It turns out that I have S/N 08, your web page mentions that you have S/N
15. The only difference that I can spot is the support ring, mine is more of
a "spider" arrangement, much like the P&K Helio. What is the S/N on your
base. Since only the dial plate portion was different, I believe some of the
bases originally meant for the P&K Helio may have been used for the Sol
Horometer. Perhaps some "midnight assembly" early on.
As regards the engraving method, I definitely think they were chemically
etched, e.g., the telltale roundness on the walls esp. on the deeper marks.
Though the finer marks (min tics) are not as deep, this doesn't necessarily
mean they weren't etched, they just weren't exposed as long. Having etched a
fair amount of copper and bronze myself (ferric chloride) I'm impressed with
the uniform level of detail. I wonder what type of photoresist might have
been available back then to make them? All in all it's an impressive piece
and having had to recently replace the cam plate on my P&K Helio (the old
one had significant wear) I can appreciate the Sol's mechanical simplicity!
However, the EoT is off a bit on the Sol compared to new plates that I've
done.
Luke Coletti
The Shaws writes:
BlankI have recently managed to acquire a Sol Horometer.
As many of you will know, this was the second type of heliochronometer
manufactured by Pilkington & Gibbs Ltd in the early 1900s.
I have put a picture of the dial, plus a few others to explain how it works,
on my web site.
If interested, go to:
http://homepage.ntlworld.com/jmikeshaw/
or
www.wiz.to/sundials
and follow the links.
For those unfamiliar with the P&G company, it is worth starting with the
heliochronometer, which then shows the differences (and similarities)
between the two dials, and follows the story through.
Mike Shaw
53' 22" North
03' 02" West
-
