What do you think of this one, allegedly about 1600?

[Bernhard J.]

I am bidding on this one, although "about 1600" might be more than 100 years wrong. Would seem a nice project, although converted to lever escapement. What would it have been? The feet look unusual to me, the movement will not stand straight on a level surface. Other thoughts? Any ideas about the three punches seen in one photo?

Eisenuhr 17. Jhdt. Einzeigeruhr um1600 Barock Wanduhr Antik Schmiedeeisen Eisen | eBay

Entdecken Sie Eisenuhr 17. Jhdt. Einzeigeruhr um1600 Barock Wanduhr Antik Schmiedeeisen Eisen in der großen Auswahl bei eBay. Kostenlose Lieferung für viele Artikel!

www.ebay.de

Feel free to outbid me, I already have too many clocks (according to other´s, in particular one person´s, opinions)

Cheers, Bernhard

 

[Bernhard J.]

Ups, I am already overbid (and still 9 days to go). WHO?? WAS?? THAT??

 

[novicetimekeeper]

if it is 1600 clock it has been substantially altered, too much brass and has an anchor escapement. I think it isnt.

 

[Chris Radano]

That one is interesting. I think it is 18th c. The dial is quaint and quirky and maybe another word that begins with "q". Looks original. The anchor ones are usually less but the dial is carrying this one. Also nice looking count wheel. That is individualistic work. The feet and 3/4 posts echo Gothic chamber clocks. I still think maybe 1730? My estimate is +/- 1000 but I haven't been watching Ebay lately. If it goes bonkers that is possible.

 

[zedric]

It is curious indeed. The pillars are iron, the back ones shaped like a gothic clock, the front ones are short, so it relies on the dial to balance.

 

[Bernhard J.]

My guess would also be about 1710, but the pillars really puzzle me.

 

[Chris.K]

Looking at this timepiece as a whole it seems to show a timeline of its life. I think this piece is from the mid 1600's but had a troublesome early life. I think that maybe at some point it was dropped or knocked damaging one or both front pillars and eventually after decades made it to a craftsman for repair in the early 1700's. While repairing/fabricating the front pillar/pillars, decided to "upgrade" the escapement. As far as the face, it may be original and escaped damage or a NOS face the craftsman had in his shop. This is all conjecture but may be a plausible explanation to this clocks life..

 

[DeanT]

Not really in my normal sphere of collecting and I'm always hesitate to comment about these clocks as they are very difficult to pick and many replicas exist but I agree with Chris K. that the dial is early 18thC as are the 2 brass wheels were probably changed when it was likely converted from balance to anchor escapement and also service replacements for the wheels in the striking train. The photo I would like to see is without the bell to see original configuration of the probable balance. If the movement was originally anchor escapement then there is no reason for the escape wheel to fixed in a potence so I assume they may have used the original arbour when converting. I'd think the movement is older than the dial. The pillars may have been "shaved" down to fix the replacement dial and hence why they are different length and shape.

I bought a movement recently and although it is missing the balance the crown wheel is quite obvious. The pillar style is obviously different but its gives an idea of what the movement would look like with balance rather than anchor escapement.

 

[Bernhard J.]

That movement looks lovely

What do you intend to do with, if you do not keep it just like that?

 

[DeanT]

That movement looks lovely

What do you intend to do with, if you do not keep it just like that?

Not sure to be honest...I've got another one that needs restoring with a case and I liked the idea of having another one to examine for comparison. Most of these have been converted to pendulum so seeing an original top potence and crown wheel was interesting. I was debating about what sort of case it would have had originally, brass or steel?