RSM Rose Logo (Schnekenburger, Mühlheim)

Lee.k

Registered User
Nov 4, 2021
11
6
3
Country
Hi all, some pics of my latest clock. I hope the details are useful for the archives and any info with regards to date would be great. I’m fairly sure the crown is a modern replacement but all thoughts and comments welcome

A838863F-1612-4E66-BF77-E3423FACDA25.jpeg 25EF909C-A8C5-4AD7-8F93-0D758FB29B30.jpeg F4E12C45-8FC1-4AD1-957C-BFC18EFAC2C0.jpeg 545318D1-868F-45EB-A4CA-3961BB98D36B.jpeg 83B6C2B2-5040-48E0-AA98-AEFCCBD9E464.jpeg 138CEACD-AC1E-4363-A9A1-35FB747B1E85.jpeg 7BB8AB37-55E1-4828-B4B3-15C23F4205F0.jpeg 6ACED778-43F9-46CE-8AAC-AB433CE597A4.jpeg 5838DFB3-89DC-4620-9837-8776F97D69B8.jpeg 63B237D3-4EFA-41F2-8FB5-F4921A82761D.jpeg
 
  • Like
Reactions: Tatyana and Yahagi

Lee.k

Registered User
Nov 4, 2021
11
6
3
Country
Hi all, some pics of my latest clock. I hope the details are useful for the archives and any info with regards to date would be great. I’m fairly sure the crown is a modern replacement but all thoughts and comments welcome

View attachment 683382 View attachment 683383 View attachment 683384 View attachment 683385 View attachment 683386 View attachment 683387 View attachment 683388 View attachment 683389 View attachment 683390 View attachment 683391
Thank you Yahgai for your comments on my other thread. Ive pasted your comments here too, for ease of following the conversation, I hope that’s ok.

“Lee.k:
Thanks for participating in the discussion :)

I also see a large number of clocks manufactured in a short time. I cannot say why the RSM had to sell the shares ...

I am reminded of the story of the Daewoo company from 1997-99. Maybe the RSM has also overinvested? Maybe he was not making enough money on the production of clocks and the business became irreversible?

The ROSE from 1894 surprised me too. I was convinced it would be 1891-92 rather. Could it be that it was used earlier this year? Maybe so, but we don't have any proof of it. Typically, advertisements such as ROSE 1894 are used for relatively precise dating. If there is a signature on the mechanism, it was produced after the date of registration.
If it were to be otherwise in the case of the RSM, evidence would be needed. Without them, it will be creating history instead of discovering history.

John Hubby presented his assumptions for RSM dating a few years ago. I have allowed myself to disagree with him, not because of my vanity and 'ego' ... but because the clocks I have seen are indicative of something else entirely

I would not like to repeat the arguments from the neighboring thread. In my opinion, this graph says a lot:

https://mb.nawcc.org/attachments/wgjhumnie-jpg.674828/

Since its publication, it has changed a bit. I added some mechanisms.

If John Hubby's assumptions are correct - then the vast majority of technological changes occurred in 1882 and 1883.
Within 1 calendar year, the following changes have changed:
clock hands, mechanism mount (x4? x5?), clock pendulum, anchor in the mechanism (x2). In addition, there are significant changes to the design of the crates.
In those early years, there would also have to be Central Secondary and Weight clocks.
It is very hard to believe that all these and other changes that I mentioned in the adjacent thread took place in 1882/3.
It would be a very violent development, completely different from other producers at the time. It would also be an exceptionally large number of preserved clocks from that period. The first 2 bars show this.

So I believe more in ROSE since 1894 ... and that RSM numbering was a bit complicated.

If you want to - please answer in the adjacent thread, so that we don't create confusion.

regards
:)
 
  • Like
Reactions: Yahagi

Lee.k

Registered User
Nov 4, 2021
11
6
3
Country
Yahagi,
Thank you for your time and effort in replying and explaining your research.
I think you are right to work with the historical proof of the RSM rose trademark being registered in 1894. Any other suggestions are purely theoretical unless evidence proves them otherwise. I also agree that the serial numbering of these clocks also is problematic and most likely more complicated than the current understanding. With Schnekenburger taking over an existing business in 1882, it would be interesting to find out any information on the clocks being made prior as I would assume that a lot of the details of those clocks continued over into Schnekenburger’s production. Research in this area may help to shed some light.
what does an early Schnekenburger clock movement look like? and how can one be identified prior to the use of the rose logo?
Just a thought, could it be that the movements that are not serial numbered were ones produced for other clock manufacturers throughout 1882 - 1900? Or does the evidence suggest that all of these clocks are the earliest examples?
 

Yahagi

Registered User
Dec 16, 2019
260
106
43
51
Country
Region
There was a lot of information in this thread:


There I showed a clock which - I believe - has a (sale?) Date of 12.1882

I pay attention to the form / design of the clock case.

I believe the numbering was 'parallel'. First it was 1-30, then for a short time 1-30 with ROSE.
I believe that this 'short time' was short based on the small number of mechanisms identified so marked.

I believe that when ROSE with numbering appeared - each type of clock had its own numbering.
Spring clocks had a separate numbering.
A separate weight clocks
Separate annual (Kohler)
A separate quarter hour (2 gongs)
A separate mechanism with the patent 44446. I have only 1 item in the archive and I cannot evaluate them.

I believe that the numbering of the springs was the 'main' numbering.
Around 1898 there was an alignment of numbers ... around 50,000.
The clock you showed is number 3347. In my archive I have 15 cases of RSM weight clocks. The highest number is 5404.
Another one for the RSM is - ... a little over 57,000 (!) ... (I can't read the number exactly). Between 5404 and 57,000 - there is a void. I have nothing in this category :)

The same for squares. I have archived 38 cases between 442 and 11692. Then a huge hiatus and 53907.
Mechanisms 11692 and 53907 are hard to distinguish, they look identical.

Therefore, I believe that around 1898 there was an alignment of numbers. 11692 and 53907 in my opinnia could have been built in the same year.

That it is so, that this is a good conclusion - this comparison assures me.
Then I will show 2 more clocks.
The first is quarter hour clock number 567.
If the uniform numbering and assumptions were adopted - it would have to be built in 1884.
The second is Kohler 1084. In my opinion it will be 1895/6(?).

Please compare both cases ... and then look at the box dated 1882. Please compare its design, clock hands ... and everything else.

If my conclusions are incorrect - I would love someone to help me fix them :)

0_567.jpg 24040_01_S.jpg
 
Last edited:

Lee.k

Registered User
Nov 4, 2021
11
6
3
Country
There was a lot of information in this thread:


There I showed a clock which - I believe - has a (sale?) Date of 12.1882

I pay attention to the form / design of the clock case.

I believe the numbering was 'parallel'. First it was 1-30, then for a short time 1-30 with ROSE.
I believe that this 'short time' was short based on the small number of mechanisms identified so marked.

I believe that when ROSE with numbering appeared - each type of clock had its own numbering.
Spring clocks had a separate numbering.
A separate weight clocks
Separate annual (Kohler)
A separate quarter hour (2 gongs)
A separate mechanism with the patent 44446. I have only 1 item in the archive and I cannot evaluate them.

I believe that the numbering of the springs was the 'main' numbering.
Around 1898 there was an alignment of numbers ... around 50,000.
The clock you showed is number 3347. In my archive I have 15 cases of RSM weight clocks. The highest number is 5404.
Another one for the RSM is - ... a little over 57,000 (!) ... (I can't read the number exactly). Between 5404 and 57,000 - there is a void. I have nothing in this category :)

The same for squares. I have archived 38 cases between 442 and 11692. Then a huge hiatus and 53907.
Mechanisms 11692 and 53907 are hard to distinguish, they look identical.

Therefore, I believe that around 1898 there was an alignment of numbers. 11692 and 53907 in my opinnia could have been built in the same year.

That it is so, that this is a good conclusion - this comparison assures me.
Then I will show 2 more clocks.
The first is quarter hour clock number 567.
If the uniform numbering and assumptions were adopted - it would have to be built in 1884.
The second is Kohler 1084. In my opinion it will be 1895/6(?).

Please compare both cases ... and then look at the box dated 1882. Please compare its design, clock hands ... and everything else.

If my conclusions are incorrect - I would love someone to help me fix them :)

View attachment 684305 View attachment 684306
With so many threads this is quite confusing, but also highly interesting. . I especially like the picture Tatyana shared of the movement with the large Rose RSM trademark and serial 308 with the patent 44446 (1888 year). This clearly proves that this movement couldn’t have been made earlier. What this would suggest, as has already been said, is that the different movements had their own separate serial numbers.

You’ve mentioned on another thread about the large Rose and small rose being interchanged and showing pics of movements with the serial numbers climbing and the logo switching back and forth between large and small. However I did notice differences between those movements and on the basis of each type of movement having its own serial number series these could be separated into 2 different groups which would also in turn separate the large and small Rose into those groups. This would also make the quantities much greater if there are indeed 2 different types of movement being shown on that thread, with their own separate numbers.
My understanding now is that that dating any RSM movement purely by serial number alone won’t give an accurate date, simply because we don’t know when each type of movement started production, or how many of each movement were produced each year. This would help to explain why the movement Tatyana shared has the low serial number yet a patent stamp showing the movement to be later than 1888. Please explain to me if I misunderstand?
My personal thought ( and this is just theory) is that the large RSM Rose was being used prior to the 1894 trademark registration. The movements which do not have the rose but are otherwise identical are potentially movements prior to 1882. This theory in turn spreads out the timeline of all of the alterations and upgrades to the movements you have already noted. You questioned John Hubby’s dating method partly due to noticing these changes, and that there were too many changes for such a short timeframe. However if a large volume of these movements were indeed produced from an earlier period this makes things more plausible?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Yahagi

Yahagi

Registered User
Dec 16, 2019
260
106
43
51
Country
Region
For my needs, I have prepared such a table that shows my way of dating the RSM. The dates are not exact. The table does not claim to be infallible. This as you can see v.1.04 and is constantly changing. In my opinion, these are not radical changes, but rather a clarification.

You touched on a few topics ...

1.
The idea of a big / small ROSE in 1894 is interesting, but it cannot be defended. If you look at a document from 1894, there is no doubt a big ROSE there, not a small one. This big ROSE was proprietary at the time. (check please, compare small / large)
This is clearly visible on the Kohlers. They were written in 1894-95 (maybe at the very beginning of 1896, but this is debatable). They all have a big ROSE.
The little ROSE appears around 1898 in my opinion. It looks as if someone just ordered a different (small) stamp. But they (big / small) mix anyway. This gives the impression that someone used a small stamp (for spring-loaded stamps) in one room, and a large stamp (for weight) in another. I do not believe that any exact date can be proposed on this basis. But of course I can be wrong.
In the table I have listed the quarter hour 4884 in blue with the date 1896.
This clock is owned by our colleague in Poland. He has a plaque from 1896. Of course, the sign might have been nailed a little later. But this colleague assures us that he also has a purchase receipt (!) Of this clock from 1896. We are waiting for him to find him.
So conclusions (obviously this is not a dogma and you can argue with it :):
There is a clock with a plate of 1896, or a relatively documented date, it has a large ROSE and the number 4884. It has to be put somewhere in the table. Where ... ? The answer is obvious.


2.
Patent 44446.
This is a very interesting case. Unfortunately, only one piece is available at the moment. You may wonder when it was produced. As you rightly noticed - after being granted a patent in 1888.
I'm not sure why the design of this mechanism is 'unique'. I do not know whether the RSM came into possession of this patent in 1888 or, for example, in 1893.
Perhaps it was 1888, but the mechanism was so different that it did not gain much popularity. Perhaps it was produced in quantities of several dozen per year from 1888. Or maybe all 309 units were produced in 1894 or 1895 (?).
If another mechanism with the patent 44446 appeared - but, for example, with the number 100, without the ROSE - I think we would have very clear information about when this signature appeared ... whether it was from 1882, or much later.
It remains to wait for such a mechanism to emerge.

3.
In my theory, I do not dare to withdraw the unmarked ones before 1882. This would be Ammann.
There are too many unmarked ones. When I wrote about their number - I had about 100 cases in the archive. Now I think there are 130 (?).
Ammann went bankrupt. I have no source at hand, but I recall from memory that he had about 25-30 employees. He produced not only hanging. In my opinion, too many of these mechanisms are being discovered for such a small producer.

4.
Technological changes in the design are quite nice. But they do not take place by 'steps'. It is so (in my opinion naturally) that the anchor no. 1 appears with the clues no. 1 and hanger No. 1 (1-1-1)
But then the same anchor appears e.g. in a combination 1-2-1 ... then 1-2-2 ... 2-2-2 ... 2-3-2 etc. (I don't know if it is legible) ).
These are changes that happened very smoothly. In my opinion, they were spread over time.

The clock from 1882 shown is 1 (?) - 1-1 (the anchor is probably not visible in the photos).
In this table I am showing v.1 ... v.2 ... v.3 - these are the types of anchors.
I've already shown them here somewhere.


As for the table - please criticize it. I will be very happy to clarify it in cooperation with NAWCC.

RSMTab004b.jpg
 

Yahagi

Registered User
Dec 16, 2019
260
106
43
51
Country
Region
A bit of Lee.K made me think about the idea of a little ROSE.
I looked through various documents but found no official (before 1900) where little ROSE appears.
There is no doubt, however, that the little ROSE appears on the movements before 1900.
As I wrote earlier - since a small ROSE mixes with a large ROSE - I believe that it cannot serve as an aid to strict date setting. As additional support - perhaps.


I believe that a small ROSE appeared as an additional stamp in the company, but for unknown reasons (maybe some oversight?) It is not like the registered mark.
The documents show that both in 1894 and in 1899 the large ROSE was a registered trademark of RSM.

However, as a curiosity, I want to add 2 photos of a large ROSE.
Do you notice the difference between them?
:)

rsm_1894_rose.jpg rsm_1899_rose.jpg B_ROSE_A.jpg B_ROSE_B.jpg L_ROSE.jpg
 

new2clocks

NAWCC Member
Apr 25, 2005
4,580
933
113
Pennsylvania
Country
Region
I believe that a small ROSE appeared as an additional stamp iIn n the company, but for unknown reasons (maybe some oversight?) It is not like the registered mark.
The documents show that both in 1894 and in 1899 the large ROSE was a registered trademark of RSM.
Hello, Yahagi.

On the subject of trademarks, the trademark design that is registered with the appropriate governmental agency and the trademark that shows on the finished product often differs somewhat.

In the examples you provided, a different font for the 'RSM' does not change or invalidate the trademark. The same principles apply to the size of the trademark.

And, as you stated, the reason for the change in size of the trademark appears to be unknown. Junghans commenced date coding their movements in 1901 and, for reasons unknown, changed their date coding protocol at various times and also used more than one date coding protocol at the same time. So these nuances are not unheard of in the clock world.:)

As I wrote earlier - since a small ROSE mixes with a large ROSE
John Hubby's research concurs with your research. John stated :

The RSM Rose logo was reduced to 1/3 its original size in 1891, the large version was phased out by 1896.

(I should note John is not stating that the rose trademark was registered in 1891, only that his research shows the mark was used prior to its first documented registration.)

I believe that it cannot serve as an aid to strict date setting.
Are you stating that you disagree with the 1896 date that John believes the large rose was completely phased out?

Regards.
 

Yahagi

Registered User
Dec 16, 2019
260
106
43
51
Country
Region
New2clocks:

Unfortunately, I don't know how John Hubby came to some of his conclusions. So it's hard for me to understand why my dates are so different from those given by JHubby.

With reference to the question:
Please try to compare my conclusions from the table with what I see in the clocks.
I showed a link to the 4884 clock on the Polish discussion forum. It's a quarter of an hour clock. I believe it was established in 1896. Why ? I wrote about it.
Based on what I managed to gather, I wrote that the numbering of such clocks goes up to 11692 ... then there is a break and the next quarter hour I have in the archive is number 53907. After this number there are some more mechanisms.

79310 - this is the first with the patent 113027. The patent was granted to my knowledge on March 8, 1899. So this clock can't be older. Let's agree it's from the beginning of 1899. It's also a quarter-hour clock. She has a little ROSE.

I've attached photo 74049. It's also a quarter hour. She has a large ROSE.

If 4884 is from 1896 (I believe it is), 79310 is from 1899 ... which year could it be from 74049?

New2clock - please make your suggestion. You can see my opinion in the table. (please remember that this is not a dogma :))

It seems to me that a small / large ROSE does not really matter.
I believe that the little differences between the large ROSEs that I showed earlier are of greater importance.

original (1).jpg original (4).jpg
 

Yahagi

Registered User
Dec 16, 2019
260
106
43
51
Country
Region
Maybe one more curiosity.
DUZ from 1901. It's a big / small ROSE?
I don't think it mattered to Muller.

1901 DUZ ad.jpg
 

new2clocks

NAWCC Member
Apr 25, 2005
4,580
933
113
Pennsylvania
Country
Region
Yahagi,

I am not challenging your findings - I can not because I do not have the database of movements, etc., that you have :). You have obviously researched this maker quite a bit and I am interested in your conclusions, but to so I need a better understanding of your conclusions.

Regards.
 

Yahagi

Registered User
Dec 16, 2019
260
106
43
51
Country
Region
:)
I do not hide my findings. On the contrary, I like to discuss them. I try to answer all the questions that arise.
If I set something wrong - it will definitely turn out in the discussion. That is why I miss John Hubby's reflections and his arguments very much.
I have included my findings / assumptions in the table.

If something is incomprehensible - ask me please. I do not think that everything has already been established. There is still a lot of work to do here.
 

Yahagi

Registered User
Dec 16, 2019
260
106
43
51
Country
Region
I wanted to draw attention to such a detail.

To my knowledge, the little ROSE appears for the first time with the 2 spring mechanism number 50150. According to JHubby's assumptions, it would be the year +/- 1890.
On spring mechanisms, a large ROSE appears in my statistics for the last time at 66115. According to JH, it would be 1893 probably (?).

And here is the problem that gives food for thought:
What ROSE appears in _all_ Kohler's mechanisms?
Of course, 'everyone' is very difficult to defend as very little material is available. But I am enclosing how it usually looks.
(if someone has a Kohler with a little ROSE, I will be very grateful for the photo).

What does it bring? Not much, it seems. Apart from the fact that the 'old version' of the signature appears on the new production line of the mechanisms, which, according to the assumptions used so far, was slowly withdrawn in 1890-93. And in 1894 it was returned to it in Kohlerach, and the entire line was signed as such.
Is it likely? Has the big ROSE stamp been transferred to the Kohlery from the spring loaded ones? Well, no ... and it is easy to prove :) It was not the same stamp.

Spring loaded technology is the only technology where the small and large ROSEs mix for a while. In the other clocks (quarter of an hour / weight / standing / Kohler) such a phenomenon is not visible. If there is already a change from large to small ROSE - it is a consistent change.

I will try to write later why the detail I wrote about is important, but not crucial.

rose.jpg
 

Yahagi

Registered User
Dec 16, 2019
260
106
43
51
Country
Region
I will try write what it is about. Because it's a really small detail. This is circumstantial (I don't know how the translator can handle it).
A few posts above I showed 2 large ROSE. A trained eye will pick out the differences between the two. There are a few, very small ones, but for the sake of simplicity, I pay attention to the dots on the petals of the flower. They are on one ROSE, and there is no dot on the other.
All indications are that the ROSE with dots is older. She shows up on mechanisms without numbering (1-30 ROSE) and on others up to a point.

The most important here are the spring mechanisms. The last ROSE3Dot I have in the archive is 22 838. The next (readable photo) is 25922 - there are no more dots here. There is ROSE0Dot.
So the change is around 22838/25922

On spring mechanisms - ROSE3Dot never appears again (if someone has an example that it is different - I will be happy to meet him).
According to the assumptions published here earlier, it will be the period 1885/86. In my opinion, no ROSE was used at that time. In my table it will be 1896

Quarter-hour mechanisms.
Here the same change (ROSE3Dot / ROSE0Dot) takes place between the numbers 7150 / 8072. I cannot judge what the years will be according to the 'old assumptions'. It's 1896 in my table.
(please suggest from which year, according to the "old assumptions", the clock 4884 of a friend from Poland would be?)

Weight mechanisms.
Here the statistics are very poor. The change takes place between the numbers 5404/62125. I still have the 57xxx mechanism, but the photo is illegible and does not add much to it. I can not point to the period according to the "old assumptions". In my table for safety, I show this in 1898.

And here it is worth looking at the photo of the yearly clock signature from the previous post. If the ROSE3Dot signature was slowly abandoned in 1885/86 - is it easy to defend it in 1894-95 in Kohlers? (the date is not negotiable here).

I do not believe that this amendment is some kind of regulation imposed by a regulation that is valid from a specific date. It, in my opinion, did not take place at the same time. The stamps just got worn out and they were replaced with new ones. In one production line they worn out earlier in another later.

The new ones had a very similar pattern, but slightly different. If you look at my chart, ROSE3DOT was in effect until 1895/96. That's why they are also on all Kohlers.

Kind of a trifle, but in 1894 neither ROSE0DOT nor a small ROSE was broadcast on Kohlers ... an "outdated" ROSE3DOT was used.

... unless this is a wrong assumption and ROSE3DOT in 1894 was not obsolete at all (as I show it in the table, the advertisement about the mark from 1894 supports it).

I think that at the moment there is enough argumentation. There is also the matter of hangers, pendulums, hands ... and many other features of the mechanisms produced by the RSM. But I don't want to bore you with my arguments anymore.

Today only these photos as an attachment.

2ROSE.jpg B_ROSE_A_3P.jpg 1.jpg s-l1600 (1).jpg
 
  • Like
Reactions: GEORGE KEYER

GEORGE KEYER

Registered User
Jul 12, 2022
30
3
8
56
Country
A bit of Lee.K made me think about the idea of a little ROSE.
I looked through various documents but found no official (before 1900) where little ROSE appears.
There is no doubt, however, that the little ROSE appears on the movements before 1900.
As I wrote earlier - since a small ROSE mixes with a large ROSE - I believe that it cannot serve as an aid to strict date setting. As additional support - perhaps.


I believe that a small ROSE appeared as an additional stamp in the company, but for unknown reasons (maybe some oversight?) It is not like the registered mark.
The documents show that both in 1894 and in 1899 the large ROSE was a registered trademark of RSM.

However, as a curiosity, I want to add 2 photos of a large ROSE.
Do you notice the difference between them?
:)

View attachment 685552 View attachment 685553 View attachment 685554 View attachment 685555 View attachment 685556
Hi.
Tuttlingen (city in the Baden-Wuerttemberg region) Tuttlingen district court.
As a brand it was registered under number 20 in relation to the firm (company): R. Schnekenburger, Watch Factory in Muehlheim a.D. (a.D.= where the river Danube), after the initial request for registration on July 15, 1894, 11.30 a.m. in relation to making watches and watch boxes.
RSM

Regards.
JFK

8799F6E9-3A38-4B71-9C48-2AA59D907105.jpeg
 

GEORGE KEYER

Registered User
Jul 12, 2022
30
3
8
56
Country
On the subject of RMS dating ...

I have been analyzing RSM products for some time and thought I would share my insights.

Why do I still think the assumptions made so far are wrong?
I wanted to recall the mechanism that Tatyana has already shown.

https://mb.nawcc.org/threads/two-small-vienna-style-clocks-seek-info.169621/#post-1370193

View attachment 668931
View attachment 668932



And according to the assumptions made so far, it could be dated to 1883/4. But it cannot be so dated, because it is already signed with a patent from 1888. Tatyana wrote that it could be 1890. I think the same ... maybe it is a bit later (1891-2? - I think I have an idea how to specify it).

The only explanation for this would be that the mechanism 309/15 is of a different numbering (1), similar to Kohler (2).
I believe that the weight clocks (3) were also numbered differently, but also the 'two gongs' (quarter-hour - I don't know how the translator will handle it) (4). There was also the main numbering (5).

All of them, which were produced around 1897, had equal numbers. Made uniform. The numbers seem to have merged around 50,000.

1 - I saw only one copy (309/15)
2 - as far as I know, about 1,200 were produced.
3 - I have a photo of 11 clocks with the numbers 1290 ROSE to 5404 ROSE. The next one is only 57xxx ROSE. If anyone saw the mechanisms between these numbers - please let me know.
4- I received a lot of these photo documentation. 442 ROSE to 12835 ROSE. Then there is also a break and 53907 appears. Here also - if someone has a photo in between - I would be grateful for the info.
5 - the main numbering is continuous, but I believe that at the very beginning there was a lot of confusion. I can't document it yet.

On the topic of group 4 - it is worth seeing the clock from the forum in Poland:

FMS vs RSM - stare mechanizmy

View attachment 668933
View attachment 668934


The clock has the number 4884/24 and the plate shows 1896 (I agree with that).
Below 79310 with patent 113027 from 1899


View attachment 668935


Additionally, I think that small / large ROSE - not of key importance in dating, because they mix. I think finding other tags can be helpful.



View attachment 668936
View attachment 668938
View attachment 668941

View attachment 668946

View attachment 668942
View attachment 668943
View attachment 668945


I am curious about the opinions of others.
Foto 1.jpg Foto 2.jpg
 

GEORGE KEYER

Registered User
Jul 12, 2022
30
3
8
56
Country
I will try write what it is about. Because it's a really small detail. This is circumstantial (I don't know how the translator can handle it).
A few posts above I showed 2 large ROSE. A trained eye will pick out the differences between the two. There are a few, very small ones, but for the sake of simplicity, I pay attention to the dots on the petals of the flower. They are on one ROSE, and there is no dot on the other.
All indications are that the ROSE with dots is older. She shows up on mechanisms without numbering (1-30 ROSE) and on others up to a point.

The most important here are the spring mechanisms. The last ROSE3Dot I have in the archive is 22 838. The next (readable photo) is 25922 - there are no more dots here. There is ROSE0Dot.
So the change is around 22838/25922

On spring mechanisms - ROSE3Dot never appears again (if someone has an example that it is different - I will be happy to meet him).
According to the assumptions published here earlier, it will be the period 1885/86. In my opinion, no ROSE was used at that time. In my table it will be 1896

Quarter-hour mechanisms.
Here the same change (ROSE3Dot / ROSE0Dot) takes place between the numbers 7150 / 8072. I cannot judge what the years will be according to the 'old assumptions'. It's 1896 in my table.
(please suggest from which year, according to the "old assumptions", the clock 4884 of a friend from Poland would be?)

Weight mechanisms.
Here the statistics are very poor. The change takes place between the numbers 5404/62125. I still have the 57xxx mechanism, but the photo is illegible and does not add much to it. I can not point to the period according to the "old assumptions". In my table for safety, I show this in 1898.

And here it is worth looking at the photo of the yearly clock signature from the previous post. If the ROSE3Dot signature was slowly abandoned in 1885/86 - is it easy to defend it in 1894-95 in Kohlers? (the date is not negotiable here).

I do not believe that this amendment is some kind of regulation imposed by a regulation that is valid from a specific date. It, in my opinion, did not take place at the same time. The stamps just got worn out and they were replaced with new ones. In one production line they worn out earlier in another later.

The new ones had a very similar pattern, but slightly different. If you look at my chart, ROSE3DOT was in effect until 1895/96. That's why they are also on all Kohlers.

Kind of a trifle, but in 1894 neither ROSE0DOT nor a small ROSE was broadcast on Kohlers ... an "outdated" ROSE3DOT was used.

... unless this is a wrong assumption and ROSE3DOT in 1894 was not obsolete at all (as I show it in the table, the advertisement about the mark from 1894 supports it).

I think that at the moment there is enough argumentation. There is also the matter of hangers, pendulums, hands ... and many other features of the mechanisms produced by the RSM. But I don't want to bore you with my arguments anymore.

Today only these photos as an attachment.

View attachment 685806 View attachment 685807 View attachment 685808 View attachment 685809
IMG_6284.jpeg IMG_6287.jpeg IMG_6288.jpg
 

Mathat

Registered User
Aug 14, 2022
8
0
1
Country
Thank you for everybody sharing their most useful information about the RSM logo clocks on this forum. I recently bought a Reinhold Schnekenburger wall clock at an auction. I identified it by the rose and initials RSM next to and under the rose. I believe one can determine the year of manufacture by the serial number under the makers mark. The serial number is 52181 batch number 11. Am I correct to put the date of manufacture in the 2nd half of 1889 or the 1st half of 1890. I hope somebody might be able to help me.
Regards Mat
20220813_180324.jpg
20220813_180254.jpg
20220813_180426.jpg
 

Mathat

Registered User
Aug 14, 2022
8
0
1
Country
Yahagi , thank you for the feedback.

I now have calculated that my clock was most likely manufactured late in the second half of 1890. (Based on the serial number and batch number system used by John Hubby. )
Other information that informs my finding is:
  • My clock has the large rose logo and according to the historical timeline summary posted on this discussion thread, the RSM Rose logo was reduced to 1/3 its original size in 1891 and the large version was phased out by 1896.
  • In 1897 due to financial circumstances, the company was restructured with Müller becoming involved. The new name being Uhrenfabrik Mühlheim vorm R. Schnekenburger GmbH. On the horological trade mark index website the large rose logo as found on my clockwork is attributed to Reinhold Schnekenburger. The second rose design is attributed to Urhenfabrik Mulheim / Muller &Co./ vormals R. Schnekenburger (circa 1897). A third rose design with fuller leaves, more petals, and only the letters R S is attributed to Uhrenfabrik Mulheim/ Muller and Co (circa 1900).
 

JTD

Registered User
Sep 27, 2005
10,726
1,420
113
Country
Is there a way that one can determine the maker of the clock case?
The company had its own 'Schreinerei' (case making department) so the case may have been made there.

JTD
 

Mathat

Registered User
Aug 14, 2022
8
0
1
Country
The company had its own 'Schreinerei' (case making department) so the case may have been made there.

JTD

Thank you JTD, I will see if I can find more information on their clock cases.
 

JTD

Registered User
Sep 27, 2005
10,726
1,420
113
Country
Thank you JTD, I will see if I can find more information on their clock cases.
What information do you want in particular? It's a pretty standard wall clock of its period.

JTD
 

Mathat

Registered User
Aug 14, 2022
8
0
1
Country
What information do you want in particular? It's a pretty standard wall clock of its period.

JTD
I am curious to see if one can recognise design elements unique to their workshop. Like a signature finial or other design element. I am busy writing up the history of our clock and would like to include any interesting detail.

Mat
 

JTD

Registered User
Sep 27, 2005
10,726
1,420
113
Country
I am curious to see if one can recognise design elements unique to their workshop. Like a signature finial or other design element. I am busy writing up the history of our clock and would like to include any interesting detail.

Mat
Never heard of anything like that, not saying it couldn't exist, but never heard of it.

Clockmakers more often had their own recognisable (sometimes patented) elements in movements rather than cases, at least that's my opinion.

JTD
 

new2clocks

NAWCC Member
Apr 25, 2005
4,580
933
113
Pennsylvania
Country
Region
I am curious to see if one can recognise design elements unique to their workshop. Like a signature finial or other design element.
Most movement makers did not make their cases, and those who had case making abilities also sold loose movements to the trade (wholesalers, retailers, jewelers, etc.).

As a result, the same case can house different movements.

Regards.
 

Yahagi

Registered User
Dec 16, 2019
260
106
43
51
Country
Region
Yahagi , thank you for the feedback.

I now have calculated that my clock was most likely manufactured late in the second half of 1890. (Based on the serial number and batch number system used by John Hubby. )
Other information that informs my finding is:
  • My clock has the large rose logo and according to the historical timeline summary posted on this discussion thread, the RSM Rose logo was reduced to 1/3 its original size in 1891 and the large version was phased out by 1896.
  • In 1897 due to financial circumstances, the company was restructured with Müller becoming involved. The new name being Uhrenfabrik Mühlheim vorm R. Schnekenburger GmbH. On the horological trade mark index website the large rose logo as found on my clockwork is attributed to Reinhold Schnekenburger. The second rose design is attributed to Urhenfabrik Mulheim / Muller &Co./ vormals R. Schnekenburger (circa 1897). A third rose design with fuller leaves, more petals, and only the letters R S is attributed to Uhrenfabrik Mulheim/ Muller and Co (circa 1900).

This is why I wrote that there are different assumptions about the dating of the RSM. Mine is 'alternative' to what JHubby wrote.
There is no indication (other than John Hubby's assumptions) that the large ROSE was reduced to one-third its size in 1891. I do not know of a document that indicates this. However, I know such mentions as I have attached. This is a large ROSE registration from 1894. I do not know of a document that would indicate that RSM had such a registered trademark earlier or that it used it. These are just guesses. I believe ROSE appeared in 1894. And if so - your clock is manufactured after this date ... and quite a long time.

Little ROSE appears on different mechanisms at different times. Some earlier, some later. On the Kohlers - there is no doubt ... they were produced in 1896 and I think all of them have a large ROSE. The claim that it has been withdrawn up to this point is a 'dodge' for me that does not show the truth in dating.

I believe that your clock was created in 1898. In previous posts you can read why I think so.

In order not to write too much:

The shown mechanism 79310 has a small ROSE ... and is marked with the patent 113027. From what was found on the discussion forum in my country - it was issued on March 8, 1899. So this mechanism cannot be older than this date.
A photograph of an older clockwork of this design is 74049. There is no patent information. But there is a big ROSE. (!) So what year could it be? In my opinion, 1898-1999.

Your clock is number 52xxx. There is a big ROSE.
But the little ROSE has appeared before, in the lower 50xxx stocks, on spring-loaded mechanisms. On the other hand, on the scale clocks - as on the quarter hour - it was longer. Yet 67xxx has a large ROSE.

Everything I think important - I wrote early. Your clock provides valuable information. So far I had documentation of 16 RSM weight clocks with numbers from 300 to 5404 ... then a long break and another 57901. Yours is earlier. 52181 - the gap has gotten smaller.

The same is true for the quarters of an hour. I have documentation of 43 clocks from 443 to 11162. Then there is a similar pause and a clock with the number 53907 appears.

However, for spring clocks - there is continuity. There is no such break. Why is it so in my opinion - I have already written.

I think the 'linear' dating proposed by JHubby does not account for this. I tried to present it in the table.

At the moment, each newly noticed RSM confirms me in my dating. Sometimes you need to make a correction. This is the case now that your clock has arrived.

I like the topic of RSM :) If I was helpful - I am at your disposal.


Naturally, I do not stick to my conclusions. I wait patiently for someone to show me where I am making a mistake in them.
:)

rsm_1894_rose.jpg rsm_1899_rose.jpg Nowości 091.jpg oryginalny (1).jpg 0dde39664060a4c7c2090040aacd.jpg s-l1600.jpg RSMTab005.jpg
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Tatyana

Yahagi

Registered User
Dec 16, 2019
260
106
43
51
Country
Region
Most movement makers did not make their cases, and those who had case making abilities also sold loose movements to the trade (wholesalers, retailers, jewelers, etc.).

As a result, the same case can house different movements.

Regards.

I think RSM had its own carpentry shop. Not always, because earlier Lenzkirchy used to be in the same boxes. I don't know since when, but I think +/- 1893? 1894? Of course, I don't have any proof of that, but ....

The housings of the annual (Kohler) and quarter-hour clock are so characteristic that they cannot be confused. At least I think so :)

Additionally, this mention from 1899:
'Uhrengehause' ...
So there was a reason why the housings were so marked. I think it could have been like that in my own carpentry shop.

rsm_1899_rose.jpg



Additionally (I remembered :)) there is a formula for spring mechanisms that appears only in RSM. I have one myself on the wall :) RSM_01.jpg Eight-Day-Striking-Wall-Clock.jpg 4_319.jpg 5_244.jpg
 
Last edited:

new2clocks

NAWCC Member
Apr 25, 2005
4,580
933
113
Pennsylvania
Country
Region
I think RSM had its own carpentry shop.
JTD mentioned that in Post number 524, above.

But this does not change the fact that German movement makers sold their movements to the 'trade' and those purchasers fitted the movements into their own cases. These movement makers include those who had cabinet making abilities.

Regards.
 

new2clocks

NAWCC Member
Apr 25, 2005
4,580
933
113
Pennsylvania
Country
Region
There is a large number of movements with a rose in my database.
I didn't see a rose with two RS letters on any of them, only RSM.

Can someone show such a signature, I've only seen it on the website Mikrolisk - The horological trade mark index and there are mistakes there.

View attachment 728209
Tatyana,

I have not seen an 'RS (without the M)' trademark on a movement. In addition, I do not recall seeing any registration documents for the 'RS without the M rose' trademark.

However, the following trade advertisement from 1913 shows the RS logo:

1664044844715.png


According to John Hubby in the year 2020:

In late 1912 or early 1913, the "M" was dropped from the logo so it became RM Rose. Very few of these clocks still exist, because very few were made before a boiler explosion in October 1913 severely damaged the factory. Production was stopped for 9 months while the factory was rebuilt, but when they restarted the RM Rose logo was no longer used. The logo of UMMC was used, which is a lion rampant over the letters UM.

Thought I bought a Gustav Becker | NAWCC Forums

I realize my response does not answer your question, but this is the extent of my knowledge on the issue.

Regards.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Tatyana

new2clocks

NAWCC Member
Apr 25, 2005
4,580
933
113
Pennsylvania
Country
Region
Tatyana,

I have not seen an 'RS (without the M)' trademark on a movement. In addition, I do not recall seeing any registration documents for the 'RS without the M rose' trademark.

However, the following trade advertisement from 1913 shows the RS logo:

View attachment 728219

According to John Hubby in the year 2020:

In late 1912 or early 1913, the "M" was dropped from the logo so it became RM Rose. Very few of these clocks still exist, because very few were made before a boiler explosion in October 1913 severely damaged the factory. Production was stopped for 9 months while the factory was rebuilt, but when they restarted the RM Rose logo was no longer used. The logo of UMMC was used, which is a lion rampant over the letters UM.

Thought I bought a Gustav Becker | NAWCC Forums

I realize my response does not answer your question, but this is the extent of my knowledge on the issue.

Regards.
Here is a more legible copy of the 1913 advertisement with the RS logo.

1664045016329.png


Regards.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Tatyana

new2clocks

NAWCC Member
Apr 25, 2005
4,580
933
113
Pennsylvania
Country
Region
The following is a copy of a trade directory from 1929 that shows the RS (without M) logo:


. 1664050938578.png

So we know the logo existed, but we have no proof if either RSM or Uhrenfabrik Mühlheim, Müller & Co. ("UMM") registered the logo or used the logo / trademark on movements.

Regards.
 

Forum statistics

Threads
177,735
Messages
1,557,874
Members
53,664
Latest member
00035Skip
Encyclopedia Pages
909
Total wiki contributions
3,061
Last edit
E. Howard & Co. by Clint Geller