- Dec 6, 2020
Roger that! The grain of the wood adds another dimension of beauty.I think the beautiful wood grain that is hidden under blackened shellac should be exposed by stripping the old shellac. It seems reasonable to me that the black is from years and years of pollution trapped in the shellac. I don't see any point in keeping that 'original'.
Oh I'm sure there's the same sentiment here both ways. I'm sure what I did some hate. I'm finding the people I'm selling to want them like that. I have one guy that had bought 3 of my clocks and wants more but won't buy them unless they look shiny and new as you put it.Interesting. There is so much debate in the arena of antique furniture about what is appropriate. In serious antique furniture circles it is sacrilege to remove an original finish. In the clock world not so much. I have a background in museum-quality furniture restoration/preservation, and in that milieu we would not polish brasses to a like-new shine because it was "like new". In the world of old clocks it seems brasses are often shined up, cases stripped of their original finish etc. and it is considered good practice.
Totally agreeAntique furniture is admired for its original finish, most likely because the items are usually well cared for. Their finish is simply aged. For clocks, I think the difference is because they so often suffer from extreme neglect, usually found in an attic or barn, covered in filth. There really isn't anything to be admired about dirt, peeled finish and black brass. Clocks that have been well cared for are usually not refinished or highly polished. Like furniture, they are admired for their original finish. But, I am still of the opinion, that polishing brass, like silver would have been done on a regular basis if the clock were still in a home.
Agreed here's a better pic of the terrible alligatored finish. The other pics really didn't do justice to how bad this clock looked. Definitely not well cared for.Well, it must be in the eye of the beholder, because I find both clocks pleasing in their appearance. They both look well cared for, and I can see the grain in both along with a smooth finish. I agree with you that many clocks are stripped when they needn't be. And they shouldn't look new, since they aren't. But I think the cases presented in this thread deserved to look better than they did, which cleaning, so matter how vigorous would not have resulted in a "well cared for" look. When wood has been well finished, I can't resist running my fingers along the beautiful grain, feeling the smooth finish. When I don't want to touch it, I know the finish needs to be redone. It does seem strange to me that some objects are always restored to near new look, regardless of the owner, such as cars. Furniture is always left in its original state. Clocks seem to fall somewhere in the middle, in that it depends entirely on how the owner wants it to look.
They are both made of mahogany. I own them both but will be selling the one with little or no original finish on it. I have never seen one of these in other than mahogany. A couple exists with curly/figured/birdseye maple trim. But the rest of the case is mahogany. Here are a few more, also mahogany also. Not mine.Jim, is one of the clocks walnut and the other mahogany? Even though they are the same clock they are not the same wood. I do believe they both look nice.