This question is in regard to the Lonnie Bird PA Tall Clock in issue #171 and 172. I’m in the process of building the hood. The instructions from Lonnie’s article say to construct the dial frame and slip it through the top of the hood after the hood is
assembled. Is this the traditional method of constructing the hood? I’ve looked at a number of older tall clocks, but it’s not like you can bring a stepladder into a museum, climb up, blow off the dust and check it out. So, I don’t have an answer.
My issue with the slot is that even a slight gap would allow dust to fall through
onto the movement. Also, should the hood back be rabbeted to accept the backboard of the clock like the waist and base? Again, this would restrict dust better than the inevitable gaps that will appear between the sides, top and back over the course of time without the rabbets.
<!—-><!—-> <!—->
I have been able to examine several tall clocks and found that the hoods are
rabbeted on the back edges when the wood used for the sides and top is of sufficient thickness to do so. However, this is not always the case, and appears to be at the whim of the cabinetmaker.
My third question is related to the first: The sides of the hood are grooved to accept the dial frame and the hood top has an opening between the pediment backing board and the top to accept the dial frame as stated above. Therefore, I think the base frame should be grooved as well to accept the bottom of the dial frame. Is this not traditional? Is it overkill and not necessary? <!—-> <!—->
<!—-> <!—->
I am looking for some opinions on traditional methods utilized to construct quality-made, antique tall clocks. Basically, are these modifications I’ve proposed worth the additional time and work? You’ve probably realized I am not working for profit and live in a very dusty house. That being said, I am enjoying the journey, but would like to finish the clock before my wife starts hounding me about kitchen cabinets or a bathroom vanity or who knows what, eh?
Replies
I didn't read his article, so I can't comment on it.
The clocks that I have seen (and made) have the dial frame inserted from the bottom. The bottom rail of the frame is extra wide and fits down behind the front bottom rail of the hood. The frame is secured in place with a small brad driven though its bottom rail. This attachment method gives you a little bit of adjustability so the dial can be exactly centered in the opening ( the other way is to adjust the thickness of the seat board, but that is a lot more work.
I hope Ray Pine sees this and can add to it
Rob Millard
http://www.americanfederalperiod.com
Lonnie Bird PA Tall Clock or any other design. Unless you want an EXACT copy go with your 'gut feel' about what is best 'as YOU think it should be'.
I would not compare my work with that of Lonnie Bird or many others but I'm sure there is always a better way to do things no matter who made it. We are all different. If you feel it is the right thing to do.. DO IT!
Edited 3/31/2008 9:36 am by WillGeorge
crs,
There seem to have been as many ways to attach the dial frame as there were makers of the old cases. I've seen them grooved into the hood sides, laid in rabbets in the hood sides (where the hood door lips over, or completely overlays the sides), and fitted between, and abutting the sides (held in place with glueblocks on the back side).
I agree that exclusion of dust is an important consideration, so would stop the dial frame short of the top, and extend the hood's top over the top of the dial frame. If you dovetail the top to the hood sides, the groove is worked away by the recess for the tail, and so won't show/admit dust at the top. The frame may then be slid up into place from below, and the hood's base frame glued to the ends.
At bottom, you can groove the base frame if you like, although simply letting the dial frame abut the top side of the hood base frame, or pass behind it as Rob suggests works as well. Might ultimatelydepend on the geometry of the waist sides/ seatboard/width of the hood base frame.
I'll take the liberty of pointing out that the depth of the movement/depth of the case/ placement of the seatboard, as well as the length of the movement's handshaft, is of critical importance in determining the location (front to back) of the dial frame, especially the distance of the dial frame from the back side of the glass in the hood door. It is a "doh" moment to close the hood door (or slide the hood onto the waist) with the movement and glazing in place for the first time, and have the end of the handshaft contact the glass, before the dial frame is against the dial.
Ray
OK so you post made more sense than mine!
Thank you, Will, Ray and Rob for your excellent suggestions and advise. My clock is not an exact copy of Lonnie's, so I have no qualms in making modifications. <!----><!----><!---->
I do like the idea of fitting the dial frame up from the bottom, but my dial frame sits too close to the inner edge of the base frame, which would leave insufficient material at the rear of the base frame to cut a slot. If I simply notch the inner edge of the base frame, and use a thicker bottom-rail for the dial frame, I would compromise the mortise and tenon joints used to join the base-frame sides to the base-frame front. Having already cut the grooves in the hood sides, I intend to use them rather than set the dial frame flush against glue blocks. Bottom line is I’m coming in through the top. <!----><!---->
I'm still keen on the idea of cutting a 1/4" deep groove in the base frame to accept the bottom of the dial frame, because I feel it would keep the bottom of the frame from bowing in or out. However, this would leave only 1/8" of material from the inside of the groove to the edge of the base frame--not good. Well, next time I’ll know (I should live so long). Lastly, I will rabbet the back edges of the hood to accept the backboard.<!----><!---->
So, if nothing else, I understand why the hood was designed the way it was on this particular breed of tall clock. Perhaps, I have even walked in the footsteps of an 18th-century cabinetmaker, if only for a few hours; and that I think, is good for the soul.<!----><!---->
Gentlemen, thank you again for your outstanding advice and indulgence. It was truly a pleasure to correspond with experts such as yourselves. <!----><!---->
Craig<!----><!---->
Craig,
If it is too late to make the hood top cover the top edge of the dial frame, and dust exclusion is a concern, you might consider gluing a layer of paper over the crack, after assembly. Wallpaper, or newsprint (choose an interesting presidential campaign article from a current edition ;-) ) are traditional choices.
Ray
I finally got a chance to look at some antique tall clocks. The guy in the clock shop at Merritt's Antiques in Douglassville, PA, was nice enough to allow me to use a stepladder he had in the shop to get a look at the tops of some hoods. I looked at a dozen clocks of which all but one had the tops nailed on. One, a 19th-century Philadelphia-made clock, had an identical hood top (with the exception of one less set of tails and pins) as the hood-top in Lonnie's article. Sure enough, wood shrinkage has opened a gap of about 1/8 of an inch around the top of the dial frame.
So, I'm inserting my dial frame through the bottom. Instead of attaching the bottom of the hood sides to the base frame with double through- tenons, Iv'e made a single, long tenon 1/4 inch deep, and 1/2 inch wide. I'v slotted the base-frame sides to accept these tenons. The tenons will be screwed to the bottom of the base frame with tight round holes in the front, and slotted holes in the rear, to allow for expansion and contraction of the cross-grain joint between the hood sides and the base frame. The hood top will be sealed between the pediment backing-board and the hood top.
Thanks to all for your advise. Sorry it took me so long to get back on track. Now, I'm off to the shop to finish fitting the dovetails.
Thanks again,
Craig
Craig,
Sounds like you have a plan. Good luck with your project.
Ray
Thanks Ray
Hi Craig,
Any possibility of posting some pictures of your progress.
Thanks,
Dave
Absolutely, I can post some shots. I should be able to have some pictures up by Sunday, May 4th. I had my camera with me at Merritt's, but unfortunately when I went to take the shot of the Philadelphia clock top, my battery crapped out. Maybe when I get back to Merritt's the clock will still be there, and I will make sure my camera is in proper working order.
Here are some shots, Dave.
Hi, thanks for the pictures. If possible, can you post some more when you install the dial frame? I'm also interested in how the pediment is attached to the hood.
Thanks again,
Dave
I'll probably start the pediment box next. I intend to attach a pediment backer board to the front of the hood top. I'll will then build the pediment box as a unit and attach it to the hood with slotted screw holes at the back to allow for cross-grain movement of the hood sides. I'll take some photos and post them. Are you building the Lonnie Bird Clock? If so, I know a guy who built it and it is done.
I wish I had more time to work on the clock, but I can't quit my day-time job, yet. My lack of time in the shop does give me a chance to think things out before I cut the wood. I travel and I have gotten the opportunity to visit various shops and museums to look at old clocks up close and personal. I have also done a bit of research on movements, as well as their setup and installation. To me, the tall clock is the perfect combination of cabinetmaking, a fascinating mechanical device and the artwork of the dial. It's a timeless piece of furniture that moves and tells you something.
Sorry, I couldn't resist the pun,
Craig
Not yet. But it's definitely on the list. I'm with you....the day job sure gets in the way!
Thanks again for sharing your project.
Dave
Craig,
I bet it was quite an experiance to see them up close. When I was first bitten by the period furniture bug, I was surprised at how they were constructed. It was not the careful, meticulous way I thought they would be made.
Rob Millard
http://www.americanfederalperiod.com
Yes sir Rob, you've got that right. These were some fairly expensive clocks I was checking out, and either time has taken its toll or the workmanship was not outstanding to begin with. I like to give the benefit of the doubt to the old-time cabinetmakers, though. After all, it was their livelihoods; they were not fooling around like I am.
I recently visited the National Clock and Watch Museum in Columbia, PA, and was fascinated by the crusty little stubs behind the bracket feet on the Willard clocks, as well as others that are held in such high regard. I saw a number of cross-grain problems that have led to cracks on the feet and on single-board base fronts.
While we are on the subject of cross-grain joinery...why do I always hear that the furniture of yesteryear was not subjected to the same stresses caused by changes in humidity that today's modern heating systems impose on joinery? If anything, homes on the east coast that were heated by woodstoves and open hearths, were as dry as a bone in the winter, and during the summer, with no air conditioning to keep the humidity down, the moisture content of the wood must have gone through the roof. Modern heating and cooling keeps humidity levels fairly constant.Thanks again for your help,
Craig
I don't think early homes (18th c.) heated with wood hearths and wood stoves were very well or consistently heated and probably didn't really get as dry as a bone so the humidity differences between winter and summer were moderate. But winter heating improved with better stoves and central heating for a long time, across the 19th c. well before air conditioning became common. It was in this transition where you really saw dry winter air with the still moist summers and lots of stress on joints. But now you are quite right, there is much less seasonal fluctuation in humidity with humidified furnaces in winter and dehumidification from air conditioning in the summers.
You're quite right on the observation of humidity changes in homes of the 18th and 19th century. It's pretty common for fronts to come through in the winter that have ambient humidity levels of 20% or less, and that's at the ambient temperature of below freezing. Once this air is heated indoors by a woodstove or a fireplace, the relative humidity drops even lower. Further, considering that there was no indoor plumbing to increase the humidity levels (like a shower), it's very likely that these homes stayed very dry in the winter.
The exception might be in a coastal town like Newport or Boston, and perhaps those exceptions are the basis for the claim that antique furniture wasn't subjected to the same humidity swings that modren heating and cooling induces.
Then again, it's not all that uncommon for one person to make an assertion, and because it seems correct on the surface, for it to be repeated unitl it becomes "common knowledge".
This forum post is now archived. Commenting has been disabled