Clock from prototype spitfire ? for sale

The original propeller was silver (or perhaps the same French Grey colour that the aircraft was painted?) with a thin dark band (black) on the leading edge . This lasted until it was damaged in a forced landing in March 1937. By the time it flew again in September 1937 the gloss French Grey had been replaced with camouflage and the propeller was painted Night (black) with 4 inch yellow tips on the blades. Spinner cap was Dark Earth. This scheme remained from 19th September 1937 until 4th September 1939 when its flying career ended following anther landing accident.

I see that there are bids on both items now.

My Watts Z38 has yellow tips. The attached early Spit Watts photo has yellow tips.

DAI

[ATTACH=CONFIG]228526[/ATTACH]

fwiw here is a pic of my Watts tip (Gladiator though) – smooth

The website at which I was looking, when I posted my earlier comments, was http://www.liveauctioneers.com/catal…ria-sale/page5. It was to that I was directed when I googled ‘Humberts auctioneers Spitfire clock’. That showed (and shows) the clock as ‘sold’. It has now been explained to me that, in this case, the presence of the word ‘sold’, against the item on that website, does not mean that it was sold. I learn something new every day. With this knowledge it seems perfectly feasible that justmejon had entered the items in the Humberts sale and is now offering them for sale on eBay. If this is so, as to provenance I make no comment as I do not have the technical knowledge to equip me to do so. But as others have said, the maxim ‘caveat emptor’ always is worthy of being borne in mind.

James,

I wonder if you knew when you sent your last post you knew that it would roll over to page 2.

Thankfully you were not responding directly to the previous post.

Time to sort out this ‘pointless’ nonsense and use common sense and moderator judgment.

Mark

Some interesting points and insights, so worthwhile for that, IMHO. But on the topic, ‘seller says’ just isn’t provenance.

Regards,

I can’t vouch for the ebay seller’s credentials; it’s perfectly feasible that a ‘room buyer’ whacked it up on ebay immediately they got it home and effectively plagiarised the catalogue description – I can tell you that it’s quite common for descriptions and pictures to be taken for own use as I’ve had ebay sellers take text off my website and use as their own. But it’s also quite feasible for Humberts to show the lot as sold when it’s not and the only sure way would be to have access to their back-end software such as PACTS, BidMaster or one of the myriad of other packages commercial or in-house written (I don’t know what they use). Can you PM me the link where you see this info as a quick glance at their website doesn’t show realised prices; or are you looking on one of the live auction platforms?

At the end of the day though it’s all academic; It WAS at auction, that auction closed on 20th. It’s NOW on ebay. As with all auctions, check out the provenance if it’s important to you and Caveat Emptor. As it happens, I have just received an invoice in the post from Humberts for an item I left a commission on (no, it wasn’t a clock or prop tip or for that matter a bit of skin with part of a swastika on 😀 ) which I secured for below bottom estimate.

What you say, XF940, is most interesting. But am I missing something if I say that it seems that it must be much simpler than that – namely did the clock and/or propellor tip sell either at or after the auction? If they did then, unless my points about ‘buying back grandpa’s heritage’ or ‘lack of uniqueness’ are apposite, the provenance claimed by justmejon, on eBay, surely cannot be sustainable. But if they did not – and what appears on the Humberts’ website is an incorrect statement of fact if the word ‘sold’ is given its plain meaning – then I accept your concluding remark, XF940.

Speaking as someone that works in the auction industry, it’s not unreasonable that the vendor picked up an unsold lot on the day of the sale – it happens quite often in fact, particularly if the vendor is present at the sale. Secondly, auction results are not desperately accurate. I work for several auction houses that never ‘pass’ an unsold lot but ‘sell’ the lot to an internal paddle number (or sometimes the vendors number). There are reasons for this, some perfectly reasonable and legitimate, others less so, but as a rule it is to prevent ‘after sales’ taking place.

You will often find room buyers will attempt to hoover up unsold lots by negotiation after the sale and this hits both the vendors price and the auction house commission. I deal with the internet side of the live auctions and work for the major player in the field, and quite often a lot will ‘pass’ in the room but we keep the lot open for a few seconds which will then get an internet bid & the lot is re-opened (perfectly legitimate and at the auctioneers discretion) . The bidders in the room that were sitting on their hands all then start bidding; they were hoping to pick up the passed lot cheap after the sale.

I won’t disclose any information about the Humberts sale or how the bids on that lot were managed (and Humberts isn’t one of my salesrooms anyway) even though I can probably look, but please don’t necessarily interpret after-sale results in the wrong way as it’s quite difficult sometimes to understand what has happened unless you were actually at the sale or watching live on-line (and then only if the sale is sending audio and video, which actually Humberts were). It’s quite feasible that the ebay seller is the original vendor who didn’t achieve his reserve price on the day and has decided to try his luck on ebay.

If anyone wants any generic info about buying, bidding or selling at ‘real’ auctions drop me a PM as sometimes it can be better than ebay!

‘was taken to the scrap heap’

Seems unlikely – No doubt Mark12 can tell us what happened to it after the accident.

Bruce

SOC in 10.39, after 151 f/hrs –

‘was taken to the scrap heap’

Seems unlikely – No doubt Mark12 can tell us what happened to it after the accident.

Still, the issue isn’t one of us buying this stuff, its that someone less well informed will end up buying it, thinking they have an investment for the future.

Caveat, and indeed, Emptor……

Bruce

The eBay listing, for the clock, now states as follows:

‘For those that have asked about provenance..

My Grandfather served his apprenticeship in the Drawing Office at Farnborough during the war and as part of their apprenticeship they removed parts from crashed planes and produced detailed drawings.

This was stopped after parts of a dead pilot were discovered in one of the aircraft!

He saw K5054 crash, the pilot put the brakes on but as it was a grass field they locked, the plane flipped and crashed and was taken to the scrap heap where my Grandfather salvaged the items.

These are believed to be the only two remaining artefacts from the K5404 [sic] Prototype Spitfire left (apart from a wing bolt that was made into a hammer)’.

So with such a claim, the obvious conclusion to be drawn is that the eBay seller, justmejon, is the same person as was offering the clock and propellor tip for sale through the medium of Humberts Auctioneers (was the date of that sale 20 May?)? However on consulting Humberts website, it would appear – if I have understood the relevant entries there correctly – that both items were sold. If that’s so and both items are unique, how can the provenance, claimed on eBay, be correct (unless, of course, justmejon bought back that which had, in the past, been the property of his grandfather)? The only other possibility is that the items were not unique, namely that two different clocks and propellor tips have recently been offered for sale with the same provenance. But I’m sure that cannot be the case, for such would be, at best, disingenuous and, at worst, dishonest.

Pilots notes photo and Mk1 example.
Cheers Mike

That instrument Brian is a sensitive altimeter. My money would be on the standard big one…..funninly enough one of the most important flight test parameters then, and now is time! The Mk2 is jolly good for that
FWIW, I dont think the prop tip is right, my watts has no yellow marking and certainly does not have the rough covering – is is very smooth

Thank you Mk12 the big metal instrument holder is just below the gunsight rest and is marked 0-9 so not a mk3 clock.

It is then likely that it had a mk2 on the LHS.

I have lightened the contrast on this shot of the prototype to show the panel at some stage in the development programme.

The clock(s) could clearly have been positioned in a number of places but my money would be on the initial clock being one of those larger diameter affairs still standard fit up to and including MK II (1940 production) as illustrated in the Pilot’s Notes.

Here a shot of the prototype in military camouflage, possibly my latest shot, and still with a two blade prop of narrower proportion compared with earlier images.

Mark

I agree Brian, the Mk II clocks are not that uncommon and the 1937 date should not seduce one into thinking its from the prototype.
Another argument is that most Mk I and early Mk II Spitfires had the cutout on the left hand side for the MkIIIA 6a/676 chronograph.
The Mk II clocks where fitted to just about all later Mk.s of Spitfire, most being the 36 hour or one day clock.
I guess at the end of the day…”Yer pays Yer money and Yer takes Yer chances”.
Kind Regards Mike

On the clock it is a nice Mk2 Jaeger Le Coultre 8 day RAF clock dated 1937. By itself it is worth in the region of 200 to 250.

As to coming from a specific aircraft – these clocks were ubiquitous and hence were used in most aircraft of that era – but are often called Spitfire Clocks. – even though Hurricane etc would be just as valid.

There was a Mk2 last year being sold as a Dambuster Lancaster clock – from the family… For me unless I had a picture of the clock with a distinctive marking showing it in situ and being removed – it is a leap of faith especially as value being asked was 4 to 5 x market value.

Cannot say that this or the Lanc clock did not come from the stated aircraft – depends on the solidity of the provenance.

Probability is a different parameter.

On the inside shot – the large instrument on the shiny bezel is that a Mk3 clock ? The mk2 was always mounted on the LHS ?

…. it doesn’t ‘look’ like a Watts propeller tip.

If it had been changed to 3 blade, it would likely have been a DH prop, which are, of course aluminium.

Bruce

………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….

Bruce,

I have a substantial and comprehensive collection of images of the prototype right through to the crash in military camouflage. I cannot see the prop in the detail crash shots but all the others show a fixed pitch two blade prop. Latterly the blade profile was slimmed down.

Mark