rmarkowitz1_cee4a1
NAWCC Member
- Nov 26, 2009
- 6,864
- 2,032
- 113
- Country
-
This was one of those purchases that I think is something interesting. Or, I may have "screwed the pooch" to borrow some the saucy test pilot lingo in the wonderful book about the early days of the US space program, The Right Stuff, by the journalist and novelist, Tom Wolfe.
There is a wonderful Bulletin Supplement #19 by Rogers and Taylor, 8 Day Wood Movement Shelf Clocks:Their Cases, Their Movements, Their Makers. This is the reference I will be referring to when I cite page numbers and figures. Also, check out the movement table on pages 26-8.
Riley Whiting was a maker of 8 day wood movement shelf clocks. See page 19, figure 55 for a carved triple decker cased example. Note there is no seconds bit.
He used movement type 2.411, an example of which with oak plates is shown on page 45, figure 98.
On page 20, figure 58, there is a triple decker by Rodney Brace. Note the seconds bit. This clock also has a type 2.411 movement, which is shown on page 45, figure 99. This movement has mahogany plates. In the caption to this figure, it is stated that it was probably made by Riley Whiting. On page 28 it is stated, "movements in both Packard and Brace clocks have mahogany plates, while all observed movements in Riley Whiting cases have oak plates".
Now, we come to the clock in question.
The case is a mahogany and mahogany veneer on pine carved triple decker with cyma recta cornice quite similar to that shown on page 19, figure 55. My clock does not have the arch in the front of the cornice and does have a mirror in the center section rather than a reverse painted tablet. I carefully examined the bottom of my clock. There are no marks or shadows to suggest it ever had feet.
The middle tablet of my clock is a wonderful, thin old mirror. Looks original to me. The lower tablet is one where the image from a lithograph was transferred to the glass then hand colored on the reverse. It has flaked and has some areas of lifting. There was a thread some time ago that was looking for original examples of these tablets, and after very careful examination, I have no doubt to its originality. It is not an instance where someone just stuck a print behind the glass. Dig the little representation of a painting of a cottage on the shore of a lake with a teeny sail boat above the marble table set with fruit and flowers flanked by drapes. Unfortunately, at one time the back was coated with shellac or something like it to retard flaking. That's why the retaining putty looks shiney. It's otherwise undisturbed.
The label on the inner back board of the case is as shown on page 13, figure 35. It has suffered losses mainly in the 2 directions sections. The central portion is covered with plastic...attached with tacks into the label. Why oh why do people do stuff like that?
The wood dial is painted white with raised gilt gesso decoration and black Roman numerals. Unfortunately, at one time a screw was driven through the left hand lower corner for attachment. It has some "stretch marks" and flaking. Once again, someone couldn't leave well enough alone and did some crappy retouching, but not much. But look. It has a seconds bit and seconds track!! Careful examination fails to reveal any evidence that there was ever another dial save this one, nor is there any evidence that the dial was altered.
Now, look at the movement. To me it looks like the 2.411, but with mahogany plates..in a Riley Whiting case. Once again, careful examination fails to suggest that this clock has ever had another movement. I've included a pic of where the movement prevented oxidation of the back board. It lines up just fine. The holes for the mounting pins match perfectly those in the movement.
So, a Riley Whiting 8 day mahogany plate wood movement with seconds bit? Looks that way to me. Wouldn't make much sense for his firm to make them for others, albeit in fewer numbers, and never to use them in their own clocks especially if that was what was on hand.
Love to hear people's thoughts.
RM
There is a wonderful Bulletin Supplement #19 by Rogers and Taylor, 8 Day Wood Movement Shelf Clocks:Their Cases, Their Movements, Their Makers. This is the reference I will be referring to when I cite page numbers and figures. Also, check out the movement table on pages 26-8.
Riley Whiting was a maker of 8 day wood movement shelf clocks. See page 19, figure 55 for a carved triple decker cased example. Note there is no seconds bit.
He used movement type 2.411, an example of which with oak plates is shown on page 45, figure 98.
On page 20, figure 58, there is a triple decker by Rodney Brace. Note the seconds bit. This clock also has a type 2.411 movement, which is shown on page 45, figure 99. This movement has mahogany plates. In the caption to this figure, it is stated that it was probably made by Riley Whiting. On page 28 it is stated, "movements in both Packard and Brace clocks have mahogany plates, while all observed movements in Riley Whiting cases have oak plates".
Now, we come to the clock in question.
The case is a mahogany and mahogany veneer on pine carved triple decker with cyma recta cornice quite similar to that shown on page 19, figure 55. My clock does not have the arch in the front of the cornice and does have a mirror in the center section rather than a reverse painted tablet. I carefully examined the bottom of my clock. There are no marks or shadows to suggest it ever had feet.
The middle tablet of my clock is a wonderful, thin old mirror. Looks original to me. The lower tablet is one where the image from a lithograph was transferred to the glass then hand colored on the reverse. It has flaked and has some areas of lifting. There was a thread some time ago that was looking for original examples of these tablets, and after very careful examination, I have no doubt to its originality. It is not an instance where someone just stuck a print behind the glass. Dig the little representation of a painting of a cottage on the shore of a lake with a teeny sail boat above the marble table set with fruit and flowers flanked by drapes. Unfortunately, at one time the back was coated with shellac or something like it to retard flaking. That's why the retaining putty looks shiney. It's otherwise undisturbed.
The label on the inner back board of the case is as shown on page 13, figure 35. It has suffered losses mainly in the 2 directions sections. The central portion is covered with plastic...attached with tacks into the label. Why oh why do people do stuff like that?
The wood dial is painted white with raised gilt gesso decoration and black Roman numerals. Unfortunately, at one time a screw was driven through the left hand lower corner for attachment. It has some "stretch marks" and flaking. Once again, someone couldn't leave well enough alone and did some crappy retouching, but not much. But look. It has a seconds bit and seconds track!! Careful examination fails to reveal any evidence that there was ever another dial save this one, nor is there any evidence that the dial was altered.
Now, look at the movement. To me it looks like the 2.411, but with mahogany plates..in a Riley Whiting case. Once again, careful examination fails to suggest that this clock has ever had another movement. I've included a pic of where the movement prevented oxidation of the back board. It lines up just fine. The holes for the mounting pins match perfectly those in the movement.
So, a Riley Whiting 8 day mahogany plate wood movement with seconds bit? Looks that way to me. Wouldn't make much sense for his firm to make them for others, albeit in fewer numbers, and never to use them in their own clocks especially if that was what was on hand.
Love to hear people's thoughts.
RM
Attachments
Last edited:
