Chauncey Jerome 30 hr.

[DN4911]

I have cleaned Up the movement and bushed one pivot. The strike side seems to be working finally but still working on the time side. When it arrived the plates were loose and parts were floating in the box. This is my first effort at repair. Having fun!

 

[Sooth]

This is quite a nice clock. Can you post a photo of it all together when you get the chance?

I also wonder if it's been refinished at some point. I imagine that they would have stained the slightly lighter sections to match (which was done fairly often originally, but refinishers never seem to do).

 

[DN4911]

This is quite a nice clock. Can you post a photo of it all together when you get the chance?

I also wonder if it's been refinished at some point. I imagine that they would have stained the slightly lighter sections to match (which was done fairly often originally, but refinishers never seem to do).

As requested here is a photo now that I have it back together and ticking away. I believe the glass is original. Yes the veneer has been repaired on some of the edges. I'm very happy with it.

- - - Updated - - -

This is quite a nice clock. Can you post a photo of it all together when you get the chance?

I also wonder if it's been refinished at some point. I imagine that they would have stained the slightly lighter sections to match (which was done fairly often originally, but refinishers never seem to do).

As requested here is a photo now that I have it back together and ticking away. I believe the glass is original. Yes the veneer has been repaired on some of the edges. I'm very happy with it.

 

[Jerome collector]

I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but there's very little chance that the movement in that clock is original to the clock. The clock was made when Jerome was working for Benedict & Burnham (soon to be the Waterbury Clock Co.) in 1856-1857. Jerome went bankrupt in February of 1856. With this label, the clock should have a Waterbury type 2.411 movement in it, not a Jerome type 1.311. By the time of the bankruptcy, Jerome was using (exclusively, to the best of my knowledge) a type 1.314 movement. The primary difference between the 1.311 and 1.314 is the use of a rivet to attach the verge pin arm in the latter, rather than a screw (like yours). Your movement is several years too old to be found in a clock from 1856-1857.

Mike

 

[DN4911]

Ok thanks, good to know. Can you give me a range of labels that go with this movement? Maybe I can find a Waterbury for this case and the right case for the 1.311. Themovement does seem to fit correctly but you're the expert and I appreciate as much info as you can pass along. What years did they use the 1.311?

 

[Jerome collector]

First I have to say that precisely dating clocks from this period is difficult. I have only seen this particular movement in two labels (below). Both were printed by John Benham before he moved from 55 Orange St to the Glebe Building around 1855. The only difference between these two labels is that one states "MANUFACTURED BY" and the other "MANUFACTURED AND SOLD BY". The label in your clock was printed at the Glebe Building. There's also a feature of your movement that has not been reported in the literature before (circled on movement photo below). The "shoulder" to the break-arch boss on the front plate has been intentionally filed down (or was the result of an imperfect plate stamping). If you check your movement, I believe you'll find that the other "shoulder" is still present (behind the verge pin arm). I've seen eight examples of this movement, so it was not a one-off oddball. My belief is that this movement and these two labels date to the early 1850s, possibly no later than around 1853 and certainly no later than 1855.

I'd be curious to know if your seatboard has holes in the sides to receive retention pins that went through the vertical rails that the seatboard rests in. If it does have holes, is there just a single set of holes and do they line up with a single set of holes in the vertical rails? If there are holes and they don't line up, that's a clear sign the seatboard (and presumably the movement) is not original. If they do line up perfectly, is there evidence that the seatboard ever had a different movement mounted on it? If everything lines up and there's no evidence for a different movement, then we have a mystery.

Mike

 

[DN4911]

Dear Mike, thank you for your detailed and scholarly response. As to the movement, yes the other "shoulder" is there behind the verge pin. So I take that to mean the movement must be 1850-5.
As for the the seat board, you are correct again! The holes don't line up. So there must have been a different seatboard there at one time. Therefore I must agree that this movement must predate the case. Therefore I agree the case must be 1856-7. Great detective work thanks so much. Love these Jerome clocks! I wasn't aware of the existence of these pins.

 

[bruce linde]

very appreciative of the knowledge and expertise shared in these threads... and the pleasure derived from having my clock horizons expanded daily.

thank you!

 

[swhite]

I have a similar clock (but not at all cleaned up) as that shown in the beginning of this thread has been in the family for years. To my untrained eye the movement looks most similar to a Chauncey Jerome Type 1.311. However, the shape of the back plate has a center support extending from the top to the bottom that I have not seen before. The chime mechanism is also unlike anything I’ve seen. Both the dial and lower glass image are clearly not original.

I’d be most appreciative of any insights you can provide as to what I’ve got. Thanks in advance for any comments.

Stuart

 

[Jerome collector]

Stuart,

As with the original poster on this thread, I'm pretty sure your movement is not original to the clock. The Bristol label dates to approximately 1841 and is one of the earliest labels used by Jerome after he stopped using the small card labels. Based on Snowden Taylor's identification scheme, the movement appears to be a type 1.243 (1982 designation), later designated type 1.246. One aspect of the movement doesn't allow a perfect match to the type 1.243/1.246: it does not appear to have a strike trip wire, making definitive assignment impossible. However, in all other respects, including plate features that are not captured in Snowden's scheme, the movement matches the 1.243/1.246. According to Snowden, the movement was made by Morse & Co, and Jerome is not listed among the users of the movement. To the best of my knowledge, during the period your label dates to, Jerome only used his own movements [first 1.114, then 1.211 (no serial number) and finally serial numbered type 1.211]. Spittlers & Bailey put Morse & Co. in business from 1850-1855, which makes their movements roughly 10 years later than the period of the label.

This may not be the answer you were looking for, but I hope it's helpful.

Mike

 

[swhite]

Mike,

My goal is to understand what I've got and your comments are most helpful. Thanks indeed

Stuart