Antique-shop.com
Antiques! => Antique Questions Forum => Topic started by: Henri on August 04, 2012, 01:28:15 PM
-
Update:
I have been forwarded to: Christies, Sotheby's and The British Museum
Old print sellers and antique specialist were very, VERY excited abioout the engravings.
Recently discovered and stored at the bank.
The local old print shops and antique stores allready told me its autenthic. (Engravings)
Jewellers told me the gold is real, I knew it allready when I went there.
It is a late 18th century walnut bracket clock. In perfect shape.
Engraved by a famous man, Smith, John Thomas (1766-1833)
The time mechanisme has been replaced, probably twice before.
It does work, but stops ticking.
I don't know alot about it. I recently discovered that is was gold. It maight have been painted in WWII. When the Germans invaded Europe
There are alot of these models, from around 1900. Replica's this is a real one. serial number 23, No idea what its worth. It is stored in a save in the bank. Any additional info is welcome
Thanks in advance.
Futher claims about the gold and authenticity will be ignored. (Only because I will have a day's job from it) And it is unbelieveable, I know it !!!!! ;D
I have spent a whole week trying to convince people on a distance. Jewellers and antique specialsts say it is real and / or authentic.
The rest of my items is to be and will be found here.
http://www.collectorsweekly.com/user/Hansel/posts
-
The face is new and poorly done at that !! Sorry but I do not see gold in the mountings !! One thing about gold,, white or yellow,, it does not tarnish or change color !! It should be just as shiny as when first made !! Your mountings are pretty dull !! If there is any gold at all it is likely over white metal !! You can buy a test kit that will tell you for certain as well as the approx karat !! If you think its an original ( I do not) get one and test it !!
-
http://www.clockcentre.com/ProductDetails.aspx?productID=3813
Did some checking,, John Thomas Smith was an engraver but did not do clocks,, only art !! Your clock is signed Thomas Smith, a different person,,the link above is an old one !! Compare the name plates, writing is not even close although the same clock !! Yours is not centered or done in the same manner, so pretty certain, yours is a reproduction. Sorry !!
-
Hello,
I only look for info of the details. not opinjions about gold or the quality of the engravings.
Thanks for the help anyway, Domnt get me wrong.
Thanks for the input. Buit in the meanwhile I have been forwarded to among others the British museum.
I have done that in the meanwhile.
This by antique specialsts. And old print sellers (Smnith made envgravings for prints)
I did checking for a long time also. Thomas was engraver in his early years. (1778-1781)
The engravings seemn original according to expertts. You as many opther sent a very ugly replica from after 1900. look:
http://img198.imageshack.us/slideshow/webplayer.php?id=voorkantk.jpg
I did not post this to discuss the authenticity. Buit to receive further info.
-
This whole thread is somewhat baffling.
-
I know.. IT sound stunningly unbelieveable!!! I am SO AWAR !!
I am busy on my quest to convince clock specialists..
I have 3 things actually:
Gold = tested, worth 18.400euros (One jeweller told me that in that time you could have bought half london)
Engravings In silver = By Thomas Smith London (google him) = checked by antique specialists. They were very excited.
And the lock + case = No clock expert believes the 2 things above. So they say:
No impossible.. next!
I am looking for some specialst to back me up. I dont life near the largest cities. Just returned from Groningen universtiy. Also very amazed.
Anyone any tips on how to convince christies of sothebys from a distance?
Thanks people!
-
If you want to convince people,, get the facts straight !! John Thomas Smith was an engraver but did no clocks !! Thomas Smith, whose name is on your clock is a different person !! I would suggest that you take it to a reputable auction house,, sending pics and trying to convince them without them being able to verify it is almost impossible !! If it were a painting by the old masters,, they would still need to have it in hand and verify it themselves !! Otherwise they will not put their reputation on the line !! Would not be good business for them !!
-
He engraved as a to be hired job for 3-4 tears untill he decided to switch his career..
-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Thomas_Smith_(engraver)
Show me !! If not here,, anywhere !!
-
http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Smith,_John_Thomas_(1766-1833)_(DNB00)
sister projects: Wikipedia article.
SMITH, JOHN THOMAS (1766–1833), topographical draughtsman and antiquary, son of Nathaniel Smith, a sculptor who afterwards became a printseller at the sign of Rembrandt's Head in May's Buildings, St. Martin's Lane, was born on 23 June 1766 in a hackney coach in which his mother was returning home from a visit to her brother in Seven Dials, London. His father was then chief assistant to Joseph Nollekens, R.A., the sculptor, whose studio young Smith entered in 1778, but left it in 1781 to become a pupil of John Keyse Sherwin [q. v.], the mezzotint-engraver. At the end of three years he gave up engraving and found employment in making topographical drawings of London for Mr. Crowle, and others in the neighbourhood of Windsor for Mr. Richard Wyatt. He had thoughts of going on the stage, but eventually settled down in 1788 as a drawingmaster at Edmonton. In 1791 he began the compilation of his favourite work, ‘Antiquities of London and its Environs,’ which was finished in 1800. He returned to London in 1795, and for some time practised as a portrait-painter and engraver. In 1797 he published ‘Remarks on Rural Scenery,’ with twenty etchings of cottages by himself, and in 1807 the ‘Antiquities of Westminster,’ for part of which the descriptive text was written by John Sidney Hawkins [q. v.]; but a disagreement having arisen between him and Smith, it was continued by the latter, who prefixed an ‘Advertisement’ describing the dispute. Smith's statement was challenged by Hawkins in a ‘Correct Statement and Vindication’ of his conduct, which was answered by Smith in a ‘Vindication’ (1808), to which Hawkins issued a ‘Reply’ (1808). ‘Sixty-two additional Plates’ to this work were published in 1809. There followed ‘The Ancient Topography of London,’ begun in 1810 and completed in 1815.
In September 1816 Smith was appointed to succeed William Alexander (1767–1816) [q. v.] as keeper of the prints and drawings in the British Museum, and retained that office until his death. His official duties did not interfere with the continuance of his literary work. In 1817 he published ‘Vagabondiana, or Anecdotes of Mendicant Wanderers through the Streets of London,’ illustrated with portraits of notorious beggars drawn and etched by himself from the life; an introduction was written by Francis Douce [q. v.] His last and best known work was ‘Nollekens and his Times,’ issued in 1828. This has been said to be ‘perhaps the most candid biography ever published in the English language,’ and was probably influenced by the smallness of the legacy left to him by Nollekens, who appointed him co-executor of his will with Sir William Beechey and Francis Douce. A new edition, with an introduction by Mr. Edmund Gosse, appeared in 1894. After Smith's death there appeared his ‘Cries of London’ (1839), with plates etched by himself, edited by John Bowyer Nichols [q. v.]; his entertaining and discursive ‘Book for a Rainy Day’ (1845, new edit. by W. Whitten, 1905); and his ‘Antiquarian Ramble in the Streets of London’ (1846), edited by Charles Mackay [q. v.]
Smith died at 22 University Street, Tottenham Court Road, London, from inflammation of the lungs, on 8 March 1833, and was buried in St. George's burial-ground in the Bayswater Road.
A three-quarter portrait was painted by John Jackson, R.A. A drawing by the same artist was engraved by William Skelton [q. v.] and prefixed to the ‘Cries of London,’ 1839.
[Smith's Book for a Rainy Day, 1828; Memoir by John Bowyer Nichols, prefixed to Smith's Cries of London, 1839; Short Account, by Edmund Gosse, prefixed to Smith's Nollekens and his Times, 1894; Gent. Mag. 1833, i. 641–4; Redgrave's Dictionary of Artists of the English School, 1878; Bryan's Dictionary of Painters and Engravers, ed. Graves and Armstrong, 1886–9, ii. 508.]
I did NOT post this to proof anything I am here for advice..
This whole last week was pretty annoying, When I make a claim I do that when I am 100% sure.
Engraver was even in the link you gave.
If these are the reactions I can expect I will take it offline.
Newbee dont like much yet here..
At the end of three years he gave up engraving and found employment in making topographical drawings of London for Mr. Crowle
I am just invited for a tv show on national tv. hour ago.
-
Upsetting anyone is not my intent !! If you would look at the plate on your clock it says,,Thomas Smith,, not John Thomas Smith !! All I am saying is that your clock is not by the person above !! He was not a clockmaker, only an engraver of fine art and after that did topographical drawings and wrote books !! No where does it say that he ever made clocks, cases or anything of that sort !! Thomas Smith was a clockmaker ,, his name is on your clock plate!!
You have access to the same information we do,, the internet When someone asks our opinion,, we usually give it !! Sometimes we have additional information,, sometimes we do not !!
I said before,, you should take it to a good auction house !! They will do no more that we could with pics only !! Not one expert in his right mind will verify anything from a pic alone !! It is not professional !!
I understand that you think its an original from John Thomas Smith even though his name is not on it !! But if I were you and wanted to be taken seriously,, I would make sure I knew what I had !!
I hope your clock is what you want it to be but I don`t think so !!
You said you were invited to a TV show with it,, post it here so we can see it !! I look forward to it and good luck !!
-
Please forgive me, but is it bad that I'm finding this thread entertaining? =)
-
What show will you be on? I'd like to see it. Is it in Europe or here in the States?
-
http://www.bing.com/images/search?q=john+smith+clocks&view=detail&id=1487D11E7D03919182D917E81745E7C45AA0105D&first=36
Here's your clock.
-
Entertaimnment is alwasys nice. But also offtopioc. please give some help or be quiet?
I also have an miniscule bible from 1833 in a silver box. But looking at the responses..
I will post it on my other page, they appreciate old stuff:
http://www.collectorsweekly.com/user/Hansel with my other 18th century silverwork. anyway. thanks alot people.
Please forgive me, but is it bad that I'm finding this thread entertaining? =)
-
--------
I did NOT post this to proof anything I am here for advice..
This whole last week was pretty annoying, When I make a claim I do that when I am 100% sure.
Engraver was even in the link you gave.
If these are the reactions I can expect I will take it offline.
Newbee dont like much yet here..
At the end of three years he gave up engraving and found employment in making topographical drawings of London for Mr. Crowle
I am just invited for a tv show on national tv. hour ago.
[/quote]
................... ................... ................... ................
You got the WRONG "Thomas Smith", and that's an easy mistake. Here's some more info/"advice" you might find helpful so that so you don't go around wasting your time:
First off, the "Thomas Smith" your clock has on its face refers to a real clockmaker named, yep, Thomas Smith. (Smith Thomas Market Place Ashbourne Watch & clockmaker 1846 H.G.D.D.) You can find his name at this list here:
http://www.clock-works.clara.net/wcmuk/sdcm/s.htm
The "John Thomas Smith" you refer to being the "engraver" of your clock, has NOTHING to do with your clock. You must realize how many Thomas Smith/John Thomas Smiths there are, and have resided in London, right?
Now, here's where things get tricky:
Some companies starting early 1900's-on began mass producing reproductions of older clocks. One such company by the name of "WUBA" (John Warmink) started in The Netherlands around 1920. Pretty much dedicated to manufacturing reproductions of much older clocks. In the beginning, apparently, this company even made their own movements, but then contracted out to other clock makers, then STRICTLY made cases from then on. Back in these times, competition was FIERCE! Anything to sell a damn clock, right? So scrawling in a "famous", and pretty much VERY COMMON name, might just boost sales, and be a safe bet if you chose the right name. Now, in some cases, there was a certain amount of truth to the "USE" of this famous (long past) clock makers, or engravers name. Because maybe a certain motion or design was borrowed - these details would be difficult to verify exactly, but you can be certain that WUBA-Warmink partially made their living by using the name "Thomas Smith London" on their clocks. Now, considering that this clockmaker "Thomas Smith" was in business in 1846, while WUBA started in the 1920's? It was probably a safe bet to use his name on WUBA clocks, BUT!!! It's also certain that this clockmaker, and also YOUR ENGRAVER, had no play whatsoever in the clock case building, movement, engraving, or freaking any part. Why? ---------------------> Because your clock was probably built sometime way after even 1930. Just look at it: The dial is terrible, and machine made. I dare say that there's NO PART of your clock that is truly engraved. I mean, look at the surface of your dial here:
http://www.collectorsweekly.com/assets/stories/-rzjKLKjRBxfA3uWWetN5w.jpg
It is immediately recognizable as something mass produced and very poorly finished.
You say in a comment here that you'll "post it on my other page, they appreciate old stuff". WE DO TOO. But your stuff ain't old. Well, it's from the last century, but it ain't no 1780!!! It just isn't, man.
You say you don't want advice, and you've gotten some VERY GOOD ADVICE from everyone in this thread. But then you're so worked up about value and authenticity of your clock, that you are UNWILLING to hear this good advice. Would you prefer that everyone just showers you with KUDOS on what a great/old clock you have? Even though its less than impressive?
Adios.
VGB
ps, I do have one more question for you:
Have you gone in to have your "gold" tested? I don't care where anyone lives, there's gotta be someone around to test gold for you. You say that some of your ornaments are "21.6k". Has someone done a true test on this metal? I would be curious to know the answer to this because it would be INCREDIBLY UNUSUAL for the pieces you say to be almost pure gold. If I were a betting man, I'd bet all my chips on them being plated/gilded AT BEST. They look like heavily polished brass in your pictures.
Hope this helps.
-
Hello Sir,
For a labtest they advised me to travel to amsterdam.
6 jewellers have tested it with acid. it isa at least 22k.
I just received email with a sorry from one jeweller. He heard I am invited for a national tv show:
http://cultuurgids.avro.nl/front/indextkk.html
I cant find an objective clock specialist because of the golden ornament.
I acutally closed the gold item and my next is the engraviongs. as soon a a professional supprts me with FACTS I can forward myzelf again to Christies and or Sotheby's .
They all ASSUME its not real ;)
I think I will visit the tv shor on the 5th of september and let themn figure it all out. All kind of specialsits are there. (Clock, engravings, 18th century arts, metals)
I thank you alot for your reply!
-
http://www.bing.com/images/search?q=john+smith+clocks&view=detail&id=1487D11E7D03919182D917E81745E7C45AA0105D&first=36
Here's your clock.
Greenacres,, the one you posted is quite similar and same style but,, different name plate (John Smith), 20th century, made of cast steel and brass. There are many of these clocks !!
-
Correct, those are replicas. based on mine. (Or at least the series mine is from) THAT IS WHY they all sent me ebay links with fugly 'warminks'' with the same name and pics printed on steel..
instead of silver engrqaved. people are so stupid, dumb and cost me alot of time.. I hope they STFU. Pardon my language, I am mr polite, almost always. nmd when I say I am right I am right. Just because I onlsay I am right when I know I am.
Even the ppl from Sotheby's say: well I THINK ITS not old. next..
Everyone says, it is a replica.. Well sent me a pic of the one on which the replica's are based ;) ARE NONE.
At the end.. I have figured it all out by myself in the meailshile explaning how and why ppl are wrong.
That was not how I wish to spent my time on this site lol.
-
Validator,,, Thank You !!
Henri,, It is our job to be objective !! But you are trying to convince Sotheby`s and Christies ??
-
Well said, Validator.
-
Hello all, Henri, I had to delete that last post of yours due to the language used. The folks here do their best to assist everyone. Sometimes antiques don't come with clear answers and remain mysteries for further research. Remember that all we have to go on here are photographs and text, we're not always able to detect the things that you can in a hands on examination. We do our best and try our best to relay honestly what we are seeing.
No matter what, we make every to keep this forum friendly, civil and to be kind to everyone here. As my ancestors might have said in cases like this, "hold of thy tongue, lest I have to wash thy mouth out with soap!" ;)
-
Hello Sir,
For a labtest they advised me to travel to amsterdam.
6 jewellers have tested it with acid. it isa at least 22k.
I just received email with a sorry from one jeweller. He heard I am invited for a national tv show:
http://cultuurgids.avro.nl/front/indextkk.html
I cant find an objective clock specialist because of the golden ornament.
I acutally closed the gold item and my next is the engraviongs. as soon a a professional supprts me with FACTS I can forward myzelf again to Christies and or Sotheby's .
They all ASSUME its not real ;)
I think I will visit the tv shor on the 5th of september and let themn figure it all out. All kind of specialsits are there. (Clock, engravings, 18th century arts, metals)
I thank you alot for your reply!
Henri,
I'm a little confused. You say, "they advised me to travel to Amsterdam". For what? Or are you saying that you DID travel to Amsterdam, where 6 jewelers tested your metal? If so, my next question would be, did you take the entire metal item for testing? Or just a small piece that you managed to break/scrape/cut away? Seriously, I'm very curious.
Next up:
You say, "I actually closed the gold item and my next is the engravings". What do you mean by "closed the gold item"???
Also, I'm wondering if all of your six jewelers have only "acid tested". Did any of them use an electronic/digital gold tester? It seems odd, in today's world of technology that your jewelers would "acid test". I don't know one jeweler in my smaller city, nowadays, that relies on acid testing. I myself am not even a jeweler, and I own three different electronic testers. All of which would inexpensively tell you the exact gold content of your item/s. And very ACCURATELY, compared to the acid test. What I'm saying here is that an acid test will very likely NOT tell you the exact gold content of a piece. An electronic tester CERTAINLY will.
VGB
-
I'm going to lock his topic. I think we have covered it enough. Thank you all for your input.
regards, Ed