Urania? Plate 1047?

[Ken M]

Can anyone tell me the approximate date on this Urania? Guy said it runs fast....no wonder with the weights all the way in. Should have it by the end of the week.

 

[KurtinSA]

Did the seller say it was Urania? I'm not finding that...seems like this is a JUF clock. Since we can't see much of the back plate, could it also be plate 1051A? The dates in the guide for pre WWII clocks are not all that accurate, but 1047 and 1051A are shown to be ca 1908. None of my JUFs have those kinds of finials on the columns...I find those on Huber or Haucks.

Eric probably has a better handle on dating.

Kurt

 

[Ken M]

 

[Ken M]

He said it was a Uranos, not a clock person I guess.

 

[KurtinSA]

OK, now I can see the Urania name. Check out this detailed info from Eric on Urania clocks:

Urania Manufacturer? | NAWCC Forums

Kurt

 

[Ken M]

Nice piece Eric. It looks like a JUF.

 

[Ken M]

Did the seller say it was Urania? I'm not finding that...seems like this is a JUF clock. Since we can't see much of the back plate, could it also be plate 1051A? The dates in the guide for pre WWII clocks are not all that accurate, but 1047 and 1051A are shown to be ca 1908. None of my JUFs have those kinds of finials on the columns...I find those on Huber or Haucks.

Eric probably has a better handle on dating.

Kurt

No Germany on this plate.

 

[etmb61]

Nice JUF clock from 1907. This one was posted on the message board a few years ago. Everything is authentic. I have a few of these Urania marked clocks in my JUF records. The next closest one I've recorded is number 59631. It has the brass/zinc base but is otherwise identical.

Eric

 

[Ken M]

Thanks Eric, good to know. Hope the dome survives. I've been in contact with the seller, he seems to know what he's doing, and the shipping cost is high, so hopefully it makes it. Can't tell if it might be age appropriate.

 

[etmb61]

I hope it arrives in good shape. The wood base on mine takes a slightly smaller diameter dome than what fits the other bases. I had to swap domes around with my other clocks to find one that fit.



Eric

 

[Ken M]

It has arrived intact. Dome is a replacement dome, heavy lateral lines, never seen one like this. But he said the clock ran fast. So I just moved the weight out to see if it will keep time before I tear into it. Beautiful clock.

 

[Ken M]

I'm a little confused with the numbering. Usually they use parts of the serial number.

But some parts are marked 26.

The plates are marked 26 with a 5 down low.

But the wheels are marked with 25.

And then this weird little F.

 

[KurtinSA]

I've seen that plate and part marking can be part of the serial number. But in other cases, the numbering likely represents an assembly tracking method that keeps parts together for a given clock. Maybe one technician used 26, the next used 27, etc. There doesn't seem to be a full understanding of the letters, but again, might have been associated with a given technician on the assembly line.

So did the clock keep time when you moved the weights? You didn't waste much time before tearing it down!

Kurt

 

[Ken M]

Slow. 1:05/8 beats. Somewhere in the middle.

 

[etmb61]

JUF plate numbers don't coincide with the serial numbers. The punch marks don't coincide with plate number either. Here is a sample of JUF clocks I did some time ago. The numbers match the associated plates. The punch marks are consistent within the movements but don't logically match anything.



The "F" is probably a quality control mark. My guess is the inspector's initial.

Eric

 

[Ken M]

Thanks Eric. They are consistent.

 

[Ken M]

Now THAT'S a beautiful clock!

 

[etmb61]

Well done!

 

[Ken M]

The seller said it "runs fast". What he meant to say is "it runs slow". I just put in a 0.0045, it will need some thinning, like a lot of thinning,

 

[Ken M]

Won't need much thinning after all, only gained 1/2 hour overnight. I could still move the weights out a little bit more to the edge, I'll see how that does. I'll probably have to thin a little. The spring that was in there was exactly 0.0040", the one I put in is 0.00455", pretty big difference.