• The NAWCC Museum and Library & Research Center are currently open. Please check the Visiting Schedule for Days and Hours at the bottom of the Visit Page.

The oldest JUF in my collection!

Ingulphus

Registered User
May 29, 2006
724
3
18
Oakland, CA
Country
Region
This just came today - I had splurged on it as a birthday present, and for once, the seller and the USPS timed its arrival perfectly! Woo-woo!

With interesting variations, which I hope Mr. Hubby can elucidate with his usual excellent knowledge, this looks like Clock #9 in Section 6 of Terwilliger 10, back plate #1475 and pendulum #3. The bracket and saddle are very similar, but not identical, to #17 in Section 15.

The variations:

The base is wood, not brass. (The circumference of the groove is 5.75", slightly larger than any of my domes.) The pillars are attached with screws, not nuts, and there are three holes around the circumference that look like some sort of feet may have been attached.

The three-pillar gallery pendulum has four circular cutouts in its base; the Guide's photo shows a solid disc. (The pendulum has no number; presumably it would have been on a bottom cover, which is not present). There is a ring of lead fitted within the base. The bottom block is not pinned with a cotter pin as in the photo in Section 13, but has a split brass plate with screws to hold the spring.

The back plate has the serial number 5154 placed just to the right of and slightly below the click, but no "R". The Guide states in the Appendix, #23, "Serial numbers 913R to 2991R have been identified for clocks having disc pendulums with no gallery, c. 1882 - c. 1884. Those with serial numbers 4722R to 5558R have been identified for later clocks with pendulums having a 3-pillar gallery, c. 1885.". The click is missing, but the threaded hole is there. There are two additional holes that align in the plates that are not shown in the Guide, and I can't imagine what purpose, if any, they served. The back one is simply a hole - no oil sink, and the front one appears to have been bushed, badly.

As mentioned, the suspension bracket and saddle are similar to the Phillip Haas (sic) one in the Guide, but the block has a rounded top edge rather than flat. The block is two pieces - the block itself has a cylindrical bottom which fits into a round brass dick and is fixed with a screw. The disc has two heavy pins which fit into a cradle on the bracket, allowing free movement front to back. The bracket also has two sets of threaded mounting holes - the top ones are in use at present.

The enameled dial is obviously a replacement (it's marked "8 days"!), and it has two copper pins on the back, while the dial back plate is drilled for four. I suspect the hands are replacements as well - the Guide shows "moon" hands, and the hour hand on this clock extends a tad too far past the chapter ring.

So what do I have? Is this a marriage of base, movement and pendulum? Is it an undocumented oddity? Inquiring minds want to know!
 

Attachments

John Hubby

Senior Administrator Emeritus
Staff member
NAWCC Star Fellow
NAWCC Life Member
Sep 7, 2000
12,288
231
63
The Woodlands, TX
Country
Region
Mark, in addition to the other clock we discussed you now have another project to undertake! No question this clock could be the oldest you have, I'll discuss that along with other comments and questions as we go.
Ingulphus said:
This just came today - I had splurged on it as a birthday present, and for once, the seller and the USPS timed its arrival perfectly! Woo-woo!

With interesting variations, which I hope Mr. Hubby can elucidate with his usual excellent knowledge, this looks like Clock #9 in Section 6 of Terwilliger 10, back plate #1475 and pendulum #3. The bracket and saddle are very similar, but not identical, to #17 in Section 15.
Your clock definitely would be like #9 if it still had all the original bits, but it is evident from several things that it has had a hard life, as well as being the guinea pig for an "inventor". The five immediately visible differences are the base, the missing capital (finial), the upper suspension bracket, the pendulum cutouts, and the dial. The back plate for your clock is actually No. 1597 pg. 162, and based on the serial number your clock was made about mid-1887, just when the Jehlin Patent DRP 2437 was allowed to expire. It was made by Jahresuhren-Fabrik A.G. for F. A. L. DeGruyter based on the Anton Harder British and U.S. patents granted in 1882 and purchased by DeGruyter in 1883. I'll comment on each item as we go.
The variations:

The base is wood, not brass. (The circumference of the groove is 5.75", slightly larger than any of my domes.) The pillars are attached with screws, not nuts, and there are three holes around the circumference that look like some sort of feet may have been attached.
The base of your clock appears to be the original turned wood insert for a base that would be like the one shown on Clock #9. It certainly has the right shape. These bases were made of wood, with the outer perimeter encased in a spun brass "shell". A spun brass ring was used hold the velour cover over the center part of the base. What happened is that the wood shrinks and those brass parts get quite loose. The brass ring will come off, and if the brass shell is polished with Brasso or the like it will get corroded and crack apart, finally disintegrating and being lost. I've documented at least six of these early clocks in such condition. Best thing to do is finish the wood and leave it that way. There were originally three turned wood or brass "bun" feet with these clocks, there are very similar items available page 95 of the current TimeSavers catalog.

Just to check, are the movement support pillars on your clock turned of solid brass or are they brass outer with steel inserts? Both were used, and both of them normally have a smaller diameter section that protrudes through the base with a threaded end on which a large nut will fit. Check what you have and post a photo, will provide additional comments then.
The three-pillar gallery pendulum has four circular cutouts in its base; the Guide's photo shows a solid disc. (The pendulum has no number; presumably it would have been on a bottom cover, which is not present). There is a ring of lead fitted within the base. The bottom block is not pinned with a cotter pin as in the photo in Section 13, but has a split brass plate with screws to hold the spring.
I've not seen a pendulum with the four cutouts before. I magnified your photo and they appear to be evenly machined out so may be original. Please check to see if they are exactly equal in diameter and also exactly spaced, with little or no variation. There were two pendulum disc designs used for these clocks: First was a machined solid brass disc, hollow in the center, with the edge and top about 1/8 inch thick. Second is a disc with a similarly shaped cast steel disc with a thin sheet brass cover formed over the steel. Neither version had a bottom cover, and neither version had the lead ring now inserted in your pendulum which I am certain isn't original. I would remove the ring and if necessary use a thinner suspension spring to bring the clock to time.

Looking at the pendulum hook, I think it may have originally been set up to be pinned (cotter pin or ordinary brass or steel cylindrical pin), but this one appears to have been ground away to form a hook. I've seen others done that way, it does make it easier to mount the pendulum.

The bottom block I've not seen before, but think it was made up and not an original piece. So long as it works I don't think there is reason to change unless you want to also replace the hook on the pendulum.
The back plate has the serial number 5154 placed just to the right of and slightly below the click, but no "R". The Guide states in the Appendix, #23, "Serial numbers 913R to 2991R have been identified for clocks having disc pendulums with no gallery, c. 1882 - c. 1884. Those with serial numbers 4722R to 5558R have been identified for later clocks with pendulums having a 3-pillar gallery, c. 1885.". The click is missing, but the threaded hole is there. There are two additional holes that align in the plates that are not shown in the Guide, and I can't imagine what purpose, if any, they served. The back one is simply a hole - no oil sink, and the front one appears to have been bushed, badly.
As above check out Plate No. 1597, that's the correct one. Also, the missing capital & finials can either be made from scratch or try to find one from parts. The early JUF clocks (1900 - 1915) had very similar finials that can be used as replacement. Regarding the pendulums, the Repair Guide is correct on the 1885 date but the other info isn't complete . . the disc with no gallery was first used by Gustav Becker around 1873, possibly earlier. It was copied by Anton Harder and used for all his clocks from 1878 until the introduction of the 3-pillar gallery in 1885, lowest serial number to date is 3730 R (1000 units before 4722 R, which was actually made in 2nd half 1886). Following this, it appears about half of the table clocks continued to use the disc with no gallery until the mid-1890's. The 6-pillar gallery was also introduced in 1885 on a full striking model and used mainly on strikers until the mid-1890's when smaller versions were introduced for time only clocks.

The click on your clock is not original, someone has invented a "gravity actuated" click. I would replace with the original type, you can use one from any JUF clock made before WWII. The click spring is missing and would need to be replaced to match the proper click.

The additional holes have not been seen on any other contemporary clock. Since the front one evidently has been bushed, I'm going to guess that someone tried to fit a Ph. Hauck second wheel into this movement, possibly to replace a damaged original. The layout is very similar and such a wheel could be made to fit, look at Plate No. 1607. As it is, you should check the barrel and all wheels for damage from a broken mainspring.

Looking at the front plate, the bridge holding the intermediate wheel in place in the motion works is another invention by some inspired repairman, to keep the hour wheel from coming off. Not bad, but the original was a machined bridge of the same type that holds the ratchet wheel in place on the back plate.
As mentioned, the suspension bracket and saddle are similar to the Phillip Haas (sic) one in the Guide, but the block has a rounded top edge rather than flat. The block is two pieces - the block itself has a cylindrical bottom which fits into a round brass dick and is fixed with a screw. The disc has two heavy pins which fit into a cradle on the bracket, allowing free movement front to back. The bracket also has two sets of threaded mounting holes - the top ones are in use at present.
The suspension bracket is "not" original, and has been badly modified to boot. The original bracket would be very similar to No. 11 on pg. 203 in the Repair Guide, and you can probably find a replacement from an early JUF (also check Horolovar). The "cutout" on the upper back plate was ground out so the suspension fork could work, why they didn't simply mount the No. 17 bracket in place using the original holes is a big mystery, why in the world did they drill new ones to lower it and then have to bodge the back plate? Could it be they tried to fit this movement in a 4-Glass case with not enough vertical clearance?
The enameled dial is obviously a replacement (it's marked "8 days"!), and it has two copper pins on the back, while the dial back plate is drilled for four. I suspect the hands are replacements as well - the Guide shows "moon" hands, and the hour hand on this clock extends a tad too far past the chapter ring.
The original dial would be a 2-1/4 " Ø enamel dial with black Roman numerals, and the hands would have been gilt brass moonpoise type. Since this clock was made at the transition following the expiry of the Jehlin patent, it could be the dial would have no other markings, however, there are three such clocks in my data between serial numbers 5101 and 5354 that have the so-called "3-Patent" dial, with the Jehlin, British, and U.S. patents cited. These dials are nearly impossible to find, so you would be just fine to get a plain enamel dial with Roman numbers to fit, and also the proper hands. Bill Ellison of Horolovar may be able to help with the hands, the dial will need to come from a supplier or found at a Mart.
So what do I have? Is this a marriage of base, movement and pendulum? Is it an undocumented oddity? Inquiring minds want to know!
Not at all undocumented, this is one of the last clocks made with serial numbers under the Anton Harder patents and very much worth restoration. I think the base and movement are original. The movement support posts may be original but I think have been modified (cut off and drilled for screws, to accommodate the loss of the three bun feet on the base). The pendulum "may" be original or have been expertly modified. A replacement capital & finials will need to be found or made. The upper suspension bracket is NOT original and should be replaced . . not sure how you might repair where the back plate has been ground out, I would try to solder in a closely fitting piece and grind/polish it out to match profile, etc. The click and click spring need to be replaced. The dial and hands aren't original and should be replaced.

This will be a challenge but I believe very much worth the effort. Good luck!

John Hubby
>>>>



 

Ingulphus

Registered User
May 29, 2006
724
3
18
Oakland, CA
Country
Region
Your clock definitely would be like #9 if it still had all the original bits, but it is evident from several things that it has had a hard life, as well as being the guinea pig for an "inventor". The five immediately visible differences are the base, the missing capital (finial), the upper suspension bracket, the pendulum cutouts, and the dial. The back plate for your clock is actually No. 1597 pg. 162, and based on the serial number your clock was made about mid-1887, just when the Jehlin Patent DRP 2437 was allowed to expire. It was made by Jahresuhren-Fabrik A.G. for F. A. L. DeGruyter based on the Anton Harder British and U.S. patents granted in 1882 and purchased by DeGruyter in 1883. I'll comment on each item as we go.
I missed that plate, partly because I was looking for the serial number to be placed to the left!

The base of your clock appears to be the original turned wood insert for a base that would be like the one shown on Clock #9. It certainly has the right shape. These bases were made of wood, with the outer perimeter encased in a spun brass "shell". A spun brass ring was used hold the velour cover over the center part of the base. What happened is that the wood shrinks and those brass parts get quite loose. The brass ring will come off, and if the brass shell is polished with Brasso or the like it will get corroded and crack apart, finally disintegrating and being lost. I've documented at least six of these early clocks in such condition. Best thing to do is finish the wood and leave it that way. There were originally three turned wood or brass "bun" feet with these clocks, there are very similar items available page 95 of the current TimeSavers catalog.
The wood has a finish on it - with a few globs on the underside, so I'm assuming it was done post-manufacture by the person(s) who made such extensive modifications to the clock. Since all that's left is the wood, I'm not sure whether brass or wood buns will be most appropriate as replacements. The three holes are small, so the original feet may have been wood with a nail or pin rather than a screw.

I didn't realize there would have been velour in the center, so may experiment with flannel and an appropriate-sized brass bezel to approximate the original.

Just to check, are the movement support pillars on your clock turned of solid brass or are they brass outer with steel inserts? Both were used, and both of them normally have a smaller diameter section that protrudes through the base with a threaded end on which a large nut will fit. Check what you have and post a photo, will provide additional comments then.
It appears there are steel inserts - I'll post photos later today. The holes in the base are not identical in diameter, both look a bit rough, and one may have the imprint of a washer.

I've not seen a pendulum with the four cutouts before. I magnified your photo and they appear to be evenly machined out so may be original. Please check to see if they are exactly equal in diameter and also exactly spaced, with little or no variation. There were two pendulum disc designs used for these clocks: First was a machined solid brass disc, hollow in the center, with the edge and top about 1/8 inch thick. Second is a disc with a similarly shaped cast steel disc with a thin sheet brass cover formed over the steel. Neither version had a bottom cover, and neither version had the lead ring now inserted in your pendulum which I am certain isn't original. I would remove the ring and if necessary use a thinner suspension spring to bring the clock to time.
This pendulum disc is solid brass. When I dismantle it for cleaning, I'll take measurements of the holes, and create a silhouette on paper showing the distances from the outer ring, from each other, and from the center. Just by casually fingering them this morning, they felt a bit rough, but I didn't have time to use a magnifier to check the surface. If done by the factory, wouldn't the edges be perfectly smoothed?

Between the holes and the lead ring it would seem that someone was trying to increase the mass at the outside circumference. I can live with the holes until (if ever,) an unaltered pendulum appears, as it looks interesting rather than bodgy, but I've taken the lead out. Since the pendulum is probably lighter now than when the clock was made, should I go to a thinner spring, or start with a .004 and work my way down?

The bottom block I've not seen before, but think it was made up and not an original piece. So long as it works I don't think there is reason to change unless you want to also replace the hook on the pendulum.
If it was made up, it's a very neat job - whoever made the many modifications was at least skilled though misguided - perhaps they wanted to bring the clock to time, without the modern information about the importance of the suspension spring itself, which may be the reason for all the changes - experimentation with a different suspension bracket, saddle etc. - perhaps taken as an entire unit from a Hauck clock? With the exception of the sloppy bushing on the mystery hole on the front and the chewed eccentric nut, the other work is quite neatly done, although that mainspring click without a click spring was playing with fire. The sloppy bits may have been inflicted by another person later.

As to the click spring - there's only a single threaded hole to mount one - I'm using to seeing a second hole to accommodate the "tail", so what sort of spring should I be looking for?

And although the crown and finials are missing, the mounting holes aren't fouled with broken screws. I tried a crown from a later JUF (with the curved "Made in Germany" over the serial number), but it's slightly wider than the plates of this clock, and the finials aren't high enough to complement the spires on the pillars and in the center of the pendulum, so I'll live without it until the real thing comes along.

As a highly altered clock, it was an expensive purchase, but I take comfort in the fact that if it had been complete and original, it would have gone for far more and I wouldn't have the pleasure of putting it back to right as much as possible. I'll contact Mr. Ellison and present him with a shopping list of parts for this and the other JUF, in case he has any or comes across them in the future, and I'll certain haunt eBay.

I'd let my NAWCC membership expire because there are were no chapters or meets I could easily get to and it started to seem a bit pointless. Now that I'm diving back in to clock repair/restoration, and focusing almost entirely on pre-WWII torsion clocks, perhaps it's time to rejoin both the NAWCC and Chapter 168 - it sounds like the marts could be a lot of fun to search through.

Thank you as ever for your erudition, appreciation and devotion to the history of these clocks!
 

Ingulphus

Registered User
May 29, 2006
724
3
18
Oakland, CA
Country
Region
By the way, if anyone can furnish good photos of the original front and back plates showing the bridges, click, bracket, and dial and hands, I would be most grateful. The photos in the Guide are helpful, but never have enough information!
 

John Hubby

Senior Administrator Emeritus
Staff member
NAWCC Star Fellow
NAWCC Life Member
Sep 7, 2000
12,288
231
63
The Woodlands, TX
Country
Region
Ingulphus said:
By the way, if anyone can furnish good photos of the original front and back plates showing the bridges, click, bracket, and dial and hands, I would be most grateful. The photos in the Guide are helpful, but never have enough information!
Mark, I'm posting here photos of a full back plate, a closeup of the click assembly, and a full front plate with dial. "Somewhere" I've got a photo of a front plate with motion works but can't find it right now, will post later. These photos are from three different clocks, but all have exactly identical parts over a period of about 4 years. This should help get you started.

John Hubby
 

Attachments

kepiting1sg

Registered User
Jun 19, 2006
67
0
0
Country
Ingulphus said:
By the way, if anyone can furnish good photos of the original front and back plates showing the bridges, click, bracket, and dial and hands, I would be most grateful. The photos in the Guide are helpful, but never have enough information!
Hello Mark,
Here're some more pictures. Hope it helps!
The 1st with the motion work. It doesn't looks too clear - that's the only pic. I have.

3.jpg

Back plate with the click assembly (Take note the click is not in the right position)

4.jpg

Front Dial, Hands & Finials

5.jpg

Hands & Dial

6.jpg


 

Ingulphus

Registered User
May 29, 2006
724
3
18
Oakland, CA
Country
Region
Thank you both - these photos are a great help, especially the closeups of the hands, suspension saddle and the crown!

Please ignore the photos below - having added them for an earlier version of this post, I don't know how to remove them.



 

Attachments

John Hubby

Senior Administrator Emeritus
Staff member
NAWCC Star Fellow
NAWCC Life Member
Sep 7, 2000
12,288
231
63
The Woodlands, TX
Country
Region
Ingulphus said:
Thank you both - these photos are a great help, especially the closeups of the hands, suspension saddle and the crown. I just received what I believe is another JUF, possibly circa 1911 (I'm at work so don't have the Guide with me - I should just keep it in my backpack at all times!), and the front bridge is mounted on the left instead of the right - perhaps I may be able to use it to replace the home-made one, and at least restore the click and spring. It has the "C" suspension bridge, which wouldn't be appropriate, and the dial and hands are too large, but it's a start.

I hate to cannibalize a complete movement, but this one has a bulged barrel (I'm not very good at repairing these - one of the problems I'm having with the small-dial red Borgfeldt/K&O) and the mainspring is either slipping or broken - I haven't had the time to take it apart to see if the wheels have suffered as a result. I'll keep a note as to where the parts have gone, so I can restore them to this movement when a better match comes along.

As to the click spring - since there's no hole for the tail, is it just mounted in such a way that the pin on the pillar holds it in place? This later movement has the hole and tail; perhaps it would be better to buy a new spring and just use the click. Timesavers has moonpoise hands in blued steel, which will be good placeholders until I can find originals in gilt brass.
This movement has Plate 1146, with the "G" stamped at lower left. Based on serial number it was made in 1911. You should be able to adapt the click and front motion works bridge to your Harder, but I don't think the suspension bracket can be modified to work. I think the best bet for a "nearly identical" replacement bracket would be a Gustav Becker Standard, No. 5 in the Repair Guide. These are interchangeable with the Harder brackets. Horolovar can probably find one of these for you.

The click spring can be used "as is" but the pin will need to be removed for it to be mounted on the Harder. The appearance of the spring will be different from an original, since the mounting tab is on the "inside" between the "U" of the spring leaf. If you will note in the photo I posted, the mounting tab for a Harder spring is on the outside of the "U". A correct configuration replacement spring can be purchased from Merritt's, part no. 1067.75. You may need to grind away a bit of the end of the spring leaf for a perfect fit.

The click spring is held in place by two things: First, friction in tightening the mounting screw. Second, by the tip or pressure point of the spring being the exact length to be on the centerline of the mounting screw. Looking again at the click assembly photo, you will see that the spring end is exactly over the screw. This results in little or no torque being applied to the mounting screw when the spring is working, allowing it to stay in place.

John Hubby
>>>>
 

Ingulphus

Registered User
May 29, 2006
724
3
18
Oakland, CA
Country
Region
John -

Not to stray too far from the original thread, but I've decided to use this new movement in the four-glass case I'd posted about [color=green ]here[/color]. For the Harder clock, instead of cannibalization, I'll get the correct click and spring, and some blued-steel moonpoise hands from Merritt's or Timesavers, and talk to Mr. Ellison at Horolovar about what parts he may be able to furnish. While I'm intensely eager to see it restored as much as possible, it's going to take time, and I have the other JUF with the marvelous "Medusa" pendulum to consider as well.

I'll post a new thread for my questions about the appropriate pendulum, bezel, etc. for the "G" movement to keep the discussions separate.

Best regards,

Mark
 

Ingulphus

Registered User
May 29, 2006
724
3
18
Oakland, CA
Country
Region
I finally got around to replacing the click and spring with the one John Hubby steered me to - appears to work beautifully (and securely). I borrowed the correct JUF bracket from another movement yesterday to see how it would work, and the clock has been running ever since, although I'll have to use a much thinner spring when I get another bracket - with a .04 suspension, it's gained over an hour with the weights out beyond the edge of the disc. It looks like the "inventor" who made so many bodged "improvements" cut the anchor pin shorter to accommodate the lowered Hauck bracket, so I've had to adjust the fork accordingly - no evidence of flutter, though.

The steel pins on the pendulum gallery were slightly rusted, so I dismantled it and and gave them and it a preliminary polish - the original finish was too far gone to save. The finish on the plates is fine, though - the only things I'll bring to a bright polish will be the spired mounts, the finial (when I find one), the bezel and the washers on front, and re-blue the screws. There's a beautiful example of an earlier model (without the gallery) on eBay at present with great reference photos, especially one showing the three feet on the base. They look very much like the ones on my JUF with Pendulum 20, so now I know what to look for (or ask for - I'm calling Bill Ellison today).

Mr. Hubby - thank you again for your help in identifying both the date and the issues - this clock and the JUF and K&O are my main projects (much to the detriment of housework and my other mundane responsibilities), and each is exciting and frustrating in its own way.
 

Ingulphus

Registered User
May 29, 2006
724
3
18
Oakland, CA
Country
Region
Horolovar has my wish list now, and although Mr. Ellison wasn't there, the woman who helped me with was very pleasant. I'm looking forward to what widgets they may be able to supply for this clock!