Goal: $300, Received: $360.00 (120%) Contribute Now
Donate whatever you can or Join the 14,000 other NAWCC members for only $80 (plus $10 for hard copy publications). Check it out here.



Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 17
  1. #1

    Default Jeremiah Hartley, Norfolk but what is it really?

    In an obviously wrong oak case with a typed note saying made in 1777 by Jeremy son of Jeremiah Hartley, Norfolk.

    There is a very similar dial/movement on the web but the collets are the old short rounded style. Is this a) Early c18 but had a major rebuild b) A complete fabrication c) Made by Jeremy Hartley in 1777 who was reproducing his fathers work but he would have had to be at least 60 at the time as Jeremiah died in 1717.

    I am looking to buy a longcase clock and expect it to be a marriage but have yet to find anything half decent. Am I just expecting too much?

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	Dial.jpg 
Views:	39 
Size:	716.9 KB 
ID:	321724Click image for larger version. 

Name:	Movement.jpg 
Views:	28 
Size:	223.5 KB 
ID:	321725

  2. #2

    Default Re: Jeremiah Hartley, Norfolk but what is it really? (By: p.lawn_37a50f)

    Typewriters didn't exist in 1777 so that is somebody's opinion, not a statement by the maker.

    Styles in the provinces tend to run on longer in some areas than others, ringed winding holes, finned pillars, I've seen these in clocks from the mid 18th century.

    I haven't seen wheatsheaf engraving that late from memory, but that doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Those small urn spandrels I've seen in the middle period of the 18th century.

    As to whether or not you can find a decent longcase, of course you can. However quality still demands paying for.
    Nick, lots to learn, late starter.

  3. #3
    Registered user. jmclaugh's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Devon
    Posts
    3,498

    Default Re: Jeremiah Hartley, Norfolk but what is it really? (By: novicetimekeeper)

    I don't believe that dial dates to 1777 as there are just too many features on it that wouldn't be there by then. I'd say it is early 18th C and don't see any compelling reason to suppose it wasn't made by who it says on the dial.

    Jeremiah Hartley is said to have been succeeded by Edward Browne and Thomas Johnson, no mention of a son Jeremy.
    Jonathan.

  4. #4

    Default Re: Jeremiah Hartley, Norfolk but what is it really? (By: jmclaugh)

    Quote Originally Posted by jmclaugh View Post
    I don't believe that dial dates to 1777 as there are just too many features on it that wouldn't be there by then. I'd say it is early 18th C and don't see any compelling reason to suppose it wasn't made by who it says on the dial.

    Jeremiah Hartley is said to have been succeeded by Edward Browne and Thomas Johnson, no mention of a son Jeremy.
    It's only the spandrels that cause doubt to my mind. Yes the case is wrong it doesn't even fit the arch, the seatboard is new and uses hooks when the maker originally used the threads in the bottom pillars. I can't find anybody who claims those spandrels were used prior to 1717, though my Wilkins alarm has them and there is every chance that was made in the 1720s.
    Nick, lots to learn, late starter.

  5. #5

    Default Re: Jeremiah Hartley, Norfolk but what is it really? (By: novicetimekeeper)

    Hello,

    Spending money on a probable "marriage" clock is a waste of good money, because it will always be a marriage.

    A clock dealer told me this 20 years "never buy a clock that you have to apologize for" it took me awhile to understand his comment. After I understood it and have followed the rule.

    Junk will always be junk - the market is full of junk people bought many years ago that no one wants now, because you can buy good quality clocks for same money as junk 10 years ago.

    Good quality tall clocks particularly English ones are becoming relatively inexpensive if you seriously look around.

    Andy Dervan

  6. #6

    Default Re: Jeremiah Hartley, Norfolk but what is it really? (By: Andy Dervan)

    The dial is two pieces, with a separate arch. I think that puts it in the 1730s. The movement looks that date also. Cescinsky and Webster shows a very similar spandrel pattern as no. 24. Unfortunately, that pattern is not dated, but it follows immediately a group dated as from early arched dials, 1730-35. The hour hand is a replacement of a later pattern. The dial mask shown in the picture seems to fit the dial quite well.
    Jeremy

  7. #7
    Moderator leeinv66's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Launceston Tasmania
    Posts
    7,528
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default Re: Jeremiah Hartley, Norfolk but what is it really? (By: Jeremy Woodoff)

    An interesting range of opinions on offer here.
    Cheers
    Peter R Lee: AKA (Pee-Tah) from Australia

  8. #8
    Registered user. jmclaugh's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Devon
    Posts
    3,498

    Default Re: Jeremiah Hartley, Norfolk but what is it really? (By: leeinv66)

    The spandrels are similar to but not the same as C&W's #24 which Loomes describes as an uncommon provincial pattern with a date of circa 1725-40 though such dating is more indicative than definative. The very first arched dials are said to have appeared by about 1700 in the provinces and two piece dials are not uncommon particularly before they became firmly established with some makers adding a separate section to a square dial rather than keep a stock of arched dials and an arched dial was also a more expensive option than a square one.

    The one thing you can say with absolute certainty about this dial and movement is it isn't junk.
    Jonathan.

  9. #9
    Moderator leeinv66's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Launceston Tasmania
    Posts
    7,528
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default Re: Jeremiah Hartley, Norfolk but what is it really? (By: jmclaugh)

    Quote Originally Posted by jmclaugh View Post
    The one thing you can say with absolute certainty about this dial and movement is it isn't junk.
    My thoughts exactly Jonathan! I would be happy to own it and, just as happy to marry it to an appropriate case.
    Cheers
    Peter R Lee: AKA (Pee-Tah) from Australia

  10. #10

    Default Re: Jeremiah Hartley, Norfolk but what is it really? (By: leeinv66)

    no it is clearly not junk. If you go to the sale site you can see that it does already appear to be a marriage, but it is a fine dial and movement and I like the case too.

    If the guy really did die in 1717 then that is the earliest use of those spandrels I've seen but the books are just going on the best information available at the time they were written and most of the books then confound that with their own errors.

    It's possible the typewritten not in the door is just a typo and should have said 1717, 1777 is suxh an odd date.
    Nick, lots to learn, late starter.

  11. #11

    Default Re: Jeremiah Hartley, Norfolk but what is it really? (By: novicetimekeeper)

    Baillie has Jeremiah Hartley listed as being before 1777 so the person has simply looked up the name in that book....

    The range of dates provided by everyone is pretty consistent 1725-1740 would seem very reasonable. The rivet for the top arch were added after the wheat ear engraving so the arch wasn't in the original design. Can't see the rivet in the arch section. That said the engraving is very similar so it would see likely done by the same hand at the time of manufacture or shortly afterwards.

    Cheers

  12. #12

    Default Re: Jeremiah Hartley, Norfolk but what is it really? (By: DeanT)

    Quote Originally Posted by DeanT View Post
    Baillie has Jeremiah Hartley listed as being before 1777 so the person has simply looked up the name in that book....

    The range of dates provided by everyone is pretty consistent 1725-1740 would seem very reasonable. The rivet for the top arch were added after the wheat ear engraving so the arch wasn't in the original design. Can't see the rivet in the arch section. That said the engraving is very similar so it would see likely done by the same hand at the time of manufacture or shortly afterwards.

    Cheers

    Ah, I didn't look in Baillie, when he said he died in 1717 I went straight to Brian's 1286-1700 book

    Presumably the typo is in Baillie's then? Brian has a much more detailed entry for him so must stem from later research.

    Still appears to be a bit of a problem with the 1717 for the spandrels but that is quite possibly just an earlier than previously recorded usage.

    Perhaps the answer is to find out when the chap really did die. (Can't remember when the auction is, this might all be after the event)
    Nick, lots to learn, late starter.

  13. #13

    Default Re: Jeremiah Hartley, Norfolk but what is it really? (By: novicetimekeeper)

    Would think it is unlikely to be before 1717 given the arched dial. But seeing the arch is added later its possible the square dial is 1717 with the later arch.....If it were London made it would be pre 1725 but these features exist on later provincial clocks which makes dating difficult.

  14. #14

    Default Re: Jeremiah Hartley, Norfolk but what is it really? (By: DeanT)

    Quote Originally Posted by DeanT View Post
    Would think it is unlikely to be before 1717 given the arched dial. But seeing the arch is added later its possible the square dial is 1717 with the later arch.....If it were London made it would be pre 1725 but these features exist on later provincial clocks which makes dating difficult.

    That's my problem with it, but I don't know the answer, perhaps the date of his death is wrong. If the arch is later it means the dial was originally unsigned which would be very unusual for such a highly decorated dial.

    I think the arch is probably contemporary, but the chap dying in 1717 makes it earlier than I would have thought.
    Nick, lots to learn, late starter.

  15. #15
    Registered User Jim DuBois's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Magnolia, TX
    Posts
    1,038

    Default Re: Jeremiah Hartley, Norfolk but what is it really? (By: novicetimekeeper)

    It seems risky at best to place a lot of credence in a name on a boss or the style of spandrels in use. Years ago I had a box of loose bosses, more than 50, with a wide range of names and locations represented. Many bosses are held to the dial with a single pin and there is no way known to man to prove a boss is original to a dial and movement. Even engraved names on the central dial parts can be a later addition. Spandrels are also easily replaced and a good restorer will leave no trace of such work. In the case of this dial, the arch, and the boss all have the wheat engraving so that does increase the possibility of it all belonging together. But, with the arch having been applied, it will always be suspect and therefore value will be less. More importantly, we should take a much closer look at the movement shown. While we can't see a lot in the single photo above it does not appear to me to be late 17th or early 18th century work. Other than perhaps the nicely ringed columns, the rest of the movement appears substantially later. The size of the dial, while not given, appears to be fairly large, a trait often suggesting something later than 1700+/-. So, as others have already suggested, this clock has a number of warning signs that a potential buyer should give consideration.

Similar Threads

  1. Incredible movement. But what is it?
    By Dymitr in forum Wrist Watches
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 03-10-2010, 08:18 PM
  2. Breguet Clock?? But what is it
    By jcmjr in forum European & Other Pocket Watches
    Replies: 13
    Last Post: 01-07-2010, 10:38 AM
  3. Just Bought It,But What Is It
    By coolyus in forum Your Newest Clock Acquisition
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 10-10-2009, 10:05 PM
  4. "Another case" of longcase...but what is it??
    By Ansomnia in forum Clocks General.
    Replies: 21
    Last Post: 10-07-2006, 12:52 AM
  5. Cool Clock.... but what is it??
    By beta21 in forum Clocks General.
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: 03-18-2005, 08:15 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •