With apologies, escalating inquiry about Fake Brass (and also plastic "glass"): Deception? Fraud?

[Friendofclocks]

Again, apologizing if this seems overly strident/accusatory, especially as my comment raises the question of NAWCC's purview or responsibility when members of the industry it focuses on use deceptive practices. I am cutting/pasting my core argument from a previous thread, as some responders - all completely honest, candid and genuinely helpful in their intentions - have implied something like a "caveat emptor" standard applies when it comes to manufacturers' substitution of materials cheaper than purported by advertising imagery and text. I specifically take up the issue of deception and why I think it's more serious and applicable than some may assume, and accordingly, raise the question of whether NAWCC might appropriately be more engaged in the matter.

The following is cut and pasted from my discussion of plastic windows on Howard Miller clocks typically listed at $1,349:


"... I do in fact [believe] there was an intent to deceive, and to be honest, I think the NAWCC community might consider the possibility that as a group with some collective leverage, it should hold HM and Hermle to standards of honesty/integrity to the clockmaking craft.

When plastic is made to pass itself off as brass, that is deceptive, except in the limited/unusual case where plastic is structurally/functionally preferential on a particular part and it's colored that way to match the rest of the movement.

Plastic on a dial that is colored to pass itself off as brass is deceptive, and if used in an expectation or hope that a purchaser will or might mistake it for actual brass, possibly out-and-out fraud.

Plastic that is used where glass would otherwise be expected, and the seller/manufacturer benefits from the consumer's expectation will be glass is deceptive-- arguably, out-and-out fraud.

In a bait-and-switch, something of value is presented to interest another party, while something other than the reasonably expected item is actually on offer. The hope is having made some investment (in time, or emotionally) toward the purchase, the customer will go through with it based on the initial investment, and desire not to walk away empty-handed, settling for something slightly (or even very considerably) inferior to what was expected.

I have tremendous appreciation and admiration for NAWCC, but my initial impression is NAWCC has/may have collectively given the likes of Howard Miller (including Hermle) a pass on this issue and thus (arguably) passively or tacitly enabled fraudulent conduct.

If my above definitions concerning deception, fraud, and bait-and-switch are misguided or incorrect, could anyone suggest how, or in what way?

Again, among my premises are that these clocks are purporting to be essentially aesthetic and/or luxury items, typically advertised as representing a tradition of craftsmanship and including "fine" or "finest" quality materials. Typically where function is the overriding concern, and aesthetics secondary, plastic becomes implicitly more acceptable.

Also among my premises is that refraining from using a particular implied material would be excusable to the extent that scarcity or preciousness make substitutions (e.g., plastic) a reasonable expectation. Because the cheapest keys and doorknobs are usually real brass, a consumer buying an ornamental clock (particularly one priced at several hundred dollars or more) would reasonably expect that the amount of brass used on a few keys, or half that on a $5 doorknob, would be used on the clock. Normally it is not reasonable to expect the consumer to think it might be plastic.

The same applies especially for glass. A window on such a clock would normally be expected to be glass based on the cheapness of glass and its aesthetic superiority to plastic. So in such cases, unless the manufacturer alerts customers that it's plastic, we can assume the manufacturer wants it to be mistaken for glass and is engaged in deception.

I hope I can be forgiven for cutting and pasting much of this comment in a separate new thread, as I consider fraud very serious and suspect it is a matter the NAWCC community would agree is well within the purview of its mission. Although, by the way, NAWCC considers advocacy for genuine antiques a high priority, with implicitly lower regard for reproductions and imitations ("cheap" or otherwise), these manufacturers purport to be representatives of a tradition (often invoking things like a "tradition of craftsmanship") that makes the notion of basic standards of integrity and aesthetics vis a vis that "tradition" relevant to members of this community regardless of a default cynicism or dismissiveness toward modern imitations/reproductions.

 

[bruce linde]

where to start? here are random thoughts as they floated to the surface after reading your post.

1. no, we don't need another thread on the same subject... especially when it's already under discussion. i have requested that the moderators merge the two threads back together.

2. you say 'deceptive' and 'fraud'... and you are who again? yes, someone with strong opinions about the subject (the phrase 'bee in your bonnet' comes to mind)... all well and good but you are not a lawyer (yes?). you are not an industry spokesperson (yes?). you have not been a member of the nawcc for decades and seen countless threads advising buyers to beware (yes?).

3. if a manufacturer lists something as brass or glass that is actually plastic, that's a misrepresentation. please provide even a specific example of where a manufacturer described something as other than it was, and i would agree with you that it was wrong.

4. rather than a point-for-point refutation of your post, it is far more efficient to simply add 'in your opinion' to each statement. your opinion does not seem to be shared by the other folks who have responded to your original thread.

5. every one of your premises is an assumption based on your opinions and expectations... which, frankly, to me, seem a bit naive. i look at any grandfather clock made starting in the 70s on up and expect it to be crap... at least when compared to any of my 100+ year old tall case clocks. i am spectacularly and explicitly not surprised or shocked... shocked!... to find cheap materials in cheap clocks... not sure why you are?

6. there is no bait-and-switch... manufacturers manufacture and try to sell their products. people buy them or not. the real issue is ill- or un-informed buyers who think modern clocks are in the same league as older clocks. they don't make them like they used to. period.

the purpose/charter of the nawcc is preservation and education about all things horological. spend enough time on the message board and you'll very quickly learn to identify how to recognize quality when you're looking at it... and how to recognize NOT quality... or, at least, when to not expect glass over plastic. the real discussion centers on how to increase and raise awareness in general about mechanical (antique!) clocks and watches, the nawcc and what it has to offer, and the message board.

just my opinions... you asked!

 

[novicetimekeeper]

I'm afraid Bruce has it, unless the manufacturer specifically claimed that all the shiny bits were actually brass then there is no deception.

Modern clocks still cost a fortune and like cars, or worse, are worth very little when you get home.

Antique clocks are at all time lows, get yourself something hand made two hundred or three hundred years ago,

 

[glenhead]

Interesting thoughts. I offer comments and opinions that should in no way be considered snarky or belittling.

From the explicit "$1,349", I interpret that you're talking specifically about the Tompion. Having read the description of that clock on the HM website, I fall on the caveat-emptor side of the fence.

Pictures don't mean a thing, unfortunately. The only thing that matters is what they say. "Brass finished", lacking a hyphen, is ambiguous. With a hyphen it means finished like brass. Without a hyphen, in my opinion, it's a stark example of today's shoddy attention to grammar, syntax, and punctuation. I expect the intent of the statement is that it looks like brass. "Brass-finished" is an adjectival phrase. "Brass finished" *could* be interpreted to mean that it's made of brass and that it's not still under construction, but that's a mighty stretch.

Glass breaks. Plastic doesn't. (At least not without a comparatively great deal of force.) Even fairly-low-quality acrylic sheet doesn't yellow with age, so that's no longer a concern. Aesthetically (other than refractive indices) modern acrylic sheet is close enough to glass as to make no nevermind. A customer with a broken door glass or side glass is an unhappy customer. A customer who bonks a plastic door window won't even process that he bonked it.

HM does not say things are brass, and they do not say "this piece is glass". They do not say anything that is demonstrably untrue. Ergo, it falls a long ways away from fraud. Assumptions on the consumer's part do not equate to fraud on the supplier's part.

Caveat emptor, indeed. More importantly, aquila non captat muscas.

Glen

 

[Friendofclocks]

Thanks for the replies, and no I do not object to the candid, verging on harsh tone at various points.

I did raise whether the customer might reasonably expect that what looks like brass is actual brass. If one ordered a doorknob appearing in the photo to be brass and it turned out to be plastic, one would have a legitimate grievance. I was suggesting apparent brass in the case of $1000+ (I paid $180 on ebay) clocks create a reasonable expectation that it will be real brass. I see others disagree, but I think at the very least it's a legitimate question.

I acknowledged that NAWCC is focused on antique items, and the differences in quality. But if the average person sees the advertised product and assumes he's looking at brass, not plastic, that to me would seem to raise a question. And as one responder put it, one could parse "brass finished" and "brass-finished" in multiple ways.

True, I'm not a lawyer, but the basic definition of fraud is a deceptive appearance/action creating an advantage for the one party to the detriment of the other. To a layman's understanding this is satisfied, whether I'm a lawyer or not. Whether it would win in court is arguably another question. But if a substantial part of one's business model relies on something like this, it strikes me as far from trivial, even assuming all that has been said (and even already assumed on my part) about genuine antiques versus reproductions. My point, or question, is whether certain substitutions cross a line. I deeply appreciate all the thoughtful responses. But I'm still unconvinced using plastic this way steers clear of commercial dishonesty. And if there is commercial dishonesty, it seems a worthwhile public service to call the offending party on it.

Thank you so much again everybody. I tale all comments in the friendly and constructive spirit in which I know they are/were intended!

Andrew

 

[Kevin W.]

You buy things at your own risk, its always been that way for me anyways.

 

[tracerjack]

No matter what a doorknob looks like, if it doesn't say "solid brass" in the item's description, you can be sure that it isn't. I don't think assumption is a valid indicator of a product's materials. Now, if the description says brass, and it isn't, (as when I bought some brass leveling feet that were actually plastic), then that is misrepresentation. And yes, I got all my money back.

 

[Friendofclocks]

No matter what a doorknob looks like, if it doesn't say "solid brass" in the item's description, you can be sure that it isn't....

You mean I have to start going through this over all my doorknobs now? Not real brass?

Just kidding (I hope obviously). Truth is, all this reveals I'm rather naive about, metals, brass and manufacturing in general. I had always assumed doorknobs are real brass, because I've always thought of brass as cheap metal which rather than being imitated itself, is sometimes used to imitate precious metal (gold)-- that is, as an attractive but relatively cheap material.

I guess I'm learning. Thanks again for all the feedback, even the more critical ones.

 

[gleber]

A lot of brass in clocks is really a coating over steel. Polish a pendulum bob with steel wool and you might be surprised.

Tom

 

[DeanT]

I'm afraid Bruce has it, unless the manufacturer specifically claimed that all the shiny bits were actually brass then there is no deception.

Modern clocks still cost a fortune and like cars, or worse, are worth very little when you get home.

Antique clocks are at all time lows, get yourself something hand made two hundred or three hundred years ago,

My thoughts exactly. For that price you could buy an 18thC clock which should last another 300 years. Better still its likely to still have value 10 years after it was purchased.

 

[Les harland]

The problem is even worse with pocket watches
There are alloys made of base metal that look like gold or silver
Also there are gold or silver plated items
Luckily most are clearly marked as such

 

[rmarkowitz1_cee4a1]

I have sort of been trying to follow the 2 now 1thread.

To quote that famous Wendy’s commercial from a couple of decades ago, “where’s the beef?” Regardless of the price tag, why would anyone be surprised about what shoddiness they find for clocks like this?

The market is depressed. As I’ve brought up before, why consider stuff like this or even much made from the latter 1/2 of 20th century (and yes, much starting from the ‘30’s) when so much dare I say better & earlier can be had reasonably?

There are good threads discussing potentially interesting earlier clocks that lanquish & get buried under threads like this, dating granny’s Ridgeway from 1979, etc.

Maybe time to consider a refocus?

RM

 

[novicetimekeeper]

I had realised initially that it was bought secondhand. In which case it is doubly where's the beef as whatever the OEM claimed is totally irrelevant when bought as a used item, then it is down to what the vendor of the used item said.

 

[Carl in France]

Nothing is what it looks to be in manufacturing. A cheap substitute will always be used where it looks close enough and does the job.

For items that actually are what they purport to be you are always better served by looking to antiques. Even then never trust a sellers description and try and handle the item yourself.

Knowledge is key, you appear to know this though and as to your original comments I think you expect too much from the descriptions. People will always portray an item in the best way for sales. As a buyer you must ask direct questions and research the topic.

 

[MartinM]

Some apparent misrepresentations are aided by convention. A watch manufacturer would likely never experience any legal issues for referring to the plastic front of their item as a 'crystal' because it has, over time, become more a descriptor for the part than of its composition. Be assured that a quality watch WILL specify that it's 'sapphire' or whatever differentiates it from plastic.
Personally, I'd be more worried about the cost of replacing the likely already worn-out movement being three or more times what you spent on the clock.

 

[musicguy]

I was walking past a fairly expensive car recently and saw that the chrome plating was coming off the trim.
When I got close enough to look at it, I saw that it was a silver looking plastic coating over a white plastic trim strip.
These used to be metal trim with a chrome coating(also metal) finish. There is a lot
of "fake" metal used today. It does not surprise me that modern clocks would use plastic(fake brass)


Rob

 

[mauleg]

...why consider stuff like this or even much made from the latter 1/2 of 20th century (and yes, much starting from the ‘30’s) when so much dare I say better & earlier can be had reasonably?

Ooof. Here we go again. Just because a clock was made in the "latter 1/2 of 20th century" does not mean it has no redeeming characteristics. Modern clocks offer sound that rivals or surpasses that of antiques, are every bit as much fun to work on (or more so, as you don't sweat screwing up a valuable, rare artifact), are exceedingly common and numerous and therefore can be had for a fraction of the cost, with easy to find inexpensive replacement parts.

$20 for a nice looking (real wood, real brass, real glass), great sounding 3-chime mechanical mantle clock that performs perfectly after 20 years in an open-air tropical marine environment? What's not to like? Besides, modern does cheese better!

I'll reiterate: Will these clocks last for generations? Maybe not. Do I care? Not at all. They'll last for the time I've left and I'll enjoy them both on the wall and on the bench, just the same.

 

[rmarkowitz1_cee4a1]

Ooof. Here we go again. Just because a clock was made in the "latter 1/2 of 20th century" does not mean it has no redeeming characteristics. Modern clocks offer sound that rivals or surpasses that of antiques, are every bit as much fun to work on (or more so, as you don't sweat screwing up a valuable, rare artifact), are exceedingly common and numerous and therefore can be had for a fraction of the cost, with easy to find inexpensive replacement parts.

$20 for a nice looking (real wood, real brass, real glass), great sounding 3-chime mechanical mantle clock that performs perfectly after 20 years in an open-air tropical marine environment? What's not to like? Besides, modern does cheese better!

I'll reiterate: Will these clocks last for generations? Maybe not. Do I care? Not at all. They'll last for the time I've left and I'll enjoy them both on the wall and on the bench, just the same.

Re: the clocks on one of the links you provided. I'll take the Sonora Chime and the Wilcock. I also believe they were made in the first 1/2 of the 20th century but my apologies if I have that wrong. Though prices are down, an 8 bell Sonora is not an inexpensive clock not to sweat over. You can keep the rest in that link.

I'll throw in the Herschede chime clocks from the first 1/2 of the 20th century. I own one now and I owned a bracket style clock by them. Both dated to about 1920. Real quality. No problems there. Oh yes, the Chelsea ships bell and house strike clocks from the first 50 years +/- of the 20th century. I've owned some wonderful ones. Again, no problems there. Real quality.

I also like the toilet seat clock.

I stand by my statements, unapologetically.

Again, to each their own. It's a free country.

RM

 

[mauleg]

Geez, RM. Next thing you know, you're going to tell me that you put the TP roll on over the top

The first link is to a post where I previously discussed modern clocks. The second link was chosen as it shows comparison and contrast between antique and modern. I believe that my comment regarding "not sweating it" was taken out of context. Thanks for letting me keep my clocks though.

 

[rmarkowitz1_cee4a1]

Geez, RM. Next thing you know, you're going to tell me that you put the TP roll on over the top

The first link is to a post where I previously discussed modern clocks. The second link was chosen as it shows comparison and contrast between antique and modern. I believe that my comment regarding "not sweating it" was taken out of context. Thanks for letting me keep my clocks though.

I would recommend over. Your health and well being may very much depend upon that. See this link (it's for real):

The Correct Way to Hang Toilet Paper, According to Science

Wash your hands after handling those clocks, too. Who knows what you'll catch from them.

RM

 

[novicetimekeeper]

It was decided in the patent

US459516A - Wrapping or tolier paper roll - Google Patents

 

[rmarkowitz1_cee4a1]

It was decided in the patent

US459516A - Wrapping or tolier paper roll - Google Patents

I guess we owe a debt of gratitude to Mr. Wheeler for his invention?

RM

 

[leeinv66]

You know the conversation is in trouble when people start talking about toileting conventions! Or is it just that you gents are flushed with enthusiasm

 

[gleber]

It was decided in the patent

US459516A - Wrapping or tolier paper roll - Google Patents

Wait!... What?... Sheets cut on a bias? That's, that's... gonna start a whole new debate!

Tom

 

[rmarkowitz1_cee4a1]

You know the conversation is in trouble when people start talking about toileting conventions! Or is it just that you gents are flushed with enthusiasm

At least toilet paper is something most of us can agree upon?

RM

 

[MartinM]

"Soft"?...
Or "Strong"?


*/Ducks

 

[rmarkowitz1_cee4a1]

"Soft"?...
Or "Strong"?


*/Ducks

Well, the concept, maybe not the specifics?

RM

 

[bruce linde]

aquila non captat muscas.
Glen

gonna use that one!

 

[shutterbug]

I prefer under. My wife prefers over. But either way, if you're getting feces on your fingers, you're doing something wrong!!
BTW, my son-in-law's parents visited us from Argentina for a couple of weeks, and were revolted (I was told later) that Americans don't use bidets! They would not use the paper method!

 

[novicetimekeeper]

BTW, my son-in-law's parents visited us from Argentina for a couple of weeks, and were revolted (I was told later) that Americans don't use bidets! They would not use the paper method!

That stems from Spain, but may have more to do with the state of Spanish waste plumbing than hygiene. After all you still need to wash your hands whatever you do. (The Romans had slaves but they also stuck to using one hand so perhaps they weren't so good at the washing)

British waste treatment is now suffering from the not so flushable wipes so perhaps we would have been better to have taken the bidet route too.

When I was a kid it was considered posh to have a bidet. My Mum had one in the the cottage she built in the seventies but it was used as a drinking fountain by her elderly and arthritic cat who had the tap left on 24/7 for her.

 

[bruce linde]

This discussion seems to have strayed from the original topic… Can we put it behind us?

 

[rmarkowitz1_cee4a1]

This discussion seems to have strayed from the original topic… Can we put it behind us?

Well, it's "Howdy Doody" time?



RM

 

[Bruce Alexander]

What about "modern" materials used to restore antique clocks?

I just started to work on restoring a Seth Thomas Empire No. 0 Crystal Regulator today. In disassembling the case for cleaning and polishing, I discovered that some previous owner had replaced one of the glass side panels with beveled clear acrylic(?). The plastic is not scratched up, it's approximately the right thickness and looks like glass of course. I was certainly fooled when I bid on the clock years ago. The plastic is very light and you can see some tell-tale signs around the edges, which are never seen unless the "glass" is removed.

I intend to sell this clock. Do I spend another $35+ to replace the plastic? (The glass in the back door is badly chipped and definitely will be replaced). Should I just clean it up and move on with all of the other work that needs to be done (there's a lot to do). If I leave it, I will disclose the acrylic "glass" to prospective buyers. Glass is much more fragile but it also resists scratches better and there are refractory properties in strong light that I don't think acrylic will duplicate.

If you were in the market for a "Crystal" Regulator, would an acrylic pane of "glass" matter to you? All else being equal would you prefer one with all glass (not necessarily original)? What if the one with the Acrylic substitution was $40 cheaper than the all glass version?. Personally, had I known about the substitution, I probably would have passed on it. This is just another good reason why I hate to see short-cuts and hidden, "crappy" work.

As far as Andrew's original comments are concerned, I think this is a throw away/recycle world. Even expensive modern Tall Case Movements have little plastic parts in them. Also, "plastic" is a very generic term that used to be synonymous with "cheap" and flimsy. Some modern plastic materials may be very well suited to the task at hand while being cheaper to manufacture they are not necessarily flimsy or easily broken.

The NAWCC's mission is to educate the world in the art and science of timekeeping. Ye shall know the truth and the truth shall make you free. It shall also help you make better purchase decisions although I'm not quite sure I would have spotted the acrylic "glass" even if I had the clock in my hands before I purchased it, which I did not.

T.P.? Over! Definitely.

 

[gleber]

Ugh, I guess we're going to have toilet this childish humor run its course, at least until it's flushed out of the system (should that comma be a semi-colon?).

But mom, he started it first!

Tom

 

[Bruce Alexander]

I don't want to "waste" a good opportunity here, Tom. I do genuinely have some questions about modern materials in antique clocks...would you want to know about substitutions or would you let them "pass"?

 

[mauleg]

In terms of the plastic panel in the crystal regulator, I believe that full disclosure is integral to seller ethics. In terms of plastics, they can be superior to other materials in certain applications, so I'd not consider strategic inclusion to be necessarily a devaluation. One thing's for sure: they don't rust!

 

[Bruce Alexander]

I believe that full disclosure is integral to seller ethics

Absolutely. As a collector, would you pass on a Crystal Regulator that has one of more glass panels replaced with clear beveled acrylic though?

One thing's for sure: they don't rust!

True, but they can become brittle, or fade with time. Seth Thomas' Adamantine veneer comes to mind. More modern plastic materials can still experience alteration of important properties with exposure to the environment. Clear acrylic, for example, can still yellow over time when exposed to direct sunlight.

 

[mauleg]

Absolutely. As a collector, would you pass on a Crystal Regulator that has one of more glass panels replaced with clear beveled acrylic though?.

I'd not consider it a deal breaker, no, especially if it was a clock that I wanted. But then again, I evidently collect clocks in which others find little value. If the existence of the panel was mentioned in the listing, however, it would likely dissuade more particular (and higher) bidders in an auction. I find modified, broken and flawed clocks more attractive for this reason.

True, but they can become brittle, or fade with time. Seth Thomas' Adamantine veneer comes to mind. More modern plastic materials can still experience alteration of important properties with exposure to the environment. Clear acrylic, for example, can still yellow over time when exposed to direct sunlight.

All true, hence the disclaimers, "in certain applications" and "strategic inclusion".

 

[Bruce Alexander]

All true, hence the disclaimers, "in certain applications" and "strategic inclusion".

It's usually a trade-off. Soundproofing windows with an inner pane of clear acrylic, for example, is effective but over time the acrylic will yellow. One alternative is use of another pane of glass, which is fragile (and potentially dangerous) but won't yellow. Price and ease of manufacture is also often a factor which favors plastics even though other materials will have greater longevity in certain applications.

I believe this is a good example:
Kieninger Chime Selector Switch

 

[novicetimekeeper]

With regard to the refractive index of acrylic relative to glass the difference is marginal. So marginal we don't give lower school students the two to compare because their level of skill in practicals means that they probably would not detect the difference. (Its about 1 degree for visible light)

there is a difference between different types of glass but they wouldn't pick that up either, I use the difference to differentiate borosilicate from soda glass.

 

[shutterbug]

If I were buying the clock, I'd expect to have to replace the panel with appropriate glass, and would expect the selling price to reflect that. If you want the best price, put it back to as close to original as you can.

 

[Bruce Alexander]

With regard to the refractive index of acrylic relative to glass the difference is marginal

Very interesting. My first clue was that it was so much lighter than the other glass panels. There's a little waviness along one of the edges too. I think I'll take it out in the sunlight (it's currently raining) and see how it compares to the other glass side panel.

put it back to as close to original as you can.

I had concluded the same SB. Something like that, even if well done, will lower the value unless you don't disclose it (which would border on fraud through omission in my mind). The Seller may, or may not have been aware of it. I'll give her the benefit of any doubt.

It's not a rare occurrence. I had a client send one to me for service a few years ago and someone had placed a flat thin piece of acrylic in the back door. He wasn't aware of the substitution until I brought it to his attention. If current "sold" listings are any indication the glass will put me underwater (perhaps just "further") but we'll just have to see. It has the original Seth Thomas Pendulum and everything else looks pretty good. It will just take a lot of time to get it in good running and aesthetic condition. Crystal Regulators can be such a pain.

Thanks for your input guys.

Bruce

 

[Bruce Alexander]

With regard to the refractive index of acrylic relative to glass the difference is marginal.

I took the two samples out into sunlight today and I see what you mean. They both act as prisms. I couldn't detect any difference.

As I mentioned previously, there is some slight waviness along an edge or two of the acrylic. It's bevel is also a little longer than the glass. I still would not have detected that even if I had the clock in hand for personal inspection. As mentioned, it was only the relative weight upon disassembly of the case that gave it away to me.

I think that one way to test in the field would be to lightly tap on the "glass" with your fingernail or something hard, like a coin. The Acrylic sounds "dead" compared to the sound of the much harder glass. I intend to do that the next time I'm inspecting a Clock of any type with glass. Most certainly I'll perform that test on one that features beveled glass panels in its case.

Is there a better test?

Regards,

Bruce

 

[novicetimekeeper]

The thermal conductivity of glass is higher, though low compared to metals. The hardness is much lower for acrylic.

 

[Bruce Alexander]

So glass may feel much cooler than acrylic?

 

[rmarkowitz1_cee4a1]

This discussion reminds me of that famous scene in the classic movie, "The Graduate":



RM

 

[novicetimekeeper]

cooler, but not cold like metal. I can hold a piece of glass in my hands while heating the other end until pliable, I can't do that with metals.

 

[Bruce Alexander]

This discussion reminds me of that famous scene in the classic movie, "The Graduate":

Hopefully it may help someone avoid being seduced by an acrylic antique Mrs. Robinson.

 

[jrog100]

modern howard miller clocks will without a doubt last generations. why people knock them is a mystery to me.

 

[demoman3955]

modern howard miller clocks will without a doubt last generations. why people knock them is a mystery to me.

Id have to debate that, not only from what ive read, but seeing with my own eyes. I have one thats maybe 20 to 25 years old that my wife likes, and its already having issues. And i have an early 1800s tall case that dosent look bad at all and runs like a champ. I wont touch a clock thats newer then the 50s unless theres something specific i like and am willing to take a chance on. Like someone mentionmed about chrome plated plastic, which my wifes car has, it wont last long, yet my 68 plymouth has great original chrome. Her car will be used till it dies and no one will want to mess with it, yet my 68 plymouth will last another 50 years and if needed get rebuilt again and even be sold for a large profit.