

I have an identical clock number 23662 with a standard gallery disc pendulum. The Crown pendulum was used most before number 13000. My records have only 3 clocks (out of 50) after that number with a Crown pendulum including yours.

Eric

 

[John Hubby]

Pat, thanks for posting! Eric has positively identified your Würth clock, which was made about Feb-Mar 1910 based on the movement serial number.

Will be interested to see if the pendulum still has its bottom cover and what may be stamped there. For the record, right now the highest matching serial number for pendulum No. 20 in my database is 21996, however it is not stamped with the "DRGM" that was found on most all of these up to the end of 1907 when it was no longer found. The highest serial number for this pendulum I have that also has the DRGM is 13250 made about Oct.-Nov. 1907. That could correspond with the end of the validity period for a DRGM if the fee had not been paid for an extension.

You have a very nice and evidently complete example of a late production Würth clock.

 

[Pat L.]

Eric & John,
Thanks for your comments about the clock. Here are a couple of pictures of the bottom of the pendulum. The suspension spring was changed to a no. 38 a few minutes ago. We'll see how that goes. Thanks again, Pat L.

 

[John Hubby]

Alas, the original bottom cover is missing so we can't know whether it was stamped with the movement serial number or not. Here is the highest number P20 I have in my data (SN 21996), with the original cover in place:

I'm wondering what is inside the disc of your pendulum? It appears that a zinc sheet has been cut to fit, since you are getting yours up and running I'm not asking for you to take it apart now, but when you get an opportunity it would be interesting to see what is there.

 

[Pat L.]

John,
Here are some pictures of the inside of the pendulum's cast brass shell and the discs that were inside of it. The bottom two discs are steel (one is used as the bottom cover), the next two discs are brass, and the last disc is copper. Note that the inside surface of the cast brass shell is inscribed with the movement serial number. Also, the two brass discs are stamped with the numbers 2055 and 1248.

A number.40 suspension spring was put in the clock yesterday afternoon and it ran approx. 16 hours, gaining only 5 minutes, before being stopped to inspect the inside of the pendulum this morning. So it seems like it will be easy enough to get it regulated now.

Thanks again for the information that you and Eric have provided. Pat L.