Questions on French Clock

[expeditionhiker]

Any idea the date and manufacturer of this clock? Also, how is the movement removed? The movement looks too large to fit out the back or front. It is very heavy, probably marble, but how do I tell what type of metal, bronze? The only markings are on the statue(artist) and the back door has some numbers. Thanks

 

[Southern Collector]

Open the back door.
You will see two screws.
Remove the screws, you should be able to pull the movement out from the front of the clock.
Be careful the roundulet beauty ring is apt to be loose also.

 

[expeditionhiker]

The two set screws loosen the dial and beauty ring, but the movement will only pull out around 1/8".

 

[senhalls]

It looks like a later replacement movement.

 

[zedric]

It looks like a later replacement movement.

Agreed - either it is a replacement movement, or the clock is much more recent than it looks from the photos. You would expect a French clock of this type to have a typical round Pendule de Paris movement.

 

[gmorse]

Hi expeditionhiker,

Agreed - either it is a replacement movement, or the clock is much more recent than it looks from the photos. You would expect a French clock of this type to have a typical round Pendule de Paris movement.

I think zedric's second alternative is the truth of this; as well as the wrong movement, the dial is quite crudely printed, the back cover vents are way off centre and the quality of the modelling on the whole case is way below the typical French standard. These clocks were carefully made and generally very well finished, with any figure work well modelled. It's probably been made in the Far East not very long ago.

Once you've removed those two screws holding the front and back bezels together the front should pull straight out with the movement attached. If it doesn't, that's another cause for suspicion.

Regards,

Graham

 

[expeditionhiker]

Sorry the pictures don't show more details, I think the clock is better than the pictures show. I believe the case and maybe the dial(maybe it was repainted, has signs of age on the inside) are original, not sure of the back cover with vents, although the metal matches the front bezel, the movement has been replaced. After removing the two set screws, I had to remove 4 more screws that had been attached to the set screw brackets, and then remove the hands and the dial pulled off so the movement could lean out the front or back. Anyways, I discovered that someone put a lot of work into this clock to make the newer movement fit, I can see metal that has been notched out, and brackets from movement that have been cut and installed for the mounts, it has newer metal attached to older metal. So, anyone know what type of movement this is? Is it OK to have an old clock with a newer working movement, or should I be on the lookout for an original movement?

 

[Uhralt]

The movement looks like a newer, rather crudely made carriage clock movement. I would replace it with a proper round French movement. They come up all the time on ebay. You need to make sure that the size fits the opening in the case. The movement should have a slightly smaller diameter than the front opening and the dial bezel a slightly larger diameter than the front opening. You may need to ask the seller for the exact dimensions to make sure the movement fits your case.

Uhralt

 

[gmorse]

Hi expeditionhiker,

...So, anyone know what type of movement this is?

Afraid I can't identify a maker, but it's clearly from the 20th century, with those spotted plates, screwed pillars and a fairly modern Swiss lever platform.

Regards,

Graham

 

[JTD]

It's probably been made in the Far East not very long ago.

From what I can see, I agree with Graham. I don't think this is very old. It would help to have some more pictures of the case and what the back looks like. The little porcelain panel is very typical of Chinese repro clocks.

How is the clock case attached to the metal part? It almost looks a like marble mantel clock put into a metal base frame and statue screwed on top, but again more pictures would help. I am also wondering about those curious side pieces which, to me at least, don't look quite 'right'.

What is the name you see on the statue?

All of the above is just my suppositioning/opinions - I may well be wrong. Please post some more photos.

JTD

 

[expeditionhiker]

I can't make out the name on the statue, but here is a picture. the movement has about 5 jewels, not sure if the that helps with the origin of the movement, but I know the movement is not original. I can't imagine someone would go through all the trouble to replace the movement if the cabinet is not original. The base is metal, probably brass with a piece of black painted wood underneath. all the figures are screwed on with similar flathead brass screws used to tighten the movement to the case. The side figures, gargoyles?, they are very slightly different from one another - not sure if one has been replaced. I think if someone could help identify the name on the statue, that would help a lot.

 

[JTD]

Well, I think now, more than ever, that the whole clock is a modern reproduction. And of course if the case is not old, then having a new movement would not be surprising, because it would not be a replacement, it would be the original.

The casting of the figure on the top is very poor quality indeed and not what a French clock of the period would have. The gargoyles or whatever they are look very odd and not French.

I can't make out exactly what the strange wooden (?) box is underneath, but I would not have expected that either.

As for the signature, I think it is an oriental attempt at something intended to look like a French sculptor's signature. There are many French figural clocks in this style which do have the artist's signature in this position, but to me this one does not look genuine. (This is not an uncommon thing, I have a late 19th/early 20th century Chinese clock with a crown-wheel fusee movement, on the back plate of which is a desperate attempt to engrave what I think is meant to be the word Junghans. The result is just a jumble of worm-like marks!)

Is what I think - but others may have better ideas and I shall be happy if they can prove something else.

JTD